You've got to give Nancy Pelosi credit. Only she would have the guts to claim moral high ground on corruption and ethics as a campaign strategy, and then invite an ethically-challenged fellow Democrat and former House Speaker as your guest at the State of the Union:

Former House Speaker Jim Wright was there when Nancy Pelosi was just starting out in Congress. Tuesday night, he was on her guest list as Pelosi took her seat as House speaker behind President Bush for his state of the union speech. Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat who served from 1987 to 1989, swore in Pelosi after she won a special election to Congress in June 1987. Wright left Congress in 1989 during an ethics investigation.

Wikipedia has a brief synopsis of the ethics investigation of Wright.

The New York Times published a scathing editorial this morning on the disaster that Nancy Pelosi barely avoided yesterday by her own caucus voting against her wishes and electing Steny Hoyer Majority Leader in the House.

They also hint at Hoyer having some problems of his own, but certainly not being the ethics disaster that is John Murtha. But the Times does think that Pelosi has already damaged herself significantly with the Murtha debacle and the Hastings-Harman fiasco in the House Intelligence Committee:

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

Prediction - Steny Hoyer will be Speaker of the House within two years, before Pelosi's term is up.

As Nancy Pelosi enters the national spotlight as the first woman House Speaker, she's actively trying (with the help of the media) to change her image from a San Francisco Liberal to Italian Catholic Mom:

Quite a makeover for newly sworn House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as her national image morphed from leader of the San Francisco liberal elite to Italian Catholic mom from Baltimore. There was her photo-op return to the Little Italy neighborhood where she grew up as Nancy D'Alesandro, the mayor's daughter. There was the visit to St. Leo the Great Catholic Church, where they still recite Mass in Italian several times a year.

Despite her efforts to soften her image and moderate her national perception, she will still be a radical leftwing Democrat who supports abortion and gay marriage.

Sounding more like an ambulance chaser than a national leader, Field Marshal Nancy Pelosi told supporters that if President Bush attaches a signing statement to a supplemental war spending bill she'll sue him. In an article in The Hill, Pelosi is reported to have told a group of liberal bloggers (of course):

"We can take the president to court" if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi's remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

Sounds sweet to liberals' ears, but signing statements have a long history and are quite legal and proper. Pelosi and Co. should read the memorandum that was prepared by by Walter Dellinger, of Bill Clinton's Justice Department, for the president in 1993 which contains the following statement regarding on the "legislative history" of presidential signing statement, which is the type that has Pelosi and her fellow Dems all hot and bothered:

In support of the view that signing statements can be used to create a species of legislative history, it can be argued that the President as a matter both of constitutional right and of political reality plays a critical role in the legislative process.

As for me, I'd love to see Pelosi attempt to bring this to court. If it doesn't get thrown out of court on separation of powers grounds first (the president isn't rewriting the text of the legislation, he's attaching a separate document to it explaining the Executive Branch's views on it), the Supreme Court will certainly permanently and statutorily validate the president's use of signing statements in this manner. Why am I so sure? Because the Supreme Court itself has already used presidential signing statements as a way to interpret laws.

After speculating whether this was 1968 all over again for the Democrats, I think we now have exhibit A. Cindy Sheehan has formally announced as an independent gunning for Nancy Pelosi's seat.

From AP:

Citing her son as inspiration, a tearful Cindy Sheehan announced her candidacy Thursday for the U.S. House of Representatives.

...Last month, she announced her intention to run against Pelosi if the speaker didn't move to impeach Bush by July 23. On Thursday, she said Pelosi had "protected the status quo" of the corporate elite and had lost touch with people in her district, most of whom, she said, want American troops out of Iraq.

...Sheehan admitted she has no funds for a campaign, but planned to immediately get started raising money. Without giving further specifics, Sheehan said she wouldn't accept money from corporations and would run on a platform of universal health care. Sheehan said she also wants to make college affordable and improve ethics in the legislative and executive branches.

So maybe now the Democrats will actually believe the conservatives and others who suggested that Cindy Sheehan is an unhinged woman trading on the goodwill of her dead son. Just who was it that fed the media reputation, who booked her on all those talk shows? Who funded her camp in Crawford? Talk about pigeons coming home to roost.

Last night I blogged on the bizarre Inglis-Griffith debate down here in the 4th congressional district of South Carolina.

Since then, both candidate Griffith and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have responded to Inglis' near-rabid accusation that the San Francisco-based Pelosi (and, by fiat, the Democratic Party) knew of Foley's pedophilic behaviors and hid them until now - just in time to upset the GOP re-e campaigns. Read more on their responses below.

While accusing Pelosi and the Democrats of holding this knowledge for political gain, Inglis personally attacked Pelosi's competence, character and demeanor, and her sudden calm and collected appearance as proof of her knowing culpability.

What Inglis said in body language to slander Pelosi. and to send a clear message to his reactionary base, can be read below and seen in this video.

Well, what a surprise. As I was celebrating over my good fortunes with the Google stock, I was reading a column by Dan Fitzpatrick at the Street.com. It's headline caught my eye: "Google May Just Be Getting Started." The stock has gone up 100 points in the last month and I hold a few shares and options.

But boring financial details is not what this blog is all about. The interesting thing in this article was that the writer quoted financial wizard, Larry Kudlow. On CNBC, Kudlow was trying to describe the surge in the market. Day after day there is another record. How did he describe it? He called the market surge "The Nancy Pelosi Rally."

Wow, can you believe that Wall Street is looking forward to a takeover by the Democrats of Congress?! The explanation is that "Wall Street simply wants the loose canons in Washington, D.C. to be held at bay."

Well, I thought when the Red Sox won everything, I had seen it all. Now, Wall Street is looking forward to the Democrats taking over.

Go Google!

Nancy Pelosi's Middle East trip is getting high marks from the leader of terrorist state Syria:

Syria on Tuesday hailed what it called the "courageous position" taken by Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, after President George W. Bush criticised the Democrat's trip to Damascus.

Ms Pelosi arrived on Tuesday for what is the highest level visit by a US official in more than two years. She is to meet President Bashar al-Assad today as she seeks to "build some confidence" between the two countries.

As I wrote previously, Speaker Pelosi has undertaken this trip for one reason and one reason only: to undermine the President on his foreign policy. It's not the first time and several Republicans are there. However, none with the stature of Ms. Pelosi.

She seemed to have no problems fitting in to the misogynist culture.

In a Thursday night campaign debate with Democratic contender William Griffith, GOP Rep. Bob Inglis accused House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of withholding knowledge of Mark Foley's pedophile acts, thus leaving the Pages in harms way.

In the most bizarre of bizarre scenarios the usually calm, moderate-appearing 4th District congressperson became strident.

Narrowed eyes glinting, stretched neck, veins pulsing, pointing fingers at his Democratic contender, Inglis accused Pelosi of holding back the truth about Foley's stalking of Pages. Her alleged purpose: Democratic political advantage in the 2006 midterm elections.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will travel to meet with a man who most likely has been doing everything in his power to harm U.S. forces in Iraq:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: ABC News has learned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi plans to visit Syria next week to meet with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The visit will make Pelosi the most senior U.S. official ever to meet with President Assad.

Pelosi will be traveling to Syria has part of Congressional delegation. On the trip, she also plans to visit several other countries in the region, including Israel, where she will deliver a speech to the Knesset.

Yes, you read that right, the most senior U.S. official. Ever.

Pelosi, as Senator John Kerry did before her, is looking to undermine Bush administration policy by meeting with a man who in the last year has done nothing to stop insurgent elements from hiding within his country and attacking our troops in Iraq. Boy Assad also has fought Israel by proxy by supporting Hezbollah and is allegedly complicit in the death of senior Lebanese leaders.

