Jesus Christ On A Trailer Hitch, Nancy !!! - Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment - The Nation

[WillyT]

Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment

The Nation
Tue Jul 31, 11:42 AM ET


<snip>

In the first question of the morning, Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said. Today the entails finalizing ethics and lobbying reform. Tomorrow it will mean expanding children's health care and boosting Medicare benefits. By the end of the week the House will likely pass an energy bill and legislation will be brought to the floor that reins in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Pelosi's no fan of Gonzales or his bosses. "The Administration wants the Attorney General to sign off on what can be collected," she says of the wiretapping proposal. "Absolutely not."

She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. "I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that." She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.

But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House.

"If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place."

<snip>

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070731/cm_thenation/15218930

Either she is very sly, or she is very wrong.

My confidence level is at about a 2, if that.

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

1. Dupe

There's a 400 plus thread already covering this exact quote.

[WillyT]

3. Just Got Home From Work... And There's ALWAYS Room For More !!!

And why are you here so fast to point that out?

400 threads ???

Really???

:wow:

[LittleClarkie]

6. Well,

1. Just in case you find yours doesn't garner much response, it's because there's another one.

2. Just happened to be passing by.

3. 400 post thread (over 400 actually)

4. Yes, really.

[Richardo]

2. Sounds logical to me - get the legislative agenda through.

Just like a Speaker of the House.

What would be better to campaign on? We got Gonzales and did nothing else. OR Look at all this great shit we passed?

[cui bono]

4. But it doesn't go anywhere, the senate Repubs block it. n/t

[MuseRider]

7. Exactly and most of it

has no real substance, is like a bandaid that will start several years in the future.

What the hell good is getting an agenda through when you let the most corrupt maladministration ever run rough shod over the little that is left of our constitution. How long will your agenda last then Nancy?

Good lord this pisses me off.

[mondo joe]

15. And the Senate Repubs will do what with impeachment...?

[WillyT]

19. Thank You !!!

The Republicans have already said that they are gonna use the Senate and block any real legislation from getting through. And even if it did get through, the Jerk-In-Chief will veto it. And for those who think that this plays into our hands... "the American People will see that we tried, and were blocked at every turn by the Republicans..."

ARE YOU FUCKING THAT STUPID ???

WE... spend our "free" time dissecting this shit. The American people, DO NOT.

If we continue to look like political pole dancers between now and 2008, all bets are off.

We are not impressing anybody!

:shrug:

[baldguy]

11. Yeah, the Constitution just gets in the way anyway.

Get rid of it - it's just a god damned piece of paper.

:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. How about "We did our job and upheld the constitution"??

[Richardo]

80. That's what they're doing now.

Passing legislation and appropriations. That's their job.

Is there a part of the Constitution that requires them to impeach? I've never seen it in any any of the versions I have. :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. Of course they are free to ignore it

After all, it's just a god damned piece of paper.

[Richardo]

84. They're NOT ignoring it. There's no requirement to impeach.

Is there?

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. Read their oath of office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[Kutjara]

5. It's no use bailing out the boat...

...when there's still someone punching new holes in the bottom. First remove the cause, then deal with the symptoms.

[bobbolink]

8. Great analogy!

Unfortunately, there are so many here who just want to wait until the whole damn ship of state sinks.

Maybe we ought to let them have their wish.

Maybe THEN there will be an awakening.

:shrug:

[MuseRider]

12. Can't do that!

Then it just might be that there was actually some substance to what Nader had to say! Noooooooo.

[bobbolink]

16. Ain't gonna go there... I've been bashed enough.

For a group of people who supposedly wants "peace", there are certainly many who look anywhere for a fight, and carry it over time.

:shrug:

I"m so tired of the anti-impeachment crowd that I just don't care if they get what they want anymore. No amount of logic seems to matter.

"Let it sink, let it sink, let it sink......"

[MuseRider]

20. I totally understand that

but mostly I have given up fighting. I take it all with a smile as sad as it might make me. I used to hate being called an idealist, childish, unrealistic etc. by these people but I no longer care what they think. I realized the last time I let myself get into it when the end response was "Viva Chavez" that it was just too stupid to worry about. Until people can see past winning, until people are able to see the bad with the good and realize that things never get any better if you don't hold people up to a certain standard, until they stop with the blind party loyalty I just expect things to get worse.

[Green Mountain Dem]

25. I would tend to agree with you

cuz I'm old and tired, BUT my 7yr old granddaughter is in that boat and is counting on me to keep her safe!

[Phredicles]

27. Hey, it may sink but darn it if won't sink with the best-arranged deck chairs

EVER!

