Whats wrong with Pelosi?

[historian]

Why on earth doesn't she initiate impeachment proceedings? Every constitutional scholar from both sides of the political spectrum have listed hundreds of impeachable offenses yet the only thing we hear in response is a deafening silence. I wish the dems would stop playing nice and do their job - oversee the government!!!
If nothing is done then we are doomed. The next administration, regardless of which side, will assume that it is an elected monarchy and can do as it pleases with nothing to worry about.
Has America become so stupid that an entire political apparatus will rally to impeach an intelligent man for a lapse in character and a blowjob from a mediocre frump looking for instant fame, but cannot rally itself to impeach a man who deliberately started a war based on lies????
I guess i give up.

[niyad]

1. the numbers aren't there.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. it's beyond "the numbers"

Yeah, there's not a veto proof majority. But Pelosi owes her position to the right wing of the party, not the progressive middle. It is there that "conventional wisdom" resides, insulated from the harsh realities of the progressive mainstream by the beltway. These guys work from a playbook designed in a different time. Just read anything from the New Democrats and you'll see the sweeping pronouncements stated as fact have their roots in a systemic philosophy that has long since been debunked. Yet, they DO know politics and backroom deals better than their relatively new progressive brethren, and thus you get Pelosi, aka Core Values and water, on the rocks.

[MsMagnificent]

69. The numbers aren't there in a jury trial either

it's up to the prosecution to put a clear and concise case before the jurors, and if they've done their job well --or even adequately-- the numbers will then be there. We have the evidence many times over, and in multiple cases, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

And that is exactly what the process of Impeachment is -- a trial.

It's like saying we don't have a cure for Polio at this moment, therefore why bother trying to find a cure? ...let's just give up.


This thing we, if anybody, should know: Things progress.
Especially when Truth is on one's side.


The past few years, and in every stage --before, during and after the fact-- it seems the Democrats are the party of willful self-defeat. They could rightly adopt a doormat as their symbol.
If a painting were to be made of the current party and most of its politicians, it would look very much like something issued from the brush of Hieronymous Bosch.
It is unrecognizable as the same Democratic Party I joined so long ago at age 18.

What has happened to the Democratic Party? (barring that it is in collusion with the Republicans -- something to ponder if one holds credence in Occam's Razor)
How did we become so negative?
Where did this systemic cowardice come from?

More importantly, how do we regain our vanished confidence and will, not to mention ethics and honor?

If the party can not or will no longer support its long-standing ideals --those same things that once made it so very popular-- it has obviously lost its vision.

If the individual politicians seem more concerned with their next election, then the party has no purpose beyond that their insignificant goal. They are no longer working for the good of the American people; they merely jealously are guarding their own careers, to which some actually feel entitled.

If the party behaves solely to appease the Republicans it offers no hope to its populace, therefore it doesn't stand a chance.

If it has no thematic raison d'etre, then truly it has no reason to be.


Who wants to stay in, or for that matter join, a political party whose motto seems to be Abandon all Hope, ye who register here?


It is obvious the Democratic Party is in serious trouble. I do not mean to bash the Democratic Party, but judging by our politicians actions (or inactions) there is a profound disconnect between the wishes of the party members and its 'leadership'. IMO the best place to fix it is from within, however we need to know why it is malfunctioning so badly before we can design efficacious, lasting repair. To this end we need not factional spin but clear and honest answers, even if they are uncomfortable, unwelcome or downright brutal.

[leftchick]

2. she has more important issues

like continuing to fund the immoral occupation of Iraq.

[Anita Garcia]

59. nicely done left chick! n/t

[Cleita]

3. Something else is going on behind the scenes that we are

not privvy to. Let's hope we get an information dump from some squealing deep throats soon. The numbers have nothing to do with it. Those dissident Republicans can be pressured to change their vote as has happened in the past, so there is another reason that no effort is being made to do so.

[MissWaverly]

5. methinks, the GOP want an assurance that she will not be prez

of course, they will fight tooth and nail, becuz this would give them another freebie
way to campaign for prez in 2008, they are waiting for the Dems to cave, if they
make it a two-fer which they know they have to do, to having a Puke installed in there
so he can run using all the bells and whistles, air force one, etc. while campaigning.

Did I mention pardons for all, oh, for the welfare of the country, throw in Halliburton
and pardons for all war profiteers as well, oh and pardons for the telecoms, and pardons
for any federal employee under Bush that broke the law or lied to Congress or obstructed
justice or violated the Hatch Act or the list is endless.

[Cleita]

8. Also, if she becomes prez, she steals Hillary's thunder as

first woman President. Is this what is holding back the Democrats? Just wondering.

[MissWaverly]

11. not only stealing the limelight, she would be logical one for 2008

No, certain powerful people would not want that to happen.

[plusfiftyfive]

42. She's older than Hillary..she could make Hillary VP?

Hillary would LOVE to be back in the White House, but I think she won't be VP to anyone, I know, her ego is so big!

[MissWaverly]

43. yes, and then there is all the special interests

an unelected prez would not be beholden to them.

[plusfiftyfive]

49. Great point!

Nancy would be a Gerry Ford.

As long as she didn't "pardon" the former President!

[MissWaverly]

51. Yes, we could use someone not tied to special interests

[plusfiftyfive]

41. U Think WELL!!!

Yes, Bill and Hill's plan is for 16 years of Clinton in one family...by the way, when will Chelsea be 35??? Maybe they are planning on 24 years!!! Just Kidding..but as for Hillary, I would be willing to bet SOME dems would not want Nancy to precede Hillary as POTUS.

[MissWaverly]

44. Hillary , no I can't see her as VP either

[rudy23]

50. I think Hillary is one of the biggest obstacles to impeachment...

just a hunch.

[MissWaverly]

52. well, I have heard that she has kept the anti-war things down

and I would not be surprised that she is keeping the lid on impeachment as well but that
could be so that they did not have to fight the issue of Bill all over again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. Hillary is definitely not planning on ending the war

She wants to leave troops in Iraq and continue building the bases and that ridiculous embassy.

[PADemD]

58. I've been wondering about that for a long time, too.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissWaverly]

19. we have to get the government back to we the people

and away from special interests and away from it's not what you do but who you know. I am not sure what I
want at this point, 16 more months of Bushco and a possible Iran war or a Republican
in the WH who can hand out pardons like gum balls to miscreants everywhere.

I dunno at this point.

[dipsydoodle]

22. If you'd ever had a government

who'd given the least thought to the people they'd have put in a healthcare system when the UK did so back in the '40s.

[MissWaverly]

24. yes, health care, child care, alternative energy

drawing down the huge military budget, (cash cow) to finance a healthy society, yes, I can see that.

[cascadiance]

26. If that IS the issue, then I'd cut a deal with congressional Republicans!

To avoid the revolving door of criminals that has happened with the pardons that was the big legacy of Watergate that we should regret, we tell them that we'll go after Cheney and Bush separately (Cheney first and then Bush), allowing for a mutually agreed upon Republican to step in temporarily until 2008 elections as a Gerry Ford type of president, provided the following condition:

The Republicans join with us to pass a constitutional ammendment that would have a supermajority of votes that could override a veto that would limit presidential pardons in the following way:
a) The sitting president couldn't pardon ANYONE in his employ (pretty much all of his cabinet and anyone he's appointed). That would include folks like the U.S. Attorneys as well. He/she would ohly be able to pardon those outside of his control for getting a job.
b) This rule would also apply to not pardoning the previous administration's president, vice president, or their appointees.
c) It wouldn't matter if those individuals have since left their positions of appointment (aka Karl Rove, Gonzo, etc.)

You would make the point to these Republicans that this would allow them to continue to control the White House until next election, provided we have someone in charge acceptable to the Democratic majority who would approve them. And also note to them that this would help them perhaps more in future years when the Dems are likely to have a congressional majority as well as the presidency, to avoid them having a revolving door too that is above scrutiny.

I would think many Republican senators and members of the House might be willing to make this vote to help save their jobs in 2008 elections and help increase the favorability rating overall for the congress which is reaching all time lows now.

I don't care so much about having Pelosi in control after these guys leave as much as I don't want to see pardons being handed out and us repeating this exercise in the years to come with the same crowd of criminals, only with perhaps worse situations than we have now.

[MissWaverly]

28. Yes, remember Karl Rove was working under the RNC in 72

I do not know if he was officially working for Creep or the College Republicans but he was involved
back then. The dirty tricks, wiretapping, rat f*king started back then. We have to have accountability,
I too would be more willing to install a GOP after the heave ho, if we had assurances like
you suggest.

[PearliePoo2]

9. yeah

Remember when someone was recently talking to her about all the criminal behavior by the Re-thugs and her comment was "People don't even know the half of it".
So, she knows. She needs to be asked "just what IS the other half?"
What is going on?
What YOU said....come on deep throat 2!

[MissWaverly]

13. yes, I think there is something else going on

AND I hope that it will put the brakes on the dynamic duo regarding bombing Iran and other stupid ideas.

[2rth2pwr]

20. It always seems to come down to 2 things-

And I hate the sound of both. Either "We need to keep our powder dry" or " Just wait, they are doing it behind closed doors" :puke:

[MissWaverly]

23. well, I hope something is being done to serve the common good

we have been attacked by greedy old pirates for the last 7 years, methinks
that some defense of our laws, our people and our treasury is in order.

Also was very impressed by the M.E. people screaming tell the truth at
our journalists, this was filmed at an Arab media conference and
was in "Weapons of Mass Deception"

[Cooley Hurd]

21. The executive branch has unparalleled power and ability to spy on its political opponents...

...which means they have the ability to blackmail their political opponents.

When the history of this era is written, it will shame those who sat silently during it.

[Cleita]

33. I would be surprised if Nancy herself has much in her

background that is blackmailable, however, I do think that she is politically engaged in being a team player with the DNC and that a deal has been cut that she will not become an unelected President before the next elected President is sworn in in 2009. Since I don't have any proof, it's just my suspicious opinion.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Some nonsense about dry powder

but i hope the above poster is correct
that there are more aggressive things
going on behind the scenes.

[enough already]

40. There is nothing going on behind the scenes

That bullshit is only trotted out to try and shut us up.

[davidwparker]

6. She and Reid are do-nothing Democrats. Both have no leadership skills.

They feed at the same trough as the (R)'s and their paymasters haven't given the permission to do so. (Basically, Nader is right.)

The same people who tell you "something is going on" are Democratic enablers. After 2004 elections, it's these same sorts who were convinced Kerry was fighting behinds the scenes and had some grand plan.

Take off the rose-colored glasses.

[jgraz]

7. She's a coward and she thinks we're retarded

It's very clear that the idiots in Washington haven't yet realized that the flow of information has changed. Pelosi and Reid still think that fundraising letters and press conferences are enough to fool people into believing that the Congress is actually doing its job.

Someone needs to show Dear Nancy how to use The Google.

[seriousstan]

10. Because impeachment has little support and huge backlash.

My evidence for backlash is the continued sore wound carried by many over the Clinton impeachment. As for the support of impeachment, show me demonstrations that have over 3% of the community. Most rib fests, apple butter fests and corn festivals garner more public response than any given impeachment rally. Politics is all about the numbers. These numbers I am speaking of are not the votes in Congress, they are about the voters at home.
Activists aside, people are not clamoring for impeachment.

[PSPS]

15. You're wrong

The "sore wounds" over Clinton's impeachment are because everyone knew it was a political vendetta. Clinton continued to have large approval ratings during the whole fiasco. It was obvious to everyone that it was a right-wing plot to destroy his presidency.

Bush is an entirely different matter. He is widely reviled, has freely admitted his crimes, and has no support beyond those who are either profiting from his crime spree or are otherwise paid to support him.

[Raster]

17. That simply is not true. First, no reputable polling agency will conduct a poll, even for money.

So how do we know how the public feels? Second, the American media is working overtime to keep any dissension or talk of impeachment out of the press and television. The only reason there is no clamoring is that it is being obscured and purposefully avoided. And the backlash factor, pure bullshit. Certainly there was backlash against the Clinton lynching because the proceedings proved to be a partisan attack for partisan purposes. The American public was high pissed after the Clinton affair, and well they should have been. Comparing the two is disingenuous at best.

[cascadiance]

29. The corporate media is throwing out this backlash BS because they are complicit in the problems...

... that we have with this conspiracy at the top. They want people like you to believe that there will be this so-called backlash so that we don't purge our government of the enablers of corporate power that they are so much in bed with government to preserve.

It's all BS! IMPEACH NOW!

[seriousstan]

32. We have 130,000,000 voters. They count. Show me the pro-impeachment rallies.

Show me 3% of the voters rising up. That is a pretty low bar. I won't use population, only voters. You can us every breathing body that shows up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x45826

[cascadiance]

35. Show me where the impeachment rallies were in the 70's when we went after Nixon...

We didn't have them then either. That didn't stop the Republicans realizing that if they protected Nixon, they were going to go down in flames. We need to make them realize that fact again!

And come September 15th, if the corporate media does their job, which I suspect they won't, we'll see a big turnout that day for this sort of thing.

[seriousstan]

39. Was that a duck or a dodge? I get those 2 confused.

The question stands. I am not trying to argue a position, I am stating the obvious. Where is the popular uprising. I understand that a community of 5-7 thousand here at the DU agree. The voting public is much larger.

[cascadiance]

54. Where are the anti-impeachment rallies...

I would say that those that would care deeply in us NOT impeaching is comparably as small as what you characterize the pro-impeachment folks. The vast majority of Americans I think want justice to be served, whatever is called for. Some may still be on the fence, but that's why starting the process is necessary! It will help them understand if it is warranted. Most of us here want impeachment because we DO understand and HAVE studied the facts that Bush has done impeachable things. Many of those on the fence don't undertsand it yet, but given information would support us. That's the way it was in Nixon's day, and that's the way it will be now.

[seriousstan]

56. Duck or dodge? Help me out here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. We are out collecting signatures on impeachment petitions

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. How's this for numbers?

[seriousstan]

67. Less than 1% of voters. Hardly a ground swell of support.

Not to even mention the fact that it is an internet petition.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. We have collected 2000 signatures here in only a month

And not on the internet. We have activists who stand in shopping center parking lots, go to area festivals and any public events they can get to and collect signatures. I have been helping them. 80% of the people I approach are more than willing to sign the petition. The American people want this administration impeached. Don't fool yourself.

[ClassWarrior]

66. The reason the failed coup against Clinton is a sore wound...

...is because it was WRONG. Why would there be backlash for holding criminals accountable for their crimes?

NGU.

[SaveElmer]

12. Nothing...she is doing a very good job...nt

[GreenArrow]

14. She's a member of the power elite

and too many Democrats supported it (Iraq).

[daa]

18. Impeach??????

sh from spending billions more or even stop wireless wiretapping. Fucking useless. They had it all and blew it.

[creeksneakers2]

25. I don't see hundreds of offenses

I don't see every constitutional scholar from both sides listing hundreds of offenses.

I was directed by others here to a list of impeachable offenses. The standard for impeachment is an act worthy of criminal convicton. I didn't see more than one action on the list where the the law and evidence could support a criminal conviction(Too few specifics on wiretapping).

Torture remains the only issue. Bush admitted to authorizing the use of torture in extreme cases. How much pressure would members of Congress be under to convict Bush for torture?

Here's the latest poll I could find:

"Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
12/12/06 - 1/9/07 Pew Research.
.

Often %12
Justified Sometimes %31
Justified Rarely %25
Justified Never %29
Justified Unsure %3

Torture doesn't sound like the kind of issue that would get the public behind impeachment.

[Cleita]

30. How about lying us into a war?

Remember that Saddam had WMDs and we had to stop him in his tracks or there would be another 9/11 this time from Iraq. Oh yes let's blur exactly who was responsible for 9/11 and bamboozle the public into thinking it was Iraq. Propagandizing the public for private gain should be an impeachable offense. But I'm for trying him for war crimes and racketeering and profiting from war.

[creeksneakers2]

34. You can say that SHOULD

be an impeachable offense but it isn't. Lying is not impeachable. If it was, every president we ever had or ever will have would be impeached.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Clinton was impeached for lying

[cascadiance]

65. So where is your "book" on what is impeachable and what isn't?

It isn't rigidly defined INTENTIONALLY! Impeachment doesn't even have to be for actions of breaking the law, but he has already done so on a number of occasions.

Arguably NSA warantless wiretapping is breaking the FISA laws, and he's ADMITTED to it!

All of these extra signing statements being signed at a record pace claiming to remove him from accountability from them that congress has passed is arguably also an impeachable offense of trying to circumvent government checks and balances.

Unprecedented usage of the State Secrets Privilege to throw out court cases that arguably is being used to coverup government wrongdoing in this administration.

Using taxpayer paid for government funds to help Republican aides to go out and campaign against Dems which arguably the Justice Department had been doing violated the Hatch Act.

They were violating U.S. Attorney procedures as recorded in the older manual for them (until recently replaced by the Justice Department), when they went after Demcorats for trumped up voter fraud investigations and fired those who wouldn't go along with them on this (Iglesias, etc.). It isn't clear as of tocay, how high up the chain the responsibility lies for this, since Gonzales has basically committed perjury to avoid pointing fingers at anyone.

We still don't have a clear picture of the highest decision maker that authorized outing Valerie Plame and basically destroying Brewster Jennings as an undercover operation in the process.

This is just a list from memory, but there are tons of other issues that have far greater impact on the American public than anything Clinton did with Monica (Katrina f'ups, lying about WMDs, allowing billions of dollars of taxpayers money and Iraqi money to be unprotected and stolen in Iraq in an unaccountable fashion), f'ing up the 9/11 investigations, and the list goes on).

[historian]

71. you miss a point

What about illegal wiretapping? And what signing statements? They are supposed to be a comment by the president as to why he disagrees with the bill bu tit is non binding. but bush has specifically written that the agencies should not obey that law since he disagrees with it. He is bypassing congress and that is grounds for impeachment,

[Demeter]

27. Good Question!

Wish I knew. Then we could fix it.

I think she's the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. She talked a good talk, and then froze up.

[Totally Committed]

31. She traded in her spine and her soul for corporate $$$ for her re-election.

Same as almost all the others in Congress and the Senate.

TC

[TreasonousBastard]

37. It's not her job...

to "initiate" impeachment, or anything else that has no chance of working.

No Speaker in history has had the powers that some people think Pelosi has magically assumed, and those same people seem to forget that impeachement has NEVER been successful, although Nixon's came close. Nixon resigned before trial because he was advised to by Republican Senators, and neither Johnson nor Clinton were found guilty by the Senate.

It was likely, ironically, the spectacle of Clinton's impeachment is making everyone a bit chary of repeating such a massive cockup when there is real work to be done.

[zulchzulu]

38. Two things that should be pretty obvious

While I agree with you on the fact that Bush needs to be immediately impeached (I did this video/song), there are two things that need to be addressed.

One, there are not enough votes to impeach. Making a political statement that doesn't have enough votes would stain the Bush presidency, but it might make the Democrats look like they are vindictive and not accomplishing anything. The main thing is that there aren't enoough votes to do it.

The solution: get people out in the streets, overwhelm the naysayers with email, faxes and make sure that the vote to impeach will be rewarded.

Two, for Nancy Pelosi to call for impeachment would give the Republicans the obvious tactic that she wants to be president. She is third in line after Cheney...and Cheney has to be impeached first.

[partylessinOhio]

45. What's wrong with the House that they elected her as Madame Squeaker?

:shrug:

[illinoisprogressive]

46. 2 reasons. in a year we elect a new president and not a big enough majority

[GeorgeGist]

47. cowardice

[AtomicKitten]

48. I don't agree with just running out the clock.

Ms. Pelosi has a lot on her plate, however, I think the current strategy of weak maneuvering is foolish and dangerous. I am aware of the rationale behind this strategy, always mindful of the next election, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Congress does not appear to be up to the task of turning D.C. upside down to stop this war and restore the Constitution. We require a real leader to lead us out of the wilderness. Are you listing, Al?

[mzmolly]

53. It's not her role to initiate proceedings.

See my sigline for an interesting quote. ;) However, I do feel we must impeach.

[Yukari Yakumo]

55. The votes are not there

The FISA vote should tell you that. You think the Blue Dogs are going to vote for beginning impeachment proceedings because you or anyone else says so? WRONG!

[OneBlueSky]

57. whether or not the votes are there is irrelevant . . .

BushCo's crimes dwarf those of any administration in history, and ignoring them because "we don't have the votes" is a complete abdication of Constitutional responibility . . .

besides, who's to say that the votes won't be there by the time the nation sees all of the evidence arrayed against BushCo . . . most in Congress probably won't have any choice but to impeach and convict if they value their own political asses . . .

[cascadiance]

60. The key is to have a vote so these folks are on record as to how they will vote.

If we don't get them on record on how they will vote on impeachment, there will be massive dissatisfaction again, and a major overhaul of a lot of pols in office now (with many Dems getting pushed out too). Even if we don't have the votes to convict, we will know who feels that the constitution supports them NOT impeaching these bums! And then the voters will also let them know how they feel about that too! THAT is what they are afraid of, NOT this so-called backlash that they are trying to rationalize voters will use to go against us for impeachment. That's just silly and pretty naked as a fake rationale for why they are avoiding doing this.

[LWolf]

68. She's too busy to address the issues

that people gave dems the majority to address until after GWB leaves office.

Doing anything about any of them before that happens is off the table.