I talked impeachment with Nancy Pelosi

[cal04]

by Mike Stark
Yesterday, there was a bloggers conference call with Leader Pelosi. When it was my trun to talk, I asked her to explain why "mouth-breathing, nose-picking idiots" that listen to right-wing talk radio were able to beat their Senators into submission and get them to defy their own Republican President, when, with 70% of the nation opposing the war, we can't get her and the rest of our Democratic leaders to do anything to end the war.

Next, Dave Johnson of SeeingTheForest.com asked about the administration's flouting of the rule of law. I was able to pile on a bit and point out that impeachment could begin with Gonzalez.

Anyway, I'm not going to summarize everything because I'll put up a transcript in the extended comments. I recorded the call, and you can hear the relevant excerpts (and check out more "analysis" at BraveNewFilms.org)

(snip)
Mike Stark: Respectfully, that’s not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances that were missing, are honoring the Constitution. I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress. (unint) Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena. I think that the President’s credibility now, whether its immigration – whatever it is – is so low because of a great deal of the oversight that we have done. But we are in disagreement – I’m not going to try to budge you on that – on whether the President should have been impeached. That’s a different question from "Are there grounds for impeachment?" But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

rest of the questions to Pelosi
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541

[rocktivity]

1. TORO TURD!--If Congress thinks the Constitution is "worth it"

then they must MAKE THE EFFORT to impeach whether it's a "successful" one or not!

:mad:
rocknation

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Nancy Pelosi Get Some Balls

Good grief. If she keeps this up, the Dems aren't going to gain anything in 08 as she claims, because folks will become as disillusioned with the Demoratic Party as they are with the GOP. Ms. Pelosi needs to lead if she is going to be in a leadership position.

[AntiFascist]

83. People already are disillusioned...

Democrats were put into power in Congress with the hope of ending the war in Iraq. Unfortunately they didn't consider the neo-liberal angle.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

155. Isn't that the Truth !!! To read up on that angle: Read MADem

who is another apologist for Bush enablers.

[alfredo]

3. Why aren't they equating the Unitary Executive with Dictatorship?

[Bucky]

76. Because hysterical oversimplification isn't a good way to run a government.

Unitary executive, while a flawed and potentially dangerous way to run the presidency, is not actually a dictatorship. And Bush, for all his abusive, corrupt, and destructive policies, is not an actual dictator. Our democracy moves slow. It's supposed to. We're supposed to keep up the pressure, but don't expect it to happen without the painful crawl of due process.
.

[alfredo]

112. I want the Republicans to appear to be too willing to follow any

authoritarian figure such as a "Unitary Executive." It wouldn't be a lie, because they have been too willing to give up our rights to the bullies in the Whitehouse.

They painted "Liberal" as a dirty word, we can do the same for "Unitary Executive."

[Usrename]

129. He is our first despot.

History will not compare him with any other Presidents, history will compare him with Saddam and Hitler.

As a matter of fact, it has already begun. There is no hiding this fact. The world is watching.

Besides, Cheney would be the real dictator, Bush is just a figurehead.

[pacalo]

4. "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

I disagree! The Constitution is worth our congress standing up to this administration's attempt to dismantle the Constitution!

If congress can send its sons & daughters to shed blood for the Constitution, they have a lot of nerve to risk our Constitution for the sake of politics.

[MADem]

14. Where are the votes? How does she get them?

I think a little more of this blame ought to be directed at the GOP Senators who vote with Bush and against the Democrats with regular, religious fervor.

Everyone here is so fucking eager to shoot the messenger. She CAN'T succeed. That's what she is saying. It's not as though she's HAPPY about the situation--she's just telling us the truth, and getting her ass handed back to her for being HONEST.

She knows we can't succeed. And what would a LOSS do? It would weaken her, and embolden the President. A loss would be a signal to the President that the bulk of the constituencies represented by those who voted APPROVE of his war--it would give him room to send MORE kids into the meat grinder. That's how he'd spin it. See, those GOP bastards voting with the President were voted into their jobs by their constituents, and they represent them.

If you are represented by a GOP Senator, stop yelling at Pelosi and start bugging that bastard. Each and every day.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

124. with the proof before them, with

public horror at what Cheney/Bush have actually done, with a media waking up to the fact that they missed the bus, and have to catch up,
it matters not whether there are the votes there here and now. The point is that the process will educate the public and WE will force our reps and senators to vote in favor.

But not even trying is insane, no worse. It is traitorous.

[eomer]

192. Re: "WE will force our reps and senators to vote in favor. "

That's not going to happen.

If the House were to impeach then I would call and email my two Senators repeatedly, urging them to convict and remove from office.

But I would without any doubt fail to get Mel Martinez's vote and am not so sure how Bill Nelson would vote.

It's pretty clear that the vote would fail in the Senate.

It is also clear that the education of the public would not proceed along the lines that you and I would want. Instead, it would be a "fair and balanced" presentation, enough said.

And then we would be worse off, not better.

No, the solution is a Democratic President, a Democratic majority in both houses, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Pelosi is right.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

193. with respect, I strongly disagree.

first, the mere process would force the White hores staffers to start defending all their actions. They would not have any opportunity to continue doing all the harm, all that voodoo that they do all night.

second, the people wuld be behind it, and pull the pols along with.

[Voltaire]

220. No.....they EXPECT us to sit on our asses

and listen to them that think they know better. They will only impeach by force and only we can supply that force. If we are not going to, then we really need to be quiet and take our sodomizing with dignity.

[pacalo]

196. Oh, yes, I'm represented by a bootlicking senator

& a Josephine Lieberman senator, too. My representative is another bootlicker who came up with the purple-fingers idea for the SOTU address exhibition after Iraq was "liberated".

I have great respect for you MADem, but that comment seemed a little acromonious to me, considering you're lucky to be represented by two of the best senators we have. Have you ever imagined what it was like for those of us who are "represented" by rubberstampers for the boy king? I have written & called; I get stonewalling & replies from happyland when I do. Here's an example of one reply that I got from
David Vitter:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me in support of an independent investigation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales concerning the firing of eight U.S. a ttorneys . I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue .

As you may know the Senate Ethics Committee has opened an investigation into the firing of the U . S . a ttorneys and has held numerous hearings in order to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the dism iss als. The Department of Justice is also conducting an internal investigation into the department's firing and hiring practices. So far the a ttorney g eneral 's c hief of s taff and other staffers have resigned due to their involvement in the firings.

I believe it is important to remember as this investigation continues that t he p resident of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. a ttorneys, with the consent of the Senate, and the p resident may remove U.S. a ttorneys from office at any time throughout his tenure . For instance in 1993, President Clinton fired 93 U.S. a ttorneys . Yet, this authority does not preclude Justice Department officials from facing the consequences of possible improper conduct . Please r est assured that I will continue to monitor the situation and will keep your thoughts in mind.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
David Vitter

Think calling them every day would help? They have their minds made up to protect this boy king, &, sadly, I'm having to depend on the good senators from other states who have shown conviction to do the right thing in the past.

[MADem]

214. I haven't always been so lucky to live where I do now. My career took me to less progressive

states as well. Most recently, I put up with Felix Macacawitz and the better-by-comparison John Warner for no small amount of time, so I really do feel your pain. Now, plenty of those bums aren't going anywhere this cycle, but some of them are. And the ones who are up for reelection are the ones to target first. See, I do think minds can be changed, if only for the not-so-noble instinct of self-preservation.

If you think those minds can't be changed, then you're in essence saying there's no hope. Now, this jerk of a congressman you endure might not listen to you, but if he got oh, say, a hundred emails one day, and then two hundred, and then three hundred, and then a thousand--'mail box full'...and he started getting postcards from his district/state by the hundreds or thousands, well, over time, that might start to resonate.

The thing to do is organize--even something as small as putting a tag line on your personal email saying "Write to Rep/Senator So and So and tell him to end the war in Iraq/Investigate Gonzalez/What-Have-You" (some issues resonate better in certain regions than others) and providing the link to the bastard's website (the reps do web-based email and require a zip code, frequently) or send him a postcard at (fill in address), or a fax at (phone number). If you have time, pick up your phone and call him at (phone number). Do that, have your friends do it, have their friends do it, and over time, if your rep or senator(s) are getting an email, or a post card, or a fax, or phone call, from you and a thousand or ten of your closest friends closest friends, well, they may start paying attention. You could also get something going at your state forum here, on message boards that are affiliated with local newspapers, all sorts of venues. Once we get some of these guys showing a bit of daylight, like Luger did, between them and BushCo, well, the likelihood of their voting with the Democrats on other issues will increase exponentially.

The other thing you can do is start organizing for your GOP Senator or Reps opposition--it's never too soon to offer your services. The Senate, especially, is ripe for DOMINANCE by the Dems in 08, if we just put our shoulders to the wheel and work hard to defeat these incumbents. There are 16 GOP Senators who are definitely running and VULNERABLE in 08. There are a total of 22 GOP Senate seats on the table this next election.

These clowns are definitely running, so they say:

Lamar Alexander-Tennessee
John Barrasso-Wyoming (replaced the dead guy/special)
Saxby Chambliss-Georgia
Norm Coleman-Minnesota
Susan Collins-Maine
John Cornyn-Texas
Elizabeth Dole-North Carolina
Pete Domenici-New Mexico
Michael Enzi-Wyoming
Lindsey Graham-South Carolina
Jim Inhofe-Oklahoma
Mitch McConnell-Kentucky
Pat Roberts-Kansas
Jeff Sessions-Alabama
Gordon Smith-Oregon
Ted Stevens-Alaska
John Sununu-New Hampshire

There are others who may or may not run:

Thad Cochran-Mississippi (he probably will)
Chuck Hagel-Nebraska (He's rich, he might run with Bloomberg as VP)
Larry Craig-Idaho (he hasn't said one way or another if he's running yet)
Wayne Allard-Colorado (says he wants to retire)
John Warner (I think he's retiring, his Chief of Staff recently quit)

These guys are PRIMED for constituent pressure. None of these seats are as safe as they once were. Look at Felix Macacawitz Allen--he was once the bright and shining GOP star, who was supposed to be the Presidential front-runner for the GOP; the "anointed one." He's sitting at home now, gazing at his Confederate Flag collection, thanks to an energized constituency, and Jim Webb's ass is warming what once was "his" seat.

These guys haven't yet felt the pain. My take is that they need tofeel it. They have dissatisfied constituents ready to hold their feet to the fire, if they're just given a nudge.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

238. Impeach Bush/Cheney

You write: 'The thing to do is organize--even something as small as putting a tag line on your personal email saying .........."

I agree with yours even if you don't.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

239. More Agreement

You write: 'These guys are PRIMED for constituent pressure."

You mean Pelosi? I agree.

[MADem]

245. You didn't read, again. As you do. "These guys" are the 22 GOP Senators.

The ones whose seats are on the block in 08.

But you knew that. That childish little post was what, a "taunt?"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

255. Why Should They Be Held Accountable and Not Pelosi?

Why Should They Be Held Accountable and Not Pelosi?

Simple question....try not to resort to accusations of it being a 'childish little post' or a 'taunt'.

[MADem]

268. Because their votes are the impediment to conviction in the Senate

You DO know who votes on the Articles of Impeachment sent over to the Senate by the House, don't you?

I do wonder if you DO, in fact know. Sure doesn't look like it from that absurd, non-contextual question that suggests you haven't been following along very well.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

270. The Constitution

Taking aside your sarcasm, I've read the Constitution.

I'm just trying to understand why you think house members should be held more accountable than Senate leadership.

The facts warrant appropriate responses from each and every member of Congress.

[pacalo]

262. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Mr. Felix Allen's downfall does inspire me.

[MADem]

269. I helped in a small way on Webb's campaign.

I may do some work against Sununu in NH this next go round.

Every little bit does, actually, help!!

[markk]

206. its not about succeeding

someone has to be on record saying this man is a criminal and we know it. Show the republicans for the corrupt hacks they are, unwilling to hold their own accountable. They can get the votes to have the impeachment trial.

[Voltaire]

217. Bullshit. Absolute.....Bullshit

Really sick of hearing these goddamned pols saying what they can't do. They swore to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution requires impeachment in this case. It says nothing about NOT HAVING THE FUCKING VOTES. That's all. Anything else is....like I said....Bullshit.

[TahitiNut]

26. So, if one doesn't BELIEVE they can 'succeed' then the Constitution ISN'T worth it???

Wow! :wow:

That means that every person who died in defense of the Constitution ... wasn't worth it?? We're not even talking about (her) death ... we're talking about some fear of losing partisan political power! But we ARE talking about death of thousands and hundreds of thousands ... deaths that continue because "it's not worth" jeopardizing personal partisan political privilege to TRY to defend the Constituion??

I'm gob-struck.

This is the rationalization of bullies and cowards.


"Land of the free and home of the brave" is now officially a JOKE.

[Bucky]

80. Oddly enough, yes. That's the nature of a Constitution.

The Constitution is an attempt to codify the loosy-goosy concept of the Social Contract between people and their government. The idea is to create a form of popular control that is more stable than the old torchlight and pitchfork approach to the people removing consent from governance. Stability is, by its nature, resistant to change.

And that atability only works if the populace has faith in the system. When they don't, the result isn't chaos, however. The result is calcification of the system--which in America's case means more lobbyist control of Congress, lowered voter turn out, gerrymandered districts, and a shrinking "swing vote" portion of the electorate.

This happens because people are less educated in public matters than they should be, because government is further removed from us than what the Founders intended in such a large country, and because monied interests, as defined by the Founders in Philadelphia in 1787 will move into the resulting power vacuum if the government does become too detached from the people's control.

The Constitution is very much a machine of faith. If faith in it breaks down, don't expect "democratic" results from a distorted process. The way it will work right is if people are involved and operating the machine. If they're busy watching TV instead, abusive and corrupt government occurs.

[MADem]

93. The Constitution is very much a machine of faith.

Thoughtful post...well done!

I liked your big finish, too: If they're busy watching TV instead, abusive and corrupt government occurs.

[blm]

247. With that in mind - Dem powerstructure didn't think ANY Dem could win after 9-11.

Nor did they even want to try.


And they proved it by not standing and fighting WITH the primary candidates or the nominee.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. So she is admitting there is grounds for impeachment but it isn't worth

impeaching him?

:wtf:

Nancy, what about your duty to the country? Oh I forget, you are more worried about the 2008 election!

[MADem]

8. How do you read that into her statement? No where did she say it wasn't WORTH it.

She said they didn't have the momentum, the VOTES, the compadres, the support within the organization, to succeed.

What, exactly, would you have her do? Pull Senate votes out of her House ass????

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. It's a moral issue

There is more than enough evidence and when it is presented, and the American people learn all the dirty details, the republicans who vote against it will do so at great risk. So there will be no need to pull votes out of any dark areas.

I am sick and tired of this not enough votes or not enough time argument. My own congressman pulled this on me after he admitted there were definitely grounds for impeachment and he wanted to impeach the bastards.

Doing the right thing is important. Kucininch understands that and so do the 10 congress reps who have signed on to his impeachment resolution.

But go ahead and wait for these votes you imagine are not there. Go ahead and let this administration destroy our country. The Dems look more and more foolish every day and every time they cave in to dubya. No wonder their approval ratings are lower than his.

While you wait, keep this in mind:

Every 10 minutes, an Iraqi dies

Every 10 hours, a US soldier dies

Every 10 days, we spend $2 BILLION in Iraq.

