Pelosi is demanded to pull a rabbit out of a hat

[Skip Intro]

or fucking else.

Yeah, Cindy Sheehan would have a lot more success at pulling out the troops, ending the bullshit war, ridding the world of bush/cheney and the gang.

And unicorns and kittens will save sunshine and rainbows.


There is a political reality, folks, and Pelosi laying her soul upon the table of impeachment will have little effect if the votes aren't there. And right now, they're not.

And Cindy won't make them be.

We barely won control of the houses, especially the Senate.


Political reality is political reality. Like it or not.

[Mythsaje]

1. Not taking a firm stand

and saying that "it's off the table" before it was ever even ON the table is plain political cowardice. And verbally kissing Bush's ass is SERIOUSLY questionable by any standard.

[Skip Intro]

6. please tell me how she verbally kissed bush's ass

[Mythsaje]

7. Oh, you haven't read the quote

saying something about him being a "decent man from a beautiful family" or some such crap? I've seen it a dozen times HERE.

[pnwmom]

63. That quote sounds like "damning with faint praise" to me.

And I think she fully intended it. "Decent man" is hardly a plaudit in most people's eyes -- it's a bare minimum.

I recognize, of course, that Bush in no way meets that standard. But when have you ever heard a U.S. politician (not a hate-spewer like Coulter) call another politician "evil"?

[Phredicles]

85. Not a decent man - a "LOVELY man". "Nice" and "courageous", too.

Excuse me, but NICE people don't start wars.

What I'm sick of is the "can't win, don't try, shut up and enjoy the fascism" lectures we get from the self-appointed "realists" on this board.

I don't expect Speaker Pelosi to work miracles. I DO expect her to fucking TRY and defend the constitution. Anything less is a craven dereliction of duty, tantamount to admitting Caesar Disgustus has a right to do what he does.

[creeksneakers2]

23. I keep hearing that statement

and the people making it forget that the GOP pushed the issue of impeachment because they wanted to wedge off people in the middle who wanted oversight and investigations but not impeachment. The Republicans knew the impeachment issue world work for THEM. Pelosi was smart to take the issue away from Republicans. Impeachment wasn't in the cards anyway. It sure wouldn't have been in the cards if Democrats lost the election.

Everybody who doesn't see it your way isn't a coward.

I don't know what you mean by kissing Bush's ass. I read a polite statement about Bush that was quoted here. People in Washington treat each other with respect, other than Dick Cheney, who gives people the finger.

[Mythsaje]

37. Sorry, but where I come from you don't treat lying, murdering scum with respect.

Or, at least, you don't SUCK UP to them. That wasn't respect, that was sucking up.

[assclown_bush]

71. You must not be from Washington D.C. then...it is politically expedient to negotiate...

even with your foes. A lot of good it would do us if our elected representatives held grudges and went around spitting in the face of a sitting president (even the Coward from Crawford's ugly mug). Civility demands respect, if not for the person then for the office.

[John Q. Citizen]

81. Yes, unless your foe has oil. Then you can murder them. Or if your foe is named Kennedy, you

can murder them. Or if your foe is black, you can put them in jail in masse or just muder them.

Oh, you mean how elites treat each other. Well sure. But they are all on the same side.

[assclown_bush]

88. I don't understand the nature of your reply?

Who is murdering whom in(sic) masse? Who are the "elites" you are writing about? What side are "they" on?

Seriously, I don't get it.:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

97. The funny thing is, some people never get it.

[CreekDog]

133. We don't get it, because you speak in code or hyperbole

[Phredicles]

86. What expedience? What has this respectfulness gotten us?

Has it even gotten us similar respect in return? As in, say, heeding our calls to testify? Looks like it's gotten squat so far.

[assclown_bush]

92. It has not been that long since we gained control of congress...

things may not be moving at the speed you desire, but they are moving nevertheless.

[roguevalley]

34. you push the bill every day until the opposition caves. you twist

arms and necks until you have the votes. that is how the viet nam war ended and that is how these fuckers are gotten rid of. you push and push because its right. steny hoyer wants it. perhaps we should concentrate on giving him support that he can shove in pelosi's face.

[wtmusic]

2. That's one way to look at it

Another is that if Pelosi had an ounce of leadership she would go out and get the votes.

Ain't even trying.

[Dinger]

5. Love Your McKinney Avi : )

I miss her:(

[zulchzulu]

10. Have any documented links that Pelosi isn't trying to get the votes?

Should she use a firearm to change the minds of other members of Congress?

Voodoo dolls?

Vulcan death grips?

Hits of Owlsley's fave sugar cube mix?

Hypnotism?

Gitmo waterboarding workouts?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

26. You mean prove a negative?

Have any documented links she isn't not trying to get the votes? :crazy:

She really doesn't need to use any of those desperate measures -- just a little commitment and a little truth. The American people might even stand behind her. We'll never know, 'cause she'll never take the chance.

[ronnykmarshall]

48. How about a good ol' trout slap?

That's what Nancy should try!

Oh wait that might get the PETA folks upset.

[Phredicles]

87. Have you any evidence that she IS trying to get them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. How about just talking about it?

What a novel concept!

She took it off the table and she shut Conyers down too. Time to start talking about it, Madame Speaker.

[CreekDog]

140. Talk about what was done wrong

Let the people conclude and demand impeachment.

If enough people lead on it, it will happen.

If it becomes the agenda of one political party or political ideology, it will fail, no matter how worthy.

[WCGreen]

29. From where....

The people weren't interested...

[CreekDog]

94. wtmusic your post is as uninformed as your icon was

[beaconess]

113. How do you know?

None of us have any idea what kinds of behind-the-scenes maneuvering she may be doing. Just because YOU don't see it or know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Nancy Pelosi is one of the best arm-twisters around - she wasn't Minority Whip for nothing.

[wtmusic]

123. Yeah that "off the table" bit was just some shrewd arm-twisting

Kiss his butt and threaten to never impeach! She's a friggin' genius... :puke:

[beaconess]

147. Why don't YOU run for Congress and then make your way up to Speaker of House?

And then you could show her (and the rest of us) how it should be done.

[wtmusic]

149. I wouldn't want to embarrass her

"If you think YOU could run the country, why don't you run for President and show George Bush how it's done!"

See the problem with that argument?

[oldtime dfl_er]

3. You know what?

For my money, Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to go forward with impeachment. But she does have to use the "I" word in a positive, rather than negative ("off the table") sense. Yes, reality is reality, but words have power - especially in the political arena - and I just think she has to be tougher, much much tougher, take that almost threatening tone, instead of what many perceive to be a conciliatory, compromising tone. I fear she isn't tapping into or understanding the true undercurrent of outrage and anger that her constituency and the country are feeling.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/3266072

[creeksneakers2]

24. If Nancy mentions impeachment in a favorable way

Impeachment will be all the media talks about for the next year.

[MrSlayer]

4. How dare you be so rational!?!

The last thing we need around here is to be slapped with reality.

[pocoloco]

8. Is that where the "impeachment off the table" deal came from?

Whose hat? I wonder?

[zulchzulu]

9. It took 3 years of legislation to finally shut the Vietnam War down

(From an archived post)

The main point I want to make is that it didn't just happen overnight. It took more than six months, which is the same timeframe that the new 2006 Democratic-controlled House and Senate currently are at. Votes were needed to make veto-proof legislation to finally shut the funding for the war down.

There was a combination of Congressional legislation (such as the veto-proof Case-Church Amendment in 1973) to cut off funding as well as other factors (like the Paris Peace Accords) and the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the North.

There were a few incremental Congressional pieces of legislation that helped turn off the spigot on the Vietnam war:

McGovern-Hatfield Amendment - 1970
http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgovern-hatfield-amendment

Cooper-Church Amendment - 1970
http://www.answers.com/topic/cooper-church-amendment

Repeal of Tonkin Gulf Resolution - 1971
http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-of-tonkin-resolutionbr%20/

Case-Church Amendment - 1973
http://www.answers.com/topic/case-church-amendment

War Powers Resolution - 1973
http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-resolution

If you study the legislation, you can see that it was a hard fight with much friction even though the war was even more unpopular that the current Occupation. As mentioned, there were other factors as well, but Congress played a very strong role and needed to get votes on both sides of the aisle to get the job done.

[Skip Intro]

11. but I want overnight results and stuff - why won't Pelosi give us that????nt

[zulchzulu]

13. Give me back the Remote...

Laws....take...votes...

It's this thing called the democratic process. Weird, I know.

It takes over 5 minutes to cook. You don't just add water, wave a wand or close your eyes and click your heels...

[SledDriver]

20. She moved very quickly to take impeachment off the table...

You could say it was practically done "overnight".

[assclown_bush]

72. Instant satisfaction or else!!!

I find it silly to demand representatives to do things instantly. These things take time.

I really enjoyed reading your thread, Skip Intro...good job.

kick and recommend

[Phredicles]

90. Funny - the "realists" are saying, We can't produce impeachment immediately,

so let's not even try. I don't see where those of us who are pro-impeachment are the ones talking IMMEDIATE results - it's only the ones opposed talking about that.

[Amonester]

12. Good point, but... there was no INTERNET...

Besides, (almost) everything goes faster these days.

And many things go an awful lot faster that they did then.

Communications, for example. Fax machines. Etc.

Angry constituents R getting mad faster too...

[zulchzulu]

15. So you think the Internet is more efficient than the goold old phone call?

Actually there was the Internet then...it was called ARPA net (United States Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency)...

People talk the same speed now as they did in the 1970's. Really...

[slampoet]

22. I can send an email to 300 people at once.

Sorry but BS on that speed of communication.


Absolute BS.


Yield the point instead of making up stuff.

[wtmusic]

27. Holy cow! 300 people?

And I bet all the recipients sit down with a cup of coffee and read 'em, too! :rofl:

[slampoet]

67. Just like they get out of their chair to take EVERY phone call?

[zulchzulu]

44. You could call 300 people on a phone in 1972 in a couple hours

I would bet the phone call would be more effective than an email, that may just get thrown into a spam-filtered folder. You could send an email to someone that goes into limbo and/or some intern's forwarded email address where they send you an autoresponder.

[ronnykmarshall]

50. Even with one of these beauties!

[slampoet]

65. In 1972 nobody had answering machines. They also worked 9-5, mostly.

it would take you a couple of days to call 300 people unless you called them at work and even then there is no guarantee they (or someone who can take a message) would be at the phone.


Fact is between cell phone being at our reach and messaging of various sorts communication is faster.

You can argue about better.

But phone calls also are patched through faster today that when my aunt worked for Ma Bell back in 1972.

[zulchzulu]

73. There were answering machines AND mobile phones in 1972

People did communicate before the Internet was online as the World Wide Web in 1994. Really...they did. And it was all done just as efficiently if not more, due to the fact that it wasn't so easy. Mimeograph machines were around, telephones were around.

This "argument" is going nowhere. To say you can just email blast a thousand people in a few seconds doesn't mean that people care or that people will do anything about it. Relying on the Internet to get people mobilized is not as effective as taking it to the streets. It's more media ready to have a march than to have a email blast.

[LittleClarkie]

51. And you don't think that your elected officials can spot astroturf form letters a mile away?

The good old phone call is still more effective, as they know they are speaking to a human being who took the time to contact them individually.

[Amonester]

46. How many people had... ummm... access to ARPA?? 10,000,000?

Sorry but, when Gang-Of-Perverts' Rs R "notified" of perhaps tens of thousands "incoming" email messages from their Registered constituents, with "Subject" lines full of HUGH!!11!! "SCREAMS", maybe they tend to get a little... ummmm... "nervous" about their own... ummm... "future" in Congress (or, rather, their own... ummmmm... "future" OUT... of Congress?).

No matter how many of these R just "deleted" and flushed out of the email servers... (today).

ARPA... What... How many people had ARPA terminals in their mom's basement? :crazy:

[slampoet]

66. 10 million? Try more like 40 thousand, at best with colleges counted too.

[CitizenLeft]

16. thank you...

...for that fact sheet. It was badly needed.

[ProudDad]

62. Actually, it took Watergate

and nixon's resignation to finally put the final stake in that dirty little war...

[CreekDog]

95. Man, you're letting facts get in your way

[jgraz]

14. Shit, you could hand Pelosi a hat with a rabbit in it

And she'd still say she needed a veto-proof majority to pull it out.

[CreekDog]

96. Jgraz: because it's the truth

She does need a veto proof margin to end the war.

[SledDriver]

17. It's not about Cindy actually winning...

It's about Cindy taking enough votes away from the *-enabling Pelosi to perhaps cost her the race. Pelosi has done more for the Rs thus far than the Ds anyway. What's the difference?

GO CINDY!

[NoPasaran]

40. All Cindy is going to do is make herself look foolish

Err, foolisher.

[SledDriver]

47. Cindy has done more for the anti-war movement than Pelosi has.

n/t

[CreekDog]

98. Nancy was rounding up votes against the war in 2002

What was Cindy Sheehan doing in 2002 to stop the war?

Another freaking uninformed post.

[SledDriver]

109. Good for her!

So what happened then?

Another freaking blueberry kool-aid drinker.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. So Sheehan thinks putting a Republican in that seat

will help her cause? If so, she's an idiot.

[Telly Savalas]

83. Last time around the Republican won 12% of the votes in Pelosi's district

The only idiots are the ones who think that Sheehan could really be a spoiler in the race.

[CoffeeCat]

18. I guess many are sick of war-enablers...

I'm sickened, disgusted and saddened by what BushCo has done to this country.

Like many others, I would like to see the level of outrage that I have---reflected
in my elected representatives.

No one is saying that Pelosi should end the war tomorrow, or that she can singlehandedly
stop the war. But...DAMMIT!!!! Where is the outrage?!? Where is the leadership and
the concerted effort to end this damn thing???

We all know this is a war based on lies. We shouldn't even be over there!
Besides killing our soldiers and countless innocent Iraqis--our nation is being
robbed and the country's domestic agenda is practically nonexistent.

What is happening with this war in unAmerican! It's sick! It's the work of Fascist, PNAC,
powermongering assholes who do not care about this country. The US government is merely
an apparatus from which they launch their sick, twisted plan for world domination.

We have the right, as US citizens--to expect that the Speaker of the House---who rode into the
Speakership on a tidal-wave of anti-war sentiment---spends a great deal of time trying to
end this abhorrent war---by giving speeches, calling meetings, planning strategies, developing
campaigns, going on the road and listening to the American people, galvanizing the Democrats---
and speaking out against this pResident!

I've seen some of this from her, but not nearly enough! There's no excuse for it!

Forget about pulling rabbits out of hats. I'd be happy if she did the job she was elected
to do--and that her efforts reflected the wishes and the passion that most Democrats have
against this insane war.

[creeksneakers2]

25. I think you aren't seeing the effort

If you check the news tonight you'll see that the Bush White House is panicking because their support for the war is crumbling. Insiders are leaking stories about splits in the White House itself about whether to continue the war as it is. Defense Secretary Gates says flat out we are running out of troops and will need to draw down soon.

Looks to me like the Democrats are making great progress. They've done everything but cut off funding for the troops.

Repeated talking points tend to rewrite history. Nancy Pelosi or the Democrats never made a Contract With America type promise of getting us out of Iraq immediately. The Dems were mostly mixed between immediate withdrawal and a phased withdrawal. Democrats are still going after the phased withdrawal, as the immediate version doesn't have enough votes. Democrats have lived up to everything they've promised to do.

The combination of immediate and phased made up the tidal wave. Immediate didn't then, and probably doesn't now bring a majority.

[IndianaGreen]

31. "They've done everything but cut off funding for the troops."

Defunding the war has nothing to do with the troops, other that it will save their lives.

It was a Congress that defunded the Vietnam War. If it hadn't been for that, you would have over 100,000 names on the Vietnam Wall.

The problem with the Vichy Democrats is that they always buy the GOP meme on all the issues.

Perhaps it is because they support the war and the war's goals, as much as Bush does. Perhaps that is why their darling candidate Hillary Clinton only speaks of the "mismanagement" of the war, rather than the war itself.

[creeksneakers2]

55. You are wrong

Congress didn't cut off combat funds for Vietnam until after the troops were home and a peace treaty was signed.

Democrats don't support the war as much as Bush does.

Hillary has complained about more than mismanagement of the war. Hillary recently voted against extending funding for the war, which you started out saying was a great idea.

[Layla_Z]

19. I agree

As much as I would like to see Bush impeached I think it would be a big waste of time and political capital to attempt it. The democrats in congress have enough to do without taking on this issue.

[ellisonz]

42. Welcome to DU!

:donut:

:hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

21. Ultimatums are so dumb. They do nothing to promote anyone's case.

They cause you more harm.

People need to learn how the government works. It is made up of so many different people who represent different areas of the country. You have to work and spend alot of time to bring enough of them together.
It is a matter of cooperating. Too many people like to stomp their foot and hold their breath and demand it right this minute. Real life does not work that way in the world of grown ups.

[sampsonblk]

43. I call bullshit

That tactic has worked great for Bush, who is barely at 30% approval.

'If you send me any benchmarks or any deadlines, I will veto it.' Remember that? And the next thing you know, the guy gets exactly what he originally asked for. No concessions, no compromises.

And honestly, I think Republicans are laughing at your thought process. This is why they keep beating us up and taking our lunch money.

[whopis01]

70. running for office is just politcs as well

Saying that you are going to run for office against the incumbent if they do not take the action that you want them to is hardly an ultimatum. That is simply the basis for American politics.

[AZBlue]

78. But what is the point here? Bush will be out of office by the time Sheehan has any chance of being

in office.

[whopis01]

125. The point is simply this:

If your elected representatives are not working in a way that you agree with, you can ignore it, support another candidate, or run for office yourself.

It is not just about the impeachment. It is about having someone in office who you feel represents you.

[AZBlue]

134. So...not pulling a miracle out of your *ss and getting impeachment through despite not having the

votes or ability too = not representing you?

:crazy:

[whopis01]

144. I would not say that for myself, however

some may hold that view.

Actually, I believe that Sheehan only said that Pelosi should introduce articles of impeachment against Bush, similar to what Kucinich has already done in regards to Cheney or what Cynthia McKinney did against Bush, Cheney, and Rice (albeit it in a rather weak gesture as she was headed out the door).

:crazy: back at you

[beaconess]

114. Exactly! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

28. Here is a political reality: It was the impeachment hearings that changed public opinion on Nixon

Most Americans did not want Nixon impeached. It was the House impeachment hearings that changed public opinion on Nixon, so much so that even some Republicans voted to pass Articles of Impeachment.

H Res 333 deals with the impeachment of Cheney, a man more unpopular than Bush and the Democratic Congress.

Pelosi must give the green light to impeachment of Cheney!

Enough of the DLC ideology of appeasement and "keep the powder dry" crap that has turned the Democratic Party into an accomplice of Bush's wars and crimes.

Published on Sunday, July 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

An Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

by John Atcheson

Madam Speaker:

It is time to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.

We all know the case for doing so: the litany of this administration’s offenses is long and tragic, the damage they have wrought to our nation and the principles it was founded upon profound.

And yet many of us understood - even if we did not agree - when you said “impeachment is off the table.” Your case was credible, if not persuasive. The proceedings would have been disruptive, making progress in other areas difficult, and the fact that three of the last six presidents would have been impeached by the opposition party could have damaged the presidency and sank this nation into a permanent partisan war. It could have fed the notion that impeachment proceedings were simply another political maneuver to be used by partisans to cripple their opponents, much as partisan Republicans did with Clinton. And with two years remaining, this did seem a high price to pay for getting rid of George Bush and his partners in crime. Taking the high road had a certain nobility, even if it didn’t satisfy a hunger for justice many of us felt.

But now - with scarcely eighteen months left - you have no choice but to impeach Bush and Cheney regardless of the cost, because it has become increasingly clear that the very foundations of this nation have been assaulted as never before in our history, and to let that record stand would be an act of cowardice on your part and a dangerous precedent to future presidents.

<snip>

The careful system of checks and balances, so carefully constructed in our Constitution, and so jealously guarded by elected officials throughout our history has been eviscerated by signing statements, secrecy, and lies. The de facto dictatorship of the executive has been enshrined in the theory of the “unitary executive.”

This has all been done under cover of a never-ending “war” which this President and Vice-president lied the country into. Indeed, to this day, they cannot articulate a real reason for embarking on this war. The President has proffered no less than twenty-two separate justifications for it, and none has survived scrutiny. Iraq has become the ultimate - and ultimately tragic - tautology: we are there because we are there. But now, as the clarifying lens of history brings this catastrophe into sharper focus, the full cynicism and criminality of this administration’s Iraq policy is emerging: we are there because of oil interests, and the political clout a war president can wield.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/08/2381/

[onenote]

39. Here's historical reality: the vote to start the Nixon impeachment inquiry was 410-4

That's the vote that authorized the hearings in the Judiciary Committee. (The vote to authorize the Senate Select Committee on Watergate's hearings, which were not "impeachment" hearings but were simply investigatory hearings, and which occurred a year earlier) was 77-0.

If you think the vote to start a chimpy impeachment inquiry tomorrow that the votes will reflect that level of bi-partisanship you are operating in your own private reality.

Before you throw around your version of "political reality" you might crack open a history book.

[beaconess]

115. You've got your history wrong

It wasn't impeachment hearings that turned people against Nixon. It was the Watergate hearings held in 1973 - conducted by the Senate Select Committee, chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin - that developed the evidence that began to turn people against Nixon and laid the groundwork for the impeachment process. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Peter Rodino, didn't start impeachment hearings until February 1974, AFTER the Watergate hearings had revealed significant wrongdoing.

And then, as now, the far left screamed and yelled for impeachment long before the foundation had been properly laid - they threatened and whined and complained that the Democrats were caving in.

[CreekDog]

132. Thank you for that informative info

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. For a Senate convction, more than a dozen REPUBLICAN votes are needed

For that to happen, the public and the media would have to be calling overwhelmingly to put an end to a prolonged constitutional crisis with impeachment.

The constitutional crisis may have just begun a week ago with hush-clmency for Libby. All the Sunday talk-show media panel guests but Van Den Heuvel (The Nation) parroted Republican talking points.

Yes to an impeachment vote in the House, but only when the time is right. Many Congressional hearings on Treasongate, US-Attorneygate, and the other WH scandals, plus the appointment of special investigators, has to come first. A premature impeachment vote that falls short could backfire and sweep Fred Thompson into the WH as Dubya's successor, on charges that the Democrats simply have criminalized politics.

[CreekDog]

99. Actually 18 Republicans need to support impeachment

Joe Lieberman won't vote for it and Tim Johnson cannot vote for it.

Thus 51 caucus with Democrats - 2 Senators = 49 + 18 Republicans = 67 to remove Bush from office.

[knowledgeispwr]

32. Now don't you go making sense!

We can't have that here!

:sarcasm:

[PBass]

33. It's not Nancy Pelosi's decision to go forward/not go forward.

It's not an issue of leadership, it's an issue of public demand now. The motivation needs to come from the bottom, up. Not from the top, down.

There's a good post at Daily Kos that talks about how the House Judiciary committee might be the correct route to pursue. I don't know if it's kosher to post a link to Kos (?)

Bottom line, keep calling your Reps in Congress. Tell everyone you know to call their Reps, and ask them to co-sponsor or support the House Resolution for impeachment that Dennis Kucinich wrote.

Keep calling and emailing, and you'll keep the issue alive in your Rep's office. Call or email Nancy Pelosi too, just don't expect her to take the lead on impeachment, because that's not her role. She has to see serious support from the House members, first.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. What public demand?

I've seen three recent polls on impeachment, that place support at 39%, 45% and 51%.

I imagine the 45% number is about right. That's not a public demand.

[proud2BlibKansan]

126. There was no demand for it in 1998 either

In fact the numbers were much lower and Clinton's approval ratings were sky high.

[Imagevision]

35. Pelosi will wait for Hillary to be elected to end the war, while she decorates he new plane...

[PBass]

36. Nice zinger, just go ahead and parrot the right wing spin like a good robot (NT)

[ronnykmarshall]

49. No shit.

This place is getting for like Freeperville every day.

[cassiepriam]

38. She can at least act like a representative of the people and do the right thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. She is representing the people

most Americans don't want impechment.

[cassiepriam]

75. She was elected by Democrats. She needs to listen to her party.

[NoPasaran]

111. I'm a Democrat

And I think Speaker Pelosi is doing a great job.

[beaconess]

116. She was elected by the House Democrats - the vast majority of whom don't want impeachment

[cassiepriam]

76. I know this is a concept, but how about Nancy doing to right thing?

[sendero]

41. I agree that ...

... we have not gotten to the point where impeachment is a viable option.

But WHY, WHY WHY EVER, EVER, EVER take it "off the table"? Explain the great strategy behind that to me if you can.

I'll tell you one thing for sure, if the roles were reversed Rove/Bush would be THREATENING IMPEACHMENT whether they had any realistic intention of trying it or not. And THAT is PART AND PARCEL of why they continue to run ROUGHSHOD over the country and why the DEMS are so effing useless at doing anything about it.

Is Sheehan going to ride in on a white horse and fix everything? Of effing course not. That is not the point, and YOU are the one who doesn't get it.

[jmp]

45. "The votes aren't there!"

Wash, rinse, repeat. Works equally well on all types of issues.

[Magrittes Pipe]

52. Your sanity and reason will find no purchase here.

Recommended, nonetheless. :thumbsup:

[Hawkowl]

53. Good cop -- Good cop

Stupid, spineless dem leadership needs to try a different approach other than appeasement and the Reid-Pelosi, good cop/ good cop, tag team approach. Trying to outdo each other in seeing who can be most accommodating to the criminal-in-chief. I'm ASHAMED to call myself a democrat anymore. Liberals are TOUGH! Liberals are tenacious! Liberals are law and order people who scream 'DON'T TREAD ON ME!'

Liberals don't whine, wring their hands and hand their future over to fascist criminals out of fear of not being re-elected. I don't know what the hell our congress critter leadership thinks they're doing aside bringing a pillow to a knife fight. IDIOTS. COWARDS.

[0007]

54. I hope that Cindy takes the wind out of her Highness Pelsoi

.....Lieberman would agree with Nancy about taking impeachment off the table, 'eh?

Why should the Democratic party?

[CreekDog]

100. Sheehan can't touch Pelosi

running for congress from Sacramento.

Who will introduce Sheehan to congress, the county agent from Green Acres?

The gentlelady from San Francisco, I mean, Sacramento, well not really from Sacramento, elected from San Francisco, well not really elected from San Francisco, but elected by San Francisco, except from Sacramento. Well, I uh...

[0007]

119. Don't 'ya kind of think everyone knows that? LOL!

[CreekDog]

128. Sadly, no I don't assume people know anything

But San Franciscans will not be electing Cindy Sheehan running as an independent from Sacramento over Nancy Pelosi.

Despite the unfair bad rap Pelosi gets from many liberals in the Bay Area, she still garners 80%+ of the vote in arguably the most liberal district in the state.

Thus, the anti-Pelosi sentiment out there are not as widespread among Democrats as you might be led to believe.

[leftofthedial]

56. INTRODUCE legislation

not PASS legislation

you do see the difference, don't you?

[mzmolly]

60. Rec numero 20. I support Cindy's run if she does so as a Dem

but I understand political reality as well.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

64. I do, too. It's entirely her right.

Though I wouldn't vote for her.

[John Q. Citizen]

80. Of course not silly, you don't live in San Fransisco. You can't vote for her or against her.

[pnwmom]

82. Even if I lived there.

I think someone like her is better at rabble-rousing than at working in Congress.

And I couldn't believe what she was saying about Democrats "starting" all the wars (except Iraq).

[John Q. Citizen]

102. I agree that activism and legislating aren't equivalent skill sets, but are related skill sets.

Tom Hayden made the jump, as did Paul Wellstone, John Kerry and others. I don't believe Cindy is as much interested in being a congress woman as she is in moving Pelosi to put the constitution back on the table, including the impeachment part.


She was specifically refering to the 20th century.

Wilson was a Democrat, and he entered WWI amid much opposition. Roosevelt was a Democrat and he was preparing for entering WWII long before Pearl Harbor. Trumen entered the Korean War. Johnson will forever be identified with the Gulf of Tonklin false flag operation which allowed the public excuse for the massive escaltion of the Vietnam War.

And of Course bush 1 and 11 are associated with Iraq.

So I don't see why anyone should be that surprised or offended by her remarks, except that they were tangental to her greater thesis. It was honest history but not that smoothly delivered.

[pnwmom]

110. Roosevelt did not "start" World War 2.

Preparing for the possibility of involvement in the war was a prudent thing to do, given all the circumstances. But it was not at all the same as starting a war.

[John Q. Citizen]

122. And Hillary said that "Americans are the hardest working people on earth,"

which is such a load of crap as to be completely laughable.

Just goes to show you that people who seem otherwise intelligent sometimes say stuff that is so far out you have to wonder what possesed them to do that.

[CreekDog]

131. Sheehan is getting her talking points by cribbing from Bob Dole's old speeches

Charming.

Let's see how far Sheehan's Democrat wars quips gets her in San Francisco. My guess is that Sheehan has no clue.

Lots of heat, little light.

[CreekDog]

101. Cindy can't vote for or against Cindy

She doesn't live in the 8th district.

Funny you bring that up. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

105. She said Pelosi won't put the constitution, including the impeachment part, back on the

table she will move to San Fransisco and run.

I remember how much flack Hillary took for moving to New York to run for the Senate there. People called her a "carpet bagger."

If Hillary is a "carpet bagger" then I guess Cindy may be one too, if indeed that's how it unfolds. I doubt it would bother her anymore than it bothered Hillary.

Did Hillary's change of address bother you? Didn't me in the slightest. It's obstensibly a free country after all.

[CreekDog]

117. I wasn't crazy about Hillary's move to NY

But at least it was to beat a Republican rather than a Democrat.

And as big a fan of Bill Clinton as I am, I am not a supporter of Hillary.

[John Q. Citizen]

121. Well, taking the constitution off the table make the Democratic party look pretty

bad.

Impeachmenet is in the constitution for a damn good reason.

Pelosi is terrified if this impeachment talk gains steam the the Repos will charge it's all just tit for tat, that it's for revenge about Clinton.

It shows just how weak and Dems feel they are in my opinion. They are so scared of what the Repos might say that everything they do is measuered from that perpestive. It's self defeatism in the extreme.

[CreekDog]

127. Ah, twisting Pelosi's words to make her look bad

As if she means that she doesn't support the constitution.

How FoxNews of you.

Do you find it insufficient to state your disagreement with the Speaker's words and actions, or do you need to make stuff up that she didn't do or say to make her seem worse?

Egads.

[John Q. Citizen]

135. Why would she state that a portion of the consitution is "Off the table." She said it

not me.

Instead of picking on me for what the speaker said, I suggest you call the Speaker and ask her how she can take an article of the consitution off the table?

[CreekDog]

138. She said impeachment is off the table (present tense)

I'm picking on you because you keep saying she said something SHE DID NOT SAY. She did not say the constitution is invalid or didn't apply. But why even bother telling you this? You obviously know what she didn't say, yet you turn her position into a straw man to say that she is against the constitution. That is worthless and slanderous. And you should be ashamed for saying it.

Everyone knows that the position on impeachment can change what with multiple, multifaceted investigations being led by chairmen appointed by her in the House of Representatives. The "talk" of impeachment will not start until the groundwork reveals it to be necessary by first moving the public to the extent that it will likely pass.

It will not likely pass yet. Pelosi is playing this right. She is right to wait for the groundswell to occur. Republicans in 1998 led the impeachment and it failed. The public pushed for it in 1974 after quite a lot of time and evidence was revealed that showed it was necessary. Facing the foregone conclusion of removal, the president resigned.

[John Q. Citizen]

142. If your idea of participatory democracy is leaving everything up to our

elected officials, then we have different definitions.

I'm sorry if you take everything personal, but you should get over it.

Perhaps you should write Sen. Barbara Boxer and tell her to shut up, because the time's not right yet?

A lot of good folks have been pushing for impeachment for a long time. They believe the time was then and is now. Taking impeachment "off the table," was the wrong thing to do, in my opinion, and is the wrong thing to do.

In case you haven't figured it out, removal and impeachment are two seperate things. Impeachment is not predicated on removal. In fact, from a purely political "game" stand point, (as in how do we win the game) impeachment and a failure to remove in the Senate might be far superior to impeachment and removal. I know that's probably beyond your limited "dems good Repos bad" world view, but think about it, ok?

You should put all your faith, trust and money into the Speakers hands. She's probably as close to Jesusbuddhamohammed as you are likely to see in your life time.

If you haven't noticed, the ground swell has the Democratic led congress at 23% approval rating, down from 46% a few months ago. I hope she doesn't play the party right into the ground with her brillent plan that you fanticize she is executing.

I like Nancy Pelosi. I'm glad she's the speaker. But she damn well better put impeachment back on the table, now.

[CreekDog]

143. You are way off base

I'm telling you essentially if you want impeachment on the table and to end the Iraq War, Pelosi is already on your side. Work on the moderate Democrats and Republicans to get them to change their vote --Pelosi is plenty willing to take their vote to either impeach or end the war, but she hasn't been able to change any more votes than have presented themselves already.

And I've never said shut up to you.

I did say that you should quote and represent what our leaders say fairly, which in Pelosi's case you did not do.

And regarding my Senator, Barbara Boxer, I wrote her over two years ago to persuade her to try to impeach Bush. I support impeachment. BUT, because it has not happened or because they don't come out and say it needs to be done now is not a reason to withdraw my support or humiliate representatives that I think do a fantastic job. What my job is to help get other congresspeople that don't currently support it to change their minds.

Pelosi is on our side and on the side of the constitution. How dare you suggest that she is opposed in any way to the constitution. Man, I almost "alerted" you for that crap.

[ProudDad]

61. Ah, just what we needed

another flame bait post about Cindy Sheehan...

For those of you good folks who are tired of this crap, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1282946

Somewhat balanced and semi-sane...

[progressoid]

68. Oh fer god's sake....get it right.

unicorns and kittens save moonbeams and rainbows.

Sheesh :eyes:

[Geek_Girl]

69. It's not about political survival it's about principle and doing what is right

If they don't have the votes, then so what, let it be transparent to the voters what politicians support this sham of an administration, so they can be booted out of the party, ala Lieberman.

Democrats have better start doing what is right and stop worrying about there political hides, otherwise they will loose votes.

[Progressive Friend]

74. Americans Would Impeach Cheney, Split on Bush

Here is the latest poll on impeachment: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16415

54% support impeaching Cheney, only 40% oppose. For Bush it is 45% in favor, 46% in opposition.

[Progressive Friend]

84. more..

As this poll states, the public support for impeaching the criminal Dick Cheney is already here!

[Vidar]

77. More like her head out of her ass.

[LittleClarkie]

91. Oh really.

How about this, then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1298837

[Vidar]

103. If she comes through on it, her head is out of her ass. If????

[LittleClarkie]

104. Well, okay then.

That's all I wanted to hear.

[John Q. Citizen]

79. The peope who put the Dems in power are pissed.

They want action instead of excuses.

Approval ratings for the Dem Congress have fallen from 46% to about 23%, lower than bush's approval ratings. The people most pissed off are independents.

If you want to lose control of the house/senate in 08, just stay the course set so far by Pelosi and Reid. Honest. That's political reality. Listen to the people (Americans favor impeaching Chaney by 54%) or listen to Skip Intro.

By the way, all Pelosi has to do is announce that impeachment is back on the table.

She doesn't have to remove bush or chaney from office. She doen't have to change any Repos minds.


I can see that you don't understand impeachment. You view impeachment soley through the lens of removal from office of the Prez or the VP. That is both simplistic and incorrect.

Impeachment starts in the House. We have a rather comfortable majority in the House. There is no filibuster in the House.

Impeachment in the house consists of a criminal investigation into the VP. These investigations and hearings are not subject to derailment through a claim of executive privledge, because they are criminal investigations, unlike oversite investigations which are general fact finding inquires geared toward legislation. Executive privledge isn't a defense or a shield in a criminal investigation.

After the criminal investigation the House votes as to whether to indict the VP for crimes or not. If there is enough evidence, the indictment is passed (Known as impeachment) and then the matter is refered to the Senate who then conduct a trial into the guilt or innocents of the VP. The house appoints managers who prosecute the charges approved in the House before the Senate, who act as jurers. Much more important here than the make-up of the Senate is the will of the voters. If the people are in favor of removing the VP for the crimes charged, then the Senators who must face the people during election are in a vunerable position if they fail to act fairly and vote based on political concerns (saving the ass of their currupt VP) or whether they vote based on the evidence presented in the trial. The trial is broadcast on TV.

It's a win win situation for the Dems because the case seems to be pretty solid that Chaney is universally despised, that people think he's corrupt, and there is a lot of evidence to support those beliefs, such as the Downing Street Memos, The cooking of intel, the Outing of Plame, etc. (Did you know that independents opposed the presidential commutation of the Libby prison term by 80%?) 80% is a lot. In fact more independents are opposed to it than Dems - Go figure.

On the other hand, we have the Dems stratedgy of dragging on the war, of dragging on the oversite hearings and taking little substansive action in an attempt to push everything up to and as close to the 08 elections. Meanwhile the approval rating of the Dem controlled congress continue to drop. You tell me. Is that stradegy working?

[LittleClarkie]

89. So did "they" elect you their spokesperson?

I helped put these people into power as well. I will speak for myself. I don't need you to tell people I'm pissed and want action instead of excuses. I have a mouth of my own.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. Yeah the 23% Dem controlled congress approval rating has me worried too.

But don't worry about it, I'm sure it doesn't mean a thing....

[CreekDog]

93. No if Sheehan wins unicorns and kittens will not save sunshine and rainbows.

However, if she wins unicorns and kittens will end the war in Iraq.

[Alexander]

106. Yes!! That's why we need to crack these scandals wide open.

CIA Leak Scandal
Illegal wiretapping scandal
Attorney firing scandal
DC Madam Scandal

Where to start?

Any of these would bring on IMPEACHMENT and probably imprisonment if they just dug deeper...

[CreekDog]

130. What do you mean where to start? They started...

Investigations into Attorney firings have been going on for two months.

Despite this being one of the "any of these" that you mention, it has not brought on impeachment, no, not even for the Attorney General.

It just seems like you don't know what's going on because you state it as if there are no investigations going on and that they aren't doing anything. Ridiculous. Surely results are few and far between, but those results are not as automatic as your understanding of civics leads you to believe they are.

[Lord Helmet]

108. the only magic trick I'm interested in is making Bush disappear.

[MadHound]

112. *BZZZZZ!* Wrong Answer!

Pelosi and her fellow Dems could easily stop the war if they would do one thing, and that is defund the war. Hold up each and every single supplemental war funding bill in committee. Force Bush to bring the troops home ASAP. No votes, no signature needed, just a collective spine.

The American people elected Dems to the majority for one reason, to end the war by any means neccessary. Their failure to do so is a shame and a disgrace.

[CreekDog]

118. Defund the war and Bush will use Defense Appropriations for it

Defunding it ain't that simple.

As for impeachment, the investigations all go on and still no impeachment. Guess it's not as automatic or slam-dunk as some people seem to think it is.

[Evergreen Emerald]

120. It was that simple.

Congress gave *sh his funding bill. He vetoed it. End. Of. Funding. The war would have been over.

The troops would have had to come home--no one in their right mind would leave the troops in harm's way with no funding--Bush could not have done that.

They chose not to end it.

[CreekDog]

129. No that wouldn't end it

Did you even read my incredibly short post before replying to it?

If you defund the war, Bush will use other Defense appropriations for it.

You would have to either:

1) not provide leglislation for any Defense Department spending
(ain't gonna happen cause then there won't be money to bring them home and there won't be paychecks for them and their families either)

or

2) pass by veto proof margins, leglislation for Defense Department spending that specifically excludes funding for the Iraq War (ps-those votes aren't there)

[Evergreen Emerald]

136. Yes. I even did..

read your incredibly conclusory, short, information-less post. The Congress needs to stand up and do what we hired them to do. They could have and they did not...because they have no guts.

[CreekDog]

137. I agree they should stand up, I think Pelosi did stand up

And I'm telling you it will not provide the result that you say it will.

You're just "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WON'T TRY IF PELOSI TRIES IT WILL HAPPEN LA LA LA LA LA AND I READ WHAT YOU SAID AND I WON'T SAY WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG I JUST KNOW I'M RIGHT AND PELOSI WON'T TRY AND THE WAR WON'T END BUT IF SHE TRIES IT WILL END LA LA LA LA LA"

It's driving me bonkers. What you want is correct, for the war to end, it's the grip on reality you lack regarding what needs to happen within our government to actually end it and how substantial that is and how unlikely it is.

My problem with your advocacy (and I bet Pelosi and Reid think this too) is that because you are so unrealistic about what Pelosi can actually do on her own, that when they try and fail (very likely) you will blame them and not Republicans for the failure. They know this since many of you have already done, numerous times, exactly what I've stated. So, why on earth should Pelosi go out on a limb for you when you are just going to blame her when moderate Democrats and Republicans and a veto-ing president overrule her on trying to end the war? Why should she? You are just going to make her out to be the bad guy in all this.

Do you think Pelosi is king? Do you think that she can just make a war stop through sheer will?

You must have very nice parents and families because you apparently think when something is right it will automatically be done because when one wants something that is intrinsically good, the God of the universe just makes it so.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The sooner you realize how hard it will be for Pelosi to end the war and acknowledge her efforts and support her even when she fails, the more likely she will go out on a limb to do it. But the Cindy Sheehans of the world won't have Pelosi's back, quite the contrary, they savage Pelosi for not delivering what she cannot herself deliver. And no, she's not delivering it because she loves the policy or the president, give me a break! You are sabotaging and savaging your own cause and your best hope in congress for your cause.

Do you hear Barbara Lee saying these things about Pelosi? She's no shrinking violet either, but she has not layed into Pelosi. There's something to that you might want to investigate.

Ungrateful ingrates. Dang.

This message is brought to you from the 8th District in SF, CA.

[Evergreen Emerald]

146. Dearest Creekdog

Why resort to personal attacks? Rather than just discuss the issues, you first question whether or not I can read, and then spend precious time berating me for disagreeing with you. And yet your only argument is: "I am right and you are wrong. So there."

1. I don't discuss issues with people who attack
2. You are wrong. We hired the dems to STOP THE WAR. And they could have FOUGHT. They approved funding / * vetoed it / end of funding.
3. Go Cheney yourself.







This message brought to you by fed-up Americans.

[CreekDog]

151. I thought this was about the war funding and not about your hurt feelings

Maybe instead of talking about that you could simply respond to my 2 points which I posed to you:

If you defund the war, Bush will use other Defense appropriations for it, regardless of the legality.

Thus, to legislatively end it, you would have to either:

1) not provide leglislation for any Defense Department spending
(ain't gonna happen cause then there won't be money to bring them home and there won't be paychecks for them and their families either)

or

2) pass by veto proof margins, leglislation for Defense Department spending that specifically excludes funding for the Iraq War (ps-those votes aren't there)

Now are you going to respond to these points or simply tell me to F*** myself again?

[MadHound]

145. Umm, most of the defense dept funding is already earmarked and appropriated

And frankly, if Bush tore into the defense funding, the 'Pugs would beat the Dems to filing articles of impeachment. The man can't simply tear into a budget and start grabbing money. That money has been specifically allocated, and Bush would be breaking many laws to get to it.

[CreekDog]

150. Yes Madhound, the prez would do that despite your arguments

And the reaction would be very interesting and might lead to impeachment.

But if you think this president is going to withdraw from Iraq because of leglislation, you have not been paying attention.

That said, such a confrontation could be his undoing.

But the greater point is simply that this war ain't ending no matter what for a while and I'm sorry to say that. Something really big has to change, and that Pelosi saying "impeachment is on the table" is not the magic phrase that is big enough to change this dynamic.

It sucks. Activists here who want it to end are going to have to be a little more clever about ending this than simply villifying the very sympathetic to the cause Pelosi.

[MadHound]

152. So we're now going to use the excuse of what *might* happen

What Bush *could* do as an excuse for inaction? Wow, sorry troops, we're not going to do everything we can do because we're afraid that the President might cause a Constitutional crisis to keep you there. Real comforting thought for both our troops and the innocent Iraqis who will continue to die while the Dems dither.

It is beyond time for the Dems to pull out every stop, call in every favor, use every single tactic available to end this war ASAP. That includes defunding the war and starting impeachment proceedings. Failure to do so means failing the people in both Iraq and the US. If Bush choose to provoke a Constitutional crisis, well, that is on him and will get his ass kicked out all that much sooner as the sane, moderate 'Pugs join the Dems in impeachment.

It is past time that the Dems stopped keeping their powder dry. They've tried this tactic for the past three years, stating that they need all that dry powder for bigger issues(meanwhile letting Roberts and Alito onto the court to wreak havoc for years to come). Well, the time is here, there is no bigger issue on the table than Iraq. They have no excuses for continuing to do nothing.

The American people and I aren't expecting miracles. Defunding the war will be a long brutal process, impeachment might very well see Bush running out his term. But what we do expect is for the Dems in Congress to at least try their hardest to do what is best, and to do it by any means necessary. We as employees as required to put forth every effort to do the job out our employment, we, as their employers, should expect Congress to do no less

If the Dems put forth their best effort and still fail, then they will at least go down swinging and be acclaimed for giving it their all. But if all they can muster is non-binding resolutions and further war funding, then they deserve Americans scorn for failing their country and their constituency in the most dire of times.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. She wanted the job.

We gave it to her.

Damn right we want to see her pulling the fucking rabbit out.

[CreekDog]

141. Yeah well you don't always get what you want

She's trying to get you what you need.

Wouldn't be a prayer if she hadn't gotten us a 13 seat majority in the House.

But that's not enough to end a war or to impeach and remove from office.

Are you just accustomed to getting things you want?

Like a 5 year old at the grocery store, "but I want it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..."

Why bother reasoning.

I don't argue with you that you shouldn't want it; I want it to. I argue that you EXPECT it with no regard to whether you should expect it.

That's important because you keep going after Pelosi, well you have her vote, her support and her arm twisting. Meanwhile, YOU, the voter are letting the folks that keep voting for the war off the hook. If you change enough of those votes, your war ends, period.

I'm finding this group to be antithetical to the cause of ending the war because when they find out we don't have enough players on our team, they first try to fire the captain instead of trying to get more players.

What's that word that Napoleon Dynamite used to exclaim?

What he said!

[beaconess]

148. You're dead on!