Why is Nancy Pelosi so hated when she has virtually the same stances on issues as Senator Obama?

[Freddie Stubbs]

Speaker Pelosi has been taking a lot of flack from DUers. She is called spineless, a DINO, and a lot of obscene things which most people would not have the nerve to say if they were not hiding behind the animosity of the internet.

Just a few days ago Pelosi announced that she would be willing to consider allowing a vote on expanding limited offshore if it was part of a broader package that included increased funding for alternative energy. DU was filled with negative posts, including obscene slurs and encouragements for an independent candidate who is running against Pelosi. Yet she her willingness to compromise is awfully similar to the one Senator Obama expressed just weeks earlier:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/01/politics/main4316378.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4316378

It would seem that the biggest beef that DUers have against the Speaker is her opposition of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Some have even expressed that they believed that Pelosi was lying when in the spring of 2006 she said that impeachment would be "off of the table" if Democrats were to gain control of Congress. Obama came out against impeachment last summer:

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Both Obama and Pelosi have similar obstacles to overcome. Obama must win in at least one state where John Kerry lost four years ago. Pelosi must help some vulnerable Democratic Congressmen win reelection is districts where Republicans outnumber Democrats.

So, we have two politicians with similar political stands on two hot-button issues. One is reviled while the other is practically venerated. This leads me to believe that when it comes to politics many people think their hearts rather than their heads.

[babylonsister]

1. Because she was in a position two years ago to right a huge wrong,

and she did absolutely nothing. Obama was in no such position, so there's your difference.

[Enrique]

5. he is in more of a position since being the nominee

if he wanted impeachment, she would go along. Just like he wanted flexibility on offshore drilling and she is going along.

[DevonRex]

11. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read here today. nt

[babylonsister]

13. Get real; he hasn't won anything yet. But go ahead and blame him

anyway. You know you want to. :eyes:

[DevonRex]

23. Yep. Nothing but a bash thread. Disgusting. nt

[babylonsister]

28. Yep, with the usual cast of characters, too. So predictable. nt

[DevonRex]

29. All the usual suspects. Yep. I'm sick of it. nt

[Growler]

41. yes, exactly!! nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

151. Obama is in the position right now to make impeachment a top issue of discussion

Yet he is keeping his mouth shut. He is smart enough to know that it is a losing issue.

[Metric System]

2. And she's got lady parts.

[tedoll78]

15. When I read that..

.. I imagined Tina Fey saying that.. hehe.. :D

[jakem]

16. I am personally quite enamored of lady parts.

but they do not excuse the acts of some of our 'lady' politicians.

[DevonRex]

19. Enough with the whining already. The one with "lady parts" took

impeachment off the table right off the bat. And she is the one with the actual power to decide to impeach or not to impeach.

[Blondiegrrl]

128. *rolls eyes* But of course. We're all sexist pigs.

Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine catch a lot of flack here too, but I've never heard it's because they have "man parts."

(For the record, I'm a longtime Obama supporter, a woman, AND I like Nancy Pelosi.)

[Chulanowa]

134. Damn right, I hates me some labia!

The fact that as, Speaker of the House, she outright refused to so much as sniff in Bush' direction of course has no bearing, compared to her uterus, am I right, folks?

Wait? What's that you say? We're not all like MetricSystem, being able to see details beyond the sex chromosomes? Holy fucking shit!

[iamthebandfanman]

145. keep dreamin'

maybe one day your world of noone but sexists will come true and then you can finally be the victim and feel uber repressed.

poor you.

[PVnRT]

159. Great, this again

Anyone who criticizes a female politician must be sexist. Right.

[Hugabear]

161. Damned you're good. Has nothing whatsoever to do with her refusal to even consider impeachment

Back in '06 when we finally won control of Congress, we thought we had a realistic chance of unseating the crooks in the White House. So when Pelosi comes along and squashes those dreams, we're perfectly okay with that. Obviously the only reason why we would criticize her is because she has woman parts.

[Enrique]

3. Pelosi is actually much more partisan than Obama is

Compromise is part of Obama's message in a way that it isn't with Pelosi.

When he is president, Pelosi will represent the party base more than he does. It will be interesting to see how DU reacts to that.

[TooBigaTent]

18. When he is president, NO ONE will represent the party base except a few Congresspeople.

They will have gotten our dollars and votes. We will not be needed again until the next election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. It will be Obama's job to represent ALL Americans, not just the base of one party

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Ideally, ALL Americans, not just the corporate contributors and the

military-industrial complex.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Runcible Spoon]

86. I second that comment.

all this blather about "representing the people" is beside the point. Health care, fair taxation, sane foreign policy, education, etc. really should NOT be "partisan issues", for which only special interest lobbyists reap the rewards from successfully passed legislation.

But yeah, like you, I'm not holding my breath for anyone to rock the boat.

[Bake]

88. The President doesn't "represent" anybody except the United States of America

As its face to the rest of the world.

Your Senators and Congresspersons represent you. The President is the Chief Executive. There's a difference.

Bake

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. She didn't do what she was elected to do.

That's simple enough.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. Bullshit

She was elected to represent San Francisco.

[TheCowsCameHome]

42. You left off the sarcasm icon.

[EstimatedProphet]

74. Prove that she ran for representative on an impeachment platformthen

[TheCowsCameHome]

94. Who said that? Not I.

You're getting posts mixed up.

I could care less about impeachment at this point.

The country is fucked up, and we had hopes she and the newly elected majority of Dems would straighten things out.

So far, they've failed on too many counts.

[EstimatedProphet]

106. You said she didn't do what she was elected to do

That means, in relation to this thread, that she was elected to impeach. Was that a referendum in her election?

[TheCowsCameHome]

107. If you think impeachment was the sole reason she was elected,

good luck.

There were far more pressing problems that the '06 Dems were being counted on to fix - under her leadership.

She is third in line for the Presidency. I'd say that's a position of very high influence, and NOT just for impeachment purposes.

[EstimatedProphet]

108. Aren't you the one saying that?

Because it certainly sounded like it in your post. That is what I was referring to.

[TheCowsCameHome]

109. No, I believe you're mistaken. I never mentioned impeachment.

IMHO, there were far more important matters to be addressed.

Impeachment was a possiblity, but not the most pressing matter in my book.

There were far bigger problems to deal with.

[EstimatedProphet]

110. I see. I misunderstood you then.

[TheCowsCameHome]

121. No problem. Perhaps I should have been more concise in my OP

:hi:

[EstimatedProphet]

127. No worries

[LittleClarkie]

117. Then what do you think she was elected to do?

She's not been much of an opposer of Republicans, I'll say that.

[ContinentalOp]

55. She wasn't just elected to represent San Francisco.

She was also elected by the party to represent the Democrats in the House.

[onenote]

67. and what makes you think that isn't exactly what she's doing?

Above all else, the job of the Speaker is know where the votes are. And I guarantee that the votes aren't there to start an impeachment inquiry. I've pointed this out dozens of times and I'll do it again.

The first stage in the impeachment process is a motion, voted on by the full House, to authorize and direct the House Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and report back to the House. The Nixon impeachment process started with such a motion, passed in Feb 1974 by a lopsided, bipartisan vote of 410-4. The Clinton impeachment process started with a similar motion, passed in October 1998 by a 258-176 margin, with 31 Democrats supporting.

Tell me, honestly, do you think that a majority of the House would have voted for a resolution today, let alone in January 2007? Because of blue dog Democrats and other moderate/conservative Democrats as well as some more progressive Democrats who for various reasons didn't think impeachment was the public's priority -- after all, it wasn't exactly a top tier issue during the Nov 2006 campaign; in fact, it was barely at issue at all in most races and more often than not was backed by candidates who lost -- there is no chance it would pass. If the votes were there for impeachment, then presumably the votes would've been there for real reform of FISA etc.

Reality bites. But its still reality.

[ContinentalOp]

78. OK, fine. Maybe Pelosi was right. In which case Obama is definitely right. Right?

;-)

[onenote]

81. Yep, I think they're both right on impeachment

I would've liked to have seen hearings along the lines of what Conyers held last month much earlier -- maybe impeachment could've gotten some momentum. But going for an impeachment resolution right after the 2006 elections would've been incredibly stupid. It wasn't an issue in the campaign, it wasn't a priority for the voters.

[KharmaTrain]

135. Running On Impeachment Would Have Cost Seats in 2006

You bring out a great point that there wasn't any Democrats that I can recall that ran calling for impeachment. And end to the Iraq fiasco, yes, but never on impeachment. If anything, the right wing hate radio machine and its corporate media allies kept using that as a scare tactic...that Pelosi would shut down the government ala Gingrich. It didn't happen.

Lastly, one thing that needs to be pointed out, again, is the role of the Speaker. It's not to push a party's agenda...that's the role of the Majority Leader and Majority Whip. The speaker, in theory, is elected by ALL House members, and like how the President is supposed to serve all the people, the Speaker was supposed to work in a similar manner in Congress. The fact is impeachment is a direct conflict of Interest for a Speaker who stands to gain a lot of power eliminating the two opponents ahead of her in the Constitutional pecking order. A lot of the anger here has been long misdirected at Peolsi...and should be aimed at Hoyer who not only also has said impeachment was off the table but was behind the FISA fiasco...something that should have never seen the light of day.

Cheers...

[TheCowsCameHome]

68. And lead that entire delegation as well.

Just SF, my foot.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. YOU don't get a voice in Speaker of the House

None of us do, any more than we get a voice in the president's cabinet. She didn't make any claims as to impeachment before she became Speaker.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. Which we didn't do. That wasn't our election.

[Bake]

89. She was elected by the House of Representatives to LEAD them,

Not to represent them. That word, represent, is getting thrown around awfully casually in here.

Bake

[onenote]

112. The Speaker is a leader, not a dictator.

A good leader knows what is doable and seeks to accomplish it. A good leader does not "lead" his or her forces into unwinnable battles, battles that the forces themselves are not committed to fighting.

Pelosi cannot force Blue Dogs to suddenly become Dennis Kucinich clones.

[Bake]

116. Exactly!!

Bake

[theboss]

102. Which includes Heath Shuler

What's his position on impeachment?

[Freddie Stubbs]

156. Did she promise to impeach?

What promises has she broken?

[PurityOfEssence]

6. But...this one goes to eleven

It's very simple: even though she's got a long voting record that's rather progressive, we KNOW she's just a conservative so-and-so and that's all there is to it. Whereas even though HIS voting record is spotty at best and fairly indicative of a serial maneuverer and corporatist, we just KNOW that he's not lying to US, he's lying to THEM.

It's really very simple: faith-based trust is all you need.

[DevonRex]

25. Clearly you really hate Obama. This is DU. We are FOR democratic

candidates, including Obama. Bashing is not allowed.

[Autumn]

Faith based trust ,

and just a little pixie dust. On edit reply to post #6

[wvbygod]

70. It takes a bit of Spinal to tap into that logic

but since the tach on the zx-11 redlines at eleven and there are eleven timezones in the USSR
it all makes Perfect Sense expressed in dollars and cents.

[Runcible Spoon]

90. I really don't put much stock in voting records from the W years for the simple reason..

that there has been hardly ANY progressive or populist legislation that has gone up for a vote, and even when good bills are proposed they are 99% of the time strangled by special interest riders, so the fucking repukes will support it and not filibuster.

So to say that anyone is "progressive" by looking at how they voted on the crap that has paraded through the last 8 years is really not saying much.

[DevonRex]

103. Brilliant! I nominate you for something, I just don't know what yet.

How about Supreme Judge of Common Sense and Logic?

[Runcible Spoon]

122. aww you're making me all verklempt!

:hug:

[samdogmom]

7. You have to be a complete "moran" to not see the many impeachable offenses

committed by the present administration. And yet, according to her "impeachment is off the table."

She's enabling criminals. It simply isn't right!

[Enrique]

9. and Obama?

[samdogmom]

17. Last I checked, Nancy is Speaker of the House. She has the power right now.

SHE took impeachment off the table. Obama is a Senator...not a Representative. Impeachment starts in the House of Representatives!

[DevonRex]

20. Don't interrupt his bashing with actual facts. He's on a roll. nt

[Phredicles]

21. Has Obama, like Pelosi, gone so far as to say Commander Lovely Man

hasn't broken any laws or committed any impeachable offenses? For that matter, has he, as she recently did, mouthed a Bushie talking point by suggesting those of us who want impeachment are motivated only by "disagreeing" with Bush? And did Obama, like Pelosi, gain a leadership position specifically on a platform of holding Bush accountable? I don't believe he has.

[DevonRex]

30. Shh. You're interrupting their bash. :) nt

[saracat]

142. Actually he did. Obama said he didn't think ANY of Bush's actions "rose to the level of impeachment"

That was quite an issue on DU. Perhaps you don't remember?

[Phredicles]

144. I took an 11-month hiatus from DU, although now that you mention it

I think I remember him saying that. At the risk of splitting hairs, though, that's a lot less specific than what Pelosi's had to say. And Pelosi's been in much more of a gatekeeper position for allowing or not allowing steps towards impeachment. Plus Obama never called our Cowboy Caligula "a lovely man".

I realize there's a risk of Obama disappointing as the Clintons and Pelosi all have. But there's also still the possibility he won't, and he seems thoughtful enough that I'm prepared to cling to that possibilty.

[Bake]

91. The point is, that's Obama's position as well.

Wake up and smell the coffee ...

Bake

[Freddie Stubbs]

167. Yet Obama has the same position on impeachment. Is he an enabler too?

:shrug:

[nykym]

8. Oh and it was a carefully

crafted political ploy to announce on the day she was sworn in that impeachment was off the table. Kind of like telling your poker buddy I'm gonna raise you $500.00 because I got four aces!
I often wonder how much the house might have accomplished had she not said that! It could have been a huge bargaining chip against junior.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Wrong: She said this in May of 2006, five months before voters elected the Democratic majority

A Democrat-controlled House wouldn't impeach, Pelosi says

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Saturday, May 13, 2006


(05-13) 04:00 PDT Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards if the party takes over the House in November's elections.

Pelosi, who Republicans have charged intends to lead an impeachment effort, dismissed the idea when she spoke Wednesday morning at a closed-door caucus of the House's 201 Democrats. Pelosi also restated her opposition to the idea of censuring Bush over his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

"We want oversight and checks and balances,'' Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she told the caucus. "That certainly isn't being done in this Congress (under Republican control). Impeachment was never her interest.''

Even though she said impeachment wouldn't be on the table, Pelosi supports investigations into such issues as prewar intelligence about Iraq and contracts awarded in Iraq to Halliburton Corp. and other companies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/13/MNG94IRGOO1.DTL

[nykym]

40. I stand corrected

but still why? to what end was this rational thinking. It just gave junior a free pass!

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. She took impeachment off of the table as something the Republicans could use

to scare voters in the 2006 elections.

[onenote]

73. yep. And Howard Dean publicly said pretty much the same thing before the elections

Impeachment wasn't an issue in the Nov 2006 elections and suddenly making it a top priority of the new Congress would've been viewed as "bait and switch" by the voters and not well received.

To start the impeachment process you need a majority of the House to support a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry. In the two most recent historical precedents -- Nixon and Clinton -- that resolution passed with bi-partisan support (overwhelming so in the case of Nixon; with 31 Democrats supporting in the case of Clinton).

