Santorum’s Michigan lead down to 4%

Interesting:

The Republican race for President in Michigan has tightened considerably over the last week, with what was a 15 point lead for Rick Santorum down to 4. He leads with 37% to 33% for Mitt Romney, 15% for Ron Paul, and 10% for Newt Gingrich.

The tightening over the last week is much more a function of Romney gaining than Santorum falling. Santorum’s favorability spread of 67/23 has seen no change since our last poll, and his share of the vote has dropped only 2 points from 39% to 37%. Romney meanwhile has seen his net favorability improve 10 points from +10 (49/39) to +20 (55/35) and his vote share go from 24% to 33%.

What we’re seeing in Michigan is a very different story from Florida where Romney surged by effectively destroying his opponent’s image- here Romney’s gains have more to do with building himself up.

Groups Santorum has double digit leads with include Protestants (up 47-30), union members (up 43-23), Evangelicals (up 51-24), Tea Partiers (up 55-20), ‘very conservative’ voters (up 54-23), and men (up 40-28).

Romney is leading the field with women (38-34), seniors (42-34), moderates (35-24), ‘somewhat conservative’ voters (40-34), and Catholics (43-31).

Newt Gingrich’s continued presence in the race is helping Romney a lot. If he dropped 45% of his supporters would go to Santorum, compared to only 29% for Romney and it would push Santorum’s lead over Romney up to 42-33. 47% of primary voters think Gingrich should drop out while only 40% believe he should continue on, but he’s certainly not showing any indication he’ll leave.

Santorum’s advantage over Romney seems to be a reflection of voters being more comfortable with where he is ideologically. 48% of voters think Santorum has more similar beliefs to them, compared to only 32% who pick Romney on that question. 63% of primary voters think Santorum’s views are ‘about right’ compared to only 42% who say that for Romney. 37% believe that Romney is ‘too liberal.

via Michigan GOP race tightens – Public Policy Polling.

It could be the fact that people from Michigan are beginning to realize that Santorum is a Religious extremist. Which is fine, if you are a lowly blogger like myself. But when you are running for President of the United States; that can be a problem. Mitt Romney is more a moderate; but his Religion sucks. My issue with both of these guys is this; their religion, because you have one guy who is a part of what the Bible calls, “The Great Whore of Babylon” and then you have a guy who’s a part of the biggest false Christian cult since the Roman Catholic Church. But as an protestant Christian, as a Fundamentalist Baptist, of this stripe here; both of these religions are a problem, and a big one at that! The question both of these candidates need to answer is this; of where do these two gentleman’s allegiances lie? Are they with the Roman Catholic Church or in Romney’s case, are they with the Mormon Church?

Is Romney’s plan for America one to uphold the Constitution and restore America’s greatness…. or is it to fulfill the Mormon agenda? Which can be read here and here.

Is Santorum’s plan to fulfill the Roman Catholic’s plan for America? Which can be read about here.

For all of Ron Paul’s issues; at least he is a protestant Christian; and I believe I could actually trust him in the White House. I might just for him in the primary here.

Memo to Rick Santorum: This is not helping your cause

This is not a smart move, Mr. Santorum.

Via the Detroit News:

Washington — Rick Santorum on Sunday condemned what he called President Barack Obama’s world view that “elevates the Earth above man” and requires insurers to pay for prenatal tests that will encourage more abortions.

A day after telling an Ohio audience that Obama’s agenda is based on “some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible,” the GOP presidential candidate said he wasn’t criticizing the president’s Christianity.

“I’ve repeatedly said I don’t question the president’s faith. I’ve repeatedly said that I believe the president’s Christian,” Santorum said in a broadcast interview. “I am talking about his world view, and the way he approaches problems in this country. I think they’re different than how most people do in America.”

The former Pennsylvania senator said Obama’s environmental policies promote ideas of “radical environmentalists,” who, Santorum argues, oppose greater use of the country’s natural resources because they believe “man is here to serve the Earth.” He said that was the reference he was making Saturday in his Ohio campaign appearance when he denounced a “phony theology.”

“I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that is what we’re here to do,” Santorum said. “We’re not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”

Obama’s campaign said Santorum’s remarks were another attack on the president’s faith by Republican rivals in a nominating contest that has grown increasingly bitter and negative.

“It’s just time to get rid of this mindset in our politics that, if we disagree, we have to question character and faith,” said Robert Gibbs, Obama’s former press secretary. “Those days have long passed in our politics. Our problems and our challenges are far too great.

I really hate to be the one to bring this out; nothing bothers me more than to have to point out the obvious. However, because I am a Lincoln Conservative, a libertarian-minded Conservative and because I happen to believe that all forms of bigotry are simply immoral, I must address this issue.

Mr. Santorum, your dog whistle racism needs to stop. This idiotic notion that President Barack Obama is not a Christian because he happens to disagree with your political stance is asinine at best. Mr. Santorum your use of the word “worldview” is troubling. Because I happen to believe that what you are actually saying is that because President Barack Obama is a man of color, because he is a black man; that somehow or another he views American differently than say yourself or even me.

My simple question to you sir is this; would you make the same statement of that nature to a Democratic Party Presidential candidate who was of the White race? I happen to believe that the answer to that very important question would be a resounding no. Because sir, it is a fact that your Party and the Conservatives that happen to reside in have been fanning the flames of an belief that because President Barack Obama is a black man and has ancestral ties to the African nation of Kenya; that somehow or another he is a communist. Further that he somehow or another loves the Nation of Kenya more than he loves the United States of America.

Mr. Santorum because I grew up on the southwest side of the City of Detroit, in the state of Michigan here, I find all of this to very mightily offensive. Furthermore, sir, I have a solemn warning to you and your campaign, and to the Republican National committee. If you do not drop this idiotic and utterly contemptible pursuit of dog whistle racism in your pursuit of the White House, you sir will lose and the Democrats will win the election in 2012.

Because there is something that you, your campaign and the Republican National Committee need to know, Michigan is a very diverse state; racially, politically and economically. Good portions of the residents of this wonderful state of ours are neither Republicans nor Democrats; many of them, like me, indentify ourselves as political independents, who usually vote for other third parties, if the candidates in the two major parties do not meet to what we feel meet our needs as citizens of this great Country of ours.

Mr. Santorum, if you continue this practice of “dog whistle” racism during this primary, you might actually succeed in defeating Mitt Romney in the primary here in Michigan. You might just also successfully be able to win the nomination of your own party. However, I assure you that you will lose the general election, not only here in Michigan, but nationally as well; because the America know when nuanced racist language is used against a black man. We knew in 1964, when the southern Democrats wanted to keep blacks in the south from being truly free and we know it now. We knew it during World War 2, when people from your own party objected to rescuing Jews from the insanity of Hitler. Sadly, some of your people in your party are still bigots of that sort.

So, please sir; stop this madness while you still can maintain control of your own message.

Newt Gingrich: Encouraging the Birthers

Newt does this and wants to be taken seriously, as a Reagan Republican? Oh man, this is not going to end well for this man. Not at all:

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich encouraged California attorney Orly Taitz to continue her campaign to question Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold office in a Southern California campaign appearance.

Taitz, who has filed several lawsuits aimed at securing Obama’s certified birth certificate and introducing evidence of his ineligibility for office, rose to her feet to address Gingrich in Pasadena. She suggested his lagging campaign could only be lifted by raising the issue publicly.

“It could help your campaign like it did Donald Trump,” Taitz said.

Gingrich responded by saying Taitz was better equipped for the role.

“That’s a project you should pursue,” he said.

via Gingrich meets eligibility attorney — WND .

Orly Taitz is the woman, by the way; who floated a bogus birth certificate to the blogosphere in 2008. Many, including myself, fell for it. In short, this woman cannot be taken seriously, nor trusted at all. Not to mention the fact that her mental status has been called into question. The bad part is that now Newt Gingrich is now giving this woman some credibility, that she really does not even remotely deserve.

In short; thanks Newt — thanks bunches. Flipping moron. 🙄

Oh yes, and by the way; yes, I know I wrote this:

If there ever was a case for calling someone a screwball Jew. This would be one of them. Someone please send this crazy woman back to Israel, where she belongs please; preferably in a straight jacket.

I stood behind what I wrote then and I still do now. To all Jewish people that happen to read this; would you want this screwball woman out in the media, as representative of your people? I know that I wouldn’t. No more than I would want David Duke out there as representative of my people. (Non-Jewish white people) My broader point here is this; every religious, ethnic, and class has its village idiot. You’ve just met one of them, who now is given more credibility than she really needs. (Before you say, ‘what about you?!?!” I don’t go around questioning the President’s origin of birth.)

The Donald endorses Mittens

A crony capitalist endorses a crony capitalist:

The Video:

The Story:

(CNN) — Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if Romney is the Republican nominee.

Trump, who has repeatedly flirted with the possibility of his own White House bid, revealed his decision in Las Vegas two days before Nevada’s Saturday caucuses.

“It’s my honor, real honor, to endorse Mitt Romney,” Trump said, with Romney and his wife standing nearby. Calling Romney “tough” and “smart,” Trump said, “he’s not going to continue to allow bad things to happen to this country.”

Romney responded by praising Trump for “an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works and to create jobs” and for being “one of the few who has stood up to say China is cheating” in international trade.

via Trump endorses Romney – CNN.com.

The White House reacts: (Video) (H/T Washington Examiner)

Drudge called that sneering. I thought it was rather funny myself. 😛

Blogger Roundup Here.

Explaining myself

I really do not feel the need to do this; but just in case someone tries to accuse me of talking out of both sides of my rather large pothole — I will. 😀

I said in the space of 24 hours a few things that might make some of you think I am either being hypocritical or double-minded. (who me? 😯 )

Quoting me here:

Furthermore, the reason for my decision is this; the race of the GOP’s nomination for President of the United States is not supposed to be a religious test. If that is the case in the Republican Party, then why in the name of the Almighty God of Heaven did Newt Gingrich use the Jews as a proxy to attack Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? I know the answer —-desperation. I do not wish to support a man, who instructs his advisors to play “Dirty Pool.” It shows of the man’s character and I find it lacking greatly. I will not call Newt Gingrich an Anti-Semite, as I do not know his heart or him personally. However, I found this attack to most untactful, idiotic and highly unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be a Reagan Conservative.

and…quoting me here:

…and by the way, Mitt? We’re not that concerned about your stupid, out of touch, rich, white Mormon ass either!

Now at first blush, you would say, “Hey! You’re just as bad as Newt!” and to your credit, it does look that way.

However, one thing is missing; and that is the fact that I was not attacking Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon — I was attacking Mitt Romney because he sounded like an out of touch elitist.

Sometimes I do not make stuff like that clear and I get accused of being a hypocrite or not practicing what I preach. One of my worst character traits is that I always assume that everyone else knows what I am referring to; and sometimes I use the wrong words or wrong express to covey a thought. It might have something to do with my A.D.H.D. So, pardon me if you misread the above thought I was double-jaw-jackin’ ya’ll. I wasn’t. I knew what I meant! Now, everyone else? Not so much. 😛

One of these fine days I will finally learn that we as humans are not clairvoyant! 😀

Newt Gingrich does not even know how to lose

Just a little cherry on top to what I wrote last night:

Newt Gingrich gave his post-primary speech tonight while gracelessly declining to congratulate the man who beat him by double digits. According to the Romney campaign, Gingrich hadn’t called to congratulate the Florida winner as of 9:30 p.m. ET.

The speech was vintage Gingrich, comparing his predicament to Lincoln at Gettysburg and vowing to conduct a “people’s campaign.” He made one small run at Romney, calling him “the Massachusetts moderate,” and then wandered into a rather trite recitation of his commitment to change. He rambled a bit, getting nostalgic about his Contract with America and assuring us he’d been studying “how to do this” since 1958. (He was running for president as a child?) He is going to get rid of White House czars, move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and halt the war on religion. If there was a theme in there, it was hard to spot.

He obnoxiously ended by pledging: “My life, my fortune, my sacred honor.” But he’s not doing any of that. And it’s quite an insult to American patriots who have said that and meant it.

Gingrich has been reduced to a smaller-than-life figure. He’s a guy with a lot of words and very little appeal, whose meanness got the best of him and helped to wreck his campaign on a heap of attacks, insults and downright vile accusations (the latest being his claim that Romney is hostile to religion).

via Newt Gingrich loses Florida — and reminds us why – Right Turn – The Washington Post.

Now something to remember, Jennifer Rubin is a Romney supporter. However, I think that this speaks to the mentality and character of Newt Gingrich; he is that ate up with a lust for power that he does not even have the graciousness to call his opponent and congratulate him on a win.

Which is why I have washed my hands of the race; I hope the GOP picks wisely and they are able to defeat Barack Obama. However, in all honestly, I really do not believe that any of these candidates will be able to even remotely beat Barack Obama, he is going to be too well funded, is going to have all of the cards on the table — including the race card. As Hillary Clinton found out, running against racial politics is the hardest thing ever to do. If you do it wrong, you do can come out actually looking like a racist, and somehow or another, I highly doubt that any of these candidates even remotely know how to fight against identity politics.

So, again, in short; We are so screwed….again. 🙁

What in the hell was Newt Gingrich thinking?

I honestly hate having to write this blog piece, because frankly, I despise this sort of idiotic tripe in politics itself. Newt Gingrich today was able to do something that not many people can do. Newt managed to pull off one of the stupidest, brain-dead, tone-deaf moves that any politician could ever do, one that reeked of utter desperation. Not to mention the fact that he lost my total support. On top that; he lost the damned primary in Florida!

What was it that Newt Gingrich did that invoked such fury from yours truly? Newt Gingrich played one of the worst, bottom of the barrel political tactic cards, that only a few mortal brave souls have played and have come out unscathed. Newt Gingrich waded onto territory that either brave souls or idiot fools—depending on your view of matters, have waded and lived to tell about it politically.

Newt Gingrich played —- The Jew Card.

Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of denying Holocaust survivors in nursing homes to be denied kosher meals. Here is the problem with it; not a damned word of it was even remotely true. In fact, a well-known Jewish Conservative has written a very good article defending Mitt Romney from these idiot charges. Now I should let it be known, I am not a Romney fan. If Mitt Romney is nominated for candidate for President by the GOP, I will vote libertarian. I did say that I would hold my nose and vote for Newt Gingrich in the primary and in the general election. Well, needless to say, that is not the case any longer. I just will not vote for a man who stoops to that low of tactics.

Therefore, I am making it official here on my blog; I will not be voting for the Republican Party in 2012 in the primary or in the general election. I am sorry, but dishonest politics is just immoral and what Gingrich did tonight shows me that Newt Gingrich is just another dishonest beltway-type that would stop at nothing to obtain power. Whoever is the winner of the selection process at the Libertarian Party; I will put my support behind, and that person will get my vote.

I realize that my vote will most likely put a dent the GOP’s chances of defeating President Barack Obama. Believe me when I tell you this, nothing bothers me more than knowing that fact. However, I just cannot and will not support a man who stoops to such beltway tactics such as this.

Admittedly, I have nothing put disdain for Mitt Romney, however, none of that disdain has anything to do with his religious affiliation. My disdain has to do with the fact that man is a habitual liar, the fact that he is a serial flip-flopper; my disdain is because the man claims to be a person from Michigan, when in fact that he has not lived here for years. My disdain of the man is related to the fact that he claims to be a rib-rocked Conservative, when in fact, Mitt Romney is nothing more than an indecisive moderate!

Furthermore, the reason for my decision is this; the race of the GOP’s nomination for President of the United States is not supposed to be a religious test. If that is the case in the Republican Party, then why in the name of the Almighty God of Heaven did Newt Gingrich use the Jews as a proxy to attack Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? I know the answer —-desperation. I do not wish to support a man, who instructs his advisors to play “Dirty Pool.” It shows of the man’s character and I find it lacking greatly. I will not call Newt Gingrich an Anti-Semite, as I do not know his heart or him personally. However, I found this attack to most untactful, idiotic and highly unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be a Reagan Conservative.

Therefore let it be known; I officially disown those running for President of the United States of America in the Republican Party. Sorry, but this freak show just got rather hard to bear any longer. Also too, please know that I am under no illusions about the Libertarian Party’s chances in the 2012 election. However, my vote will be of a protest of the beltway establishment’s tactics in the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement’s message was supposed to be, during its founding that said, during its railing against the Republican Party and the United States Government; “No more business as usual in the beltway!” The Republican Party was quite obviously either not listening or somehow that message was lost.

Having said all of the above, this bloggers vote will be going on Election Day 2012 to the political party that actually believes what it stands for —- The Libertarian Party. I might not agree with everything that some libertarians believe in; but at this point, I see no other party that I actually wish to waste my vote on.

Others: ABCNEWS, Washington Post, CNN, The Other McCain, Daily Kos, msnbc.com, Gothamist, GOP 12, The Spectacle Blog, Saint Petersblog, The Right Scoop, The Raw Story, American Spectator, Reuters and Politics, Roger L. Simon, Ballot Box, National Review, ABCNEWS, Hot Air, The Spectacle Blog, Israel Matzav, JOSHUAPUNDIT, News Desk, Cold Fury, Truthdig, The Atlantic Online, Politics, The PJ Tatler, Washington Monthly, Tablet Magazine, GOP 12, The Daily Dish, Washington Post, The Raw Story, The Politico, msnbc.com, ThinkProgress, CNN, The Huffington Post and PolitickerNY

Update: Oh and by the way; Mitch Berg, Shut the hell up….and start writing blog postings under your real flipping name. Damned Cowards, you and AllahPundit both. Al-Qeada is nearly defeated, it’s time to cut the chicken routine and be out with the who you both really are. 😡

Video: Friday Evening Thoughts

Just a video of my thoughts.

Please note: In this video, I mistakenly refer to the Washington Times; I meant Washington Post. Oops. 😳

References:

Quinnipiac University: Romney Pulls Ahead In See-Saw Florida Gop Primary, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Men Shift From Gingrich To Romney — Memeorandum thread

Washington Post: Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Ta-Nehisi Coates / The Atlantic Online: No One Left to Lie To

Jeffrey Lord / American Spectator: Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt

Roundups: Washington Wire, Outside the Beltway, NationalJournal.com, The Caucus, M.JOSEPH SHEPPARD’S …, Sunshine State News, Washington Post, Firedoglake, Don Surber, Florida Times Union, The Strata-Sphere, The Moderate Voice, The Other McCain, American Spectator, Presidential Power, Hot Air, Mail Online, Reuters, GOP 12 and Post on Politics, The Atlantic Online, The Hill, Little Green Footballs, The Political Carnival, US Politics, Hit & Run, Boing Boing, Gawker, Daily Kos, Hot Air, YID With LID, Outside the Beltway, The Daily Dish, The PJ Tatler, GOP 12, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Political Mojo and Shakesville, National Review, Riehl World View, Guardian, Big Journalism, The Atlantic Online, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Eunomia, RedState, Power Line, The Reality-Based Community, The Daily Caller, JOSHUAPUNDIT and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Quotes of The Day

***

In an interview on CNBC, Gingrich recently emphasized his close identification with the nation’s 40th president: “I’ve done a movie on Ronald Reagan called ‘Rendezvous With Destiny.’ Callista and I did.

We’ve done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in ’74. I’m very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan.”

Just like when Newt went to the House floor during the Gipper’s second White House term and declared the president’s Soviet policy a “failure.” Here is what Gingrich said: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. … The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan.”

This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national “decay”: “Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda.” Students of Newt-speak will recognize that by “decay,”Gingrich was generally referring to factors such as crime, illegitimate births and illiteracy.

These blatant contradictions between what Congressman Gingrich actually said at the time about President Reagan and what Candidate Gingrich now offers as fictitious reminiscences of his unwavering allegiance to Reagan remind me of one of the former speaker’s own broadsides against Washington, D.C. “In this cold and ruthless city,” he once said, “the center of hypocrisy is Capitol Hill.” Newt Gingrich is quite obviously an expert on both subjects.

****

Presidents should not get automatic support, not even from members of their own party, but they have a right to that support when they are under a vicious partisan assault. Today it is fair to look back and ask who had it right: Gingrich, who backed away from and criticized Republican presidents, or those chief executives, who were making difficult and consequential decisions on national security. Bush on the surge and Reagan on the Soviet empire were tough, courageous — and right. Newt Gingrich in retrospect seems less the visionary than the politician who refused the party’s leader loyal support on grounds that history has proved were simply wrong.

Videos: Pelosi “I know something about Newt” — Newt: “Spit it out!”

I find this to be mildly amusing; for the record, Pelosi did this about month ago and basically got told the same thing then, “Either put up or shut up.” So, this is just more of the saber-rattling from the left.

Here is Pelosi rattling her sabers: (Via TownHall – H/T HotAir.com)

…and here is Newt telling Pelosi, “Spit it out” (nice nuanced sexual metaphor there Newt! 🙄 ) (via Taegan Goddard – H/T HotAir.com)

Money Quote:

She lives in a San Francisco environment of very strange fantasies and very strange understandings of reality. I have no idea what’s in Nancy Pelosi’s head. If she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out.

Again, the nuanced sexual metaphor aside; I cannot honestly say that I really disagree with his assessment of Pelosi really. However, I do believe he just lost the San Francisco voters. Either way, I believe is Pelosi does actually have anything, that she should dish; because I would like to know what it truly is myself.

Also, Byron York reminds everyone that the IRS did investigate Newt and he came out looking rather nicely:

Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress — and journalists, too — IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich’s political network.

In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. “The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any ‘political’ action,” investigators wrote. “For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole.”

The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. “Most students,” the IRS noted, “said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship.”

The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. “The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities,” the IRS wrote, “was that the content of the ‘Renewing American Civilization’ course was educational…and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited.”

The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

So, having said all of that; if Pelosi has something of moral or ethical interest, she should dish on it or otherwise, shut up.