WTF?!? Pelosi Says: If She Wasn't The Speaker & Weren't In Congress-She'd Be Advocating Impeachment

[kpete]

My Question: So, if she wasn’t the only person in the country with the power to do it, she would? kpete

Pelosi: It's about the war

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked at a breakfast this morning if she supports a move to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "Well, I would like us to stay focused on our own agenda for this week."

Pelosi has called for Gonzales' resignation but seems wary that too much focus on the attorney general will feed into a public perception that congressional Democrats are too focused on partisan politics. Better to focus on healthcare, energy and other pocketbook issues first, she said, than to go after the abuses of the Bush administration.

"What we want to do is show accomplishments, then say, 'OK, we've made this difference, now let's pay attention to these issues," Pelosi said.

..................

So what about impeaching George W. Bush? Pelosi said that any effort to do so would divide the country and that she isn't sure what the odds of success would be. But she said that if she weren't the speaker and weren't in Congress, she'd "probably be advocating" Bush's impeachment herself.

more at:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2007/07/31/pelosi/

[porphyrian]

1. My head hurts. - n/t

[speakclearly]

93. Doesn't this kind of remind you of......

that John Kerry speech that got so much play on television in 2004 about "I voted for it, before I voted against it"? This seems to parallel that remark, doesn't it? Or am I imagining things? Is this the leader we chose to lead the House? What happened to "Nancy cleaning House"? I tell ya, these "New Democrats" are no better than Republicans. Vote them all out in 2008! Use the primaries to nominate "progressive" Dems.

[porphyrian]

102. Aw, you just haven't sufficiently lowered your expectations.

Get them low enough, and they're all doing a great job!

[Kikosexy2]

140. With that statement alone...

bombard her office with calls, emails, etc. and DEMAND SHE PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE...IT'S WHAT AMERICA WANTS RIGHT NOW!!...

[porphyrian]

156. We need another form of action, though.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do as you suggest, but it hasn't worked yet. We need some new ideas, another angle.

[Kikosexy2]

226. Give her sleepless nights and ...

unhappy days...protests at her home non-stop and at her office...

[porphyrian]

228. I don't want to stalk the woman, I just expect a lot from her, and I don't care if that's fair.

It's her job here and now, and she's in one of the best positions to get something substantial done. At this point, given the consequences of not acting, I expect her to hustle. And I'm not convinced that bugging the shit out of her staff continues to be the most effective way to make this happen.

Edit: omitted last sentence

[angrycarpenter]

368. did it twice last week

[rockedthevoteinMA]

2. Huh??? What is her job description?

:banghead:

[bdamomma]

3. our own agenda????

that is rather a rude comment, how about the peoples' agenda? remember that Ms. Pelosi?

and this comment: Pelosi has called for Gonzales' resignation but seems wary that too much focus on the attorney general will feed into a public perception that congressional Democrats are too focused on partisan politics. Better to focus on healthcare, energy and other pocketbook issues first, she said, than to go after the abuses of the Bush administration.

go after abuses of the * administration, when Nancy when??? haven't you been hearing us Madam Speaker?

[bobbolink]

258. "our" agenda... as in the people who reap lots of rewards from lobbyists

I think she's being honest here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Greeby]

4. You realise it's a conflict of interest

She can't be seen pushing for impeachment because she stands to become President if it's successful

[blogslut]

9. I do

:)

[MADem]

12. Oh, stop making sense!!!

:thumbsup:

You'll harsh the mellow of the Perpetual Pelosi Bashing Bandwagon...!!!

[wtmusic]

18. Yep, it's all about appearance

While the country dissolves it would be a shame if she was "seen" pushing for anything that coincidentally happened to represent law and order, either

:eyes:

[dkofos]

20. She never should have accepted the speakers position, if she can't handle it.

[endarkenment]

49. Uh, umm, yes that is a fine point you make there.

So indeed Pelosi should not be leading the charge. But she should also not be standing in the way by, for example, announcing repeatedly that

Impeachment Is Off The Table

'kay?

[yodermon]

68. She stands no such chance. Please.

I am sick of this cop-out argument.

As soon as conviction in the Senate becomes obviously inevitable, Cheney will resign, bush appoints a replacement, then bush resigns. So we get (Mccain|Guiliani|Thompson) in office who promptly pardons bushco and sits as an incumbent in the 2008 election.

(Only wrench in this theory is that congress can simply *not approve* bush's nom. for VP .. then when conviction & removal from office of Both bush/cheney simultaneously occurs, nancy rises. Odds of this happening?)

[treestar]

460. That doesn't sound very desirable either

Your second paragraph.

We're screwn. Maybe Pelosi thinks the status quo is better than the upheaval which leaves us with an incumbent McCain/Giulani/Thompson having that advantage in 2008.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Nonsense. She would only become president if both Bush and Cheney

were removed from office simultaneously.

If Bush is removed from office, Cheney moves up, then appoints a new Veep.
If Cheney is removed, Bush then appoints a new Veep.

It would NEVER happen that they were both convicted in the Senate on the same day.

Pelosi will NOT become president through the act of impeachment.

[me b zola]

126. The founders didn't think so

The founders put no stipulation in the Constitution insisting that the House could only impeach an imperial executive if the majority party in the House were of the same political party.

The founders did, however, use the word shall and not the word may.

[EFerrari]

180. Exactly. n/t

[TahitiNut]

190. The FOunders didn't have the Speaker of the House in line of succession to the Presidency.

That's based on the 20th and 25th amendments and the Presdential Succession Act of 1947.

[mzmolly]

200. Very interesting.

Thanks.

[mzmolly]

198. And, the founders stated that any one of the 400 members of congress can roll the ball.

impeachment is set in motion by: charges made on the floor on the responsibility
of a Member or Delegate; charges preferred by a memorial; a Member's resolution referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[EVDebs]

158. The process will take too long. She should do it just because it's right

Too dense to realize that impeachment process and the disinfecting power of shedding light on all the un-Constitutional activity of this administration's 'wrecking crew' is now MANDATORY.

[mzmolly]

167. That and she is one of 400 members who can instigate the process

as Dennis Kucinich has proven. This is not about one woman impeaching Bush or not, it's about congress as a whole.

[whistle]

179. Only if she accepts that position, does she believe herself unqualified to be president?

....She can accept it and just not run for election in 2008. She can turn the presidency over to Hillary or Obama or any other democrat selected. She must place the good of the country and our troops and the people ahead of her own comfort.

[Turn CO Blue]

201. And her conflict of interest isn't just some nebulous morality

issue. Pelosi's conflict of interest is an actual, legal, professional conflict of interest if she pursues impeachment (of both Cheney and Bush at the exact same time).

So it's not just that she can't be "seen" going after impeachment (of both P and VP), or that she stands to gain, it's that it would be UNETHICAL in a professional sense for her to do so.

Someone else has to be the leading voice.

So the point is that she needs to impeach Cheney - not Bush. That way we get rid of the true president, and she won't stand to gain the Oval Office. Cheney is the dangerous one; Bush is nothing compared to Cheney.

[LostinVA]

262. Yes, I've realized that for quite a while

And wish some other people would, too. It can be seen as telling your boss' boss, "Well, my boss sucks and you should fire him... and, since I'm next in seniority, I can have his job."

[LWolf]

322. Does that mean that no impeachment can ever happen,

because the speaker of the house must never move articles of impeachment already introduced by someone else forward, because that would be a conflict of interest??

Impeachment must always be "off the table" to avoid a conflict of interest?

Please clarify this for me.

How, exactly, does impeachment move forward WITHOUT the speaker?

[OzarkDem]

375. No it isn't

the succession plan and impeachment process are outlined in the Constitution.

That argument has never been made in any impeachment proceeding before, so why now?

[JFN1]

382. Thats right

We didn't here Republicans worrying about 'conflicts of interest' for Newt when they impeached Clinton.

[rateyes]

463. Nancy could always refuse to take office, recusing herself...

from that conflict of interest. Couldn't she?

[bryant69]

5. It's easy to advocate something when advocating it doesn't cost you anything

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[zabet]

6. Okay Nancy...

put your money where your mouth is - IMPEACH. Don't DARE vote yourself
a pay raise unless you do. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[bvar22]

205. or go on an August vacation!

:grr:

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Can we recall this dumbass or something? She's a disgrace to the Party

and to patriots everywhere. Fucking enabler...

[MADem]

I understand the parsing. She's in a position to see the big picture and take the long view

It's natural for constituencies to just want what they want, now, and not look downstream to future consequences. Legislators are supposed to take the long view, and be a bit more deliberative. They certainly need to investigate first, not shoot first and ask questions later.

[wtmusic]

15. Legislators are supposed to...more deliberative...wha?

Nancy is our rep, and we're all in the same boat. There's no way to "parse" this beyond a classic CYA attitude.

[MADem]

164. She's not my rep. My rep is in the MA delegation.

Because my rep is a Democrat, he is also in the Democratic caucus that elected her as Speaker.

People who have difficulty with Nancy might want to take it up with the overwhelming majority of the caucus that put her in the job....but no, that requires an understanding of how the system works, I guess.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Exactly.

That's the difference between leadership and rank and file. It's her job to keep Democrats in the majority for decades, not "decade" like her Republican counterparts. It's her responsibility to pursue the ENTIRE progressive agenda, and that will take time. It cannot be sacrificed for a crap-shoot, which is exactly what impeachment is.

[JFN1]

384. It's not sacrificing the agenda

to impeach - IT IS MAKING THE AGENDA POSSIBLE!

If the rule of law is not restored, what use is the 'progressive agenda'?

[endarkenment]

70. Ah yes Our Chess Grand Masters At Work

Funny thing is that I've been told over and over again, year after year, how wise and far seeing these clowns are with their brilliant strategies, and year after year we swirl deeper and deeper straight down the shitter with all of their strategies playing out to nothing at all.

It is always wait and be patient as they stall and do nothing.

[MADem]

147. Oh please. The usual sad, pathetic platitudes.

And bullshit.

Tell me how you're gonna convince the Blue Dogs?? What is it that Pelosi hasn't said to them, to change their minds? Or the corporate centrists in the party?

She can't just give them an ORDER as to how they vote, ya know.

Or maybe you DON'T know.

Which means you don't understand the procedural roadblocks that caucuses within the Democratic delegation can throw up to slow things down, either.

What.....could it possibly be that the WHOLE PARTY isn't a far left lockstep marching bloc?

Really, never mind. Don't tell me. Just repeat that tired, foolish, "if it ain't far left, it's far right" mantra: It's all PELOSI's FAULT!! The Great, and all-powerful, Pelosi of San Francisco!!! SHE controls the horizontal, she controls the vertical...all are HELPLESS under her all-powerful GAZE!!!!!

:rofl:

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

211. LOL

:D

[D23MIURG23]

453. She could start by co-sponsoring H.R. 333 as a representative

and simply stating that she sees impeachment as the right thing to do, but does not see this as the time to use her power as speaker to advance the issue. I know where you are coming from, but frankly I can't see this as a simple dichotomy between "Impeachment is off the table" or "Mighty Berserker Pelosi storms the castle walls". But if she never signals that she is willing to consider impeachment then she really does have the power to undermine the whole effort.

[mzmolly]

209. 'These clowns?' That doesn't sound "generally supportive of Democrats."

And that is a requirement to take part here. If it weren't for "these clowns" we'd be in Iran and Syria by now. Over 130 CLOWNS voted against giving Bush the authority to go to war as a last resort. Contrast that to the 2 Republicans who did so.

Also, the clowns who wrote the constitution allowed for any one of 400 member of congress to instigate the process leading to impeachment. So, I suggest that the clowns are the people who are focused on Nancy Pelosi.

[endarkenment]

281. Who appointed you?

I'll criticize the leadership clowns as much as I want. If you don't like it pull the goddamn alert button. Sheesh.

[mzmolly]

I did hit the goddamn alert button.

Sheesh!

[endarkenment]

300. You should consider what sort of dialog you are interested in here.

Since when has this board ever banned criticism of party leadership? Why do you think that such criticism should be banned? What exactly are you so afraid of?

[mzmolly]

304. I'm afraid that people posting here are not "generally supportive" of Democrats

in spite of the user rules indicating that is a requirement for participation. "Generally supportive" means that you support democrats generally speaking. Are you "generally supportive" of Democrats? If so, referring to Democrats as "clowns" kind of threw me off a bit. Call me crazy, but that sounds a bit like Limbaugh's method of "support" ya know?

[endarkenment]

315. How many of us critics are on your hit list?

Are you proud of yourself? Righteous in your indignation?

I referred to the party leadership as "clowns", not "Democrats". At least get your facts straight.

Is any criticism of our leadership to be banned on the MzMolly-DU? Or just the 'clown' pejorative? How about if I call them a bunch of incompetent lying hypocrites, is that ok?

How is that alert thing going for you? Am I tombstoned yet? Is this subthread deleted?

[mzmolly]

318. "Hit list?"

Cute.

Your remarks again: Funny thing is that I've been told over and over again, year after year, how wise and far seeing these clowns are with their brilliant strategies, and year after year we swirl deeper and deeper straight down the shitter with all of their strategies playing out to nothing at all.

The statement above did not clarify that you considered our Party Leadership "clowns." Additionally, we just got the majority a few months ago, so referring to "years and years" of waiting is a bit odd.

Again, are you generally supportive of Democrats? A yes or no will do.

When people here who are "generally supportive" are frustrated, I understand. But when we have a few who continually jump on the 'Democrats suck' bandwagon, I ponder their "support."

I'll await your answer or non-answer depending.

[endarkenment]

331. yeah "hit list"

"I'm afraid that people posting here are not "generally supportive" of Democrats"

You have a hit list of "people posting here". You have a problem with the free exchange of ideas.

[mzmolly]

334. Are you generally supportive of Democrats or not?

DU is a place encouraging the "exchange of ideas" by those "generally supportive of Democrats."

Are you?

[endarkenment]

346. My first post was quite clear, madam interrogator. nt.

[mzmolly]

348. I'll take that as a no, sir snark.

;)

[endarkenment]

350. maybe you should alert me again for not submitting to your authority?

After all, I have not signed your loyalty oath, so that must be alert-worthy.

[mzmolly]

366. Well I would if the user rules said "submit to the authority of Mzmolly"

but given they don't ...

[bvar22]

215. The "long view" of not impeaching:

The DLC Presidential candidate inherits a Unitary Executive.
Didn't the DLC Democrats help build the Unitary Executive by supporting Alito and Roberts?

If you are a rich corporate CEO, democracy is too messy to be left up to The People.
Impeachment would result in DEMANDS to FIX the DAMN SYSTEM!!

Much better to just Run Out the Clock, inherit the Unitary Executive, and tell everyone,"Its all better now. BTW, your job going to slave labor in China?....that's a GOOD thing. Trust us."

[MADem]

236. Oh boy, another one of the "They're All Alike" crowd.

If they're all alike, why post here, at a site where the rules say we support the DEMOCRATIC Party and DEMOCRATIC candidates? Where we work to achieve Democratic goals?

I'm sick of this shit. I'm tired of the only wing of the party being "acceptable" here, to some rather vociferous and uninformed posters, being the fringe, far, far left that talks a good game but never gets out of bed on election day.

The DLC don't eat babies. Bill Clinton came out of the DLC. Harry Reid and Jack Murtha are--GASP--PRO LIFE Democrats. Now, I don't agree with all their positions, but I am mature enough to understand that reasonable people can have differing views and discuss them rationally. I don't fucking demonize them like the intolerant fringe assholes do around here.

