Pelosi’s Mouse Pad

When the stimulus was being rammed through Congress and down the throats of the taxpayers there was a concern about money going to repair or improve the habitat of some marsh mouse. I wrote about this and made the point that this is what happens when people do not read the bills and that it was not a stimulus bill but a shopping list.

The liberals were quick to point out that none of the money would go to the mouse’s habitat. It was not in the bill and that we were all liars who were trying to stand in the way of Obama’s mission to remake America. Each time the mouse was mentioned the liberals jumped in and said it was a lie and that the mouse was definitely not mentioned and that none of the money would be spent on that furry little creature. I made the point that the stimulus was so vague that as soon as it passed the mouse would get its new pad.

Well what do you know? There is news today that last week the Obama administration said as much as 16.1 million dollars will go to, what else, the salt marsh rodent.

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

Republicans, who were accused of spreading untruths a few months ago were quick to respond to the news that they were right all along.

“Lo and behold, the government has announced that the mouse is getting its money after all,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said, standing beside a poster of the furry varmint. “Speaker Pelosi must be so proud.”

So my liberal friends, those of you who said it was ridiculous to insinuate that the stimulus would be paying for this project, what are your feelings now? Will you admit that you were wrong or will you ignore the past and make excuses for the lie.

Stimulus for a salt marsh mouse. When I discussed it I was called all kinds of names and people claimed I was making this up, I was delusional and that it was pathetic to see Republicans spreading lies about the stimulus.

Looks like the concern of that time was quite valid. Even though Pelosi denied it, here it is.

Will you people in her district in California wake up and get rid of her?

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

41 Responses to “Pelosi’s Mouse Pad”

  1. Savonarola says:

    DOG
    So my liberal friends, those of you who said it was ridiculous to insinuate that the stimulus would be paying for this project, what are your feelings now?

    SAV
    This is interesting. I wasn’t in on this conversation and hadn’t heard of this project until now. But I’ll share my feelings.

    Shameless rightwing spin. Dog, you and I have already had the discussion of ecology. Wetlands in particular are extremely beneficial features. But don’t take my word for it. Most sixth-grade science textbooks will say the same thing.
    The project creates jobs and helps the environment. By all means, Dog, be outraged!

    DOG
    Stimulus for a salt marsh mouse.

    SAV
    Shameless rightwing spin, Dog.

    DOG
    Looks like the concern of that time was quite valid. Even though Pelosi denied it, here it is.

    SAV
    Are you sure that she denied that the project would be funded by the stimulus, or did she deny that the stimulus mandated that the funds would be used in that way? If the former, she was wrong; if the latter, she was right.

    • Big Dog says:

      How many jobs will this project “create” and once it is over will they go away?

      16 million dollars. If 16 are employed, 1 mill a piece, 32, half a mill, 64, a quarter mill per person.

      How is that prudent use of money?

      This is a project that California should be paying for.

      If a wetland (an interesting term given how the COE defines one) is beneficial then put the money in the appropriate bill and vote on it correctly.

      Once again you have trouble seeing that this is part of a shopping list, not a stimulus.

      Nothing has been stimulated.

      And they said it was ridiculous to claim the marsh mouse would get this money because it just was not so.

      Not right wing spin, left wing lies.

      • Randy says:

        As the engineers that conceived the project put it, the project isn’t about the mouse. It’s about flood control. It’s a good project that is real and will create jobs. The claim used to slam the stimulus package was that there was 30 million dollars in the stimulus package allocated for a project to save the salt marsh mouse. While the project will benefit the mouse, it’s not about the mouse. The stimulus package created a pool of money for the state, all states actually, to draw from to fund projects. The stimulus package didn’t specify any money for this project, California did. Also 16.1 mil doesn’t = 30 mil.

        The claim that the stimulus package allocated 30 million dollars to save the salt marsh mouse is still a lie.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/13/mike-pence/no-money-stimulus-san-francisco-mice/

        • Blake says:

          Randy- wetlands EVOLVE, and this is part of the evolution- to artificially go back in and play God is hilarious, or would be if not for our money they’re spending-
          Why can’t California do this? Ohhhhhhh- that’s right, they have bankrupted themselves by doing much the same ridiculous projects that this is- can we not learn from Cal’s mistakes, not emulate them?

        • Randy says:

          The wetlands went away due to human intervention. The land is currently not being used for anything useful. Restoring the wetlands has many great benefits. You should try reading up on these projects. A quick search on any search engine will yield a wealth of information on the specifics behind the projects.

        • Blake says:

          Human intervention is a natural thing- I know you libs feel that humans = bad, nature= good, but that’s not true.
          When deer carve a path out in the forest, they are changing the ecology. When the great herds of buffalo had their dust and mud wallows, or walked in the same paths for thousands of years, they created new landscapes.
          Humans are no different.
          I agree that wetlands are important to nature- they should not be in this bill- especially after the libs said it would not be- they lied, big surprise- but especially when we have a FINITE amount of money, we need to budget for priorities, and this doesn’t make the cut right now. If you think it does, I submit that you need your priorities reset.

    • Liberty Card says:

      If you are really concerned about habitat destruction and saving tiny critters, please deconstruct your city and return the land to its natural state. Nothing, outside of an erupting volcano, wrecks the land more than a city.

      I recommend you start with San Francisco.

      Cheers,
      Liberty Card

  2. Blake says:

    Sav, It was the former- and further, this mouse should adapt or die- this is just another example of trying to bring a species back that A)- have too few viable members to be genetically viable, and B)- we do not have the money to spend it on mice, instead of people.
    This is pork for Pelosi’s district, plain and simple- just call it what it is, a bribe.

  3. Blake says:

    Isn’t it soooooo neat how the liberals lied and said (repeatedly), “Oh no- we will (have) taken that out of the bill- we would NEVER be so irresponsible as to spend our hard earned money on the mouse at this time.”
    And then. they sneak it back in. How utterly crass.
    If you can defend that, you truly DO drink the Kool- aid.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Right, flood control. That is how they get around the lie. We discussed this in the past and I told you at the time that this would happen. You all said no.

    Who cares if it is 30 mil or 16 mil? Does that justify what has taken place.

    I would also like to see data on how many “floods” they have had so I know what they have to control.

    Might be a worthy project but did not belong in the stimulus.

    Saying it is for flood control is like saying that serial numbered ammo is about safety when it is really about gun control.

    • a mother says:

      Would flood control really be necessary in a state that has more fires than floods? And I second Liberty’s motion.

      • Randy says:

        a mother,

        You are getting your northern California mixed up with your southern California. Your statement is quite ironic though. Flooding used to be a much larger problem in southern California, especially in LA, until the federal government came in and lined many of the river beds and embankments with concrete in the early/mid 20th century.

    • Randy says:

      Right, it’s an evil plot by liberals to save an endangered species by masking it as a wetland restoration project that has many more notable consequences than restoring the habitat of the mouse. One being flood control.

      It wasn’t in the stimulus bill. Please point to me in the stimulus bill where this money was allocated.

      • Blake says:

        Actually it is a “save the liberals” bill, so all of San Francisco won’t get washed out to sea. Having been to SF, can say it could do with a real good and through colon cleansing, as everything there looks like it really needs it.
        STAT!

    • Randy says:

      Just for fun, try typing “napa valley flooding” into any general search engine. See what you might learn about flooding in the regions where these projects are to take place.

  5. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “as much as 16.1 million dollars will go to, what else, the salt marsh rodent.>>

    DAR
    What your source actually said:

    “…as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, AMONG OTHER THINGS, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.”

    So even your article isn’t clear that the $16.1m is going for the endangered mouse (even if the money were going for the mouse, now debunked by Randy).

    The Washington Times is probably still stinging from getting caught with their pants down the last time they were dishonest about this. Scientific American has a good overview:

    Salt marsh mouse: An endangered species becomes a stimulus scapegoat.

    Note: “…thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it.”

    It’s good to follow the law isn’t it Bigd?

    Our antibiotics are failing. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) now causes 19,000 deaths every year in the US, this is more than HIV/AIDS (CDC 2007). I was reading about a important and powerful new antibiotic we’ve made by using a little critter that lives in the deep sea. From my July Scientific American, pg. 49:

    “A powerful new antibiotic called abyssomicin, is made by Verrucosispora,… a bacterium that lives in the Sea of Japan at a depth of nearly 300 meters.

    My point? The idea that we have the right to stomp around and willfully terminate species (make extinct) that have existed for 100’s of millions of years is not only extreme arrogance and stupidity, it’s also not in our own self-interest.

    As to the cost. If we go with the 16m, over the last several years, (not counting future costs) that’s about what Bush was blowing each and every hour in Iraq.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      Well, I imagine there are other creatures in the salt marsh besides the rodent, and, as Dog said, this might be a beneficial thing, it should not be in this bill, but dems can’t resist stuffing pork into everything, can they? I imagine that they stuff pork into their holiday turkeys, have pork suppositories, etc.
      Just say NO.

  6. Big Dog says:

    No one said we should go around stomping out wildlife. This might be a worthy project. It did not belong in the stimulus (something in it had to authorize it). This is not what the stimulus money was for.

    Sure, there are resistance bacteria mostly due to over prescription and poor patient compliance. It is nice to find such things and to be able to text them (mycins are nephrotoxic) to see if they will be good to use.

    However, that does not mean we should just spend millions to protect habitats for furry creatures in a stimulus bill. Few jobs and little stimulus.

    Yes, it is good to follow the law (you guys should try it) but following the law would mean allocating the money in accordance with the law. Not in a stimulus bill.

    Shopping list…

  7. Big Dog says:

    Once again Randy, no one is denying that this might be a good thing to do. It does not belong in the stimulus bill. If it creates jobs they will be few and they will go away when the project is done. It should have been in another bill but they can’t get stuff passed the normal way so they stick it all in a 1400 page bill no one reads and it goes through, despite claims to the contrary.

    So once again, it might be good, does not belong in the stimulus.

  8. Savonarola says:

    Dog (blindly) attacks the number and longevity of jobs. Dog needs to look up the term “economic stimulus.”

    Dog, Blake, Liberty Card, and a mother think that the project is to save a mouse. This is because they are blinded by the rightwing argument that the entire goal of the project is to save a mouse. That’s simply not the case, but they don’t want to admit it because then they’d lose their outrage-sounding board.

    Dog is once again making the argument that the mouse should die. While I have established that this is irrelevant in context of the the project, it should also be pointed out that Dog is once again ignoring ecology. The interesting thing is that Dog and I have had the ecology discussion before, and Dog seems to want to forget it.

    Dog has stated that it very well might be a worthy project. It is strange that he’s attacking it with such vile.

    Dog, Blake, Liberty Card, and a mother all mock the reference to wetlands and flooding. Most sixth-grade science textbooks explain why wetlands are pivotal in flood control. They further insinuate that California doesn’t have flooding problems, which is patently untrue.

    Dog argues that the stimulus money was not for this project. Dog thinks that this project should have been appropriated separately. Dog doesn’t understand that the project was selected for the overall impact on jobs and environment. While it is true that this project was not identified in the stimulus package, the selection of the project followed all the rules, just like all the other projects have.

    • Blake says:

      Now Sav- you are assuming again, I thought you knew better- it is NOT whether this is about a mouse, although the rodent IS described in the part of the earmark, but whether this should even be IN the bill at all.
      The worthiness is not the question, and the rat is not the point- the point is the propriety of concealing the EARMARK in the bill, after saying that it wouldn’t be in there. That is worse than deceptive, it is a LIE.
      Do you truly defend a lie?

  9. Big Dog says:

    Sav, when you do not pay attention you sound like a moron. I don’t believe I said the mouse should die or that the project was not worthy. If you look, I said that it might be a worthy project but should not have been part of the stimulus.

    The post was in regard to the denials from Pelosi et al regarding this when it was discussed after no one read the bill. It seems they lied.

    However, to help you out I will type more slowly, it might be worthy but did not belong in the stimulus.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      I don’t believe I said the mouse should die

      SAV
      You’re right; Blake said that. The misattribution of the statement is entirely my mistake, but my point still stands.

      DOG
      when you do not pay attention you sound like a moron.

      SAV
      Really? Think about that as you read the next two bits, paying attention to my references to what I’d said earlier.

      DOG
      or that the project was not worthy.

      SAV
      I know. I specifically said that you said the project might be worthy.

      DOG
      I said that it might be a worthy project but should not have been part of the stimulus.

      SAV
      No no, I saw. In fact, I specifically mentioned that you argued this. (Seriously, you‘re calling me a moron for “not paying attention”?!) But there’s no reason behind this argument, which is an alarmingly common problem we keep seeing from you.

      DOG
      The post was in regard to the denials from Pelosi et al

      SAV
      And the comments have gone elsewhere, partly because the impetus for the right’s mock outrage is based on ignorance of the process, the reason for the project, and the science behind the project.

      DOG
      It seems they lied.

      SAV
      I’ll believe that as soon as you can show me that Pelosi said — as you’ve claimed — that she denied that this project would take place due to stimulus funds.

      • Big Dog says:

        Sav, did I call you a moron? Or did I say that when you post things that are not correct you SOUND like a moron?

        There is a big difference. I do not think you are a moron. You seem intelligent and articulate but saying you sound like a moron is very different from calling you one.

      • Big Dog says:

        I did as you said. They denied it would take place as part of the stimulus.

      • Blake says:

        Actually what said was that the mouse should ADAPT or die- that is what all life must do ,in the end anyway. Why do you take things out of context?

  10. Big Dog says:

    If it was selected for the jobs how many will be working? How much per person will it cost. If for the environment then it could have been in an environmental bill.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Here, and it is from a liberal site:

    But Pelosi’s staff disputes even this point, arguing that the only projects being referred to here are federal wetland restoration projects — and that this wasn’t even Pelosi’s project to begin with, despite claims about “Pelosi’s mouse.”

    “There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco,” Pelosi spkesperson[sic] Drew Hammill said. “Neither the Speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication.”

    Who Runs Gov

    You can also see how Media Matters “debunked the story. They say it was not in the bill but 30 million was in there and it was exactly the amount the California Coastal Conservancy had said it needed one month earlier. The bill had the money for the project and the group said they would take care of the mouse if they got the money.

    Pelosi’s people denied it was there or that she had anything to do with it. If it was not there then how could she not have anything to do with it?

    Regardless, her spokesperson denied it was in there when people were saying that the money was allocated in a vague way but that it was understood this is where it would go if passed.

    They said the salt marsh mouse would not be in there and it turned up in there. All the debunked scenarios are playing out.

    Once again, put it in another bill.

    • Savonarola says:

      Great, an actual quote! Let’s look at it.

      SPOKESPERSON
      There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco,

      SAV
      This is a true statement. No projects had been selected for funding at that time.

      SPOKESPERSON
      The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication.

      SAV
      Also true, even aside from the fact that $30 million dollars was not allocated for this project. The project is not “to save mice.” It might have an effect of saving mice, but Republican argument is purposely misleading, which equates to what I said in a previous comment. Let’s do another analogy: arguing that this project is “to save mice” is like arguing that a levee building project is “to burn fuel using bulldozers.”

      DOG
      You can also see how Media Matters “debunked the story.

      SAV
      Including exposing how the whole thing as shameless rightwing spin. Hey, is there an echo in here?

      DOG
      Pelosi’s people denied it was there

      SAV
      They denied that “$30 million will be spend to save mice.” That’s a true statement.

      DOG
      or that she had anything to do with it. If it was not there then how could she not have anything to do with it?

      SAV
      Nice word games. Let’s clarify, being specific:
      If
      legislation within the stimulus package specifically mandating the saving of mice was not there, then how could she not have anything to do with a project that has a possible secondary effect of improving a habitat that includes mice? Now, do I still need to answer this question, or do you now see why this one really is silly?

      The real irony is that we’re essentially arguing semantics about a project that is altogether reasonable.

      DOG
      Once again, put it in another bill.

      SAV
      I’m still trying to figure this one out, Dog: Why put it in another bill?

      • Blake says:

        One, because Pelosi said it wold not be in that bill, therefore, unless she is a liar (she is), it should be in another bill, and two, this is an extremely low priority jobs program, because after you plant the grasses, and do whatever else you need to do to make it wet again, nature will take over and revert it to what it now is.
        I would have better odds on the lottery with my money.
        We are throwing it away on this pseudo- eco- feelgood game Nanny has going for her people.

      • Blake says:

        You libs love to play games with wording, but it is the intent that matters.
        For example, if I said I would” love to give you a .45 caliber cerebral infusion through your left temple,” that might sound different than I “would like to shoot you in the head”, but the meaning, ultimately would be the same, would it not?

      • Blake says:

        So, to continue, if you talk about the marsh, instead of the mouse, you are in fact, being disingenuous about the true purpose- and saying that the “mouse” isn’t in the bill would technically untrue, or as we on the right call it, a lie.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          said it wold [sic] not be in that bill,

          SAV
          By a strict interpretation of her words, that’s not true.

          BLAKE
          because after you plant the grasses, and do whatever else you need to do to make it wet again, nature will take over and revert it to what it now is.

          SAV
          More evidence that you just ignore what you don’t like and don’t know what you’re talking about. Randy already told you that the wetlands were destroyed by humans; we adapted that land for industry. There is no reason to believe that nature will destroy it the way that humans did, which isn’t even a sufficient reason not to do it anyway.

          BLAKE
          if I said I would” love to give you a .45 caliber cerebral infusion through your left temple,”

          SAV
          Then I would look at the actual meaning of the words and realize that you want to shoot me in the head. But I already know that, because you’ve already said it.
          (Blake gets to threaten violence willy-nilly, and Dog gets upset when I use a “berating” tone?)

          BLAKE
          if you talk about the marsh, instead of the mouse, you are in fact, being disingenuous about the true purpose-

          SAV
          Blatantly false. The project is not about saving the mouse, and even you know it because you addressed the issue of repairing the wetlands.

          BLAKE
          and saying that the “mouse” isn’t in the bill would technically untrue

          SAV
          No, it would be technically true, because the mouse isn’t in the bill. Now, you could prove me wrong by posting the text of the stimulus package that mentions the mouse, but you won’t be doing that, will you?

        • Blake says:

          Me post a 1200 page bill, written by the biggest fools in the room? I think not- but you are being dishonest here, and you know it.
          Whether this is a good thing or not isn’t the debate- it is whether this thing should be in the bill, or whether this was a dishonest use (or misuse) of this stimulus bill as a means of injecting pork (defined as unnecessary spending) into Pelosi’s area.
          Look, as a person who has rehabbed songbirds for release into the wild, something that is MY specialty, something I have done for over ten years, I do feel for wildlife, and indeed, I like animals much better than most people- that is NOT the point here- the point is that we have a finite amount of money, a point Hussein seems not to know, but we have to focus our finite resources on what the problem IS.
          Money for Murtha’s airport, or Pelosi’s mouse, is not directing the money to the greatest good, just the fattest pigs.

        • Darrel says:

          SAV: “Now, you could prove me wrong by posting the text of the stimulus package that mentions the mouse, but you won’t be doing that, will you?>>

          BLK: “Me post a 1200 page bill,…?”>>

          DAR
          Good grief.

          “the text… that mentions the mouse.”

          D.

        • Blake says:

          I did not threaten you in that statement, I just used that as a comparison. Apparently when you want to, you CAN read for comprehension. Amazing.

  12. Big Dog says:

    Blake asked a theoretical question. I don’t recall him saying he wanted to shoot you. I remember him saying he wanted to slap you.

    A bit of a difference.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      I don’t recall him saying he wanted to shoot you. I remember him saying he wanted to slap you.

      SAV
      It’s true that Blake said that he’d slap me, but he also said that he’d probably shoot me if he had the chance.

      BLAKE (earlier)
      Should Sarah decide to re enter politics, we shall see what comes of that- personally I would not, but then I haven’t the temperament for it- I’d just probably shoot fools like you.

      SAV (now)
      This was followed by “In On It Not” saying that s/he actually would shoot me.

      LINK

      Let’s hear it for rightwing conflict resolution!

      • Blake says:

        What I might like to do and what I would actually do might be two different things- I can have a wish list, can’t I?
        When I said that about Sarah Palin, I was pointing out that I do not have the temperament for politics- she is much more patient than I as is her husband Todd.
        If you cannot read a proper sentence, there are some real good courses at Sylvan Learning Center you can take- perhaps then you can properly parse a sentence.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          What I might like to do and what I would actually do might be two different things- I can have a wish list, can’t I?

          SAV
          Do you really think this makes it better? You want to shoot me, but you wouldn’t, so it’s okay? See also below.

          BLAKE
          If you cannot read a proper sentence, there are some real good courses at Sylvan Learning Center you can take- perhaps then you can properly parse a sentence.

          SAV
          But if we “parse” the sentence, we can see that you “would just probably shoot” me. That’s not merely expressing a desire to shoot me, that’s a statement of likelihood: you’d probably shoot me.

          I’m not sure if Sylvan has any technical writing classes, but maybe you should try to find out.
          Actually, check that. You and I both know perfectly well that you wrote exactly what you meant to write, even if you didn’t actually mean it literally. You don’t have the mental wherewithal to engage in honest debate, so you buck reality (not to mention the limitations of your personal knowledge of a subject) and over-blow your statements hoping to detract from the actual points. Here, those points are that the project is not “to save a mouse” and that this project not to save a mouse was not in the legislation. Both points have been completely refuted, but you still cling to both because it fits your warped little Republican-red tinted glasses interpretation of the world.

          *************************
          Darrel style bumper:
          I worked for a tutoring agency — a competitor of Sylvan — for a couple years. Kept getting excellent reviews from clients. Imagine that.

        • Blake says:

          You still cannot read for complete comprehension, like many of your fellow libs- what a shame.
          Come back and try again when you are open to common sense- what I said above was relating to Palin, but you just keep on with your libbie talking points and deliberate misunderstandings and you can continue to believe you and the others are clever.
          All I ever see in my mind when I think of you and D and the others, is ANIMAL FARM, by george Orwell- you and the other little piggies, so sure in your puffed up intelligence. So wrong in reality.