Sorry all you haters, but I still adore Madam Speaker Pelosi.

[Zuiderelle]

:patriot:

[wtmusic]

1. Good. Any reason why? nt

[YOY]

2. LOL!

n/t

[Zuiderelle]

3. I'm watching her on C-SPAN in a live "conversation" at the Convention.

She just PINNED McCain to the mat.

[YOY]

7. Verbally or legally?

n/t

[wtmusic]

10. You know the answer to that one.

Nancy is our version of Spector. Tough talk and no action.

[YOY]

11. of course I do. But does the OP realize it?

n/t

[leftchick]

73. apparently not

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. :eyes:

[Zuiderelle]

12. I think the decisions she has made have been sound and reasonable.

Some, disappointing, sure. But bad decisions? No.

So we're going to disagree on all this.

[wtmusic]

13. Not choosing impeachment because the admin won't cooperate?

I'm sorry, but I almost fell off my chair when I heard that. No excuse.

[Zuiderelle]

That would be political suicide for a lot of democrats. We need Obama to be elected...

punishing Bush (or just attempting to) would put our chances severely at risk.

[derby378]

19. "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard" - JFK

I have to ask you if Nancy is shooting for the moon or aiming her sights considerably lower by not seeking to bring Bush and Cheney to justice.

[Zuiderelle]

22. I think she is collaborating with others to decide that impeachment would HURT the focus on more

important things, like the economy, healthcare, winning the fucking presidency. Punishing Bush makes WHAT kind of sense right now, when it would mean political suicide, and he would simply resign like Nixon did to avoid the punishment, to leave Cheney in charge for a few months, meanwhile making the American public see how stupid it was to have impeached Bush at this stage of the game, when he's a lame duck?

[derby378]

28. He's not a lame duck - he's a war criminal

I know the economy and healthcare are important issues, but so is restoring our national integrity. If Bush never gets held responsible for his actions, where is our integrity?

I think it's only proper for Democrats to demand the whole package. A living wage, an end to the mortgage crisis, healthcare for our kids and seniors, and Bush in a cell at Florence ADX.

[Zuiderelle]

34. Hold him responsible AFTER we secure this election.

Doing this now would kill our chances for a longer term change. Punishing Bush is not as important as ensuring that Obama get elected President.

[tigereye]

44. I love how sensible you are!

thanks for saying what I have been thinking for months on end.


I would love to see him prosecuted, and it would have been cool to see him dragged through the mud 6 months ago and now, but I agree this is not the time. Prosecute him after.

[Solon]

48. Bush is never going to be prosecuted, that is the most foolish thing I've ever heard...

if there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on its this, no way in hell would a U.S. president ever be held legally accountable for ANY illegal actions they perform while in office. The reason is because breaking the law(international or national) while in office is a bipartisan affair.

[tigereye]

61. yes, I know, but I would love to see him prosecuted anyway!

maybe by some Euro tribunal or the Hague. j/k

thanks for calling me foolish, I appreciate that. Just because he is unlikely to be prosecuted doesn't mean he shouldn't be.


and ps, I wasn't talking to you! :)

[Zuiderelle]

64. Exactly it. We can want him prosecuted and still understand how it will affect our chance in the

election. I want Obama in first. Then we do what we can to bring Bush to whatever justice we can. Impeaching him now actually gives him an out. If he bargains to resign to avoid conviction, then what recourse do we have? Let's wait until he's a common citizen and then go after him without that out.

[tavalon]

77. What I'm trying to say in so many of these posts is,

there is no "we". They are not on your side. You may think they are but that's because they have really big budgets to market that idea to you.

[tavalon]

75. I hope you are correct that they will prosecute them after

but I have grave doubts. I didn't in 2006, when I and so many others assured that the Dems would have the majority in Congress so that they would take action on important issues.

[roguevalley]

97. pelosi will never prosecute him and all his shit will stand. the next

time a crook gets in they will be off and running on the crimes of this guy. too bad that doesn't bother you.

[dflprincess]

41. I would certainly agree that she's a collaborator

it's who she's collaborating with that bothers me.

[tavalon]

69. He wasn't lame when we sent the 2006 Congress to Washington

He was dangerous and he did a lot of damage in the ensuing year and a half. We sent that Congress there to do two things. End the Iraq war and bring the robber barons to justice. We knew the rest of the agenda wouldn't happen until the next election. What we didn't know is that this Congress would plug their ears and go lalalalalalalalalalala. Neither happened and I have grave doubts that a supermajority led by Pelosi will help with any of the other things, up to and including the Iraq war.

[tavalon]

72. And yes, she is collaborating, just not with the folks you think she is

and the term is actually co-conspiring.

[roguevalley]

95. without the Constitution, nothing else matters. remember that when

you make a call, they are listening. when you go somewhere, you are on or not a list. remember how she could have stopped it and didn't. Remember that when the awful things bush has put into law with signing statements end life in America as it once was. All because cowards didn't stand up and do the right thing, support their oaths.