You want to know what impeachment would get us???

Impeachment would result in comparisons of Pelosi to Newt. And if you thought it through, you'd SEE that. But hey, whatever...let the flakey far left spout and flail and call attention to their poorly thought out lack-o-logic. That's about all they do, anyway. They make the rest of us, from the left to the center, look bad. IMO.

[bvar22]

326. The DLC doesn't eat babies.

That is YOUR hysterical strawman.
People who want impeachment (majority of Americans) don't eat babies either.
The DLC, funded by Corporate America DOES advance an agenda that favors the RICH Corporate Owners at the expense of Americans who work for a living. They ARE invested in maintaining a Unitary Executive.
Save your histrionics and GO AND READ their website.
http://www.dlc.org/

There IS a wing of the Democratic Party, primarily members of the DLC who not only did NOT oppose the appointments of Alito and Roberts, but actually obstructed Democrats who were active in their opposition to these appointments. Read up on the Kerry filibuster and the Gang of 14.

What do the following ALL have in common?
* Joe Lieberman, Connecticut (re-elected as an Independent)
* Ben Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

ANSWER: They short circuited the Kerry filibuster, AND they are honor roll members of the DLC.


You said:

"Impeachment would result in comparisons of Pelosi to Newt. And if you thought it through, you'd SEE that. "

Do you really oppose Impeachment because some media talking head might compare Pelosi to Newt?
I'm much more concerned about the Balance of Power and an unchecked rogue Executive Branch. I guess different folks have different priorities, but to formulate a political strategy based on what Ann Coulter is going to say is pretty weak and fearful. I would rather do what is mandated in the Constitution instead of hiding from Rush.


"let the flakey far left spout and flail and call attention to their poorly thought out lack-o-logic."
You are refering to Bill Moyers, Bruce Fein, and John Nichols (The Nation) among others. I proudly stand beside them. Take your best shot.

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They {Congress} have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

Go here for enlightenment. If you have trouble reading, you can just watch the video.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html


And finally:

"I'm tired of the only wing of the party being "acceptable" here"

Hey, DU is a website for Progressives and Liberals.
If you are looking for a more Conservative site where you will be more comfortable , you need to look somewhere else.
You can find Conservatives here:
http://www.dlc.org/



I stand by the statements made in my previous post.
If the Democrats DON'T Impeach, they will inherit a Unitary Executive in 2009.
Cui Bono?

The DLC currently has their candidate ahead in the polls.
The DLC helped build the Unitary Executive.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[cui bono]

330. W does...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uo-9bFJcRM

[MADem]

351. It would only be "my"strawman if I endorsed it or believed it.

The fact is, plenty of people here take that view. I've seen it. The rather bipolar "They're ALL BAD" which is a counterpoint to the position that their leftie-off-the-charts views are "All good."

You're not far off that mark, based on your post.

I SAID (go back and check) I disagreed with many of the DLC positions, but you didn't bother to read that part, so invested were you at making a point. Instead, you sit there and tell me about all the big bad DLC'ers--like I'm a member, or something. I was talking about RESPECT for all wings/views of our party, you reply with a litany of DLC sins. And THEN, you "tell me where to go"--as though I'd be comfortable at the DLC. Heckuvajob there.

I'll tell you where you might not be comfortable, though. At a DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. Under the BIG TENT. With members of my party, from left to right. With all their varying, uncomfortable, non-lockstep views.

Because clearly, only the fringe will do, for you. And the rest of the Democratic Party can go, what--fuck themselves???

I also didn't give you MY view of impeachment, but you extrapolated. As so many do. I gave you the media read--and I don't give a crap if you don't care for that view, but that view would become the theme. Nancy=Newt. But no, make it personal--make it about how "I" feel, even if it isn't how I feel. Forgive me for living in the real fucking world, though.

The point is, everyone who isn't to the left of The Naked Guy Covered In Blue Paint At Woodstock isn't vicious or evil. Certainly, the Naked Guy crowd deserves to be heard--TOO. They shouldn't be the ONLY incessant, whining voice we here, though. But some of the fringe lefties here are, frankly, intolerant fuckers who excoriate anyone who isn't sufficiently "progressive"--and by that I mean Department-of-Peace Kucinich-Sheehan ticket types. They want everyone to "tolerate" their views, while they insult everyone who isn't aboard their rickety, creaky, broken down, 'way off the road past the left shoulder' bandwagon.

I'm sick of it. And I'm not the only one. Frankly, with the run-up to 08 getting closer by the day, I really don't appreciate the lies that a bunch of Indy-Naderite-Green-Obstructionist ASSHOLES who every so often toss the "Parties Don't Matter" bomb--have to say about my Democratic Party on a Democratic website. Or the Democratic Speaker of the House.

And when they shop untruths, I'll call 'em on it.

Now, this point is important: If that shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

[D23MIURG23]

459. You keep talking about "the fringe" as though they are the only ones who support impeachment

But recent polling data suggests that a majority of americans support impeachment of Cheney, and * isnt far behind. That isn't a fringe position. My conservative father (republican until about 5-6 years ago) supports impeachment for instance. I think you are mischaracterizing this as a fringe or even ideological issue. The point is that we have evidence of flagrant abuse of power, and blatant illegality in a dictatorial manner by * and his admin. It is the duty of congress to do thier best to reassert the rule of law over "unitary executive", and reaffirm that the president is never above the law. I don't see political calculus as an appropriate component of the dialogue in whether to accomplish that.

[wtmusic]

8. So let's see...it's on the table if she has nothing to lose personally

Gotcha Nance. :eyes: :grr:

[Atman]

10. Nancy, you represent US, not The House.

Got that?

Who called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Republicans or The People.

Yet now who is calling for the impeachment of George Bush, the Democrats or The People?

How quickly you've forgotten such a key element of your job description. Remember who the House of Representatives are supposed to represent? Obviously not.

.

[Zensea]

13. Actually she represents her district

not DU or posters here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Thank you very much for this post.

People forget that too easily. She represents the people of San Francisco - and no one else.

[marions ghost]

42. eh?

Congressional Oath of Office:

I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Where does it say that the Speaker of the House is responsible to her geographical constituency only?

That would apply to state representatives but not congressional IMO.

[MADem]

59. Domestic ENEMIES--not domestic representation.

Good grief, that was such a stretch you musta pulled a muscle.

Where does it say the Speaker of the House is responsible for the entire US constituency of Democrats, or even of all Americans?

It doesn't.

Pelosi represents HER DISTRICT in the House. She represents her CAUCUS--those elected folks, NOT YOU--in her Speaker job.

[marions ghost]

216. oh brother...

I meant that our enemy is WITHIN. Yes, I'm talking about our "enemies"-- in this government. Not trying to make any big stretches of imagination. :eyes:

As leader of the opposition party not technically responsible for the Rethug rise to power, the Democrats do represent me and (some of) what I stand for. So I DO look to the Democratic leaders to 'represent' me to a certain extent. I expect them to take a broad view of where this country is going. I expect them to prevent any MORE assaults on our constitutional rights and to REVERSE those that have been railroaded through.

At this point the Democrats ARE running the risk of supporting criminals. It is becoming more apparent that that is what our top leaders are--criminals and enemies of the people. If things worsen, the Democrats will be seen as complicit in this process of exploitation. I do NOT want to see this. I do not want the congressional Dems to become an entity that I (me, I) cannot support, as I have done that for a long time (even working for Dem candidates at local level). I don't want to see this happen.
But I also cannot shrink from what is becoming a possibility....

Triangulation has become strangulation. It is a situation that is beyond the usual strategy games of politics.

[MADem]

227. I'm sorry. That's just too convoluted for me.

The "domestic" word was tossed out there as a way of linking Pelosi to the broader US constituency. It's a bridge too far.

Like it or not, even if you "look" to her, her constituency as Speaker is her caucus; those Democratic delegations from the fifty states. The ones who ELECTED her, and Steny and others to their jobs within the caucus.

As Speaker, she answers to THEM.

If you're from her district, you can argue with her about how she represents you and challenge her, if you so choose. Otherwise, you can gripe, but your view shouldn't be first in her mind--you're not her consitutent. She doesn't owe you any representation.

You might think the Democratic caucus is "supporting criminals." I don't. And I'm not alone in that view. I think they're working steadily, and hard, to ensure us a majority that will last for a long, long, time, so we can actually see some change in this country over decades and generations. And whiners who want dramatic, empty "HERE/NOW" gestures are...UNHELPFUL. To be kind. Our Democrats have taken a squeaking majority in the Senate and a small majority in the House, and now we're seeing INVESTIGATIONS--which we haven't seen in YEARS. And those things MATTER. Even if they don't move fast enough to suit some.

I can't help but notice that the Usual Suspects/Pelosi Bashers here proudly declare themselves to be Naderites, Independents, Greens, anything other than Democrats. They support extraparty candidates that oppose Pelosi, and then get irritated when they aren't regarded seriously or patience with their hystronics wears thin.

[endarkenment]

465. Actually in her Speaker job she represents all of us.

In her role as the representative from her district she represents her district. This is standard parliamentary stuff: the speaker has two hats.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. The part where her constituency are the sole arbiters of whether or not she keeps her job.

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Exactly!

Every member of Congress is charged with upholding our constitution. They do NOT only represent the people who are eligible to vote for them.

[marions ghost]

111. Thanks

that was the point I was trying to make, although it seems to be lost on some...

[stimbox]

117. Yes, she represents San Francisco,

yet she ignores her constituents.
We voted to pass Prop. J and she ignores us.
We call her and she ignores us.

Proposition J
Adopting a Policy Calling for the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
City of San Francisco
Majority Approval Required
Pass: 133,042 / 58.53% Yes votes ...... 94,282 / 41.47% No votes

http://smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sf/meas/J/

[Atman]

122. Just like she's doing to the rest of us!

At least she's consistently on the wrong side. I like a representative who knows where she stands!

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

149. Then don't vote for her. (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

266. More of those pesky little facts!

:)

[loudsue]

120. That is JUST NOT TRUE. When she was just the representative of her district,

she represented her district, but ALSO voted on things that did NOT affect her district.

But when she became SPEAKER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, she took on ANOTHER job... a much bigger "district", and she is 3rd in line for the presidency. By your argument, she would become the first president of a district... and it just ain't so.

The problem with Nancy is that she doesn't see that the republicans are NOT going to let her, OR the rest of the Dems, get this famous "agenda" through the houses of congress. Even if the republicans don't filibuster every item on Nancy's agenda, bush will veto it when it gets to his desk. They've shown this to be true at every turn. So the Dem's argument that they're pushing to get "more important" things done is a pipe dream and a fairy tale. If they don't know by now that it's NOT gonna happen, they're dumber than a box of rocks.

She, and the rest of the dems need to pull their heads out of their butts and impeach some of the criminals in the executive and judicial branches.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Atman]

125. POST OF THE DAY!

:kick:

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

174. ...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I just shot your "post of the day" full of bullets.

[Atman]

178. OOooooh...yah got me!

:eyes:

You did no such thing. You just stroked yourself again. Get over it.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

172. There are so many things wrong with this post, it's hard to know where to start.

1) Her votes represent the will of her district as to the actions of our federal government. This is the job of every Member of Congress. How you make the logical leap to say that because she votes on things that do not directly affect her district to mean that she represents the entire country is beyond me.

2) Again, the job of Speaker of the House was given to her by Members of Congress, and more specifically, Congressional Democrats. THEY are her constituency for that job, as THEY are the only ones who can remove her from that job (though the people of her district can do so as well by not electing her as their representative. See: Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.)

3) There is no filibuster in the House of Representatives.

4) Impeachment does not remove anyone from office. Articles of Impeachment approved by the House are then sent to the Senate for their consideration. There is a better chance of finding Satan wearing a parka than there is of finding 66 Senators to vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office, at least not without a LOT more hard evidence of wrong doing. Therefore, your entire bold-faced rant is pointless. They know neither is not going to happen. We, too, should know that neither impeachment, nor our entire agenda is going to happen without larger majorities and/or a Democrat in the White House. Why many here on DU do not know this is beyond me.

5) Just because she could potentially have a much larger job if a series of very unlikely events might occur, it is NOT currently her job, nor should she be acting as if it were. Do you do work for jobs that you MIGHT have, or do you do the job you are currently assigned?

[Atman]

189. Some of us are able to think in larger concepts. Some aren't.

They just want to nitpick. Of course I know there is no filibuster in the house. It's not like that was central to the premise. Bush can and will block anything she sends to his desk, filibuster or not. Larger concepts...larger concepts. Save the school-paper grading for your junior high students.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

240. How can you even begin to think about "larger concepts"...

If you don't even understand the basic premise? Did you read my post at all? Perhaps you should.

[Atman]

278. Perhaps YOU just don't get the idea of "larger concepts"

It's a two-way street here, Vash. You're fixated upon details which, while technically accurate, don't necessarily fit into the "larger contcepts" as I view them.

As I've stated in other posts, I'm not at all ignorant of the structure of government. But it seems Bush is. As is Cheney. It hasn't stopped them from getting what they want. I'm looking for some creative thinking to solve a vexing problem, not hand-wringing by some linguistic bean counters.

This is the classic problem of the Democrats...not being creative in their problem solving. While Bush and Cheney twist statutes into silly string to get what they want, we're worried about what Mrs. Crabapple taught us in sixth grade civics class.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

292. "I'm not at all ignorant of the structure of government."

You had me very, very fooled there, because I was definitely under the impression you had no clue.

Perhaps you'd care then to explain to the class the different parliamentary procedures available to the executive branch and the legislative branch by which they can "creatively solve problems"?

You fail to realize two things - One, the powers of the legislative branch are very, very limited in scope because power is rarely vested in any one individual, and two, Democrats HAVE used a number of very crafty parliamentary procedures over the past 2 years, such as forcing the Senate into a closed session and using motions to commit to kill harmful bills and amendments.

[fed-up]

213. BINGO-----from another Susan nt

[Atman]

218. Nope, no bingo. She said House can filibuster.

She was in error about that, of course. Therefore, according to the DU School Marms, her larger point is negated.

Thank god for the DU School Marms! :eyes:

(edited for gender...I'm assuming "Susan" is a female!)

.

[MADem]

230. No--if she became President, she'd become President. Someone ELSE would become Speaker.

Jesus--she wouldn't KEEP the frigging Speaker's job. There'd be a new soul for you to beat up, probably one slightly less compassionate.

:eyes:

Sorry, your logic is convoluted. And wrong.

You didn't vote on your 2006 ballot for "Speaker of the House." She does NOT represent you. She represents her Democratic caucus of legislators that elected her. And the folks who found her name on their ballots out California way.

[Harry Monroe]

411. AMEN!!!

I completely agree with you!!!

[Harry Monroe]

410. That is true

But she is also Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and as such does more than merely represent the constituents in her district. She is the leader of the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives and as such also sets the tone and precedent for the majority party in the House. As a Democrat, she also, in essence represents ME!! And I would like her to put impeachment back on the table . If she is unwilling to do what "WE THE PEOPLE" desire, then perhaps she should step down as Speaker and go back to being simply Representative Pelosi and representing her California District and the constituents who reside within such district!!!!!!!!

[Oak2004]

454. And you're not quite true as well

As Speaker she is the leader of Congress. Steny Hoyer leads the Democratic majority.

[Harry Monroe]

461. I stand corrected

Yes, she is the Speaker of the whole House. But you think she's gonna lead the WHOLE House. The Republicans are not going to take their marching orders from a Democrat. The system is inherently flawed in this regard, since it is a 2 party system and the Speaker invariably comes from the majority party. The minority party will usually not be led by the nose by the Speaker, who comes from the opposing party. This is a major flaw of a 2 party system.

[Atman]

24. Uh...yeah. M'kay.

DU is losing it's collective mind. We've become just a board of grammer checkers, i dotters and t crossers.

For the record (why, oh why?!); I didn't say she represents US as in DU, nor posters here. I consider myself an American way way way before a DUer. As such, she represents US, AMERICANS. And as Speaker of the House she does indeed represent US, all of us, not just those in the district which elected her.

:eyes:

.

[MADem]

51. No, she doesn't. It's not a grammar issue. It's how the system works.

She was elected by the Democratic caucus to lead them. Not YOU--them. To organize the agenda, to state the agenda they agree on as a body, to direct the activities of the whips and other officials--not to dictate to them.

If she were the Democratic Dictator, there wouldn't be a Democratic caucus after she was installed. Her job is to listen to the conservatives, the moderates, and the liberals, all of whom have caucuses within the larger organization, and work with them--all of them--to achieve consensus.

You're the one who doesn't 'get' how it works on the Hill.

Pelosi can advocate one course of action, based on the consensus of the caucus, and actually vote against it if she so chooses. That's how the game is played.

And she doesn't represent "us" as in Americans. She represents her district, and she acts on behalf of the caucus that elected her. If your rep is a Republican, you had nothing to do with her installation as Speaker. If your rep is a Democrat, your role in her election depends on if you voted for that rep, and if that rep voted for Nancy as Speaker.

:eyes: indeed.

[endarkenment]

466. Speaker of the House is a constitutional office not a party post.

"She was elected by the Democratic caucus to lead them" - no she was elected to the constitutional position of Speaker of the House by a majority vote of the entire House, not by a majority vote of her party. At least get your damn facts straight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Quite frankly, you've got it the wrong way.

DU has lost its collective mind and has become little more than a progressive lynch mob, demanding the world on a platter immediately. This place seems to expect Democrats to rule with the same iron fist that Republicans did, neglecting to realize that not only did Republicans lost their majorities in this fashion, but that we don't even have the same iron fist capabilities that they do. We don't own the Presidency, we don't own veto-proof majorities, and we don't even own a filibuster-proof majority. DU seems to conveniently forget that 9/11 postponed the demise of the Republican majority, which would have ended in 2002 were it not for a scared populace.

DU also seems to conveniently forget that we all knew heading into this year that Congress would be gridlocked. No one with any sense of reasoning expected sweeping changes to be made immediately, and yet we've become drunk with power, despite only having a few nips of peach schnapps on hand.

Just because you consider yourself an American before a DUer does not change the nature of the role of the Speaker of the House. As another poster put it, in that role, she represents the caucus of the majority of elected Democrats. The American people do NOT elect the Speaker of the House - members of Congress do. Therefore, she has two very specific groups that she represents - the people of her district that chose her to be their representative and the Members of Congress that voted for her as leader of the House of Representatives. Unless you are from San Francisco or are a Member of Congress, she does not represent you. You did not vote for her. That's not being a "grammar checker, i dotter, (or) t crosser" - that is reality. Just because you choose not to recognize it, that doesn't make it any less real.

[MADem]

77. A bunch of unprogressive progressives, if you ask me.

And it's always the same bunch, the ones who fall in the "No difference between the parties" bullshit mantra. If Pelosi's name is mentioned, the attacks always start, and come from the same quarter. That crowd also supports her rather unstable primary challenger, too.

And they clearly don't get how the system works, and they're fucking PROUD of their ignorance, too.

It's so goddamned tiresome. I swear, Rove must be rubbing his hands together in glee, seeing these unwitting tools bashing away without knowledge or understanding. And it's double joy for him, for he doesn't have to pay for it--he's getting a Shit-Piled-On fest for free!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

88. Couldn't agree more.

You would think it to be a priority of someone that is interested in politics to, I don't know, actually take the time to figure out our political system. Arrogant ignorance is absolutely the order of the day with this crowd. It's very, very sickening and saddens me quite a bit. We always thought we'd be better than the Republicans were when they had power. Truth is, we've become worse.

[onenote]

239. agreed

I find the lack of understanding of the political process and of political realities to be one of the sadder and stranger aspects of DU lately. For a group of people that presumably have a greater interest in politics than the average citizen, many DUers are woefully uninformed about how Congress operates. I have no doubt that there are things about how Congress operates that could be improved, but anyone who ignores the reality that exists for a reality that they wish existed is just wasting their (and our) time.

[eggman67]

283. I think that what this demonstrates...

For a group of people that presumably have a greater interest in politics than the average citizen, many DUers are woefully uninformed about how Congress operates."

...is that in reality many in this group have a greater interest in "causes" than the average citizen, and apparently no interest in "politics." By which I mean the actual details or mechanics of effecting the changes they seek. This is what leads to purely emotional arguments, often ridiculous hyperbole and "Make It So" thinking.

Passion's great, but it needs to be tempered with reason to actually accomplish anything.

[MADem]

340. That's it--in an 'eggshell!!!' Well said. nt

[AntiFascist]

359. and DU is becoming no better than Free Republic with all this binary thinking....

you're either with the Democrats or with the "the ones who fall in the 'No difference between the parties' bullshit mantra", no shades of gray, no recognition of lobby influence, no discussion of DLC motives.

[eggman67]

161. I sometimes wonder

If maybe we should start a charity drive to provide civics textbooks to confused DUers.

You're quite right, and I've no idea how to combat willful obtuseness.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

246. Though I try, I have no idea how to do it either.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. These people are so dead set against actually learning how things are in favor of just believing what they want to believe that it's nearly impossible to talk any sense into them.

[bluedog]

184. thank you-such a true statement!

[Virginia Dare]

100. No, the OP had it correct..

she is elected by her Democratic colleagues in the House, not by the people. As Speaker, she represents the interests of the Democratic Representatives.

[Atman]

118. Yeah, Okay, WTF. Free for all. She's there for Nancy and the Caucus, I guess.

I'm not sure what the caucus is there for, though. Seriously, this argument has reached absurdity. OF COURSE I know what her technical, legally defined role is! But maybe if you and MADdem were just a little bit more insulting and condescending with your little civics lesson I would have figured it out quicker.

:eyes:

For chrissake, you'd think you two were personally attacked or something, the way you jump down everyone's throat for the mere suggestion that perhaps the LEADER of the Democrats might LEAD her fellow Democrats in the direction their constituents want to go.

But no...that would suggest we're just ignorant boobs for wanting our representative to represent us.

So go for it, Nancy. Do whatever the fuck you want. Country isn't going to last long anyway...you might as well go down in flames with it.

.

[Virginia Dare]

146. Okay, I have a question for you..

and I'm not jumping down your throat or being condescending, but I feel these distinctions are important, when some people here are calling for HER impeachment. Talk about absurdity!

Why are her fellow Democrats not calling for her step down if they feel she's doing such a terrible job? Really, if her colleagues on the Hill felt that she was not upholding the Constitution, if they felt that she didn't have the ability to lead, or that she was a Bush enabler, wouldn't you hear of at least a whisper campaign to get rid of her?

[Atman]

173. I'm not calling for her impeachment, and I'm not one of her fellow Democrats

So I can't really answer to that.

And what make you think I'd be privvy to a "whisper campaign?"

Personally, I don't think any of them have the spine to do much of anything these days. They've all got their bread buttered from the same Country Crock.

.

[Amonester]

39. Last I heard, a majority of taxpayers in her district want the war criminal

a** to be impeached (or at the very least, to expose all or just one of his numerous crimes in the house to start with, and see how much of his impeachment hearings will be ignored by the fascist m$m shills).

[The Stranger]

312. Actually, she represents the entire nation as its House Speaker.

Which includes DU and posters here.

[Atman]

314. Oh puh-leeze!

You're making sense. We'll have none of that.

.

[eggman67]

323. No she doesn't

As Speaker she represents the will of the Representatives in the Majority Party and nothing more. That is who elected her and that is her constituency.

[bvar22]

333. That is the NeoConservative view of government:

You ONLY represent those who voted for you!

You can see what that political philosophy brings forth.

[eggman67]

343. No. That's the role of the Speaker of the House

see post 341

[The Stranger]

335. The Speaker of the House isn't a creation of the Democratic Party -- it is a national office.

It is an office created in the Constitution.

Her obligations follow with the national office she holds.

[eggman67]

341. No it isn't a national office

The public has no say in who gets elected Speaker. It's an office in the House elected by the members of the majority party to coordinate House business. The speakers role is to negotiate consensus between the various caucuses and advance legislation to the floor that has majority support. It is patently idiotic to advance legislation to the floor if you own party members tell you they will vote against it.

[The Stranger]

352. Bullshit.

It is created and enshrined in the national constitution, third in line of succession to be President of the nation, and presides over the House of Representatives, which is a federal, i.e., national body. It doesn't matter how the Speaker becomes Speaker -- and this most certainly does not mean it is not a national office, as many national offices are by appointment or elected by other than the national electorate -- the Speaker of the House has obligations and duties that transcend her home district constituency and go to the nation itself.

[OzarkDem]

376. Its still a national office

get back to work and do your job.

[Atman]

378. I think he already is at work.

Just sayin'.

.

[endarkenment]

467. " It's an office in the House elected by the members of the majority party "

Wrong.

"Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

The House, the whole House, and nothing but the House elects the Speaker. Not the party.

[MADem]

21. Well, unless you live in her district, she doesn't represent you, and she DOES represent the

Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives that elected her to be their Speaker, to speak FOR their Caucus.

You didn't vote for her to be speaker--the Democratic caucus did. So she DOES represent them in her actions. It's an administrative role as well as a spokesperson role--she is tasked by the Democratic caucus to provide leadership, choose an agenda, and work with other officials that were elected by the caucus. But you had little, if anything to do with it. Further, if your representative is a Republican, you had NOTHING to do with it.

Shessh. I'm just amazed....you're the one who doesn't "get it" apparently.

[jbonkowski]

38. Not everything she says or does irepresents the Caucus

She is allowed to speak for herself and for her district once in a while, you know.

jim

[MADem]

119. Of course she represents her district. She can walk and chew gum, unlike some here.

Her role as speaker is to herd the House caucus into consensus. Unfortunately, some people who are profoundly dull of comprehension as to her role think she was elected as Lefty Dictator To Do Their Bidding. And they stridently, asininely, insist that if she doesn't exercise her Speaker role in the same way that she exercises her representative function, she's somehow a traitor to them.

Her votes on behalf of her district, and her work as Speaker are two separate things. Unfortunately, these Perpetual Professional Pelosi Bashers just can't get that through their heads. It's moronic.

[Atman]

40. Wow, it's a major snark-a-torium here today.

EVERYONE INTO THE SHARK POOL! YIPPEEEEE! Let's eat each other alive and they we won't have to worry about who gets elected or who gets impeached! The corporations and BushCo can have it all!

Fuck this shit.

.

[MADem]

130. No snark from me. Just minor irritation at people who jump on a bandwagon that

rolls on wheels of complete and utter falsehood.

People who don't understand the system, and then criticize it unfairly, are, to be kind, tiresome.

And people who do continue to bash with fulsome igorance ARE the ones handing everything over to BushCo--by their own obtuseness they empower the right wing. They tilt at windmills instead of going after the real offenders.

So fuck THAT shit. Don't get mad at people who actually know what rules the legislature is playing by--LEARN the rules, so you can speak from knowledge--that might be a good start.

[Atman]

143. I'd tell you what to do with your "good start," but...

"MINOR IRRITATION?"

Dude, you're flaming anyone who refuses to bow down to you.

I'm already walking on thin ice here today, I fear. Because I'm not kow towing to the condescending school marms who feel the need to lecture us about how much bigger their brains are than everyone else's.

.

[MADem]

192. No, I'm not.

It's a pity you're taking personal offense, where none is intended. But I'm not going to go along with a warped version of the way things are just to make you feel good about yourself.

Look, this isn't a topic where "agreement" is at issue. The simple facts are that way too many people, you included, don't understand how Congress functions. That isn't 'lecturing'--you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge with your written statements.

There is an obvious lack of understanding on this thread about the role of a representative, and the role of the Speaker of the House, too.

Back in the old days they used to teach CIVICS. They don't anymore, and it shows. This is basic stuff, junior high material, and way too many people here just don't get it.

This isn't a question of "bowing down," it's a matter of fact versus fiction.

[Atman]

196. "many people, you included, don't understand how Congress functions."

NOOOO, that's not lecturing or condescending.

:eyes:

I'm 48. I know all about civics classes. I did very well in mine. My point is, as I stated in another post, I'm a big-picture guy. You're obviously not. You are picking out paragraph a, subsection 2:11, line 7, blah blah blah.

I KNOW THE FREAKIN' CIVICS and how Congress works. So I'm not supposed to post what I wish would happen? Who died and made you message board god?

.

[MADem]

224. Well, you slept through those classes, based on your own comments.

I don't say that to be mean, but if you want me to stand by my words, you need to stand by yours. And yours demonstrate a lack of awareness of how Congress functions. Sorry, that's just fact.

Your perception that I see myself as "message board god" is, to be kind, WARPED. And YOUR view, I might add.

I don't share that view. Just because I disagree with you and back up my statements doesn't mean that I am lecturing you or anything of that nature. This is a discussion board. Issues are DISCUSSED here.

These here the 'internets.' A frontier, if not the final one. I'd suggest you toughen up and stop being hypersensitive because you're not getting the response you seek. You're not going to enjoy consensus with every post you make, like it or not. This is one occasion where a lack of consensus is occurring.

[Atman]

286. Yeah, that's it. I need to toughen up...says the guy who claims not to be lecturing me.

Jesus, if you just step back and listen to yourself! I know you can't but I wish you could. I'm not being "hypersensitive," I'm trying to explain my positions, my opinions. You just want none of it, because you don't agree with me. So who is being hypersensitive? From my seat, I could say the exact same thing about you.

Still, you continue to talk down to everyone, snark, act like a condescending know-it-all prick. DUDE, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I understand the structure of government. How many times do I have to say it? Get off your high horse and make an attempt to understand what I'm saying. Just because I disagree with you and am looking for a more creative approach to deal with the evil bastards who are continually kicking our wimpy asses from here to Sunday, doesn't mean I'm some sort of ignorant moran.

.

[MADem]

307. You might want to step back and listen to yourself, frankly.

You're the one who made the initial false assertions about Pelosi, and you're getting bullshit at me--and incredibly hypersenstive--because I dared to challenge your fallacious comments.

And how is it, if I challenge YOU, that suddenly--according to you--I'm talking down to "everyone?" What, are You the World, or something?

I'm not talking down to you. I'm simply pointing out what you said, the fact that what you said doesn't pass the facts test in the reality-based world, and you're getting pissed off about it.

You don't have a right to be immune from critique here, from me or anyone else. And your comments merited criticism, because they simply were not true.

That's the bit you keep glossing over as you continue to rail at me for stating simple facts.

[Atman]

325. What false assertion did I make?

You're talking down to others besides me. Anyone who thinks Pelosi should actually do something that smacks of leadership earns your little civics lecture. You keep saying "I'm not talking down to you" and then proceed to give us your little talks. This calling me "hypersensitive" thing is real cute, too. Like an AA meeting. If I deny your claim, and just try to point out my position, you say "See, you're hypersensitive."

There is a very important point you and Virginia and Dash have totally ignored...Pelosi's own words, which were the subject of the original post...allow me to quote, then you can talk down to us some more...

...she said that if she weren't the speaker and weren't in Congress, she'd "probably be advocating" Bush's impeachment herself.

Seems to me that Nancy Pelosi is acknowledging the need to impeach, but simply won't move forward with it because of her so-called leadership role and a fear of being labeled. So what is she doing, abrogating her responsibility? Ignoring what she sees as actual reasons to move forward with impeachment because it's inconvenient for her? What is she saying there? "I know there is reason to impeach but I won't because I am the Speaker of the House?" Is this your civics lesson for us? The Speaker Of The House acknowledges impeachability, but simply won't do it because she's Speaker Of The House and afraid of appearances. I don't recall the "protect your image" clause in the constitution.

Someone here needs a civics lesson, and it ain't me. It appears to be you and Nancy, who want to put convenience and appearance above constitutional responsibility.

.

[MADem]

337. Read your own words in your very own post ten.

And for someone who eschews lecturers, you sure do plenty of lecturing about my discussion style, simply because you have a mistaken impression of the role of the Speaker. That's not my fault.

"Pelosi's own words" don't matter to anyone other than her constituency. That means the people of her district, and her caucus that she leads in the House. Either group can remove her if she doesn't suit them. Not me, not you--unless you live in her district or you are a legislator who can rally others to persuade her to step down.

No matter how much you hector me, and make horseshit assertions about my 'tone' when the reality is, you don't like my FACTS, the bottom line is that this statement is UNTRUE:

Nancy, you represent US, not The House.
Got that?

As Speaker, Nancy represents the Democratic legislators in the House. The ones who ELECTED her to "Speak" for them.

As a Congresswoman, she represents her district.

And it's unfortunate that you can't process that truth.

It "seems to me" that you don't understand what a civics lesson is, if you confuse politician's statements, views, and opinions on issues with their actual roles in government. Just because Nancy says something, that doesn't mean she waves her magic wand like Cinderella, or barks an order to her legislative serfs, and makes it happen.

There's something called a majority that takes the action you desire. These matters are actually DISCUSSED amongst the members at things called Caucus Meetings. Strategies are worked out, plans are made, and the Speaker oversees their implementation.

And if there WAS a real majority for your earnest wishes, you'd see movement. But you don't. That should tell anyone save the most obtuse individual who doesn't understand the process that the will of the Congress is not yet "there." Even if you think the will of the "People" is. Funny how there's no problem getting them all on the same page when the COLA increase in their pay is to be placed on the agenda. That's because there's a MAJORITY in favor of that measure.

Go on and count up those votes....and when ya don't get the number you want, you go on and put the blame on Nancy.

If it makes you happy...and clearly, it does. Beating up on the Speaker gives some here an odd joy. I don't understand it, myself.

:eyes:

You plainly don't get it. And I doubt you ever will. You're too invested in an erroneous and simplistic viewpoint. And you're playing "Shoot the Messenger" too--which isn't a very mature way to debate these things, really.

[Atman]

342. I'll see your civics lesson, and raise you a vocabulary lesson...

Today's word is "Leadership."

As a leader, it is not her job to merely stick her finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing IN THE HOUSE. The House of Representatives is there to represent The People. She should be wrangling, working the crowd, holding some meetings, getting people on board. She's not even trying. She's FOLLOWING, not leading.

And, as for NOT seeing movement for impeachment? What the hell are you smoking? What do you think this thread is about?

I'm done with you. Collect your check from whomever is funding this bullshit you're spewing. I can't take you're holier-than-thou crap anymore.

Why even have a Democratic Party? Lets just let the Republican leadership tell us what to do. At least they're good at it.

.

[MADem]

353. No, you won't raise me a vocabulary lesson.

Because you can't talk about leadership when you don't understand what it means to be a minority leader, a majority leader or a Speaker of the House.

You're the only one talking about fingers in the air. See, you STILL don't understand her role.

One more time, because you still don't get it--if the majority of the legislators in the House and the Senate wanted to see impeachment happen, it would have happened yesterday.

They're not sold on the idea. The efficacy of it, the utility of it, the perception of it.

I really don't care if you don't like that assessment, it's true. Because that's how the system you don't seem to understand actually WORKS.

That "collect your check" remark? Against DU rules. You're obliquely accusing me of working for enemies of the Democratic Party.

It's a cheap tactic, to throw sorry, false and unfair shots like that when you can't win a debate based on the quality of your ideas.

Good day to you, too.

[eggman67]

394. He basically accused me of the same thing up thread

The stupidity on this thread is staggering, but what's worse is the complete unwillingness to learn. If reality contradicts they way they want it to be that dadgumit reality must be wrong.

[Zensea]

405. Should she lead or should she represent?

You're trying to have it both ways here.
As for who to represent -- there is no unified House that represents a unified people -- all the citizens do not vote for all the members, citizens in districts vote for representatives in their district.
Each member represents their district, not some unified abstraction called the people.
If anyone represents the people as a whole, it would be the president, not the House or the Senate.

That aside, look at the paradox of both leading and representing. It's a balancing act really.
Lead too much and you get accused of not representing, represent too much and you get accused of not leading.

[mondo joe]

414. Isn't it obvious? She should represent when it gets the Impeachbots what they want, but she

should instead lead when that gets them what they want.

[The Stranger]

313. Bullshit. She is the nation's House Speaker. She took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

She has been bought off and is complicit in the crimes going on.

[MADem]

358. Bullshit back at you.

Another one who doesn't get her role.

She is the Speaker for all the Democrats. Not just the far left dressed in pink. She 'speaks' for the Blue Dogs, the Yellow Dogs, the CBC, the Hispanics, and everyone else in the Democratic caucus.

She hasn't been bought off. Who bought her? What did they pay her? :eyes:

Only someone who doesn't understand that the Speaker works to express the consensus desires of her caucus and her party would say that. She reflects their views. She implements their agenda, that they, as a group, agree upon.

You might not like that, but that's the truth--not this bullshit that Pelosi is the Speaker of the Far-Left House only.

[OzarkDem]

379. Third in line

She works for all of us, sorry.

Hey, if she resigns, she can still serve her district. Not a problem.

[MADem]

381. No, she doesn't. Because if she gets the job, someone ELSE takes the "Third in Line" job.

:eyes:

She doesn't carry the Speakership to the White House in your scenario of sucession to the Presidency.

And as Speaker, she doesn't represent YOU. In essence, it's the majority of the House who decides who "Third in Line" will be--not YOU. They made the choice--not you, not me.

[mondo joe]

404. Are you for real? She doesn't work "for all of us".

She works for the Dem caucus, until such time as (third in line) she takes the executive role.

[rodeodance]

66. yeah------something about the 'Peoples's House"?????

[Atman]

129. People schmeople!

It apparently the Corporations' House.

.

[babylonsister]

11. Huh? She's supposed to be 'representing' us. What doesn't she 'get'

about that if she's of the same opinion as the majority?

[bigtree]

26. but she's also the Speaker of the whole House

One of her primary tasks as Speaker is to represent the interests of her Democratic majority who will collectively give their judgment on an impeachment, expressed in their caucuses.

As an individual representative, Pelosi can, and has, voted on issues differently from what she was tasked to organize for the majority.

[babylonsister]

35. Understood. But if she feels this way, what's stopping her from

at least attempting to influence other House members to carry out the will of the people?
It's very frustrating.

[bigtree]

81. publicly?

I really think that kind of public posturing would work against the effort, politically. She can't have her every action seen as some pretext to an impeachment. I personally wouldn't mind some public cheerleading from the Speaker on Gonzales' impeachment, but I can completely accept the premise of her argument that she should control that (daily) agenda and not let it be dictated by every instigation from individual representatives. She'll put the imprimatur of her position behind any effort which has reach a consensus within our majority. Some issues have received enough support to allow them to advance without that imprimatur and have advanced to the floor for a vote as an amendment or as standing legislation. That still may occur with this Gonzo impeachment effort. But, I personally trust her to know what's prudent and effective politically.

I'm not sure why it can't be accepted that she has already expressed her full opinion on issues like impeachment behind the scenes. Politically, there, as well, it wouldn't serve the Speaker to carry her positions around to the others she's dealing with in our party like chips on her shoulder. Her functioning impartiality can actually serve to bring legislators together on these issues. That's her primary job as Speaker.

As an individual legislator, I've known Rep. Pelosi to be as liberal or progressive as they come from where she hails from. I can't imagine that she's any different behind the scenes.

[MADem]

28. She doesn't represent me. I don't live in her district. I think she is a great speaker, though,

and I give kudos to the Democratic caucus that elected her and the rest of the leadership team.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Please list her accomplishments

Tell us why she is such a great speaker.

[MADem]

105. Why don't you ask the representatives who VOTED for her, eh?

She represents THEM. She 'speaks' for THEM. People like Barney Frank, Marty Meehan, Ed Markey, John Tierney and the rest of the Massachusetts caucus LIKE the job she is doing--FOR THEM. So do the John Murthas, the John Conyers, and the other caucus members who voted for her.

I happen to agree with them. I think they have way more credibility than you do, to be honest. They make more sense, and have more understanding of the way the legislature works than you do, too.

Why don't you develop an appreciation for how the system works? Why don't you try to at least learn a little bit about what her actual ROLE is before you, once again, as you ALWAYS do, shoot your mouth off?

Why do you continually bash Pelosi on this forum, again and again, in contravention to the rules about broad brush smears, like a dog with a bone, without ANY understanding of what her role is, and without ANY embarrassment at your complete lack of knowledge? Your repetitive, almost spam-like attacks against Pelosi are getting VERY tiresome. You don't even have facts on your side. You just bash for the sake of bashing, and because you support a flaky candidate who isn't a Democrat who plans on opposing her in the primary. Your motives are transparent, but they're ineffective.

[proud2BlibKansan]

148. If I am breaking the rules here at DU, you need to alert instead of lecturing me

Now I am going to repeat my request since you want us to think you are so wise.

Please list Pelosi's accomplishments.

[MADem]

186. Why? I have no desire to "rat you out"

Unless you WANT me to, is that it? You're being a deliberate disruptor? It's not obtuseness that causes you to behave in this way? It's not mindless, lockstep lefty following-along, with no real harm intended, simply a lack of knowledge and understanding, as I originally thought?

You're DELIBERATELY, with full knowledge of what you are doing, posting these repetitive bashing posts against an incumbent Democrat, is that what you are saying to me?

And AGAIN, I am going to refer you to my last post. I'm not getting into a bullshit discussion with a person who is unschooled in the way the legislature works, who dislikes the House Speaker and spends every spare minute bashing her like a spammer with false assertions.

You ask Jack Murtha for that list, dear. If you actually WANT it--which I doubt.

Or check her website. GOOGLE is your friend--type PELOSI into the box, that should do it!

What you want is an opportunity to conduct a mindless diatribe, where I provide facts and you provide horseshit.

I've been there, done that, and bought your lousy tee shirt. The tee shirt is useful for cleaning my shoes, but beyond that, it has no utility whatsoever.

Go find that list now, using your crack computer skills... and maybe you'll learn something.

[proud2BlibKansan]

197. So you are not willing to defend Pelosi?

Interesting.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. There's A Lot Bigger Group Of People In That 'US' Then You're Giving Credit To. n/t

[GOTV]

41. Most polls show that the majority do not support impeaching Bush n/t

[babylonsister]

47. Some do, and probably more since Jan.:

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

For Release: January 16, 2006

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

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

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

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

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

[GOTV]

60. But most do not, even in 2007. That's got to be giving Pelosi something to think about n/t

[babylonsister]

73. Why don't you supply a link to prove that, and I'll just bet I can find one

to dispute you.

[GOTV]

83. Here's one, and I can find more...

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm



7/6-8/07

"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"


There Is Justification 36%
There Is NotJustification 62%
Unsure 3%

[Virginia Dare]

109. The majority of the people would be looking for solid proof..

the polls that I have seen anyway. Nobody is interested in a Clinton redux. Getting to the truth is like chipping away at granite.

[Virginia Dare]

107. I think that is what Conyers and Leahy are trying to get to the bottom of?

is it not? Why not take at least a little bit of time to build an iron clad case before you go off half cocked with articles of impeachment that are doomed to go nowhere? All of the polls I've seen, when the majority of people polled say they would favor impeachment, it is with the caveat, "if it can be proved", or "if enough evidence is presented", something along those lines.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. But a plurality do -

44% favor, 34% oppose, 22% undecided, according to the last poll I saw. IMO, favorable numbers would only go up if the House actually started the process.

ON EDIT - Come to think of it, that might have been a poll about impeaching Cheney. Since I don't have the link, I cannot confirm.

[GOTV]

206. A plurality is not enough to convince GOP member to vote against party....

Until we have a solid majority, there will be little strong movement for impeachment in the house.

And that is only one poll, not every poll shows even a plurality.

[dkofos]

14. If you are unable to perform the job, GIVE IT UP!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. She has been fairly able to perform her job, actually.

I would be more aggressive than she has been, entering into a "good cop/bad cop" routine with Harry Reid, whom has to be more conservative given the nature of the Senate and the slim majority he holds. She should be more aggressive in calling the President's bluff, setting a higher bar for compromise when the time is right.

Outside of that, she has done her job quite well. We've passed a lot of bills aimed at helping the working class, we've begun numerous investigations on the Bush administration, we've started appropriating money in the right places (emphasis on "started"), and we're making headway on a lot of issues near and dear to progressives. This has all come under her leadership, and that's quite a bit of work for 7 months' time. The ocean liner can't be turned on a dime, and our government is not nearly as fast as the ocean liner.

[dkofos]

64. But she still refuses to uphold the Constitution, for no other reason

than covering her own ASS.

That is not the sign of a leader.

[Virginia Dare]

89. How is she refusing to uphold the Constitution?...n/t

[dkofos]

151. By not impeaching she is enabling the *ush crime family.

I know you don't see it that way but that is your problem.

[Virginia Dare]

154. Then every member of Congress is guilty of it as well...n/t

[dkofos]

157. With the exception of Kucinich I agree!!

[Virginia Dare]

166. Has Kucinich presented articles of impeachment?...n/t

[dkofos]

HR333

[Virginia Dare]

177. Sorry, that's right against Cheney...

why doesn't he file them against Bush?

[dkofos]

183. dick first

[onenote]

245. where does the constitution say that you go after the VP first if both

have committed impeachable acts. If you concede that Kucinich's failure to file articles against chimpy isn't as much a failure to uphold the constitution as that of any other member (including Pelosi and Conyers) then you've also conceded, in effect, that members have discretion to decide how and when to proceed in carrying out their oath of office, in which case, your argument against Pelosi etc has just gone down in flames.

[dkofos]

249. WYTR

[onenote]

263. another one of your silly impenetrable acronyms...how droll!!

When you don't have a response, hide behind gibberish. Good strategy. You should use it more often.

[dkofos]

270. Just trying not to offend. Sorry you can't figure them out. BIDGAS

It does seem to get you coming back for more. YSS

[mondo joe]

289. Or trying to weasel around breaking the rules you agreed to?

Hm?

[dkofos]

294. Maybe, Maybe not.

[mondo joe]

90. In the end it is her constituency who will decide if she's doing a good job or not.

That's fair.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[bluedog]

176. nope!...can't do that here

[dkofos]

182. IWSWIW

[dkofos]

260. GCS

[LanternWaste]

329. Highly informative, salient and relevant, I'm sure...

Highly informative, salient and relevant, I'm sure. But maybe you could forgo the acronyms for those of us who aren't quite as bright or witty as you, or posses your depth of wisdom.

However, there are a lot of people who don't have all the insightful nuances as you obviously posses in regards to the precise, day-to-day operations of House Rules, procedures and protocols. So in many instances, we come to these threads to learn; yet by using disingenuous acronyms to hide your full-formed intellect we are forced to assume that you're actually coming to the discussion rather empty-handed. :shrug:

So for the less intelligent of those here (myself amongst the forefront, of course), would it be too difficult or time consuming to maybe use, well, you know... words?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. According to you.

Unfortunately, "according to you" isn't good enough for impeachment proceedings to occur.

[dkofos]

155. TSTA

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

241. Care to decipher your illegible acronym?

[dkofos]

244. NO

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

248. Then you obviously have nothing of value to contribute. (nt)

[LostinVA]

265. Look upthread, Vashie

It's so they don't get deleted, etc. for personal attacks, is my guess.

Oh boy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

273. Well, that would be both childish and cowardly.

Which certainly would not be a shock.

*sigh* So how's the wedding going? We've got a church and a reception site!

[LostinVA]

400. We had our shower this weekend!

I'll PM you a photo link later.

[LostinVA]

264. Agreed

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Another Example of Moral Relativism

..........making the left not much different from the right.

I thought we were better than this. Nancy Pelosi needs to get with the program or she'll be another Tom Delay.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

257. Actually, this is exactly what separates Pelosi from Tom DeLay.

It was Tom DeLay's policies of moral absolutism that got him and the Republicans kicked out of office. It was their willingness to push forward unfailingly with an agenda that drew the ire of the public. That's exactly what you're pushing Pelosi towards.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

279. Public Impeachment Hearings

Nonsense.

Moral relativism is situational 'right and wrong'. DeLay thought it was wrong for everyone else and ok for him.

I'm pushing Pelosi to have public impeachments hearings.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. And She's Right, Too. I Understand EXACTLY Where She's Coming From On This.

I still think she's been a great speaker and I'm damn proud of her.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. You're Kidding

She's another example of all that is wrong with Washington.

She doesn't stand by and live by what she believes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. No, I'm Not Kidding. I Think She's Doing A Great Job For What She Has To Deal With, And I'm Proud

of her.

[LostinVA]

267. I agree with you

OMG.

*THUD*

[Hosnon]

380. Who knows CPR?! Who knows CPR?!

Is there a doctor in the house?!?!

:evilgrin:

[endarkenment]

52. Welcome to OMC's world.

Don't get too warped up in it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. It's Called Reality. Will You Join Us Too? You're More Than Welcome Here...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Reality?

Since when is ignoring your own concious and the will of the American people.......... reality.

Good grief......I bet you're one of those who think reality is embracing the whole "mission accomplished' BS.

[GOTV]

101. Will of the people? Show me 3 polls from 2007 that show majority support for impeaching Bush n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Ok........then go with Nancy Herself who says SHE would Support

....impeachment if she wasn't Speaker of the House.

[GOTV]

141. OK, but first let's get this "will of the people" thing behind us....

... you based your argument partly on the "will of the American people". Are you saying now that 1) you don't know the will of the people or 2) You know that only a minority support impeaching the president or 3) you really never cared what the will of the people was.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

233. Do You Believe Nancy when She Said She'd "Probably" Support Impeachment-Whatever that Means?

To answer your questions

No.
No...do you?
Now you presume to know what I think or care. I live in DC and don't have the right to vote.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Clearly S/He isn't Anchored in Reality

Idolizing the Speaker of the House for not following his/her own concious when that moral compass is embraced by the American people is repugnant.

[mondo joe]

104. "Embraced by the American people"?

I have yet to see a broad consensus on the matter. I don't know why everyone presumes to speak for the American people.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. Then Let Her Follow her Own Conscience

She already has said if she wasn't Speaker of the House that should would support impeachment.

We don't elect people to Congress to live in la la land.


----------------------
edited for typo the next person in thread called me on.

[mondo joe]

115. Assuming you mean her own conscience, I can only conclude she is.

Part of her conscience must assuredly include how to carry out her job, and how to do the things she campaigned on.

I am content that her constituents will judge her performance. They will approve and retain her, or they will disapprove and replace her. That's democracy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. The Conscience that Says She "Probably" Would Support Impeachment if She wasn't Speaker?

LOL.

Talk about wanting to have it both ways.

[mondo joe]

195. Her own feelings aren't all she has to be accountable to.

She also has a job to do, and constituents to be responsible to.

It makes life more complicated than just acting out on your feelings, but that's the reality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

234. Yea....don't You HATE it when Politicians actually have CONVICTIONS

..they follow.

Nancy's not one of them.

[mondo joe]

247. I prefer they follow the convictions of their position, not their personal desires.

That's one of the many problems with Bushco - no consideration for the responsibility of the position, but lots of personal indulgence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

251. Nonsense: Following a Conviction and a "Personal Desire"

doesn't mean someone has to break the law.

Your ability to distinguish the two suggests you have neither.

[mondo joe]

259. Who said anything about breaking the law?

Not everything Bush has done has been illegal. Much of it has been unethical, inappropriate and so on.

I respect Nancy and I respect that she has responsibilities.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

272. Who said anything about Bush?

Oh...that's right...you.

Anyone who has convictions without the desire to fulfill them isn't worth being elected.

[mondo joe]

284. Pelosi's constituents will decide if she's worth being re-elected. I'm fine with that.

Are you?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

287. Yep

........and in the meantime, I and others are going to call her on her political BS.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

269. Accountability?

You write: 'constituents to be responsible to."

I think her mealy mouth response that *IF* she wasn't Speaker of the House, she would *PROBABLY* be for impeachment.

That's accountability? I know her constituents aren't that stupid.

How about just doing your job and calling for an investigation into probable cause for impeachment.

[mondo joe]

285. Again, it's up to her constituents to decide if she's worth keeping. I am fine with that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

290. Good for You

LOL.

I'm sure you're one of those follks who won't criticize the President, because the 'people' elected and then re-elected him.

[mondo joe]

296. I don't see how that follows. I am a constituent of the President, as a US citizen,

so I'm veryhappy to both criticize him and support his opponents.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

298. Now You're Learning

And so will I with Nancy.









-----------
edited for typo in subject line

[mondo joe]

303. You will WHAT with Nancy? Support her opposition?

?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

306. You Bet

Nancy Pelosi is keeping George Bush in office and I definitely support anyone who opposes her efforts to obstruct Congressional hearings into impeachment.

[mondo joe]

309. Okay - but please don't use DU to try to support someone opposing a dem in a race for office.

That is not acceptable.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

338. Okay--please don't presume to tell me how to use DU

The notion that we need to blindly follow EVERY democrat merely because they are a democrat suggests you are a member of the wrong club.

May I suggest the GOP.

[mondo joe]

355. I'm not telling you what to do - I'm just telling you the DU rules.

This wasn't decided by me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

357. So Any Criticism of Nancy Pelosi is Violating DU Rules?

:bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown:
:bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown:
:bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown:
:bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown: :bounce: :crazy: :wtf: :dunce: :thumbsdown:

NOT!!!

But heh, you knock yourself out, because now that you have exhausted your ridiculous arguments, the best you can come up with is .....YOUR interpretation of DU rules.

Nancy Pelosi is a disappointment. She has done nothing to further *INVESTIGATING* any criminal activity done by this administration. I'm certainly not going to stop criticizing her because you think it violates your comic book notion of DU rules. It doesn't.

[mondo joe]

360. That's not what I said, is it? It helps if you actually read what's written

instead of imagining it.

Use of DU to promote an opponent of a Dem candidate is not permitted.

Complaining about Dems is permitted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

362. Name that Opponent

Knock yourself out.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

I support anyone in the Democratic party who opposes Nancy Pelosi's efforts to obstruct a Congressional investigation into whether or not articles of impeachment should be drawn against the President, Vice President and his officers.

Complaining about Democrats is permitted. Please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. Something you should remember.

[mondo joe]

365. Again, try reading what was written instead of making things up.

"Okay - but please don't use DU to try to support someone opposing a dem in a race for office."

If you're not doing that, you're not violating the rules, so you can lose the hysteria.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

367. Threaten Someone Else by Accusing them of Breaking the DU Rules

........you don't understand.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

369. Typical

Silence dissent and change the subject...............anything to avoid a real dialogue on the issue...........which is NANCY PELOSI.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

345. Can Anyone Say "Heil Nancy"?

Get real.

[mondo joe]

356. I don't know why some insist on misusing DU.

It's a voluntary board, with rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

361. Criticizing Nancy Pelosi is not a Violation of DU Rules

Facism is an easy way to end debate. If you say you win, knock yourself out.

Nancy Pelosi is accountable to the party she leads and the voters who elected her.

She herself has said she would 'probably' support impeachment if she wasn't Speaker of the House.

I'm calling on her to do EXACTLY that.

Support impeachment or resign her party leadership so that she can support impeachment and someone else will get the job done.

[mondo joe]

363. No one sait criticizing Nancy is a violation or misuse. Please don't make things up.

Thanks!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

364. Good

Now you're back in reality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

293. Oh....and in case you missed it

Pelosi is a Democratic leader making her accountable not only to her district constituents, but to her party constituents.

I'm one of them.

[mondo joe]

299. Actually, not. You don't vote for her position.

But since you do acknowledge that she is accountable to her party constituents, by which you should properly say her caucus, you may soon be able to acnowledge that means the whole of her caucus - not just the ones you agree with.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

302. Nancy Pelosi Isn't Accountable to the Democratic Party?

LOL.

Ok.....you keep telling yourself that.

[mondo joe]

305. She's accountable to her district constituents, as well as her constituents

in the Congress. And that means all of them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

308. Spoken Like a Politician

Got it....she's not accountable to the Democratic party.

LOL.......

[mondo joe]

311. This is a political board. If you want saints and martyrs, look elsewhere.

I'm sure you can find someone you think walks on water - but it won't be in politics.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

339. This is a Political Board. If you want everyone to think like you, look elsewhere.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

370. Funny

You write: "If you want saints and martyrs, look elsewhere.'

Nah...I leave that to you and your comic books.

[OzarkDem]

373. She can continue to serve them w/o being Speaker

She's covering up for the Bush administration to protect campaign donations from wealthy donors.

Why else do you think Dems are outraising GOP candidates? Its bribery to keep impeachment off the table and do low key investigations.

Nancy needs to resign as Speaker, as well as any other Dem in Congress who doesn't want to do their job.

[mondo joe]

387. That is ridiculous speculation. Futhermore, Nancy isn't the only person who can

start impeachment proceedings - any member of Congress can do it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

396. It's All Speculation Until We Have Hearings

...........which you and Nancy oppose.

[mondo joe]

397. I support having hearings when there's a point to having them - that is, when

there is a hope of the votes needed.

That has nothing to do with Ozark Dem's hysterical imaginings - and it's not the first time that poster has made outrageous claims.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

399. You dispute there is Probable Cause for an Investigation or Do You

.......always think you are smarter than a jury?

[mondo joe]

402. I know the votes aren't there. And you'd do a lot better to turn votes around than

to attack those who would like to see Bush impeached.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

412. Do You Have Any Moral Convictions Not Dependent on the Votes?

Ah, never mind, I know it's just easier for you to attack others for fighting for what you say you want: Bush's impeachment.

I've seen no indication that you want Bush's impeachment and I feel sorry if you do since you have fought everyone who has attempted to do just that --- get Bush's impeachment.

[mondo joe]

413. I can't divorce my desires from reality, though clearly raw emotionalism is something

you excel in.

And I'm not fighting anyone attempting to get Bush impeached - you have significant delusions of grandeur.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

415. And Still Nothing About How You Would Impeach Bush

......so much for your BS.

[mondo joe]

416. It may or may not be possible. But Congress can certainly provide oversight, including

investigation, which has been lacking.

Again, I don't divorce my desires from reality.

Feel free to again indulge in your hysterical emotionialism. I doubt you could opt not to.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

419. Oh Mondo Sweetheart.......

........I just love it when you talk dirty to me with all of that "hysterical emotionalism" stuff. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that I doubt you can put together a case for your position that doesn't rely on pandering to the very emotions you claim to disdain...........but back to what this board is really about...........

Why do you think that Nancy Pelosi hasn't insure Congressional oversight, including investigations, that you correctly say have been so lacking?

[mondo joe]

421. Pelosi is following through on the agenda Dems campaigned on.

I'm not surprised you don't understand that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

423. Oh..........that's Rich

LOL

That's all that post deserves.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

426. And Still No Answer to the Question

Why do you think that Nancy Pelosi hasn't insure Congressional oversight, including investigations, that you correctly say have been so lacking?

She can't do what she was elected to do AND have Congressional oversight? That is arguably one of the MAIN reasons Democrats took back the House - to insure oversight!


-------------
edited for clarity

[mondo joe]

430. What are you talking about?

Have you missed Gonzales testifying before Congress?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

432. Your Words

In post 416 you state "...but, Congress can certainly provide oversight, including investigation, which has been lacking."

[mondo joe]

435. Which was lacking prior to this year.

Good grief, you need some basic comprehension skills.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

438. LAUGHING SO HARD IT HURTS

.........oh......... you meant to add after SEVERAL posts that you were referring to the PRIOR year.

I got a giggle out of that one.

[LittleClarkie]

433. "Do what she was elected to do"?

Was she elected on an impeachment platform?

[OzarkDem]

406. Correct

In the House, impeachment begins as an investigative process. The only way to discover if charges should be brought is to investigate through the impeachment process. Once the House has held hearings and done its investigation, it decides which charges should be brought against the offender. Beginning hearings does not require that you have an airtight case or that you have all the votes necessary to impeach.

From there it goes to the Senate, where a vote is held whether to impeach or not.

[mondo joe]

408. Bullshit - of course this comes from a person who didn't know the Speaker can't be impeached.

:eyes:

This is a political case - not a criminal one.

Investigations can - and do - happen in a variety of ways. The truth of the matter is that impeachment proceedings are what comes at the political end, not the political beginning.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

417. Not a Criminal Case?

Amazing.

For someone who thinks it's nothing more than a 'political case', I think it's you rather than me who is on the wrong board.

[mondo joe]

418. Impeachment is a political, not a criminal, proceeding. Basic civics class would do you

a world of good - if you could manage to absorb any of it.

Talk about being on the wrong board... :eyes:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

420. You Need to Read the Constitution

.......then come back to this board.

[mondo joe]

422. You don't know what "criminal" means. NT

[fightthegoodfightnow]

425. I Don't Care What You Think is Political

That's not what is required by Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. It states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This is what is impeachable under the US Constitution: ' "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Nothing about your notion of 'politics' or 'political disagreements."

Now, last time I checked "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are criminal offenses, although some have argued that 'misdemanors' can fall outside criminal law. It's certainly more arguable that these are criminal offenses and not political offenses.

[mondo joe]

434. Not me, hon, the Constitution. Impeachment does not meet the definition of a criminal

proceeding.

In fact, Article I, Sec. 3, cl. 7, limits the judgment after impeachment to removal from office and disqualification from future federal office holding, but it allows criminal trial and conviction following impeachment.

That it allows for criminal trial AFTER impeachment confirms that impeachment itself is not a criminal trial.

Impeachment is neither a civil nor criminal process - it is a uniquely political process, with a political outcome.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

437. Nah....It Just Means You Can Be Whooped Again

Impeachment is a criminal process that doesn't necessarily conclude with impeachment.

[mondo joe]

439. Oh hon, go get an education and then come back. Impeachment is NOT a criminal or civil

proceeding.

Adios, and good luck learning about US civics.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

440. Night Sweet Prince

Now impeachment is NOT a criminal *OR* a civil proceding.

My guess is it's Toto yelling for Dorothy.

See you in Oz.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

428. Self Deleted

Corrected for error.

[onenote]

252. as pointed out many times here, she plays a dual role

She wears the hat of the elected representative of her district in California and she wears the hat of Speaker of the House, as elected to that position by the Democratic caucus. As Speaker she is responsible for maximizing the success of the Democratic party's agenda. That means pursuit of the issues on which members of the Democratic Party ran and won election to COngress in Nov 2006. It is an undeniable fact that impeachment was not one of those issues. In fact, it not expressly stated that it wasn't an issue not only by Pelosi, but by Howard Dean. As Speaker, Pelosi's principal task is know where the votes are so that she doesn't blindly push for something that will result in a politically harmful defeat that endangers other aspects of the party's agenda.

This is reality. If you want to try to change reality, fine. But don't pretend it doesn't exist.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

I'm Anchored There Firmly.

And nice try and the ridiculously over the top 'Idolizing' thing. How fucking pathetic and misguided.

I'm a democrat. I support my Dems. I don't always agree with them, but I know full well the challenges they have before them. In the case of Nancy, I think she's been doing a great job considering all the shit she's got to put up with already and now from the far left irrational extremist types. But I do respect the job she's doing and I am proud of her for how she's handled herself. Don't like it? Too damn bad. But that doesn't mean I'm idolizing her. What a foolish and silly thing to say.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. What A Shock

The perpetual devil's advocate is heard from again, saying the most predictable thing possible.

Who would have guessed? Perhaps everyone!
The Professor

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Prof, Though I Know You Can Be A Reactionary Wiseass Sometimes, I Also Know You're Quite Smart.

Do you truly not understand where she's coming from and why it makes sense? I understand exactly what she's saying and I'd wager you do as well. So why the personal attack?

[ProfessorGAC]

91. I Was Commenting On The Predictability Of You Taking. . .

. . .the opposing viewpoint. Group dynamics experts suggest that while someone in the group must be willing to challenge the prevailing POV, the same person doing it all the time becomes toxic.

It wasn't an attack. It was an observation and a reminder that always taking the provocative view tends to negate any point.
GAC

[wtmusic]

98. .

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. What It Was, Was Worthless Commentary That Attacked The Poster Instead Of Context.

There was no use for it whatsoever, other than you to join in the mindless club of "hey, there's OMC! Get him!" types.

Fact is that there are many topics here in which I agree, but some are so ready to gloss over them just so they can paint me as something as not.

Admittedly, though, I am frequently contrary and I have adopted it as my role. There is already plenty of threads that have full support. My replying in them wouldn't lend anything to them. Over 80% or even 90% of the threads here have my support. But I don't feel the need to respond in them along with the 100 others that say how right the thread is. Many threads here are valuable on their face and of course are supported by the overwhelming majority of this community. But those threads are not where my interest lies. My interest in responding lies in those minority threads that are based on false premises, inaccurate information, unwarranted attack, extremist ideals, nonsensical conclusion or otherwise in need of being challenged. Should we not have those here that challenge such things? Should all threads, no matter how valid or legitimate in nature, be left for agreement only without being challenged? How absurd that would be.

Those threads that are in need of opposing opinion will often find me there. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. In this case, my response was quite benign. I'm proud of the job Nancy's doing and the ways in which she's handling herself; considering all the challenges she has to deal with from the right and the crap she's gotta swallow from some of the extremist on the far left. I'm proud of her and think she's been a fine speaker.

But what cracks me up, is that on a board called Democratic Underground, I have to be derided and attacked for posting a sentiment that I support our Speaker of the House. What absolute bullshit that is.

[ProfessorGAC]

128. If You Say So

But, you protest too much. And, for someone who insists that you MUST take the provocative viewpoint you're awfully sensitive.

I wasn't criticizing you for the Pelosi thing. It's because i doubt your sincerity since you ALWAYS take the unpopular view.

I called you on your predictability, and you don't like it. I question your sincerity, and you don't like it. And, i would be hardpressed to find a post you have made in the last 60 months that didn't insult someone else.

You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. Talk about reactionary!

And be it known, that i finally responded because i'm bored with your incessant and juvenile need to pick fights around here. It must be so convenient, no matter how intellectually lazy, to decide which posts have value and which don't, particularly when you apply no such criteria to your own puerile and sophomoric rantings.

You're intellectually weak and analytically challenged. I tried to be nice about it, but you wouldn't let me. If one acts like a punk, one should expect to get punked. When you quit acting like a punk, maybe you won't get castigated for being one.
GAC

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

150. You Really Are Being Silly.

Obviously you were too wrapped up in your own mind to actually absorb the concept of my reply.

Furthermore, I do not reply in a contrary nature just for sake of doing so. If there's something that requires being challenged, I have no problem doing it. But it is always because I BELIEVE in my position and that what I'm replying to is wrong in premise. So spare me the whole questioning sincerity garbage.

I also always get a kick out of those claiming it is me starting the fights. I'm just responding with my honest assessment or opinion on a given topic. It is others, who are acting like tantrum throwing children, who gang up on me and start the flamewar fights, not the other way around. This can even be seen in this thread. All I fuckin said was that I support Nancy and understand what she's saying. OH MY GOD BAN ME NOW! HOW FUCKING DARE I! I'M SO PROVOCATIVE!

Give me a fucking break. What utter fucking bullshit.

You call me intellectually weak yet as I recall I've run circles around your own false arrogance in the past. It is you acting like the punk here, and the others acting like children.

Don't like the fact that I speak bluntly and honestly? Too damn bad. You'll get over it.

But to come in here all huffy puffy and personally attacking cause I said I support Nancy and understand her position, is just pretty damn pathetic and childish.

And I can take it just fine pal. I'm more then used to being attacked with these childish empty of premise warped and misguided tantrum throwing personal attacks. They really don't harm me one bit. But they're not going to stop me from speaking the truth either, no matter how much it irritates you.

Nancy is doing a fine job, and I'm proud of her. Yeah, I know, what an absolutely horrible fucking thing for me to say.

Just remember, when you can do nothing more than attack a poster personally just for sake of trying to humiliate them, deride them, harass them or provoke them, then there's nothing more intellectually weak then that, mr prof. So check yourself.

[Wiley50]

217. At Times Like These, it's hard to ignore my own wisdom in deciding to

have the person who you are addressing on "Ignore"

It's been needing to be said for a long time, Prof

And you do so quite eloquently

Thanks!

[Puglover]

254. I second that.

If I could recommend the Prof post for the greatest page I'd do it.

[bettyellen]

445. thank you ...a analytically challanged is being very generous....

being logical doesn't mean stringing together the most negative words.
it's not about quantity, it's about having some sort of point besides, "I'm right, you're wrong" .
and there just never is one. it's amazing how content free these posts are.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

138. lol! I'm as "shocked" as you are Professor! Not....... eom

[MrMickeysMom]

86. Well, I understand one thing-

These pocket book issues are VERY MUCH in line with the business of the people UPON ACKNOWLEDGING it can only be taken seriously when we operate under the law. I don't see that we are a nation of laws lately.

So, in my not so humble opinion, none of the pocket book issues can be effectively addressed, unless the mis-use of the executive has be addressed.

You aint doing a heck of a job, Madam Speaker. And I am doing my job as Jane Q Citizen in pointing this out.

[mzmolly]

291. I understand her position too OMC.

Just given you a little support amongst the crows. :hi:

[jbonkowski]

23. Everyone needs to listen to what she is saying.

The public needs to pressure Congress for impeachment, not the other way around.

Not a lot of people have contacted their congressman calling for impeachment, especially the Republican ones.

Public opinion surveys DON'T COUNT for this sort of thing. It has to be phone calls to Congress and protests in the streets, or its nothing.

If the public stopped just "going about their business" and took an interest in an impeachment, it would happen. This is what Pelosi is trying to tell you.

jim

[wtmusic]

34. Cart leads horse?

I thought she was supposed to be a "leader". My mistake.

[jbonkowski]

74. There are no "leaders" in Congress

Only representatives of the people. As astonishing as it is, not enough people have pressured their Rep and Senators to get them to impeach, especially the Senators.

If Pelosi advocates for impeachment, when the American people have not yet demanded it, it will be no better than when they impeached Clinton. The problem is with the public, not so much with the Congress or Pelosi.

If the people lead, their representatives will follow. This is what was intended when our country was founded.

jim

[wtmusic]

80. If you make the President the only leader in the US

you have severely unweighted the balance of power.

Is it unreasonable to expect our reps to have enough vision, foresight and fortitude to uphold the law?

Did Roosevelt wait for the public to demand a New Deal?

[OzarkDem]

447. And its impossible to make the case

to the public when Congress is not conducting an impeachment investigation.

Public opinion doesn't determine how we enforce the law in any other area of government, why in this case?

[GOTV]

207. That IS a big mistake on your part n/t

[onenote]

255. A good leader picks her battles wisely.

You seem to think a leader is someone who blindly drives her troops into battle notwithstanding the fact that her own troops are not yet up to the task being demanded of them and the forces arrayed on the other side are undivided in their position.

Waiting for the opponent to weaken and for your own troops to be ready and willing to wage the fight is good leadership.

But then again, maybe you think Custer was a great leader.

[wtmusic]

456. 'Kay, while you keep waiting wistfully for the right time

I'm going to call her up, fax her, ask her how much of a mockery Junior has to make of the Consitution before she sees fit to do something about it.

A leader finds support. GETS the troops ready -- not waits for them.

She is nothing but a scared little puppet.

[LittleClarkie]

457. Or perhaps she merely disagrees with you.

Why would disagreeing with you make her a "scared little puppet"?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. HELLO: SHE IS CONGRESS

NANCY PELOSI NEEDS TO BE LISTENING TO US.

[dailykoff]

46. Exactly.

If she wants it, her constituents obviously want it, and the crimes have been committed, she needs to get out of the fucking chow line and get to work.

[onenote]

261. HELLO: SHE'S NOT

In the real world, she's the elected representative of one of 435 Congressional Districts whose vote counts the same as each of the other 434. She can no more state "I'm Congress and I decide" than you can. She also is Speaker of the House, a position to which she was elected by the Democratic Caucus. Her job there is to represent the interests of that caucus, which includes Democrats of varying stripes -- progressives, moderates, conservative. The Democratic majority in Congress would not exist without the progressive caucus. But it also wouldn't exist without the Blue Dogs. So her job is to listen to her caucus and find the areas where consensus can be built to achieve a successful result. In the case of impeachment, at the moment, the consensus position is not "impeach now" and, indeed, any attempt at forcing a vote on impeachment now would certainly fail in the House as all it takes is 16 of the several dozen Blue Dogs to vote no. Virtually no member of that caucus campaigned on the issue of impeachment and even now only a tiny fraction of the caucus has publicly signed on to a resolution for impeaching cheney. She's doing her job the way its supposed to be done.

[mzmolly]

295. BINGO.

:toast: to you for a magnificent post.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. What do you think has been happening?

Good grief, she and Conyers are ignoring phone calls, emails, faxes and protests in the street!!

Nearly one million signatures and they were ignored.


The citizens who hung this banner in the halls of Congress were not only ignored, they were arrested.


And this is in Pelosi's district.


Now do you have any other ideas? Perhaps something that Pelosi and our leadership won't ignore??

[babylonsister]

58. Great post, proud! nt

[GOTV]

210. One million signatures is 0.33% of the population....

.... and everyone at her level is aware of how these "internet petitions" work and are duly unimpressed by them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

275. Wow I guess that is why my republican senator responds to me every time

I sign a petition that goes across his desk or ends up in his email inbox. Just got another response from him today. And I had not written him. I signed an online petition last week.


July 31, 2007

Dear Ms. Proud:
Thank you for writing regarding the impeachment process and your comments regarding the current administration. I appreciate your views.



The authority for impeachment is set out in the Constitution. Article 1, Sections 2 and 3, gives the House and Senate the "sole power of impeachment" and the "sole power to try all impeachments" respectively. Article 2, Section 4 states, "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The House of Representatives must initiate the procedure by drafting articles of impeachment.

I do not support impeachment of President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. In passing House Joint Resolution 114, Congress specifically authorized the president to "use the Armed Forces of the United States" to neutralize any threat from Saddam Hussein. Support for this resolution was based on intelligence information that was available to Congress at that time.

patsig.gif

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov . You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,



Pat Roberts

[GOTV]

280. Did you read that response? He blew you off...

... he is also unimpressed by that online petition.

Is there one example of an online petition affecting the opinion of a politician? There may be one, but I've not seen it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

317. If he really wanted to blow me off, he wouldn't have responded at all

I just proved that they DO read online petitions. They may not respond the way we want them to, but they DO respond.

[GOTV]

327. I never said they don't read them, I said they are unimpressed - and yes, you were blown off...

They know, as do I, as does Pelosi, how easy it is to go to a web site, because you got an email, type in your address and click a button.

You put in very little effort and consequently, you get very little consideration.

You signed an online petition, and like with every other online petition, an intern responds and your representative goes on to vote the way they were going to vote anyway.

Waste of time.

[MrMickeysMom]

97. Yep, that's why I call my so called, representative, and why I call Pelosi at-

202-225-4965

(I should develop a "McGruff" jingle to go with that number) :-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

165. Of course. I'm sure she said that impeachment was off the table

in response to the flood of call from constituents who oppose impeachment.

[GOTV]

208. You are correct, People don't want impeachment in large enough numbers to demand it n/t

[marions ghost]

231. So maybe she's trying to provoke more response?

To poke the jellyfish, so to speak....

So the strategy is to let things get So bad that the bludgeoned & distracted public has to respond? So she can feel compelled to act, instead of making a more pro-active decision to act?

I don't know if it gets that creative in politics but at this point, I'm willing to believe anything...
the response of many of the Dems to the crisis in government is so full of contradictions.

[OzarkDem]

372. Baloney

I'm sick of hearing this excuse from Dem leaders in Congress.

Do your jobs, folks, or resign. Period. Stop blaming your failure to lead on voters.

Especially in light of comments from the "deep throat" of the blogosphere re impeaching Gonzalez, the Dems have everything they need to begin the impeachment process.

No more excuses.

[bluedog]

25. she also said:

As for the low esteem the public seems to have for the Democrat-controlled Congress already?


Pelosi said it's about a lot of things, including the failure to agree on an immigration bill, but mostly about Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.

She believes the American people are saying, "'Just do it. You have the support of the public to end the war. Just do it.' I'm with them."

Pelosi said that the House will "pass judgment on the conduct of this war" every week, and that she'll press her case with the president in a meeting Tuesday night.


The problem, she said, is the Senate, where too many members are intent on "making sure the president is not put on the spot."




http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/pol...

[wtmusic]

45. So she's pinning the blame for the war on the Senate now?

This is unreal. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[bluedog]

57. not really.she knows the republicans will not break

rank and file and will stay the party line....





I read this from an interview with sheehan and Ray McGovern from

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/362820.shtml

DAN GERSTEIN: Can I just respond to that point real quick? Because I think there -- this goes to the heart of my argument, which is that in 1998, as a matter of fact, that the impeachment effort by the Republicans, which did not have the support of the American people and was completely unjustified, helped galvanize and outrage the Democratic base and then the turnout, so that the first time, I believe, in history, that in the sixth year of a two-term president, the president's party picked up seats in a congressional mid-term election.


That just hasn't happened in American history, and most analysts attribute that to the fact that the Republicans went against the will of the American people and went on this witch-hunt against Bill Clinton.

So I think that historical parallel suggests to me that there's a real risk, if Democrats overreach and pursue of a quixotic impeachment process against George Bush, that it will help galvanize the Republican base in a similar way.



*********in my view he may be right.the base is splinted in the R party...but they just might unite....

[bdamomma]

103. why not making the President put on the spot?

because you know that how psychotic * is? Nancy.

She is "with us" I don't think so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. MOST IMPORTANT THREAD OF THE DAY!!

This proves that Nancy is more concerned about her election than this country. In a district where she won with more than 80% of the vote last November, she has nothing to worry about. Yet she refuses to uphold the constitution and serve her country. 'Leadership' like this is not what this country or the Democratic party needs.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. ---EXACTLY---

You nailed it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Oh What A Crock. This Is So Over The Top.

I feel for her, with what she has to put up with from the extremists. I really do.

Rock on Nancy, and hang in there.

[Beelzebud]

84. People that want her to take action are now extremists?

Wow.

No wonder we are in this mess.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

135. Nope.

Just asking for it isn't what I'm considering an extremist. I consider those extremists who have such narrow minds and irrational mindsets that they can see nothing else but impeachment. The can't comprehend all the political realities and circumstances involved with it and can't think outside their little impeachment box. They can't be reasoned with and they can't engage in productive conversation. They take such measures as even attacking harshly a man with the integrity of John Conyers. It is those types who I reference as extremists, since that's exactly what they are. Just calling for, supporting, or desiring impeachment does not make one an extremist.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Extremists?

So you think that anyone that wants Nancy to do what she says she wants to do is an......... extremist?

Get real.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

136. Nope.

Just asking for it isn't what I'm considering an extremist. I consider those extremists who have such narrow minds and irrational mindsets that they can see nothing else but impeachment. The can't comprehend all the political realities and circumstances involved with it and can't think outside their little impeachment box. They can't be reasoned with and they can't engage in productive conversation. They take such measures as even attacking harshly a man with the integrity of John Conyers. It is those types who I reference as extremists, since that's exactly what they are. Just calling for, supporting, or desiring impeachment does not make one an extremist.

[GOTV]

212. When did she say she wanted to impeach Bush? I'd like to see that. Got a link? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

235. Read the OP and follow the link. eom

[GOTV]

242. That's why I'm asking. Neither the OP nor the article claim she said that n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

250. This is from the article at Salon. Last paragraph.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/07/31/pelosi/index.html

But she said that if she weren't the speaker and weren't in Congress, she'd "probably be advocating" Bush's impeachment herself.

[GOTV]

274. But that's different. It's speculation on what she might do if things were different...

She's just speculating what she would "probably" do if she were not where she was.

It's like saying "if I was born into poverty with abusive parents I'd probably sell crack too". It's not saying she WANTS crack to be sold.

She would "probably", but not definitely, advocate for impeachment in other circumstances.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

108. Extremists? Well, I guess the majority of us on DU are extremists. I did a poll

over the weekend asking about Impeachment. Over 90% on DU supported it. Perhaps those who support Nancy are the true extremists?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1467511

[Virginia Dare]

124. Well sure, I think the vast majority of Democrats support impeachment..

but I don't want some half-assed partisan bullshit like what they did to Clinton. I want it to be a rock solid case. I want this bastard convicted. I'm willing to give this Congress time to build a case. Let it build gradually from the bottom up. They aren't just going to hand all the evidence needed over to Congress just to be nice.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

142. The evidence is there and with Impeachment more evidence has to

be turned over without the veil of "executive privilege" hiding it.

The American People don't have a clue how heinous this President has been because MSM has not done is job and in fact has been complicit in not reporting it as well as they should be. Once Impeachment starts, they have no choice but to report. Once the Truth gets out there, do you think the majority of the people would even think of re-electing a Republican Congressman or Senator that still remains in lockstep with Bush?

And to compare what happened with Clinton to the crimes of this President is positively silly and the American people will know that too.

[Virginia Dare]

168. The evidence is "there"...

right there behind the walls of 1600 Pennsyvlania Avenue. Good luck getting to it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

194. Are the Downing Street Memos behind the walls of 1600 PA Ave? No.

Bush spoke openly about using illegal NSA wiretapping. That is not behind the walls of 1600 PA. He told Harriet Miers not to honor a subpoena to appear before Congress. That isn't behind the walls of 1600 PA. And as I understand, a President facing Impeachment Has to turn over documents as Executive Privilege will not apply.

[Virginia Dare]

277. That's a big unknown..

they'd likely have to take it to court on a case by case basis. I guess if somebody could prove to me that moving on impeachment immediately would somehow be the magic bullet to holding this bunch accountable, I'd be all for it. In other words, is there more to be gained than lost, I mean for the country as a whole, not just for those of us who are outraged? I'm not convinced there is, yet.

And I'm just not buying all of the hysterical hyperbole about the destruction of the Constitution absent impeachment. Impeachment is a tool, not a requirement, and assuming the Dems take the White House in 2008, I'd be much happier with criminal charges brought after they leave office, without possibility of immediate pardon. A few years in jail would be sweet. I'd wait for that, gladly.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

297. So with your patience, would you take the responsibility of what Bush can further do to destroy our

country? Do you want that on your conscience by waiting? How many more unchecked Executive Orders and Signing Statements must he sign? How many more people rendered and tortured? How much more Data on American Citizens must be collected. How many more media outlets will he strong arm? How many more innocent dead Iraqis? How many more of our troops dead or maimed for life? How much more of our treasury will be looted? Look how much damage Bush has already done. I have children and I am worried, no more than worried about their future and the path that we're going on makes me lose sleep. He has to be Impeached Now. Once America knows the Truth and this is far greater than a blow job, the Reps and Senators will value their own hides and vote to Impeach and Remove.

[Virginia Dare]

344. Again, if and when I see any evidence that impeachment..

at this particular point int time will change any of that, I will be on board. None of it is on my conscience, I didn't vote for the bastard either time, and I'd love to see him removed. I don't see it happening right now. And I place the blame on the obstructionist Republicans for that, not on the Democrats. What I see are the Democrats attempting to get at the truth, and having obstacles thrown at them at every turn.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

347. And you see absolutely no evidence at all that can make the case for Impeachment? eom

[Virginia Dare]

349. No, that is absolutely not what I said..

I see no good evidence that bringing about articles of impeachment at this particular point in time will in any liklihood bring about a conviction, and I fail to see how that would make Bush, Cheney or both, held accountable for their actions, or stop any of the madness that is going on right now. The Republicans will fight it with everything they've got.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

354. Do you really believe that the Republicans care more about Bush's neck than their

own livelihood? I can't believe that. Once the information comes out, people will be Demanding Impeachment and if their Congressional Reps don't do the right thing, those Congressman and Senators won't have a job.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

374. Right.........Let's Not Look Behind the Curtain until We've Got the Votes

to call the imperial wizard....a fraudulent crook.

Keep telling yourself that.

We need an INVESTIGATION for criminal wrong doing. Period.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. Technically, I Support It As Well.

But just asking for it isn't what I'm considering an extremist. I consider those extremists who have such narrow minds and irrational mindsets that they can see nothing else but impeachment. The can't comprehend all the political realities and circumstances involved with it and can't think outside their little impeachment box. They can't be reasoned with and they can't engage in productive conversation. They take such measures as even attacking harshly a man with the integrity of John Conyers. It is those types who I reference as extremists, since that's exactly what they are. Just calling for, supporting, or desiring impeachment does not make one an extremist.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

160. The criminality of this President and his associates has to be stopped. The longer he is allowed

to continually sign his Executive Orders, Signing Statments and to keep our troops in the Iraqi quagmire, the greater the jeopardy we're in. Impeachment is the only way to stop him and start about the end of this illegal and immoral war. Do you believe in letting bank robbers to go free because it isn't expedient to catch them? Watergate was actually a breath of fresh air and a catharsis for our country and getting the people of this country engaged in civics through Impeachment proceedings might wake this country up and also let those of us who know how really bad it is, that something can be done.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

238. Mulitple Goals

You write: ' I consider those extremists who have such narrow minds and irrational mindsets that they can see nothing else but impeachment."

Oh, give me a break. Anyone who supports impeachment is also open minded enough to want an end to this war.

LOL

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

253. How do you draw THAT conclusion?

You seem to be making yourself the sole arbiter of what is necessary for the country and party, and the sole arbiter of whom is and whom is not upholding the Constitution. That would be a very, very wrong assumption to make.

Believe it or not, a lot of people see things quite differently than you do.

[proud2BlibKansan]

321. And a lot of people see it the same way I do

Country before party. I know it's a difficult concept for some party loyalists.

[LittleClarkie]

377. No, it proves she more concerned with Nancy the Speaker

and what she perceives her duties to be in that capacity than what Nancy the Congresswoman would do if she did not have that extra responsibility.

She seems to see an overall agenda that she thinks would suffer if they centered only on impeachment.

[krispos42]

30. Fuck the appearance

How many Republicans in the '90s were elected by basing their campaign openly on unseating Clinton? How badly did the Republicans lose Congress in 1994, 1996, and 1998?


Oh, yeah, they didn't.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

385. Thank you for this Excellent point! Once hearings start, it won't hurt the Democrats at all but the

Republicans who willfully stay in lockstep with the criminal.

[Beelzebud]

32. This is an example of how the Bush Gang gets away with murder.

[librechik]

37. you see, some vicious people might suggest she was doing it out of presidential ambition

I don't see how she can advocate for it without a serious accusation of conflict--she should probably recuse herself formally.

[Amonester]

55. Then, maybe she should start it and, once the Senate reach 67...

Be honest about not wanting the Presidency and... leave? (re: retire?)

Who's next?

[mikelgb]

53. is she ASKING for it?

well I want her on our side


lets vote her out of office

[wtmusic]

54. Call her

and ask her what it is about impeachment that makes it right for a citizen to support and not a representative.

[phone]

[GOTV]

65. I don't think she said it's "right" for a citizen to support it.... only that she "probably" would..

... as a citizen without her access to info and her responsibilities.

[wtmusic]

75. not buying it

but I'll ask her then what information she possesses and I don't, which enables her to shirk this responbility. Which responsibilities are more important.

I would really like to know.

[GOTV]

92. From what YOU posted, she never said it was "right" to support impeachment...

... only that she probably would.


I can tell you what info she possesses, she knows what the dems who she leads tell her in confidence.

She knows what her constituents tell her.

You don't know any of those things.

[wtmusic]

113. The distance one has to stretch logic to support Pelosi

is widening at an embarrassing rate.

It's a secret why she can't impeach?

She probably would support it, even if it wasn't right? My head is spinning.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. EXACTLY

I agree completely. Can you believe this cr*p?

Give me a break.

[GOTV]

131. If I found money on the street I "probably" would not turn it in to the police...

... not that that would be "right"

See, it's not such a distance to stretch.

If I thought Saddam was a dangerous threat, I "probably" would support the Iraq invasion...

and so on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. I Bet You are the Little Friend Nancy has on her Shoulders?

LOL.

[wtmusic]

145. If you, on the other hand, were a policeman who saw someone

commit a serious crime and didn't arrest them because:

1) You had a secret reason
2) You had other priorities

it would be reasonable for me as a a citizen to demand to know what those reasons/priorities were. These are not petty crimes we're talking about.

Your second argument equates impeachment support with ignorance, which is fine. She should take the responsibility to educate the unknowing public so they don't mistakenly think she's out to save her own skin, which is a reasonable interpretation given her actions.

[GOTV]

152. I agree. Ask her about her reasons...

... she may tell you she may not. You may be satisfied with her response or you may not be.

I'm just pointing out that her statement that she would "probably" support impeachment if she were not where she was is not an admission that it is "right" to support impeachment. She may or may not believe it is right but you can't tell by what she has said.

[wtmusic]

162. And that is equivalent to saying

she might support impeachment even if it weren't right.

?

[GOTV]

185. Yes, she might....

.... in fact, I suspect that many who supported Clinton's impeachment did so even though they felt it wasn't right

[wtmusic]

191. Then she deserves any criticism she gets for it

you either do what is right or you do what is wrong. If she is going to do what is wrong for political expediency then she isn't fit to serve. Period.

[GOTV]

203. Yes, if she ever says anything like that, you should criticize her.... but she hasn't

She said she "probably" would support impeachment if she were not where she is.

There are numerous interpretations of that statement. Some are bad and some are not.

"you either do what is right or you do what is wrong."

Or sometimes you do things that have no moral component whatsoever.

I can see questioning her judgment in her decision against pursuing impeachment at this time but this statement is not, as you want to portray it, an admission that she is knowingly doing something that she thinks is wrong.

[wtmusic]

455. Silly

The responsibility of whether to impeach or not has a huge moral component. Whether to punish a war criminal, who has illegally spied on millions of Americans, who has flaunted the law? Come off it. This is not betting on a card game.

Don't try to wash her irresponsibility away with semantics. No, there are not "numerous" interpretations of her statement -- it's very clear. She would pursue impeachment if she had nothing on the line. Sheer cowardice.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. WHAT Bullsh*t

God, you must work in DC where they buy this linguistic cr*ap.

You write: 'She never said it was 'right' to support impeachment ... only that she probably would. She knows what her constituents tell her. You don't know any of those things"

I'll go further: SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK SHE IS SAYING TO THE IMAGINARY PERSON SHE IS TALKING TO: IS THAT YOU? LOL.

[GOTV]

144. What I posted is true and you didn't even attempt to refute it. The facts stand n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

256. Reality

Refute it? I don't need to.

Nancy is having a conversation with herself. She "probably" supports something "if" she "wasn't" the Speaker of the House. When you and her are in reality, let me know so we can have a real conversation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

170. "They must know more than we do" is exactly the bullshit thinking

that got us into a war in Iraq.

[GOTV]

188. I disagree. "The voters will have my ass if I appear weak on terrorism" is the bullshit thinking..

.... that led to the Iraq war

[rodeodance]

63. I think it comes back to 'too much to do"-priority is legislation"--something

she sincerely believes will help get Dems elected.

No multitasking in other words. And some days I am for it and some days I am not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Politics as usual, as usual, as usual, as usual.....disgustingly, as usual.

"Pelosi has called for Gonzales' resignation but seems wary that too much focus on the attorney general will feed into a public perception that congressional Democrats are too focused on partisan politics. Better to focus on healthcare, energy and other pocketbook issues first, she said, than to go after the abuses of the Bush administration."

Sorta' like making the bed when the house is on fire.

[Phredicles]

443. "Sorta' like making the bed when the house is on fire."

Line of the day - describes the "well-intentioned" Democrats perfectly.

[chill_wind]

444. Bwah! "Sorta' like making the bed when the house is on fire." PERFECT analogy!!

There's your depressing "big picture" for all our Pelosi apologists. Best observation in this whole thread! :-)

We finally have our truth twisting torture boy Al on the ropes, in the corner, ripe for the political KO-- and we're going to let him back loose on the American people without even a badly bloodied nose? Unforgivable!!

[thereismore]

69. It's so comforting to know she understands. NOT! It's infuriating to me. nt

[CGowen]

71. This must be the strategy Olver was talking about

He is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections. He sees ending the war as his primary goal, and he believes the brilliant Nancy Pelosi has a strategy more potent than impeachment. He thinks impeachment is a futile waste of legislative energy, will be harmful of democratic '08 victories, and further tighten the "gridlock" he has complained of for the past few decades.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1281920

[here_is_to_hope]

85. Can we make that happen?

[cascadiance]

87. How about Nancy, that we pursue impeachment IN ORDER to help us with other issues!

Some children need the threat of punishment to be lead to do the right thing. The child we have in as leader of our country is no different! He needs to be TOLD if he doesn't work with us on advancing needed changes in our government he will feel the full wrath of punishment. As it is now we are already looking to punish him now for his past deeds.

[wtmusic]

116. Thank you

The best step towards ending the war is to remove its principal architect from power.

[mmonk]

96. Someone tell her it's not about the war. The war is a by product of

their conduct. It's about the constitution and rule of law. Some have been in Washington too long I guess (no personal attacks please).

[Individualist]

132. I've heard of many pathetic excuses, but this one ranks above "the dog ate my homework".

:crazy:

[mmonk]

199. It's the typical I know better speech but attempts to sympathize.

[bbgrunt]

139. another lame excuse

[mzmolly]

159. She's not the only person with the power to do it. Many people here have tried to explain that.

Pelosi should not be a vocal advocate for impeachment. She is the speaker of the entire house, and she's next in line if we do impeach the cabal.

See this thread for more info: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1466582

[bluedog]

171. they just don't understand,,,,,,,,,,

[mzmolly]

181. It's strange.

I understand pressing for impeachment, but I don't understand a completely reactionary movement lacking a basic understanding of how that happens. I'm no expert, but I do have a general idea.

[LSK]

163. Its not about Pelosi's opinion, ITS ABOUT THE VOTES

You need to convince 218 Democrats and a majority on the Judiciary Committee.

Why is this so hard to understand??

:banghead:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

187. Because For One To Understand, One Must First Be Willing To Think.

And for some here, we just simply aren't seeing such willingness.

[eggman67]

243. It's not hard

Some people just don't want to understand. Sad really.

[Phredicles]

442. If 218 Congressional Democrats cannot be convinced to impeach the most

egregious criminal enterpise in our country's history, then the party truly has become a fraud. They may not be as bad as the Rethugs, but this just means they're slightly less odious.

[whistle]

169. What's the difference, she was elected by her district to represent the voters there

...not to become the speaker of the house. That was her choice, but that should not be an excuse for doing the right thing for the country. Please, I welcome input from anyone in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Pelosi, it appears, is the one playing political games here.

[EFerrari]

175. LIke the country isn't already divided? My head hurts, too.n/t

[wtmusic]

193. This is good

because it illuminates the contradiction between her words and actions. May we continue this process until we arrive at a policy and rhetoric which are consistent with each other.

[EFerrari]

202. I can't figure out who she was talking to from the article.

It would be nice to know the context more fully.

[bluedog]

320. at a breakfast with progressive journalists

If she were not in the House--and not Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi says she "would probably advocate" impeaching President Bush.

But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=218930

[EFerrari]

324. Thank you, bluedog!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

214. I think it illuminates her integrity.

eom

[Mme. Defarge]

204. This takes me back to high school

in the 1960's, when proper girls wouldn't dream of voting for themselves and risk being labled as "conceited."

Pelosi's behavior suggests she's "not ready for prime time."

[mmonk]

219. For those not listening to the Paul Reveres around them,

I suggest you take the time to watch this video of Sibel Edmonds at the ALA. Maybe then you'll understand how far down the hole we are right now.

http://www.blip.tv/file/314908/

[formercia]

220. Gimme a break.

It's too bad. I used to like her.

[Vinca]

222. I don't get it. I just don't get it. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!

[yurbud]

223. which of their bills has Bush signed?

[blues90]

225. I knew Pelosi was a lost cause

Right when they took their positions and had all the grandchildren up there and the announcment of the 6for 06 slogan , it all seemed so lame . Beside she used political objectives taking impeachment off the table before the 06 elections , this is not what the people wanted and she knew it so in my opinion she got her seat playing it safe because her personal goal was to be speaker of the house and nothing more . This is a crime in itself .

[chill_wind]

229. Same Crap. Different day. Raw Story April 2007: "I totally OPPOSE.."

(...)
"I totally oppose the impeachment of the President," she explained to RAW STORY on Tuesday. "We have to use our energies to end this war. I don't think the popular support is there for such a move, I don't think we can get any Republican votes to move forward."

Pelosi added, "In some ways, it's a wonderful advocacy piece for those who want to use it outside, to express rejection of the President's policies, but from the standpoint of the time of the Congress of the United States, the American people are with us in ending the war and that's what they want us to do."

She also cast the decision not to impeach as having national electoral implications for the Democratic Party, suggesting that President Bush "is not worth it."

(...)

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Californians_prepare_to_confront_Pelosi_Democrats_0425.html

Pure electoral politicks. Ahh, but it makes ("in some ways")for a wonderful "advocacy piece" for all us starving, crumb-licking "outsiders".....

[johnaries]

232. What's the problem? This makes perfect sense.

When you're in Congress (or any committee of power) you have to take factors into consideration that you would not normally do otherwise. I have been part of committee's at work where I have seen the same thing happen. She's saying she understands the feelings of the rest of us and if she DIDN'T have to take all those other factors into consideration she would be right there with us calling for impeachment.

However, since she IS the Speaker of the House she DOES have to take EVERYTHING into consideration. Including the possibilities that she mentioned:
1. It could split the country even more so than now.
2. They just don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.
3. They have a lot of positive work they want to get done without being bogged down with Impeachment hearings.

Although I would like to see the b@stards impeached as much as anyone else, I understand and respect her reasons for not going forward with it.

[marions ghost]

332. But when

do some of the many factors that have to be taken into consideration become more compelling than others? When is all positive work of any group compromised by intolerable abuses of leadership?

IF we suspect that this Rethug government has committed serious crimes...and so much evidence points to that...then at what point does NOT doing something about criminal behavior become complicity?

This may seem simplistic to some, but I think it IS a question that the public is asking.

How can we see these questions in terms of political strategies and historical playbooks, while at the same time we slide perilously close to a form of govt that bears no resemblance to democracy?

Should the Democrats continue to "work with" criminals and not expect to be seen as accomplices to their crimes?

I mean, I think most thinking people (I include Congress in that) can smell some VERY bad business is going on....

[DutchLiberal]

237. Here we go again: Democrats backing down out of fear (of the media)

Pelosi has called for Gonzales' resignation but seems wary that too much focus on the attorney general will feed into a public perception that congressional Democrats are too focused on partisan politics.

And then:

Better to focus on healthcare, energy and other pocketbook issues first, she said, than to go after the abuses of the Bush administration.

Uhm, the Bush-administration is for a big part responsible for the problems regarding those issues. And since when is defending the constitution not important enough?

[riona]

268. I'm not sure she's on the right track

The Legislative Branch seems to be losing power by bits and pieces and the Executive Branch is becoming more powerful. If this continues, The Senate and Congress may not get much done unless they agree with *.

[ecstatic]

271. And how would she feel about a do nothing congress/senate

How would she feel about her cries going unheard/unaddressed? Someone should have made sure she followed her statements through to full completion.

[Hippo_Tron]

276. What this comes down to is that she can't herd the cats

And I doubt that anyone else can either. Pelosi would probably like to impeach but there's too many moderates that don't want it. Part of the Speaker's job is to hold the caucus together and that's what she is doing here.

[Solly Mack]

282. ....

snicker

[Generator]

288. I'll wait for Will Pitt

to tell me what to think. It's just easier that way.

[endarkenment]

316. Again with the Pony's? nt.

[Forkboy]

301. She missed her calling as a stand up comedienne.

[The Stranger]

310. Pelosi has been bought off.

[sakabatou]

319. WTF is right

:crazy:

[Gloria]

328. Trying to have her cake and eat it too....She wants to placate us while

not making a big political waves among the dufus population. (How do you spell dufus...dufous? Doufus?)

[LittleClarkie]

336. She has put aside her own personal thoughts, because she sees

the speakership as not being about herself, but what's best for the House, as she sees it anyway.

It's rather like she's put herself aside to do the job as she thinks it should be done. There's a difference between Nancy the Congresswoman and Nancy the leader. Interesting.

[chill_wind]

371. Pelosi campaigned on "Draining the Swamp", did she not?

until, it turns out, she's afraid of what churning up that whole slimy slithery eco-system might cost her and the party. Better to let the snakes escape and go free, and to let the protective sludge continue to accumulate at alarming levels. We'll "drain the swamp" in some other day or political era. Just so it's us Dems in charge of the unattended riches of slime until then. Cleaning up any of the toxic Bush-Cheney cesspool waste we're all choking in "just isn't worth it" in the meantime, if ever. That about right?

But it's worse than that, in my mind. It's one thing to refrain from impeachment advocacy due to all the arguments here of so-called "conflict of interest".

It's another altogether to actively "totally oppose it"--- her own words.

Americans are starving for serious political change. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to drain the swamp. She just wants Dems to hold the owners'deed.

[JVS]

383. aaarrrggggghhhhhhh!

:banghead:

[WindRavenX]

386. This makes...well, no sense.

NT

[mmonk]

388. Which of those agendas are you gong to pass, madame speaker?

Have you got a veto proof, filibuster proof majority?

[Vidar]

389. You can't have it both ways, Nance.

[Usrename]

390. Sure, she's not suffering at all from the Bush dogma.

If she were one of the folks affected by this junta she'd want change.

:banghead:

[chill_wind]

391. Poll: Americans *Evenly Divided* On Impeachment Of Bush -45% (TPM)

And for the record, let it be known to Nancy Pelosi and caucus that this poll has Independents solidly with us. Let's stop marginalizing this for once and for all as just some kind of mere self-defeating LW "fringe politics movement."

July 2007.......

Poll: Americans Evenly Divided On Impeachment Of Bush, Majority For Targeting Cheney
By Eric Kleefeld

Does the conventional wisdom that impeachment would be politically radioactive still hold true in the post-Libby commutation political world? A new poll from American Research Group shows a startling result: The people are evenly divided on impeachment proceedings against the president, and a majority favor the House beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney.

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 54% 40% 6%
Voters 50% 44% 6%


Among independents, 50% favor starting impeachment proceedings against President Bush, to only 30% opposed. And 51% of independents are also for starting impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, to 29% opposed.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/06/poll_americans_evenly_divided_on_impeachment_of_bush_majority_for_targeting_cheney

All that said, I like even better one of the questions posed at the link's comment section:

What were the "public poll" numbers anyway favoring impeachment in the time prior to Nixon's ouster?

Why does Speaker Pelosi want to make impeachment and Iraq such mutually exclusive priorities? Can Pelosi and we as a party walk and chew gum at once-- or not?

[EndElectoral]

392. Nancy..wake up, the countries always been divided...this is a lame ass answer

[tekisui]

393. Politics shouldn't enter into Impeachment discussions

For or Against it. Not impeaching because it would hurt their agenda is WORSE than Impeaching for a political reason. By no impeaching they are compliant. You and I cannot impeach. Pelosi, COnyers and Congress must. If they won't, they should be removed from office as well.

[Canuckistanian]

395. Well then, Nancy, step down and join us.

That would be a win-win solution.

[mondo joe]

398. And who do you think as Speaker would be pro-impeachment?

Hm?

[Canuckistanian]

401. Yikes! I forgot about Steny Hoyer

I take that back.

[Megahurtz]

403. She's Been Bought Off By The A.I.P.A.C.

just like the rest of them. I knew she would never do it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1407265#1415455

[robinlynne]

407. ahh It's the old "let's not divide the country." Didn't they say use that one for

Gore vs Bush, then again for Ohio2004?

[jimshoes]

409. Any more I look on the b* admin as the

enemy of the constitution. I don't know if that's the right attitude but their actions brought me to this point. They certainly do not speak for me or my well being, rather they seem to be helping themselves to our treasury as their very own piggy bank. I don't know how exactly to best remove these parasites but letting them just continue to loot the treasury and destroy our armed forces seems counterproductive at the very least and unforgivable, even criminally negligent at worst. We won't beat them by not beating them. If you want to show accomplishments, send some of them packing.

[MisterP]

424. "whatever it takes to keep me powerless and ineffective"

[viat0r]

427. WTF is this nonsense!

This is why she needs to be REPLACED she cant make tough decisions just wants to skirt (no pun intended) things

[mondo joe]

436. Replaced? By whom?

Who in congress do you think can be elected Speaker and is willing to lead an impeachment process?

[mmonk]

429. I would too Madame Speaker. So why not in congress?

[BigBearJohn]

431. OH MY GOD. THIS SHOULD BE SHOUTED TO THE ROOFTOPS

Pelosi Says: If She Wasn't The Speaker
& Weren't In Congress-She'd Be Advocating Impeachment



WE NEED TO SEND THIS TO KEITH O.
IMAGINE A SPECIAL COMMENT RESERVED
**JUST** FOR THIS REVELATION.

[B Calm]

441. Divide the country..huh.. How much more divided could we be, than right now?

[nadinbrzezinski]

446. Divide the country MY ASS

Look Madamne speaker, it seems you are starting to realize your stance is on the wrong side of history...

Perhaps you will come to the light sooner rather than later

[Seabiscuit]

448. So, Nancy, when are you going to step down?

If you can't follow your conscience as a representative of the people in the House and as Speaker, then it's time to leave office. NOW.

[LittleClarkie]

449. She appears to consider the duties of a Congresswoman to

be different from those of the Speaker. One can not always follow what one wants, but what one thinks best for the unit as a whole.

[BringEmOn]

450. Why is it that when we have a Majority Leader from a red state

(Daschle, Reid) they bend over backwards to kiss right wing ass...and now we have a Speaker of the House from the most liberal district, and she bends over backwards to kiss right wing ass? Has there ever been a Republican leader who kissed the left's ass?

That's what I thought.

[autorank]

451. That's the signal. What more do we need. They're going to do it.

That's a strange and unnecessary statement UNLESS it has a purpose.

It's her signal, go for it.

[marions ghost]

464. ??? OK......well

you are most likely better at reading code from the Hill than I am. But how does this differ from all the other cases of, "woulda, shoulda"...and the periodic, cryptic hostage-like responses from our Dem reps on these most sensitive matters, followed by "movin on"....? How's it different? :) See I want to believe that, but I'm demoralized & cynical at this point.

[Imagevision]

452. They all seemed to talk so much before the November elections, but, maybe it's just me..

all talk very little action.

[orleans]

458. cough. n/t

[rateyes]

462. Unfrickingbelievable! I she wasn't in Congress, she'd

be asking Congress to impeach, but because she's in Congress she's not for impeachment.

What a leader!