Yes, I think Pelosi is being "blackmailed"

[cali]

or maybe held hostage is a better phrase. But I don't think the responsible party is bushco; I think it's the blue dogs in her own caucus. My theory is that a bunch of them have told her that if she pursues impeachment, contempt and other issues, they'll bolt from organizing with the dems. If I'm right, her lack of political courage and political strength and her fear of being booted as Majority Leader, are contemptible.

[ThomWV]

1. Let them bolt - fug 'em - and let them lose their seats in 2008

[cali]

3. she has zilch political or personal courage.

And she doesn't want to lose her leadership position.

[onenote]

61. and let the repubs regain control of Congress.

Not my idea of a great strategy. I wish the Democrats were more aggressively and publicly investigating, but I think pursuing a strategy that could cost the Democrats control of the House (and that would hand chimpy an immediate victory if, as is virtually certain, an impeachment vote will fail in the House).

I doubt that the blue dogs would bolt if a more aggressive investigatory strategy was being followed. But I think that Democrats across the spectrum in Congress, not just blue dogs, are reluctant to make impeachment a priority given the amount of legislation that they haven't finished, including approps bills. While you and I may realize that the barriers to getting those bills finished have been erected by the repubs in Congress and the administration, that message isn't getting out and likely would be obscured even more if the Democrats started focusing on impeachment while those bills remained unpassed.

[ThomWV]

76. If they vote with the Republicans now what difference would it make?

What good is it to have Democrats who vote as if they were Republicans? When I say boot them out I expet them to be replaced with real Democrats, not the scum what would abet treason.

[onenote]

83. blue dogs aren't going to be replaced with "real Democrats"

They will be replaced with repubs. The districts they are from are moderate to conservative, often districts that supported chimpy in 2000 and 2004. THey are not suddenly going to find a hidden majority of progressives.

[nebenaube]

103. I would not put much weight into..

the data from 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2006. Remember, we are under "full spectrum dominance" and reality is only what you perceive it to be.

[onenote]

104. reality is what reality is, not some unsubstantiated "perception"

Hate to break it to you, but there actually are places in the country that are more conservative than others and where a "real Democrat" as some here would define one has no chance of winning election.

Reality bites.

[nebenaube]

105. Well,

If you collected those numbers yourself; then perhaps you are correct. Somehow I doubt it.

[onenote]

106. you want numbers..here's numbers

Take Heath Shuler, freshman Democrat, 11th District, North Carolina.

Elected in 2006 by a 54-46 margin. But dig into those numbers a bit more.

For the previous 16 years, the district was represented by a repub. Before that the seat swapped back and forth between a repub and a conservative dem several times, with the elections decided by a narrow margin.

In 2004, the district went for chimpy over kerry by around 10 points
In 2004, a pro-choice Democrat lost to the repub in the 11th Dist by around 10 points

Shuler, who is "pro-life", anti-gun control and a pretty conservative Democrat, turned that around and won by nearly 10 points.

What does this tell us: Well, for starters, it tells us that anyone who thinks that a clone of Dennis Kucinich or Maxine Waters or even Nancy Pelosi (even though many here no longer regard her as a 'real' Democrat) could toss their hat in the ring for the 11th District seat and win is living in a fantasy world.

Similar situations exist in many of the blue dog districts.

[tavalon]

97. There is no great strategy

That's the problem. No matter what angle we take, it is us, the Democratic voters, who are fucked. If we stand behind our so called Democratic leaders, no matter what, they have no incentive to move toward a more progressive point of view. If we abandon our so called Democratic leaders, we get Rethugs instead of the more progressive leaders we want. They have us stalemated and the "they" I'm talking about are our own leaders. We are being screwed over by the very people who are supposed to be our representatives.

I'm terribly frustrated by this.

And I can't come up with option number three.

[greeneyedboy]

107. the organizing has to take place w/ local races - build resumes so real progressives move up

by the time you get to national office, the only viable candidates are people who have won local offices. if all viable candidates (viable = proven success at the ballot, has experience holding office, etc.) is a center-right (or worse) panderer, that's what we'll get at the national level. if we

start with your school boards, city council, mayor, state legislators. if all of those people are progressive, you will see progressive candidates for statewide & national office, and nobody can say they're cuckoo crackpots who don't know how to govern.

of course, real governance in a democracy sometimes means COMPROMISE, and i know some progressives who don't understand the concept.

[gateley]

101. Very good and pragmatic observation. In our anger and sense of betrayal we

forget there's more to it than 'off with his head!'. We need to remember to view the situation as it really is, and the possible repercussions an act might bring about.

[Clintonista2]

89. They would run as repugs in 2008

[lonestarnot]

2. fuck her.

[Echo In Light]

5. Them and her...although I disagree with the Cali's postulation

Remember, America has one corporate party with two right-wings, and neither is going to upset the apple cart. They work hand in hand while offering the public {via media} 'differences' which are to a substantial extent illusory.

[Perry Logan]

4. You are not fit to lick Nancy Pelosi's boots.

[cali]

6. bwahahaha!

I'm not into that. Have at it, Perry! Lick her sweet little boot leather to your heart's content. Oh, and thanks for the cogent analysis you've added to the thread.

She's been a weak leader. And holding up the contempt vote is nothing but obstruction.

[Perry Logan]

43. The Democrats showed the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

Evidence suggesting the thread is not so cogent:

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.
Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.
Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in
6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this
pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous
record number of cloture votes.”
It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under
his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record
“for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”

[warren pease]

81. Well, they sure united around HR-1955...

404 - 6 with 22 not voting. Of the 404, 219 are democrats and 185 are republicans. Alleged democrat Jane Harman sponsored the bill. Of the 14 co-sponsors, 10 are democrats.

But besides that, exactly what have they accomplished? I know they spent half a day recently moving and seconding and bloviating about making February 31st National Mayonnaise Day -- or something equally ridiculous. And they spend great amounts of time voting to name post offices for unknown people. And they even got a minimum wage bill passed, although the dollar figure is an embarrassment and doesn't come close to a living wage.

But what have they done? What can you point to that makes your life -- or the majority of American's lives -- better? How have they derailed the worst of BushCo's lawless outrages? What have they done to end the Iraq occupation or prevent a repeat in Iran? What have they done about getting rid of Cheney, then Bush, then a few dozen co-conspirators? I mean besides voting H Res. 333 back into the same committee where it's languished per Pelosi's orders since early spring.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, I really don't know what they've done to show a clear separation from the BushCo way of things. Have they overturned any signing statements, executive orders or presidential directives? Since Bush governs almost exclusively by fiat these days, what have they done to rein him in and make him obey the law?

Unity's nice, but results are nicer. Give me a couple of bones here. Even I'm getting sick of bashing these sad jokes. I'd love to hear they had actually done something useful, progressive, anti-BushCo, pro-constituent... even pro-Constitution.


wp

[Pab Sungenis]

98. 14%?

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

14% is 14% too much. Especially since those 14% were where it really mattered: the war and holding him accountable.

[tavalon]

99. Wow, how very noncontributive to the topic

[EV_Ares]

7. Well, she is either being blackmailed or held hostage, or just doesn't

give a dam and is ignoring the peoples' wishes for steps that they want this democratic leadership to take. Iam really curious about her district and voters considering the way she has handled her position. It is totally bewildering how she has acted. Regardless from what we have seen out of her so far, we need a new leader. She is not getting the job done.

[Echo In Light]

11. It's only "bewildering" for those who believe the fairytales of our system

It's not her place to, as you intend it, "get the job done." - not within the context you allude to.

[EV_Ares]

18. Not her place to get the job done? What context do you think

I was alluding to? She is the leader of the house, what is her job if it is not her place to "lead", to set the agenda. Was it her job to take impeachment off of the table? If so, with all we know now, why can't she put it back on the table or is that not her job.

I would be interested exactly what you think her job is as leader of the house.

[Joe Fields]

72. It is exactly her job. I don't understand how anyoner can say otherwise.

She is the Speaker of the House. She sets the agenda for business conducted in the House. She took an oath of office, and by not pursuing impeachment she has betrayed that oath, which not just makes her a weak leader, but a coward and a traitor, and those are NOT too strong of words to use, in regards to her.

[EV_Ares]

85. Exactly, she misled the voters as bad as Bush misleads everyone but that

is a given for him because most don't expect that much out of him but there was a higher bar and expectation for Pelosi and we get nothing.

[mac2]

8. If this is true

why doesn't she just leave?

[cali]

13. because she doesn't want to lose her leadership position?

because she's afraid it will cost dems seats next year? It could be a combination of things.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. That makes more sense than the typical Pelosi rant here

[Ytzak]

10. It doesn't matter.

She is not doing her job. She needs to go.

[mmonk]

12. I think it's something even more powerful than them.

Most of them are freshmen. It is operatives in our party with some sort of agenda IMO. They most likely will stay hidden from us.

[cali]

14. No, most of the blue dogs are NOT freshman.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[mmonk]

23. Many are recent additions. Those that lead them aren't.

Either way, a minority shouldn't hold sway. I tend to think there is a movement that thinks if we don't become right of center, we can't win presidential elections and are willing to shelve the constitution to that ends. I could be wrong. But I think it's related to the DLC. I would like the DLC'ers here to answer me and give me their perspectives. I'm willing to take my lumps if they can definitively show me that isn't the case (in fact, I'd like them to allay my fears).

[Echo In Light]

17. Thus the term "shadow government." Elites beholden to multinationals and private banks/Fed Reserve

[flyarm]

90. I BELIEVE YOU NAILED IT!! ..we are seeing it across the board in Fla , Michigan , Ohio..

the DCCC and DLC and their anti progressive stance.

I got two calls last night asking for money from the DCCC and the Senate..i told them to stick it where the sun does not shine..

I told them not another damn dime as long as Rahmn is running the DCCC/Dlc and as long as Feinstein & Rockafeller and dems threaten to give immunity to the telecoms..and as long as subpoena's are outstanding and nothing is done to hold these bastards accountable...

i gave the callers an earful!

and i was pissed..one called right after the other..

and i was ready for them!

fly

[mmonk]

91. Yes, both are off my list and also the DSCC.

I give to the PDA and individual candidates. That is all I can do morally.

[Pab Sungenis]

100. I got Howard Dean's latest fundraising E-Mail, "Hope not fear," and replied:

Howard,

"Hope not fear?"

I've been a supporter of yours since 2003, but now I feel the need to say "shut up."

"Hope?" I have no hope. I'm in foreclosure. I have the IRS breathing down my neck. I have no income. I have a quarter-million dollars in hospital bills I can't pay, and I can't work because of a medical condition I can't afford to have fixed.

Yet the Democrats in the Congress sit on their hands and do nothing to help people like me. No health care proposals. No tax relief. No end to this war that's destroying our economy.

The Democratic Party is not giving me any reason to hope. All I have left is fear.

[Flatline]

15. And to think my parents told me growing up

You need to grow up and act like an adult, then when I get older I notice the ones who run our government are not even out of diapers yet? WTF good thing I did grow up so I can watch these children whine, cry, and kick all the time......must be boring being RICH huh?

[H2O Man]

16. Fear.

I think that all of human life is best viewed through the lens of the world of boxing. Many years ago, I remember being in a locker room in Troy, NY, during the NYS eastern division Golden Gloves. Cus D'Amato was there. For those who don't know who Cus was, he was a strange man who was widely recognized as brilliant in his understanding of psychology. I remember that when a reporter asked him why he was staying in the locker room, rather than watching the fights at ringside, Cus said he could tell everything he needed to know about a fighter by how they acted in the locker room.

Cus said that the hero and the coward both experience the same fear before a fight. The hero uses it as the fuel to ride to victory. The coward is paralyzed by fear.

In the case of Nancy Pelosi, I think it is evident from looking at her behavior in the locker room that she is not a hero. She is hostage to her own fear.

[Echo In Light]

19. Good theory, but I'd cite cooperation and INSTITUTIONAL COMPLICITY first & foremost

Such people, once placed into positions of power, serve the system, not the wants of We The People. They are tailored for such positions, and once "elected," don't make decisions based on emotions, but ideological drives and hard, bottom line facts ...to preserve the prevailing institutional trends, while selling the populace a phony movie script justification so that we'll accept what they want.

[H2O Man]

30. Yeah.

I think that's part of the same deal. There are people like the fellow who acted in the "Rocky" movies, who wish they dared to box, and hope that scripted scenes will fool the general public.

[EV_Ares]

21. Good analysis but I would be curious of what her fear could be. I mean she would

have the backing of the American people, her party, constituents of her district to do the things we were all hoping might get done after the election. We all realize you are not going to win every battle but you will always try to win every battle. Nobody would think of her as a failure for at least trying to get something done. Taking impeachment off the table was idiotic in itself let alone all of her other do nothings.

[H2O Man]

33. Good question.

I recognize that's an important question. I'm glad that people are asking it. We do well to consider both the locker room question and the ring side question.

[Joe Fields]

74. It would be hard to understand what her fear would be, considering

the empowerment she garnered by the sweeping election victories of 2006.

[H2O Man]

96. Good question.

I think that people can speculate, and that there are some interesting theories.

It's interesting to think about about the concept of power, as well. The word comes from the Latin "posse," meaning "to be able." I would say, based only on the admittedly limited information I have, that she does not believe that she is able to honor her oath of office.

[troubleinwinter]

102. The lobbyist in DC for her $35 million winery is bush's brother-in-law.

Koch. Married to 'Doro'.

[Bitwit1234]

20. One thing...if they do bolt

this will really sink their re-election bid. After all most of the states they won in wanted democrats and not republicans. If they decide to do so and express the fact that they are republicans don't you think that would surely and finally sink their prospects.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. the more likely explanation is that she can

count

[Benhurst]

24. It wasn't until after the Watergate hearings were held that support

grew sufficiently to insure Nixon's impeachment and brought about his resignation.

And Nixon was a choirboy compared to the arch-traitors Bush and Cheney.

Speaker Pelosi is shirking her constitutional responsibilities and endangering the Republic by her cowardly behavior. Of course the votes aren't there now -- she hasn't done her job.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. She's doing a fine job

I don't get your point about Nixon.

The Speaker of the House had nothing to do with the Watergate investigations.

[Benhurst]

26. The Speaker had nothing to do with the Watergate Hearings?

Get real.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. How do I get more real?

The Watergate hearings were conducted in the Senate.

[Benhurst]

29. The Speaker of the House had nothing to do with the Watergate hearings?

Get real. No such action is ever taken without the approval of the Speaker of the House. And it was the Watergate hearings which turned the public and subsequently even the Congressional Republicans against Nixon.

Nixon was a choirboy compared to Bush and Cheney. Pelosi isn't doing her job and should be removed if she doesn't start exercising her Constitutional responsibilities.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. I'm sorry to have to point out your utter ignorance

but the SENATE Watergate hearings were conducted in the... um... Senate.

[Flarney]

36. Were the Senate Watergate hearings held before or after impeachment in the House?

Did the hearings lead to a formal impeachment vote in the House or were they the result of impeachment?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Wow

I thought this was common knowledge.

The Senate investigated first. There never was a "formal impeachment" in the House.

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. The ONLY utter ignorance being shown is your own

Articles of Impeachment *begin* in the House, as do the investigations, and only moves to the Senate for the *hearing* or *trial* to decide whether to convict or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, do you wish to maintain your erroneous train of thought?

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Ummm.....

the question was about the Watergate hearings.

They were conducted in the Senate.

Your train just derailed.

[Benhurst]

44. Bullshit. The first hearings were held by the HOUSE Banking and

Currency Committee; but many members felt since there was no legislative intent (the House had just done away with the infamous UnAmerican Activities Committee)the hearings should be held by the Judiciary Committee. The Senate Hearings took place because Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino was reluctant to start impeachment proceedings, so the Senate Judiciary Committee which was chaired with a man with a backbone got the ball rolling. The Senate Hearings had nothing to do directly with impeachment, but exposed the criminality of Nixon and his thugs and led to laws being passed.

Succumbing to public and growing Congressional pressure, Rodino finally started the House Impeachment Hearings which led to Nixon's resignation. Impeachment still seemed like a long-shot at the time, but as more and more came out, the public demanded he be removed, and Republican members of the committee joined in sending approving a bill of impeachment to be sent to the floor of the house. Nixon, being told that the bill would pass and informed by Barry Goldwater and others that his conviction was assured, resigned in disgrace.

I happened to be working for the House at that time and was involved with the first hearings. It is you who does not know what you are talking about-- big time.

Pelosi needs to grow a backbone. No Senate Watergate-type hearings are necessary because the crimes of this administration are already known. She needs to stop pandering and get on with impeachment hearings.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. those weren't the Watergate hearings

we're discussing.

You're awfully arrogant for somebody who can't follow a simple subthread.

[Joe Fields]

73. Thank you. I was about to point that very thing out.

[AntiFascist]

93. This is interesting, could Biden be threatening to do the same, starting in the Senate? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. No, I'm still on track

The Senate Watergate Hearings were held to establish criminality within the re-election campaign of Nixon concerning the Watergate break-in. It had NOTHING to do with impeachment. Period.

When it was established that Nixon knew about, and was in on, the break-in, he was told that if he didn't resign that the votes were there to impeach and remove him. Impeachment *hearings* were NEVER conducted. Period.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 9, 1974
The House Judiciary Committee begins impeachment hearings.

July 24, 1974
The United States v. Richard Nixon: The Supreme Court decides 8-0 that the president must surrender the subpoenaed tapes, denying his claim of executive privilege.

July 27-30, 1974
The House Judiciary Committee adopts three articles of impeachment against the president:

Obstructing the Watergate investigation
Misuse of power and violating his oath of office
Failure to comply with House subpoenas

August 5, 1974
Nixon releases transcripts of three conversations between himself and Haldeman held on June 23, 1972, six days after the Watergate break-in. These transcripts become known as the “smoking gun.” They show that Nixon obstructed justice by ordering the FBI to stop its investigation of the break-in. Other transcripts show he directed a cover-up. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment announce they will change their vote.

August 7, 1974
Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Representative John Rhodes meet with Nixon and advise him that his prospects on Capitol Hill regarding impeachment look “very bad.”

August 8, 1974
President Nixon announces to the nation in a televised address that he will “resign the Presidency, effective at noon tomorrow.”

August 9, 1974
Nixon delivers a farewell speech to his staff, assembled in the East Room of the White House and departs from the South Lawn by helicopter. At noon, Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger swears in Vice President Ford as President in an East Room ceremony.

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=5&page=d
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where's *your* train now? It seems to be running on a small circular track in an amusement park somewhere....

[Benhurst]

49. MonkeyFunk is dead wrong.

"On February 6, 1974, The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives was authorised by Resolution 803 of the House "to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America."

The motion was carried by 410-4 and instructed the Committee to "report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

On May 9, 1974, under the chairmanship of Peter Rodino, the Committee began public hearings to review the results of the Impeachment Inquiry staff's investigation. ... " http://watergate.info/judiciary/

It was at the Impeachment hearings that Barbara Jordan (D Texas) distinguished herself and was brought to the attention of the nation at large.

The committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, finishing its work July 30, 1974. Nixon resigned ten days later.

Your still on track.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. and yet the House didn't impeach Nixon

I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

What factual errors have I made?

[MonkeyFunk]

50. So where do we disagree?

The Senate held hearings, and they were not impeachment hearings (obviously).

You're picking a fight where none exists - I simply stated that the Senate conducted the Watergate hearings.

[Benhurst]

54. Actually the Watergate Hearings were held in both the House and the Senate.

The first hearings were held in the House by the Banking and Currency Committee under Chairman Wright Patman. The Senate hearings are the ones most remember, though.

Impeachment hearings were heard by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Peter Rodino. The House Judiciary Committee with bi-partisan support passed a bill of impeachment with three particulars and sent it to the full House. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on them.

Enough has come out on Bush/Cheney already to justify impeachment hearings in the House. "Watergate" style hearings are not needed to set the stage. If Carl Albert had been as spineless as Pelosi, however, Nixon would have served out his term.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. correct

I'm glad you've come to agree with me.

[Benhurst]

57. I don't agree with you fully. It was the bill of impeachment reported to the floor of the

House which forced Nixon from office.

But I'm glad you find "correct" my statement that "If Carl Albert had been as spineless as Pelosi ... Nixon would have served out his term."

[MonkeyFunk]

58. I never claimed otherwise

You're still picking fights were none exist.

the House did not impeach Nixon. The Banking committee played a minor role - their investigation was on the right track, but it ultimately went nowhere.

The Senate Watergate hearings were the real investigation. After that, the House judiciary committee voted articles of impeachment. They never got to the floor.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[Benhurst]

60. I may have misread you, but I think you are supporting Pelosi.

As Speaker of the House she is keeping impeachment off the table. If she had given the go-ahead to Conyers, impeachment hearings would have started months ago. The crimes and treasons committed by Bush/Cheney demand impeachment. They are already a matter of public record. The Constitution, what's left of it, demands impeachment.

The votes for impeachment weren't there when the Judiciary started its hearings against Nixon. By the time the hearings were finished, the bill was reported out to the floor of the House by a bi-partisan vote. When Hugh Scott (the then minority leader of the Senate) and Barry Goldwater made their famous trip to the White House, they told Nixon that not only had he lost the House, which was poised to vote overwhelmingly for impeachment; but he had lost the Senate as well, and was facing certain conviction and removal from office.

Unfortunately Speaker Pelosi has become an enabler of Bush/Cheney. If Albert had taken a similar stance, Nixon would have served out his term. Bush's lying us into Iraq, by itself, provides a stronger case for impeachment than that which removed Nixon from office. His spying on the public, his misuse of signing statements, the blatant corruption, etc., etc., etc. are all individually and collectively grounds for impeachment even without the immoral and criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If impeachment hearings are held, the stampede of Republicans off the sinking ship would make Watergate look like a pleasure cruise.

If no action is taken, Bush may very well drag us into a war with Iran, despite the recent revelations. And do you really think our so-far gutless heroes in the House and Senate who have allowed the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be shredded, would have sufficient backbone to stand up against "the Commander in Chief" during such a crisis?

[onenote]

62. let's review the history and the premise of this subthread

The premise is that Pelosi (and the Democratic caucus in general) are not clamoring for impeachment-related proceedings because they can count votes and don't want to hand a victory to chimpy.

The response was that it wasn't until the "watergate hearings" were held that there was support for impeaching nixon. What followed was a lot of confusion about the steps in the process that ultimately led to Nixon's resignation.

So here is a review:

In Feb 1973 (months before anyone was discussing impeaching Nixon), the Senate established the Select Committe to investigate Watergate. The vote to establish that Committee was 77-0.

The Watergate Committee proceedings, which began in May of 1973,turned up important evidence of Nixon's involvement in a cover up (particularly John Dean's testimony and the revelation of the oval office taping system). This led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a fight over access to the Nixon tapes and, ultimately to the Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973. In November 1973, Following the Saturday Night Massacre, Chairman Rodino began preliminary impeachment related proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee. However, those proceedings didn't move the ball forward because it takes a vote by the full House to formally authorize an impeachment inquiry with full subpoena power, etc.

That vote occurred in Feb 1974 and was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority: 410-4. The proceedings in the Committee led to the adoption of articles of impeachment in July 1974, but even then Nixon was prepared to fight on in the full House and then in the Senate. What led to his resignation was the release, a week after the Judiciary Committee's adoption of impeachment articles, of the famed "smoking gun" tape. At that point, even the repubs who had supported him in the Judiciary COmmittee vote turned on him, stating publicly that they would now support impeachment. With his support gone, Nixon resigned.

So...what does this tell us? Well, imo, it tells us that MoneyFunk is right. Pelosi's problem is that the votes aren't there to do what needs to be done. First, if you follow the Watergate model, it was the Senate, not the House, that took the first steps to conduct the investigations that first revealed Nixon's involvement in both the original break-in and the cover up. Second, to get that investigation started, there was a bi partisan, 77-0 vote. And to get the actual impeachment investigation started in the House Judiciary a year later, there was a 410-4 bi partisan vote.

Pelosi can indeed count and not only would a resolution to start an impeachment inquiry in the House not garner the type of bipartisan support found in the Nixon precedent (or even the amount of bipartisanship found in the vote to start the Clinton impeachment inquiry, which drew the support of 31 Democrats), it would probably fail. Inadvertently, Kucinich's attempt to push his resolution against Cheney revealed the softness in the support for aggressively pursuing impeachment. When push came to shove, Kucinich's motion could've led to an immediate up/down vote on whether to adopt articles of impeachment against Cheney. But the Democrats recognized that such a vote would fail and chose, wisely, to refer the resolution to committee. Almost all of the co-sponsors of Kucinich's resolution supported the proposal to refer it to committee rather than put it up for a vote.

I wish that the Judiciary Committees in both the House and SEnate were being more aggressive in pursuing investigations -- unrelated to any impeachment resolution -- which might then build the kind of bipartisan support that made it possible for Congress to authorize impeachment inquiries against Nixon and even CLinton. But in all likelihood, such investigations aren't being pursued aggressively because the Democratic caucus has made known that they do see such a result as likely.

[Benhurst]

63. There was a reasonably free press in the early 1970s. There isn't one

now, so that makes things more difficult. Our people are often criticized for not speaking out, when in fact they are just not being reported.

Be that as it may, the Republicans have learned one thing our people can't seem to master, though. They are not afraid of "losing." They try, get defeated, then try again, and again until they finally win, screaming bloody murder until they get what they want. No "keeping our powder dry" for them.

This country is in the hands of criminals who may very well lead us into yet another unjustified war, a war which could ignite the Middle East. Just what great loss of face would Pelosi suffer if she lost a vote on impeachment? I think even the dumbest American knows by now just how corrupt Bush/Cheney are.

Time and time again the American people have voted for people -- Reagan is a prime example-- with whom they disagree on particulars, but admire for "standing for something" and showing backbone.

Pelosi may not have the votes in the House to win her first time out, but even that would be a win. Separate the sheep from the goats. And continue to bring it up again, screaming bloody murder each time it goes down. The Democrats won control of the House because the public wanted a change. Unfortunately, they have gotten more of the same. Every time we roll over, the Democrats look less like a viable alternative to the Republicans.

The Republicans went after a reasonably popular president who had done nothing to warrant the attack. The Democrats are afraid to take on treasonous selected chief executive whose popularity is in the crapper. If the Republicans choose to defend him, so much the better. Either way it's a win/win for the Democrats, if they develop a backbone half as strong as that of their opposition.

[Selatius]

69. Democrats held a lot more seats in the 1970s than they do now or even the entire 1990s.

After the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement, a good chunk of the Democratic Party split off and became Republicans in the backlash. Many white, rural working-class voters felt the party abandoned them or became soft on defense. The transition was complete by the 1980s/1990s. As a result, the Democrats are working with a smaller base today in 2007 than they were in 1974.

The reason why the Republicans show such discipline in beating the Democrats in partisan pounding matches is because they've successfully driven many moderates out of the Republican Party. This is why Ron Paul is becoming such a pain for the rest of the Repub candidates. There's a lot of disaffected Republicans who don't vote anymore but would not vote for a Democrat. As a result, there's probably much less discord within the Republican ranks than with the Democrats. It's easier for them to form a unified front, after having purged the internal opposition from power.

The same can't be said for the Democrats. A side effect of driving out the center-rightists is that they migrate over to the Democratic Party, stretching the base of the party out and causing more internal discord. Might be why more flare-ups have been occurring between more liberal and more conservative wings of the party.

[Benhurst]

70. One more stolen election, which is fairly likely since the need reforms were not undertaken,

and none of this will matter.

The Bush Crime Family is not going to go away without a fight, and it will be a dirty fight played by their own rules.

[Selatius]

71. You don't even need that much. Just one more mass casualty event on US soil.

Something big or awful, like five masked gunman attacking a high school killing dozens of students in the name of making America leave Iraq or some other political demand related to the Middle East.

[Joe Fields]

75. And I don't get that puzzling remark that "she's doing a fine job."

Just how low are your expectations? Tell me you aren't serious.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. That's even more reasonable that the anti-Pelosi rants around here

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Not by much

the idea that Dem leaders are so weak-willed that they cave to blackmail is just utter nonsense.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. I agree

[Joe Fields]

79. Heavens to Betsy!!! That could never happen here!!!

But you know, it really doesn't matter if she's being blackmailed, which I wouldn't discount so offhandedly, or if she is in league with republican leadership, whether a deal was made, whether she's scared, pragmatic or what. The bottom line is that she's a cowardly traitor who has sold this whole country down the river.

[warren pease]

86. And the predictable response from one of Nancy's bestest long-time fans...

However, fan mail doesn't cut it.

She needs to be removed from her position as speaker for the same basic reason any employee gets fired: She's not up to the job, her performance shows no signs of improvement and she's alienating well over half of her employers (which is still us last I looked).

And I don't care if she thinks 67 is a magic number, or that she's got sleazy black & whites just waiting for Rove to put up on Myspace, or that she's scared of the political consequences (as if there would be any for impeaching a snarling vermin with a 9 percent approval rating, or his marionette), or that the anthrax letters got her attention, or that it's all about winning elections, or that her lucky penny isn't in the right pocket of her purse, or that her astrologer told her the stars weren't favorable.

I don't care if she thinks impeachment is an option only to be used for political advantage. She swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's pretty clear and it's not optional.

It's not for her to decide the fate of these criminals. It's for her to uphold her oath of office, shut the hell up, quit appeasing these snakes, get out of the way and let the process unfold. Taking impeachment off the table is perhaps the stupidest, most senseless and unlawful cave-in to executive branch power I've ever heard of -- unlawful being the main point.

She isn't responsible for interpreting the Constitution, nor is she authorized by law to let political considerations, back-room deals or personal threats offset her duty. If she can't handle the pressure, she needs to resign as Speaker and return to serving her constituents or face serious consequences at the polls next year.

And one more thing. Are you old enough to remember the Watergate hearings? If not, do you even know the history of that era? Do you know that they didn't have the votes then either, at least until the hearings revealed evidence of an illegal cover-up that went right to the Oval Office?

Passing articles of impeachment just kick starts an investigation to determine whether a member of the administration has committed one or more impeachable offenses. In Nixon's case, he had enough vestigial honor to resign before the inevitable happened and he was kicked out of office.

In the present case, even a deaf, dumb and blind infant could find at least a dozen treasonous offenses that rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Not counting the latest attempt to lie us into another war, this time probably leading to WW III, the use of nuclear weapons and mass slaughter on a scale not seen on this planet since the dinosaur die-off. And now we're afflicted with another kind of dinosaurs who really need to go the same route.

Perhaps even republicans would see that it's in their best interests to vote to convict rather than risk running on the fact that they refused to hold these vipers to account. And if even republicans were able to see this, maybe Pelosi, the blue dogs and the rest of these hideous unrepresentative representatives could see their way clear to DOING THEIR GODDAMN JOBS like they're supposed to under the law of the land. No more excuses; no more screwing around. Just do the damn job.


wp

Edited because the spell checker let me down again.

[Virginia Dare]

27. That's a rather conspiratorial tone for you Cali...

and you could very well be correct.

However, I think it's more about the elections.

She knows they have little to no chance of getting anything done with Bush still in office. He will veto any and every thing they send up to him, so she's taken a conciliatory tone in an attempt to paint the Democrats as the voice of reason and compromise. Meanwhile, her base cries for blood.

It's a tough spot she's in, and I'm not sure if it's going to work in her favor. I guess we'll see.

[BeFree]

80. Yep

Cali's getting edumacated more and more. Good on her. DU is wearing down her wall, imo.

[bdamomma]

28. Pelosi is being leaned on and she's probably not only the only one.

[The Stranger]

34. Perhaps the only remedy is not impeachment.

Conspiracy to commit war crimes.

[blm]

41. Very likely - there is a Lieberman wing of the party that has been snookered by BushInc

and maybe just some of them HAVE been blackmailed, too.

During Nixon years, Poppy Bush would wrangle even GOP lawmakers to support Nixon on issues they disagreed with, and Poppy's favorite way to do it was thru blackmail on their personal and business dealings. I highly doubt BushInc ditched that tactic.

[Cha]

55. Just improved

on it, eh?

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. I dunno. I still think it IS the thugs in the administration. I still think they bugged every member

of the House and Senate and have garbage on them all. The NSA was very busy prior to 911, remember? Why else would everyone be kowtowing to the whims of a unelected sociopath? This behavior is NOT normal...especially from DEMOCRATS. I still believe the anthrax attacks on Daschle and Leahy were warning shots...give us everything we want or we will kill your families and then YOU and if you tell anyone about this threat, we will visit your 1st grader at her school and then your husband/wife will be next..... You know it could have gone down that way. We are not dealing with mentally stable, ethical people here.

[Benhurst]

66. I fear you may be right. We know Bush started his illegal wiretapping

just days after being sworn in.

Why the illegal wiretapping?

If it really had been a national security matter, the requests would have gone to a group of mostly right-wing judges who had approved all but 6 such requests over the years out of THIRTY THOUSAND. With such odds-- and the ability to start the taps legally while waiting for approval, why break the law?

The only reason would seem to have been they knew their requests were not justified. Just who were they tapping such a group of judges would be unlikely to approve? I think members of the House and Senate are most likely. After all, if you had just taken power through a crooked election and judicial coup, wouldn't you want to know what they were thinking?

[KingFlorez]

46. I don't think so

I think there are two reasons why she won't impeach. One, there aren't enough votes for conviction. Second, I really think it's political, if Bush and Cheney were removed, that would mean that Pelosi would be President and end up taking the blame for the messes Bush has made.

[EstimatedProphet]

48. Besides the fact that it would be used as a club against the party

The Repubs would never give up saying that impeachment came about so that the Democrats could take the presidency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The Blue Dogs should be called the Blue Tails that wag the dog.

Pelosi doesn't so much "compromise" with the republicans as she does with the right-wing of her own party. Which amounts to much the same as "compromising" with the republicans.

[onenote]

59. I think it may be simpler than that -- she doesn't want to hand chimpy a win

I don't think that blue dogs are threatening to bolt the party; rather, I think that they've probably made clear to Pelosi that they won't support a resolution to commence an impeachment proceeding. Recognizing that without their support the resolution will fail, making the Dems look weak and chimpy look like a winner, Pelosi has, wisely imo, decided not to push impeachment. Indeed, I think that its not just blue dogs that have informed Pelosi that they have no desire to be forced to vote on an impeachment resolution. I think it includes a wide variety of Democratic members.

The fact that support for pursuing impeachment is weak across the board is evidenced in part by the reaction to Kucinich's resolution. The vast majority of Democrats, not just Blue Dogs, have not signed on as sponsors. And even most of the sponsors eschewed the opportunity to force a vote on those articles when they could have, choosing to refer the resolution to committee. Why? Because, I suspect, they knew that an immediate vote on the resolution would fail. While I wish there were more aggressive investigations going on, I doubt that its the blue dogs alone that are keeping those investigations from gearing up. Rather, I think that Democrats across the full spectrum are concerned that they are getting hammered by chimpy's "do nothing Congress" strategy and that they would hand him another talking point if, while appropriations bills remain pending, they make impeachment a priority.

[rucky]

64. Not "she" -- WE

Martial Law is all set up.

[reprehensor]

65. OK, what did you do with cali?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=180940

My perspective on Conspiracy Theories and their hardcore adherents

First of all questioning is not the same as developing a full fledged alternate reality. It's not an either/or sort of situation in regard to official stories about anything.

Secondly, it's mostly a waste of time to speculate on things that you will never be able to solve. Oh sure, it can be entertaining. Or at least I guess it can, but you are never going to find out those things you most want to find out. I'd love to know one big CT that's ever become the accepted historical narrative. If you know of one, please post it.

I'm talking about things like assuming that the dems are all being blackmailed or that bush/cheney perpetrated 9/11, or that bushco was behind JFK's assasination.

Lastly, it's struck me that CTers pick and choose "evidence". If it doesn't fit their theory, out it goes.

Obsessing over 9/11 or Kennedy, is a fruitless exercise. The very "truth" you seek, is too often simply a construct that fits what you want to see.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity"

cali - Mon Oct-29-07 03:07 PM

[tritsofme]

67. No one can force Pelosi to reorganize the House

Hoyer would never have to allow such a resolution to hit the floor and leadership could rule from a technical minority until the end of the congress.

Operational control may be reduced, but they can't force the majority leadership to change hands.

However the fault for allowing bills such as the Military Commissions Act to pass lies solely with the Democratic leadership. If they really opposed such bills, they never had to hit the floor.

[OzarkDem]

68. She has nothing to lose by fighting back

They're already holding the Dem agenda in Congress hostage and ruining chances for Dems to hang onto their majority next election. The Blue Dog Dems are useless - better to invest in electing new Dem candidates in their districts.

Pelosi and Reid have nothing to lose by kicking the Blue Dogs asses and reminding them which party they belong to.

[Enrique]

77. she has strong support from progressives in Congress

I doubt if your theory were true, they would continue to support her.

[fascisthunter]

78. In That Case, She isn't Fit for Her Position

She's been compromised if what you claim is true, and it very well might be. Either way, she is too "afraid" to do her job. She should know better and step down from her position.

[lovuian]

82. its very possible

these guys are really evil

[Wizard777]

84. I think it's Hilary. If Bush and Cheney are impeached. Pelosi will become our first woman President.

Then Hillary would have her assassinated. Hillary has her name all over that distinction. I think that is the ONLY reason Impeachment is off the table. Hillary will be America's first woman President OR ELSE!

[JuniperLea]

87. I think BushCo has the goods on everyone...

Repubs and Dems alike. That's what the big deal is with all the spying, since BEFORE 9/11!

[spanone]

88. junior & cheney can wiretap anyone at will.

and anyone who's not 'with them' is 'against them'

including democratic congresspersons

[HughMoran]

92. I wonder why whites don't send her mail?

:rofl:

sorry :)

[ecstatic]

94. and in turn, she's blackmailing Conyers, etc. nt

[EVDebs]

95. If she's a Dame of the Knights of Malta, it's a definite possibility. nt

[Horse with no Name]

108. OMG I agree with you

There's always a first. :toast:
Here's to many more.