[Winterblues]

58. And just what do you base such a foolish assumption upon?

Holding criminals accountable is never a loser, NEVER

[roguevalley]

98. it is common practice when shit happens to brief the leadership of

the house and senate and then send them out knowing they can't speak about it because of 'national security' and the fact that if you do, you go to prison. Nancy knew all the lies first hand and did nothing. She is protecting her own butt. She is as guilty as the idiot in the white house because she knew.

[tavalon]

67. So, let's go down that route..................

Obama is elected and his long coattails sweep in a Democratic supermajority. What do you think happens then? What specifically will be done to remedy our current problems?

I guess what I'm trying to get at with this obviously skewed Socratic method is getting you to really think about whether these folks are really on your side. No, I'm not saying the Republicans are on your side. This isn't a dichotomy.

[roguevalley]

93. it wouldn't have been suicide. the congress is at 9%. NINE PERCENT

under her 'leadership'. what a gal, our nancy.

[Dr.Phool]

109. I'm sick of apologists for corruption.

If they don't stand up for the oath they took, they deserve suicide.

This ain't about holding on to your seat or your "majority". It's about the law, your country and your duty.

[mmonk]

120. Impeachment isn't punishment. It's called checks and balances.

The election is close even with bush's low numbers because the people are not informed of the administration's crimes. Do you think there would be some sort of groundswell of support for republicans if the offenses were revealed? The constitution mentions impeachment no less than seven times.

[avaistheone1]

124. Obama response is the same as Pelosi's.

Obama says he is not aware of any crime so serious the Bush/Cheney admin committed that would call for their impeachment. So Obama and Pelosi stand one and the same on this issue. I disagree with them both.

I am afraid that after Obama is elected the new "policy" is we don't want to be bothered impeaching or investigating Bush/Cheney, we have more important things to do.

[roguevalley]

92. she took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. that is not

an optional thing. She has to protect and defend it against whatever assaults it and its not a choice she can make. She has chosen not too and that makes her evil to me. Disappointing is not the word I would choose to characterize this. But that's just me.

[roguevalley]

90. words mean nothing. actions count. she wrote off the constitution

and I will never forgive her sorry ass. however, I do respect other people's feelings that she might have something in her worth admiring. I just don't see it.

[bdamomma]

113. she should pin some other people to the mat.

[ixion]

4. don't call me a 'hater' just because I expect accountability from congress

It has nothing to do with 'hate' which is irrational, and everything to do with job performance, which is abysmal.

[ourbluenation]

35. congress can only do so much. that man has to sign their bills into law. he's not playing along. n/t

[ixion]

36. "not playing nice" is no excuse

sorry.

[tavalon]

80. Yeah!

After all we were in the minority for six of those years and now we have such a small majority. Once we have a supermajority, all will change. They will start listening to their constituents!

:sarcasm:

Yes, I really do mean sarcasm. After watching the Republicans school the Democrats in how to be an effective minority party in the last two years, the only two things I can figure is that Dems really are incompetent or that they really don't want the things they say they want.

And, I fucking hate to watch "my side" being schooled by the mafia. It makes me doubt I'm really even being represented by anyone.

[TahitiNut]

66. "hater" is now the blanket personal attack on those who eschew sycophancy and ....

... have the temerity to criticize the performance of our 'public servants.' God forbid we adhere to our values and principles and not be courtiers! Everybody knows that our 'public servants' are above reproach! Long live the elected monarchs!

It's so much easier to engage in name-calling and personal attacks than actually engage in principled discussion.

:puke:

It's remarkable that a site populated by what some call "Bush-haters" would adopt the same mindless rhetoric.

[roguevalley]

100. what you said, tahitinut

[marmar]

5. I'm disappointed in Nancy Pelosi, but I don't hate her....

I actually think Harry Reid has been a much bigger failure.

[bdamomma]

115. Reid needs to be replaced.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Would you like extra butter with that?

:popcorn:

[arcadian]

8. You're just keeping up appearances for your unfortunate pick in usernames.

You can only hope that there will be a name change amnesty after the election.

:hide:

[Zuiderelle]

9. Well... there IS that.

:P

[Suji to Seoul]

16. Five words doomed her in my eyes as worthless and ineffective

"Impeachment is off the table."

THAT, AND TO END THE WAR, WAS WAY YOU BECAME SPEAKER WHEN WE THREW OUT THE REPIGS, Nancy!!!

[Zuiderelle]

18. She just said "I don't think impeachment is worth more than meeting the needs of the American people

Just said that in her interview on C-SPAN, as I was about to respond to you.

I have agreed with that position from the start.

[Suji to Seoul]

24. Nancy Pelosi is an enabler, pure and simple

Meeting the needs of the American people? How about upholding the constitution and making those who wiped their asses with it accountable for their illegal actions?

After while, the rationalizations lose meaning. Pelosi and Reid bent over for Bush too many times. Enough of her, enough of him!

Support Dennis Kucinich's call for impeachment!!!

[Zuiderelle]

27. Impeachment would be stupid.

That's not going to change.

[Suji to Seoul]

32. Impeachment would hold them accountable and air their dirty laundry

Why won't Pelosi supporters see that? Is she so perfect that she can't be called on her inability to hold this administration accountable in the Hall of the House?

Before I get her talking points, I'll end this line of discussion. We agree to disagree!

[bobbolink]

49. You're very accomplished.

At name-calling.

[roguevalley]

104. give us one or two reasons beyond your own opinion how this would

be so. I truly am curious.

[leftchick]

76. not just an enabler either

she has now become complicit in his war crimes. It is Your Occupation now Nancy. And fuck her!

[elocs]

26. Impeachment, undoubtedly without conviction, means everything to many DUers,

even if it were to mean losing the presidential election.

[krispos42]

62. Impeachment is a need of the people.

Seeing as how NOT impeaching hurts the American people and the government and Constitution that protects them and their rights.

[Zuiderelle]

85. Gay Marriage is also a need of the people. Having anyone but Obama in the WH...

is going to put a nail in that coffin. Impeaching Bush doesn't do anything except possibly convict one person. How does that help what that person has done to the world? Getting McCain elected because we choose instead to focus on impeachment, because at this stage the public (the normal, non-DU public) would see us as ridiculous and short-sighted and vengeful, instead of progressive and hopeful and representing change.

Yeah, let's just kill all our chances.

[krispos42]

91. Please stop the binary agenda premise

Congress can do two things at once. Besides, the actually impeachment and trial would not take very long, while the preliminary investigations and planning would be done in the normal course of Congressional duties.

The actual impeachment resolution in the House and trial in the Senate would probably take not more than a month, total. And Pelosi's complete and total capitulation on the issue emboldened Bush and made his crimes and arrogence twice as bad because now he knows that Pelosi and her followers will bend over backwards to avoid even having to come close to thinking about impeachment. Now Bush can and had done even worse, all the while with that smirk on his face because he knows that Democrats won't even say the word "impeachment" in public and shy away violently from anything that might look vaguely like it might head maybe towards the possiblity of consideration of impeachment one day.


Unlike gay marriage, impeachment of a criminal, out of control president has an effect throughout the ages. How Ford treated Nixon leads directly to how Reagan and Bush the Elder got away with treason and corruption. How Clinton treated Reagan and Bush the Elder leads directly to Bush the Lesser getting away with more treason and corruption.


I would LOVE to see all the Republicans up for re-election this fall (and McCain) explain to the voters how Bush isn't impeachable. I would LOVE to have the DNC and Democratic candidates run those TV ads detailing several crimes that Bush did, then end with "But Candidate X things that THESE isn't aren't high crimes and misdemeanors! Can we trust Candidate X to know right from wrong? Can we trust Candidate X to think outside of his party?"

Instead, we get this: "Democrats, even in the light of obvious, numerous, and repeat crimes against the Constitution won't even consider impeaching the perpetrator of those crimes. How can we trust them to defend America?"




Because Bush got away with this, this WILL come to bite us in the ass in the future. Except the war will be bigger and the oppression will be larger and the ecnomic collaps will be greater. And the real beauty of it is that when this comes to bite us in the ass, my 4-year-old son will be of prime drafting age for the military. Which just warms the cockles of my heart.


When I took this picture, I didn't intend for it to be prophetic.





At a time when we, the country, desperately needed someone to step up and dramatically change the course of the country the people voted Democrats led by Pelosi. And Pelosi failed to deliver that change.

Getting McCain elected because we choose instead to focus on impeachment election fraud in 2004, because at this stage the public (the normal, non-DU public) would see us as ridiculous and short-sighted and vengeful, instead of progressive and hopeful and representing change.

Yeah, we "let that go"... and the Republicans have 4 or 5 million votes already without a single ballot being cast. Lesson: take care of it, or it gets worse.

If "the public (the normal, non-DU public) would see us as ridiculous and short-sighted and vengeful, instead of progressive and hopeful and representing change" over impeachment (which I disagree with), then that means that the Republicans will always control the message, OUT message, which means that WE will never get anything done because the Republican minority will ALWAYS control how we are perceived. We will always be on the defensive, capitulating time and time again until we satisfy the Republican PR machine.

Which means we're not in control, but being controlled, by the country's Republican minority. Which means that we'll never get to be seen as "progressive and hopeful and representing change" because we don't MAKE any changes.

[Zuiderelle]

99. You aren't even reading what I write, so I'll return the favor.

Congress certainly COULD do two things at once. They COULD spend a lot of their time on impeachment and alienating themselves from the American public. Or the COULD sacrifice that agenda in favor of ensuring that we have a democrat in the White House, and to convince the American public that we are operating in THEIR best interest. Not the interest of a faction of angry people who want vengeance on the President at ALL COST. Those people do not speak for most Americans. Most Americans want affordable health care and jobs and lower prices and getting out of the war. Most Americans are not interested in bringing Bush to justice. Focusing on doing that would be suicide, not matter what you say, or how many words you use to say it.

[krispos42]

112. Oh, I read what you wrote

But we don't have, didn't get, affordable health care, jobs, lower prices, or out of Iraq. So now we have the worst of both worlds.


By contrast, threatening (or actual) impeachment would have put the Republicans on the defensive in the court of public opinion, making THEM pliant, not us.





Fortunately we have history to look at now. Your way DIDN'T WORK. Avoiding impeachment didn't stop Mulkasey from getting in the AG slot and stonewalling. It didn't stop filibustering. And did did not give us clear, striking, political victories that we could present to the voters this fall to prove Democrats are the party of strengh and good government.

We'll never know if impeachment would have changed things, but we know now that all the people that said "impeachment isn't the way" were incorrect. And they should not be listened to anymore, just like Repulican failures shouldn't be on TV as "analysts" or "experts" but are regardless.



This had turned the Democratic Party into the party in power only when the Repubicans are too stupid or greedy to keep power for themselves.

[MadrasT]

118. Thank you.

"Impeachment is a need of the people"

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[roguevalley]

102. oh please. you and I would get life in prison for stealing a car and

granny won't prosecute a man who has begun the decline of our nation and destroyed half the world. Good lord. She deserves every scrap of enmity she is given.

[proud2BlibKansan]

151. The American people need her to uphold the constitution

What good can be accomplished while a criminal is allowed to remain in the White House?

[Phred42]

14. Incredibly LAME speech last night

She must be replaced - ASAP

[elocs]

30. ASAP? You are familiar with how a Speaker is chosen, aren't you?

Probably not.

[Phred42]

40. You probably don't understand what ASAP means

it means - as soon as POSSIBLE.

[elocs]

42. The implication of ASAP is quickly. Five months is not quickly.

And since I do not hear of any widespread dissatisfaction with Pelosi within the House, I am betting she will be reelected Speaker no matter what people here may think.

[Phred42]

57. The implcation is when it's possible

each situation has it's own time frame.


done

[spanone]

15. wish i could agree with you. i don't hate her. i just don't respect her.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Fine. But don't expect to ever see her name in a

"Profiles of Courage."

[NNN0LHI]

20. I like her too

She has done about all she could do under the constraints she is under.

Don

[Zuiderelle]

25. Thanks for risking the flames.

I'm so over people calling Pelosi bad, when she's a great representative and a great mind and a great heart and a great collaborator.

We need to stop eating our own.

[NNN0LHI]

31. It was nothing really

When we have to be worried about risking flames for admiring a Dem something is wrong here anyway.

I am not worried. Thanks for starting this thread too.

Don

[High Plains]

45. No argument there. She has been a great collaborator.

What do I care about war crimes and creeping fascism in the name of national security? I got a nickel raise.

[roguevalley]

106. when our own are wrong, they need to be called out. as for the

assertion that to do this is to eat our own is wrong. to put up with crap from our own guys because they are our guys is republican and i refuse to be one.

[AndyA]

21. I can't imagine why.

She's allowed Bushco to continue to get away with murder. Literally.

She's made a joke of Congress by not using their authority to oversee the Executive Branch.

She gave the Telecoms immunity, and provided cover for Bush's sorry ass at the same time.

Our troops are still dying. So much for ending the war, which was based on LIES.

She took impeachment off the table before she was in a position to know if there was a case for impeachment.

That bullshit excuse about not impeaching because the Dems would lose the White House is just crap. Didn't hurt the Republicans when they went after Clinton, did it? They've had the WH for 8 years now.

Pelosi is a disgrace to the Democratic Party and the United States. She's a text book case of what's wrong with government today. :puke:

[KharmaTrain]

23. C'Mon...You "Just Don't Get It"...

I totally agree with you...considering the hand she's been dealt, Speaker Pelosi has done a better job than many dare to give her credit for. She's become a lightning rod here for all sorts of frustrations that she's damned if she do, damned if she don't. In many cases, it's not understanding the role of the Speaker or how big of an obstacle she's had to face...not just inherting a weakened and cheapened leglislative (spearheaded by Senate Repugnicans who have blocked a large list of positive bills passed in the House) to a non-existant Judicial and a totally corrupted Justice Department. It's easy to look at the surface, few bother to dig underneath.

:patriot:

[whatchamacallit]

29. I felt absolutely nothing when she spoke

I'm not buying because I don't even know what she's selling.

[Zuiderelle]

33. Then you're not listening.

[bobbolink]

50. And... you are?

:crazy:

[bdamomma]

117. I didn't buy her speech either, it was all

I feel so good being a democrat and look at all the things we accomplished. NOT! talk is cheap Nancy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. Some people like getting crapped on and call it sex, too...

[Individualist]

55. Perfect analogy!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

38. As a San Franciscan, she has ceased to represent my...

interests. I want a Representative who remembers who put them in office and why.

[Spike from MN]

39. You tell 'em, PelosiFan.

As the first female speaker in the history of the United States, Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that a woman is every bit as capable as a man is when it comes to taking on tough tasks like selling out the constituents, funneling taxpayer money to big corporations, and using elected office for personal financial gain.

[bobbolink]

51. .

:applause:

[bvar22]

103. !

:toast:

Fancy Nancy parlayed her Congressional Seat into a Seat at the Rich White Man's Table in 2006.

She has NEVER looked back.

[roguevalley]

107. she's proved a woman can be just as big a quizling as a man.

[tigereye]

43. me too, first woman SOTH, from San Francisco, mom and Grandma

I think she is very cool, even if she isn't very popular among some folks here.


:thumbsup:


thanks for posting!

[Solon]

46. Outside of the Impeachment issue, she's never given more than Token Opposition to Bush policy...

and that includes the rest of the Democrats in Congress as well. They had 2 fucking years to at least ACT like an opposition party, and they failed to do even THAT. They could have at least voted NO on some of the shit Bush wanted passed. Where's the party discipline, hell where's the party at all?

[bobbolink]

47. People who are frustrated with her and disagree with her are "haters"....?

Now, where could you possibly be getting THOSE terms and talking points?

[Zuiderelle]

56. "haters" = Internet vernacular... meant in fun in this context.

So, no mystery about where the term comes from... the internet. :shrug:

What talking points are you referring to?

[bobbolink]

84. Yes, hate is a lot of fun.

:crazy:

Divisiveness is effective.

[Zuiderelle]

88. It's a pity that we have to include a lame smiley when the sarcasm should be :

I abhor this smiley, but oh well. "Sorry all you haters :sarcasm:, but I still adore Madam Speaker Pelosi."

(By the way, there are plenty of people who hate Nancy Pelosi. It's very apparent from their words. Therefore, technically, they are haters.)

[bobbolink]

141. You're surprised that with the attacks from the RW accusing us of "hate" that

we would take issue with your choice of words?

It was an accusation.

That's a far cry from "funny".

[Zuiderelle]

143. Why would the RW call you haters for hating Pelosi?

That makes no sense.

They hate Pelosi too. That's somewhere where you Pelosi-haters are right in line with the RW-ers. Congratulations! :toast:

[bobbolink]

144. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

[Zuiderelle]

146. Not at all. Pretty common malady here though.

[bobbolink]

149. Sure looks that way. I asked a very straightforward question, and you turned it around.

Pretty much like the tactics we have come to expect from those who seek power.

Let me know when you'd actually like to respond to what I said, rather than playing with it.

[Zuiderelle]

150. I answered your "straightforward" question. Go read again.

If you can't come up with a response, other than to say that your opponent said something they didn't say, then it seems that THOSE are the tactics we have come to expect from those who seek power.

[bobbolink]

152. ah, now it's the parental thing. "go read it again".... good authoritarian tactic.

I already KNOW what I said, and I KNOW what you replied.

I said your tactics were ones we were already familiar with and you replied about why would the RW care if we "hated" Pelosi.

Your tactics have NOthING to do with Pelosi.

It has to do with your choice of wording, your authoritarianism, and your cutsy distancing.

YOU'RE the one who did the power thing of calling us "HATERS"... just like the same tactics we're used to seeing.

If you're truly a Dem and a liberal, then accept us as such.

If not, then recognize that we SEE the power games, and see there is NO effort here to accomplish peace...only division.

IT's all quite clear, so you have a clear-cut choice.

Now, a power-striving person will demand the last word.

So, see how cutting you can make it be.

Your other words make it clear where you are.

Bye now, and you have a fine evening.

[Zuiderelle]

154. You certainly do make a lot of my saying that I think Impeachment would be unwise.

There's hate here, unfounded hate, for an amazing politician who's on our side. I'm tired of just letting it lie out there festering, as if we all feel the same way.

Choosing Impeachment would be a bad decision, and I'm thrilled that Pelosi and her advisers stood by their convictions and integrity and made the right decision. Number 1 priority is to get Obama elected.

I have no idea what the rest of your insults have to do with this.

[Overseas]

52. And I still hate the refusal to institute impeachment proceedings on the war criminals in the

executive branch.

[CitizenPatriot]

53. what authority does congress REALLY have?

Let's see. They've been undermined in every way possible. they actually have no legislative authority that can't be vetoed or a signing statement can't overcome. The DoJ which used to help them with oversight of the executive branch has now been illegally staffed with lifers who are fundies and vowed to overtake the government with permanent republican rule.

I want this as much as the rest of you do-- I have signed the petitions and payed money for the work and bought a flag to hang over the capital to remind them of their jobs. But the sad truth is, our 3 arms of government are no more.

Talk about lame ducks -- the congress is basically a joke right now. through no fault of their own. and this is the real problem. The undermining of the constitution right and left. Irony - we can't restore it without impeachment and we can't impeach because congress has no authority anymore. They issue subpoenas and are laughed at. They have investigations and the repukes cry partisanship so they can stack the deck with their republican 100 year rule people. They're crazy and they've taken over our government. If obama doesn't win, we have no chance of getting our country back.

Unless, of course, we do what the constitution tells us we must do.

Just sayin'.

[EFerrari]

54. They have the authority to take contributions from lobbyists

and then hand them legislation on a silver platter. What's your problem? :)

[CitizenPatriot]

59. yeah, they still have that "power"

it's ok if they want to feed the korporate beast -- but if they try to serve the people, watch out.

[burythehatchet]

60. Nancy, should you really be wasting time posting on DU?

[Hubert Flottz]

89. LOL

Yes Nancy you should be working on your second work of fiction. You can't keep the propaganda presses waiting.

[Dogtown]

63. She spoke well last night

Firm and sure.

[John7714]

70. Sooooo?

She was also firm and sure when she ran under the lie that she would work to defund the illegal war in Iraq also.
Am I lying?

[Dogtown]

83. Why do you want to pick a fight?

"Am I lying?" is a pugilistically passive/aggressive phrase. A vile phrase.

[tavalon]

65. Wonderful

Tell us what you like about her. I've run out of love for her but you clearly haven't. Remind us of what's good about her.

[tuckessee]

68. There are always people who enable evil for the most shallow of reasons.

You're one of them.

[Zuiderelle]

71. Placing our own pride (in punishing Bush) over Obama's chance of being elected is more evil

than making an intelligent decision to win the more important hand. Bush can be prosecuted after he's out.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. So you consider impeaching Bush to simply be a matter of pride?

Read the Constitution much?

[Zuiderelle]

78. There's nothing simple about it. Except for the choice to get Obama elected instead of Impeachment.

Yes, it would be right and just to impeach and convict Bush. But we expect our representatives to be reasonable and smart, and that's exactly what they are doing. They are not basing this decisionon what they want in their hearts, they are basing it on what its cost would be, and whether it could even be successful in the goal of punishing Bush. Why can't anyone see how easy it would be for him to resign just like Nixon did, and avoid the punishment all together? Why on earth would we take the chance of hurting our chances of getting Obama elected.

[RufusTFirefly]

87. She effectively ran out the clock

The close proximity to the Presidential election wasn't an issue when Pelosi stated that impeachment was "off the table." She had a different excuse back then. Now that the Presidential election is approaching, she has another.

What she did was either gutless or cynical. Neither is good.

[roguevalley]

108. apparently you haven't read the part about pardons.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. Pelosi has done a marvelous job standing up to the pressure to launch impeachment procedings.

She's one of the few people who's stood between the Democratic party and mass political suicide over the last few years, at great cost to her own reputation, and she deserves (although, this being DU, she won't get) our thanks.

If Obama wins, it will be in no small part thanks to the fact that Pelosi stood up to the pressure to launch impeachment procedings.

[Zuiderelle]

81. Thank you. That's certainly the sum of it.

And why we should be thanking her instead of insulting her as so many here do.

[EFerrari]

96. Yes, because the consequences for the moving parties have been suicidal

in all impeachment proceedings . . . oh, wait. They haven't been.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

137. They were negative, albeit not suicidal, for the Republicans last time.

And there were two massive differences - firstly, they had the media onside, and secondly and more importantly they were actually trying to impeach, rather than making a purely symbolic gesture with no chance of achieving anything, which is what impeachment procedings against Bush would be.

[EFerrari]

147. Ah, no, they were not suicidal. As I recall, they got the White House. n/t

[roguevalley]

111. hahahahahahaha. that was hilarious. thank you. and thank you

nancy pelosi for putting your hand on a bible and swearing to god you would uphold and protect and defend the constitution. Unless it was --- APPARENTLY -- politically untenable to do so. According to the constitutional scholars and political scientists on this thread. :) Thanks, Nancy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. Opposing impeachment procedings is the best way of defending the constitution available.

There are two possible scenarios:

1) Impeachment procedings launched and inevitably fail; Bush remains in power for 8 years; John McCain more likely to win the next election and continue Bush's policies.

2) No impeachment procedings launched; Bush remains in power for 8 years; Barack Obama more likely to win and able to start restoring the rule of law.

[Froward69]

82. Me too. She is a srewd and effective leader.

She has never gone off half cocked like republicans do all the time.

[AlCzervik]

86. she voted against the war.

i wish they all did.

[begin_within]

94. She certainly has focus

[EFerrari]

101. Alternate thread title: "I adore the Congresswoman who has disrespected DUers in her district

by not bothering to have a townhall in two years. And just to show my solidarity with her, I'll call them haters."

:applause:

[Zuiderelle]

105. I doubt she's ever given a thought to DUers.

It wouldn't make much sense to cater to people who want the exact opposite of what's good for us. I think she's been amazing in being able to stick to the decision and reason behind it and ignore the hysterical impeachment cries of a group of people who don't represent most Democrats.

Her district reelected her. If DUers were a part of that... :toast:

[EFerrari]

121. She hasn't but you'd do well to think before you extoll someone

who is ignoring your peers here at DU. And I said nothing about an agenda, I said she hasn't had a townhall here. That means, not even for people who disagree with me.

'Way to promote democracy, PelosiFan.

Your efforts to marginalize people in service of a political agenda are sort of sad.

[bobbolink]

142. You use the same wording to divide that you decry.

[arthritisR_US]

110. Pelosi has exhibited far too much pandering for my liking, jmo. n/t

[GreenTea]

114. Out of touch Pelosi! I'm voting for Cindy Sheehan as my San Francisco Representative!

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

I'm tied of the super rich, politics as usual, corporate Pelosi saying a few good things, as always, and then doing nothing as the Constitution dictates she must, by the oath she has taken.

Pelosi actually said she would consider , CONSIDER - discussing impeachment if anyone could name a crime Bush might be guilt of? (I'm paraphrasing).

Pelosi didn't even know of a single crime Bush has committed (even though Dennis Kucinich sited 35 articles in front of congress)....Is this not out of touch or what?

It's not even Pelosi's decision to make....it's her duty!

How easily people forget or just don't care....a simple speech telling them what they want to hear can make them gush like a schoolgirl.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

116. I Adore Her As Well.

:patriot:

:hug:

[Disturbed]

122. "Pelosi stood up to the pressure to launch impeachment procedings."

There has been a low percentage of "pressure" to Impeach Bush &/or Cheney within the Congress. Impeachment of both should have proceeded in 2006. It is not going to be done. The top Dems in Congress were complicit with the Bush Regime Crimes. That is why Impeachment was taken "off the table". I doubt that any charges will ever be brought against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfailed, or any other Bush Regime personnel.

[EFerrari]

123. I doubt it, too, unless some of us put together an effort like the one

launched to arrest Rumsfeld when he travels abroad.

Chimp and DeadEye are not into traveling.

[mmonk]

119. I guess someone has to (besides her family and those she is protecting).

But I think of all the bull we have to put up with in the public not knowing the truth, the continued propaganda, and the continued abuse of power. An uninformed and unprotected public is seldom if ever free. So suit yourself, but I refuse to listen to her speak.

[librechik]

125. I'm sure she's a delightful friend, grandmother and woman--

She was probably ok as a Rep, too.

as Speaker she plain sucks

[EFerrari]

126. Oh, and as far as representing most Dems on impeachment, I have bad news for you.

For Release: January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

[Zuiderelle]

132. You are missing the big "IF" in there, which requires a lot of time and energy to spend

on finding out "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge." Fine, do that on side, and then impeach if the evidence is there and in time to make a difference.

It took SEVERAL years of investigation and analysis and trials for them to have enough to impeach Clinton, how do you think they are going to do all that in a few months, without have a negative effect on the American people. They want to impeach IF he's guilty, they don't want to impeach without knowing.

[EFerrari]

134. Baloney. The National Archives now has filed the White Paper

against Iraq that came out *BEFORE* the NIE.

If you're going to support her, you have to do it in spite of the evidence, not because the evidence hasn't been in our faces for seven years.

[Zuiderelle]

135. And no one was pushing for impeachment for the past seven years.

[EFerrari]

136. You're refuting something no one has said.

Hug Nancy close. But I hope you don't expect her to hug you back.

[Festivito]

127. Your post lays as empty as your mind.

How foolish of you to despise our Constitution and its brilliant mechanisms, all so you can engage in some creepy adoration.

Shame on you.

You are an enemy of the people who love this country while despising Pelosi for her not helping us in a time of great need.

In more decent times, in a just country, she should be tried and imprisoned.

[Zuiderelle]

129. And your post lays as contemptuous as your mind.

This is no adoration, this is admiring someone for what she has done and what she has not done. I agree with her decision on not pursuing impeachment. Fortunately we don't live in a country that would try and imprison someone for something so reasonable as not impeaching a President that has only a few months left in office, when such an action would doubtless ruin our chances of electing Obama.

Yeah, let's imprison her for that.

[Festivito]

145. Yeah, let's imprison for that.

Your word: adore, hence adoration. I can see why your first post was blank. You open your mouth and remove all doubt looking a fool.

Yes, I do hold her in contempt. And, yes, that means my mind is contemptuous toward her.

While you blankly "agree with her," soldiers are dying, the tortured are dying, our countrymen are dying for lack of health care, Middle Easterners are dying because of a destroyed infrastructure that still somehow profits oil companies such that it won't be rebuilt. And, all because Bush retains his ability to be above the law with his ability to pardon that Nancy Pelosi allows him because she's afraid of a table.

Let those deaths be on her shoulders and yours. So reasonable are you for letting people die. Ever such reasonable fools!

The last time we went to impeach a Republican, it was Nixon, and THEN WE WON with Carter. After Republicans came back, years later, they took out the special prosecutor law to make sure we'd have to impeach. Well, now it's time. It's been time. It should be done tomorrow even if it's done in secret session dismissing his ability to pardon is essential.

Without impeachment, you'd both be in line for aiding and abetting a murdering criminal.

Yeah, let's imprison for that.

[Zuiderelle]

148. Here's a tip... people stop listening after you call them a fool.

You should try a little harder to follow the rules.

Stop blaming our Speaker for being good at her job.

The fools are those who think impeachment will not hurt our campaign.

It's not so starkly black and white, no matter how much you pretend it is.

[Festivito]

153. I said you make yourself LOOK a fool. Look is not are.

But, I can expect that mistake from someone who assures me adoration has nothing to do with adore, and then cowers behind that explanation to hide themselves by changing the word -- just a little -- to ... admire instead of adore. As if that meant anything other than to blow smoke. How foolish, very very foolish. Completely transparent.

Is this the best you got? A snide tip. Stop blaming Pelosi for being good at keeping the killing machine viable. But, look! She's so ..good.. at that job!

She's like a good mechanic, fixing the getaway car while the crime is being committed. She's soooooooo good.

You want to paint impeachment grey, or adorn it with colors -- no problem. Have at it. But, quit trying to paint a rosy picture out of a half-baked attempt at stopping impeachment. Try putting a reason behind those cutesy little opinions.

BTW: You're the one using the construct "fools are."

[Zuiderelle]

155. Your bulldog tactic is amusing. "foolish transparent snide killing cower cutesy"

No, those words aren't meant to insult or inflame. You seem to be what you criticize.

[Festivito]

158. Amusing!? Now that's a decent comment.

And, I suppose on this issue of life and death, I would be bulldogish.

I do stand by my word choices. Call a foolish idea a foolish idea, not an idea that might.. possibly .. need more work. No, it's a foolish idea.

When I said transparent, I meant one could see through the effort on the surface to the real play underneath.

Your last post uses sarcasm, again. "No, those words aren't meant to insult or inflame." Instead of saying my words are meant to insult and inflame. Snide is right word.

Killing is right word. Murder would have been a harder word to defend. I used it. I can defend it.

Cower was right. Cutesy was actually kinder than sniping, which describes your OP to a tee, inferring over-the-top hate where disdain is adequate and then saying nothing of substance in the way of backup. In fact saying nothing at all.

I am playing hardball. I'm serious. Bugliosi is right, and right for the job of telling us.

For the sake of lives, for the sake of our Constitution, for the sake of the world, ... we need to impeach. He knows it will expose him, drop his excessive power grabbing. That needs to stop.

Hey, you pulled a typical Republican kind of post. If you're sincere, try adding some reasoning.

[Enrique]

128. i'm with you

she probably knows she's reviled by people on both sides, and it appears she doesn't care. She just gets on with our business. :toast:

[EFerrari]

133. Don't you mean, her business?

NANCY PELOSI'S CONTROVERSIAL PRESIDO TRUST: THE UNPUBLICIZED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEW OCCUPANTS IN THE U.S. ARMY'S OFFICERS' HOUSING IN SAN FRANCISCO

http://www.amicusveritas.org/publiccorruptionwatch/presidio_housing.htm

Pelosi views Democratic ethics problems differently than Republican “culture of corruption”

4 Jun 2008 // The reason Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House is the Democrats won back their congressional majority in 2006 after a dozen years in the minority. And one of the main reasons the Democrats won back that majority is they campaigned against the “culture of corruption” under Republican rule.

But Pelosi sees the ethical problems of some Democrats much differently than she views the ethics of the House under the iron hand of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the so-called “Hammer,” who left Congress under criminal indictment.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/32075

Nancy Pelosi, Stop Drinking At The K Street Trough

The scariest part of this money flow is how the Democrats view their good fortune. According to The Hotline, "Asked about the influx of K St dollars to the would-be leaders of a Democratic-controlled House, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said it indicated "support for our agenda and the political reality that we have a chance to win."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/nancy-pelosi-stop-drinki_b_32293.html

From OpenSecrets:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007360

From PelosiWatch, which I won't link to:

"While it's true that she voted against authorizing the president to go to war in October 2002, she has voted for every single war appropiation bill, save one, even though in 2004 her San Francisco constituents voted overwhelmingly for a policy statement (Proposition N) in favor of the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq."

You may think it's your business but the facts say otherwise unless you're getting a monthly check. Democrats who are also progressives in this district have tried to talk to her in every way we could. She has no time for us and on top of that, her book is bombing. Sad, all the way around. Most of us were thrilled when she became Speaker. Iirc, she was the first one to call Junior a "miserable failure". Somewhere between then and now, something changed.

[GammaRay]

130. Karl Rove, George Bush, and Dick Cheney all agree.

[WA98296]

131. That's it. When she permits criminal acts, she becomes a criminal herself.

[babsbunny]

138. IMPEACH her 1st!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[fascisthunter]

139. I Despise Complicit Sychophants

yay

[Zuiderelle]

159. Indeed. Couldn't agree more.

[upi402]

156. like Faux News and CNN too? n/t

[LWolf]

157. To each his own. nt