Anyone who thinks that a bi-partisan majority of the House was prepared to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry in Jan 2007 -- or is inclined to do so today -- is living in a fantasy world.

[Triana]

10. Her opposition to impeachment and her recent comments....

...that "you can't impeach him just because you don't agree with his policies", and "you can't impeach him unless there's a crime" - THOSE are the reasons I'm against her.

She is CLEARLY in the tank for the BFEE or just WAY out of touch with what's going on (because she's so much a PART of it) - or both.

[trudyco]

97. I agree. And she had the power, while Obama did not -nt

[ContinentalOp]

12. I think you're missing one tiny little difference.

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House coming from a safe seat in a very liberal district. Obama is, you know... TRYING TO GET ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY!

Jesus christ people, use a little common sense. No, they shouldn't be held to the same standards at this point.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Pelosi is trying to reelect the Democratic majority in the House

Many of the those members come form districts where Republicans are in the majority. She needs to be mindful of this fact, or else it is Speaker Boehner.

[ContinentalOp]

24. Huh? That's all she's been doing her whole time as Speaker?

[DevonRex]

26. Don't bother. This is nothing but a bash-Obama thread, disguised

as something else. Facts don't matter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. No, this thread's purpose is to point out the irrationality of the Pelosi haters

[DevonRex]

66. I quite like Pelosi, even though I don't agree with her all the time. nt

[ContinentalOp]

79. Oh that's right, I forgot she was running for President.

:crazy:

[DevonRex]

99. Exactly. If it's about Pelosi, it should be in GD. If it's about Obama

it's pretty much a bash.

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. It is about both of them, and some DUers inability to rationally think regarding them

[TheKentuckian]

131. I don't really care much for Pelosi, Murtha, and their winglette

but she's getting a bit of a bad rap. She is doing about all she can do. The number of vetos and filibusters in the Senate should tell anyone that has taken 8th grade civics why so little can get done in Congress.

There is also somewhat of a stink around Pelosi. I believe she is at least somewhat complicit in some GOP shenanigans. Something about Nancy makes me think she isn't on our side.
It may just be false "spidey senses" but Pelosi is a person that I've never trusted, even though I agree in great part with her politics.

She gives me the same vibe as Romney.

[harun]

27. I don't hate her I think she is brilliant

Punishing Americans by keeping B*sh in there instead of impeaching him is teaching the electorate a lesson they unfortunately needed badly.

[samdogmom]

31. Some lesson! Our country is in the toilet right now--everything is broken!

I don't think this was a "brilliant" tactic AT ALL!

[DevonRex]

32. I think he was being sarcastic. nt

[samdogmom]

34. I feel better if this is true.

A :sarcasm: would have helped!

[DevonRex]

36. Yeah. I had to read it a few times before I figured it out. nt

[harun]

46. If you want omelets you have to be prepared to break some eggs

I was being 49% sarcastic 51% not.

If you look at the position Pelosi was in you had two paths. The impeach path or the path they are on now. If they went the impeach path the Dems would end up looking very bad. The things this country needs fixed will not get fixed in a tied Senate, period. They had to corner B*sh, let the public see just how astray the Repub's have gone, mission accomplished BTW. Now they can sweep the next election and actually get to work. A tied Senate equals nothing, NOTHING is going to change either way. Too easy for either side to block bills.

So no I don't think she is really punishing the electorate but I absolutely believe not impeaching was a brilliant political move that will help this country in the long run.

[Vinca]

33. She has the power to bring impeachment to the floor, Obama doesn't. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

129. Obama has much more power of persusion as the presumptive nominee

He could bring this issue to the foray if he wanted to. But he opposes it, just like Pelosi.

[Solon]

35. While I agree with most of the posters on this thread, in principle...

I do find it odd that many of these same posters call themselves liberal while defending these positions themselves. I can understand saying "Its just politics, and it sucks" but far too many posters take some of the moderate positions of Obama, and other Democrats, and they defend the positions themselves. I would say I should be surprised, but not really, DU was always a more moderate haven than most people give it credit for.

[DevonRex]

38. Pelosi controls impeachment. Obama doesn't. Pretty simple. nt

[Solon]

39. I'm talking about a broader context here...

Over the past few months, I've noticed disturbing trends in DU moving rightward, it has been coming more pronounced recently. I'm just posting my observations, I frankly don't care about Obama's position on impeachment, for the exact reason you posted.

[ContinentalOp]

44. The difference is that Obama needs to be moderate right now to WIN THE ELECTION

Which is what we all want to do. Pelosi has a safe seat from one of the most liberal districts in the country! Nobody wants or expects her to be moderate. She's supposed to kick ass for us.

[Solon]

45. I understand using that as an argument to defend Obama himself...

but not to defend the positions he takes. There is a difference between saying he has to do something, and actually supporting the position itself.

[ContinentalOp]

51. What? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between the positions he takes and "himself." Unless you have some unique insight into Obama's inner thoughts that the rest of us aren't privy to.

[Solon]

132. Let's see if I can clarify...

There's a difference between, for example, saying Obama has to support certain things, such as Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Faith Based Initiatives, etc. to get elected, versus saying that YOU personally, support those very things.

[Enrique]

53. she's also supposed to help Obama get elected

an impeachment battle during the election would mess Obama up big time, it would be a gift from God to McCain.

