Would Palin be such a threat if impeachment had been left on the table?

[RainDog]

If the U.S. were now involved in impeachement hearings and going through the process of gathering information for criminal trials, would Palin's nomination have been such a perceived game changer?

I think it would have had much less impact because the trials would provide the counterpoint to all the surface glitter repukes toss out for Americans. If, each night on their news, Americans heard about the hearings just before or after they heard anything about Palin, a little reality might still be part of the republican campaign.

once again, thanks Nancy. This point is so obvious to me that it makes me want to vomit.

[Cleita]

1. I believe you are right because things aren't being taken care of as they should

be, like impeachment, the crooks feel it's okay for them to shovel out more of the same that they have been doing for the last eight years.

[RainDog]

2. exactly

and the democrats refusal to make the issue of Bush's tenure front and center leaves all sorts of time for bullshit attacks from the right.

[Bob Dobbs]

3. Exactly.

The power elite has been running amok with impunity since 1963.

When will the cowardly American people stand up to their oppressors?

[RainDog]

4. hey, the democratic base WANTED impeachment hearings

but the beltway democrats wouldn't listen.

in fact, the democratic elite constantly ignore the base because we have no other valid outlet to change policy (i.e. a vote for a Green candidate is a wasted vote - or actually works in the Repuke's favor.)

I don't think I can take this shit anymore. If Obama doesn't win, I give up on this nation.

[RainDog]

5. *crickets chirp*

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. If we had impeachment procedings, McCain wouldn't have needed Palin to put him in the lead.

He'd have had the election sewn up already, and could have picked a running mate more to his liking.

[RainDog]

8. really?

because..... hearings which point out malfeasance are good for republicans?

or because accepting lies from Bush, et al makes it possible for them to continue the same bullshit?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Because Democrats wasting time on inevitably-doomed gesture politics is good for Republicans.

Impeachment might well help the Democrats (although "bipartisan" is a word voters tend to like; trying to impeach Clinton cost the Republicans in 2008, although not enough to change the result).

Impeachment procedings which everyone would know have no chance of succeeding and are just an empty gesture - which is the only option the Democrats have - would help the Republicans.

[riverdeep]

10. "Everyone would know"

See, that's the part I have problems with. A serious inquiry and hearings, with full commitment from the Speakers of the House and Senate, would have produced God knows what 'game changing' scenarios during disclosure. The timing would have had to have happened last year, though, preferably in the summer. There's way too many hypotheticals going on to bring Palin into this, she'd probably still be collecting wolf legs in Moosejaw.

Anyway, Pelosi was stupid as hell to lay it out she wasn't going to impeach. Even if you have no real intention, don't say it!

[RainDog]

11. and I love the crystal-balling

since repukes control the media, the way to get coverage that overcomes that is via criminal charges. it's not simply to get coverage, of course, because, constitutionally, it's also the right thing to do.

if democrats don't care about upholding the constitution either, why are they in office?

[RainDog]

12. impeaching for a blow job and impeaching for murdering 1000s of American soldiers

are two vastly different things.

it isn't an empty gesture to have republicans on record voting against impeaching someone who is guilty of war crimes.

At least not to me and not to history.

At least then Americans would hear some of the charges and issues. as it stands the media is complicit in covering up these crimes.

Congress has a LOWER approval rating than Bush, after they won congress because Americans were so disgusted with Bush. Why do they have this lower rating? because they refused to hold Bush et all accountable.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. You only have one vote, history doesn't get any, and is notoriously hard to preempt.

"Not impeaching" has made Pelosi very unpopular with people who don't understand that it's not her or the Democrat's decision.

Initiating impeachment procedings would have been far worse, however.

[kenfrequed]

17. Your idealism is stunning.

Not all impeachments are a repeat of the Clinton impeachment of 1998.

A better analogy would be the FAILURE to impeach Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra. That worked out beautifully for the democrats, didnt it? I mean we won like gangbusters in 1984 and 1986 oh yeah and 1988? And didn't we succesfully roll back the unconstitutional usurpations of the executive.

Or how about the PR war? NOT impeaching Reagan allowed the American people to go on hating Reagan for what he did to the economy didn't it? I mean it's not like there are millions of caterwalling conservatives all chanting out what a great president he is? Are there?

I'm sorry but this moderate, third way, DLC, get-along kind of nonsense with regards to ignoring Bush's illegalities is nonsense.

[PeaceNikki]

13. I agree.

[The Stranger]

14. If we lose this election, blame Traitor Pelosi for not firing when she had them in her sights.

She tried to play it safe and scared -- and lost yet again.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. No; if we win, thank Pelosi for resisting the pressure to commit political suicide.

NT

[The Stranger]

20. To call using political leverage (and in this case the most powerful leverage there is) "political

suicide" could be considered laughable -- if only it rose to such a level.

The fact is that Pelosi refuses even to consider it, forfeiting the best political leverage almost any Speaker of the House has had in history.

And, to eviscerate your position further, to use this leverage, she doesn't even have to hold hearings, all she has to do is consider it (or hint at it or issue a statement with an implicit threat hidden within it), but she has stabbed her party, her constituency, her fellow Democrats, and her nation in the back instead.

And fucking no one explain why, except that she is somehow complicit in the whole fiasco.

[kenfrequed]

23. Complete agreement!

IF they had held out the possibility and considered it then it would have allowed the public to move on the issue more and more. He was the most unpopular president in history after all. It also would have allowed Dems to dominate the news cycle with the horrors of the Bush administration which would have hurt them worse than a hundred keith olberm(men)!

And yes also to the legislative shuffle. The obstructionist Republicans SUCCEDED in making Democrats look like 'do-nothings' by staging the most fillibusters of any congress in US history. Given that, what the hell did we have to lose, and what might we have accomplished with the threat of impeachment?

[Joanne98]

7. NO! Thanks Nancy!

[Senator]

18. Had Pelosi Been The Strong Leader, Palin Would Look Pathetic

The simple comparison alone would likely have meant they'd never had chosen Palin.

But it's still not too late for Nancy Nosee. She could stop http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/pelosi-impeach.html">shrieking "Don't Tell Me!!" at those real Americans who simply and rightfully question her actions.

She could put American values back on the table today.

And the euphemedia would be forced to stop talking about what the bushies want to talk about and start talking about what they fear will be talked about.

She might even finally help http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/16">reunite our once-great nation.

Or she can continue to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15web-hulse.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin">peddle her little book: "Know Your Impotence."

---

[leftofthedial]

19. the entire nutjob right would be less of a threat

had the "democrats" shown an ounce of dedication to justice and to the Constitution.

[robcon]

21. Just the opposite.

If impeachment hearings were going on right now, the McPalin ticket would be way ahead in the polls. There is nothing more deadly than a failed impeachment attempt. See: Bill Clinton's 62% approval after his failed trial.

Pelosi has the right strategy.

[intheflow]

22. Not in the least.

The CM wouldn't even be able to pretend there was any support for the GOP if the GOP was going through impeachment investigations. Thanks, Pelosi! :thumbsdown: