The Pelosi Precedent

If and when a Democrat lands in the White House, does anyone think the precedent Nancy Pelosi is setting now of undermining the President will be something the party will come to regret?

As the Washington Post has put it, it would seem she's attempting to establish some sort of shadow presidency...and so far she's doing a pretty piss-poor job at it. Not only has she managed to send a mixed message to Syria regarding American foreign policy, she's doing a bang up job of mis-representing Israel's stance as well. And the legislation she proposed to strip Bush of his commander in chief authority over troops in Iraq is just plain un-Constitutional.

The United States will not fail as a nation because of a bad president. It may suffer, but it will not fail. Term limits and free elections will see to that. But when powerful elected officials so blatatantly ignore the rules of the game set forth in the Constitution and well-established practices regarding foreign relations and the structure of the government and its role in running this nation, then the failure of this nation becomes all the more possible.

I am very much a Constitutionalist. I believe in that document. I believe in what it stands for. And I don't dislike Nancy Pelosi because she's a Democrat, but rather because she seems to have forgotten how important the Constitution is.

UPDATE: Thomas Sowell says exactly what I'm saying...only better.

UPDATE II: Jay Bullock has pointed out in the comments incidents where Republicans have done the same thing Pelosi is doing now. So, I will rescind my precedent comment, but I won't deny that what Pelosi is doing is wrong. It was wrong when Gingrich did it, wrong when Hastert did it and is just as wrong now. Hopefully Jay, being a teacher and dealing with kids all the time, knows that two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. ;)

(Yeah...I did a winky face. So sue me.)