I'm surprised the Condescending Lecture Patrol hasn't yet found this thread to remind us How The Process Works. Seems to me that at the point The Process is clearly not working; I can't say I know what the answer is beyond hoping the well-meaning but oblivious in congress shake off the cobwebs right quick.

[MuseRider]

29. The CLP?

Oh man, I love that. Thanks.

[WillyT]

44. LOL !!! - Perfect !!!

CLP

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

53. Very well-worded -- I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

"the best-arranged deck chairs" BRILLIANT!

Now you've gone and done it, Phredicles! We MUST hava CLP forum!

Complete with blankies and nap-pads.

And lotsa CHOKLIT!

[marions ghost]

62. I think you

coined a new DU term LOL

The CLP seems to be out in full force...

[The empressof all]

9. Does anyone ever consider an appearance of a conflict here

When Bush and Cheney go she will be President. She can not endorse or orchestrate this action. Impeachment will happen against her wishes and then there will be no cause for it to be labeled a political coup. Until we get some Republican support in the House, Nancy will protest. The decision will be seized from her hands through overwhelming evidence. It's coming....

[libodem]

18. Damn that makes sense.

my head is spinning.

[percussivemadness]

21. This answer just blows me away

Appearance of a conflict? Do me a favour. This is what checks and balances mean.

Its like saying a police officer shouldn`t arrest his corrupt superior because he will get a promotion.

This argument holds about as much water a an empty bucket in the sahara desert, make a case against Pelosi impeaching by all means, but don`t say she can`t impeach because if she does, she is doing her job.

You forget, when the framers PUT in impeachment as a measure, they stated that all corrupt officers need to be removed. Do you honestly believe for one minute that they didn`t see a situation where both president and vice president needed to be impeached? Of course they did, and they also knew the only way that would happen is if the person doing the impeachment was from a different party.

Pelosi is there to impeach, this is not a popularity contest, if she can`t handle the responsibility that comes by default with her position in the house, then she needs to step down.

Quite honestly, she and Reid should have canceled any recess whilst US troops are dying, she says she swore to uphold the constitution, perhaps she should have added, "after I come back from Disneyland"

Peace

[mondo joe]

23. "Pelosi is there to impeach"?

Did she run on an impeachment platform?

Did most of the Dems who took office?

Did ANY of them?

And why Nancy? The framers gave everyone in Congress the same power to impeach. Anyone in Congress can do it.

[percussivemadness]

24. so what you are saying is,

she has no responsibility to listen to the people who elected her?

Are you saying she has no responsibility to lead by example? So how should she lead, please tell?

Has she ended the war in Iraq? - No!!!

Has she ended corruption - No!!!

What exactly has she achieved? I hear people like you saying she has achieved much...What exactly. Please list her achievements over the last 10 months.

Peace

[mondo joe]

30. I don''t know where you got that, so let's go over it.

"she has no responsibility to listen to the people who elected her?"

Yes, she does - that would be the people of her district, and as Speaker the Dem caucus. I think she's in good stead with both groups. If that's not so, her constituents will take care of it.

I think she also has a responsibility to carry out what she ran on.

"Are you saying she has no responsibility to lead by example? So how should she lead, please tell?"

I think she's leading by working on the agenda she and the Democratic congress ran on.

"Has she ended the war in Iraq? - No!!!

Has she ended corruption - No!!!"

And political processes take time - especially with a slim majority, and 6 years of Buscho slime to contend with.

"What exactly has she achieved? I hear people like you saying she has achieved much...What exactly. Please list her achievements over the last 10 months."

Oversight provided through hearings - that alone would be enough.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. Well here is what her constituents are saying:

[mondo joe]

86. That's certainly what some of her constituents are saying.

But they are not all her constituents, nor are they her only constituent group.

[OzarkDem]

36. Its in her job description

The Constitution defines her job and gives whoever is holding that position the right and the duty to do it.

If she's uncomfortable doing her job, she should step aside.

[mondo joe]

37. Really? It's in the job description of the Speaker?

Where?

[OzarkDem]

38. Try reading the Constitution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

41. You distort my comments

as usual. No problem, I'm not trying to convince you anyway.

[billyoc]

42. Wait, she can be impeached.

Anyone in Congress can.

[mondo joe]

43. Not as in the flamebait fantasy scenario presented in the low locked thread.

[OzarkDem]

45. A simple question was asked

Can she be impeached? The rest was in your imagination and subsequent conjecture.:shrug:

[mondo joe]

46. The answer to your question would be in the Constitution, if you cared to look.

But I will admit it's better when you admit you don't understand civics than when you pretend you do.

[OzarkDem]

50. Its a timely topic for discussion

should it be considered, certainly not as a first choice.

Her constant insistence that there should be no impeachment investigation signals she doesn't even support her own party's efforts in Congress. That's problematic, particularly given the evidence Congress has gathered so far.

[mondo joe]

51. "Not as a first choice"? How about not as ANY choice?

Try to think of possible solutions before moving on to the impossible ones, please.

[LittleClarkie]

47. It's an option open to her, to be sure

but not one she has to take, it appears.

[The empressof all]

26. Meh.....

I'm of the belief impeachment will happen. She hasn't shut down John Conyers, She hasn't shut down Jay Inslee. I never said she can't impeach. But frankly it isn't her decision, is it? The Congress is bigger than Ms Pelosi.

I do agree, I wish they wouldn't be away so long in August...But it's time well spent in the local districts hopefully hearing from constituents that these criminals must go.

If you live in a red district or a wavering blue please contact your rep in August and set them straight on this

[EFerrari]

48. I think if Nancy had her druthers, she wouldn't come home

this month. lol

[bobbolink]

54. Oh, I'm sure you can have a fine homecoming party for her...

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

56. We're going to welcome her with signs and candles, like a returning

Deity.

:evilgrin:

[bobbolink]

60. She'll be ever so thankful it's not a cross and nails.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[EstimatedProphet]

76. No! It won't happen!

Because if it were going to happen, it would have happened already! Impeachment should only take aproximately 5 minutes, tops! You say, "Who wants to impeach?" you count the votes, that's it! 10 minutes at the outside! Pelosi should have had bush and cheney out of office before January! The fact that she didn't is proof that she's on the payroll of Karl Rove!

[marions ghost]

63. Ditto....!

and Pelosi attaining the presidency by default is kind of a long shot anyway.

It really shouldn't be a big worry at this point, certainly not overriding the more pressing imperatives. Indicates how downtrodden the Dem constituency is --to think that way --IMO.

[OzarkDem]

35. Conflict is a myth

The Constitution provides for the House to initiate impeachment investigations and to vote on articles of impeachment. The Senate actually votes on impeachment. Inclusion of the Speaker of the House in a succession plan is also included. They wouldn't have structured it that way if there was a conflict.

The argument that it's a conflict of interest isn't valid. Those promoting that argument are only thinking of public opinion, not a real legal conflict.

[The empressof all]

49. You are correct however I am not thinking legally here

Due to the nature of a duel impeachement the political realities of public perceptions need to be considered for this action to go forward.

It will happen. My thinking is by October we'll see some significant shit hitting the fan.

[Virginia Dare]

69. I heard Murtha interviewed on CNN yesterday..

and he said October 1st is the big deadline. He said you will see some significant clashing between Congress and the White House when the funds for the war run out. They're bucking for a fight, and they're going to get one, let the anti-Pelosi brigade whine on.

[bobbolink]

70. Thanks ever so much for giving us permission to "whine"

Thank you so much for all your efforts towards building peace on DU.

[Virginia Dare]

71. Ditto for yours...n/t

[bobbolink]

77. Dearie, I'm not the one name-calling and bashing.

Your superiority schtick is getting so old.

Your charter membership in the CLP is certainly in good standing, hope your plaque on the wall gives you lots of warm fuzzies.

[Virginia Dare]

78. Your childish bullshit is boorish and ignorant..

so we will "converse" no more. Bye.

[bobbolink]

79. Thanks for proving the point with the name-calling.

Peace, dearie.

Look it up.

And, I'm glad you're putting me on ignore. About time.

[Occulus]

83. That may be true fot the President and VP

but the logic falls apart when speaking of Gonzo.

She should be willing to impeach him. There is no conflict of interest there; she's not 'in line' to be AG.

[Rude Horner]

10. What's amazing is...

that she thinks that she's going to be able to do shit with her "ambitious agenda" when the courts and the whole government is stacked against the Dems. When Bushco declares martial law after some bogus terrorist strike next year, we can all remind her about that important ambitious agenda.

Or maybe we won't be able to remind her, after they close all free-speech down.

What pisses me off is the precedent we are setting. If these guys, after ALL THEIR LYING AND CRIMES - if they don't get impeached, how fucking low have we lowered the bar for future generations?!!

And what kind of a lesson are we teaching our children, heck the whole WORLD, about democracy? It's ok for the government to commit crimes, but ordinary citizens are still held accountable. Nice. Real fucking nice.

[Cha]

13. But, your's has a

trailer hitch and I didn't read that one.

[dweller]

22. i'm hitching on the hitch ...

and i didn't see the other one either. . . notice no link was provided. So why should i wander?

dp

[partylessinOhio]

14. I wish Madame Squeaker would just resign, write her memoirs and go away!

"boosting Medicare benefits" ???

It's my understanding there will be further cuts in the bill for those on Medicare. We cannot afford that. I doubt that Madame will tell the truth about what is any of these bills she is pushing. We always find out after the fact when it is too late.

Her agenda is not America's agenda.

Impeachment is JOB ONE! DO IT!

:thumbsdown:

[Nite Owl]

17. Her agenda seems to be on the

way to a veto that they cannot overturn anyway so if they spent the time on impeaching the bastards we could actually save our country.

[WillyT]

28. I'm Still Lookin For One Of Those 400 "Other" Threads !!!

Must have been really early this morning.

:shrug:

[Phredicles]

31. I think the reference was to one thread with 400+ replies;

here's a link; happy reading!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1478272

[mondo joe]

32. The poster said there is "a 400+ thread" - not 400 threadS.

A thread. Not threads.

[WillyT]

34. When You're Right, You're Right !!!

Thanks for the clarification.

:hi:

[mmonk]

33. You beat my confidence level by 1 1/2.

[Lerkfish]

39. sadly, I think she is very wrong.

[bobbolink]

55. The CLP will be along any minute now, to prove *YOU* wrong.

:+

[Lerkfish]

58. "clp"?

not up on my acronyms, I guess. What does that stand for?

[bobbolink]

59. See post #29. You're missing all the fun.

:hi: :toast:

[Lerkfish]

67. ah...thanks!

I hadnt traveled upstream through the thread.

[bobbolink]

68. Yes, the best-arranged deck chairs are up there.

:rofl:

:hi:

[KharmaTrain]

52. So It's ALL Pelosi's Fault

Yep...those Repugnicans in the Senate who are obstructing votes not just on bringing troops home or giving them adequate leave time...but also medicare reform and 15 or more other bills that have been passed out of the House and sit in McConnell limbo in the Senate. That's obvious Nancy's fault for passing out worthwhile legislation that means more to "ordinary people" than people here would like.

I would love to see this war for profit over yesterday, but a Democratic house singluarly focused on that or impeachment with no accomplishment are just as bad, if not worse, than the Repugnican toadies who ran the place into the ground. The backlog of needed revisions and legislation caused by 12 years of Repugnican abuse of the House is still large. People are chafing under a bankruptcy bill, elderly still have to choose between food and medicine and there are landminds everywhere she steps.

For the critics...what do you expect of the Speaker? She can't cheerlead an impeachment that she directly benefits from...and if it fails, then how does that affect all the other legislation?

Instead of blaming a person who had done a hell of a job cleaning up messes, building working coalitions and getting legislation passed...why not look where the obstructions really are. Pelsoi can't make 10 or 17 votes show up in the Senate...only pressure from voters can.

[and-justice-for-all]

57. I dont think it matters what SHE WANTS...

The majority have spoken and they need to start listening to us like we pay them too! I didnt vote them into their positions to sit on their hands like cowards, IMPEACHMENT & PRISON! Nothing less!

[bobbolink]

61. Agreed. Unfortunately, her lobbyists have more power than we have.

:shrug:

She knows many "loyal democrats" will keep voting her back into office, so it's no skin off her nose to follow the $$$$$

[Norquist Nemesis]

64. Enough already, Nancy!!!! The Agenda doesn't have the votes, remember?

"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"
"We don't have the votes"

She can get all of the 'Agenda' items passed she wants, and then each and every item will be killed either by the Senate Cons through political fillibluster (yes, fillibluster!) or by a Bush veto. The PRUDENT thing would be to re-set the goddammed table!!!!

[dkofos]

65. Not how I pictured JC on the trailer hitch. Go nancy you're doing a

heck of a job.

GCS

[eggman67]

66. From the article:

"Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution."

So, if she advances a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry (the first step) and it's defeated what then? Will people finally STFU and realize what an embarrasingly futile effort it was? What do you think the consequences of that would be?



Also:

Nancy's most telling phrase "If I can just hold my caucus together..."

That's her job, holding the caucus together. She's a cat-herder not a dictator. That's hard enough to do as it is. Would somone care to explain how she'd do that by ignoring their wishes?

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Hey Nancy, you may want to read that oath again.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. Would someone PLEASE send Nancy a copy of the CONSTITUTION? PLEASE????

sheesh. Agenda Schmenda! THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING TRASHED!

[bobbolink]

81. hey, it's only a piece of paper.

According to some here, we're supposed to "shut the fuck up" because party is much more important than a silly constitution.