A challenge to the Pelosi bashers ... haters .... critics .... whatever you call yourselves .....

[Stinky The Clown]

What, specifically, would you have her do that she hasn't done?

No sloganeering. No hyperbole. No drive by answers.

Give us a detailed analysis of her failings and how you would suggest they could have been avoided. To make a claim or state a perceived failing and leave out a detailed analysis of the realities in DC is not meeting the challenge. You've got to say what she failed to do, say what she should have done, and, doing what you think she should have done, say how she would have been successful.

Facts score many more points in this challenge than do opinions or feelings.

(Note: I want the troops home today. I am an impeachment hawk of the highest order. I am not a DLC sympathizer. I have NO favorite for 08.)

[BenDavid]

1. Only thing I fault

Pelosi for not doing is getting out and speaking about the mess Congress was in and the mess they had to clean up first before any work could be done. Bush this past weekend said the congress has not sent one bill for the 08 budget. If the public is not informed the dems had to pass 11 of the bills just for 07 before they began 08 then what you get is a low approval rating......
Impeachment is off the table.Anyone show me anything impeachable that Bush has done then I say yes, but where are you going to get 60 to 61 votes in the Senate? You cannot..
I fault both Reid and Pelosi for the congress being so low in the polls...
I thank you
Ben David

[Stinky The Clown]

9. You'll get absolutely no argument from me in what you said.

It is my view that Democrats have a dismal record on public relations. Both Pelosi and Reid embody that dismal record.

[JuniperLea]

14. Fore counting votes is wrong...

We should impeach because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

Still, I agree with Pelosi on taking time, but eventually, we need to get impeachment on the table. We are morally obliged, and Constitutionally driven to do so. To NOT begin impeachment proceedings only emboldens those would would come after and try to pull the same wool over the same eyes. There MUST be accountability.

[dogday]

29. I agree with you that there must be accountability

It is like raising a child, if you do not tell them what they are doing wrong, and punish them for their actions, then they continue to do bad acts...

[JuniperLea]

129. Kids, cats, dogs... pretzeldents...

Yep. You can't just ignore the bad behavior and expect it to go away.

I'd love to have an invisible spray bottle... I'd give W a good squirt every time he clawed at the couch... erm... did something dishonest:)

[onenote]

44. Counting votes is what a leader does.

If Pelosi called for a vote on a resolution authorizing and directing the House Judiciary Committee to take up the issue of impeachment of chimpy and/or cheney, would it pass? What would happen if didn't pass? How bad would that be?

The art of being a leader is to count your votes. If/when Pelosi is confident that the votes were there, she might schedule something. But you can rest assured that she knows fully well that the votes aren't there now.

[Usrename]

53. That sounds like crazy talk to me.

How would SHE vote should be the question.

I do understand what you are thinking though. Even if it is wrong, it's easy to follow:

verdict first, then the trial... verdict first, then the trial..

[onenote]

65. you won't get to the trial if the house votes down an impeachment resolution

The process has distinct steps.

Step one: the house passes a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and decide whether to recommend impeachment articles to the full House.

Step two: if you get past step one, and the Judiciary Committee, based on hearings and investigation, approves articles of impeachment, those articles go to the full House. If the full House approves, the matter goes to the Senate for trial

Step three: Trial and either acquittal or conviction.

Pelosi's role is to determine the likelihood of success, AT THE PRESENT TIME, of a motion directing the Judiciary Committee to take up the issue of impeachment and report back to the full House. What is crazy is for anyone to assume that there aren't 16 Democractic members of the House who don't think that the time is right for an impeachment inquiry. The fact that you and I might disagree with them doesn't matter. It is a virtual certainty that unless and until some repubs come out of the woodwork and indicate that they too would support starting the process, a very large number of Democratic members -- more than enough to cause an impeachment resolution to fail -- will not support starting the process. They can and will point to precedent: the Nixon impeachment process started with a vote in the House of 410-4 to hold hearings and report back. Even the Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution drew the support of 31 Democrats.

Pelosi can count and she can listen. She knows where the caucus is. A leader doesn't take her charges on a suicide mission. She waits until she is in a position to win.

[Usrename]

90. Of course that is how are supposed to be.

But that is not how things are!

There is only one step here.

Impeachment is off the table.

Done.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. But why pre-emptively take impeachment off the table?

Saying impeachment is off the table is her "no new taxes" moment - if she should bring it up, and put it back on the table she will be SLAMMED for changing her position, for playing politics, being a flip-flopper, and the debate will be about HER instead of about the impeachment.

And it's not about counting the votes. It's about getting the votes. You apply pressure, cut deals, make promises, offer support and political cover, whatever it takes to get the votes on your side - you don't sit around and wait for the votes to come to you.

[onenote]

66. I don't remember her exact words, but I never regarded it as a forever and always statement

It was off the table at that point in time. I don't think she put herself in a box that she can't get out of, particularly if (as I think ultimately is necessary) impeachment begins to gain a modicum of bi-partisan support.

[jgraz]

120. I thought *getting* the votes is what a real leader does

Remember the Rethugs with Medicare Pt. D? They did whatever it takes to get their legislation through.

Of course there aren't enough votes for impeachment! You have The Speaker of the House saying that it's off the table while she was still in the minority! That's not what I call leadership.

[JuniperLea]

128. The art of being a GREAT leader...

is always doing the right thing, regardless of the ever-looming popularity contest.

[Virginia Dare]

2. kicking because I want to see the responses..n/t

[Journeyman]

4. I'm with Virginia. . .

and I'll give it the 5th recommend. . .

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. She should never have said impeachment was off the table

She should have said we are taking things one step at a time. That way folks like us would be paying more attention to what she is doing and supporting it. By making such a strong statement when she could have been vague about it, she hurt her support from the left, I think.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I'll agree with that

I was very disappointed to hear the 'off the table' thing. I didn't like it, but I defended it for a while. In the run up to the elections (which we ****barely**** won), to start blathering on about impeachment would have done nothing but feed the RW Wurlitzer and paint EVERY Democrat as a rabid partisan bent solely on impeachment.

So, while I wasn't happy to hear 'off the table', I understood it. I part company with, and drop support for, Leader Pelosi on the narrow issue of how this was handled **post** election. She should have taken the time to 'clarify' what she said and let it be known that we would be following evidence and it would **evidence** that told us where to go and what consequences might follow ..... and to copy the Republics, to have made it clear that 'no option is off the table'.

[Virginia Dare]

20. It's a delicate balance act..

of course she alienated some of her core supporters with this statement, but remember in the months leading up to the election the right wing smear machine was in overdrive trying to scare monger on a Pelosi Speakership, and that was one of their memes. Perhaps it was just a way to take a Republican talking point away from them. I'm not sure if it was such a good idea, but that was probably the thinking.

At any rate, I see no point in impeaching Bush while Cheney is still in charge.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. "...she hurt her support from the left..."

Left, right, and center. The affront to the much maligned left is obvious. But it also removed that threat from the right, so the right has been granted impunity, and removed any impetus from the center to lean toward the left on it. The center, where the waverer dwell, will be pulled to the strongest side, and by undercutting the left that guarantees the center lean will be toward the right.

[The Stranger]

72. I think this one post eviscerates the original post.

Yes, we have a winner.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Conversely, I'd also like someone to produce her accomplishments

rather than just saying she has done nothing but led us in retreat. Maybe I'll work on that one.

[Beaverhausen]

51. go here

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-99

[LittleClarkie]

67. That's great, but that's the Senate version

Here's the House version:

http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/HouseDemocratsAccomplishments.pdf

[mike_c]

6. I understand your motives for posing this challenge...

...but I respectfully suggest that it is terribly flawed. Incremental discussion-- discussion that DOESN'T have all the answers but can help define the right questions, and work *toward* the answers-- is just as important as being able to solve the whole problem in one go. What you're demanding is the equivalent of playing baseball under the rule that the only hits that score are the ones knocked out of the park.

I doubt that any of us have the answers you're asking for. Still, many of us are quite dissatisfied with Pelosi's failure to move the progressive agenda forward, her failure to do anything substantive about the war against Iraq, and so on. What you're suggesting is that unless we can solve those problems ourselves we don't have any right to our dissatisfaction.

Pelosi and Reid are democratic leaders-- we look to our leaders to provide solutions, or to do their best to find them. Finding a way to curb the White House war lust is one of the tasks we're depending on that leadership to accomplish. Impeaching the criminals in the Bush administration is another-- finding the means to accomplish that is THEIR job, not ours.

As citizens, our job is to discuss these matters and develop our understanding of them. That requires incremental discussion-- opinions, bits and pieces, angry expressions, and learning from others' ideas. We're not going to have all the answers. Not by a long shot.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Thanks for weighing in, mike_c

I appreciate your sentiment but would point to some of the discussions above. I responded to two of them where the 'failure' was defined and discussed. Neither of these were terribly broad in scope.

I think, actually, that being globally dissatisfied without looking at details is why we get to the hardened positions in which we all so often find ourselves. It seems far more productive to think in smaller chunks. "I dislike her view on farm subsidies because ...... and would rather she did ..... " is far more productive thinking than "I hate all her domestic programs".

You said: "As citizens, our job is to discuss these matters and develop our understanding of them. That requires incremental discussion-- opinions, bits and pieces, angry expressions, and learning from others' ideas."

To that, I say, "Amen!"

All too many of (the collective) our discussions start with hardened absolutes. What my wording of the OP was intended to accomplish is to force people to think (and think an issue through) before posting. A remarkable number of posters do that consistently. Many of the loudest and most impatient, however, do not.

[slipslidingaway]

28. Excellent post...

:toast:

[OzarkDem]

95. But it also requires a change in course

when the leaders our party elected in Congress are incapable of doing an effective job, particularly when our country is in crisis.

These are the times when we need the best leaders we can possibly come up with, those who are willing to put principle ahead of politics, act on their convictions and set a course to help our country recover.

Reid and Pelosi haven't even come close. As I've said before, they're the "B" team, the Dems who learned how to hang on and survive during GOP control of Congress. They're not leaders, they're survivors.

[mike_c]

124. EXCELLENT point....

:thumbs up:

[AndyA]

7. I think Pelosi committed her biggest mistake by announcing that

impeachment was off the table. At that point, she was not the Speaker, the Dems had not won Congress, the GOP was still in charge. So how could she possibly know that impeachable offenses hadn't been committed?

She couldn't.

She should have never made that statement. It is her duty to oversee the Executive Branch, and if high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, she must take appropriate action. Announcing that impeachment is off the table before she was in a position to possibly know that is inappropriate.

Her slide in the polls is evidence she has not performed her job well. I had high hopes for her, but she has by and large been a let down.

[depakid]

13. Tipping her hand was just plain stupid

No matter what her intentions.

Allowing the far right to slip in an amendment on the fairness doctrine- and then allowing so many Dems to side with the corporate media (seemingly without fear of discipline) also shows me that she's a weak leader.

Ask yourself, "what would Sam Rayburn or Lyndon Johnson have done under similar circumstances?"

[Giant Robot]

46. Lyndon Johnson?

Have someone assassinated I think.

[depakid]

49. Point being more like "riding herd"

on the bunch of cowardly cats that inhabit the party and enable (and vote with) the far right with impunity.

[OzarkDem]

97. Not only that

The underlying problem Pelosi and Reid both have is fear of being criticized for their actions. It has severely limited their ability to lead.

If, as many of us here and elsewhere recommended, they had developed a new strategy for developing an agenda and selling it to the American public, they would have had the strength and courage to lead effectively, to not worry about having to make ridiculous remarks about impeachment for fear of the right wing noise machine.

They made a very conscious choice to stick to their old, failed way of doing things and it has cost them dearly.

[endarkenment]

8. The table needs a setting for impeachment

and the house should have refused to pass the escalation funding for the occupation forces in Iraq.

[Virginia Dare]

16. Cheney needs to go first...

then we can talk Bush impeachment.

[endarkenment]

22. I did not specify either.

Nor did Pelosi. I'd be happy with impeachment of Gonzales for lying his ass off to congress.

[Virginia Dare]

80. Don't give up the ghost just yet...

we may yet see one or more of these scenarios.

[GreenTea]

10. After reading this in todays WaHoPo I have much more respect for Pelosi-Some fucking democrats

like the fucker from Michigan Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) obviously swayed by big money from Detroit car manufactures...to name just one....Trying to fuck with and lowering MY states emission standards...Fuck him!!!

In February, only a month after becoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi settled weeks of threats from Rep. John D. Dingell, her blustery Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, by putting in writing her assent to one of his big demands -- Pelosi's new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming would not infringe on his power to write legislation as he saw fit.

Four months later, Dingell (D-Mich.) appeared in the speaker's conference room to walk through a bill that would override California's attempts to combat global warming by raising fuel efficiency standards, strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases and promote a controversial effort to turn coal into liquid fuel.

This time, Pelosi was in no mood to mollify Dingell. The bill he was sponsoring, she said, was unacceptable. The environmental costs would be too severe, the political costs for the Democratic caucus too high, she said.

The two episodes with Dingell illustrate Pelosi's evolution from a somewhat tentative political figure reliant on a small circle of advisers to the undisputed leader of the House's fractious Democratic majority.

"Nancy now represents the majority of this caucus, overwhelmingly," said Barney Frank (Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

But if Pelosi has succeeded in uniting her party during her initial months as speaker, she and the rest of the leadership have yet to convince the nation that the Democrats can govern.

Pelosi, of California, has succeeded in getting all of her opening agenda through the House. But few of the initiatives have made it to the president, and only one has become law: an increase in the minimum wage.

The obstacle has been the Senate, where Democrats hold only a one-seat advantage. But that failure has colored all of Congress, including Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership.

The new Democratic Congress took office in January with a 43 percent approval rating. Since then, its rating has sunk to about the same low levels as President Bush's, a bit below 30 percent. And Pelosi's own approval ratings have slipped, from 48 percent in a March poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to 36 percent last month in a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. Over the same time frame, her disapproval ratings climbed from 22 percent to 39 percent.

As the first speaker since Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to have to manage a new majority after a switch in party rule, Pelosi came in with an ambitious 100-hour agenda and some challenges that would quickly strain the Democratic caucus: finishing all of the government's domestic budget plans left undone by the Republicans, enacting an ethics program unpopular with many lawmakers and, most important, funding a war most Democrats oppose.

Pelosi faced an inherent conflict -- unite a Democratic majority or fulfill her promises to run a more transparent and bipartisan House. In her first six months, she has chosen the former, not without a price.

Combative Republicans repeatedly tried to use her initial openness against her. They tried to force a vote to end the District's gun ban as a price for giving the city a vote in the House and attempted to make Democrats vote on a GOP resolution declaring that the House would always fund the troops in Iraq, at a time when many liberals wanted to end funding. In both instances, Pelosi pulled the proposals before they were voted on, violating her pledges of bipartisanship but keeping Democratic unity intact.

Now Democratic leaders worry that they must get some of the domestic agenda passed soon, to show voters they can govern, even as they are still dogged by a creative Republican resistance that has bedeviled Pelosi and her party.

* * *

After the 2006 elections swept the Republicans from power, Pelosi stood as a historic figure, the highest-ranking elected woman in the nation's history. But she had no obvious models on which to build her speakership.

The last time a Democrat took the gavel from a Republican speaker was 1955, when Sam Rayburn (Tex.) resumed a speakership he had relinquished only two years before. The most recent Democratic speakers -- Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill (Mass.), Jim Wright (Tex.) and Thomas S. Foley (Wash.) -- reigned over a Democratic caucus that had grown complacent after decades in power. Those speakers passively allowed their powerful committee chairmen to set the legislative agenda.

Pelosi's situation made her most like Gingrich, another politically minded insurgent who assumed control after years in the minority. Like Gingrich, she rose not through the committee structure but by playing in the rougher world of politics.

Pelosi wanted to maintain the Republicans' much more centralized power structure but recognized that old bulls such as Dingell, David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who had served as committee chairmen before the GOP swept to power, would have to be respected.

"There is a necessity for a unity of voice and purpose in the Democratic Party . . . and the only way you're going to do that was to have a central management to create consensus, not simply individual, discrete committee agendas," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

But as the face of that central power, Pelosi, who declined an interview request for this article, lacked Gingrich's flair for public appearances and off-the-cuff prognostication. Her sex made her extraordinary, but it was also something of a liability, leading her to be constantly underestimated, said Steve Elmendorf, who was chief of staff to Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) when he was House minority leader.

"We would have these private meetings when she was leader where she was decisive, focused, even dismissive of people at times," Frank said. "I'd say to her, I'd beg her, 'Please, Nancy, be this person in public.' "

But to some Democrats, her biggest liability was the tight circle of confidants -- tough-minded fellow Bay Area liberals such as Reps. George Miller, Anna G. Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren; tart-tongued Reps. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.); and gruff Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) -- that allies worried would insulate her from public opinion and the rest of the caucus.

Even before she received the gavel, those fears appeared to be confirmed when she disastrously backed Murtha's challenge to Hoyer for majority leader. She saw the Iraq war as the defining issue of the time and extolled Murtha as the man to end it, but he was trounced.

"That was a defining moment for her," said Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-Md.), whose political roots are entangled with Pelosi's in Baltimore, where she grew up. "It made her stronger, because she understood then that she really had to widen her circle."

* * *

Once she assumed the speakership, Pelosi took on a frenetic schedule. She met with Democratic leaders formally three times a week but often informally two to three times daily, and held sessions with chairmen, freshmen and other lawmakers.

There is a downside to the pace. She tends to micromanage, frustrating staff members with her unwillingness to delegate tasks, and she jealously guards her schedule.

Still, an instinct for compromise and consultation got Pelosi through a series of initial tests that could have blown up publicly but instead passed quietly. After Murtha's defeat in November, his close ally Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) said lawmakers who had promised their votes to Murtha but delivered them to Hoyer were not to be trusted and should be unmasked. Brendan Daly, Pelosi's communications director, got wind that Moran would be on PBS's "NewsHour" and quickly called Moran's staff to command that he not go on the show and that he stop the threats.

Just weeks later, Pelosi pushed aside Jane Harman (Calif.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, then skipped over Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), an African American and an impeached federal judge who was next in line, to name Sylvestre Reyes (Tex.) as chairman of the powerful Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The move was expected to cause an uproar, not only with the Congressional Black Caucus but also with the "Blue Dog" Democrats -- conservative and moderate lawmakers who backed Harman. It did not, however, because she has provided other key assignments to assuage those left out.

The next challenge came as House Democratic leaders tried to force a turn in the Iraq war through a spending bill, only to have Pelosi sideswiped by the man she had entrusted to end the war -- Murtha.

Senior Democrats had been huddling with different factions of the caucus, trying to reach a strong consensus before going public with a bill. Without telling Pelosi, Murtha laid out the bill's strategy on a liberal Web site, MoveCongress.org. The legislation called for such stringent readiness standards for deploying combat forces that the president's planned troop increase would be strangled by red tape.

Pelosi learned of Murtha's remarks from reporters. At that point, authority over the war-funding bill very publicly shifted to the House Appropriations Committee and Obey, its chairman, who was conspicuously not a member of her inner circle.

"Murtha said, 'I had my plans.' He couldn't get them done, so Obey took over," said a senior House Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to discuss internal deliberations.

By the time Pelosi met with the chairmen last month to finalize the House's energy bill, her grasp on the levers of power was nearly complete. It was at this meeting that she shut down Dingell's proposals as harmful to the environment, and thus to her caucus. According to participants, she virtually manhandled Dingell, the House's longest-serving member and, at age 81, still an imposing figure.

Dingell grew angry, but he directed his rage not at Pelosi but at Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who had tried to cool him down. If Emanuel wanted to get involved in energy policy, he should try to get on the committee, Dingell snapped.

Emanuel was happy to take the heat.

"I was never part of and still am not part of that Miller/Eshoo/Lofgren/Murtha circle," Emanuel said, "and I would consider myself a true Pelosi loyalist."

To be sure, the inner circle remains powerful, particularly Miller. His longtime chief of staff, John Lawrence, is now Pelosi's chief of staff. Another veteran Miller aide, Dan Beard, is the House's new chief administrative officer, responsible for everything from broken BlackBerrys to the Capitol's decrepit power plant.

But even Pelosi's closest confidants say their influence has been diluted by the demands of the speakership. Eshoo grew wistful as she spoke recently of her "pal" Pelosi.

"I went to a conference during Memorial Day," she recalled. "And I told George Miller, 'You know, I miss Nancy.' "

[JuniperLea]

11. IMHO, these are people who...

Tap their foot impatiently whilst waiting for the microwave to finish heating their lunches.

Sure, Pelosi could have gone in with both barrels blasting, and I'm sure that would have satisfied a lot of people around here. But I'll betcha dimes to donuts that it would have been a huge fiasco.

I'm hoping and holding faith that she is merely building this crescendo... and the best is yet to come.

Putting impeachment on the table right out of the gate would have caused great retribution. I still think we should continue encouraging this action, no question, but dissing Pelosi won't help anything.

[ananda]

12. I'm not a basher..

.. but I am seriously grieved, angered, and disappointed by
the lack of leadership responsive to the will of the people
in both the House and the Senate.

I do understand that this country is now run by corporations
and those friendly to business interests at the expense of
people.. and that these moneyed and corporate interests
own or cow almost all of our supposedly elected reps.

However, the ongoing egregious criminal and treasonous
and unconstitutional behavior of Bushinc has been tolerated
far too long, and nothing will stop it unless strong and brave
leaders start taking real action now.

Sue

[BlooInBloo]

15. Biggest non-issue EVER....

Either Sheehan will win, or she will lose. If she loses, then everything continues as it has. If she wins, then we swap out one strong progressive for another, and Sheehan will learn first-hand exactly how difficult it is to get an impeachment going, and everything continues as it has.

(One difference that it will make, I suppose: if Sheehan wins, she'll of course fail to get an impeachment going, and then DUers will turn on HER for not being able to master forces beyond her control.)

[Virginia Dare]

21. Good analysis...n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Yeah, the people who think that even with a "spoiler,"

SF is going to send a Pug to Congress, are quite mistaken.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. This was really more about Pelosi .....

Sheehan's a whole other story. She's simply the catalyst du jour for blasting Pelosi.

But your point, in view of several current threads, is appropriate.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Actually if Sheehan even stood a chance it would present serious problems nationally

The most powerful Democrat in the country facing a serious challenge from the left isn't something that Democrats want the national media reporting on in 2008 when they are trying to get as many left of center votes as possible. IMO, Cindy won't get very far so it's not a problem.

[NoPasaran]

34. Of course, "if" Sheehan wins she won't have much luck getting impeachment going

Since it will be a moot point by January, 2009.

Unless she plans to impeach Hillary.
:hide:

[BlooInBloo]

41. heh-indeedy.

[Malikshah]

50. Wrong. The reason why it is important to me is that it brings the issue

to the forefront.
"If she loses, then everything continues as it has." No. If Sheehan does run, it will give her a platform to hammer home the fact that Pelosi is unwilling to risk her position. It will bring the issue front and center.

I'd much rather have "impeachment" floating in the air than enabling Beltway speak (you know, the "discourage" leadership wagging their self-made impotent fingers at the regime)

[BlooInBloo]

75. Her position is at risk every single day, via a leadership challenge....

.... and every two years via primary and general elections. There's no issue about being "unwilling to risk her position". It's at risk every single day, whether she wills it or no.

[Malikshah]

127. Really-- you mean career politicians wet themselves every night

because they fear primaries and elections... That lil red herring won't help.

Pelosi needs to be called on it. Until she does right by the country, she needs to be held accountable for enabling the continuation of More Of The Same (MOTS) Conventional Wisdom (CW) in other words, her inaction borders on complicity. The same holds true for any other politician who does not call for impeachment.

When a crime occurs and the police see it and do not act-- are the police held accountable?

[knowledgeispwr]

82. Progressive??

I'm not sure Sheehan's "progressive" Is someone who's against a federal income tax progressive???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1284850

[EFerrari]

18. First, you have to understand how painful it is to be unable

to support someone who you have worked for every time and who you wanted so very much to succeed as Speaker. That may be an emotional thing, but, there it is.

My main critique of Nancy is that she fights in BushCo terms when BushCo is polling in the 20s. She may think she is being prudent. I see it as not pressing an advantage.

That, and the fact that she is not representing the needs and wishes of this district.

I hope I didn't use any hyperbole.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Nope .... ya didn't use even a hint of hyperbole!

(Sorry ... my use of an exclamation point *might* have been, though.)

I share that same concern about her. But not just her. It is sort of an epidemic in the Democratic Party.

I have to say it, but in my view, or best strategic thinking pit bulls all seem to be in the DLC wing of the party. I wish that were not the fact, but it sure seems to be the case.

[EFerrari]

40. It's not personal to Nancy, that's for sure. n/t

[dkofos]

19. She is failing to uphold the Constitution, and is not representing the people in her district.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Sorry .... ya gotta be more specific.

Failure to "Uphold the Constitution" is pretty global a concept and borders on hyperbole. How, specifically, has she failed to uphold it?

In what way is she 'not representing' the people of her district? Have you polled them? Is she 100% in opposition to their somehow monolithic view of something? Be more specific and maybe we can talk about it.

[dkofos]

74. ASD/FLK/NAsdf/K;JHAEV. il a./EFJvb suk

[Stinky The Clown]

96. *snort*

[MadHound]

23. That's an easy one.

Same thing that I've been saying all along, hold up any and all supplemental war funding bills in committee, defund the war and force the troops to come home. Easy, simple, and doesn't require Bushboy's signature.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. That's a good one!

Discussing it would be a debate on strategy and that's a fair debate to have.

The people opposed to this line of thinking tend to lead off with something along the lines of "the right wing would say we're not supporting the troops ......" or "the American people are against this ....."

Both arguments are, in my view, kinda wussy. So they're gunna speak bad about her? Hahahahaha. WHO CARES????? Stand for Something and Hold your Head High and Chin Out.

[MadHound]

86. Thanks for the link

Yeah, but the RW would be wrong, at least when it comes to the will of the American people. A large majority of people think that the best way to support the troops right now is to bring them home. And more people actually favor defunding the war than are against it:shrug:

I would say that it is past time that the Congress actually did their jobs, listened to their constituents and end this war now.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Bushboy funds the war through discretionary pentagon spending

And says that to run the war on a limited budget, they can only afford to feed the troops one meal per day and that they can only afford to give them one round of ammunition for their M-16's per day and that the Democrats are starving our troops and taking the bullets out of their guns.

At that point it's a question of whether enough Democrats join the Republicans to force the bill out of committee (which there is a procedure for) or do enough Republicans join the Democrats to pass the bill with a veto-proof majority. Whoever loses this battle gets blamed for starving the troops and taking the bullets out of their guns. Since the GOP only needs 218 to get a majority to pull the bill out of committee and the Democrats need 290 for a veto proof majority, the Republicans have a huge numbers advantage right off the bat. Add to that the Republicans have more party loyalty than Democrats. Pelosi would have a damn near impossible time keeping enough Democrats in

[MadHound]

89. Umm, sorry, things don't work like that

A large part, if not most of the Pentagon budget is already earmarked for special projects. And frankly, the threat of Bush feeding the troops one meal a day is absurd, even he knows that to do so would mean that the troops couldn't fight. Sorry, but these ridiculous flights of fancy wherein Bush starts flogging the troops and upending government entirely in order to prosecute his war are becoming outrageous. If Bush actually did any of the actions you mentioned, hell, the Republicans would beat the Dems to introducing articles of impeachment. Crippling our troops in the field in the way that you describe would put a massive monkey wrench in the corporate quest for Iraqui oil, and Corporate America would throw Bush out if that were the case.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. I've seen an OMB analysis that there is enough discretionary spending to fund the war

I'll have to find a link to it.

And my scenario was a bit of an exaggeration. My point is that Bush will say that he's funding the troops on a limited budget and they can't get what they need until Congress gives him more money.

[Virginia Dare]

83. Not so easy and not so simple..

but obviously we disagree on that point.

[Swamp Rat]

25. Geaux Nancy!!!

Put impeachment back on the table!!! :kick:

[LoZoccolo]

26. Her approach favors attention-getting over effectiveness.

From getting arrested to disrupting a press conference to threatening the Speaker of the House, she has always chosen the more sensationalist, and in my opinion less compelling, path to trying to stop the war. I can't see how what she's done has brought many people from supporting the war to wanting to stop it.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I would agree to some extent. But there was one time when she was effective as hell

The original Camp Casey protest was damned compelling stuff. She will likely never hit that height again.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Yup, Bush's approval ratings were simultaneously plummeting that summer

And I think that Cindy helped the country focus on how terribly the war was going.

[LoZoccolo]

43. This is how little sleep I got; I thought this was a Cindy Sheehan thread.

Five-day weekend.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. Uh ...... are you in the right thread?

That was a great answer.

But what was the question?

This thread is about Nancy Pelosi. The OP **intentionally** avoided Ms. Sheehan.

[LoZoccolo]

52. No, I'm sorry.

I think I got like two hours of sleep last night.

[LoZoccolo]

54. I respect your avoidance of that topic too, by the way.

I'm gonna hit alert on my response because I too think it's a good idea to keep that out of here, so the mods can delete it.

[rudy23]

31. Now if we DO impeach, the RW noise machine has clip after clip of Pelosi promising that impeachment

was off the table.

So now, all of our subpoenas are empty threats--because the ultimate punishment for not complying is "off the table". Now we have to overcome not only Bushco's stonewalling, but the perception that Pelosi lied when she said impeachment is off the table.

The Pelosi lie would overshadow the impeachment hearings, in the media's hands. The would vilify Pelosi for lying about impeachment, and let * off scot free.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. I'm not sure I agree with your assessments or one of your words .....

Bush would not get let off scot free if he got impeached. This ain't no blowjob. The **media** might downplay his guilt, but the people KNOW.

As to calling 'off the table' a 'lie', that's awfully strong. I saw it as the same as a Republic Senator referring to a Democratic Senator as 'my good friend' ....... it may or may not be true but it surely is not intended to do harm.

[rudy23]

61. Do you think Bush cares what the people think of him now?

So what if the people KNOW? How does it physically affect him?

So yeah, he won't be "scot" free in that sense--but he'll get away with this for his purposes.

Did Bush Sr. get off "scot free" from his role in Iran Contra? The people know he was guilty, but has he suffered any real consequences from it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. I agree with Rudy --

"Off the table" is her "No new taxes". If she puts it back on the table the discussion will be about HER, not about impeachment. No matter what's happening in congress, in the media it will be about bad Democratic leadership and duplicity.

[onenote]

84. impeachment isn't ...and never was...going to happen without repub support

Why is this so hard to understand? THere are more than enough blue dog and other moderate/conservative Democrats to block a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to commence an impeaachment inquiry. And they will block it so long as they don't have the cover of repubs supporting it as well. Do I like this? No. But its reality. Plain and simple reality. There have been two impeachment inquiries in my lifetime: Nixon and Clinton. And both were commenced with bi-partisan support. Nixon, overwhelmingly, with a 410-4 vote just to start the Judiciary Committee process. And Clinton, while much more partisan, still had 31 Democrats support the commencement of the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. With that "recent" history, impeachment is and will stay "off the table" until some repubs are forced by constituent pressure or their consciences to stand up and say that they support the effort.

[Red Zelda]

35. Is nancy your mom?

[Stinky The Clown]

58. No

My Mom is in Heaven now.

[Double T]

36. Pelosi and Reid are responsible for the 110th Do Nothing Congress..........

1) Caving in to bushco on the supplemental 'war' appropriations bill. Nancy should have held her ground till
bush was forced to make compromises and concessions. Nancy blinked first.
2) Two attempts at shoving the corporate immigration and illegal alien amnesty bill down America's throat
using underhanded rethug style tactics. The Democrats are as 'corporate' as the rethugs.
3) Taking impeachment off the table, THEN leaving it off the table. Nancy should put impeachment back on the table
and get moving on the impeachment of dick, first.
4) Speaker Pelosi controls the House when Congress has slumped to a lower approval rating than bushco. This
does not say much for her leadership or message.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. How Dare You Ask Them To Think. Thinking Hurts. Didn'tcha Know?

[Nikki Stone1]

55. From the WaPo article upthread, it sounds like Reid is the larger problem

If the Senate were more reliable--and may I say FUCK Joe LIEberman again--the Dems in the house could have gotten more through. Then it would be up to Junior to veto everything. Because of the weak Reid and Joe Shitterman, even the best of House Speakers would have a rough time under these circumstances.

[autorank]

59. Your motives are clean, imho. Good question.

1) I'm not surprised by the approval falling to 29% but I think it needs to be addressed. That's the approval of Congressional Democrats from June to the present.

Approval of Congress 27% (we're in charge) 6.26.07 CBS Poll

Approval of Democrats in Congress

"The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War. "

2) I'd like this clarified. If not true, fine. If true, game over, new leadership.

http://tinyurl.com/2lmdck

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Cut the funding.

Bring the troops home.

[nolabels]

63. I matey, walk the plank

The truth being she will do what she has to when she gets forced. My guess is she will resign from seating herself at that chair when that force does come. There are things they know that they are unwilling to tell the rest of us, and probably for good reason (at least in their eyes). Misery loves company and stirring the pot only will make it worse :shrug:





Btw, it's all okay with me, i like shakeups :P

[5X]

64. Sorry, I wasn't elected, nor did I run, therefore I am not required to have all the answers. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

68. You also weren't requirted to post here ......

..... but you did ..... :hi:

[LWolf]

69. First, I would have had her decline the speakership

in favor of someone who cleanly, strongly, clearly, and unrelentingly opposes the Bush administration. :shrug:

In the absence of that stellar act of public service, I would have her:

BE the "impeachment" hawk. Don't take it off the table.

Refuse to fund the war.

I could go on. Every action I would have her take has the same fundamental goal:

Be a bulldog in opposition. Do not relent, do not let go, do not "keep your powder dry."

Don't think you have the votes? Then get out there and fight for them.

[nolabels]

77. They did not have that much of a majority and a few blue dogs would be.......

all that was needed to turn over the apple cart. The Dems may have a lot things and issues needing to be taken care of but with the blue dogs and many other lobbyist holding things hostage not much was ever going to get done at any rate. I would like those impeachment hearings to start and take place but it looks like * will be needing to throw a couple more logs on the fire before it gets to burnin properly. I have faith in * to do this if nothing else. Them leopards are not able to change their spots and * looks like winning bet also. I have never misunderestimated him and feel this is no time to start :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

70. Speak? Debate? Tell the truth? Communicate?

Practice some form of representative government? Be something other than a smug princess?

[slipslidingaway]

73. Removing the Iran clause and NOT removing the draft Iraq Oil

Law benchmark in the supplemental bill.


PDA and Allies Ask Pelosi & Reid to Leave Iraq Its Oil

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-05-18-18-31-38-news.php

May 18, 2007

"PDA is one of 24 signers of a letter sent today to House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, urging them to cease pushing a controversial oil law on the Iraqi government (opposed by many Iraqi unions and groups) that would open Iraq's oil fields to multinational corporations."




Tacit Approval To Let The Decider Decide On Iran

Friday, March 16, 2007

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/tacit-approval-to-let-decider-decide-on.html

[Strawman]

76. Maybe she should pursue impeachment BECAUSE it won't work

The people should see the failures of their political system and understand why they can't remove a President and Vice President that they have no confidence in whatsoever. They should see who stands for the principles of representative government and who stands for dictatorship.

I have no confidence whatsoever that impeachment would succeed in removing Bush or Cheney because I have no confidence in the commitment to principles of democratic representative government among Senate Republicans. But it might provoke a crisis in confidence in our system of government that is probably overdue. If the House chose to impeach and made the ironclad case for it that is literally as plain as day, and the Senate failed to convict and remove Bush/Cheney, perhaps people might ask: what the hell do we need a Senate for anyway? Why is it that every piece of legislation that challenges the powerful and empowers the people seems to die in the Senate? Why is it that people who cared about republican government at the founding of this nation expressed so much concern about the elitism of the Senate?

Pelosi and the leadership start from a premise of bad faith in their fellow citizens as defenders of democracy. They believe that nobody will attend to the impeachment, people will buy the corporate media spin that it is nothing more than cynical partisan retribution instead of being persuaded by the case that Bush and Cheney have clearly abused their power and warrant removal. When you start form that premise of bad faith, you've all but conceded that our republican government is a sham and that the principles of representative government are quaint ones.

I'm not a basher of Pelosi. I don't think she should be replaced and I don't think she is the problem. Remove her and nothing will change. The problem is much bigger than her and her evaluation of the prospects for impeachment are certainly rational. It won't work. But I think maybe she could be part of the solution by demonstrating stronger leadership and taking a stand on behalf of principles that I'm certain she believes in just as strongly as I do.

[cureautismnow]

78. Very well stated.

Push the impeachment issue and let the Senate Republicans seal their own fate. Either stand with the majority in defense of the Constitution of the United States or face the voters of 2008 with an indelible stain on their sworn oath to defend the same COTUS. Label these "non-impeachers" as traitors, pure and simple.

[EFerrari]

79. So very well said.

:)

[mudesi]

81. Go on every news channel and threaten impeachment

They don't have the votes. But they can get them if they put impeachment on the table and get the mainstream media to talk about it.

[shadowknows69]

85. Impeachment

Convictable or not it would put people on record so we know who and who not to vote for.

[EFerrari]

87. The process is important, imho. Being able to pursue the process

is evidence that we live in a democratic republic. It's not a stunt, it's a measure of where we are and how we live and what we can expect.

[shadowknows69]

88. It is a constitutional imperative IMO

[EFerrari]

91. And any political party will approach this situation with caution.

That's understandable, right?

But at some point, a stand needs to be taken.

[Disturbed]

101. "Impeachment is off the table" meant Busholini, right?

I am guessing that most believe that is what she meant. If she signs onto the Kucinich Cheney Impeachment Bill that won't make her a flip flopper will it? She needs to do so, forthwith!

[EFerrari]

103. Well, that would be the idea.

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

92. Where to begin?

First, she should have chosen a better team to lead in Congress.

Where is our version of Tom DeLay? Where is the Whip who makes opponents knees tremble with fear?

What good are Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel? The only thing they know how to do is twist arms of Dems and take sides with Republicans.

Where is the comprehensive, strategic communications and media plan?

All of these are things she had complete control over, that could have made a huge difference in Dem's strategic exercise of power.

I'll give you some time to answer those before the next set of questions.

[Stinky The Clown]

99. You posit that as if I've taken a position in her defense.

You also sound as if you wish to pick a fight.

I didn't post in her defense. I posted a challenge.

You took the challenge and failed.

You can give me all the time you wish because I'm not taking your bait.

[EFerrari]

102. This is a challenging moment. Let's be careful with each other.

Not to say, cave in, but let's try our best to think all the way through.

[OzarkDem]

104. Husb 2 Sparkly, I'm your friend

and a big fan. I'm not challenging anything, just pointing out some painful facts we Democrats have to face up to.

These are trying times for our party, not the first and not the last. We're at the point where we need to decide if this leadership problem is one that can be salvaged and repaired or if we need to make radical change in order to move ahead with getting our country back on track.

The GOP is now paused to take back control of Congress with the help of a few conservative Dems.

Dem leaders in Congress are so ineffective and rudderless right now they're in danger of having the GOP take the lead on the legislative agenda. We can't let that happen, because, if they do, they'll steamroll Pelosi and Reid and come up with a phony Iraq withdrawal plan that will end up screwing us over in some way. They'll also put a stop to all investigations of Bush, too.

Pelosi and Reid are on the verge of losing control of Congress. They need as big a wake up call as we can give them.

[onenote]

106. The GOP is "poised' to take back control of Congress?

Link?

We are killing them in fundraising. They are divided and demoralized. The conventional wisdom is that we pick up a number of seats in both the House and Senate.

That's not to say that things can't/won't change between now and nov. 2008. But even with the threats by some here not to vote in Nov 2008, the only party that is poised to get their butts kicked are the repubs.

[OzarkDem]

107. In Congress, now not 2008

Do you trust Lamar Alexander, Judd Gregg and Ken Salazar? I don't. But the GOP coalition in Congress is much stronger than the Dems and it wouldn't be hard for them to pick off the Dem votes they needed for their "alternative plan".

GOP'ers are masters at this game and they control the news media. its all about making it appear you're doing one thing when you're really doing something else. Pelosi and Reid are rank amateurs, they'll get rolled. They're sitting ducks.

Republicans Uniting Around Proposal for 2008 Iraq Withdrawal

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional Republicans, increasingly voicing dissatisfaction with the course of the Iraq war, are beginning to unite around a proposal that may allow for a drawdown of U.S. combat forces by March 2008.

In the Senate, six Republicans are backing legislation introduced by Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee that implements the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

While it doesn't set a deadline for withdrawal, it aims to create conditions that could lead to a redeployment of U.S. troops as early as the first quarter of next year. In the House, 33 Republicans support similar legislation.

``It's obvious today that we need a new strategy,'' Alexander said in an interview today. ``We expect more to join us.''


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a73cTD2DUx2k&refer=us

[onenote]

108. ah, now I see your point

[OzarkDem]

112. Seriously, this worries me

I got a sinking feeling in my gut when I read this the other day.

I don't want to get rid of Pelosi or Reid if its possible to get them to wake the hell up. They are so weak and ineffectual, very vulnerable.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole DLC crowd jump on this bandwagon, along with the doddering fools who still think bipartisanship is healthy with this crowd. Recall, Obey even cussed out Kucinich for revealing that Dems were agreeing to the privatization of Iraqi oil. Hoyer, Obey, Salazar, Lieberman, Emmanuel, the list goes on and on. There are plenty who would be willing to jump on the GOP bandwagon if it meant something got passed.

Its what RFK, Jr. was saying in his speech the other day - there are members of both parties in Congress who are seriously effed up and will go along with anything to say they accomplished something.

[Strawman]

105. Not sure that's fair

How many previous Democratic speakers "manhandled" veteran chairmen like John Dingell? When Gingrich took over and centralized leadership Republicans had been in the minority since the 1950's there were few powerful old guard leaders to contend with. I think she has done a decent job at centralizing power within the leadership.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070801202.html

[OzarkDem]

121. Centralizing power to win in 2008 isn't a plan n/t

[leftofthedial]

93. press for impeachment

press to bring an end-the-illegal-occupation-of-Iraq bill to the floor

and BTW, I call myself a Democrat

[camero]

94. Start impeachment hearings

Whether the votes are there for conviction or not. And yes I am aware of the process. Starting impeachment hearings only requires a simple majority in the House. That means only 213 reps have to vote to start hearings. There are 231 Dems in congress. That means it can be started even with no Republican votes and 18 Dems voting against. And if she can twist arms to get funding for Iraq, she can twist arms to get votes for Impeachment hearings.

[onenote]

110. I doubt that enough arms can be twisted

Pelosi didn't twist arms to get funding for Iraq, she twisted arms to get votes for a timetable to cut off funding. And it wasn't that hard to do, since most Democrats had run campaigns based at least on part on changing our strategy and beginnning the process of getting out of Iraq.

Virtually noone ran a campaign that made impeachment an issue. And, therefore, it would take a lot of armtwisting -- more than is possible, to get a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry. Without the cover of some repubs supporting the inquiry, there are easily more than 18 Democrats who won't support starting an impeachment inquiry at this point in time.

[camero]

113. Then we'll know who the traitors really are now won't we? n/t

[onenote]

116. so you want Pelosi to push for a vote on impeachment that will likely lose

in the House, giving chimpy and his beleagured remaining band of supporters a big boost (because, like it or not, it will be reported that way to the public).

Or we can continue to let public pressure build, to let chimpy make more moves that will turn more of the public off, and either get to impeachment that way, or just kick the living shit out of the repubs in Nov.

[camero]

119. With the polls the way they are now, it's time

Or we can continue to let public pressure build, to let chimpy make more moves that will turn more of the public off, and either get to impeachment that way, or just kick the living shit out of the repubs in Nov.

Hearings would do all that and more as more evidence comes out with the impeachment hearings. I think what she is really afraid of is that Dems will be seen as just as complicit in the events of the last several years as the Repubs. If there's no crime, why fear the information being put out there?

[onenote]

122. we can and should be doing hearings...don't need to refer to impeachment

We absolutely can and should be conducting hearings ... moreso than we are now. But there not only is no need to hold those hearings under the banner of an impeachment inquiry, doing so would be a mistake. To get to impeachment,we need a modicum of bipartisan support. The Nixon inquiry started with bi-partisan support and even the Clinton inquiry had 31 Democrats voting for (including Kucinich, btw).

By all means hearings. But there is no need to first vote to start an impeachment inquiry before you have those hearings.

[MasonJar]

98. It is not Pelosi or Reid; it is we, the people. We must demand impeachment!

We must speak out non-stop until it occurs.

[EFerrari]

100. Exactly. And some of our gestures will be awkward and some

will just go against party politics.

Can we please just try to stay together? We can get so much more done that way.

:grouphug:

[katsy]

109. "Impeachment is off the table"

That one statement suggests that regardless where all these investigations lead, even if impeachable offenses are apparent to all, the Democratic Congress will not impeach. Crimes be damned, rule of law be damned, the constitution be damned - no one will be held responsible. To say the votes aren't there to impeach is besides the fact. The American people deserve the truth and if impeachment proceedings lay out the facts for the American people, that in itself could heal this country.

Why bother holding these hearings, all of these televised proceedings. A free pass has been issued to this administration for not only past crimes, but for future crimes. So move on already and stop wasting taxpayer money on shrill hearings that lead nowhere.

That being said... my support of Speaker Pelosi is based upon her congressional record. Yes, I support her even if I disagree with what is, IMO, an extremely irresponsible and irrational statement.

I also understand and empathize fully with Cindy's actions. I went ballistic when Speaker Pelosi said impeachment is off the table, so I can only imagine how Cindy feels after losing her son in, what is for all intents and purposes, a criminal war of aggression. The lies. The manipulation. The profiteering.

It's like trying to break up a fight between my 2 kids. Usually there's a bit of truth in both explanations of why the fight occured. Taking sides on my part is not the answer. Negotiating a satisfactory end to hostilities is the best I can hope for.

Cindy and Nancy are both in need of some adult input (supervision). Maybe they need to engage in some dialogue, privately, and stop this ridiculous turn of events.

I won't trash either Cindy or Speaker Pelosi. Neither deserves it.

This whole country has been in uncharted territory since bushco stole the white house. I expect even good people to sometimes act irrationally. We've been torn in pieces and are even at one another's throats.

[GaYellowDawg]

111. Put her name on McDermott's bill.

That's all. I don't expect her to win all the battles. I just expect her to fight them.

[walldude]

117. That's it in a nutshell isn't it

They are afraid to fight. Or they'll pick up their pitchforks, wooden stakes and torches and wave them around then go back to their(our) house without killing a single vampire.

[redqueen]

114. She should not have said impeachment is off the table.

She should never have declared that there was no chance that bush and cheney were safe from ever having to face congress for their NUMEROUS high crimes & misdemeanors.

She had absolutely no business doing that, but I realize that she may have had to say it before becoming leader so that the right powermongers' ass could be well-kissed.

But now she has no excuse for not taking that statement back. None at all.

[bvar22]

115. I am a Pelosi critic, and I accept the challenge.

I USED to be a huge Pelosi fan and savored the fact that SHE was going to be Speaker of the House.
I really tried to remain supportive, but her stands (or lack of) on The ISSUES have forced me to reconsider my support.

"Taking Impeachment Off the Table"
Initially, I thought she was being very smart. The "Speaker" should not lead a movement for impeachment. The call should come from the people. Well, the People are calling. Nancy is not answering. Each day that passes brings more clarity that the Democratic Party leadership is more than happy to let Bush run out the clock. Bush and his criminals will be allowed to escape.


Ethics Reform
This was the kingpost of her campaign. She promised to "change the way Congress does business"! :woohoo:

The package that passed with her approval is toothless and affects less than 5% of lobbyists' activities. She has sent K Strret a message....The Democratic party is OPEN FOR BUSINESS!!!
Nothing has changed. The Lobbyists have gotten the message, and so has the American electorate.



The Secret "Free Trade" Deal with Bush
THIS is the straw that broke MY back. I felt the betrayal in my GUT on this issue.
Pelosi & Rangel (Chairman Ways & Means) secretly negotiated an extension to NAFTA behind the backs of the Democratic Caucus. The Democratic Caucus was not even allowed to read the agreement, nor was any input allowed from Organized Labor or Environmental Groups.


Capitulation on Continued Funding for the Illegal Occupation
The Democratic Party now OWNS a piece of the Iraq War. I have heard some twisted rationalizations that try to skirt that issue, but the fact is:
The Democratic Party has sanctioned the killing of more Iraqis by authorizing this funding.
This was not a compromise. This was a complete capitulation.

Moral issues aside (you know the killing and stuff), this was just plain BAD BAD negotiating. The Democratic Party got NOTHING from this deal.



The Sins of Omission
One of the biggest criticisms I have is not about the things Pelosi has done, they are about the things she hasn't done. Pelosi is capable of some FIREY rhetoric. She is the LEADER of the OPPOSITION PARTY...the goddam Speaker of the House!!!!

Where is she?
She could demand face time on EVERY SINGLE NETWORK to speak out against the criminal Bush administration...

Where is she?
She could be leading an actual OPPOSITION MOVEMENT, demanding accountability and giving voice to OUTRAGE on the Libby pardons, scorning congressional subpoenas, Lies, and lack of Transparancy....

Where was she...
.. when the Bush & the Republicans FRAMED the Democratic Party as not supporting the troops when the timelines were vetoed?
Nancy, the SPEAKER of the HOUSE, in righteous OUTRAGE should have demanded time on EVERY network, cable outlet, and print media andf POINTED OUT to the World that it was BUSH who vetoed the funding for the troops.

Where is she?
She should be pointing out the OUTRAGE of bush* demands that Iraq pass an "Iraq Oil Law" giving 70% of the Iraqi Oil to Exxon/Shell/etc.

Where is she?
I fear she has been lying down with the dogs.


Nancy Pelosi has been AWOL as the Leader of the Opposition Party.
Beyond some token appearances and some mild rhetoric, she has not shouldered this mantle of Opposition Leadership.
In fact, the last words she publicly uttered about the war criminal bush* made me sick to my stomach.



You may have your own opinion of Pelosi, but I am very disappointed.
She could have been so much better. :(

[walldude]

118. Ok man, here it is, and I'm not a "hater or basher" just a critic

and not just of Pelosi. This is what I want done. I want every single representative to start thinking, voting, and acting as if more than just their political career is at stake. I want Pelosi to to act with the urgency that comes with having a child over in Iraq getting shot at on a daily basis. I want Nancy and the rest of the Dems who think that impeachment is a waste of TIME to think like they have no time. I want them to imagine that it's their child over there who may come home in a body bag tomorrow. Somehow I imagine that if they had something at stake besides their pride, their political careers, and their fear of being called names by the most inept people in the country, they might have a different perspective on Impeachment.
The broken laws, the constitutional violations, the lost freedoms, can all be fixed,the U.S. can be put back on track, but dead is dead, there's no coming back and no laws can be passed to make it better.

Edit to add this, Maybe we should start making the representatives of each district go to the homes of dead soldiers to report the news to their families, instead of making the services do it. Maybe some firsthand experience of the pain their "more important things to do" mantra is causing will wake them from their stupor.

[Zandor]

123. K & R n/t

[creeksneakers2]

125. The Republicans were making impeachment an issue

in 2006. Apparently the GOP felt impeachment was a winning issue for them. Nancy took the issue away from the GOP. Supporting impeachment would have written off all the voters in the middle who wanted investigations and oversight but not impeachment. Losing the 2006 election would not have gotten Bush impeached. Results are far more important than symbolic gestures.

[Jack Rabbit]

130. The answer is so simple and obvious I'm surprised it needs to be asked

Let's have a discussion about impeachment. Put it on the table.

Please don't tell me there's "no time for that." The Democrats were sent to Washington last November with a mandate to restore accountability and end the war. As long as Bush and Cheney are in power, no part of that can be achieved.

They will not be accountable. They do not believe in accountability. They are the kind of crowned tyrants the American Revolution stood against.

The Congress could refuse to fund the war as of October 1, but the Bush Junta will throw up some smoke screen argument for continuing the war and challenge Congress to "let the courts decide." Even if we had any confidence in the judicial branch after six and a half years of appointing right wing judicial activists to the bench, that would just run out the clock, with more Americans and Iraqis being killed so neoconservatives can make a lame argument in the future that defeat in Iraq is the fault of Bush's successor, not Bush and certainly not them. That isn't foreign policy. That's murder.

There should be investigations, but really, those would be a mere formality. We all know that Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in respect to:

• manipulating intelligence to make a false case for war against Iraq
• Unmasking a covert agent as part of a political vendetta;
• Firing US attorneys for refusing to prosecute bogus voter fraud cases against voters in a Democratic-leaning demographic groups;
• Willfully ignoring a natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, delaying a response to the disaster and bugling what response there was; and
• Willfully disregarding the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture in the treatment of detainees in the war on terror by denying detainees due process of law and subjecting them to torture.

We could add more, but this should be more than sufficient to remove Bush and Cheney from office. To do so not only sends to future would-be tyrant presidents a clear signal about behavior that will not be tolerated, but is a matter of public safety. They must be removed from office before they make further mischief.

NOTE: I started this post at about 4:3- pm PDT yesterday and got mostly through it when my temper mental PC crashed. I was able to recover it with Firefox and have now finished it.