Hey Nancy -- What about those kids?

[JMDEM]

Nancy: I remember you giving your first speech as Speaker of the House, and how you surrounded yourself with children, saying your actions would be for them. I was so full of hope that you would finally make a difference in our country after 6 long years of despotic Republican rule.

But you REFUSED to consider impeachment proceedings against Bush. And no matter what Bush has done, you continue to refuse impeachment proceedings.

And now, because of that, 9 million of those children are screwed.

So who is really to blame, Nancy? The sociopath whose actions are always predictable, and who could be predicted to continue to lie, cheat and steal, even (or rather especially) from the most defenseless of us? Or the people who fail to take action to protect the children from such a sociopath?

The guilt of this travesty is as much on your shoulders as it is on Bush's.

To the rest of the Democrats -- it is about time you realized that this damage cannot be contained until impeachment proceedings begin against the President. Stop playing political games with the lives of our troops and our children.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Yuppers, everything is Nancy Pelosi's fault.

Let's not blame poor Bush for his veto. Let's blame Nancy.

While we're at it, why don't we blame the Democrats for everything BushCo has ever done? I think that's fair - doesn't everyone?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. He needs to be held accountable, Nance

And some of us think that is the Democrat's responsibility. Silly us, but we believe that constitution is kind of important.

[NanceGreggs]

6. I have no problem with blaming the Dems ...

... for the things they are guilty of - and that's becoming an ever-growing list.

But I DO have a major problem with what I'm hearing and reading lately; i.e. that EVERYTHING Bush and the Republicans have done over the last six-plus years are NOW the fault of the Democrats.

I want impeachment, too - I think it would be hard to find too many people here who don't. But to use that as an excuse to say that the Dems are responsible for everything that happens, or has happened in the past, is, IMHO, disingenuous at best.

If Pelosi had kick-started impeachment proceedings on day one, we would still be in the midst of the process right now. Bush would still be president. He would still have vetoed this bill.

And no one seems to even want to CONSIDER the possibility that if impeachment proceedings were initiated, Bush & Co wouldn't come out of it completely exonerated of any wrongdoing - and where would we be now? We'd be discussing how Bush just vetoed the SCHIP bill, that's where.

I naively believed that we - especially we here at DU - would NEVER FORGET who lied us into Iraq, who dismantled the Constitution, who sanctioned torture, who funneled billions of tax dollars into the hands of war-profiteers, who sent our troops into combat without sufficient equipment - this list is endless.

But it seems too many of us HAVE forgotten. And that's a damned shame.

I have posted similarly on threads for the past few days - which invariably gets me accused of 'making excuses' for the Dems in office. I am doing no such thing. I simply believe that people like Pelosi and Reid should be blamed for what they have done, or have failed to do - and not for what the Republicans have done prior to them ever getting where they are now, or prior to the country being where it is now as a result of the BushCo administration and its policies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I believe impeachment would derail them

So I don't think we can be sure we would be dealing with his vetoes right now had Pelosi not blocked impeachment.

[NanceGreggs]

23. Or it might embolden them, and recapture their lost support.

We don't know for sure, one way or the other.

And that's my point. Blaming Pelosi on this issue requires a thousand different assumptions, and requires assuming that each single variable would have worked out in a certain way.

I prefer to deal in the realities as they are. And the reality is that BUSH vetoed this bill. What happens to America's children as a result is on HIS head, not Pelosi's.

[onenote]

24. Pelosi didn't block impeachment. She counted votes

As did Conyers and the rest of the leadership. You need to get a majority in the House just to start the impeachment process -- passing a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. That has to happen before you have hearings that lay out the case against chimpy. And without a single repub vote, its obvious and correct to the leadership that if they called for a vote on such a resolution they'd lose. THere are easily more than 16 Democratic house members who aren't going to support a purely partisan vote on starting impeachment, not in light of the historical precedent (i.e. bipartisan support for starting both the nixon and clinton impeachment processes).

So, yes, Nancy Pelosi has chosen not to put the commencement of an impeachment inquiry to a vote. But that's because, as leader, her job is know where the votes are. PUtting it to a vote that fails doesn't do a damn thing.

PS - Eight Democrats didn't vote for SCHIP. Whether they will change their position on the override is anyone's guess. But if you think that there suddenly are going to be enough votes to start an impeachment inquiry because the SCHIP doesn't get overriden, you are seriously avoiding reality.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. She took it off the table before she even counted any votes

She didn't look at any evidence. And she has refused to meet with her constituents to discuss impeachment. Nancy is avoiding the reality of a president who needs to be held accountable and the reality of citizens who are asking for representation.

She is a disaster as Speaker. An absolute disaster.

[onenote]

27. she took it off the table (as did Howard Dean) during the campaign

a campaign in which virtually no Democrat ran on a pro-impeachment platform and of the few that did, almost all lost. I think that's pretty much knowing where the votes are.

[Senator]

30. Which pro-impeachment candidates lost?

Ellsworth won, then suddenly caught impeachophobia when he got to DC.

---

[onenote]

31. here's a list of "pro impeachment" candidates -- no winners amongst them

http://www.impeachbush.tv/links/candidates.html

Other than Ellsworth, can you point to any other candidate that advocated impeachment during his/her campaign and ended up getting elected?

[Senator]

32. None of them had winnable races -- impeachment or not

Ellsworth was the only one in a real race.

Most of that old list were primary candidates stopped by the Dem party.

--

[onenote]

39. if impeachment is a winning strategy why wasn't it a winning issue?

Still looking for anyone other than Ellsworth who won who tried to distinguish themselves from their opponent by talking about impeachment.

[Senator]

41. We just saw that it was

As far as can be determined from the single race it was operable in.

What you need to look for is a race where the impeachment candidate was competitive, but lost. Then you might be able to describe it as a losing issue.

--

[onenote]

42. a lot of Democrats were elected narrowly. none promoted impeachment

If it would've helped them, why didn't they make it an issue?

Maybe because it wouldn't have helped them?

[Senator]

43. And a lot lost narrowly too

Maybe they would have won by promoting impeachment.

It worked in the only relevant case we have.

---

[JMDEM]

3. I think I made it very clear

that the Democrats are CURRENTLY equally responsible as long as they continue to bow down to the Boy King's wishes. Which they do. Over and over and over. Despite being in the majority.

And it is also abundantly clear to me that their primary goal is to continue to use the current situation to try to blame Bush for everything, yet not stopping him, in order to win as much as they can in 2008. Now I certainly don't have a problem with Democrats sweeping everything in 2008, except...

Except that people are dying right now because of this strategy. And that is just plain wrong.

Except that the strategy may very well backfire, as evidenced by the 11% approval rating Congress currently has.

Except that history has shown that the American voters respond very well to strength, and very poorly to weakness. And the Democrats are acting weak.

[spanone]

4. Democrats begin push to override veto of kids health insurance bill

~snip~ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats vowed Wednesday to pressure Republican lawmakers to join them in an effort to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would expand a popular children's health insurance program.

The bill, which would have spent $35 billion over five years, would have doubled the number of children eligible for the State Children's Health Program, its supporters said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would try to get the 15 additional Republican votes she said she needed to overturn Bush's veto, noting that "2-to-1 Republican voters support SCHIP and oppose the president's veto."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

[JMDEM]

5. If the override occurs, I will cheer from the rooftops

If it fails, the Democrats had better scream like hell from now until November 2008. And start impeachment hearings.

[Telly Savalas]

8. If they don't have the votes to override the veto, how do they have the votes to oust Bush?

[JMDEM]

10. You know, you are right

Being in the majority, but not a 2/3 majority, we should simply give up. Thank you for showing me the light.

[onenote]

22. thank you for your lack of a thoughtful response

[lonestarnot]

9. You aren't going to wait and see re the override? Just gona jump right out there?

Well OK then.

[JMDEM]

11. You are 100% right.

Deleted former comment. Okay, here's the new one:

So -- you are an 11 percenter I see.

[lonestarnot]

13. Adios then amigo.

Y con quidado con la puerta.

[JMDEM]

15. No, I'm gonna hang around and fight back

I'm sick of getting slammed. So I'll just slam back. Again -- why are you so arrogant, being in the 11% who supports Congress? That's a mighty small group.

[lonestarnot]

16. No. I believe you are jumping the gun on the kids' insurance. And good luck with that

condemnation here. :popcorn:

[JMDEM]

18. And pray tell -- what has Bush NOT received that he's wanted in the last 11 months?

How in the hell is this one going to be any different?

You know, I hope you are right about me jumping the gun. We'll see.

[lonestarnot]

21. Pugs are crapping themselves. That I can already see.

and shit stains don't look good on old white men.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I had gas tonight

I blame that on her, too. I mean, why not? Everyone blames her for everything.

[JMDEM]

14. So you don't think impeachment proceedings are called for, I assume

Why not?

Odd -- your clown seems to think otherwise.

[lonestarnot]

17. You need to get a clue duddie.

[JMDEM]

19. I'd say you do too

Your message seems to be two-sided. At least mine is on point.

[lonestarnot]

20. You haven't been around long enough to be calling posters out about unknowns.

You apparently don't know who supports impeachment here and who doesn't. You barked up the wrong tree here hounddog. And on edit: Assumptions can clog your tubes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. What kind of tubes are you talking about?

Tubes like in ears or tubes like in the internets? :)

[orleans]

28. k&r. i think impeachment hearings would open a lot of shit up for the

general public. people would definitely get on board. start with darth. then go to the fuckhead.

pelosi's behavior is like someone refusing to take the keys away from someone who has had WAY too much to drink. or when a bartender keeps serving a drunk. when the drunk kills someone on the road others can be sued as well as the drunk.

and in situations like those, who is really responsible? my guess is they both are.

i kicked and recommended this thread.

the passive behavior we got going on is fucking killing people!

i don't blame pelosi for my headache.
i blame bush.
i blame pelosi (& gang) for the stress i suffer because they won't make my headache go away.

[onenote]

40. you could be right. But how do you get to that point?

It takes a vote of the full House to start those hearings. And unless there is some bipartisan support for starting the hearings, it simply isn't going to happen. There are too many Democrats from swing districts who won't break with historical precedent to back a purely partisan impeachment inquiry vote. Don't shoot the messenger. Just pointing out the reality of the situation.

[cali]

29. What a ridiculous leap.

There's lots to jump on Pelosi about. This isn't one of the things. It's highly unlikely that impeachment would have impacted this veto one iota. Say she's introduced impeachment 5 months ago. It would have been voted against by now, and nothing would have changed, except bush would be more intransient then ever.

[JMDEM]

33. Except that they would know we mean business

We need to treat them the same way they treated us in the '90's. They were a hugely successful minority party, and achieved ALL of their goals by always attacking, always being aggressive. We apparently didn't learn anything from that.

Again, I challenge you all to point out ONE THING that Bush HASN'T gotten in the last 10 months that he's really wanted, EVEN THOUGH we were in the majority. Why? Because he knows he can push us around.

Push back hard on a bully, just once, and he'll back down.

[cali]

38. repukes weren't a majority from 1994 on. Clinton

had a bare two year majority. And they weren't as successful as you're making out.

Bush has veto power, but it's instructive to note that he's not proposing things he knows he can't achieve such as social securitiy reform.

[Zandor]

34. So Cheney Would Have Signed It?

No? Oh...

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Pay attention

The current plan is to impeach Cheney first.

[Zandor]

36. And then Bush will be tried and hung?

And Sheehan sworn in?

Just trying to keep up.

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. As if you really were interested

:eyes: