Pelosi’s ‘Doggy-Doo’ Comment ‘Will Come Back to Haunt Her’

Rep. Mark Meadows and Sen. James Lankford blast Dems over shutdown gamesmanship as federal officials prepare to close doors

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s “doggy-doo” description of Republican efforts to fund the government and extend a health program for children to avoid a government shutdown will haunt her for a long time, a conservative congressman predicted Friday.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, made her comment Thursday ahead of a House vote on a GOP proposal to keep the government open for another four weeks. She dismissed Republican efforts to win Democratic votes with a promise to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for six years. She said Republicans were serving up “doggy-doo” with a cherry on top and calling it a chocolate sundae.

[lz_ndn video=33444146]

“That is a soundbite that will come back to haunt her, just like, ‘Well, we’ve got to pass it before we understand what is in the bill,'” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-S.C.) said on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” referring to Pelosi’s infamous remark about Obamacare.

Meadows said Pelosi now has voted against health coverage for children three times.

The main issue of contention, of course, has little to do with the popular CHIP program — and everything to do with immigration reform and border security. Democrats have decided to use the leverage of a partial government shutdown to win amnesty for young adult illegal immigrants whose parents brought them to the United States as children.

Meadows, head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he supports a legislative solution for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created by President Barack Obama’s executive order. Many legal scholars believe Obama exceeded his presidential authority under the Constitution in bypassing Congress.

President Donald Trump announced in September he would end DACA on March 5 by withdrawing the Obama order.

But Meadows said it cannot be amnesty without taking steps to prevent the next wave of illegal immigrant children.

“We’ve got to stop the reason for it,” he said. “We’ve got to control the border. We’ve got to make sure that sanctuary cities are not a haven for crime. We’ve got to make sure that chain migration doesn’t mean that we just have an open-border policy.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), appearing separately on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” said Democrats are acting unreasonably. He said negotiations to avoid a shutdown at midnight are difficult to predict.

“It’s hard to be able to tell where they stand on that, because the Democrats have asked for something irrational, and they know it,” he said. “This looks to be their play all along … to try to do a government shutdown over the issue of immigration … That’s a little frustrating to everyone across the entire country when President Trump’s deadline to deal with immigration is not until the first week of March.”

Lankford, who was pushed out of negotiations with Democrats over DACA amnesty, said Trump has been clear about what a deal must include: stronger border security; an end to the diversity visa lottery, which awards about 50,000 green cards a year to applicants chosen randomly from around the world; and reform of family-sponsored immigration that allows new citizens to bring in extended relatives.

Related: Senate Democrats Will Now Decide if Government Shuts Down Friday

Lankford co-sponsored the Solution for Undocumented Children through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending our Nation (SUCCEED) Act last year. Panned by border hawks, it is similar to Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin’s Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, but would cover fewer people.

But Lankford told Ingraham that the SUCCEED Act was never meant to stand alone, but was intended as part of a broader package that included other reforms similar to those sought by Trump. He said he has been waiting for Democrats to make a counteroffer.

“And so far, there has not been a proposal back,” he said. “In fact, what was put out by Durbin was simply a restatement of current law. [He] said, ‘We’ll agree to that.’ Well, that’s certainly not acceptable.”

PoliZette senior writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter.

(photo credit, homepage image: Mark Meadows, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore; photo credit, article image: Mark Meadows, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore)

meet the author

PoliZette senior writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at [email protected].