Ugh - who doesn't get this: Pelosi has nothing to do with impeachment

[LynneSin]

Seriously, this not only is getting old but nothing more than a way to distract people off the main message that we need to regain the house.

Here are the facts:

1.) First, we do not have the majority and it would look foolish of us to commit to something BEFORE we had that majority. If Pelosi claimed that impeachment was the democratic majority's #1 priority, all the criticism over the corruption of Republicans and the War going to shit would be tossed to the side in order to talk impeachment 24&7. And you know those suck-ups in the media are gonna make it look bad - like it would be a big waste of time & tax dollars just like it was in 1998 (although none of them considered that back then)

2.) Nancy Pelosi is NOT the person who would be running the impeachment process. Impeachment charges would be started by the chair of the House Judiciary Committee WHICH if we can win the house in 2006, would be John Conyers. We all know that John Conyers has been talking impeachment for awhile now and even has some other big names signed on to support it, but as a minority leader he has no way of making it happen. But if we had the Majority - that would be a different story.

3.) No one speaks for John Conyers but John Conyers, not even Nancy Pelosi. And I have not heard once since Nancy made that original comment that Conyers either agrees OR disagrees with what Ms. Pelosi said. Trust me, Conyers is the type of guy that if he has the goods and the chair of House Judiciary, no one can stop that man.

So please, let's not count our proverbial chickens before they're hatched or we might all end up with egg on our faces. John Conyers has been one of the brightest stars in the last dismal 6 years and he has earned my trust to warrant me to keep fighting for the majority. Until Conyers says otherwise, you know that impeachment is on his agenda!

[trotsky]

1. Well said, LS.

Especially #1. No need to talk about it now - it can only be used as a weapon AGAINST us. Get power, THEN bring the crimes of Bushco into the light, and see the American people demand impeachment.

[spacemanspiff]

14. The majority of the American people are FOR impeachment

how can it be used against us?



and you might want to read this...

Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers "has told me directly: 'I'm not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country's attention from issues that need to be addressed.'"

Don't Worry, Democrats Won't Impeach Bush, Democrat Says
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060921a.html

This is why we must pressure the democrats to do the right thing, not make excuses for them as they back away.

[davidinalameda]

17. an on-line poll?

sorry but that is not reflective of people's views on the whole-only those who took the time to vote

[pat_k]

28. Newsweek

Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment (both Republican and Democratic), can only get 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach"

In this climate, it is lunacy look at the numbers (below) and fail to recognize that you are looking at a FLOOR. If our so-called leaders opened a mouth and told the truth, the 51% who say "impeachment is a priority" would become 65% percent overnight. A majority of the current "don't impeach Dems" would move; at least half of the independents would, and we would pick up about 5% of the white male Republicans who revel in accusation and punishment. (They are PISSED at Bush and will welcome an outlet for their anger.)

And the numbers can only move one way. The prima fascia case against Bush, Cheney, et al is VERY easy to make (in fact, Feingold already made the central case in the =context of Censure).

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">Newsweek Press Release with Detailed Results




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910014">Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

[choop]

26. bad idea

Impeachment would be a bad idea no matter who votes for it-- if we can't convict, it would just be a victory for Bush.

[pat_k]

31. No worries. Victory is already theirs. ** Silence = Exoneration **

With their silence members of Congress exonerate Bush and Cheney.

With her pledge, Pelosi is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

The Congressional oath to defend the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to lead the fight.

We elect them to represent us, not BE us. It is their duty is to sound the alarm, but the fight is Ours. They have NO right to decide whether or not We the People can win the fight. They have no right to keep us in the dark.

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910368">More. . .

[mmonk]

34. Anyone who took their oath of office is duty bound once

the charges are laid out. If America can't turn this corner soon, it may never turn the corner.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

2. What is this fact crap?

LALALALALALALALAA!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!! LALALALALALALAA!!!!























Good post.

[LynneSin]

3. Don't make me kick your ass

:D

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. You could probably do it right now. I'm sick.

:(

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Shoot! My hope are just dashed now! Dashed I tell you!

:thumbsup: for LynneSin!

[FogerRox]

5. Work hard for progressive candidates and think

Chairman Conyers.

[LynneSin]

7. I was reading my recent issue of Rolling Stones Magazine last night

and I was just in tears with the horrors of what the Republican House is doing to shut out the democrats from every step of the process in those committees. People keep thinking it's the floor vote that counts but it isn't - it's what happens behind the scenes in those committees. And what you don't realize is that it's not uncommon for Republicans do make the committees closed door and keep dems out or change the bill discussed in committee after it's approved.

It's a must read article that has solidified why we need at least the house. And I know that if we win the house or even both house & senate, we probably won't be able to change much but hopefully patch up the bleeding until we can get Bush out of the White House

[spacemanspiff]

15. The Republicans have been awful abusers of their power

... however, no one has forced any dems to vote along with them.

We should not make excuses for the bad Democrats.

If we cannot take a look at ourselves and our own party,how can we expect the Republicans to be able to look at themselves and what their party has done. It works both ways, and after the passage of the "Iran Freedom Support Act" with only 21 dems voting against it...we cannot just sit back and trust that the democrats have our best interests at heart. We must support America! first.

[blondeatlast]

18. Let's get Dems in power, then let's boss 'em around!

We don't set the agenda; not even a weeny little bit. Right now, we are powerless.

When we have a majority, WE can kill the loony legislative bills in committee and force our employees (Democrats in the House and Senate) to do our bidding.

[pat_k]

33. What does having power have to do with telling the truth?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910368

[pat_k]

32. + What's Pelosi's magic solution to "rule by signing statement"?

How does she plan to accomplish her "Positive Agenda" with her shiny new non-veto-proof majority, under "rule by signing statement."

There is no way around it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910014">Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

[BOSSHOG]

8. Incredibly sad but true

that a call for the truth would be voraciously opposed by "conservatives." And god forbid anyone suggest that a member of the party of responsibility be held accountable for anything.

Nice post Lynn, you and your BlueHen factual data nonsense.

[pacalo]

9. Great viewpoint!

I just posted my thoughts about Pelosi's current stance here on the Greatest page, but I'm glad you brought it up again.

Remember all of John Conyers' & Henry Waxman's hard work...do you really think Pelosi is going to dismiss that -- not to mention how Conyers & Waxman would take that dismissal. Pelosi smartly said what she had to say, given Stahl's brash question & equally brash do-you-pinkie-swear prodding.

Pelosi is pushing her "first 100 hours" agenda right now. I've taken the hint she has already put out there (the one thing she wants out of Democratic control is subpoena power) so I'm not worried. That hint tells me that there are going to be many investigations, & the insurmountable evidence that will hopefully shock Faux News viewers into reality will take on a life of its own.

Pelosi doesn't have to even mention impeachment at this point. She knows the investigations will speak (or yell) for themselves & the remedy will then be obvious to even Faux News viewers.

[PVnRT]

10. NUH UH PELOSI COULD START IMPEACHMENT TOMORROW!

How DARE you actually read, like, the Constitution and House rules to see how this stuff is done. We all know Nancy Pelosi could snap her fingers and we would have an impeachment vote tomorrow.

[LynneSin]

11. You are Jack's smirking revenge

:pals:

[gully]

12. It's amazing that so few here understand "politics."

eom

[Hosnon]

23. Yup. She probably wants to impeach his ass but saying so could

be potentially disastrous...

[spacemanspiff]

24. why would it be bad for her to speak for the will of the people?

The American people want impeachment, the constitution calls for impeachment...

These arguments for staying silent are absurd!


By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/6

Demanding accountability is how the democrats will look strong- like they care about the country and what has been done. Most thinking americans will respect that and who cares about the 18% of idiots who still don't get it? Being a strong voice of truth, a defender of the constitution is how a politician can appeal to the public and win elections. The republicans do not respect the current crop of Democratic politicians because they are too wimpy, and many on DU are encouraging them to stay that way. strange.

[LynneSin]

25. Because the right-wing screeds in the Media would demonize it

Seriously, I'm not trying to disagree with the concept that he should be impeached but lets focus on getting the house first before we start planning a major initiative that even if we do it probably won't get much further than what happened to Clinton in 98.

The will of the people are very fickle and unfortunately easily influenced by what they think is suppose to be the 'news' on TV.

As I've said before, it's not what Ms. Pelosi says but what John Conyers says. He's the man that will do this if given the chance to have the majority. Let's work hard to give it to him!

[rucky]

36. It would give the Repub base a reason to go to the polls.

"President" Pelosi just took that reason away.

[DancingBear]

29. Well, not many here do

That's a fact.

"Yes, when we get the majority we'll all stand with Conyers!'

"Pelosi is smart!"

"Our hands are tied!"

"We'll all get a spine if we win - honest!"

Funny stuff, but if it gets you through the night then dream on.

Just watch out when they tell you the Easter Bunny is a fairy tale.

It'll be a bitch, but soldier on.

And try and remember - politics is NOT a game, no matter what you believe.

Attempting to stop evil by speaking out is not a function of how many members are on the team.

No one dies in a game.

[pat_k]

35. Hear! Hear! (nt)

[greeneyedboy]

13. exactly: with Judiciary Committee Chair Conyers, you will get accountability.

whether it's impeachment or an exhaustive investigation of every last unconstitutional illegal act the GOP has imposed on us recently.

[ashling]

16. Thank you ... well said

I have been thinking of wading into these waters to point out some of the same. Thanks

[blondeatlast]

19. Aaaah, these kids today! I remember when we were required to learn American Gov't

and Civics before we graduated.

I must be getting old.

Unfortunately, the people who need to read your excellent summation won't, but I appreciate it; it so needs to be said.

:thumbsup:

[pat_k]

37. I may feel like a kid, but 45 is a stretch. Civics in "my day". . .

. . .was grounded in the simple truths and moral principles captured in our Constitution, in which members of Congress are vested with certain powers and charged with certain duties -- powers and duties that are captured in the Congressional oath that follows from that document.

Under that oath, Madam Pelosi absolutely has "something to do with" defending the Constitution. Her oath demands that she take up the fight to remove a civic official from power if she believes that official is attacking the Constitution (and if unable to get that official to voluntarily resign through other means, impeachment is the weapon we vested in Congress to force such an official out.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910014

[geek tragedy]

20. Investigation and oversight. Announcing that there will

be impeachment is like a prosecutor announcing an indictment before formally looking at the evidence.

[spacemanspiff]

21. I think the evidence is overwhelming

Bush admitted that 'wiretapping requires a court order. nothing has changed heh heh'
Bush admitted to illegal wiretapping without a court order on national TV...but pledged to do more of the same
The court has found Bush's wiretapping to be illegal....I think he's still doing it....

I don't think it would be stepping out of line to shout loudly that this criminal must be impeached for his illegal behavior and prevented from further illegal spying on the American people. We don't need an investigation because Bush admitted it!

I feel like I'm living in bizarro world. Conyers was in congress when Nixon was chased out of office for illegal wiretapping. It's so freaking obvious what needs to be done.

The republicans and a heckuva lot more democratic voters would respect the democratic politicians if they did something to attempt to stop these bastards. Their enabling of Bush, and then the enabling by the democratic people who are trying to be understanding of the politicians...is what has allowed all of this ridiculousness in the first place. Can't anyone stand on principles anymore? Doesn't our constitution mean anything?

[LynneSin]

22. Congress is not the same as it was during the Nixon administration

It is way more partisan and although I totally agree that there is enough evidence. However, with the Republicans in control we simple do not have enough votes to warrent a committee investigation UNLESS we could manage to get a few repukes to cross sides

[pat_k]

27. She has nothing to do with fulfilling her Congressional oath?

It is impossible for a member of Congress to fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution if they are not "on the look out" for threats.

It is impossible to defend the Constitution if they do not JUDGE potential threats.

It is impossible to defend the Constitution if they do not TELL US about the threats they see.

Notifying us that there is a threat is the uu]First Duty demanded by their oath

If a member of Congress believes the principles and institutions we established in our Constitution are being subverted, their first duty -- the one they are derelict in -- is to notify the public that the Constitution is under attack and that defensive action is required to rescue it.

In our current crisis, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing Bush and Cheney from office through resignation or impeachment.

This is OUR country. We the People are the "deciders."

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion. The process ends with removal from office by resignation or by force through impeachment. Between those two points things can play out in an infinite number of ways. There is no way of knowing.

Their oath is an individual oath. Even if No Other member recognizes the threat, each member has a Personal Duty to act on their own judgment.

To fail to accuse criminals is to be complicit with them.

It doesn't matter if member of Congress doesn't think they can get the votes to convict in the Senate. It may never Get There. It doesn't matter if they think impeachment is "impossible," if they believe the Constitution is being harmed their oath to defend it demands that they tell us.

The cool thing about duty is that you just do it, come what may.
"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"
Dealing with accusations that it's a "partisan coup" or "revenge"

If Democratic members continue to be the only ones who recognize the threats, all they need to do to prove their motives are not partisan is to point out that Bush and Cheney can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed and therefore must meet with our approval (through the people we elected to represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress who recognize that rescuing our Constitution requires the removal of Bush and Cheney need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

When they decide to just "do the right thing" things are always far simpler than the insiders with all their partisan machinations and "strategery" can imagine.

The Choice

We all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

History is a harsh judge. When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

At our founding, some who claimed to "hate" slavery were nonetheless complicit in the morally indefensible "compromise" that allowed our fellow human beings to be enslaved in the United States. Undoubtedly many believed they "couldn't win" if they drew a line in the sand and so did not draw the line.

We may never stop paying the price for that horrible compromise.

We face another such defining turning point.

There is No Downside

For years before Pelosi's "pledge", the beltway establishment (both Democratic and Republican) have been dong everything in their power to make sure all talk of impeachment is "off the table." The Democratic assumption that "something bad" would happen is so firmly entrenched in their insular world that it never gets challenged. A very big problem since the assumption has no basis in reality.

What's so tragic is that there is no upside to following the establishment's "impeachment is off limits" edict.

Reality is what it is. Bush and Cheney are grabbing more and more Un-American and Unconstitutional power and using it to nullify our laws through abuse of signing statements and refusal to execute or enforce them, to steal our treasure to empower their tiny faction, and to blatantly violate national and international law to bully other nations -- nations that have given up on looking to the good will of the American people for help because we have clearly surrendered our sovereignty to Bush by tolerating his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to be "unitary authoritarian executive."

It is impossible for Democratic leaders to speak in inspiring terms about who we are as a nation if they refuse to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are, and Americans must prove it by removing the threat they pose to the Constitution; our common contract; the soul of the nation. Bush have put the contract into breach. The ONLY way to reassert the terms is through Impeachment, the sole mechanism we established to defend against such attacks from within."

With the ONE weapon that We the People gave them to defend our government from abuses of power "off the table," Dems are incapable of speaking coherently about anything. They are trapped in a world of doubletalk and euphemism because they are desperately trying to avoid having to say anything about the elephant that's trampling the things we treasure most.

There is nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

Even the folks "out here" defending Nancy's pledge don't feel good about it -- they are making apologies and excuses. If the actions of our leaders make us feel a bit "dirty" how can we expect them to inspire our fellow citizens?

If the Party establishment hadn't sold themselves on the absurd notion that "voters won't like us if we do our duty, " we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because 2004 would have been a landslide big enough to overwhelm the election thieves.

Even in the context of the DC bizzaro-world conventional wisdom. . .

"Pelosi's "pledge" was completely unnecessary

It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table." It is effectively a violation of her congressional oath to say impeachment is "off the table."

It is like answering questions about whether the use of military force is off the table -- the answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." Use of force is a weapon of last resort, but leaders never take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out.

Until they snap out of their denial of reality. . .

Revised Oath (Changes Mandated by Pelosi's Pledge)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[pat_k]

30. Is it "foolish of us to commit to" ending World Hunger. . .

. . .until we know it can be done this year?

Fortunately, there are not many people pushing the "Won't happen, so shut up" mantra when it comes to fighting to eradicate AIDS or poverty or hunger.

The Congressional oath to defend the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to lead the fight.

We elect them to represent us, not BE us. It is their duty is to sound the alarm, but the fight is Ours. They have NO right to decide whether or not We the People can win the fight. They have no right to keep us in the dark.

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Bush and Cheney are leading their tiny faction in an all out attack on our Constitution. The ONLY way to turn them back is remove them from office. Win or Lose, that is the fight we face. Members of Congress, in whom we vested the power to impeach, are duty-bound to call us to arms.

Any member of Congress who sees the threat but won't speak up is enabling and empowering the attackers. No rationalization, whether it's the edict from their peers that "talk of impeachment is off limits," their fear of being snubbed at the next cocktail party, their fear of losing votes, or pronouncements that they "can win," excuses their dereliction.

What is TRULY "getting old" is their perennial fear; "Ohhh, the evil backlash beast (or some other bad thing) will get us if we <fill in the blank>".

When it comes to the "tough choices," what is getting old is the failure of our so-called "Party leaders" to recognize the irrationality of "strategic thinking" that comes to the SAME conclusion 100% of the time -- i.e., to take the path of least resistance by (1) betraying principle through action or inaction; (2) taking the least "controversial" stand, or (3) putting off the difficult or principled action to a later date.

The rationalizations that lie behind such "tactical" choices are always the same too. "Won't happen, so shut up" is at the top of the list.

Their self-destructive habit reinforces itself. They don't fight because "it's futile." The things worth fighting for never happen because nobody leads the charge, thus "proving" the futility.

Like the "I'll quit tomorrow" addict, they assuage guilt and shame by telling themselves "we'll do the right thing, later." Tragically for the nation, "later" never comes because, like the addicts they are, the "strategerists" always identify reasons that "now" is bad time to bite the bullet.

Not only is this "getting old," it is killing the Party.

Once again. . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2907314&mesg_id=2910014">Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!