Is there ANY chance that Pelosi will seek to impeach because of Cindy?

[senseandsensibility]

From all the theads on the topic, it is obvious that this idea is not even being considered by people on DU. Is it really impossible? Can you think of a scenario in which it could happen?

[Bentcorner]

1. No, of course not.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Cindy Sheehan has no bearing on Pelosi's decision.

I'm confident of that. I doubt that Pelosi considers Sheehan threatening at all.

[babylonsister]

3. I don't think solely because of Cindy, but I think if enough pressure is

applied, she'll have no choice but to consider impeachment, and Cindy is applying the pressure.

[aquart]

4. No, actually Cindy makes it MORE difficult for Pelosi to change her mind.

Thanks, Cindy.

[babylonsister]

5. That's your opinion; can you prove that sweepiing statement? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

14. I think what aquart means is

that if Pelosi goes for impeachment for whatever reason, the FOX News/radio talk show drones will Wurlitzer it as Pelosi bowing to pressure from Sheehan.

[babylonsister]

18. I think everyone would benefit from ignoring what Faux says. They're

consistently spinning the truth and have no accountability at all. The Dem candidates recognize that; would be nice if everyone else did.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. It's not just FOX, it's talk radio.

And even Republicans in Congress are griping about them. It would be nice to ignore it, but they are too loud and enough people do take them at face value to ignore.

[babylonsister]

33. Of course, you're right there. I had the misfortune to have to listen

to Rush on several occasions. Is 'icky' a word, because he surely is...

[davidwparker]

25. People. FAUX is going to spin anything against the Dems. Stop making

decisions on what FAUX may say.

[TahitiNut]

30. "Waahh! They're being mean to me!"

A sane person would regard it as an honor. :shrug:

[A wise Man]

44. I see that a

quart of nothing didn't have a reply. Typical.

[davidwparker]

13. that's just a hit-and-run statement. I fully support her decision to do

so and will contribute if she does.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Because it would look like she is supporting it for political reasons?

I'm sure no one would accuse the Speaker of that.

[HuffleClaw]

34. exactly my interpretation too

she's screwed pelosi but good. what a truly stupid idea. pelosi CAN'T act on impeachment now imo.

[PBass]

40. I agree that it makes it harder for Pelosi to support impeachment, if it blatantly looks

like her hand is being 'forced'. The best way to get somebody to do something is to make them think it was "their" idea to begin with.

By the way, I support impeachment. This is a good chance to remind everyone to call your Reps and ask them to please support Kucinich's resolution to begin impeachment hearings for Cheney.

I think it's great if Cindy Sheehan wants to put her energy into the impeachment effort. I'm not sure if running against Pelosi is the best way to do that.

[orleans]

51. i doubt it. if anything nancy will hopefully OPEN HER EYES and

and do what the voters want.

[Marrah_G]

6. Of course not

[ThomWV]

7. If Cindy runs she gets my money. Pelosi will certainly notice if lots more people do the same.

It gets their attention, if you know what I mean.

[loyalkydem]

8. Is she

actually thinking about running for office?

[senseandsensibility]

9. yes

unless Pelosi seeks impeachment, Cindy will challenge her.

[Virginia Dare]

10. If Cindy can convince more Reps to support it, perhaps...n/t

[GOTV]

11. No. nt

[onenote]

12. It is not within Pelosi's power to impeach

Although you wouldn't know that from dozens of posts here at DU by people who ought to know better.

Here's the reality: while the leadership controls the agenda, they do not have dictatorial powers. They operate by seeking out consensus. They canvas the caucus to determine what issues/bills, etc. are important to the caucus. They horse trade -- i.e., a member with a particular issue he/she wants pushed to the front of the line may get there by agreeing to support something that some other member wants pushed to the front of the line. THe leadership looks to the caucus to find out what members want to vote on and what they don't want to vote on.

It is a given -- a mortal lock -- that a sizable portion -- probably well over a majority, of the Democratic caucus, is not interested in pursuing impeachment at this time. And they have communicated that fact to Pelosi. It also is a given that if the numbers change, and a majority of the caucus conveys to Pelosi that they want to push impeachment, it is likely to get pushed. However, the chances of that happening probably are dependent on some repubs stepping up and indicating that they support impeachment. In other words, so long as there is a strict partisan divide on impeachment, its not going anywhere because most of the Democratic member of the House won't want it to. Keep in mind that when the Clinton impeachment inquiry was commenced, 31 Democrats supported the repubs. And in the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the vote to start the process was 410-4.

What Pelosi, Hoyer and others do is count votes and try to balance the demands, often competing, of a diverse Democratic caucuse. Where there is division within the caucus, matters may not see the light of day, unless it is viewed as an "easy vote" == that was the case with the timetable and no timetable votes on iraq. After giving members the opportunity to vote for a timetable bill and having it blocked by chimpy, Pelosi allowed a vote on a no-timetable bill because a sizable number of Democrats felt that they needed to vote for a funding bill; given the political realities of their particular districts, it was an easy vote for those members, and it was an easy vote for those (including Pelosi) that opposed a no-timetable bill.

At this point in time, I'd bet the ranch that Pelosi has been informed that impeachment would not be an "easy" vote for a lot of members and, as the leader, one of her jobs is to respond to the caucus, particularly where the result of pushing a vote could be a very embarassing loss (if as few as 16 Democrats refused to go along).

[davidwparker]

21. "they do not have dictatorial powers" - What did the (R)'s do during the

first 6 years of the * administration? It looked to me that they got what they wanted, when they wanted, and had an easy time doing so.

Self-preservation is a politician's #1 priority. Cindy is challenging that and will either get Pelosi moving or remove her from office (taking away her Speaker title).

"And in the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the vote to start the process was 410-4" - And, to get to this point, were there not hearings within the Judicial Committee? I think so.

On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.

Has any movement been made in the Judicial Committee regarding impeachment. I think not. What happened to all that evidence Conyers has collected? I've read Pelosi has put the pressure on Conyers to not follow up. Now, it's time we put pressure on Pelosi to change her mind.

If Pelosi allowed Conyers to take all of his evidence about */Cheney and proceed toward impeachment (H. R. 333), then you may see a high number in the House like there was for Nixon.

Pelosi's position is impeachment is off the table (unconditionally). Right now, Pelosi is the problem, but nice try.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm">Impeachment of Nixon

[senseandsensibility]

24. Where did you read that Pelosi has

put pressure on Conyers?

[davidwparker]

26. it may have been on a podcast. I think I know which one and want to listen

to it again. I'm thinking it was Young Turks on 3 July. I'll post back if that was were it was.

I'm interested in getting this info and that particular episode was the best Turks I've heard in a while.

[onenote]

27. You are wrong. The 410-4 vote came before judiciary hearings

You've got your chronology wrong. The 410-4 vote was the vote to commence an impeachment inquiry in the judiciary committee. That vote was in February 1974. The hearings in the House Judiciary were held in July 1974.

How many repubs would support a vote to start an impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary Committee if was scheduled for tomorrow?


Second, Pelosi can count. If she used her power as Speaker to schedule a vote on a resolution to commence an impeachment inquiry tomorrow, it probably would lose. And how would that help anything?

[nini]

38. Oh please.. political reality means nothing to some here..

emotional reactions are much more effective in pushing for impeachment. :sarcasm:



good post :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

15. Impeach, sure. Because of Cindy??

:rofl:

If Cindy created a movement that went into the areas where minds needed changing - well maybe then.

[Redbear]

17. Pelosi will "change" her mind on impeachment regardless of Cindy

These direct challenges to judicial and congressional authority will force Pelosi to support impeachment hearings.

[peace frog]

19. Chance of impeachment: slim to none

and even then, by no means due to Cindy Sheehan.

[NoPasaran]

20. Zero

[davidwparker]

22. That, and the fact that High Crimes have been committed. Cindy is doing

the right thing by challenging Pelosi and her "right" to incumbency.

[Perky]

23. No...not at all

because the ZSPeaker cna not impeach and I suspect that unless the bill is painfully close she probably abstains since she stands to benefit

[MonkeyFunk]

29. None whatsoever

[sendero]

31. I don't want..

... Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings tomorrow. The time is getting near, but still isn't here yet.

What I DO want her to do is NEVER NEVER EVER take ANYTHING so important "OFF THE TABLE". That was a stupid statement that gained her nothing and lost her, and us, plenty.

[Swamp Rat]

32. I support ANYONE in pressuring our representatives to impeach!

[BuyingThyme]

35. She should step aside in shame and apologize

for throwing her cowardly little wrench into the wheels of Constitutinal democracy. Remove the stigma.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Can somebody give me a reason...

why she's not seeking impeachment?

I mean a good reason. Not B.S. spin.

[EFerrari]

37. No. No one can do that. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

46. I can!

but you've seen the reasons before: you just don't like them.

The votes aren't there. Neither in the House to convict, nor in the Senate to convict. Furthermore, there is no public outcry for impeachment. The latest Rasmussen poll shows 39% support. Zogby shows 52% support. The real answer is probably somewhere between those two, and almost certainly below 50%. And even if it IS 52%, that's not enough to push for such a drastic measure.

That said, I would like to see Bush impeached. But I think people who demand that pelosi pursue this without the votes to support it, or the public will, are being childish.

[EFerrari]

47. 39 - 52% is much more than the Nixon effort had.

And call me childish at your own peril. lol

[BuyingThyme]

39. Please start a thread on this. I would like to know.

I would like to know why she is not attempting to build a political consensus aimed at protecting our Democracy.

[senseandsensibility]

42. I really don't think there

is an answer to your question, or if there is no one on DU is privy to it.

[jpgray]

48. Without the Senate votes it's another of an endless line of empty gestures?

[leftofthedial]

41. no

she already has her marching orders from her corporate bosses

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Unfortunately, no. Pelosi & Co are playing for 2008. Not now.

Too bad about the dead troops and Iraqis while the politicians play politics.

[Raine]

45. No why would it?

The election is in 2008 and chimp leaves then anyway, I'm sticking with Pelosi.

[blues90]

49. I doubt it , if Pelosi won't do it by the peoples demands , then why

would Cindy have an effect , If pelosi screws up then the people will decide next election , providing we have the next election .

[senseandsensibility]

50. I've been hearing a lot of talk about "no elections"

lately. That seems like really scary stuff to me. If people really believe that, you'd think they'd support impeachment.

[blues90]

52. You would think so .

I keep hearing the same thing about cancelled elections and the way things are moving so slow this may very well happen , and it is scary to think bush may not leave and where we will be if this does happen . Certainly the people won't flood the streets in a revolt that's for certain now or we would have already done so .

[Alexander]

53. No. Pelosi is probably laughing at Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy has sadly made herself completely irrelevant.

She's threatening a Democrat who was against the war in the first place.