All this chatter about the sheer evil that is Pelosi is hypocritical

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Obama has the exact same stance as Pelosi on impeachment. Should we take him off the table too? IS he evil? Is he complicit in destroying our constitution?

I am very grateful that Pelosi is pragmatic enough to recognize that a bitter battle over impeachment is not what we need right now.

Do you really think impeaching the President and Vice-President will help Obama? If we want to focus on having real power to implement real change, some pragmatic calculations will have to be made. One of them will be that we don't wan to get into a long bitter battle that will accomplish very little and will have far reaching effects on our bid for the White House.

Here is what Obama has to say about impeachment:


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/28/obama-opposes-impeaching-bush-cheney/

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

[tridim]

1. Impeaching Bush has nothing to do with Obama.

It's about BushCo crimes and the Constitution.

[Donnachaidh]

7. has anyone bothered to ASK him as to how he will go after the neocons?

And it DOES apply to Obama, because there will have to be something done if he becomes president. It's a VERY valid question and I for one, would love to hear his answer, preferably BEFORE the General election.

[hooraydems06]

10. Exactly!

The excuse-making for both Obama and Hillary is sheer frightening in the amount of hypocrisy. And people who go after Pelosi on this matter should be directing a large share of their outrage towards Steny Hoyer as well, who has done everything he can to undermine every really progressive (as opposed to "checklist liberal", which Hoyer tends to go along with) move Pelosi makes.

I would like to see the severe criticism of Barack, Hillary, and Steny that we see directed towards Nancy here and on other liberal, "progressive" sites.

[tridim]

20. How is saying Impeachment is about the perp and the Constitution an "excuse"?

If you check my past posts you'll see that I'm 100% for immediate Impeachment. I've never excused anyone for holding up the process.

[hooraydems06]

24. Well, as I've said about other people who replied to this thread...

... lioness is talking mostly to people who are excusing Obama and Hillary and Steny Hoyer and many others while majorly hating on Pelosi. Those are the people that are making the excuses and they are the main subjects of this thread (and my replies to it, as well).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. it has everythign to do with obama. it has to do with political pragmatism

and prioritizing your battles.

[hooraydems06]

27. Agreed.

[H2O Man]

191. One house of Congress,

the House of Representatives, impeaches officials from the Executive branch and judges from the Judicial branch. Barack Obama is a US Senator, running for the presidency. Hence, impeachment is not an issue that Barack Obama is not involved with .... perhaps that can be viewed as "prioritizing" his battles.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

204. It has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Playwright Bill C. Davis had it just right on the impeachment question two years ago with his editorial on why it is essential -- it's still spot on today:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0502-28.htm

---snip---

Say it and you’re told it won’t happen.

There’s a conscious rage and an unconscious self-defeating deference to the absoluteness of the power that caused the rage. Whether we know it or not we are devastated by that realization.

Impeachment: Impossible – stop thinking about it. Translated: We don’t matter. They know it and we know it. The “leaders” that perhaps, and in not a few minds, most likely, rigged two national elections, quite possibly allowed 9/11, definitely invaded Iraq and lied to do so, depleted the US treasury – or more specifically, redistributed the treasury to internal, private and corporate allies, sanctioned torture and domestic spying – those people can never be impeached or even investigated.

If we felt we owned the house, we’d say get out. But we don’t feel we own the house. We are reduced to squatters, who will grumble and pay fees for the plot of land allowed us, but we know now the land isn’t ours. We know the government and its treasury isn’t ours. So when someone says impeach – ie. evict – the response, even from the people who say it, is - not gonna happen. . . .

[Pisces]

2. Pelosi isn't running for the Presidency. It is her job to ensure that Congress is overseeing

the President with check and balance. Something she and Congress have neglected to do. She has been a worthless Speaker of the House and is complicit with the Bush admin in their crimes. Her job is not suppose to be easy. How convenient for Bush and cronies that the dems must be pragmatic. I wonder why the same rules don't apply to the the joe's out there arrested for pot use? More pragmatism the attorneys should should shout. The prison's are overcrowded?

I don't care how inconvenient the timing is right now, this piece of shit Pres. should be held accountable for his crimes.

[hooraydems06]

5. Typical excuse-making.

NT

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. its her job to make sure we stay in power. she is doing her job.

[Bandit]

147. If she continues doing her job so well Congress will have an approval rating of 2%

She has them down into single digits at the moment 9%..She should be successful in getting them to 2% before she is done..

[northzax]

213. people always hate congress

but like their congressperson. Odd.

[dkofos]

187. Yeah, SCREW the people as long as we (who ever that is) stay in power.

[H2O Man]

192. The history of how

impeachment impacts "the party in power" is very well documented in John Nichols' book, "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism." If it is her job to make sure "we" stay in power, than history shows that she should be advocating impeachment. Arguments to the contrary are without any historical foundation.

Surely her pledge to uphold and protect the US Constitution is also amoung her duties. Again, if it is, then she should be advocating for impeachment.

[daa]

43. Good job TY eom

[hooraydems06]

3. I couldn't agree with you more...

... I figured Obama would come up, but I might also add that there are a ton of people who supported Hillary (some of which still do), and launched the same acid mouthed attacks against Pelosi as well.

There are a bunch of people who are really adept at practicing selective outrage and justify it to themselves in their minds.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

i supported hillary and i think this selective outrage toward pelosi

is bullshit

[hooraydems06]

22. OK, THANK YOU SO MUCH!

It's nice to meet at least one Hillary supporter, former or otherwise who can see the hypocrisy in so many other fellow HRC supporters, some of which still cling to her, despite hating on Pelosi constantly or at least this strange lukewarm feeling towards her while, literally putting Hillary on a pedestal the size of the Washington Monument for having about the same position on impeachment, if not one that is even more to the right.

Also if you read the other thread, I got your gender wrong, and ask that you excuse me for that. But if you could, please direct some of the respondents to not try to distract with that issue or how often I post, and actually focus on the issues I raised about why there is only so much Pelosi could do about impeachment and many other issues, even if she put it "back on the table" (which I feel she might as well do at some point, personally).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. most hillary supporters are against this. mostly because a lot of us feel this is sexist

literally holding obama and pelosi to different standards.

[hooraydems06]

26. OK but my focus is on the different standards...

... that Hillary and Pelosi are held to, not Obama.

Trust me, I have never been that impressed by Obama, so I criticize him for quite a few things, as well. I have been critical of the adulation he has received since way back when he made his big splash at the 2004 Democratic Convention. On the same token, however, I am making a deal with someone who severely dislikes him to hold his nose and vote for him in his state (a purplish swing state that is getting bluer with every cycle), while I will vote for a third party in his place in my state (an indigo blue state). I want everyone to vote for him in states where a vote for him (or you can say, the Democratic candidate) is needed, like Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Florida, etc.

[libnnc]

29. so you openly admit that you're voting third party in Nov?

Brilliant :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. in order to ensure a blue vote in purple state? i think thats great

[libnnc]

32. I didn't think we encouraged that kinda thing around here

:shrug:

edit to add

I'm done.

Sorry.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. we as a party did when nader ran. nt

[hooraydems06]

34. Thanks!

And don't tell anyone, but I might tell more people that might consider voting for Nader in states like Florida that I would vote for him in my state if they will vote for Obama in FL in my place; in other words, I don't feel all that guilty about making the deal with several different people at once. These idiot Nader voters that will STILL consider voting for him even in red or purple states after the last 8 fucking years... though they are huge idiots, if I can reach just one of them and convince them to vote for Obama instead of Nader, then I've done my job. I'm obviously aiming for a hell of a lot more than one.

[hooraydems06]

37. Yeah, I am, why not?

Hate to break it to you, but there is no point in criticizing Dems for not upholding progressive values, the constitution or anything else, if you're going to show that they can just laugh off your threat and know that you'll vote for them no matter what they do. If I lived in Ohio or Florida, which I don't, I would obviously vote for Obama regardless of how disappointing he has been lately (and he sure has)... since I don't live in any state where my vote counts for much (I'm sure you will try to dispute this -- good luck; I suppose I should be thankful if you don't actually try to get me banned from this site or some such, at this rate), I see no point in basically saying "My party right or wrong".

If we ever switch to popular vote, I will probably never vote for a third party for president again, because my vote will actually start to count.

The reason why we lose even when we "win" such as in '06, is because so many of us haven't learned how to think strategically, and we fail to hold Dems accountable if we vote for them even when they fail us miserably; look at the switch in Dianne Feinstein's voting patterns from before 2006 and afterwards; once she got your vote, she can just pee all over you and tell you it's raining and you'll go on continuing to support her no matter how much she undermines any hint of a progressive agenda in Congress. That is the difference between Americans and Canadians.

I know it's often swimming upstream trying to explain to people that Dems in safe blue states need to actually be convinced that they have to actually earn your vote on sites like these, but I can deal with that, if I absolutely have to (which apparently, I do). But other movements have risked much worse backlashes to make change in this country, and a snide comment or a possible banning isn't much compared to what previous generations have had to contend with.

[Jim Sagle]

169. Some here are "literally holding obama and pelosi to different standards" ONLY because they'd be

tombstoned if they did otherwise.

One is Teh One, the other isn't.

[libnnc]

4. I don't agree with Obama on this one.

I will vote for him.

I will raise as much money for him as I can.

I will work for his campaign.

But I don't agree with him on this point.

I don't agree that impeachment proceedings will distract from Senator Obama taking the White House.

[hooraydems06]

8. But will you criticize him as strongly as you might be...

... Pelosi? And if you're not going after Pelosi with hardcore hatred, then you were probably not the kind of person the OP was addressing, anyway.

[libnnc]

9. I don't hate Pelosi, I just don't understand her

and I don't see what she's accomplished thus far

What exactly has she accomplished?

[hooraydems06]

12. OK, well then as I said, you were not a 'target' of the OP...

... if you noticed, he was talking to people who were characterizing Madam Speaker as things like "sheer evil". Oh, and BTW, Pelosi can only accomplish what Hoyer, Reid and his Senate Blue Dog coalition, Lieberman and his fellow Senate GOP obstructionists, and Bush let her accomplish -- in other words, nothing. Primary Hoyer's ass out of the House, expand the Dems' majority in the Senate to 60 seats, not including Lieberman and the two Nelsons (and replace Feinstein in 2012), and elect Obama to replace Bush and she might actually get a chance to accomplish a thing or two.

Anyone who is asking "What Pelosi has accomplished?" as if she is the only player in this equation needs to brush up on their grade school civics, and look at the vote breakdown of how many of the 233 House Dems voted for Jack Murtha vs. Steny Hoyer for the House Majority Leadership, and then they might have the first clue about the question they're asking.

[libnnc]

Well thanks for that "schooling" sparky

The OP is a "she" btw... :eyes:

You lurk mostly, right?

edit to add: the OP is a wonderful poster here in the DU whom I have tremendous respect for.

I just don't agree with her on this particular point.

[hooraydems06]

18. Thanks for your own "schooling"...

... on the gender of the OP. If she is reading this, then I would like to ask her to excuse me. I'm sure she won't hold it against me, assuming she even read the reply where I mistakenly assumed about her gender, because she will read this mea culpa, and could probably, unlike you, actually move on to the actual matters that she raised... a glib response and trying to change the subject won't change the facts on the ground, nor will changing the subject to how often I post here or on which boards or whether or not I know the gender of every single user name on the entire site throw me off. My original point stands, no matter how inconvenient is to you, to the extent that you need to quickly find something flawed about me that makes it as if I have no right to post here. It's a typical Republican tactic, almost. But I understand if you can't really get around the reality of the situation. It frustrates a lot of people, and let's hope that as of the November elections, things are different. In the meantime, let's place more of the blame where it actually belongs -- idiot American voters who took until 2006 for enough of them to wake up and smell the Folgers -- them, and the GOP incumbents who were too entrenched to remove in one sole midterm election.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. she herself is a figurehead and cannot accomplish much without all the dems

[libnnc]

19. But wouldn't you say that as a leader, she could influence

the Dems in the House?

I think she could use this position to our advantage

(especially in regard to recent legislation that has been troublesome...eg FISA etc)

[onenote]

83. the role of the speaker is to try to find consensus

Being a leader is not the same as being a dictator. The speaker is not a dictator. The speaker leads by trying to find consensus. Given the broad spectrum of viewpoints within the Democratic caucus, that sometimes is a job similar to herding cats. You may not like the fact that the Democratic caucus is not solidly progressive, that there are several dozen blue dogs that have cannot simply be ignored or overridden by the rest of the caucus, that positions taken by the most progressive members of the caucus, such as DK, are not always, or even generally,representative of the views of a majority of the caucus.

So, as Speaker (and with the rest of the leadership) it is Pelosi's job to determine what is doable and then to seek out ways of getting it done. Often, getting something requires compromise -- meaning that you can't get everything.

On the specific matter of impeachment, there is no question that it is not "doable" -- that forcing a vote on a resolution to commence a formal impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary Committee -- would be a suicide mission -- it would lose, making the Democrats look weak and the repubs strong. It would force Democrats in conservative/moderate districts to vote on something that could end up putting their seats in jeopardy -- these members are from districts that aren't "safe" and that aren't going to elect a Kucinich clone no matter how much you might wish they would. Even a lot of more progressive Democrats aren't interested in pushing impeachment because, with just a few monthss left in chimpy presidency, and with an election season upon them, they are of the belief -- correctly in my view -- that the public isn't interested in impeachment, which the public will perceive as being about the past. They are concerned about the present and the future. It is the public's interest in the present and future that has made Obama as strong a candidate as he is -- the public wants someone to deal with their problems -- helath care, energy, the economy. They are worried about the future -- will they have jobs, keep their homes, be able to afford to feed, clothe and educate their children. Will the country continue to waste resources -- human and material -- on a dead-end war that should never have been started?

THose are the things the public is concerned about and looking backward to punish the chimpy administration -- beyond the punishment that will be meted out to repubs when Democrats capture election after election in November -- is not what the majority of the public is interested in at this point.

Pelosi's main job as speaker isn't to dictate to the caucus, its to count noses, find out where the members are, and then try to chart a course that achieves what can be achieved.

[libnnc]

84. Well that's all real purty but it doesn't help me sleep at night.

Our legacy is screwed.

I really, really, really, really, really hope that a President Barack Obama's administration can reverse the horrible precedents that have been made over the last 8 years.

[onenote]

94. Not much that can be done about that, I'm afraid.

If you can't sleep, you can't sleep. Personally, I would sleep even less soundly if I thought the Democrats were embarking on a course that had a very real chance of alienating the voters, thereby leading to the repubs maintaining seats that they might otherwise lose or even holding onto the presidency.

Maybe it sounds like expediency. Maybe it is expediency. But I'm staking my hope for a better future on getting Obama and enough Democrats elected that, step by step -- and it won't happen overnight, impeachment or no impeachment -- the country turns itself around and recovers some of its core values.

[H2O Man]

193. Speaker Pelosi

has actually worked to discourage democrats in the House who are in favor of impeachment.

[Greyhound]

6. Is the idea that there are things that are too important to relegate to the "red team - blue team"

idiocy, just too much to grasp?

This is not about them.

This is not about DC games.

This is about whether we will, as a people, condone blatant criminality on a world-wide scale, or not.

[hooraydems06]

13. I love Kucinich...

... have you noticed how Steny Hoyer in particular treats Dennis, greyhound1966?

[Greyhound]

115. Not him in particular, I have to take "inside the beltway" crap in small doses.

I have noticed how the party power brokers treat him and all the other patriotic Representatives, however. It is shameful.

[hooraydems06]

118. Shameful indeed!

Thanks for your reply!

[Greyhound]

122. I honestly thought she would do a much better job than Hoyer when the decision was made to make her

Speaker. I was wrong. We seem to be addicted to simply 'not noticing' that every Democrat that might actually work for change is marginalized and shut out by the power brokers. Preserving the illusion of choice without risking any disturbance to the status quo.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. so if we impeach bush and then lose congress/white house

so that a mccain presidency re-enacts the last 8 years, you will be ok with this perfectly idiotic plan?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. why single out pelosi? if you want to remove all the dems, including obama

i would not call you a hypocrite

[hooraydems06]

31. Agreed.

Criticize Pelosi, sure, but criticize everyone else who takes the same stance as her, as well. Hell, even throw the Republicans in that mix. They don't get a pass, either, even if they don't give a shit what we think. I'm still going to rip into them for this just as much as I would every other fucked up thing they do.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Zuiderelle]

51. You want to remove Obama?

Well, that just sort of proves how ridiculous some people are here.

[Bob Dobbs]

56. His Chicago school economics are damning enough.

Change for change's sake is No Change.

[PeaceNikki]

54. Your concern is noted.

[Greyhound]

113. You are trying to couch this meritless excuse in terms of "we have no choice" and that is

disingenuous at best. They said the same thing in the 70s and Nixon was forced to resign. Clinton buried 41s crimes for the same stupid reason and caused all this shit to happen.

So what was the reason to let these crimes go again?

[H2O Man]

194. There is no

historical foundation for this type of "the sky will be falling!" nonsense. The actual historical record of the election results directly related to attempts to impeach are easily available, in John Nichols' book, "The Genius of Impeachment."

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. They could always wait till after the election, if the numbers are there.

The new congress can impeach and then remove Cheney and Bush in a straight up and down vote before January 20. That would conveniently remove it as an election issue, and yet neither of the two miscreants will get their pension, or SS protection, or the ability to pardon anyone just as they're leaving office, because they'll have been removed from said office. It's also a nice way to spit in their eye, which will feel so good...