Oh and the argument that there are more important things to work on is silly also. While Nixon fought impeachment, both the endangered species act and an increase in the minimum wage were passed. Impeachment doesn't prevent other legislation from going through.

It's way past time to do the right thing.

[MADem]

20. Oh, for Christ's sake. Words, words, words. How does yelling at Pelosi

stop those people from dying? Yadda, yadda, yadda isn't gonna cut it.

Everyone here is pontificating, but not one muthafucka will write down, in plain English, what Madame Speaker should DO to get those votes.

What should she do? Where are the votes? How does she get them???

You're the only one who brought up the "More important things to work on" argument. I sure as hell didn't. Let's discard that argument, now. Let's put this issue front and center. Answer this question in plain English:

HOW does NANCY PELOSI get the votes?

Don't you think the constituents of the SENATORS who are voting with Bush have a slight DUTY here? Or is it the responsibility of the Speaker of the HOUSE to go to the other side of the Hill and somehow lobby SENATORS on your behalf?

So, you jut cut out the "You just go ahead..." lectures. That's BULLSHIT. Provide a plan of action that will produce those votes, like I have done, elsewhere in this thread, or just remain silent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I already explained how she will get the votes

Take a chill and go back and reread my post.

[MADem]

28. No, you didn't. You said she should go ahead on a failed mission.

Each article will go to a committee, the committee will report out, and there won't be two thirds. On ANY article. So there won't be a trial--no Roberts, no robe with stripes, no hushed TV coverage.

You should study the Clinton impeachment, and look at the excuses that even Republicans used for voting against some of the individual articles. Those guys are experts at saying "I feel this way, but I am voting that way on a technicality."

The articles will be voted on, one by one, and all of them will be shot down. Pelosi will look like a FOOL who wasted the Senate's time, and who made Harry Reid look like a wuss.

That's what you want? Sheeesh.

Why don't you try GETTING those Senate votes FIRST? That's a plan....

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I can't make you read

I already explained the votes are there. Once the evidence is presented, only a fool would vote against impeachment. Only a fool who didn't want to be re-elected and who wanted to paint him/herself as a bush/cheney lover.

[MADem]

38. And I explained to you that you're wrong. The votes are NOT there.

Each article of impeachment gets sent over to the Senate. The Senate hands them off to impeachment trial committees. The trial committees report out, and a vote is taken on each article. Not a single article will pass. You need two thirds.

There will BE no trial.

The GOP Senators will take turns voting for and against the different articles. They'll count the votes and make SURE that there's never two-thirds. Boehner will sit at his desk, with a piece of paper that has the names of all the GOP senators and the YEAS and NAYS. They'll wait until they see how many NAYS they need, and then Boehner will tell certain Senators how to vote on each article.

He'll let them vote FOR impeachment on at least one article.

Because Senator Fatass voted FOR Article One, but AGAINST Article Two and three, he can still go back to his constituents and say "I voted FOR impeachment." Senator Shitbird, same deal--he votes AGAINST Article One and Two, but FOR Article Three. He too, can tell his constituents that he voted FOR impeachment.

See how the game is played? It's all vote-counting. They'll keep the number under two-thirds, and they will STILL enable every GOP senator who wants to vote for impeachment to do so.

It's a shell game.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Thanks for Explaining It to Us

:sarcasm:

Thanks for explaining it to us. Gosh, without your incite and extensive wisdom, I just don't know where we would be.

You seem to 'know' what the Senate will do before it does, so I for one think you have more in common with Bush than half the cons in the Senate.

----------
edited subject line

[MADem]

131. Fine, you disagree. Life goes on. NT

[derby378]

176. Setting the Wayback Machine for the Clinton administration...

The Repukes knew they didn't have the votes to remove Clinton from office. But they impeached him anyway because they knew that even a failed impeachment would irreparably damage whatever was left of Clinton's second term, not to mention Gore's chances of succeeding Clinton.

[Neshanic]

264. You WIN! Thank you for trying to point out the obvious to the oblivious.

[onenote]

280. except of course, the clinton impeachment cost repubs seats

in the House and Senate in 1998/2000 and what irreparably damaged Gore's chances of succeeding Clinton (and remember Gore won the popular vote) was, in no particular order, Nader and the SCOTUS, not the failed impeachment. In fact, there are those that think Gore hurt himself by distancing himself from Clinton during the campaign.

And see how well the failed impeachment did at tarnishing Bill Clinton? The guys wife has a very good chance of being the Democratic nominee and possibly president and Clinton has been so tarnished by it that he's only earning money hand over fist from all the people who want to hear him speak.

Trying to impeach chimpy and cheney without bi-partisan support is doomed not only to failure but will rally the repub base in a way that nothing else will.

And let's put aside the "once the evidence is out" memo -- You are never going to get a majority in the House to start an impeachment inquiry without the vote to start the process having bi-partisan support. Hell, the Clinton impeachment inquiry vote (remember this is the vote to start the process) got 31 Democrats. Name 3, let alone 30, House repubs that would vote to start an impeachment inquiry today.

[barbtries]

171. you cannot know all this,

you believe it but you don't KNOW it - and cannot know the future any more than any other human being can. time will tell - or not, if no action is ever taken.

i disagree with your position on this issue. i agree that impeachment needs to be put on the table a couple of years ago. the evidence is so overwhelming. it is ironic: the argument against impeachment is damn close to the argument for, at least as far as the democrats' future in politics. i think sitting on their hands while a rogue administration kills and loots and destroys the environment - and more, and more, can't list it all - will cost them way more than fulfilling their oaths to uphold the constitution will. you seem to believe that impeaching the rogues will make them look bad.

[MADem]

187. Well, we'll just have to disagree, then.

And for the record, this statement is false: ...you seem to believe that impeaching the rogues will make them look bad.

[jwirr]

72. Can you tell us if the votes were there to impeach Nixon? If I am

not mistaken that did not happen until much of the evidence was in.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. How much more evidence do they need?

Good grief. The VP tried to remove himself from the executive branch last week. They are ignoring subpoenas. bush is spying on us (a clear constitutional violation). Over 700 signing statements, one giving bush the power to declare martial law.

Do I need to start in on the illegal war?

The evidence is there. And it is up to us, the citizens, to DEMAND impeachment. That's what I am doing. My congressman is on my speed dial. So are my senators.

For more info on Nixon, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[AntiFascist]

166. The crux of the matter should be that Libby did not act alone...

in fact he was acting as part of a larger conspiracy to deceive the American people about weapons of mass destruction, intimidate the CIA into conjuring up false evidence of such, and if we look a little further we would find that Cheney, et. al., have cooperated in making terrorism a bigger problem in the world so that we would have a reason for being over in the Middle East in furtherance of the plans spelled out in PNAC (the Project for the New American Century). This is the simple truth as I and many others see it, and there is plenty of evidence leading to this conclusion. The fact that much of the media is apparently participating in this conspiracy is enough to explain why we are not hearing about it each and every day.

[calimary]

122. And that's what we have to do. Put them on speed dial - or its equivalent,

psychologically-speaking.

And we have to start working over into the enemy camp, too. Let some of THEM know that this has to be done. Remind them that this is on THEIR HEADS, and around THEIR NECKS, too. And if they stand for any of this criminality, then they're as bad as he is.

They're already knocked flat because of the war. Some of them are just in such denial that they can't bring themselves to capitulate. Or maybe they only watch Pox Noise. We have to start destabilizing the enemy. They're already ripe for the picking as Iraq gets worse and worse and worse. Let's make them even moreso.

[knight_of_the_star]

99. That's assuming the GOP will remember their duty to the country

Considering most of them are staying in not because of massive amounts of popular support but because they keep enough people pleased and enough people disillusioned and have enough money to keep things that way, the only way to win in the Senate is to force the GOP's positions in the Senate to rapidly become unsafe and impeachment won't be enough to do that.

[mcg]

174. The defunding of Cheney didn't pass,

so right now, it looks like an attempt at impeachment would fail,
and I don't think that would be a good thing at all.

I think they are currently working on getting the evidence.
Actual impeachment could become much more likely.

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. Putting impeachment BACK ON THE TABLE would be the first step to getting

more votes. IMHO, as long as it's off the table, NO ONE is going to take it seriously. Put impeachment on the table, show the world, and the House/Senate, that you are SERIOUS about it. As long as it remains something that's only whispered about in the hallways and by the water cooler it ain't going nowhere.

Make it an issue, then we can see who else is our enemy within. Every congress critter who WON'T support impeachment after the crimes have been exposed is a traitor to our Constitution and our Country and needs to be removed also. Make the fuggers stand up and be counted and exposed.

[AntiFascist]

88. The answer is simple...

why not reach out to Republican reps who are also critical of how we got into this war (which should be the primary impeachable offense)? This would form a stronger coalition than something which is purely Democratic and would, at least, set an example for the Senate. In case you haven't noticed, there are Republicans in the Senate who are becoming more vocal about their criticism of the administration's policies.

[MADem]

96. Ironically, that's the game plan, pretty much--there's going to be some "persuading" going on...

It's more of a "leaning on" than a "reaching out," and for now it is limited to the issue of the war, rather than impeachment, but with any luck, there will be some level of collegiality, and as I've said, if you can change hearts and minds, you can change votes. But you've got to do that legwork first. The more people who pipe up and HELP by calling their GOP Senator and giving him or her an earful, the better:

Democrats Plan to Press GOP on Iraq
Majority Party Frustrated on Hill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902444.html
...Because of the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate, I'm not happy with Congress either," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)......Reid yesterday dismissed recent congressional approval ratings as tied more closely to Washington under Bush and the Iraq war than any specific qualms with Congress. A new CNN poll, touted by Democratic leaders, showed that while nearly half of the respondents disapproved of what the Democrats had accomplished so far, 57 percent said Democratic control of Congress is good for the country.

But even Democratic pollsters have warned congressional leaders that they have to show they can govern effectively. To do that, Democrats plan to spend much of July pressing Republicans to break with Bush on the war, and showing a dispirited public that they are committed to ending the war......The Senate intends to move to a defense policy bill on which Democrats will again try to attach binding troop-withdrawal timelines. The proposals under consideration would demand greater accountability from Bush and the Iraqi government, standards for troop readiness and a ban on permanent bases. Lawmakers are moving to restore the rights of terrorism suspects to challenge their detention in federal court, and to close the military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

House leaders plan to introduce parallel legislation on Iraq, even though they avoided Iraq-related issues when they approved their annual defense policy bill earlier this month, saying they wanted to pass it quickly....By mid-July, Democrats say, they will offer weekly votes to force Republicans, and the president, to defend the war. "Though we failed in a particular action" to limit the war through the Iraq spending bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said, "we're not stopping until a change in policy is effected."

[Joe Fields]

43. Are you defending Pelosi's chickenshit behavior?

How can you do that? She as much as admitted that it would be bad for the democratic party if they were to proceed with impeachment. She lost my support when she places the "so called good of the party" before the good of the country.

On edit. She did too say it wasn't worth it. Re-read that first sentence. Whether you can succeed or not is irrelevant to doing what is right. Definitely not a profile in courage moment for her.

[MADem]

60. She "as much as admitted?" No she didn't.

She said they don't have the means to succeed. That was the absolute truth.

Now, I've explained the mechanics of the process, how the GOP can stop conviction dead in its tracks, elsewhere in this thread, I'm not going to do it all over again. If you're interested, it's here, in other posts.

All she did was speak the truth, and people are getting ANGRY at her because she told the truth.

For the life of me, I don't get this attitude. What part of "We don't HAVE the votes" are people not understanding? And why beat up the House speaker because the GOP very-substantial-minority has enough people to block any attempt at an impeachment trial that results in a conviction?

Last impeachment trial we had, Clinton's poll numbers soared to the seventies. I wouldn't expect Bush to get a bounce like that, but his rabid, mouth breathing base might muster enough sympathy for him, or Darth Cheney, to get them out of the basement and up a good ten or fifteen points.

And if they aren't convicted, that's as good as saying "Keep on trucking, George." You won't get another bite at that BushCo apple.

So he'll throw a few tens of thousands of kids more into that Iraq meat grinder....after all, he'll be safe from another impeachment effort, and he'll know it.

[Joe Fields]

61. Re-read the first sentence. It's worth it, if it succeeds?

Which is the same as saying it isn't worth it, if it doesn't succeed. So, then, the constitution isn't worth fighting for, if you cannot succeed in upholding it, according to Pelosi. Fuck the votes. Fuck them fuck them fuck them!!!!!I don't give a shit about whether it succeeds or not. You still have to impeach. She's a political hack, who enables this administration if she doesn't do the right thing.

[MADem]

65. Talk about a simplistic 'black and white' way of looking at a statement.

It's not the same as saying "It isn't worth it, if it doesn't succeed." The opposite of right can be left, or wrong.

If you can win at something, it's always worth it. But by not winning, we could weaken our position to the point that BushCo really IS an Imperial Presidency. Haste can make waste.

Look, I'm sick of this "Beat up on Pelosi" shit. When everyone here crapping on her can actually come up with a solid two-thirds vote in the Senate for every fucking article of impeachment the House wants to send over, then I'll take these "Pelosi suuuuuucks...she HATES the Constitution" whines seriously. She doesn't hate the Constitution--she just doesn't want to engage in an exercise that will serve to make Bush STRONGER when he defeats the articles of impeachment, is all.

I keep asking--where are the votes? And I get bullshit and pipe dreams. "Gee, if we just send over the articles, the, uh, PEEE-PULL will convince the GOP senators to vote the right way!!" No, the people won't. You have to have your votes in line, on the basis of individual conscience (see the Nixon resignation) and the vote being "the right thing to do" BEFORE you send over the articles. We don't HAVE that .... YET. That's why we can't "succeed."

:eyes:

[AntiFascist]

90. What you fail to understand is the power of the investigation process..

granted there is undoubtedly a lot of fear on the part of the investigators about what BushCo might do to them, but the only alternative is to continue to live under this fear. Once the truth starts to come out, as it did in the Nixon revelations, people will most certainly support impeachment more strongly and congressmembers will have no choice but to follow suit. Even if impeachment drags on or fails, I wouldn't doubt that soome members of the administration will become humialiated and decide to resign.

[MADem]

97. The investigation process has already begun. They just aren't calling it

"impeachment investigations." When Alberto was at the green table answering questions, when Monica Goodling was telling her tale, when Valerie Plame was speaking out and telling us what happened to her, that wasn't "fer nuthin'" after all.

When the GOP ran the show, what did we see? While kids were dying in Iraq, all engines stopped over....steroids in baseball.

The American people don't want a failed dog and pony show. They want results. I posted a WAPO article elsewhere that discusses how they intend to revisit the war issues.

While kids continue to die, any impeachment proceedings that are symbolic, unsuccessful, and viewed as time-wasting charades will be characterized as partisan political sniping and petty vendettas (it doesn't matter what the facts are, that's how it will be portrayed), and are simply a nonstarter.

If enough Republicans turn their back on Bush, then the dynamic changes. But that has not happened yet. And it won't happen unless the constituents of those GOP Senators, the Republican constituents, especially, let their Senators know how very unhappy they are.

[AntiFascist]

104. Some Republican senators are starting to turn...

the question is how far will they go and how strong are the feelings of their constituents?

[MADem]

109. That's why it's important for people who have GOP Senators, especially those vulnerable 22

who are up for reelection in 08, to call, to write, to email them, and ask their friends and neighbors to do the same.

Start with ending the war. That's the BushCo Achille's heel, IMO.

If we can turn enough Senators against the war, and BushCo refuses to listen to them, they'll be all the more motivated to put that bastard in a cage--because his actions, by continuing the war, will threaten their paycheck.

There IS a challenge with regard to the commitment of the constituents. If you don't have anyone over there, your "investment" isn't as readily apparent (even though we'll be paying this shitty bill for eons...). During the Vietnam era, you couldn't keep people out of the streets...now, you can't get them to them....

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[Joe Fields]

142. you know, you should run for office. you'd fit right in.

[puebloknot]

167. Madame Pelosi needs to think about this historical comment:

"All we have to fear is fear, itself."

I am more than unimpressed with Ms. Pelosi's focus on the small things (which any reasonable society furnishes its citizens without crowing about it), while letting the really serious matters which threaten our very existence as a democracy get sidelined in her wide-eyed pirouette toward November 2008. She isn't up to the job. I'd say the same thing if the Speaker were male and behaving as she is. And I do say the same thing about Harry Reid.

Nancy Pelosi is taking powers unto herself which she will hopefully come to regret. It is not her right to make the decision that impeachment will not happen for the whole country.

People who want a guarantee before they step up to the plate should not be in the game.

[MADem]

186. What do you want her to do?

Tell me how she sells the right wing of her own party? She can't order the Blue Dogs to vote the way she tells them to. If they don't get something out of it, they aren't going to cooperate. And they aren't going to go forward with a plan that won't succeed. And impeachment will not succeed at this time.

What powers is Pelosi taking "unto herself?" The general complaint is that she's acting with too much restraint. I don't understand your comment. Your suggesting that because she's done a count, is able to anticipate the results, and realized the measure won't prevail, that she's 'taking powers?'

[puebloknot]

225. Nancy Pelosi announced, before she was even seated...

... that there would be no withholding of funds for the war, and that impeachment was "off the table."

As has been said here, ad infinitum, to hold back on bringing charges against this rogue administration because the Senate *might* not convict is cowardly. Pelosi and Reid do *not* have a crystal ball, and cannot say what course may ensue if open impeachment hearings begin and pressure grows from the public to convict.

That procedure would force the Republicans, not to mention the Democrats, to declare themselves on whether they support criminal actions, or not.

Whether or not there is a conviction in the Senate, this Congress needs to follow the constitutional procedure for reining in an out-of-control White House.

The House controls the power of the purse. Pelosi has opened the purse strings. The House has the ability to *start* impeachment proceedings. Pelosi stands in the way.

I want her to lead or get out of the way.

[MADem]

227. The Democrats in the House even stuck a knife in the Fairness Doctrine

That's another thing that's "off the table." No counterpoint to Rush or Hannity. Let that old market, run by corporate, pro-war interests, rule!!! http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/06/29/cq_2998.html

To be fair to them, they did it to prevent it from being an 08 talking point, but that's because they looked way down the road, and decided that the best bet was to take a long view.

Yet you think we're going to be able to ram through impeachment? In this current climate? Without moving, through constituent pressure, a substantial portion of the right wing of BOTH parties?

Who would you put in Nancy's place? (Not that it is our decision in any case--she was elected by her constituents, the House Democratic caucus--she leads them, not us).

Don't say Jack Murtha--he's a right winger on EVERY issue save the war. He's well to the right of Pelosi. And he doesn't think impeachment is "appropriate at this time" either. See, he knows how to count, too. And he's standing beside the Speaker on impeachment.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/30/murtha_spokesman_he_doesnt_believe_impeachment_is_appropriate

You look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party, and you learn that, though they advocate using the power of the purse, 61 (out of 71) voted to continue to fund the war. http://www.democrats.com/node/12380

And you think impeachment is a viable option right now, when even the most liberal end of the party is taking the "give him enough rope and he will hang himself" tactic?

And how would the replacement "force" the Blue Dogs to the left? Because now that these Blue Dogs and other sectional Democratic caucuses know there's not going to BE an impeachment vote any time soon, unless and until the tepid saucer of the Senate has decided that it's the right thing to do, they can tell you (and you can believe it if you'd like) they're raring to go for it until the cows come home...but when the rubber meets the road, they may not be all that enthusiastic.

Look, I'd love to have that magic wand, and be able to wave it and VOILA! -- I turn on CSPAN, and Senate Republicans join with their Democratic counterparts and start pounding their desks and demanding that the House send over a few Articles of Impeachment. That would be lovely--but it's just not going to happen. And it's not Pelosi's fault, though she makes a convenient scapegoat.

[puebloknot]

241. Defeatist attitude. Start impeachment, watch the facts laid out...

... to the public at large, and then watch reluctant Dems and Repubs to climb on board because they know their own asses are going to get caught in the impeachment sweep.

Pelosi has made herself a "scapegoat" through her impolitic comments which have let the criminals in this administration know they have nothing to fear in terms of accountability.

Nancy talked with glowing pride on Charlie Rose for an hour about the *oversight* they're engaging in, in the House. And she kept returning to her "breaking through the marble ceiling," and how that will have an impact on women for years to come. I don't think Ms. Pelosi is very well grounded in the reality of what must be done to save the country from further decline. I'm sure she's a nice lady, and a great grandmother, but I don't see the strength and focus from her that's needed in the position she occupies.

Will Pitt has just climbed on the impeachment train (for Cheney). His latest article points to a very cogent approach to getting the show on the road. It is immoral to sit and spin and "take the long view" in terms of salivating over Election 2008 when people are dying -- at home and abroad.

I don't know, nor does anyone, exactly how this will play out, who might come in to replace Cheney, if anyone, whether Bush will resign if the heat gets too great (I'd bet on it, once he no longer has his Cheney Bear to comfort him). I do not personally relish the idea of Nancy Pelosi stepping into the presidency, albeit for a short time, because I don't think she has the leadership abilities needed. That's a personal view. I just feel it's time to stop whining about "not having the votes" and make a move in the general direction of restoring democracy to America.

Time is of the essence.....

[MADem]

244. The Progressive Democratic Caucus

as I said upthread, voted overwhelmingly (sixty one out of seventy one of the UBER-LIBERALS in the House) to continue to fund the war. How do you reconcile that uncomfortable truth? These are the most liberal House members, mind you. Doesn't that "fact" suggest to you that there's more going on here than meets the eye? The most liberal wing of our party--fully realizing that people are "dying--at home and abroad"--voted to continue to fund this war. They're taking a long view, painful as it is, for a reason.

Will Pitt isn't a House member. While it's nice that he's on the impeachment train, that doesn't get the train out of the station. Hell, I'm on the train, too, but I'm fully aware that it isn't leaving anytime soon--it hasn't even been fueled up, yet. I realize that the paying passengers, those GOP Senators, those Blue Dogs in the House, they haven't even bought their tickets yet. The train isn't ready to leave now, like it or not.

You do realize that unless someone runs both the Monkey and Darth over with a bus at the same time that Nancy will never be President. Bush will move immediately to replace Cheney with someone who's acceptable to political DC, someone with a conciliatory demeanor. And unless and until you convince the GOP Senators that Bush himself, not his underlings, have actually DONE WRONG (and lying isn't impeachable--all politicians, to include Presidents, lie their asses off) and it can be proven that he and he alone is responsible for those wrongdoings (not a Libby, a Rove, a Gonzalez, for example), you aren't going to get any Articles of Impeachment out of the House. You also have to consider Bush's signing statements when you contemplate his abrogation of any laws, because they are a problematic piece of this entire situation.

I don't impart this with any glee, just reality. It's not going to happen any time soon, and the Speaker is not to blame for it. Investigations ARE happening in a Democratic-run House. That's new, and good.

The CPC, by their 'fund the war' vote, has plenty of 'splainin' to do, too, IMO, but no one is asking them about that, are they?

[puebloknot]

246. You can be a naysayer, or you can put your energy into making it happen.

We aren't talking about a guaranteed conviction in the Senate. We're talking about making the public accusations and making the American people aware of what their reps are doing (NOT DOING) in Congress.

I don't infer that because the most liberal wing of our party are funding the war -- "taking the long view" -- that there's a greater wisdom involved, that there's something they can't share with We the People. Instead, I think we are looking at a Congress that is too influenced by corporate donations to pay attention to the NOW VIEW. They're more interested in saving their political asses (pardon my French) than in defending the Constituion.

I do not say that with any glee, either. It's unfortunate that our newly-empowered Dems are failing us, are playing too close and loose with the criminal element of the current Republican Party, and are not acting as an opposition party. That does not bode well for the future of the country.

Those who threw tea overboard in Boston Harbor would never have done it if they had "oh, dear'd" themselves into cowering before the forces aligned against them. Courage. That's what we have to have. And not blind courage, either.

[MADem]

249. Patrick Leahy is doing some specific work. What he's doing, pressing the VP re:

release of information, is constructive. They've asked, and Cheney has refused. There's precedent to go after the guy on that score.

But Bush hasn't lied under oath. He's been careful not to. Lying when not under oath isn't against the law. His signing statements, when he ignores laws, cover his ass. There's no EVIDENCE--yet--that he's done anything that qualifies as a high crime or a misdemeanor. That's not to say he hasn't so done, but there's no evidence of it (and I'm talking about the legal definition of the term 'evidence,' not the opinions of pundits or columnists). You don't accuse without evidence.

Democrats, most of them, anyway, like the rule of law, understand the difference between what they think, what they know, and what is evidence, and they understand the purpose of impeachment. It's not a punishment, the goal of it is solely to remove someone from office. It's not a tool to make political points. There's no frog marching or imprisoning involved in it.

Explain to me why I am a "naysayer" simply because I am speaking the truth. I'm telling you the votes aren't there, that attempting a foolish errand that is bound to fail will enable the GOP to spin the entire exercise as craven politics and nothing more. I'm telling you that even the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives OVERWHELMINGLY voted to continue to fund the war, because they see VALUE in a measured approach that will benefit not just the Party's reputation and strength, but also our place in the world, over the long term.

Yet you're suggesting to me that "naysaying" is the problem, here? Come on.

Throwing tea in the harbor isn't like impeaching a President. It takes an hour or two, tops, to stage a late night demonstration. Impeachment ties the country in knots for months. They aren't even remotely equivalent.

[puebloknot]

250. I am quite aware, and appreciative of what Mr. Leahy is doing

I am going to end this exchange with you with a couple of paragraphs from the esteemed David Swanson, who is at the forefront of the impeachment movement. Before I paste that information in, let me just say that the tone of all your posts, to me and others, is rather superior and mocking. We who are fighting for impeachment fully understand what the various consequences may be. We just are not willing to live our political lives with a finger in the wind, always measuring projected (but unknowable) consequences. To suggest that failure to impeach Bush/Cheney will benefit the party's reputation, and strengthen our place in the world, is LUDICROUS. Someone named Albert Speer spent 20 years in prison, repenting just that point of view in regard to going along with Hitler. He wanted to make his name immortal in the annals of architecture. He betrayed his country and sacrificed his family's wellbeing for political prominence. We are seeing a very similar modus operandi with our Dem "leadership."

I think you and I must now agree to disagree.

For your reading pleasure:

From David Swanson's Journal

The world needs to know that Americans do not support the actions of King George. 21% of Russians have confidence in Bush's international leadership, according to a survey conducted in 2006 by Pew, 32% of Japanese, 25% of Germans, 7% of Spaniards, 10% of Pakistanis, 3% of Turks. We are here to say to the people of the world: We know George W. Bush as well as you do, and we trust him even less. We are deeply sorry for the death and destruction he has caused, and we are working to impeach him and remove him from office.

************

Their crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past six months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Full text at: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/139

[MADem]

253. Your opinion with regard to my "tone" is your opinion, and it has absolutely no basis in fact.

I am not feeling "superior" and I am not mocking you. But I live in the REAL WORLD. Exhorting me, and hectoring me, to suspend reality and join a Happy Conga Line towards impeachment, when there's just no support for it on the Hill, for the reasons I've outlined throughout this thread and won't repeat, is a time waster. You aren't going to change my mind by appealing to my FEELINGS. Certainly, if I had the "magic wand" I would gleefully wave it and poof!! Bush would be impeached. But I'm not the damned Impeachment Fairy--it's NOT gonna happen. Do I wish it would? Certainly. But if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

I find the "Shoot the Messenger" crap I'm enduring here pretty instructive as to the level of appreciation many here have for the entire purpose and process of impeachment. I also find the anger interesting--it's not as though I'm HAPPY that the facts are the facts, but I'm being accused of being everything short of an RNC functionary because I won't go along with what is frankly, shitty logic and wishful thinking.

Well meaning essays from sincere people make for inspiring reading, but they don't move the goalposts at all. They don't produce 'evidence' of high crimes or misdemeanors. As I said, lies not under oath are par for the course, not impeachable offenses. A war that was approved by Congress isn't an illegal war. Even if it is an immoral one.

I've told you that Bush has done a good job of covering his tracks. If Pat Leahy can shake loose some shit that tracks all the way to the Oval Office, well, good for Pat. Personally, I'd love it if he could return the "Go Fuck Yourself" that Cheney delivered to him on the floor of the Senate. But unless and until that happens, we are where we are--and that's many, many, many miles away from Impeachmentland.

Like it, or not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

260. Impeachment is Not a Joke and It's Warranted

Make a joke about the impeachment fairy all you want. I think most people here consider impeachment a serious accusation worth public hearings, investigations and if appropriate a trial.

It's beyond me how you can put a 'impeach Bush' signature on your posts and then not agree with the last sentence.

Like it or not, we are gaining ground for impeachment each and every day, no thanks to you who seems to think we should be going in the opposite direction.

[MADem]

266. No one is saying it's a joke. But you're dreaming if you think that right now we have any hope of

seeing it.

You need to be a little less "sensitive"--this is a message board. And guess what, I am STILL not the Impeachment Fairy.

Just because I WANT to see Bush impeached doesn't mean that I am going to suspend logic and jump on a "Wishing, Hoping and Soon-to-be-Disappointed" bandwagon. I will NOT suspend judgment just because I wish something would occur.

For the life of me, I'm sick and tired of people--like you--who FAIL to read for COMPREHENSION. I don't think we should be "going in the opposite direction." Where did you get that shit, pray tell? I'm just telling you that dreaming isn't going to make it reality. EVIDENCE is.

And Bush pardoning Libby isn't EVIDENCE. It's what our laws SAY a President can do.

I'm sick of arguing with people who don't know their own system of government, and who accuse me unfairly because I do. It's fucking tiresome.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

271. You are Sick and Tired

Yes. It's true. I heard you say you are.

You write: 'For the life of me, I'm sick and tired of people--like you--who FAIL to read for COMPREHENSION."

Reasonable people can disagree, but it takes a certain amount of arrogance to say I and others 'don't know their own system of government' (a masters in Public Administration and an undergraduate degree in Political Science along with decades in civic affairs not withstanding....but alas...I digress) while you alone claim to have a better understanding than I do. I agree it grows tiresome, but I enjoy pointing out your inconsistencies.

I'm well aware that the President can pardon Libby legally. I'm also well aware that we haven't even scratched the surface or even had hearings regarding Libby's involvement. You accuse me of fairy wishing for Bush's impeachment saying it's never going to happen in the next 18 months. Again, I ask, why the heck do you call for his impeachment then. Tell me why the President should be impeached, since you claim to know so much more than I do. Oh, that's right................you don't think Bush should be impeached, but wait, you are calling for his impeachment. Good grief. And you think I live in fairy land? Which is it all wise and knowing one.