[ContinentalOp]

60. Um, yeah. We're talking about a couple of years ago. It's obviously not going to happen now.

[Enrique]

63. the post I responded to was talking about now

but it doesn't matter, it's the same, impeachment proceedings two years ago would have messed up the 2006 Congressional elections, would have messed up the dems' legislative agenda, and would have messed up the 2008 Congressional and presidential elections.

[ContinentalOp]

83. Actually, I wasn't talking about now. Sorry if it was unclear.

I should know since I wrote the post you were responding to. ;-)

It's obvious that impeachment is pointless now. I thought we were talking about the perception (possibly stupid or naive but still there) that Pelosi was going to push for impeachment when she took over as Speaker.

All I've been trying to say is that disappointment in Pelosi's perceived lack of spine, however misguided, is totally different than criticizing Obama on this issue. Maybe impeachment when the Dems took over congress wouldn't have worked. Maybe it would have been a bad idea. But there was definitely a perception (admittedly it could have been naive and misguided) that Pelosi was going to come into Congress from a safe seat in a liberal district and be in a position to kick some ass as Speaker of the House.

I haven't seen anyone around here advocate that Obama should be pursuing impeachment right now during the election. That doesn't mean that he's getting a free pass or being held to a different standard than Pelosi or that there are wide-eyed Obama worshippers and foaming-at-the-mouth Pelosi haters. They are two completely different situations.

[onenote]

80. a couple of years ago we had an election in which impeachment wasn't even an issue

in the vast majority of campaigns. If impeachment was such a popular idea with the electorate, why then did virtually no one run a campaign advocating it and of those that did, most lost (they would've lost anyway imo, but its not as if voters on either side of the aisle were jonesing for someone to support impeachment).

[DevonRex]

50. Ah. I see. Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion. And yes,

I think we all become a bit more pragmatic during GE season. I don't think we are moving more to the right in our personal stances on issues. But I do think that we become more accepting of perceived rightward moves by our candidates because we know it's politics.

[Solon]

133. I don't know if pragmatic is the right word...

When it seems that people have changed their personal positions themselves, or at least defend those positions, even removed from the candidate, then that is what is disturbing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Obama has the abiltiy to make this the top issue of the campaign

Yet he hasn't. Does anyone wonder why?

[ContinentalOp]

57. Um... because it would be really stupid?

Do you really not see the difference between making impeachment an election issue right now and Congress making an issue of it two years ago? Pelosi had nothing to lose. If Obama made an issue of it now, it would overshadow everything else and it's kind of late in the game anyway. Could they even pull it off before Bush gets ready to leave and pulls out his pardon pen?

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Pelosi had the House majority to lose

She played it safe, and no reasonable observer would suggest that Republicans have any better than an infinitesimal chance of gaining a majority in the House this November.

[onenote]

113. two years ago, the Dems had just won a majority and impeachment wasn't an issue

in the overwhelming majority of campaigns. It would've been the height of folly, having not run on the issue, to suddenly make it a priority.

[DevonRex]

64. WTF? He is running on a platform of what he will do when

HE is POTUS, starting January 2009. In January 2009 George Bush will be gone. Can't impeach a president AFTER they leave office, now can you?

[onenote]

76. the Democratic Caucus controls impeachment

and Pelosi doesn't "control" the Democratic Caucus --- she certainly doesn't control the several dozen blue dogs and conservative/moderate Dems who wouldn't support the resolution that would have to be passed by the full House to start an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi is not George Custer. She knows better than to call for a vote that will be defeated, making chimpy look strong.

[DevonRex]

98. Oh, I'm not saying that I definitely think she should have supported

impeachment. Since it didn't happen, we'll never know if it was a good idea or not. We'll never know what evidence they would have been able to present, given the Bush administration's propensity to hide, deny, and destroy.

I like Pelosi. And I think that sometimes we don't take all the different pressures she has into account.

I'm just saying that the comparison between Obama and Pelosi on this issue is like apples and oranges given their completely different powers.

[samdogmom]

43. Do you understand the impeachment procedure?

The House of Representatives (or a majority of the 50 states) has/have to pass "Articles of Impeachment". Once this step is taken...then the Senate holds hearings.

No one is excusing Obama. He is simply powerless right now. Nancy holds all the cards and she's folded! (There have been a few states that have put impeachment on the ballot...but how realistic is that tactic?)

GET IT--NANCY IS THE ROADBLOCK!!!!!!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Yes - Pelosi is stopping the Democrats driving full speed into a cliff.

Impeachment procedings would be inevitably doomed to failure, and electorally catastrophic for the Democrats.

We owe her a great deal for sacrificing her own reputation to prevent the Democratic party committing suicide.

[ContinentalOp]

52. Impeachment right now would be idiotic.

But there's no reason we couldn't have done it a couple of years ago. Even if the House impeached and the Senate didn't at least it would have been something.

[inthebrain]

58. WOuldn't have been two years ago

Nancy along with Feinstein were both very vocal about it being off the table.

They blew a HUGE opportunity.

The majority of Americans wanted Bush gone. Even the Republicans (a group of voters this party has tirelessly triangulated to attract) found hom so detestable and still do, they supported it. Word didn't exactly get out in the 06 election that the pres wasn't going to be impeached and that's why the approval rating is so bad.

THe Dems have the same image of being ineffective and useless as they did in the 80's to the average AMerican.

[ContinentalOp]

59. Exactly -nt-

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. Because a tremendous number of people are naïve and foolish...

and actually think impeachment would have done a damned bit of good (which it wouldn't, not with a party-line vote in the Senate and the lack of a sufficient Senate majority to convict).

[PurityOfEssence]

84. It's even worse than that

The sheer time factor alone is daunting: it takes TIME to impeach a president, and it utterly disrupts everything else, making the impeaching party look like it's on some kind of frenzied vengeance bender, which, to be frank IT WOULD BE. Yes, there's a lot to be said for standing on principle here: these assholes lied to Congress to gin up a war against a sovereign nation that never did us any wrong; they're the literal definition of unscrupulous, greedy war criminals. Still, they're soon to be gone and that's the real remedy. Out 'em. Humiliate 'em. Hell, turn 'em over to the Hague next year, but this simply isn't tenable.

There was a big backlash against the Republicans for their fixation on Clinton, and it ended the careers of many of the prominent impeachment managers like McCullogh, Rogan, Barr and Gekas. Lindsay Graham is the only one of the frontmen who didn't seem to get hurt by that little escapade, and the country got a bad taste in its collective mouth over the whole thing.

Junior's going to be out of office in less than half a year, and it'd be a bit of a sprint to do him in before that even if there WAS a consensus for it on the left. Yeah, it's cosmically unfair, but it'd be dumb and dangerous to put everything else aside and do that.

So, in the end, the very best we could hope for would be a grandstanding bit of theatrics against Junior, ending in a vote to acquit in the Senate. Meanwhile, the economy erodes, the various wars get neglected, nothing is done on energy, health care, etc., and the Democrats stir up a lot of ill-will.

The strutting puffery is just tiresome.

[Bake]

96. And they blindly assert that impeaching without conviction/removal

is somehow "holding them accountable." Nope, what it really is, is PROVING to them and the rest of the world that BushCo could do any damn thing it wanted and no power on earth could stop them.

Bake

[wvbygod]

65. Because she will not unwisely cater to a minority demand for impeachment

I have no patience to argue the demerits but the fact remains...the desires of the many (voters)
are outweighing the wants of the fewer (voters).

[OwnedByFerrets]

69. This seems to be a common thread with you. Why do you give a

rats ass? Are you related? Are we bruising your sensitivities? Why the continuous whining about Pelosi and how she is viewed here?

[Enrique]

75. not just him

I give a rats ass because the anti-Pelosi attacks are false, and I object to false attacks against Democrats and i think they impede progress.

[OwnedByFerrets]

82. So, she never said that impeachment was off the table or

that she wasnt aware of any wrong doing on the admistrations part? Damn, I was sure she said those things.

[Enrique]

87. no, what's false is to single her out

to paint her position as outrageous when in fact it is shared by many dems beloved at DU. The rationalizations for the double standard are utterly unconvincing.

[OwnedByFerrets]

126. Being in a leadership position kinda leaves ya open

to being singled out, doncha think?

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. I do not whine. I just present facts

[Joe Fields]

85. I not only see the hypocrisy, but I can smell it and taste it, too...

And it is foul. Let me be the first to rec this thread, which recognizes the different attitudes for what they really are.

[Runcible Spoon]

93. I don't agree with either of them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Although I recognize the difference in leverage and position each has.

[depakid]

92. Because she's a complete failure as a leader

willing to advance the right wing agenda through parliamentary procedure, while failing to use her power to hold Republicans accountable for their behavior.

Come to think of it though- Obama's not behaved all that differently in some respects, and anyone who expects him to change if he's elected will likely be disappointed.

[Runcible Spoon]

95. Careful now, Comrade. That's dangerous talk.

please report to Base for re-programming.Comrade Skittles is there already :evilgrin:

:hug: I'm just joshin' ya. Thought I would add that since DU sucks at humor and subtly lately.

[jonnyblitz]

100. people dislike her for her "house speaker" behavior not so much

her positions on the issues.

[KingFlorez]

101. Some people just don't think logically

When she was first elected Speaker, everyone expected her to impeach and have Bush out of office almost immediately and when that didn't happen, the hate started.

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. Despite her promising not to impeach months before the election

[digidigido]

105. She is The Speaker of The House and is the person who CAN start Impeachment

It's her JOB, and she's NOT DOING IT. Read the Constitution

[EstimatedProphet]

111. Anyone in the House can start impeachment with a motion.

[onenote]

115. which constitution are you referring to?

THe one I have doesn't give the Speaker any particular special magic power to start impeachment.

As a historical matter, the impeachment process starts with a adoption of a resolution by the full House authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. That step was taken in the Nixon impeachment process in Feb 1974 by a overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote of 410-4. In the Clinton impeachment, that first step was taken in Oct 1998 by a 258-176 margin, with 31 Democrats supporting.

There is no chance that that a majority of the House would have voted for such a resolution two years ago, two months ago, two weeks ago. Impeachment was not a priority during the Nov 2006 campaign; in fact, it was barely at issue at all in most races and more often than not was backed by candidates who lost.

Pelosi could call up such a resolution for a vote. And watch it lose. That is not the job of the Speaker (nor is it a characteristic of a good leader).

[David Zephyr]

118. Sometimes I think it is solely because she is a woman which is sad.

I support Nancy Pelosi and will continue to do so. She has a very difficult job and the continuous carping at her sometimes just seems sexist to me.

[AlinPA]

119. She is perceived to be conciliatory toward Bush**. I'm not saying she is. She

has called Bush** the worst failure ever.

But she often poses with Bush** and photographs (there have been a lot of them) of her smiling at him and looking admiringly as if she agrees with his policies give us that impression. (My biggest probem with her are these photographs and I just can't get past that)

She does not come across as fiercely partisan. The media would kill her if she were to appear that way. It all adds up.

It is a tough situation.

[BlooInBloo]

120. Because she does nothing more than write sternly-worded letters....

I could get a frickin receptionist to do that. I expect more from the 2nd In Line To Be The Fucking President.

[and-justice-for-all]

123. It is her lack of action that is the problem. nt

[flvegan]

124. Jealousy over her mad Boggle skills.

[Lilith Velkor]

125. She's a woman.

[MadMaddie]

130. Do you remember the first thing she did when she took the

Speaker position?

Two years ago Nancy adamantly said, "Impeachment is off of the table"!
She set the path for us being disenchanted with her.

She may hold the same beliefs as Obama but she and Reid have let the minority Republicans defeat many actions the Democratic led Congress tried to accomplish.

I think Hillary would make a powerful Speaker of the House.

[TheKentuckian]

136. I think it sucks horribly that the partisanship

has been escalated (by the Republicans) well beyond any semblance of having a common goal of doing what is best for our country and it's citizens.

This is now more so than ever a game. A game with pretty much all the marbles in play.

Logic dictates certain moves in this game, therefore one is FORCED to take the winning moves.

Impeachment, in my opinion, had to stay off the table. This despite the plain truth of Bush and Company needing to be removed for a list of crimes, utter disdain for the Constitution, and remaining to this second, a real and present threat to the nation and the principles of democracy.

I think that their is no way in hell the votes were/are there.

I think it lets some squirmers in the GOP in position to slip off the hook but not enough to even invoke much less remove.

I think it would just turn into a circus due to corporate media distortion and blind stupidity of many in the general population.

I don't think the public at large supports it, at least not overwhelmingly. 28% are still cool and good to go and many more including a lot of DLC types are between the misconception that no impeachable offenses are there to being wishy-washy to the point of a narrow thumbs down, caused in no small part by Impeachment fatigue from Bubba's sham, if you're going to impeach him it should be for putting our sovereignty at great risk by starting the fire sale to the Chinese, a bj is strictly none of my bee's wax.

The process has become extremely distorted now, distorted to the point where doing the good, decent, and right thing will sink you. We're forced to use every tool of process, tactics, and lot's of head fakes to just stop the running amok insanity that's going on.
I also firmly believe that our time to stop this trainwreck is short and maybe already passed, at least not without some drastic changes.
Reagan, knocked our legs out from beneath us at a pretty crucial period of time and now we have jump started economies at the expense of our country and people that mean the end of our standard of living. Also, the beginning of the end for self determination and de facto slavery.
The Republicans are tanking the government and systematically destroying all the elements that are the purpose of government, provide a framework and protection for a society. To do what the individuals and even states are incapable of.
When they are finished, there will be no reversing of the process, or it will be extremely unlikely at least.

It's all too much and way too late but in my mind it's life and death for freedom and maybe even civilization through here, and a certain single-mindedness to gather enough control to effect a change in how the game is played is fucking crucial beyond anything else.
I'll trade letting the bastards go skipping off free with bags of stolen money for some chance for opportunity for all, freedom to do as we will as long as "you don't tread on me", for our great grandchildren being able to see stars in the sky, and for humanity to move forward instead of darkness and servitude.

So, when I think doing anything is ineffective or bad strategy, then it is bad and vice versa. The process and goals have gotten to the point to where doing anything that is right, that results in a loss is effectively like thinking there's a good reason for a nuclear war. The odds aren't the best if we win but slim always beats none.

Impeachment is a loser so it's a stupid thing to do. That doesn't mean that I don't think the bastards shouldn't be the last to suffer the death penalty but rather that I see bigger fish to fry.

[MadMaddie]

147. I can appreciate your thoughts but

if "Impeachment" was such a loser than why did the founding fathers include it in the constitution?

Why? Because they knew there would be a day in this country where some bone headed President would try to achieve dicatorship through terrorizing the populace. * has committed crimes against the constitution and he and all those involved should be held accountable.

If Congress would have had the ball to prosecute all of the people involved with Nixon in the early 70's there would have been no Iraq war or other travesty's that we have witnessed over the last 7 years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

141. She came out for impeachment long before she became Speaker

May 2006:

Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards if the party takes over the House in November's elections.

Pelosi, who Republicans have charged intends to lead an impeachment effort, dismissed the idea when she spoke Wednesday morning at a closed-door caucus of the House's 201 Democrats. Pelosi also restated her opposition to the idea of censuring Bush over his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/13/MNG94IRGOO1.DTL&type=printable

January 2007:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker of the House of Representatives on Thursday, as Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/congress.rdp/index.html

[Independent_Voice]

149. Oh, come on!

What makes you think that Senator Clinton would have been any more likely to initiate Impeachment than current-Speaker Pelosi would?

SERIOUSLY????!!!

Sometimes I honestly think Pelosi gets so much shit because people are expecting her to work miracles, and because she's a woman who's not married to a famous former president. And people *WANT* to believe that a House Speaker (or Senator Majority Leader) Hillary Clinton would somehow take the risks that Pelosi is unwilling to. Um, has anyone been paying attention to Clinton's actions for the past eight years?

[JCMach1]

137. Pelosi koolaid tastes bad

:sarcasm:

[Waiting For Everyman]

138. Here's the problem...

The clearest-cut case for impeachment is leading the country into war by withholding or falsifying evidence to sway Congress. Does that ring a bell?

When there are serious allegations, or reason to believe that happened, an impeachment hearing to look into the evidence and determine the facts is the right thing to do under the Constitution. That responsibility is something Pelosi signed on for by accepting the office of Speaker. It was her duty to check it out. No, it isn't all up to her - Conyers has been of the same mind. But who knows if she had not taken part of Congress' powers off the table, that he might have acted differently

You know what? I don't remember "losing seats" being mentioned, by anybody, at the time of Watergate. What if Pelosi-think had been in vogue then?

[Waiting For Everyman]

139. Besides, who is she to say which elections will be won/lost ahead of time?

[Freddie Stubbs]

140. Do you remember the Republicans losing seats during the frenzy to impeach Clinton?

I remember.

[iamthebandfanman]

146. because shes already in power?

and has been for a while?

[LWolf]

148. I'm not that fond of Obama, either.

For the same reasons: issues.

[Freddie Stubbs]

150. Democratic voters sure seem to prefer Obama over Kucinich

Obama delegates: 2,243½

Kucinich delegates: 0

[LWolf]

154. Some Democratic voters do, obviously, lol.

Some does not equal all, of course.

Counting delegates won in 44 states that had only one other choice is a little disingenuous. There is no valid count of how many Democrats may have preferred Obama over candidates they didn't have a chance to vote for.

DK is beside the point. He was only one of many; while he's at the top of my list, for obvious reasons, he was not the only choice. Obama and Clinton were tied for last place. There's a deep, wide, divide between top and bottom in this case. Some of those in between might have been able to bridge the party divide and do a better job of unification.

[Freddie Stubbs]

157. How well did Kucinich do in the six states where he did compete?

Iowa

Obama 38%

Kucinich 0%

New Hampshire

Obama 37%

Kucinich 1%

Michigan

Obama Name did not appear on ballot

Kucinich 4%

Nevada

Obama 48%

Kucinich 0%

South Carolina

Obama 55%

Kucinich 0.1%

Florida

Obama 32.9%

Kucinich 0.6%

[LWolf]

158. You know, since

you are so interested in discussing Dennis Kucinich, which could be a rich conversation, why not start a thread?

Meanwhile, I believe you started this thread to compare Obama and Pelosi, which really has nothing to do with DK.

I responded with a reality: I don't like either one of them.

I'm guessing you decided to counter-attack with DK because of the pic in my sigline.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality: you are correct. I see little difference between Pelosi and Obama, and I don't care for either of them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

162. And that view is wildly out to step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party

[RedShoes]

163. why are you tryna change the subject to Kucinich?

:shrug: Kucinich did not get the attention he DESERVED this primary season, along with a lot of the other hopefuls, because our media is more interested in profit than people. That's simple enough.

But that's not what this OP was about.

Why are you tryna to highjack a thread just to berate someone who doesn't walk lock step with you?

[Freddie Stubbs]

164. Kucinich recieved far more attention than he deserved

He had already proven in 2004 that he was incapable of mounting a credible presidential campaign.

Highjack a thread? I started this thread.

[LWolf]

165. And that's hyperbole.

Take the "wildly" out of your statement, and it's reasonable.

Of course, the mainstream Democratic Party is about as reliable as the main stream media.

I'm glad that there are still some Democrats "out of step" with the mainstream.

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. Despite how some would like to hijack us to the fringe, we are the party of mainstream America

[LWolf]

168. Mainstream America is a single party with a red and blue wing. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

169. That sound like something Ralph Nader would say

I think that most Democrats have learned the lesson of 2000 when it comes to Naderism.

[LWolf]

171. I wouldn't know what Nader would say.

Never having listened to him.

I voted for Gore in 2000.

I know better than to blame the 2000 loss on Nader, of course. Election fraud played a bigger part than a 3rd party candidate who won votes democratically.

[Freddie Stubbs]

172. You are spouting the kind of propaganda as he does about the two parties major being the same

Is that you, Ralph? ;)

[tuesdaymorning]

152. I find them both hugely disappointing.

[LWolf]

153. Yes.

[Odin2005]

155. Black-and-White thinking.

The "OMG, everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the BFEE" wing of DU has a tendency of demonizing perfectly good progressives when they go against those posters' pet issues.

[ecstatic]

160. I was frustrated with Pelosi but now I'm waiting until November 4

to know if it was all worth it. If we win, then that means Pelosi played everything right. :)

[joshcryer]

170. She's a woman.

Simple.