The Democrats came into office with a majority and high hopes. They pledged that they would change the "culture of corruption" in D.C. and make full-scale changes. That, of course, has not happened and the liberal caucus is not too happy with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority status in the House if they stray too far to the left.

And they just may if the first six months of Pelosi's lack of leadership is any indication. Of course the war issue is paramount as Pelosi promised she'd take some kind of action. Unfortunately for her, realistic circumstances have won out and Pelosi realizes that she can't make the whole-sale changes the donks promised before the last election.

Since the Democrats took over, Pelosi has not lead the liberal caucus to any major victories -- check that, she has not won any real victories at all. The Dems have majorities in the House and Senate and have been bogged down in minutiae. Pelosi is not the leader they had hoped, she can't form coalitions and can't get any worthwhile legislation passed.

The Democratic presidential aspirants will face the same reality, if you coddle the far left base, you will eventually lose them when you actually have to make decisions and act in the best interest of the country. George W. Bush is facing true reality as we speak with the brutal backlash he's seeing with regard to the immigration bill.

The candidates have to learn that you can promise anything you wish, but once you get elected, conditions are not the same as they were when you were speaking to a large group of supporters. The downfall of once-respected leaders -- Pelosi, President Bush, John McCain, Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham -- shows just how serious issues are once they will affect those who've elected you.

In somewhat of a surprise, Nancy Pelosi gave John Murtha the thumbs-up this Sunday in his bid to become house majority leader. Left in the cold is Maryland's Steny Hoyer, who had run against Pelosi in two previous intra-party contests. The biggest reason for her endorsement? Murtha's leadership on the Iraq war.

Iraq is front and center in Democrats' minds, and it should be. The voters demanded as much. Though there are political risks in each and every position that the party may take on the war, they seem to have gotten the message that they need to bring real pressure on the Bush administration. Selecting John Murtha as majority leader certainly does just that. Now let's see if the rest of the house agrees with Ms. Pelosi.

Wow. I didn't expect Nancy Pelosi to get this much of a smackdown by her own majority-mates. Her ethics-challenged pick for House Majority Leader, John Murtha, lost to Pelosi's archenemy in the House, Steny Hoyer, by a final tally of 149 to 86. Not even close!

Pelosi has a lot of fence mending to do within her own caucus. But there is a bright side for her. She famously claimed, "Maybe it takes a woman to clean house" on CNN - now she should feel free to investigate Rep. Murtha (among other Democrats) with the same zeal that she went after Republicans...

I was kind of looking forward to another House Majority Leader crippled by corruption. Guess, I'll have to settle for the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, for now (as reported by ABC News' Brian Ross).

Will a new Democratic Congress hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their alleged violations of international law, alleged war crimes and repeated alleged violations of the Bill of Rights? Will they convene a bipartisan committee, a la Watergate, to investigate these allegations?

Only if the voters to make them do it.

The GOP propaganda machine has named Nancy Pelosi the "San Francisco Liberal," and alleges that she will force an impeachment investigation against Bush-Cheney if she becomes House Majority Leader.

Yet the congresswoman already said, "Impeachment is off the table," in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview. Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said: "Yes, it is a pledge. Of course it is."

The latest congressional representative to meet with Syrian President Assad was Rep. Darrell Issa (as in Republican Darrell Issa) on Thursday, a day after the visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Prior to Speaker Pelosi's visit of course, was the three-member Republican congressional delegation that met with President Assad a few days before Pelosi.

Issa said that he and other members of Congress would continue to encourage the Bush administration to engage Syria. Assad and Issa discussed "the mechanisms and means that must be available to build a solid U.S.-Syrian relationship." Issa commented, "I have no illusions. We have serious problems to be resolved, but we will resolve them."

Whatever you may feel about whether or not it is appropriate for anyone other than the president's oh-so-competent representatives to meet with foreign leaders that are on his "list", although not yet the axis of evil, it is the worst kind of political hypocrisy to accuse Speaker Pelosi of high-crimes and misdemeanors, so to speak, and not the Republicans who preceded and followed her into the same Syrian offices.