Wishful thinking indeed. There's another word for it: hypocrisy.

----------
edited for word omission

[fightthegoodfightnow]

275. You Claim

You write: 'I've told you that Bush has done a good job of covering his tracks."

Funny, I think you have done a good job helping him.

How else would you characterize someone who thinks it's 'wishful thinking' to call for Bush's impeachment? But wait, you did call for Bush's impeachment ....gosh....at least that's what you 'told me'.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

259. Boston Tea Party

Do you really think the Boston Tea Party is about what happened in one or two hours?

[puebloknot]

261. It was a final act against tyranny, after long enduring the unendurable.

Let's just say that they had an event planner who had been working on the party for a long time before it happened!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

272. Exactly

the Anaology is legit.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

258. Exactly.....

BRAVO:

'We aren't talking about a guaranteed conviction in the Senate. We're talking about making the public accusations and making the American people aware of what their reps are doing (NOT DOING) in Congress."

I couldn't agree more.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

257. For or Against: Impeachment and War-- Which Is It?

You write: 'The Progressive Democratic Caucusas I said upthread, voted overwhelmingly (sixty one out of seventy one of the UBER-LIBERALS in the House) to continue to fund the war. How do you reconcile that uncomfortable truth?'

Start by demanding that they STOP funding the war.

You write: 'While it's nice that he's on the impeachment train, that doesn't get the train out of the station. Hell, I'm on the train, too, but I'm fully aware that it isn't leaving anytime soon--it hasn't even been fueled up, yet.'

Yea....I noticed you dropped your signature photo with the call for impeachment. Impeachment is warranted based on the facts. Let the votes fall where they may. It is the right thing to do.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

234. Well Said

BRAVO

You write: "Whether or not there is a conviction in the Senate, this Congress needs to follow the constitutional procedure for reining in an out-of-control White House. The House controls the power of the purse. Pelosi has opened the purse strings. The House has the ability to *start* impeachment proceedings. Pelosi stands in the way. I want her to lead or get out of the way."

WELL SAID.

[puebloknot]

242. Thanks. I hear a train a'coming, it's coming round the bend.... :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

226. Why do you have an "Impeach Bush" Sign as Your Signature......

........if you don't think we should impeach Bush and if you don't think there is enough time to do so?

[Voltaire]

219. There were no votes for Nixon's Impeachment either

Guess how that turned out? Sometimes the rule of law means something more than vote counting.

[MADem]

223. There were no votes, because Goldwater counted the votes for Dick.

When Senator Barry Goldwater went to him, with two others (and remember that Dick was a former Senator and as VP a former President of the Senate--he knew how to 'count') Goldwater told him precisely who would vote "with" him (a grand total of seven, and likely they would have fallen away as the vote proceeded), and who would vote "against" him.

They had the votes to convict. This Senate doesn't--not by a long shot. That's why Nixon resigned, because he knew he'd be both impeached AND convicted. As I said, he knew how to count. http://www.answers.com/topic/nixon-resignation-of

On 30 October 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began hearings on whether to impeach him. On 27–30 July 1974, it passed three articles of impeachment. The House of Representatives appeared likely to approve the articles (it did so as a pro forma matter on 20 August)—a decision that would put Nixon on trial before the Senate.

To remove Nixon from office, two-thirds of the Senate (67 senators) would have to support conviction. By early August Nixon's support was clearly eroding. On 24 July, the Supreme Court had unanimously ordered the president to surrender the transcripts of 64 conversations that Nixon had secretly taped. On 5 August Nixon finally made public the transcripts of three of those discussions. In those discussions, which took place on 23 June 1972, Nixon had instructed H. R. Haldeman, his chief of staff at the time, to have the CIA, under false pretenses, order the FBI to curtail the Watergate probe. The tape-recorded evidence starkly contradicted Nixon's longstanding claims of his own innocence.

With the disclosure of the contents of this so-called "smoking gun" tape, many of Nixon's own aides and lawyers concluded he should resign. On 6 August, Nixon's congressional liaison, Bill Timmons, told the president that only seven senators supported his continuation in office. Later that day Nixon told family members and top aides that he would resign imminently. On 7 August Senators Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania and Barry Goldwater of Arizona and Representative John Rhodes of Arizona, all leaders of the Republican party, visited Nixon to tell him directly how meager his Congressional support was. Nixon was alternately emotional and stoic. The next day he told aides that he did not fear going to prison, since Lenin, Gandhi, and others had written great works from jail.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

236. Bravo

Amen.

When does character come into this?

Sometimes votes don't matter. It's standing up and being counted that does.

[scorpiogirl]

6. You can never succeed if you don't try. n/t

[MADem]

11. If you can count, and know ahead of time that you will not succeed, you shouldn't go forward.

Trying and failing in the legislative process is a WEAKENING process. When Bush sends legislation to the Hill, and it is crushed, he looks WEAK. The same thing happens with the parties.

She can count. Like Reid can. And unfortunately, many Americans can't. Wishing, hoping, and yelling at the Democratic leadership because the GOP won't go along with them is pointless. But then, we always are better than the GOP at viciously eating our own. It's a curious quality we have.

If people wanted to be proactive, they'd check to see if their Senator was up for reelection in 08. About twenty two Republicans are in that category--and most of them are VERY vulnerable. Then they'd call the bastard--every day, and politely tell him to end the war. Or impeach Gonzalez. Or muzzle Cheney. Or whatever your issue-du-jour is. Or mix it up--a phone call one day, an email the next, a postcard the third--very politely, telling the bum to get with the program.

If we don't lean on the status-quo bums, they'll never feel the pressure. While we yell at Pelosi and Reid, the GOP bastards are laughing like hell--because they're not feeling any heat.

[mmonk]

15. I can count. We have the numbers to impeach (if by numbers,

one means democrats). We don't have the votes to override vetos. Seems the opposite of what you are saying.

[MADem]

25. Oh, great. So, we vote out articles from the House, and what happens in the Senate, pray tell?

You think there will be a two-thirds majority there? Do you think ANY of the impeachment trial committees will be able to get sufficient votes to even bring the charges sent over from the House to the floor for trial? Assuming that pipe dream happened, how much evidence would Chief Justice Roberts disallow?

So, you're proposing that Nancy be the ringleader at a pointless dog and pony show? Yeah, that will improve her credibility and consolidate her power...not. Look at how Clinton's numbers SOARED during Clinton's impeachment process. You don't think Bush, or Cheney, or anyone, would get a bit of a "bounce" and a revitallized, rabid, base, after the Senate "put Nancy in her place?"

You want impeachment, it's up to you, and your fellow Americans, to lean on the Senators who are disinclined to vote for it. It's not up to Nancy. Why should she put her head in the lion's mouth, for absolutely NO good result whatsoever? The votes to convict are in the Senate--that's where your efforts should be centered.

[mmonk]

36. I don't know. I don't know how people willl react to what trials

would bring forth. I have no special powers. Just seems from a numbers point, legislation is the weakest approach.

[MADem]

39. There won't be any trials.

I explain why in post 38, upthread.

[mmonk]

45. The Senate determines the rules and procedures of trial,

not vote whether there will be one or not. They can't vote on articles without a trial.

[MADem]

56. It doesn't matter if they use Impeachment Trial Committees or place the articles

directly before the body and go through a big dramatic charade of a trial. (See here--it's Article XI: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/rules.htm ). The ITCs chop up the proceedings, farm it out, bring it all back together, and make the process go smoother and faster, is all. They used them in the Clinton trial, and they managed to dispense with a number of articles as a result. They certainly could do it the long way, but Reid would be crazy to pull out all the stops, especially if failure was imminent. Far better to low-key the process.

That won't change the voting results on the individual articles. The GOP have enough people to make sure that no single article gets two thirds. And they can also allow most, if not all, of their people to vote FOR one of the articles on at least one occasion, making it look as though they actually favored impeachment and conviction, but they had "rule of law" concerns, too.

The result will be NO conviction, the evildoers remain in office, and Pelosi and Reid look weak. The President and VP, on the other hand, are emboldened, and continue to ignore Congress.

The key to a conviction is the GOP Senators. Without them coming out and supporting the process, genuinely, there's no way it will succeed.

[mmonk]

59. What makes you think there definitely will be a "charade"

of a trial without republican dominance in numbers?

[MADem]

62. Please review the vote counting strategy I outlined, once again.

Boehner enforces party discipline (or cuts off RNC dollars and access to lobbyists to anyone who refuses to comply; none of them will buck him).

He TELLS the GOP Senators how they will vote on each article.

They have just under half the Senate, plus Lieberman.

That means they have enough to prevent a two-thirds vote on any article.
There will be several articles of impeachment.

Boehner will allow every Senator to vote FOR one of them, but he'll spread out those "FOR" votes so that no single article has a two-thirds majority.

He will order a percentage of his caucus to vote against specific articles, to prevent that two-thirds majority. They will do what he tells them, because they need that RNC money to run for reelection.

All of the articles will be defeated.

All of the GOP Senators will be able to truthfully tell their constituents that they voted FOR at least one article of impeachment.

Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez will remain in power.

The Congress will be further weakened.

There will be no subsequent efforts at impeachment; Bush will be an Imperial President.

[mmonk]

67. I know the 2/3rds stuff. However, the claim I was questioning

was the "charade" part. Here's where it is. We have 100% chance to impeach if we choose. We have to get republicans to vote with us on legislation to be veto proof or for conviction of impeachment charges. Given nothing changes our predicament, go with percentages.

[MADem]

71. If you don't have two thirds in the Senate, the entire exercise is a charade.

We won't even get close. Impeachment without conviction makes a President STRONGER. Not weaker.

And it makes Congress WEAKER. Not stronger.

Do you really want Pelosi to be the Newt Gingrich of this Congress? Don't you remember the disgraceful charade of the Clinton impeachment? Rhenquist in his "Ruler of the Queen's Navy" idiotic robe with the stripes? It was a fucking JOKE!!!

Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it, I guess.

We do not have the votes to CONVICT. I don't want a stronger Bush coming out of a failed impeachment process...thanks anyway.

[mmonk]

91. I don't see how bush gets stronger or Cheney gets stronger

by impeachment. The charade in the Clinton situation was it wasn't a constitutional crime but perjury on an private discretion. Our constitution is being burned before my eyes. I would like to see someone try something significant.

[MADem]

102. By a FAILED impeachment.

There's a difference. Look at Clinton.

He went to seventy three percent in the polls when Newt pulled that bullshit.

If you try to impeach Bush, and fail, he'll just pretend the Congress doesn't exist. And he'd get away with it. You don't go after that guy unless you intend to win.

[Phredicles]

103. He's getting away with it now.

So I don't see what's to lose. Besides, the public knew the Clinton impeachment was bullshit. And polls suggest they know - apparently better than our alleged representatives - that impeaching Bush as an excelelnt legal basis.

[MADem]

106. And the same "people" will be given the spin that the failed Bush impeachment is "the same"

as the failed Clinton impeachment. It'll be painted as bullshit, political bullshit.

And the mindless public will buy that logic, from their friends Rush, and Hannity, and Dildo Really, who will come out in force with that exact set of talking points.

Because if it wasn't bullshit, why SURELY it would have succeeded.....

[Phredicles]

108. I never thought I'd say this, but I guess I just have more faith in the American people

than what you're saying there.

[MADem]

110. I have lots of faith in the American people, but I also understand that all politics is local.

Otherwise, guys like Trent Lott wouldn't be returned, again and again, to the Senate of the United States.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

235. Impeach Bush/Cheney

maDem has so much faith in the American people, he hopes they will ignore the sign he is carrying as his signature.

I think the American people (and most decent Republicans) are smarter.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. I think it's amusing that you have a signature that includes a picture of

..... a man demanding that we impeach Bush when several of your posts have said NOW is not the time because it would be political suicide for the Democrats.

If not now, when? In one post you said that it would be a minimum of two years so it would take too long (according to you).

You claim to support impeachment and then argue against it.

Got to love it.
--------------------------------

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION - I'M REFERRING TO MADem

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. Did It Ever Occur to You that the GOP Ignoring an Impeachment Inquiry

........might actually help Democrats in the political scene?

I get that the votes are not there now, but I also get the fact that many in the GOP are not as stupid as you think they are when it comes to their own skin, which will benefit us with impeachment and if they do ignore the impeachment inquiry, that too will benefit us in the political scene.

Either way..........Dems win, because the Bush presidency or their supporters are either violating the Cosntitution or ignoring it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. And I sure don't remember the GOP doing all this vote counting

before they impeached Clinton.

[MADem]

78. And how LONG did Newt last after that??? And did that impeachment succeed???

Clinton's poll numbers went to seventy three percent after that mess. Shall we do the same, and give BushCo a nice bump, too, is that what you're suggesting?

You just made my case.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

Poll: Clinton's approval rating up in wake of impeachment

December 20, 1998
Web posted at: 10:48 p.m. EST (0348 GMT)
(AllPolitics, December 20) -- In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.

Despite concerns that public calls for Clinton's resignation would rise after his impeachment, the number of Americans who want Clinton to resign has remained statistically unchanged. Only 30 percent want Clinton to resign; only 29 percent want the Senate to convict Clinton and remove him from office. ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Um, who won the White House in the next election?

And who won the White House after the impeachment threat against Nixon?

Impeachment HELPS the party that impeaches. Study your history.

[MADem]

84. Ummm....why GORE did. The Supremes stole the victory from him and handed it to Bush.

You know--Gore, that Democratic guy, the Vice President. He won that election. But hey, don't let facts interfere, here. Impeachment HELPED the Democrats--a crooked bunch of bastards who owned voting machines and a bunch of shitbirds in black robes fucked that victory up.

And you seem to forget that Nixon, who was a Republican, after he resigned, and his Vice President, Ford finished out his term, was succeeded by Jimmy CARTER, a Democrat.

Study your history, INDEED. You clearly haven't.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. Pay attention

Which party threatened to impeach Nixon?

Which party took the White House in the next election?

Which party impeached Clinton?

Which party took the White House in the next election?

Impeachment actually favors the party that impeaches.

[MADem]

92. I'm paying attention. You're shifting the goalposts, as you do.

If impeachment favors the party that impeaches, when Newt impeached Clinton, Gore wouldn't have won the most votes, and he wouldn't have had his electoral victory from FL stolen from him by the Supreme Court.

How you can attach the cheating that occurred during Election 2000 to a maxim that dictates that "Impeachment benefits the impeaching party" is a Bridge Too Far.

And, for the record, Nixon would not have resigned without a little "Come to Jesus" chat he had with a Senate Republican named Barry Goldwater, and Reps. Hugh Scott and John Rhodes. He actually thought he could beat the rap, that the Senate wouldn't muster the two-thirds to send him on his way. As a former Senator, and a former President of the Senate during the Ike Administration, he had a few friends there, still, on both sides of the aisle.

And do you know how they convinced Nixon to leave, quietly?

They counted the votes.

Bush hasn't lost the support of the bulk of the GOP yet. Even if you don't like that fact, it's a fact. Nixon, on the other hand, had.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

216. Impeachment

Impeachment helped the Democrats because Clinton was not guilty as evidenced by the results of the trial.

Most political analyst consider Ford's pardon of Nixon after his resignation to be the kiss of his political death.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

279. Are You Really Comparing Clinton's Sex Scandal to Bush's War Scandal?

Reality check!!!!

[MADem]

75. Every Republican, if forced to vote at all (and they're laughing at us, because we're

getting mad at Reid and Pelosi, and NOT them), will vote FOR at least one article of impeachment, as I have said.

They AREN'T stupid. And they wouldn't "ignore" an impeachment. They can't--if the House sends it over, the Senate has to act. And the GOP aren't in charge--they just vote when they're told. Here's the schedule, follow it.

If asked about it, they'd get VERY grave, and VERY serious, and do the exact same shit you saw when Newt sent over the articles on Clinton. There will be a lot of mumbling, and words like "serious" and "grave import" and "profound consequences" and "careful deliberation" and a whole lotta BlahBlahBlah, but the result will be that Bush will NOT be convicted.

Yet all of them, or the ones coming up for election SOON, will be able to say they WANTED a conviction.

That's why they all, each of them, will vote "FOR" at least one article.

Of course, all of their pals will make sure that whatever article they voted "FOR" won't pass, because those other guys will vote AGAINST it. It's a dance--you cha-cha this way, I cha-cha that way. And it fools the public every damned time. It's called "Enforcing Party Discipline" and "Vote Counting" -- and every minority and majority leader has done it since those positions rose to prominence in the halls of Congress.

But even when impeachment fails, they'll still be able to go back to their constituencies and say "I voted FOR Articles One, Three, Six and Seven!! I voted FOUR TIMES for impeachment!!!!! I WANTED impeachment, but shucks, awww, geee, we didn't have the votes!!! We came close though...so now we'll just have to work with the President, and hope he'll be more careful...cause we 'sent him a message' see?" And their constituencies will BUY that crap. Hook, line and sinker.

And Bush will go on his merry way, and be worse than ever, because he KNOWS they'll only have one bite at that apple.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Nah....They are Laughing at You

..........because they know you and those who 'think' like you are doing their work. I'll leave you to make the comparison of Clinton's impeachment to the crimes committed by Bush/Cheney and suggest they are one and the same.

[MADem]

120. My, how profoundly...cynical. I'm emailing those GOP senators. What are you doing? nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

The GOP has an Excuse to Defend Their Leadership

What's your excuse?

[MADem]

132. One more time, what are YOU doing? Besides making snarky comments on DU?

I told you how I'm doing my bit to change hearts and minds.

But I gather that you're a real pro at tossing insults, and not much else.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Holding Pelosi Accountable

You keep working on 'changing the hearts and minds' of the GOP. I would imagine Democrats will have better luck with Democrats.

[MADem]

139. And how are you doing that? By insulting me here, on DU?

Wow, way to make a difference, there, pal.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. Grow Up

Well gosh....it seems we have both insulted each other. Oh...goody.

I'll leave you to attack anyone who seeks to hold Nancy Pelosi accountable.

[AntiFascist]

222. Unfortunately I would take issue with that....

based on the history of the DLC alone it is an unfortunate fact that there are a number of hawks among the Democratic leadership who would support aggression in the Middle East and even support PNAC to some degree - I believe that this is largely their underlying reason for not supporting impeachment. Of course we can work on trying to change their minds and in the current political environment they may ultimately support withdrawal from Iraq. In the Senate, however, we have to reach out to Republicans who don't agree with neocon philosophies in order to gain any traction.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

48. You Explained It in Post 38 ---Laughing So Hard

What arrogance.

[MADem]

81. Look, I am not arrogant, or anything else you may have intemperately said and then deleted.

If you don't want to discuss this issue with me in reasonable tones, then pray do 'disengage.'

Tossing insults like "What arrogance" and "Laughing so hard" when I'm not arrogant at all, simply directing you to a place where I already responded in some detail, is not a very mature way to advance any discussion of this issue. (It is, however, a great way of "non-responding" to a post. But hey, whatever.)

What, would you be happier if I cut and pasted the information I had already written for you? Would that assuage your hurt little feelings?

:eyes:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Pelosi Must Go if She Doesn't Get Why She is in Power

What I deleted was a typo in the title, but once again, you seem to 'know' something I don't, not unlike you assertion in post whatever that you explained it all to me. Good grief.

You advocate that Democrats should 'attack' Bush and Cheney rather than Pelosi, which is amusing, because by having impeachment hearings and a trial that is exactly what we would be doing. It is not those who challenge Pelosi who are being obstructionist. It is Pelosi herself.

[MADem]

130. What I advocate is that constituencies support the Democratic agenda by challenging the GOP

Senators who aren't yet on the war-ending bandwagon. That's step one.

There are 22 vulnerable GOP Senators who are up for election in 08. THEY, not Pelosi, need to feel the heat. Once they feel the heat, from their constituencies, they will come to Jesus and their hearts and minds will change about the war.

Once that happens, the process of defunding or simply failing to reauthorize can begin, the war will start to end, the troops will come home, and other issues, like impeachment, which would otherwise be spun as political, can be brought to the fore. And with a failed, ended war (that we lost, because we never should have fought it) front and center, impeachment will be much easier to sell.

No one LIKES a loser. If we lose wars, we want to blame someone. GOP Senators will disassociate themselves from Bush, claiming that he ran the war badly, and as Commander in Chief, he should have done a better job. They'll point at Rummy and blame him too, and they'll blame Cheney and everyone but themselves. They'll use the "We Trusted Him" defense as they put distance between him and them. Bush will become a punching bag for everything that ails America. But that cannot and will not happen until you get a vetoproof--and it has to be vetoproof-- war ending vote.

Otherwise, we live in Continuing Resolution land, where BushCo has money to keep this bullshit going--it's the exact same money he got last year, with no raises, no inflation figured in--but it's the same budget. He will still have his money through CRs, unless Pelosi wants to pull another Newt, let them expire, and shut down the government. I don't think that's such a hot idea, though. It didn't work for Newt and it just pissed people off.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

If we get a shot at impeachment, we'll only get one shot. We need to make it count, and we need Republican Senators to do that.

Like it or not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

133. Pelosi Gave Bush What He Wanted

You write: 'Once that happens, the process of defunding or simply failing to reauthorize can begin, the war will start to end, the troops will come home, and other issues, like impeachment, which would otherwise be spun as political, can be brought to the fore."

What is that like the 19 year plan? Start defunding the war? Do you even read a newspaper? Pelosi *ALLOWED* the Bush administration to increase funding and increase troop levels giving the GOP more time than the American people want.

[MADem]

140. When does the FY end? Sep 30. What's happening this July in Congress?

Read the article I posted elsewhere in this thread. It's rather plain to me I read more papers than you do.

Look, we're done. You really DON'T get it.

And I'm tired of being polite, and I don't care to be rude.

Enjoy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. We're spending MORE on the war NOW than we did before Pelosi took a 'leadership' position

You're tired of being polite?
You don't care to be rude?

I'll just laugh and materially contribute to the discussion by stating:

We're spending MORE on the war NOW than we did before Pelosi took a 'leadership' position.
How many more LIVES have been lost between the give-away months Pelosi bartered with the Bush administration and what did it give us?

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Phredicles]

18. Never trying is an even faster weakening process.

Our dynamic duo (:sarcasm:) could start by putting public pressure on the rest of congress to do right by their country - you know, excercise some leadership - but they, like their condescending, morally numb apologists, are content to sit around sighing, "We just don't have the votes".

[MADem]

30. Ah, and the constituents of Republican Senators have no role, here?

Pelosi, the HOUSE speaker, should order the GOP Senators about, as should Reid?

He's the Majority Leader, not the Minority Leader, after all.

But hey, whatever. He should go on and try to "lead" a group that didn't elect him to lead them....OK....

:eyes:

[Phredicles]

94. Order them? No. But I see no effort to lobby, cajole, shame, or educate

them or their constituents. Pelosi and Reid are still conceding the rhetorical initiative to the Rethugs, and that's just pathetic and inexcusable.

"We don't have the votes (YET)" should be the start of the discussion, not the end of it, which is how it's sounded all along here.

[MADem]

101. That's not true, though. The plan IS to lean on them. About the war, anyway.

And force them to explain themselves with on a weekly basis. A simple threadbare majority doesn't make for an ability to rule by decree. And we've got Joementum, who's worthless, in our caucus as well.

Democrats Plan to Press GOP on Iraq
Majority Party Frustrated on Hill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902444.html

....House leaders plan to introduce parallel legislation on Iraq, even though they avoided Iraq-related issues when they approved their annual defense policy bill....A measure to de-authorize the war is still a possibility, as well.

By mid-July, Democrats say, they will offer weekly votes to force Republicans, and the president, to defend the war....The idea, Democratic leaders said, is to engage voters who have turned against the president and have soured on a Congress that they still see as ineffectual. But grousing about "cloture" motions and other obscure Republican stalling tactics will not help Democratic lawmakers who are at home this week, facing voters..."It's about reconnecting with the public out there who don't understand cloture, who don't understand things that go on in the Beltway, but who do understand action, who do understand passing bills," said Rep. John B. Larson (Conn.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

There have been achievements. On the Senate side, Democrats helped secure the first increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in a generation. A long-sought increase in the minimum wage was tucked into the Iraq spending bill. New House rules limit favors from lobbyists and now require the disclosure of pet spending projects....But other measures have slammed into Republican roadblocks that Democrats say are worse than before. Coburn is blocking the Sept. 11 commission bill until he gets assurances that a final deal will include his measure to audit homeland security grants to make sure that the money is properly spent. DeMint says he will not allow the ethics bill to enter final talks unless Reid strips out the disclosure rules on lawmaker earmarks....As the spending cycle intensifies this summer, Democrats will try to sneak more of their agenda items into must-pass spending bills. But with the bills already behind schedule and the president threatening to veto most of them for a range of reasons, the tactic has limits.

Republican maneuvers "are nothing all that extraordinary," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) when Frist was the Senate majority leader. "There are 49 Republicans in the Senate now. It's the largest Republican minority in history. . . . They need to be listened to."

They're just not going to go off on a time-wasting, unsuccessful impeachment effort that will be painted as a partisan political exercise. I'm not saying impeachment isn't warranted. I am saying that complaining about it, when it won't prevail, no matter how much anyone wants it, is a waste of time.

What's also needed is for constituents to do some of that lobbying, cajoling and shaming you mention, too. As that article says, the Democratic tactics have limits--and Bush is in a vetoing frame of mind. Those constituents need to step up and tell those bastards what they want, too.

These Republican fatcats aren't going to give a shit if their opposition doesn't like what they're up to, but they are going to care if their very own voters start turning away....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

163. Impeachment is never wasting time if it's warranted.

You write: 'They're just not going to go off on a time-wasting, unsuccessful impeachment effort that will be painted as a partisan political exercise. I'm not saying impeachment isn't warranted. "

Impeachment is never wasting time if it's warranted.

[MADem]

188. Who ever said that it was?

If you would read what I am writing, instead of taking a rather immature and adversarial stance against everything I say, you'd see that I do not oppose the concept. I simply oppose tilting at windmills and dramatic gestures that provide short-term delight in exchange for long-term pain.

If we have a strong cohort to back it, we should go forward. We don't have that. Even though you want to believe we have support in Congress for it, we don't. YET.

Constituent pressure can change that dynamic, though.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

191. You Did

You ask me "Who ever said that (impeachment) it was (a waste of time)?"

This is what you said: 'I'm not saying impeachment isn't warranted. I am saying that complaining about it, when it won't prevail, no matter how much anyone wants it, is a waste of time."

You are not saying impeachment isn't warranted.
You are saying that it won't prevail.
You are saying that because of that it's a waste of time.

The law is not subject to popularity contests after it has been written.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

161. The Start of the Conversation - Not the End of It

You write: "Pelosi and Reid are still conceding the rhetorical initiative to the Rethugs, and that's just pathetic and inexcusable. 'We don't have the votes (YET)' should be the start of the discussion, not the end of it, which is how it's sounded all along here."

BRAVO

O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot: O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot: O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot: O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot: O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot: O8) :toast: :dem: :kick: :loveya: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

[MADem]

7. I think Nancy is justifiably concerned about the Supremes

They can take the Constitution, wipe their asses with it, and tell the Congress that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to impeach the President, based on national security or some other invented justification.

These bastards don't give a fuck about precedent. They'll make up the rules if it helps George. Hell, Roberts would be the guy to to PRESIDE over the proceedings--assuming we could get them, and we CAN'T, because, gee, we don't have those votes--he'd stall the process out for two years if he had to--he owes his pal George that. It's not like the conduct of impeachment trials has a shitload of precedent, either. He's got plenty of wiggle room to make shit up as he goes along.

I do think that's what she means by "If we can succeed." I don't think she's just referring to Congress and the lack of votes in the Senate.

Of course, she's looking way down the road, as she should as Leader, rather than responding in knee-jerk, GOP "revenge now" fashion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

276. Invented Justification?

Give me a break.

The Congress has sole responsibility for impeaching the President (Articles I, Sections II and III)

The Constitution makes no provision for the President to appeal impeachment to the United States Supreme Court.

[pingzing58]

9. She's playing politics (we're building a record to win in '08) while our military men and women die.

[MADem]

12. OK, let's hear your plan--what should she do? How does she make those votes magically appear?

I really want to know.

All I see here is criticism, but no one has any good ideas. It's a bashfest with no purpose, save to rail and rant and accuse.

How does Pelosi, the House Speaker, find Senate votes? How?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

Certainly there is enough evidence to *HEAR* the case. But Pelosi won't even allow a forum for an investigation and a presentation of the facts.

You call that ranting. I call that prudent, responsible and defending the Constitution.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. She also shut down Conyers

But hey, she likes bush. She said so this week.

And Nancy, we understand, you wouldn't want to impeach a man you genuinely LIKE.

[EFerrari]

58. Yes, she did. Mr. Conyers said we could impeach Bush

at the ballot box when he knows damn well the state of our federal elections. Obvious talking point from Pelosi's office. :mad:

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. I met this lady last weekend who was talking about

Conyers collecting money for a website? And then he said no on impeachment so now she is pissed and wants her money back.

Does that ring a bell for you? I had no idea what she was talking about. I know I would have sent him money if I had heard about it.

[EFerrari]

70. I never heard that. And the statement about impeaching at the polls

he made was on Amy Goodman's show. :mad:

edit: I wrote to his office to ask about this issue and never got a reply. :mad: :mad:

[MADem]

47. There are articles at the House Judiciary Committee.

But there aren't two thirds votes in the Senate. Without that, it's a pointless exercise.

The impeachment trial committess report out, and one by one, the articles are slapped down. The Republicans take turns voting for or against, so that each one of them can say to their constituents that they voted FOR at least ONE article of impeachment--but there will never, ever, be two-thirds.

There will be no trial.

Not unless the hearts and minds of those Senators opposing impeachment can be changed.

You (meaning the American people, and the constituents of Senators who oppose impeachment) must find a way to convince those Senators to change their mind.

That's not the job of the Leader of the Democrats, Senator Reid. And it's not the job of the HOUSE Speaker, Speaker Pelosi.

Those Senators are elected by voters--it's those voters who need to give them the business, and the sooner, the better.

[tbyg52]

50. Good idea. nt

[pingzing58]

57. She needs to build a public / media record as well. Impeach, even if symbolic.

[trashcanistanista]

116. My plan would be to subpeona every

bit of information gathered from the illegal wiretaps. Funnel it out to a massive secret investigatory committee, find the dirt, and use it to lean on all congresscritter, dems and rethugs. That is the only way I can see getting the votes. That is most likely how the votes were garnered to impeach Clinton. At some point, you have to get your hands dirty. There are plenty of closed doors to do this behind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. ***EXACTLY***

It's time to start opening doors!!!!

Knock, knock?
Whose there?
Not Nancy Pelosi.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

277. Ignoring People Who Think Like You?

That's a good start.

[mmonk]

10. Can I have a guarantee in writing that we will win

all the elections we need to in 08 and the constitution will be reinstated and no possiblity exists for any other outcome? All the people that have been wronged or lost rights will be made right with this impossible to lose the election idea? It's not all about them and their jobs. It's about us. But even from a logic standpoint, her position seems quite weak for avoiding what the constitution calls for and why it was put there in the first place.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Some of us actually believe saving our country from the madmen running it

is far more important right now than an election that is 16 months away.

And historically, impeachment helps future elections. Look at what happened in '76. And in 2000, after the republicans impeached Clinton, they they took the White House.

It is chickenshit and ignorant for Pelosi to worry that impeachment will hurt the Dems in 08.

[coco77]

16. Reid or Pelosi...

shouldn't be the heads of the party...

[Greyhound]

19. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, - I CAN'T HEAR YOU...

I don't like that question so here's some meaningless bullshit that I hope you will think is an answer to some unasked question.

Utterly worthless. :grr:

[Gman]

23. Kudos to Pelosi!

She's resisting the feel good thing to do right now and instead pursuing a long term strategy aimed at 08 that could potentially keep the GOP out of control for a generation or more. Good for her.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. This has NOTHING to do with "Feel Good"

This has to do with protecting and defending the Constitution.

[WillyT]

27. And Meanwhile... 1,000's More Will Die, As We Wait For 2008...

January 2009 to be exact. And what if we blow it? What if we don't take the Presidency in 2008? Or lose our "thin" majority in both houses of Congress? What if the people decide that we look weak between now and the 2008 elections? What if this is our only chance, RIGHT NOW???

:shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Exactly....NOW is the time

This isn't about which way the political wind blows, which party is in office or what our chances of impeachment are. This is about the Constitution of the United States. Plain and simple. There is more than enough evidence to impeach Cheney now, but let's assume someone disagrees with that....there is certainly enough evidence to call for impeachment HEARINGS to investigate the case.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said it best in an address on the House floor Thursday night when he called for the impeachment of Cheney:
"It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes the Vice President of the United States from office, voluntarily, if he chooses, but by impeachment if he stonewalls," said the Seattle Democrat and Progressive Caucus member. "I have struggled mightily with this matter for a long time...Since the President permits the flagrant disregard of the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to act and defend the American people. With each new revelation, America has seen only glints of what has been done totally in secret."

[catmandu57]

33. Yes, it's time, past time

to get off our asses and do something, putting party above the nation is what the repugs have been, no are doing. If we can't get rid of these bastards we're not going to have to worry about 08, there won't be a reason to have elections when lil boots declares himself dictator for life.
I'm getting more disenchanted with both of these parties, it may be time to look at a third way if these entrenched dinos won't move for the very soul of our country they aren't leaving much choice.

[MADem]

34. Now is the time....to do what?

Where are the votes?

Find the votes. Go after those GOP Senators--that's not a job for Harry Reid, he's the majority leader for the DEMOCRATS, not the Republicans...and it's not Nancy Pelosi's job, either--she's HOUSE Speaker.

It's the task of me, of you, other Americans, and especially their constituents. Get a promise that they will vote for impeachment. Send an email, a postcard, make a phone call. Do it every day, or several times a week, whatever fits your schedule. Make the GOP Senators feel the heat.

Then that's the time.

Right now, they're laughing like hell -- they see a bunch of stupid Democrats who don't understand how the system works, putting pressure on their own leadership, while they, the Republicans who are the OWNERS of the votes that need to be changed, prance around with no pressure on themselves whatsoever.

[Gman]

64. Well said, MADem

To listen to these people, they think Pelosi and Reid have some kind of magic wand. They have no clue about the politics of the whole thing. And, you can't disagree and try to make them understand because I don't really think they can understand. At least, that's all I've ever seen.

[MADem]

87. It's so unfortunate. One thing I will say about the mindless, rabid, and mouth breathing GOP

constituents: They sure don't beat the shit out of their own like we manage to, it seems.

And it's just so doggone PATHETIC when I see this kind of piling on happening, when it is clearly undeserved. I wish it were possible to give them all internships in Congress, so they could get a sense of how it all works. I don't know if they just don't realize how it works, if they don't want to know how it works, or if they don't really care how it works, and just want to 'beat up' on the Speaker--for whatever reasons.

Hoping and wanting aren't going to make impeachment a reality, though--only votes...GOP votes. And we don't have those, no matter how often they get mad at me when I mention it.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, I guess.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. What's Pathetic is to Not Celebrate Dissent

You write: "It's so unfortunate. One thing I will say about the mindless, rabid, and mouth breathing GOP constituents: They sure don't beat the shit out of their own like we manage to, it seems."

What's pathetic is the idea that we should aspire to be a nonexistent monolithic politcal party where dissent is not allowed. While I can understand how you think the GOP ideology has been furthered by having as a leader who surrounds himself with only people who think like him, I would suspect there are many, many people in the GOP who do not.

You sound soo much like you have been working in DC for way to long since you seem to have this 'holier than thou' attitude that the rest of us 'don't know or care how it works'.

[MADem]

138. There are times to dissent, and there are times to work as a team.

Circular firing squads aren't dissent. Your way doesn't advance the ball towards the goalposts. It just makes a lot of noise, has a lot of inside-baseball drama for those who watch events closely, and life goes on for BushCo.

You aren't applying any capacity for nuance to the situation, and you also don't appreciate that we can't ignore those forty nine GOP sumbitches on the other side of the aisle. You want to, but we can't. Nothing gets done if we do. That's not 'going over to the dark side' or collaborating. That's reality. I live in the real world.

I would ask you to please cease your speculation about what I "sound like" and "seem like." You don't know me. You know nothing about me. I could talk about what you sound and seem like, but I don't want to be rude. Like it or not, I have seen how this shit works, and doesn't work, up close. For some odd reason that I really don't care to know, that upsets you.

That's your problem, though, not mine. You go on and disagree with me. I get it. You don't like my views.

You have a nice day, now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. I'm Not on Your Team

.......but I'll let you know when Pelosi gets on mine or she gets kicked out.

Your analogies are about as deep as Pelosi's leadership.

[MADem]

150. Oh, please do. It will be a long wait before I hear from you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

151. Nuance

You talk about the 'nuance to the situation'.

Nuance? Oh good grief.

Is that how you characterize ignoring Constitutional law? Talk about moral relativism.

[MADem]

154. Ah, refusing to do things your way is "Ignoring Constitutional law."

Thanks again, now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

157. According to You

........nothing is worth fighting for if there aren't the votes.

Fortunately, those wanting to end slavery kept up the good fight.

[MADem]

158. Well, you made that up. I didn't say that. But there you go again!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

160. Just a Fact

You argued that we should not move on impeachment because the votes are not there without regard to the merits of the case.

[MADem]

182. There's a difference between not move NOW and not move at all.

Just a fact.

You don't count your chickens before they're hatched. NOW, we don't have the votes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

185. Selective Enforcement of Constitutional Law

LOL............still looking for the 'smoking gun'? Read a paper.

You keep believing in the moral relativism that allows for the selective enforcement of the law when it is politically expedient.

[MADem]

189. There you go again with the"You keep believing" nonsense. You need to stop that.

It isn't a compelling argument, because it's not true.

You show me the votes, then we'll talk. "Wishing" isn't the way you prosecute a congressional agenda, even though that might not suit your desires.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

190. Judge and jury before the trial has even started

Judge and jury before the trial has even started.....not my idea of American jurisprudence.

[MADem]

198. A throw away comment, but it makes no damned sense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

200. Throwing Away the Law

The fact that you don't get it is not surprising.

Openness, honesty, and the truth are not things we should shy away from merely because they are not politically expedient or explainable to the Paris Hiltons in this world. If we had an investigation, hearings and a consensus on articles of impeachment, we can explain it to Paris Hilton and anyone else, including you, who might need a lesson in ethics, values and the law.

You, of course, want to be the judge and jury on whether that process should take place prior to it happening.... get it now? Oh...nevermind.

--------------------
edited typo

[Voltaire]

221. What does the Constitution say about impeachment

anything about waiting for votes before you can begin? The Dems have the majority and need to impeach forthwith. No excuses. The Constitution doesn't allow for any.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

224. Exactly.....

I think it's ridiculous that some on this board define leadership as something that requires no action from the leader.

Nancy Pelosi is an apologist for Bush. She has given him everything he has wanted.

[TahitiNut]

42. Yep. It's "worth it" (when it's 'them') but not "worth" risking partisan poltical advantage.

This is appalling. This is at the very heart of the corruption of "the ends justify the means" - where the 'means' BECOME the 'ends.' It's cowardice. It's an abdication of principles.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. I Agree with You

Notice how the Constitution has nothing to do with his/her arguments. It's all based on the presumption that 'we' do not have the vote ...now. Talk about moral relativism.

[bbgrunt]

54. amen, TN.....you know how to say it!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. I think this will backfire on the Dems

My congressman in a very conservative district admitted he receives many calls every week demanding impeachment. But he is head of the blue dog Dems so he is not in favor of impeaching. Now if his office in this conservative (and mainly republican) district is getting lots of calls for impeachment, I wonder how many calls Pelosi and Conyers are getting? And if they are refusing to listen, how can that help them in November 08?

[MADem]

31. I agree with you.

And in the meantime, we're INVESTIGATING. It's nice to turn on CSPAN these days, and see committees at work doing the nation's business.

It's easy to yell and scream and shoot off all your shot from a great distance to no good effect. It's harder to stay calm and measured, and hold your fire and wait until you see the whites of their eyes.

We know which strategy works best, from history!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Nah You Don't Agree with Me

You wrote: "If you can count, and know ahead of time that you will not succeed, you shouldn't go forward."

I *COMPLETELY* disagree. That's like reading about a murder and deciding that the police shouldn't arrest the alleged killer because the jury isn't likely to convict.

Talk about a complete lack of confidence in our system of government.

[MADem]

40. Well, see post 38.

That's what will happen if you go forward without convincing GOP Senators, of their own free will and understanding, to support impeachment.

If you do it your way, your killer WILL go free. Justice WILL be denied.

See, if you insist upon going forward without doing the tough work first, without seating a FAIR and open minded jury to hear the case--your killer will walk, because the jury will be fixed, you see. And the Defense will use "Attorney Minority Leader Boehner" to convince the jury that they must acquit--on at least one article each.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. You Presume We Will Be Unlikely to Change Minds

Your arguments are based on the number of votes for impeachment there are NOW.

My arguments are based on the premise that we should not remain silent about the Constitution being ignored, the validity of the accusations, and the sincere belief that members of both parties will listen to the arguments.

If the Constitution has been violated, it is the responsibility of Congress to investigate, hear the case and make a decision.

If after all of that, the accused goes free....so be it.

Your pragmatism and apologistic approach no doubt would make you a great, but unprincipled, politician.

[MADem]

51. What you are saying is "Yell at Pelosi, and that will change Republican Senators' minds"

That's what you're saying. In essence.

I'm saying the constituents need to go directly after those Senators. They aren't feeling the heat. And so long as you and others are hollering at Nancy and Harry, they won't. They're laughing like hell at us, with our circular firing squad.

And I explained to you, that by using vote counting, and allowing every single GOP Senator to vote FOR at least one article of impeachment, every single Republican can lie to their constituencies and claim that they SUPPORTED impeachment. They'll spin their explanation thusly:

Of course, Ah voted for Article One, but Ah jus' couldn't vote for Article Two because (fill in some arcane, bullshit reason, centering on, oh...NATIONAL SECURITY!!! Yeah, that's the ticket). Ah surely did want an impeachment, but Ah had to consider the rule of law when votin' on Article Two.

They'll all take CREDIT for favoring impeachment, but they will vote strategically, and the bastards will remain in office.

The end result? Pelosi and Reid will look like INEFFECTUAL ASSHOLES who couldn't "Git 'er done." The Republicans will laugh behind their hands, and point to the failed impeachment effort as "Failure to Lead."

And idiots who don't understand how whips and leaders 'vote count' and 'enforce party discipline' won't realize that it's all a shell game. Unless those GOP Senators believe in their hearts that impeachment is called for, or understand--because their constituents tell them--that they'll LOSE THEIR SEATS if they don't vote for impeachment, you're just not going to see it happen. We don't have the votes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Nonsense

I'm merely saying that you and Nancy are not doing the nation or the Democrats any favors by ignoring the facts.

Leadership is about taking a people to a place they often will not go to on their own.

[MADem]

69. OK, you tell me, now--since I'm so "dumb"--where are the votes?

Give me A LIST of the Senators who will vote FOR the Articles of Impeachment? Who are the TWO THIRDS?

I can only believe that Speaker Pelosi is being a mean old Constitution hater if you can give me that list.

Leadership is about saying what you are gonna do, and then doing it--successfully. Not tilting at windmills like Quixote. Not taking people places--that's what airplanes do. You're taking people down a merry road of doom by sending over Impeachment Articles without the votes to convict.

Ginning up a list of complaints about Bush, that get voted down, one by one, tells the sixty percent of the country who DOESN'T pay attention to politics that Nancy and Harry are being MEAN to George, and the Senators wouldn't let them beat him up. Comparisons to the unfair impeachment of Clinton will be quickly framed. It will boost his numbers by ten to fifteen percent (Clinton hit the seventies when the GOP beat HIM up), and give him free rein from now until he leaves office to feed ever-increasing numbers of kids into the Iraqi meat grinder.

And the idiots, the sixty percent, who don't pay attention will go along with him...and think that everything mean old Harry and Nancy say should be discounted. Nancy, under your scenario, will be the Female Newt of the Twenty First Century.

That's Politics 101.

[Yukari Yakumo]

115. Two-thirds? Heck, I don't even think we even have one-third!

Another factor not yet discussed are the Red State Democrats. If they are not sold on the evidence, they will almost certainly vote against impeachment or conviction. And without them, we will get obliterated when it comes to a vote. The damage done to the party in the court of public opinion will be absolutely devastating. We would practically guarantee Repug control of the WH and Congress in '09.

This is why I consider the pro-impeachment crowd as either an unfettered loon or ill-informed. They absolutely have no idea everything that would be at stake.

[MADem]

144. Indeed. The Blue Dogs aren't terribly enthused at the prospect of a messy

cluster of hearings with political mud being thrown. They'd want some sense of concurrence and a shot at success before they'd stick their necks out.

The other unfortunate reality has to do with those Senators and Reps whose constituencies make a fortune off the war. When this war ends, jobs will end, too--and I'm not just talking about servicemembers...all those manufacturing entities that geared up for the war, from body bags to body armor, to say nothing of the bombs and bullets crowd, will have to retool and draw down. Jobs will be lost. Senators with heavy defense establishment infrastructure will be nervous about that, and harder to convince.

But hey, when you point out our unfortunate reality, you get accused of being a pro-war Republican, even if you offer suggestions as to how to move the ball towards the goal. If it doesn't involve "Screaming At Nancy" it's ... I dunno .... too hard, perhaps? The "Unfettered Loons" (great term, BTW) can't provide any other options, it seems, save insulting those of us who live in the real world, even though we also want the war to end and BushCo to be hung out to dry.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Unfortunate Realities?

You write: 'The other unfortunate reality has to do with those Senators and Reps whose constituencies make a fortune off the war. When this war ends, jobs will end, too--and I'm not just talking about servicemembers...all those manufacturing entities that geared up for the war, from body bags to body armor, to say nothing of the bombs and bullets crowd, will have to retool and draw down. Jobs will be lost. Senators with heavy defense establishment infrastructure will be nervous about that, and harder to convince."

No wonder you support Nancy Pelosi. My guess is you support Hillary Clinton too.

LOL.

[MADem]

183. "LOL"

I'm a Gore supporter, FWIW.

"LOL"

[Phredicles]

179. The Blue Dogs: Another major beef with the Pelosi/Reid regime is that

these backsliders are receiving WAY too much deference. The inside-the-beltway types are always acting like "keeping progressives in line" is a major test of their leadership (and, gosh, just look how in line we are O8) ), but why isn't it considered important to keep the DINOs in line? I'm sick of these Vichy Democrats deciding what we can hope to do; I believe a lot of us are. A real leader would prevail upon this crowd to remember that they're Democrats and act like it.

[MADem]

184. How do you propose that we handle them? Realistically?

How do you convince them?

I'd love to know the answer. Like them or not, they are key to any movement we're able to make with regard to getting out of Iraq and a number of other issues.

Bullying them, though, isn't an option. They're a large enough group that they can do serious damage to any agenda. They're strong contributors, too, to the DNC coffers, so they can't be ignored. They need to be sold on any course of action we take, not 'ordered.' Again, you need constituent pressure. Not House or Senate leadership pressure, CONSTITUENT pressure.

The problem with those Blue Dogs is they've got no small number of constituents who haven't been personally impacted by this war--yet, anyway; or who aren't making their voices heard sufficiently to turn those hearts around. And probably a small cadre getting rich off it. It's not a simple task, by any means.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

201. How to Get a Spine

Why is it that we can't ignore the blue dogs (because according to you they are big donors to the DNC coffers) and yet you want to ignore the far left of the DNC (who are also big donors to the DNC) who are demanding an impeachment?

[Yukari Yakumo]

207. It's the numbers, stupid.

There are enough Blue Dogs in the House that can nullify the Dem majority. If they decide to side with the Repukes, the Repukes will win.

Same goes for the Senate except more so. Almost one-half of Senate Dems come from states that voted Bush twice.

It seems all you and people like you do when given a reality check is stick your fingers in your ears and go "DA DA DA CAN'T HEAR YOU! DA DA DA". However, you can't ignore even some of the most basic truths of the situation. One, Bush has yet to be accused any crime that is impeachable. All the arguments that Bush should be impeached for lying to get us into war is bullshit. Here's a reality check, every politician lies. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush did not lie under oath. Two, there is no evidence directly implicating Bush to any impeachable offense. That is what subpoenas are for. That is what investigations are for. Right now, all we have is conjecture and speculation, and that is not admissible in any court of law. Three, the votes are not there. I'm not talking about the Senate, impeachment will go down in flames there. I'm talking about the House, where, unless there is a rock solid case here, any and all articles of impeachment will fail.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

212. Stupid?

Oh, that's elevating the conversation to a higher level.

You write: 'All the arguments that Bush should be impeached for lying to get us into war is bullshit. Here's a reality check, every politician lies. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush did not lie under oath."

Ah, yes, the moral relativism of the right that thinks it's morally wrong to 'lie under oath' about consensual sex, but doesn't think it's morally wrong to lie about a war that has cost HALF A TRILLION and thousands of lives ....because gosh....it wasn't 'under oath'. And then you protest about having a hearing or a deposition that might put him under oath. Nice.

But heh.....keep thinking I'm the 'stupid' one.

[MADem]

228. And the truth is, between lying not being an impeachable offense, AND all of those odious

signing statements, the BushCo crew has been very careful to keep any of the stink away from the Fearless Leader. That's why Libby is Prisoner Number Whateverthehell, and not Rove, or Cheney, or the BoyKing, himself!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

229. The Truth?

Coming from someone who has a signature that advocates impeaching Bush while making posts that take anyone to task for advocating just that, I find your post amusing.

The moral relativism of the right that thinks it's morally wrong to 'lie under oath' about consensual sex, but doesn't think it's morally wrong to lie about a war that has cost HALF A TRILLION and thousands of lives ....because gosh....it wasn't 'under oath' is pathetic. And then you protest about having a hearing or a deposition that might put him under oath. Nice.

PS - The fish stinks at the head, but you'd never know that until you have some hearings.

[MADem]

230. I wasn't addressing you. Good day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

231. You Lack Crediblity

......but you have a good night as well.

PS- This is a public board. If you intended to have private conversations, take it to e-mail.

Nice job defending the President by suggesting it's everyone else's fault and responsibility but his.

[MADem]

232. You lack the ability to have a discussion in a civil manner, without tossing insults.

Again, good day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

233. Keep on Topic

You have a signature that calls for the impeachment of Bush and yet you have no intention of meaning what you say. You have challenged everyone who has called for the impeachment of Bush by implying they are, using your word, stupid for not realizing the votes are not there and claiming there is insufficient time prior to the election to actually impeach Bush.

But alas, it's easier for you to claim this is some nonexistent personal attack on you, because that's the best you can do when your arguments and responses, when they are on topic, are so shallow.

------------------------
edited for typo

[MADem]

243. I'd suggest you do the same.

My signature photo, which is NOT THE TOPIC of this thread, expresses a wish. But I am not so foolish as to take my wishes, stomp my foot, ignore simple things like "lack of votes," and demand that they become reality.

I also am not in the habit of taunting, hectoring, and engaging in repetitive posting of the same foolish horseshit, over and over again, at differing points in this thread, as though simply by repeating a pipe dream and insulting anyone with an opposing view (gee, now I'm "shallow"--oh, cut me with a knife), that will make my wishes come true.

Adults don't do that kind of crap.

I'm reality based, but you enjoy your boorish and immature magical thinking, now, OK? You've said the same dreamy, wishing-and-hoping things over and over again, and I keep telling you I don't agree with you. You've not read what I wrote, because you repetitively misinterpret what I have been saying. That's why I don't care to engage you--because you don't know how to discuss a topic without acting like a rank and immature asshole, frankly. You put false words in people's mouths, you make assumptions about their viewpoints, their dedication to basic party principles, and you are unnecessarily adversarial, in almost trollish fashion. It's unbecoming, and childish.

That isn't the way to change anyone's mind. So, go fight with someone who gives a shit about what you think, because I just don't care about your half-baked opinions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

254. STILL NOT ON TOPIC

Wow - so many personal attacks....where to begin.....

foolish horseshit?
boorish?
immature magical thinking?
acting like a rank and immature asshole?
trollish fashion?
childish?

You accuse me of 'taunting, hectoring, and engaging in repetitive posting of the same foolish horseshit' AND YET YOU **STILL** HAVE NOTHING ON TOPIC ABOUT BUSH OR IMPEACHMENT.

My favorite quote was you accusing me of posting the same 'dreamy, wishing and hoping things" which made me immediately think of your signature with it's impeachment poster that 'expresses a wish.' You say the signature photo is not the topic of the thread, but it's actually the ONLY thing in your post related to this thread. If you truly didn't care about my 'half baked opinions' you would use the ignore feature which enables you to ignore me, but of course, you have been able to bring yourself to use that yet.

[MADem]

267. Read rule two

I can attack your ARGUMENTS until the cows come home. I can say that your ARGUMENTS are foolish, immature and childish. And that they're horseshit. I can also tell you, when you are boorish, that you are boorish and acting like an asshole--after all, the evidence is right here on this thread, you typed it with your own earnest fingers.

What I cannot do is get into "I bet you" territory that attacks you personally, as opposed to attacking simply your ARGUMENTS. Examples (and these are general examples, mind you, not directed at you): I bet you are a fucking unemployed pimple faced, overweight nearsighted wanker who lives in your mother's basement. I'll bet you've been fired from every MacDonald's job you managed to get. I'll bet you're not only stupid, but ugly, and have never had a date in your life. And, of course, the piece de resistance: I'll bet you are a rightwing, Freeper troll who comes over here to fuck with people and then runs back to your rightwing den and laughts with your buddies. See, those are PERSONAL attacks that go to who you are as a person. I don't do that. You do, though.

Saying that your arguments are a load of stinking excrement is not a personal attack. That's responding to your severe and obvious paucity of logic.

But hey, whatever. Go on, you hit that ignore button, kid. I dare ya. You don't bother me. You aren't very good at debate and you don't know your subject matter very well. You're just a one-note wonder, repeating the same childish taunts and halfassed, poorly thought out arguments, over and over again, all over this thread. Because that's all you've got.

Go on, tell me one more time (you've only done it, what, four, five times in varying locations here? Ooooh!!! Oooooh! A bit 'obsessive,' that...) how I'm not "allowed" to have my signature picture because I live in the real world, and won't get on your Pelosi-hating, Impeachment Dreamgirls Bandwagon....because YOU make the rules around here about signature pictures, apparently. :rofl:

And one more time--unless Pat Leahy comes up with something, there's no EVIDENCE to impeach Bush. It would be nice if there were, but there isn't.

Even if you don't happen to like that unfortunate fact.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

273. Take Your Own Medicine Chief

You find the need to characaterize my arguments with childish adjectives without going to the substance of the debate. If throwing in childish adjectives is the best strategy you have to debate the issues, then you are no competition.

You imply I mistakenly make the rules around here. Shows once again what you know. I merely asked a question.

You write "there's no EVIDENCE to impeach Bush."

WELL GOSH........ONCE AGAIN....... I RESPECTFULLY ASK WHY DO YOU THINK I LIVE IN FAIRYLAND FOR CALLING FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT WHEN IT IS ****YOU*** WHO IS DOING THE SAME THING BY HAVING A SIGNATURE THAT HAS A PICTURE THAT HAS A CALL FOR ....GOSH...HERE'S THE KICKER..... BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT.

Talk about a ridiculous line of debate. It's a really simple question and the best you can come back with is characterizing my position as being .........<fill in the insulting adjustive>. But alas, you want to call me stupid, ignorant for not 'understanding the Constitution' when it's quite clear you seem to be the one whose posts are filled with inconsistencies.

I rather enjoy pointing them out. If it annoys you *that* much, feel free to put me on ignore. I'll understand.

----------
edited for word omission

[fightthegoodfightnow]

281. That Was Easy Enough - LOL

I wrote: 'But alas, you want to call me stupid, ignorant for not 'understanding the Constitution' when it's quite clear you seem to be the one whose posts are filled with inconsistencies. I rather enjoy pointing them out. If it annoys you *that* much, feel free to put me on ignore. I'll understand."

That was easy enough !!!!

LOL.

[Yukari Yakumo]

237. Morals =/= Rule of Law

Here's the difference. Lying under oath is perjury, a felony. Lying while not under oath is legal, politicians do it all the time. What part of that do you not get?

You're clearly grasping at straws. No one has ever protested "about having a hearing or a deposition that might put him under oath." In fact, that's what we're advocating; investigations and subpoenas. Not jumping the gun like the pro-impeachment crowd wants.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

240. Moral Relativism from the DU Right

I wrote: 'The moral relativism of the right that thinks it's morally wrong to 'lie under oath' about consensual sex, but doesn't think it's morally wrong to lie about a war that has cost HALF A TRILLION and thousands of lives ....because gosh....it wasn't 'under oath' is pathetic. And then you protest about having a hearing or a deposition that might put him under oath. Nice."

For your benefit, I've taken out a sentence you took exception to.: "The moral relativism of the right that thinks it's morally wrong to 'lie under oath' about consensual sex, but doesn't think it's morally wrong to lie about a war that has cost HALF A TRILLION and thousands of lives ....because gosh....it wasn't 'under oath' is pathetic. Nice."

You write: 'Lying while not under oath is legal, politicians do it all the time."

Such is the moral relativism of the DU political right.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[fightthegoodfightnow]

218. Right .......Ignore the Law

.....if it's not politically expedient.

:sarcasm:

Got it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Reality Check

You ask: "Where are the votes?"

I'll let you know when the case has been investigated and tried.

I find it interesting that you want sooo much to compare the crimes Bush has committed to Clinton's impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex. Certainly Bush has done far worse and it's time for him to be impeached.

[MADem]

141. Thank you for saying that. Now I appreciate your degree of understanding.

"I'll let you know when the case has been investigated and tried."

Yeah, sure you will. Have a nice day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

146. Your Strategy of Extending the War is not unlike Your Strategy of Defending Bush

Wait and see and in the meantime give Bush what he wants.

Doesn't work for me.

[MADem]

148. Well, since I don't "defend Bush" I have to assume you've been reduced to

"goading" mode.

[Phredicles]

95. EXACTLY - The current mindset is, "We have to know the jury will convict before

we even bother to charge the suspect." It's an absurdly high standard, and I suspect our "leaders" are setting the bar intentionally high as a way to justify not doing what they don't feel like doing; it's an unconscionable dereliction of duty.

[MADem]

105. We need to know the jury isn't stacked with jury nullifiers, too.

Would you rush to charge if your seated jury was fixed? Knowing that an acquittal is a foregone conclusion? Just to make it seem "as if" you were "doing something?"

Or would you try, first, to get a FAIR jury, that will actually consider the questions, and make decisions based on the evidence, and not decide that they "must acquit" because Defense Attorney Boehner has given them their marching orders?

The only way you're going to get your fair jury is if a decent chunk of those 49 GOP Senators start seeing things our way, and decide, because of constituent pressure and their own sense of fair play, to do the right thing. You're not going to get it by hoping they'll see the light as events unfold. We already KNOW what BushCo has done--so do they, and they probably know more than we do. But what those GOP Senators do not yet appreciate is that they'll be saying Buh-bye to to their fancy offices, parking spaces, big staffs, and perks if they don't get the spirit and do the right thing. And it's WE, The People who have to let them know that our votes won't go their way if they don't start getting that. Pelosi can't tell them that. Neither can Reid. Well, they can, but would you believe your opponent if he told you that your constituents 'don't like you?'

[Phredicles]

107. Maybe, but at this point we're just assuming they're all jury nullifiers and giving up,

and as such making it easy for them to be what we're assuming them to be.

[MADem]

111. That's the job of CONSTITUENTS, though, to smokem outta their holes.

Pelosi and Reid can't be the ones taking a head count.

Constituents need to demand that their GOP Senators characterize their position on the war. And unless and until they do that, the Senators won't feel any need to volunteer that information.

Pelosi and Reid are trying to push them to put their money where their mouth is through the legislative process (see the WAPO article posted elsewehere in this thread). But that's not going to do it all by itself--unless these guys understand that they lose votes if they don't follow the game plan -- something their CONSTITUENTS have to tell them--they aren't going to change their behavior.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

127. Heh....Pelosi and Reid are Democratic Leaders

.....making all Democrats their constituents !!!

[MADem]

147. Thanks again. You're really helping me get a handle on you.

I don't recall seeing the Speaker or the Leader on my ballot.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

152. Right I don't know you, but you know me. Got it. LOL

Perhaps the message the American people sent during the last Congressional elections was lost on you and Nancy. Doesn't surprise me.

[MADem]

156. I appreciate your willingness to reveal yourself with so many fascinating and

succinct comments.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. You Already Know How They are Going to Vote?

Wow......... you (and they) haven't been to a single hearing and you know how they are going to vote.

Gosh.....I'm impressed.

Did it ever occur to you that the hearings can change people's minds (including members of Congress)? While the hearings didn't change anyone's mind regarding Clinton, they did change the minds of those hearing the Nixon hearings.

[rocktivity]

35. Letting them get away with it is a strategy?

Forcing the Rethugs to explain away a laundry list of all the things they filibustered, vetoed, and otherwise obstructed sixteen months from now is a strategy--even failed votes leave a record behind. This isn't about feeling good, or even about "victory"--this is about standing up for our government's rule of law. MAKE THE EFFORT to do your job, Dems (like with Gonzalez' no-confidence and Cheney's de-funding), and LET the Rethugs try to win on their blind support of Bush!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Gman]

114. Just what in my post or even what Pelosi said even distantly and vaguely

implies letting them get away with it? This is not a TV show where problems get fixed in 49 minutes but that is beside the point. What makes you think that not impeaching lets them get away with it? What kind of penalty does impeachment impose if you want someone to not "get away with it"? Wouldn't a Democratic admnistration DOJ prosecuting and imprisoning these people for a long time be a much better way to not let them get away with it? Shouldn't Pelosi and Reid be doing everything very methodically right now to make that happen? IMpeachment is NOT an action of justice.

[rocktivity]

172. They'll get away with it if the Pelosi/Reid "methodical case-building"

takes until next November--not counting any Bush pardons or Supreme court 5-4 right-leaning decisions. That's not a gamble we can afford to let them take.

If the Dems don't have the votes, they should go after the next best thing--the voting record on what the GOP rejects. Force the Rethugs to spend the '08 campaign explaining why it was more important to them to protect their president and party than their own constituents!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Gman]

194. In the case of likely pardons,

of which there will no doubt be a super-tanker boatload full, there's always the International Criminal Court. Just because the US hasn't signed on to the ICC doesn't in any way give any of the criminals amnesty or immunity for their crimes. If for whatever reasons, these criminals are never prosecuted here, I know the rest of the world has never been tolerant of war criminals.

[Heathen57]

215. What she is forgetting

in her long term prophesy is that she is disenfranchising a large number of Dems that now are seeing that she is being the weak-kneed, spineless, people that the GOP has pegged them for.

She and the DNC are losing the very people who put them in office. You lose enough of those voters, and you will lose the house and Senate (again). What she is forgetting is that most Dems don't just blindly follow their leaders like the GOP does.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

274. You don't stay in office through ignorance.

She's like three blind mice and she's a LEADER. Good grief.

See no evil.
Speak no evil.
Hear no evil.

You don't stay in office through ignorance.

[B Calm]

49. Bush don't give a shit about the democratic majority power of subpoena...

[ThomWV]

52. Sell her soul for a vote and to hell with the nation

[EFerrari]

55. Why does this thread have only 2 votes?

I don't want to beat up on Nancy -- that's not productive. But can we rate up this thread so more DUers will think on this problem? :hi:

/ack

[leftofthedial]

63. "I talked impeachment with Nancy Pelosi"

that didn't take long

[EFerrari]

77. Kick

[senseandsensibility]

89. Right before the 2004 election

I donated a large sum to the Democratic party and so was invited to a fancy cocktail party, which was also attended by Bill Clinton. When I say large sum, it was for me, but it was the bare minimum to be invited to this event. Most of the attendees contributed several times more than me and my husband. Everyone was so honored and hushed when Nancy made the rounds, but my husband actually stood up and challenged her (in a mostly polite way) to get tougher with chimp. She looked very startled, and said she would.

[EFerrari]

117. That our process has become all about money is a big problem.

:(

[senseandsensibility]

162. I thought it was funny that the people who donated more than

we did were so worshipful of her, though. I have to admit that we were worshipful of the Big Dog. Not even the hubby said anything negative to him.:-) But then again, he was long out of power by then.

[EFerrari]

98. Kick

[Phredicles]

100. "we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness..."

Hey, I just noticed this. If she honestly believes this, why doesn't she try and inspire? Where's the greatness in "we don't have the votes"? A leader with any sense of greatness would make at least some effort to GET the votes.

I think she (and a lot of the huffy, supercilious apologists for her stance) are pleased not to have the votes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

128. great point.

She is also mistaken, because sitting on her ass, claiming that we cannot even try because we MIGHT not have the votes will lead to people being pretty damned pissed at her leadershit.

and that translates into a defeat for GOP AND Dems on 08.

[Gregorian]

125. So, in other words, subpoenas can accomplish our goal without sacrificing the party?

It sounds like a plan to bring them to justice while taking the high road. Maybe it'll work.

[jtrockville]

135. Party above rule of law? Count me out.

[bonito]

137. Interesting reading k&r n/t

[EVDebs]

153. "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." Cough, gag

Babe, even if you can't succeed, you gotta at least TRY to preserve, protect, and defend it. I'm so pissed reading that comment my blood is boiling.

Nancy, Harry, y'all, please JUST TRY, pretty please ?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. Agree....and just as Annoyed at those who think the Constitution should be defended only if

.....there are enough votes, because they characterize any such attempt as a 'waste of time'.

[EVDebs]

165. "I'm Spartacus".."No, I'M Spartacus"-- they don't make 'em like that anymore, huh ? nt

[Morgana LaFey]

168. an election that will be a decision for greatness. -- ???

And what's the point of that if there's nothing fucking LEFT of the nation, or the Constitution?

Right now, this minute, it will take generations to get back to where we were when Clinton left office (and he frankly did enough damage) -- we can't afford another year and a half.

If their vaunted "oversight" were massively more muscular AND anybody they were tying to exercise it over gave a damn, it might be a different story.

Nancy, you're a coward and I'm beginning to hate you as the Bush enabler you are.

[barbtries]

169. i'll check out the recording later, maybe,

but her words sound weak, really weak. it appears that pelosi does not get it after all.

[bleever]

170. Speaker Pelosi has conference calls with bloggers.

Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Thank you, Mike Stark, Dave Johnson, et al for speaking frankly and respectfully to her, and creating a new form of dialogue between the demroots and the leadership.

:thumbsup:

[chknltl]

177. Attention Citizens of the Middle East:

I am an American. Our government has committed heinous crimes against the Citizens of the Middle East in recent years. Our government has used WMD against the Citizens of Iraq. Our government seeks to steal Iraqi oil and give it to the Big Oil Consortium's. Our Government has placed tens of thousands (or more), of your Citizens in prisons, many without being charged and many are needlessly tortured daily, all with the blessings of our government. Our government has been the seed which sprouted into over a million NEW Iraqi refugees now spread throughout the Middle East, yet our government refuses to allow but the smallest fraction of these refugees onto our shores. Our Government is daily threatening to further destabilize the Middle East and has even spoken about a nuclear pre-emptive strike on Iran. Many of us Americans fear that our government may actually attempt a war against Iran. None of this is due to the will of the American People.

Our Government does NOT represent the will of the American People. It was important to WE THE PEOPLE that Immigration Reform not be undertaken in the same manor our government wanted. WE THE PEOPLE were able to force our government to back down on that legislation. WE THE PEOPLE altered the course here. Yes, this demonstrates that WE THE PEOPLE have a measure of control over our Government, which is, as it should be.

Our government's war against the citizens of the Middle East does not represent the will of WE THE PEOPLE either. WE THE PEOPLE do NOT condone our government's war with the citizens of the Middle East. We are aware of your plight and many here want to join in with the worlds other great nations and render what aid we can. Unfortunately between that aid and your plight is our Government. Our Government continues it's war against your people unchecked. Most of WE THE PEOPLE want to change that. Some of us want to change that sooner than later. Some of us want to stop the criminals in our runaway government as fast as we can. A few of us want to see America's Saddam Husseins be brought to trial.

Sadly another faction of WE THE PEOPLE would rather delay attempting to remove our runaway government from power. They come up with this or that powerful argument against impeachment. Although it will be hard for me to prove this to you Citizens of the Middle East, I do not believe that these American Citizens condone what our government has done to you.

Perhaps those who argue so strongly against impeachment can say a few words of encouragement to you, OUR VICTIMS, and explain to you why you must continue to suffer for at least until our government criminals are possibly voted out of power. (No guarantees that this will eventually happen.) Perhaps these of my fellow Americans will further explain to you why you should not join in with the terrorists who would come to our shores and exact retribution on WE THE PEOPLE for what our government has done to the Middle East.

My fellow DUers who argue so strongly against impeachment: Instead of flaming me, explain it to those in the Middle East who may actually be ghosting through the DU...who may indeed be awaiting your great arguments here. Please explain to the good citizens of the Middle East how WE THE PEOPLE were able to halt our government's "Immigration Reform" yet WE THE PEOPLE are not united in stopping our government's insane war against the citizens of the Middle East. Please explain to the good citizens of the Middle East what part they play in your grand scheme of current American Democracy. So far they have been acutely aware of what part they play..... go ahead, grab a Starbucks latte to sip on while explaining your fine arguments for keeping bush and his henchmen in power to these our fellow human beings who are in such dire straits due to bush and those same henchmen.

[kiteinthewind]

180. .

:thumbsup:

[roguevalley]

181. fuck nancy pelosi. her dad must be spinning in his grave.

[cyberpj]

195. IT WOULD RECORD, FOR HISTORY, THOSE WHO VOTE AGAINST PROVEABLE TREASONISTS. Good Enough. nt

[yurbud]

199. Even if they don't "win" the impeachment, it will force media to catalog Bush sins

and just possibly gum up the works enough to prevent them from starting a new war without looking like they were wagging the dog.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

203. Right On

It would force the media to actually investigate, along with the Congress, rather than ignore Bush/Cheney conduct as some (MADem) would have us do.

[yurbud]

205. if they escape without even going through impeachment process, they will be back that much sooner

and meaner and smarter.

[rocktivity]

208. DING DING DING! Yurbud, you're our grand prize winner!

...Even if they don't "win" the impeachment, it will force (a) catalog(ing)...of...Bush sins...

We'll also have a public record of the Rethugs who voted against it, forcing them to explain why they decided to "protect and defend" a "catalog of Bush sins" rather than the Constitution.

Here's someone else who gets it:

I would have taken that vetoed Iraq Supplemental, and sent it back to Committee...(with) "special instructions" to re-write it...with a new set of timelines and iron-clad instructions on how...(to)...spend the money...(It)...would no longer be under the "3/5ths Rule" of vetoed bills...because it would...be a NEW bill...(which)...would only require a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

Then as Speaker, I would draft my own personal set of Impeachment Articles, and every time he breathed or thought the word "VETO"...I would say, "Go ahead, Mister Bush, MAKE MY DAY"!

Now, that's leadership...

Whether or not this would work isn't as important as the fact that the vote would be on record and the Dems would have MADE AN EFFORT to stand up for the Constitution rather than spent fifteen months hoping that Bush will do something even MORE impeachable.

:headbang:
rocknation

[ecstatic]

209. OK, so maybe I won't vote in next year's election, unless I'm sure my candidate will win

:eyes: :wtf:

Thanks for nothing.

[Mark Twain Girl]

210. "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

I have no idea what that even *means*. However, any statement that goes anything like "the Constitution is worth it if..." is going to have some disturbing meanings.

I'm also unclear whether Pelosi & Co. definitively holds that there are grounds for impeachment. Does she also think Bush's crimes are not "grave"? Where exactly does she stand? Is she saying that yes, there are grounds for impeachment but we're not doing it for political reasons, ie. an election?

[wiggs]

211. I can't see where the level of oversight provided (hearings, subpoenas) has

changed the behavior of the WH even one iota. The WH still does whatever it wants...still doesn't compromise...still is able to arm-twist GOP reps on 9 out of 10 issues...still lies...still evades...still runs the government on ideology...still gets money for war.

And what good does lowering the President's credibility do if he still gets what he wants and dems generally aren't strong in showing how 2008 GOP candidates are tied to GWB???

What is the purpose of oversight in this case? To change behavior of a rogue administration that most agree is the worst ever? To provide accountability? To prevent additional misdeeds? I suggest that none of this is happening and that impeachment is the only way to change behavior....

...if a change is actually desired. I don't get what the fruits of this oversight effort are...so far anyway. Are the subpoenas going to lead to special prosecutors or are they going to lead to mere headlines that disappear after a day or two and lower the POTUS approvals another point?

[autorank]

213. This response is nearly incohherent and she's factually wrong.

Facts first: Dems win Congress 65& approval. Dem Congress now: 29% approval. Pure facts. Shes wrong.

Second, this is incomprehensible. She refers to the victory as a partial result of not bringing impeachment. The election is over, respond to the mood now. She justifies what's not done NOW on
what wasn't done before the election. Pretty sneaky or just plain confused. If it's sneaky, it
gets her off the hook for being uh...limited in argumentation. If it's not, wow, we're in trouble.
Either way, it's weak. New leadership is required, clearly. 29% approval of the Dems in congress, "a miserable failure."

[puebloknot]

248. I think it's the second choice. I saw her on Charley Rose...

...for an hour, and she was smiling her Miss America smile and talking about breaking through the marble ceiling, and so pleased about the *oversight* they're doing now.

I get my blood pressure up every time I hear the woman speak, and I hope I am not coming across as someone who has it in for her because I'm a jealous female, or because I dislike the way she dresses, or any of that crap. I'm concerned because I just don't get the feeling that she is dealing from a realistic deck, that she is really engaged with the seriousness of our current national nightmare. This is not a tea party -- well, bad analogy, because we could sure use a tea party of the Boston kind, but I think Speaker Pelosi would be serving tea and cookies, instead of hurling the stuff into the harbor.

It's scary (and an outrage) that the Speaker wields the power to shut down impeachment (or so she thinks) based on her personal view of how she wants to "work with this President." Working with this pResident edges right over into complicity, even committing impeachable offenses.

This is not what we voted for in November 06.

[Geek_Girl]

251. This is the reason why democrats lost in '02, '04 and will most likely loose in '08

They're always trying to walk that middle ground afraid of political fall out. Why not just make the case to the American people and do the right thing? Here's an idea be a leaders for once and lead.

Of course this all may have more to do with fear of loosing corporate contributions, than political fall out.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

256. Wow - I Agree, but Would Love to Hear MADem Response to This One

I agree and unfortunately, the corporate contributions is indeed diminishing the influence of the American voter.

MADem always argues that it's a net lose for the Democrats to stand up for impeachment, that we might lose the middle and yet I believe the middle is moving to the left a great deal in the last four years. It's time for Democrats to stand something

[Mutineer]

252. Another day, same bullshit from Pelosi.

Why am I not surprised?

[Neshanic]

263. Sing it Nancy! Tomorrow, tomorrow... What she said is pornographic.

"Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

Washington to his troops on the bank of the Delaware..."I know this Independence thing is worth it...if we succeed! Let's cross that river!"

[anitar1]

265. Wow !! this is so exciting.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

278. Once Again MoveOn Gets It Right - IMPEACH

Once again MoveOn gets it right

From an e-mail MoveOn sent their members (Source http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/The_I_word.html)

Congress can start by demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy.