Here's the danger of impeaching under Pelosi, and why her taking it off the table cost us everything

[rudy23]

Now, if we impeach, our media is going to run the clips of Pelosi saying "impeachment is off the table" before the elections--over, and over again ad nauseum.

Then the whole proceedings will be about her, and they'll accuse her of lying as part of a power grab to take the presidency.

THEN they'll try and tie Pelosi's deceit to Hillary's campaign, too. "Is this another female Democrat who will say anything to get into the White House?"


I mean, I'm not saying it should stop us, but I am saying that Pelosi's actions have us hamstrung on this. I'm not into bashing her for the sake of bashing her, but this move, IMO, was terrible, and costs us everything, right down to our toothless subpoenas.

[bryant69]

1. OK I don't buy this

1. They are going to bash Democrats no matter who we put up. And such attacks are going to be nasty and regularly false.

2. Pelosi can get around that by simply saying "I took Impeachment off the table in a spirit of generosity; since then President Bush has rejected this olive branch and continued to flaunt the will of both Congress and the American people. So I'm forced to put it back on the table, by the Presidents continued lawlessness."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[terisan]

2. She will say that the new info about Bush means Congress will have to decide whether to impeach nt

[Buzz Clik]

8. Exactly. No one will care what Pelosi said previously.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Just like no one cared when Bush 1 reneged on "no new taxes".

I think she really screwed up. I think they will try to make it all about her, instead of about the issues. Yet, nonetheless, I still think we should impeach.

But she didn't make it any easier.

[Buzz Clik]

28. As Speaker, it should be all about her.

If the GOP decides to try to somehow claim that Bush she never be impeached because of a comment by Pelosi, then let them try.

Regardless, no one is surprised anymore when a politician is caught lying. In this case, Pelosi merely has to say, "New evidence suggests that my previous pronouncement is no longer valid." The 29%ers will crap themselves, but that's about it.

[Poiuyt]

3. She could always take a vow to not accept the presidency

This, of course, is assume both Bush and Cheney were impeached. If both she and Robert Byrd (the next in line after Pelosi) bot took such a vow, the presidency would then go to Secretary Rice. This might make impeachment more palatable to Republicans.

[rooney]

4. I think we all know that the repubs will

bash, swiftboat, and lie about whatever they can on the dems. It might as well be Pelosi and her statement as whatever else they drag up. IMO

[saltpoint]

5. Nancy Pelosi has been my representative in the past and may again

be in the future.

I hold her very high in many regards.

I see no reason to paint her in a negative light. She's been Speaker of the House for half a year and were a ballot for her re-election presented to me this afternoon, she'd have my enthusiastic and respectful support.

I stand for Ms. Pelosi all the way.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Excellent comments!

[mzmolly]

20. Hey OC

Long time no see! :hi:

[saltpoint]

22. mzmolly! The pleasure is mine. A true treat to bump into

you here on DU.

I hope all's well your way.

I'm busy blowing up blue balloons. We have many exciting, qualified Democrats at all levels of the ballot all over the country, and I'm looking forward to them dissembling the Republican Party in Nov. 08.

Hiya right back and good wishes.

[AndyA]

6. There has been a lot of sh!t come up out of the Bushco sewer since

Pelosi made those remarks.

Yes, she was out of line when she said them.

And yes, the Constitution does place demands on Congress. One of them is oversight of the Executive Branch. And if said oversight uncovers high crimes, well, Congress knows what it must do.

Pelosi didn't make the rules, she just has to follow them.

That's simple enough for any Republican to understand, even at their low level on the food chain.

[Orrex]

7. That's all true, but it *should be* irrelevant

Pelosi et al didn't swear an oath to protect the Democratic party, its slim majority in Congress, or its chances at the Whitehouse. The first duty of the Congress should be to support and defend the Constitution. All other considerations are secondary.

For the Dems to assert otherwise, through whatever equivocation they can muster, is to claim that a crime is acceptable if the cost of prosecuting it it judged to be too great.

[Az]

10. Thats a lame excuse

Its so very easy to put impeachment back on the table by simply observing that George has become unhinged and that the people can no longer trust him.

[nashville_brook]

11. i think the "off the table" thing would give impeachment proceedings MORE gravitas

as in -- "we didn't want to do this, but were forced." which, btw, is only the right and moral thing to do with all that dry powder they've been carrying around for years.

[GOTV]

14. That's exactly how they should play it - IF they play it at all that is n/t

[VP505]

12. As it was

once said "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead!" There is absolutely NO reason NOT to inpeach Cheney first and then Bu$h, all the arguments against IMO have been weak rhetoric. Pelosi can recuse herself if necessary but somehow Impeachment has to be back on the table. That doesn't mean to say it has to be done immediately, but she (Pelosi) has to make it clear that impeachment proceedings are ON the table and will be used at the appreciate time.