[elocs]

28. I'll give you a Rec because you are unlikely to get may here on this subject.

If you were physically in a public meeting place now you would be shouted down. As long as you go along with the prevailing notions, then all is sweetness and light. Otherwise, watch out.

Oh, my own Senator Feingold who has been hailed as a patriotic hero here does not favor impeachment either. I realize he is not a member of congress, but neither is anyone else who posts here and they are all allowed to have their opinions.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. thanks.

[elocs]

76. Wow! You made it to 6 Recs already.

If you simply screamed IMPEACH THE FUCKER!!!! you would have had at least 25 by now (more if you added more "fuck", preferably bold and in all caps).

[MadHound]

35. So Bush isn't held accountable for his crimes then

All due to political expediency, all done in the name of winning this fall. This one of the major problems we have with our current political system, this is, in part, what drives people like Nader to speak the increasingly self evident truth, that there's not a dime worth of difference between the two parties.

This is supposed to be a nation of laws, a nation where our Constitution is upheld and defended. Yet it continues to get shredded, and yes, the Democrats, and Obama, are culpable in this. Our Fourth Amendment was destroyed, with Obama's help, but our Democratic leadership is willing to go along with that in the name of winning. Bush should be held accountable for his crimes, but the Dems don't want to do that, all in the name of winning. Everything that we hold dear in this country, the rule of law, our rights and freedoms are being sacrificed on the altar of winning, yet that sacrifice is not worth it, and in the end, will destroy our country.

Winning isn't everything, nor should we sacrifice the rule of law, sacrifice the Constitution in order to achieve it. If the Dems continue to do so, then yes, they are culpable for the destruction of our country also, and are no different from the 'Pugs.

Sorry, but I put country, Constitution, our rights and freedoms before party any day of the week and twice on Sundays. What an interesting concept that such an outlook makes me a heretical Democrat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. so you think obama and pelosi are equally culpable then, right?

[MadHound]

39. Equally culpable?

As Bush is, perhaps not, but both have aided and abetted this Bush administration, Obama not so much because he wasn't around for the first part of it. But it is pretty damn obvious that both Obama and Pelosi are willing to sacrifice the Constitution and our rights in order to win. Do I have to go through the long litany of atrocious legislation? You know, FISA, Patriot Acts I and II, etc. etc.

I'm finding it harder and harder to support a Democrat and a Democratic party that are willing to take part in the shredding of our Constitution. FISA and impeachment are just the tip of the iceberg.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. i understand your position. i dont understand people who want to throw pelosi out

but fully and unequivocally support obama.

thats what i find hypocritical

[MadHound]

44. Well, I'm not a big fan of Pelosi

The fact that she has continued to lead the Democrats in bending over for Bushboy, even though we have a Dem majority has soured me on her, along with the fact that she refused to really try and bring the troops home, or pursue impeachment when the '07 Congress was sworn in.

Obama I'm liking less and less. This dive to the center(which in modern American politics is really now the right) was to be expected, but pandering to RW fundies by promising to further fund faith based charities, along with his FISA cave have left some serious doubt in my mind.

Frankly I want to throw the entire mess out of power and start anew. We have the power to call a Constitutional Convention in order to correct the path that this country is on. The first thing that needs to be done is publicly financed election campaigns for every office from dog catcher to president, take corporate money and corporate power out of our government. If we don't do this, if we continue down this path, we risk turning our country into a fascist state, or experiencing a violent revolution that may or may not turn out for better for our country.

[EFerrari]

47. Most of that group don't. We may be quiet in the spirit of

supporting our candidate but, no, it's not hard to find the consistencies between the two. Not at all.

[fascisthunter]

59. I Don't.... Obama is not the Leader of the House of Representatives

But I also don't like his stance on this one bit, but criticizing him right now on DU by calling him "evil" is sort of verboten on DU, so I doubt you'll be seeing any of it from anyone.

[GreenPartyVoter]

153. Amazing how many people will give the ** junta and his Congressional enablers a pass, eh?

[Zuiderelle]

41. And this is something on which I agree wholeheartedly with Obama.

It does us no good to chase after impeachment at this stage. It would only hurt us to focus on that. I respect both Obama and Pelosi for their stances on this particular subject.

And I am sick to death of people trashing good politicians around here. It's a sure fire way for me to recognize the egomaniacs who just like to read their own words words words words words words words words words words words words.

:thumbsup:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. yeah i know what you mean.. so many words, so little meaning

:hi:

[EFerrari]

46. It would not hurt us in the least for Bush's crimes to be repeated over and over

from now until November.

I really don't care what insult you use to describe those of us working for impeachment. It certainly doesn't change the fact that Pelosi has been too cowardly to even hold a townhall meeting in her district for most of two years. There's words for ya.

[Zuiderelle]

49. You don't see how driving for impeachment would take away from greater concerns?

Like getting our nominee into the White House? What are you working for in working for impeachment? Are you working for alienating those in the middle (and some on the left, and definitely those on the right) that would be turned off by democrats concentrating on something that they don't feel is worthwhile or necessary? It would be like whispering into a hurricane. I don't care for our representatives wasting valuable time and effort that way.

[PeaceNikki]

50. You mean TWO impeachments.

Do we want Cheney to take over? :scared:

[EFerrari]

53. You mean you want them to have more time to cave in to the Bush agenda?

No, I don't support that.

There is nothing more important that they could be doing than restoring the rule of law to this country.

And, fyi, most Americans want Bush's term over, like months ago. So there is no "whisphering into a hurricane". Most Americans are mad as hell and now, scared to death over keeping their homes and fueling their caras and about their banks going belly up.

But, let's not ask Pelosi and Co. to waste their time attending to the American people. That would be a distraction from their corporate clients. And we can't have THAT.

[Zuiderelle]

57. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't as mad as you think they are.

You'd like them to be, but they simply aren't.

[EFerrari]

68. Back that up.

:)

[Zuiderelle]

69. Back yours up, it would be just as impossible.

:)

[EFerrari]

75. Not at all.

There was a poll months ago that showed most Americans wanted Bush's regime over.

Months ago, most Americans wanted out of Iraq.

Months ago, most Americans believed we were on the wrong track.

And as late as last week, Nancy's Congress had a 9% approval rating.

Impossible, my @ss. The evidence has been out there FOR MONTHS.

[Zuiderelle]

77. This doesn't prove at all that most Americans are mad enough to impeach.

Or that they would want to pursue that instead of pursuing more important things. Sure, most Americans want Bush out... but mad enough to want something stupid like impeachment when we're trying to get a democrat elected to the White House. You're wrong.

[EFerrari]

79. I watched the Watergate hearings while waiting for my first son to be born.

The public was NO WHERE as engaged as they are now.

No, I'm not wrong.

There were not protests to impeach Nixon. Rather, we had statemen in office, not toadies.

[Zuiderelle]

80. And Nixon wasn't at the end of his last term in the WH either.

Really, what's the use of this? Can't you see how this would distract people's attention from the real issues that we actually might be able to do something about? Let's prosecute the asshole after he's out of power, but to do it now would be political suicide, for our party and our nominee.

[EFerrari]

81. Please. Bush will never be prosecuted once he's gone. That's just not true.

And what exactly would impeachment distract from? More bail outs for Bush cronies?

We can't get in the way of that. We should just forget we're losing our homes, and our kids are getting killed for lies and we can't afford to buy gas or rice and that hundreds of banks are likely to fail in the next few weeks.

We should just forget that people are being tortured right now in our name and that due to negligence, a war is about to start up on the Pakistani border.

We don't want to DISTRACT from this scenario, do we?

Political suicide -- that's hilarious. Continue to discourage the rule of law. The political suicide you're fronting is your own.

[Zuiderelle]

88. How on earth do you think we could accomplish impeachment AND conviction before he's out anyway?

[EFerrari]

90. You have a moving goalposts problem.

You (now) want to nix impeachment because of some projected end.

That's not democracy. That's not how our system works. And that's having no respect for our process.

You have no idea what good could come between now and then. And that's a shame.

[Zuiderelle]

That is how our system works. Impeach because you want someone out.

Why impeach when that person will be out by the time you could convict anyway. It's a WASTE OF EFFORT.

[EFerrari]

98. There's this whole big deal that we call the Constitution

and the rule of law. It's never a waste of effort to re-inforce the basis of our republic unless you are on the payroll of Blackwater, Northrup-Grumman or L-3.

A waste of effort?

That's exactly why the felons in the Reagan administration came back to bite us in the @ss. It was a waste of time. So, those felons went free and they went right back into government.

No, it's not a waste of time except to party hacks who have no interest in the public good or, to those who know they have been subverting the law that makes our lives possible.

/ clarification

[Zuiderelle]

99. Thinking about the consequences is the smart thing to do.

Regardless of what anyone thinks is the right thing. "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" is a good saying for this whole Impeach Bush nonsense.

[EFerrari]

100. Consequences?

Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Eliot Abrams, Poindexter, Negroponte.

The whole infrastructure of the Bush presidency is made of felons that people like you let off in the past.

You not only cut off your own nose, you cut off everyone else's, too.

[Zuiderelle]

104. LOL! All that before January. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, we'll alienate all the people who might have voted for Obama, but who become so disgusted by this single agenda that they stay at home instead.

[EFerrari]

105. Do you know how long Clinton's impeachment took?

And your claim about alienation is laughable, in itself.

[Zuiderelle]

108. Yeah, about six long years is what it took, from the time Paula Jones first

accused the President to the time he was not convicted. It's not just the trial we're talking about here. It's getting there that takes all the time and focus. Or don't YOU remember THAT? I sure do.

[EFerrari]

110. That's simply untrue.

Might want to fact check yourself.

[Zuiderelle]

112. Um, yes it is true.

Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Clinton in 1994, which is what started the ball rolling. Monica Lewinsky was added as a potential witness in that case in January, 1998. It was Clinton lying about that relationship (in the affidavit he made, also in Jan 1998), that eventually led to Starr introducing "evidence" to impeach in September of 1998, then the actual impeachment trial which began in the Senate in January 1999 and ended with acquittal in February of 1999.

So... ok, five long years. It felt like six.

I guess you don't remember.

[EFerrari]

161. It was three months between the time Starr submitted his report

to the House impeachment vote.

How many years have Conyers et all been "investigating" Junior?

At this point, Nancy is just in the way. It won't matter in the long run except that will be her legacy: she protected Bush and ignored her constituents. That's her burden.

[Zuiderelle]

163. And who has filed a lawsuit against Bush that could possibly be used in the same way?

You seem to be avoiding my answer to you. It took a LONG time for the original lawsuit against Clinton to turn into impeachment. Where's the lawsuit against Bush?

I'm proud of our Speaker for doing her job with ABSOLUTE integrity and pragmatism.

Here's to Nancy Pelosi :toast: Keep up the great work!

[EFerrari]

164. Are you kidding me? There have been lawsuits against Bush

dating back to 9/11. :wow:

The difference between the Clinton impeachment and this one is that there was no Republican Nancy Pelosi covering Clinton's rear.

You either don't know what integrity means or you don't care what it means.

[Zuiderelle]

165. LOL. Priceless.

[EFerrari]

166. That's my thinking, too. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

58. You act as though impeachment would mean gas prices would drop

and foreclosures would stop.

This country has A lot of shit to clean up. Impeachment wouldn't magically fix it. In fact, it distracts from fixing it. A lot.

[libnnc]

61. I don't think anyone is saying that they believe

impeachment will "magically" fix everything

There's just some comfort in knowing that war criminals can be held to justice at some point...ANY point.

I'd be happy if they'd haul 'em off AFTER November. Would you agree to that?

[PeaceNikki]

64. Well,

A) it's not my call, personally.

B) I think ALL of us would LOVE for them all to be held accountable. There's no question about that.

I stand with Senator Feingold and our other wise and honorable Democratic leaders who have spoken about why impeachment is not the nest course of action. In fact, a failed impeachment could cause FAR more harm than good.

[libnnc]

65. I'm hoping for the Hague

It might not be up to 'us'.

[PeaceNikki]

66. And some have said that a failed impeachment = exhonoration

The last thing in the world I want is these people to walk away after an investigation appearing/claiming that they've been falsely accused.

There's NO WAY we'd get 67 votes in the Senate.

[libnnc]

71. Like I said...It might not be up to "us"

This administration isn't exactly the rest of the world's paradigm of virtue.

[EFerrari]

70. It's not about magic at all. It's about, at very least, slowing BushCo down.

You think he's gifting his cronies now -- it will only escalate in the coming months.

And you people keep saying "distraction". I wouldn't mind Congress being DISTRACTED from passing FISA or continuing to fund THE WAR or bailing out their cronies while we lose our homes.

You say "distraction" like it's a bad thing.

[Overseas]

63. I agree that there is nothing more important than using impeachment

when faced with such abundant criminality.

I think Democrats would have picked up even more support if they really HAD taken the mandate they were given in 2006 and pushed for impeachment and refused to fund the Iraq war without a timetable for withdrawal and more generous benefits for veterans.

Democrats would look a lot stronger to the general public.

[EFerrari]

72. We're just this much deeper in crisis than we were then.

Experts know exactly how to get out of Iraq. Get out. There will be a period of turmoil -- but there will be that period regardless.

Staying in is only to benefit the oil and gas men, not our people and not their people. That's just the excuse.

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. You realize that with impeachment Bush cannot pardon himself or his cabal?

But, if he is not impeached that he can pardon?

"he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

[Zuiderelle]

55. He most certainly can. He would have to be CONVICTED to lose that power.

And how quickly do you think conviction would take? And why don't you think that Cheney would make those pardons anyway, even if we were to convict in time?

[Ichingcarpenter]

60. No, you are wrong if the proceedings are going on he can't pardon

there is no mention of 'conviction' only of 'cases of impeachment' in the Constitution.

[Zuiderelle]

62. You are reading that incorrectly. He cannot pardon OTHERS who are under impeachment.

So, he couldn't pardon himself from crimes while he's under impeachment, but he most certainly could pardon others.

[PeaceNikki]

48. Happily the 5th rec

And, I stand with my fine, honorable Senator Russ Feingold on this (as well as most, if not all) issues.


<-- Me n Russ :)

[pacalo]

67. Any politician who puts political gain/loss over the Constitution & our nation's laws is WRONG.

I don't care how little squatting time the boy king has left in the White House -- impeachment is mandatory if we care anything about leaving the Constitution in tact. Accountability serves as a "not welcome here" sign to future aspiring kings who use the White House for corruption.

[PeaceNikki]

74. Do you really believe all of the Dem leaders who are not supporting impeachment are doing that?

I think that's a silly thing to say.

Feingold, Obama, Pelosi?

What will a failed impeachment result in? Yeah, nothing. In fact, it will give these assholes a reason to say, "look, we're CLLLEEEEAN!".

[The Stranger]

73. Pathetic post. I mean really.

As has been pointed out time and time and time and time again, Barack Obama is a Senator. Among the things he is not:

He is not the Speaker of the House who determines whether or not there will be impeachment.

He is not the one who "took it off the table" so that it could never be used -- not even for valuable political leverage against the criminal junta running the executive branch.

He is not the one who has continued to prevent hearings on impeachment despite the catastrohpically low regard that the current executive has, and the wide regard that the executive has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.

He is not the one who has single-handedly deprived the People of the only Constitutional remedy they have for a criminal executive.

He is not the one who, in the face of crime after crime after crime -- including everything from war crimes to U.S. attorney firings to illegal CIA leaks to torture to refusing to respond to subpoenas to declaring everything secret or subject to executive privilege -- has held down the People and kept them from protecting their Constitution.

[NNN0LHI]

120. Barack Obama is just a Senator? No he is the de facto leader of the Democratic party

He took impeachment off the table over a year ago. Would you enjoy watching the Dem party fighting among themselves over this months before the general election??

I know the Re thugs would like nothing better.

Don

[The Stranger]

144. That's bullshit and you know it.

As a Senator, he doesn't control the bringing of articles of impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives. In fact, since he isn't even in the fucking House of Representatives, he can't do much in the way of getting the efforts of people like Kucinich to daylight.

The Pelosi Traitor, on the other hand, is the Speaker of the House. She could allow impeachment to be brought the floor and considered. In fact, she could even just hint at it every once in a while to gain leverage with the Republican Junta. But no. Instead, she refuses it to be even considered.

It is inexplicable politically. Any politician would use what leverage they have to get things done. Instead, this politician has stabbed her party in the back by actively and unforgivably robbing it of its leverage and ability to get its agenda done.

And all of that is not even going into the Constitutional obligation to allow the people their only remedy to rid themselves of a criminal executive.

And we all know that Barack Obama is running for President and leading in the polls. Especially with the media whores scrutinizing his every move, it is not his fight to fight. It is hers. If their positions were switched, you bet your ass Bush would impeached, convicted and facing the music.

[PeaceNikki]

124. The point is that people call her names, demand she step down,

etc because she doesn't support impeachment. There are a LOT of Democratic leaders that DON'T support impeachment. Including Obama and my own Senator Feingold. Hence the hypocrisy.

BTW, Obama is a Senator and while he doesn't determine whether it moves forward, he has a vote and he works closely with the other 99 people who do. We all know how many votes it takes to CONVICT. There's no way in our wettest of dreams that it will net in 67. A failed impeachment does nothing but clear the names and exonerate the parties involved.

[The Stranger]

145. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

How in the fuck can we know "in our wettest of dreams" what the outcome would be? The base has been screaming for vengeance for years now. This President is the most unpopular President in recent memory if not history. If the very fucking option of impeachment were made a possibility, you would see support moving in its direction. You would more press coverage (despite the media whores). You would begin to see how politics really works.

Politics is not some kind of static card game. You don't count the votes now -- that is absurd. The vote comes after hearings, and evidence, and debate, and the people's voice being heard. There is already an incredible amount of already stoked fury among the people, and impeachment would give it focus and channel it toward and against the criminal in the White House. The votes start arriving as the process unfolds. That is how this works. Come on.

[mmonk]

78. He's as wrong and dishonest about it as she is but she is House

Speaker and he is a Senator running for President and has no decision power in the matter in reference to the House's duty.

[spanone]

82. obama is only one senator. nancy rules the roost. she directs policy .

[onenote]

91. and, most importantly, she consults with the caucus and counts votes.

If the Democratic caucus was demanding that impeachment move forward, I guarantee that it would be. But their not. Indeed, they almost certainly conveying to Pelosi a desire that impeachment not be put on the table. They hear from their constituents and while they may have a small but vocal number who are demanding impeachment, they have a much larger, and much more vocal, contingent that is expressing a desire that the problems that afflict people in their daily lives: whether they can afford to drive to work, whether they will even have a job, whether they can afford to feed their families, send their kids to school, keep their sons,daughters, husbands and wives out of harm's way in a far away land that we should never have invaded -- they are concerned about what the next president will do, not with what the last one has, or hasn't done.

That's what members of Congress are hearing about and that's what they are thinking about and you can bet your last dollar that enough members of the Democratic caucus have made it clear to Pelosi that a push for impeachment at this stage is not going to be well-recieved by most of their constituents and that the Democratic party will pay a price for that in many districts where we now have a chance to pick up seats that we have not previously held.

There was a poll a while back that demonstrated what I'm saying. It showed that most people believed chimpy had committed actions worthy of impeachment. Yet it also showed that 2 out of three people did not support going forward with impeachment. Indeed, even among Democrats (leaving out independents and repubs), only 50 percent supported moving forward with impeachment. That was last November. Eight months later, with the economy reeling, the war draggin on and an election on the near horizon, those numbers likely have moved even further away from supporting impeachment. Most people don't see impeachment as addressing their needs. Maybe that's shortsighted, but with an election coming up, it would be foolish to ignore the voters.

[Canuckistanian]

85. Not his job. It IS Pelosi's.

Besides, are you expecting a presidential candidate to call for the impeachment of his predecessor?

There's a quick ticket to Palookaville.

[onenote]

92. what exactly do you think Pelosi's job is?

Here's a hint: its not "dictator" of the Congress or even the Democratic caucus.

[Canuckistanian]

119. Uh, she's the Majority Leader

If she wants impeachment to go forward, it will go forward.

If she says it's "off the table", too bad. It's effectively dead.

She can get bills killed in committee, create other bills , and generally exert a GREAT deal of pressure.

Are you saying that she's powerless?

[onenote]

130. uh, she can't make people vote for impeachment

I'm not saying that she's powerless. I'm saying that her power is constrained to accomplishing what is doable. She cannot force blue dogs or any of the other dozens of Democrats who don't want to push impeachment -- who think its too late, too divisive, not what their constituents want, or who knows what else -- to support impeachment. As she pointed out in her most recent statement, to start an actual impeachment inquiry the full House has to consider the matter. In other words, the referral of DK's resolution is not, in and of itself, enough to allow Judiciary to commence an impeachment inquiry. It is enough to allow Judiciary to hold hearings on the failings/misdeeds of chimpy and his gang and to allow witnesses, such as DK, to express the view that there are reasons to go forward with the impeachment process. But Pelosi is fully aware -- as would anyone who lives in the real world -- that a resolution to commence a formal impeachment process -- the kind of resolution that passed 410-4 when the question was whether to start an impeachment process against Nixon and that got the support of over 30 Democrats when the questioon was whether to start an impeachment process against Clinton -- will not get a majority in the House. Pelosi is duty bound in her role as leader of the Democratic caucus not to put members of that caucus in harm's way and calling for an impeachment vote will do that because its inevitable defeat will (1) rally repubs who at the moment have littel to be "for" and (2)result in a public perception of Democrats as divided, unable to win, and more interested in revenge than in leading the country into the future and dealing with the issues that voters actually care about. I can see it now. The Democrats hold an impaechment hearing, with folks like DK and Turley and others testifying. Meanwhile, the repubs in the House dont' bother showing up. Instead, they go back to their districts and stump, telling voters how they want to work on issues like energy, health care, the economy, but the Democrats are more interested in trying to remove chimpy as president a day or two earlier than will be the case in any event.

Not a good strategy and not one that has the support of more than a relative handful of Democrats.

I think the hearings that are scheduled are a good thing. I think publicizing the misdeeds and failings of this adminsitration without making it about "impeachment" will help Democrats because repubs can't attack those hearings as being about revenge and removing the president a day or two early. Rather, they force repubs to either defend what has gone on or flipflop themselves.

The reason for these hearings is that they are good electoral strategy. The reason for not pushing impeachment as the product of these hearings is that impeaachment is not good electoral strategy.

[Canuckistanian]

134. Yeah, I gotta admit,, you make some good points

First, the facts. With this late date, there's no way the full process could play out in time.

But there are two schools of thought on that.
1)Lets at least bring out the evidence and testimony for a full airing, and
2)Go full bore to AT LEAST show that Constitutional checks and balances are still valid.

I'm in the latter camp, but I admit the futility of doing so for the reasons you quoted.

And yes, the "blue dogs" are a maddening, irrational and basically cowardly bunch. But they're real and need to be considered for any semblance of Dem unity. Or else, as you say, the MSM will shred the Dems.

Thank God at least for DK. He's doing the heavy lifting for those who are too afraid for their own skins.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. her job is not to take a path that would make it impossible for the rest of the dems to survive

politically

[Canuckistanian]

123. Right. Just like the Republicans suffered after Clinton's impeachment

Whew. They just barely survived.

And remember, impeaching Clinton was NEVER popular, and impeachment of Bush is favored by a clear majority.

[onenote]

131. the repubs suffered historic losses in Congress after trying to impeach Clinton

Sorry if the facts don't fit your fantasy, but you can look it up. Actually, I'll do it for you:

In 1998, the first year in which the Clinton impeachment effort may have had an impact on an election, the repubs suffered historic losses in the House --- it had been more than a hundred years since an out party had failed to gain seats in the House during the sixth year of a presidency and the repubs managed to lose seats. They lost additional ground in COngress in 2000, lost the popular vote for the presidency, and managed to capture the wh only through action by the SCOTUS (and, arguably, the ill-advised candidacy of Ralph Nader). And its likely that the repubs would've lost even more ground in 2002, but something happened in between 2000 and 2002. YOu may have heard of it. The impact of 9/11 altered the political landscape in 2002 and was still reverberating in 2004. It was not until 2006 that the effects of 9/11 had worn off enough (or, more precisely, been erased by chimpy's mishandling of the war, repub corruption, the Katrina disaster, and other repub fiascos).

[Canuckistanian]

133. My point was that the Repubs never suffered a MAJOR defeat

Not getting "enough" seats or losing seats is NOT a major defeat in my books.

They still won the presidency with something like a 49.8% count AND had a majority in the Senate AND House.

They WON, by any standard you can name.

So, impeachment alone never damaged them as much as the OP said.

[onenote]

136. the situation today different than in 1998

The public's perception of COngress is at an all time low; this gives Dems the opportunity for some pick ups, but it also puts some seats at risk. The best thing the Democrats have going for them is that the repub "brand" is in the toilet. But it would be a huge mistake to think that the public's disdain for Congress is a product of Congress' failure to pursue impeachment. 435 members of the House stood for election in 2006 and you can count the number of races in which impeachment was even raised as an issue on the fingers of one hand, probably. And the number of candidates advocating impeachment as a way of distinguishing themselves from their opposition who won (be it the primary or GE oppostion) -- virtually nil. These are seasoned, hungry politicians who want to win. If advocating impeachment was a winning strategy, why did almost every candidate ignore the issue?

You know the answer, even if you don't want to admit it -- the voting public isnt as worked up about impeachment as you are. They are worked up about other things.

Now maybe that's shortsighted of the electorate. Maybe they should all care more about impeachment than about their jobs, education, etc etc But short of putting the electorate in re-education camps (and it would come as no surprise to me if there were DUers who would support that idea), you can't just wish away the reality of where the public is on the issue.

And neither can the politicians seeking to get elected. And neither can Pelosi, who ultimately has to cobble together a consensus position from among a Democratic caucus that is all over the map doctrinally.

[Psyop Samurai]

142. "But short of putting the electorate in re-education camps...

(and it would come as no surprise to me if there were DUers who would support that idea)"

Me! Right here! :hi:

I want the Goebbels media smashed into a million pieces. I want it utterly destroyed, and replaced with something that does not make a mockery of informed consent.

Short of that, there is such a thing as standing up to it. There is such a thing as not bowing to and reinforcing a false consensus. There is such a thing as reframing and establishing a new consensus. There is such a thing as playing offense occasionally.

The political consensus you map out (rather convincingly) is nonetheless one that is based on gross distortion and falsehood. At what point do our real prospects change if we only react to false consensus, rather than establish a new one?

btw, I appreciate your posts here and in some other threads recently, and have taken to reading them carefully, when I used to summarily reject them. Either I've become more open-minded, or your posts got better. :freak:

[onenote]

143. thanks

[La Lioness Priyanka]

152. they won. they had the votes. we will lose.

[The Liberal Thinker]

86. Me too.

I always have to laugh when people decry the she-devil they think Pelosi is. Guess what, impeachment wouldn't work. We don't have enough votes. Shut up and get to work electing Obama.

[mmonk]

87. I'm going to throw you a hint. If you want people to be excited

and rally around Obama and contribute to the effort, this isn't a good way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

89. i am going to throw back a hint. that wasnt my point. my point was dont jump on a

bandwagon, think your thought through and dont be a hypocrite.

[mmonk]

96. I'm not a hypocrite. Using the word change without doing anything

about all this is hypocritical. Before you attack me, I'm an Obama delegate at the state level. My warning is real. Some are choosing Obama for change from what we've been through. Many people put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before politics and pushing this (Obama against impeachment) may make people on the fence hesitate or vote third party out of disgust. Be careful because some do not see your point of view on this issue and you need to insure that McCain isn't elected.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. i am not calling you a hypocrite but my thread was about hypocrisy

[mmonk]

101. I understand. While it may appear hypocritical to bash Pelosi

while supporting Obama, I think it should be secondary at this point. I prefer separation of the House's business with Obama's campaign. I'm just paranoid so forgive me. I just don't want even one vote chiseled away from Obama right now. I'm hoping the fight for impeachment can be a separate matter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

102. if you want obama to win, as i am sure does pelosi, you will let impeachment go

atleast till november

there is no way that obama and pelosi didnt have this little chat you and i are having.

that is her job.

[EFerrari]

103. If we let impeachment go, it doesn't matter who wins in November.

Because what we will have is a figurehead over a corrupt government.

I respect Obama enough to want better for him and for us.

[mmonk]

106. That I cannot do. But I'm confident it won't hurt him.

I stand as Wexler does, for Obama as President and for impeachment hearings to go forth. If he isn't worried about it, then neither am I.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

109. i stand with pelosi. an impeachment hearing would derail the presidential

debates etc.

[Zuiderelle]

111. Hear hear.

I'm with you.

[mmonk]

116. In which direction?

I do not see Pelosi as a noble figure.

[PeaceNikki]

117. I stand with lionesspriyanka and Pelosi and Feingold.

A failed impeachment nets nothing but exoneration of their grievous acts and does NOTHING to move us forward and fix the problems they've created.

[terrya]

129. I stand with lionesspriyanka and Pelosi and Feingold and you.

I completely agree.

[Runcible Spoon]

132. ughh please don't reinforce negative stereotypes about Obama supporters: campaign PR > justice

not everyone thinks in terms of CAMPAIGN UBER ALLES. Some of us support his bid while also expecting Pelosi to grow a spine and do her job, which INCLUDES giving the articles of impeachment the justice they deserve. If you think impeachment is fair and just, you should support whatever efforts can be done. If we have momentum now, I applaud Dennis' efforts.

[Radical Activist]

95. Kucinich had the same position until about 4 months ago after he dropped out.

People conveniently forget that.

[McCamy Taylor]

107. I am convinced that someone in Pelosi's family got stock advice from a broker

whose other clients were selling---and Cheney's domestic spying oppo has the tapes and Pelosi has been told that her family member will go to jail like Martha Stewart if she does not do what she is told.

It is just a theory. None of the above is actually criminal, but the DOJ would leak it all to the press which would claim that it was exactly what Martha Stewart went to jail for (it isnt) and that would be how Eliot Spitzer fell from grace.

[flvegan]

114. Sorry if I don't care if this doesn't help Obama.

If we can't get Obama elected (even if impeachment moves forward) after THIS shitstorm of an administration, then we were screwed from the beginning.

I think upholding the Constitution is important, forgive me.

[NNN0LHI]

121. So if Mccain gets elected its just fucking dandy with you?

I kind of thought that was the way you felt.

Thanks for confirming it.

Don

[flvegan]

125. Is that what I said?

No, it isn't, but thanks for playing the asshole role to a T.

[NNN0LHI]

127. Sorry if I don't care if this doesn't help Obama. What the opposite of help?

Your word games aren't helping you at all pal.

Don

[flvegan]

128. Does EVERY thing that happens in Congress

have to in some way "help" Obama? Or, can folks in the House just do their jobs.

And, if it doesn't "help" it doesn't mean it hurts. May well not do anything to him at all. Doesn't mean I'm wishing anything on him.

Got that role down pat, Don.

[NNN0LHI]

135. Only if you want Obama to win in November

If you don't do whatever you got to do.

Don

[flvegan]

138. I think Obama is strong enough to win

regardless of any impeachment proceedings, but then, according to you, I'm a republican troll. Why don't you go ahead and alert Admin to what I said because if you're right, I shouldn't be here, I guess.

[mmonk]

137. An either or position?

Where are your 4th amendment rights? Where are your due procress rights? Is there some law that exists that singles you out as someone who retains them and they are taken away only from others?

[NNN0LHI]

139. No its not an either or position

Just in case you and some others may have not noticed the Rethugs have been doing their goddamn best to label Obama and all Dems as terrorist loving goof balls in an attempt to keep control of the White House. Because its all they got left. And they are good at doing that too.

Luckily many of us including Obama and other Dems in Congress have not fallen for their attempts.

And that is killing the Rethugs. Actually its driving them nuts.

I will trust my 4th amendment rights to Dems over Rethugs any day. Only way we accomplish that is by getting Dems elected in November.

Did I say anything you disagree with here?

Don

[mmonk]

140. I would say something about trust but I don't want to offend.

I'm sure Republicans trusted bush with his powers above the law as well.

[NNN0LHI]

141. Of course they trusted Bush. And for good reason

His base which is made up of mostly white supremacists and the like knew none of these laws were going to be used against them and they were right.

Thats why they kept voting for him. Now McCain is their only hope.

Don

[mmonk]

146. I'm not comfortable with a police state with increasing powers

while the population has declining protections of legal rights. Changing the top doesn't mean we're going back to a balance. The newly minted Democratic Congress actually supported this trend and were responsible for it. When facts remain the same on the ground, my trust doesn't exist. I have to see restoration.

[noamnety]

126. Not hypocritical.

just following message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

150. pelosi is a dem too. nt

[noamnety]

151. Ah, but there's a difference.

People can talk about needing to replace her with another dem as speaker of the house.

Right now, with Obama as the presumptive nominee we can critique his policies (which we do from time to time) but we can't advocate for replacing him with another person, because the implication would be that we're promoting a third party over a dem, which is verboten here.

I think if the board policies were different, you might see stronger language from some folks about Obama. That's a matter of following DU rules, not being hypocritical.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

148. Impeaching Bush might help Obama; trying to and failing certainly wouldn't.

And trying and failing is the only possible outcome of trying.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

149. indeed. nt

[Senator]

180. Trying and failing would help Obama even more

Succeeding in removal would put all bushcheney policies/crimes "off the table" for the election. McCain would no longer have to defend them. A safe, calming caretaker would be in place.

A failed impeachment would do 2 things. It would show the public/electorate that the Dems are a viable alternative -- not simply a gang of willfully impotent, business-as-usual DC cronies. And it would incite the public/electorate to turn on those who defend war criminals -- finally just the Rethugs.

Failure to impeach just reinforces the learned helplessness and apathy that has kept the elections close enough to steal. That's why it's still a dead heat, even in the best "environment" Dems have had in decades.

Obama's just not cutting it. Impeachment is the ONLY way to "change the game."

--------

[TreasonousBastard]

154. I'm wondering just how old these Pelosi haters are...

since they seem to have no memory of just how effective Tip O'Neill was against Reagan. Pelosi seems historically just about right as a Speaker in opposition to a President. She probably won't get an office building named after her, but she's doing OK.

Granted that Reagan never got nearly the disapproval that Shrub is getting, but in the past we can also look at Truman, Harding, and a few others who got down there in disapproval and could easily be called criminals. How were Lincoln's numbers?

Sure, it would be nice to see this crew frogmarched out, but there has NEVER been a successful impeachment and conviction in the history of the country. Nixon quit ONLY because his own party gave him no support. then, the thought of both Shrub and Cheney being impeached, leaving Pelosi as President, makes less sense than a bad novel.

So, the vast hordes of a few thousand large-mouthed ass call for impeachment and the House, just months before they are all up for re-election in an historic Presidential election year drops just enough acid to actually impeach. Then the Senate happily drops the charges.

What on earth has that accomplished? Don't hand me that bullshit about "crimes being on record." They're already on record.

Don't anyone hand me that bullshit about the Constitutional requirement for impeachment. Curiously, not one lawyer or historian actually familiar with the Constitution seems to think the impeachment clause is a requirement for Congress to act. It's just whiny pissed-off liberals who think that way, just like it was whiny pissed-off conservatives who pushed for Clinton's impeachment.

And just how well did that Clinton impeachment go? Why would impeachment of Shrub go any better?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. thank you for this extremely sensible post.

[EFerrari]

162. Throwing out the word "haters" doesn't obviate our argument

and it doesn't address it either.

And Reagan skated, too. That's why we still have these sociopaths in our government.

And Clinton's impeachment didn't hurt the Republicans in the least, did it? They captured the White House after that.

[TreasonousBastard]

171. You have no argument...

you want "justice" but there will be no "justice" simply because it just doesn't fit neatly into the flow of history. The whole House interrupts its re-election campaigning to deal with an impeachment that will end up dying in the Senate-- fat chance.

Nixon, Reagan, Jackson and so many others never paid for their "crimes" nor did those responsible for breaking treaties when convenient, the Johnstown flood, lying about the "Maine" or the institution of slavery, just to name a few things.

Wouldn't it be nice if every political criminal paid. Mugabe, Idi Amin, Papa Doc... and the lesser evils out there. But, they won't, not many of them anyway, so we just suck it up. Not a whole lot else we can do.

You gotta get around 225 House member and 67 Senators to agree in order to successfully get an impeachment and conviction. Fat chance of that when it took long enough for them to agree on something they all agreed on-- like rolling back the reduction in Medicare payments. If they can't agree on a simple thing when they agree, how the hell are they going to get together on something complicated that they don't agree on?

The people? Polls be damned--I've been to Democratic club meetings, fundraisers, protests, Town Halls, and I've NEVER seen much screaming for impeachment. One or two out there, but the real discussion is always about something else and no one's listening to the tiny impeachment crowd.

So, it just ain't gonna happen-- too much other stuff going on. Maybe, just maybe, it will happen, but then it's entirely up to a bunch of Republican Senators to decide, not us.

Shrub fucked up big time, and, unlike Reagan, he has no apologists or acolytes to spread the spin. But, although he will go down in history as not only the worst President in history, but the most destructive, he most likely won't see "justice."

And we're just gonna have to suck it up.

[EFerrari]

177. You're not going to get many people pressing for impeachment

at Democratic Party cheerleading events. It's off topic there.

[TreasonousBastard]

178. From what I've seen, you're not getting many people pressing...

for it anywhere but DU and a few blogs.

I don't see calls for impeachment anywhere but online. And my liberal Democratic representative says he hasn't heard much about it either.

It's just a dead end. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Don't think I approve of that great silence-- I'd just as soon they all spent time in a dungeon begging the nation for forgiveness, but it just ain't gonna happen unless something really, really big happens in the next month or so.

[EFerrari]

179. There's been a press embargo for quite a while -- it does seem to be

lifting a little now. There's a concerted effort to kill the idea, no doubt.

I'm thinking we have a better chance at The Hague because the establishment Dems and the Thugs can't control the international media.

[Cleita]

155. I have to disagree with you on this about Pelosi.

She swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and that Constitution says that when a sitting President must be removed for treason or inability to discharge his duties, Congress has the duty to do so and the tool for this is impeachment. This President is culpable in his criminal and treasonous acts and he's batshit crazy and drunk most of the time as well. In this case political expediency shouldn't be an issue but doing the right thing. Otherwise, we have no Constitutional government left to call the United States of America.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

157. she alone without political impetus, without agreement from all the dems

should go at this alone? only to lose the presidential elections for us? why?

[Cleita]

158. Why is she alone?

239 Democratic House representatives and nine Republicans voted for the impeachment resolution this week. That doesn't appear alone to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

159. do you think she has the numbers to be successful? then to convict?

[Cleita]

160. She needs to tell Conyers to start holding a real impeachment

investigation and hearing, not just a general inquiry. It needs to be brought up to the floor for debate. All this needs to be put in public before the House. The evidence is very damning and incriminating and once it's out in the open she will be successful. Why she doesn't want this we don't know but many speculate it's because she might be implicated somehow in the rush to war. If she doesn't do this, it will hurt her political career. I know people in her district who voted for her in the primaries but who now say they will vote for Cindy Sheehan because they are disgusted with her. She may lose her seat in the House altogether. The House doesn't convict. If he is impeached by the House, it moves to the Senate for trial and they are the ones who will convict him if the evidence is there from the impeachment.

[onenote]

168. she doesn't have that power

To start a "real" impeachment investigation and hearing, like the ones held with respect to Nixon and Clinton, there first has to be a vote by the full House on a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct such a proceeding. In the Nixon impeachment, that resolution passed by a vote of 410-4 in Feb 1974. In Clinton's case, I don't recall the exact vote, but more than 30 Democrats crossed over to support it.

There is no chance in hell that such a resolution could pass today. Maybe, if something dramatic comes out of the hearing that Conyers has scheduled, it might move in that direction, but I think the chances of that happening are exceedingly tiny. I happen to think those hearings are nonetheless a good thing, because I think keeping the misdeeds/failings of chimpy and gang on the front burner is smart electoral politics. (On the other hand, I don't think a formal impeachment process is smart politics at this point).

And I'm pretty much willing to bet everything I have that Cindy Sheehan won't come close to defeating Nancy Pelosi in the fall, whether or not anything happens on the impeachment front.

[onenote]

167. where in the constitution does it say Congress has a duty to remove the president?

Must be a different version than the one I have.

Mine says that the House "shall have the sole power of impeachment" (ART I, Sec 2) and that the Senate "shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." (ART I, Sec 3). It also says that the President, Vice President,and all civil officers of the United States "shall be removed from office" upon impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemenors. ART II., Sec 3.

There is a big difference between conferring a power on Congress (or the executive) and imposing a duty. The Congress also has the sole power to declare war. DOes that mean that they have a duty to declare war? THe president has the power to grant pardons. Does he/she have a duty to grant pardons?

Every member swears to uphold the Constitution. But the Constitution doesn't specify any single way of upholding it. Did Congress violate some duty by not impeaching Harry Truman after the SCOTUS held he'd abused executive powers by nationalizing the steel industry? What about FDR's order to put Japanese Americans in internment camps?

How is this duty supposed to be enforced? Can someone go into court and demand that Pelosi be ordered to do something? Can they get a court to order members of Congress to vote a particular way?

Of course not.

Impeachment is a discretionary power. The framers left it solely to the House to decide if and when to exercise that power. That may not be to your liking, but its undeniably the law.

[Cleita]

170. I guess it depends on how you interpret it.

Are you a cafeteria patriot and only do those patriotic duty things that politically suit you, or do you look at the spirit of the law as it was intended and do the right thing and your patriotic duty for the sake of your country.

[onenote]

172. Just someone who lives in the real world

not a make believe world where legal duties are invented that don't exist.

[Cleita]

174. The men who framed the Constitution did so at great risk.

They could have been hung from the gallows for treason if the English had defeated us in the American Revolution. They had to fight the Kings professional army with farmers that weren't always that well armed or trained. They knew what would happen to them if they failed and failure was a very big possibility. They took a huge risk to found this country. I would hope that that our leadership could at least do what is necessary to preserve what this country once aspired to be. Politics have to be set aside in times of crisis by those who will be known in history as real patriots. I think we all know what history is going to say about this time and who will be named the heroes and who will be named the opportunistic cowards.

[onenote]

175. which is why I respect the approach they took to impeachment

I don't disagree that impeachment would be appropriate for chimpy and company. I just don't agree that not impeaching violates a legal "duty" anymore than not impeaching FDR or Truman violated some legal "duty". Moral duty? Sure, but that is something that is only enforceable at the ballot box.

[Cleita]

176. Well, split hairs if you must.

I believe there are some Constitutional lawyers who disagree with you. Listening to John Dean, a Constitutional lawyer and Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional scholar, being interviewed on TV and radio sure make me believe that Congress has a legal duty to do this.

[Occam Bandage]

182. Then you're very suggestible. nt

[Cleita]

184. Look who has arrived.

Since you don't seem to have anything important to say, then go ahead and accuse me of not quite being right.

[onenote]

196. Then ask yourself the following: why haven't messrs. Turley or Dean filed a lawsuit to compel

Congress to act.

I think you know the answer. It would be thrown out in a second. The SCOTUS already has held that "solely" means "solely". Only the House can decide whether or not to impeach only the Senate can decide whether or not to convict.

If there really is a legal duty to impeach, does that mean that all the Democrats that voted against impeaching Clinton are guilt of violating the constitution? Does it mean that all the Democrats that voted against conviction violated the constitution? Or does the fact that there weren't enough votes in the senate exonerate the Democrats in the House (and somehow make repubs guilty of violating the constitution for supporting impeachment)? Did the framers really intend to create a backwards looking constitutional duty that no one can be found guilty of violating until the end of the process. Again, I think you know the answer.

PS - Just because Turley and Dean get their mugs on TV a lot doesn't make the greatest Consitutional scholars in the land. If they are claiming that there is an enforceable legal duty (and if its not enforceable its not really a legal duty, its a moral duty) then they are laughably wrong.

[Cleita]

197. Well, there's the other problem SCOTUS who appointed Bush as

our President. I don't think either Turley nor Dean have jurisdiction to do so anyway, because if any old lawyer could do it, you can be sure Vincent Bugliosi will already have. He can't and is trying to get prosecutors who can do it, bring charges on the Bush administration for war crimes.

[onenote]

202. well, then i guess no one has "jurisdiction" to do it. Meaning "it" doesn't exist.

A legal duty that no one has jurisdiction to enforce isn't a legal duty.

If there is such a duty, who is owed to? The people? If so, then Messrs. Turley and Dean could file suit -- a class action on behalf of the American public. But there isn't such a duty and they know it.

As I said, there may be a moral duty -- even a moral imperative -- to impeach when a president acts in the way chimpy has. But the only way to compel action is for the public to elect representatives who share that view. Unfortunately, its clear that a majority of the Congress doesn't feel that it is imperative to begin impeachment proceedings.

[Cleita]

203. Congress has the jurisdiction and the duty as outlined in the

Constitution and you know it and Nancy Pelosi is the person that has to put it in the calendar or the table as she says. I'm done here! Stupid circular arguments are a waste of my time.

[onenote]

205. you have to be kiddng, right?

Are you saying that a member of Congress could go to court to force Pelosi to put an impeachmnent resolution on the calendar?

Congress has a procedures, clearly laid out. DK followed one by bringing a privileged resolution. He then moved to refer it to the House Judiciary committee. How did Pelosi stop an up/down vote? She didn't.

There also is a procedure known as the "discharge" process -- all it would take to get DK's resolution back to the floor for consideration is a petition signed by a majority of the House. Now, if a majority of the House favors impeachment, that shouldn't be too hard. And it certainly means that no court is going to intervene to force consideration of DK's resolution. They've already had one chance, and its entirely in their power to have another.

Finally, COnyers, not Pelosi, controls whether or not there is a hearing on DK's resolution. What Pelosi might control is whether there was a vote on the necessary formal resolution to authorize the Judiciary Commmittee to conduct a full-blown impeachment inquiry -- the kind of resolution used to start the process v Nixon and Clinton. BUt, to date, no one has even introduced such a resolution, so ordering Pelosi to calendar a non-existent resolution is something else the courts, faced with a Constitutional provision that clearly states that the power to impeach rests "Solely" with the House, isn't going to do because the court doesn't have the authority to do so under the Constitution.

You should be done here. You need to go to a law library, get an annotated copy of the Constitution and read some cases.

[Cleita]

207. I don't need to go to a law library. I have read the opinions of real lawyers

who are experts in this and whose expertise is sought out on this matter. Real lawyers think this is what should happen and no one was talking about forcing Pelosi. We were talking about Pelosi facing up to her duty to do this. You know that this administration has committed real crimes, felonies, that the CEO of any corporation would be tried and locked up for. They are not above the law and Pelosi is an accomplice if she doesn't do her Constitutional duty, which is where I believe the truth lies. She's afraid of being found guilty along with them if the truth comes out in hearings.

[onenote]

208. well, I'm a real lawyer. Admitted to practice before the SCOTUS in fact.

And the issue being discussed was whether there is a "legal duty" to impeach. There isn't. There is the power and, I agree, a moral obligation. But no obligation or requirement that can be enforced by any other branch of government. Again, you refer to a "Constitutional duty" -- but there is no such thing, at least insofar as the Constitution is a legal document that confers various duties and obligations and powers, sometimes mandatory, sometimes discretionary.

[Cleita]

209. So what about that oath thingy that all our elected officials are supposed

to take to uphold the Constitution? Explain that one!

[onenote]

210. its a good thing. But it doesn't say that there is only one way to uphold the constitution

If the only way to uphold the constitution is to impeach, then is every member who hasn't introduced an impeachment resolution or signed a discharge petition violating their oath? Did every member of Congress who didn't introduce a resolution or support impeaching Harry Truman or FDR violate their "oath"?

Of course not.

There is a duty to uphold the constitution. But there is no specific directive in the Constitution as to how that is to be accomplished. The constitution gives the congress the power to declare war and to fund the government, including wars. The oath members take says that they will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So if someone attacks the United States, is there a constitutional duty, arising out of the oath, to declare war? Or does Congress get to decided whether or not to do so? Could a member of Congress go to court for an order directing there to be a vote on a declaration of war? Of course not. How one defends the Constituion is left up to the discretion of the legislative branch. No other branch gets to tell the congress as a whole, or individual members, how to go about it. The voters, of course, get the final word.

[Cleita]

211. Yes, but isn't it just as criminal to avoid doing the right thing as

it is to do the wrong thing? I mean do you turn away when you see someone committing a crime or do you do something about it? If you are a civilian you try to call the police? If you are the police and duty bound to apprehend the criminal, do you do what you can within your authority to do it, or do you just walk away because half the police force are corrupt and telling you not to interfere?

[onenote]

212. I would feel a moral duty to try to stop the commission of a crime

But generally speaking, I'd be under no legal duty to do so.

I feel a moral duty to work to stop chimpy and his gang, which is why I have written and called my representatives and urged them to support impeachment hearings. Its why I have supported Democratic candidates -- both in my district and elsewhere -- financially. Not because I have a legal duty to do so, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying impeachment wouldn't be the right thing to do. To the contrary, I think it would be wholly appropriate. But being the right thing, the appropriate thing, doesn't make it a legal obligation. That' all I'm saying.

[earth mom]

173. I hold ALL of Congress accountable. Most of them are NOT keeping their oath to the Constitution.

I can't say what I honestly think about Obama around DU, because we don't have freedom of speech on DU.

So is your post some kind of test or loyalty oath? :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

183. Psst. Gore has that opinion too. Might want to change your avatar.

[earth mom]

198. Gore would kick rethuglican a$$ if he had a chance, yours too, I have NO doubt. nt

[Occam Bandage]

181. Hell, virtually every Democrat outside of Kucinich has that exact same stance.

[Cleita]

186. Every Democrat?

Want to put up the poll you got that from? A recent poll from the American Research Group that asked adults if they favored impeachment, Democrats who made up 38% of the respondents replied that 69% were in favor 22% opposed and 9% were undecided.

[Occam Bandage]

188. I obviously meant elected Democrats. You know, the people who have to understand politics.

[Cleita]

190. 239 of those elected Democrats voted for the impeachment resolution

last week and nine Republicans as well. Watch C-Span much?

[nam78_two]

199. Quite right

(Though I thought it was 238 Dems.) :hi:

[Cleita]

201. There were two different reports.

One had 238 and the other, which was later, 239, so I took the later one. :-)

[onenote]

206. you realize that voting to refer the resolution is not the same as voting FOR the resolution

Twenty four Democrats voted to refer DK' June resolution. Virtually all Democrats voted last November to refer DK's Cheney resolution. Its not a vote in support of the resolution. Its a vote to avoid an up/down vote on the resolution in which the resolution would be defeated, handing an unnecessary victory to chimpy.

[LeftCoast]

185. Thank you for saying what I've felt for a long, long time!

:toast:

[Midlodemocrat]

189. I don't want him impeached.

I want him arrested on Jan 20, 2009 and charged with murder.

[Pastiche423]

195. How is it hypocritcal

when both are wrong?

[BlooInBloo]

200. Though I would prefer to impeach, I can appreciate pragmatic reasons for not doing it....

But on about a jillion other things, Pelosi has proven herself to be a complete tool. Fuck her.

EDIT: Most recent example, inherent contempt. She's too much of a fucking craven jackass to even answer a fucking question about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/19/105739/531/596/553671

"The first question was about "inherent contempt": Why hasn't Congress used its power of inherent contempt to jail current and former members of the Bush administration who have ignored Congressional subpoenas? The Speaker talked instead about the failure of the Justice Department to pursue the complaint that the House has sent DOJ. Asked a second time about inherent contempt, and specifically when the House would "put into that little cell down in the basement", Speaker Pelosi responded that committee chairs have said they will take care of the matter. Congressman John Conyers, she said, asked her to leave it to him."