[GOTV]

13. The media doesn't need an excuse to bash Dems - the bashing would come whatever Pelosi says....

... so don't sweat it. Just prepare for bashing in any case.

[VP505]

17. Xactly

the media and especially the RePukes will blame and bad mouth the Dem's NO MATTER WHAT, we know that, so there is no real point in using that as a reason not act to STOP the Bu$h criminals cabal.

[nashville_brook]

27. yeah! what ever happened to "leadership?" haven't we had enough "perception management?"

for that matter -- the argument that we wouldn't want to impeach b/c that would lead to a never-ending cycle of impeachment is completely offensive. enough with the triangulation. can we please so something for "the right reasons" for once?

just once?

[GOTV]

34. I think good "perception management" by the GOP is what has made them so successful...

... over the past couple of decades. Doing the "right" thing (as they view it) regardless of public perception is usually how they screw up: such as the Clinton impeachment and Terry Schiavo.

[mmonk]

15. It's her problem. She'll have to correct it

if she decides to do the right thing.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Then quite frankly, there should be movement to remove Pelosi as speaker and replace

her with someone who didn't say that Impeachment was off the table. Win, win situation.

If you saw someone murdering a person on the street and you knew who the murderer was, and you had evidence that would convict that person, would you let them go scot free? Crimes have been committed and the perpetrators of those crimes have to be brought to justice. To ignore your duty, when sworn to uphold the Constitution would be aiding and abetting the criminals.

[VP505]

18. That's up to House Dem's

to decide who they want as their Speaker, personally I think for the most part she (Pelosi) is doing a good job, she just isn't going far enough but that's something that can be worked out.

[GOTV]

21. Not a good idea due to Pelosi's other skillz - also your analogy is poor....

.... the error is the phrase "and you had evidence that would convict that person" we don't yet have a case that can be expected to result in conviction. That's the major delay. Since we don't HAVE to start proceedings we can afford to beef up our case so that we CAN get a conviction.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. We have a case for conviction right now. Shrub admitted to breaking the law

in regard to the NASA wiretapping.

[GOTV]

31. Not good enough I'm afraid. We don't have the Senators behind us in sufficient numbers...

... and thus no reasonable chance for conviction.

I hope you understand that there is no circumstance that legally compels a Senator to convict. It's entirely up to each Senator's discretion. So you can never credibly say "The president did such and such therefore the Senate must convict".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. I don't care if there aren't enough Senators for conviction. It is important to Democracy and the

Democrats that all the ugly truths come out in open hearing. See how quickly the people will then support their Republican Senators for supporting a criminal.

Justice has to be served.

[GOTV]

35. Then our goals are simply different. I want to be successful in serving justice ....

... and I won't be happy with an acquittal in the Senate and so I advocate against actions that can reasonably be expected to bring that acquittal.

[mzmolly]

19. Bologna, she always said "lets see where the evidence takes us?"

:hi:

[sandnsea]

24. Change Minds, Change Votes

That's why the focus needs to be on the facts of their crimes instead of on Nancy Pelosi. We don't want the next year to be a partisan battle. We want it to be an annhilation of Republican ideology.

[porphyrian]

26. Nah, horseshit. And she should say horseshit if anyone accuses her of it.

It's time to stop making excuses and do the right thing. Doing the right thing doesn't need to be defended.

[BattyDem]

29. As far as I'm concerned ...

Pelosi didn't have the right to say "impeachment is off the table." It was never her decision to make - it was ours, through our elected representatives in Congress. How could she say that BEFORE any hearings took place? It's as if she was saying, "It doesn't matter what they did - they're not going to be impeached." Last week, she said that they aren't worth impeaching! WTF?!? Shouldn't WE be the ones to decide if it is worth it or not?

The MSM never has any problem coming up with excuses to bash the Dems, so that shouldn't even be a factor in the decision. If they're not being bashed about this issue, they will certainly be bashed about another. If we start backing down because of what the media might say, then it's already over. Democracy cannot survive if the people and the opposition party allow the media to intimidate them into silence and/or compliance.

[VP505]

30. I think

your right it is NOT her decision to make, that's one of the reasons we have the mess we have, we, all of us have allowed the Washington reps to do whatever they want and now they think that's the way it should be. We really need to get back to Government being afraid of the people and not the other way around.

[BattyDem]

32. You're right - that's a huge part of the problem.

They don't listen to us anymore. They don't take us seriously. It's probably because we don't have the "big bucks" to fund their campaigns. :-(

edited: typo :blush: