Skip to main content

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

This is from the Washington Post today.  It was buried in the inside of the paper, in a one column story.

Visit it online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

To be honest...I think this is simply pathetic and it shows yet once again how the leadership of the Democrats in Congress lack any sort of backbone or willingness to fight the Republicans.

There are SO many reasons for Bush to be impeached, and now Pelosi has taken this option completely off the table.  The Democrats are refusing to hold Bush accountable for his lies.  Refusing to hold him accountable for the laws he has broken.  Pathetic.  Simply pathetic.

Originally posted to Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:31 AM PDT.

Poll

Is Pelosi right?

17%33 votes
2%4 votes
14%27 votes
57%108 votes
1%3 votes
3%7 votes
2%5 votes

| 187 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Indie challenger to Pelosi (4+ / 0-)

    I may soon have information to share with the Kos community regarding an indepdendent challenger to Pelosi in the elections this fall.

    Grok Your World
    grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

    by John Driscoll on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:29:39 AM PDT

  •  President Cheney? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MattBellamy, philgoblue

    What's the point?

  •  What happens/happened (7+ / 0-)
    1. Democratic Congress passes laws.
    1. Bush refuses to execute or implement laws.
    1. Pelosi cowers under nearest rock.
    1. Go to 1.

    True leadership isn't done by committee.

    by Viktor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

  •  Investigations should be the focus of (18+ / 0-)
    any chatter.

    Where the investigations lead ...., well, we just don't know until we do them.

    If we are using an "I" word, I think it would be smart to focus on investigations.

    •  Bingo! (8+ / 0-)

      Talk about investigations and holding politicians accountable.

      •  Bingo Again... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, Tod, eaglecries

        Impeachment talk just adds bullets to King Karl's gun. You guys are so smart but you always fall for the trap set up by Rove. Make Bush's criminal acts the story, not Pelosi calling for impeachment. As long as the media dont have a counter point to the administrations follies (see McGovern, the "heckler") they will at least report what is happening...somewhat.

        Censure maybe, but impeachment talk before 2007 wil just work against us.

        "Someday we'll look back at this, and it will all seem funny..." B. Springsteen

        by buzz in illinois on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  However, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          metal prophet, neroden, Robb Black
          Did Pelosi talk about investigations?
          Did Pelosi talk about holding Bushco accountable?
          No!  She did squat.

          In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

          by yet another liberal on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:40:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Didn't she mention investigations on MTP? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Newsie8200, vcmvo2, Tod, eaglecries

            I thought she did.

            I agree with the earlier comment.  Keep the focus on Bush and the Republicans corruption and incompetence.  They want to change the issue to the "scary Democrats".  Don't let them.

            •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robb Black
              I read the link from the diary, and I didn't hear her fighting for anything, just cowering from the republican talking point of impeachment.

              Also, last week, she was on TV and failed to frame the debate toward accountability and investigations.

              I agree with the above comment too.  The problem is that Pelosi is not doing it.  She is not doing her job, at all.

              If anybody has any links to where she is getting on TV and framing this issue properly, I'ld be glad to read it.

              But that's not what I've been hearing or seeing.  I see complete weakness here.  She is failing us.

              In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

              by yet another liberal on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:48:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually last week when she (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, station wagon
                laid out the first actions for a majority Democrat Congress
                she clearly stated that one of them would be investigations
                and when asked about the impeachment word she said
                we wait to see where the investigations lead and who
                knows where. I have never seen her state that
                impeachment is off the table and I challenge anyone else
                to show me proof of her saying that.

                Look I am about as quick as anyone else to get upset with
                many of our Democrat leaders not showuing any backbone
                but lets not fall for the twisted and omitted words of those
                who for whatever reason want to dis someone that they
                may not always agree with.

                Doing that shit will certainly make our goal of reaching a
                majority less possible.

                We need every viable democrat that is electable at this
                time in our history.

                I don't know what God G W Bush listens to, but it is not the one I believe in.

                by eaglecries on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:03:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read the article... (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  davybaby

                  Her spokesman states it very plainly.  Impeachment is off the table.

                  So investigate all you want...it will never lead to impeachment.

                  Pathetic.

                  "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

                  by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:06:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is your true purpose for this diary? Show (0+ / 0-)

                    me the proof of your claim. Here is one of mine for countering your bullshit.

                    Pelosi

                    I don't know what God G W Bush listens to, but it is not the one I believe in.

                    by eaglecries on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:35:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The proof of my claim... (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      davybaby

                      is the WashPost story which I posted a link to in the diary.

                      Your WashPost story is from last Sunday.  Mines a little more recent.

                      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

                      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:37:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  diary's purpose is to shift the Overton Window (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vcmvo2, eaglecries, hypersphere01

                      to the left.  The more people howl for impeachment, the more reasonable Pelosi seems in just calling for investigations.

                      And we DON'T KNOW what Pelosi actually said, as it was a closed mtg on Wed, only that her spokesman said "it was off the table" but notice no TIME PERIOD was given by Daly.  Reading the article, I find no quote to support the statement that they won't seek to impeach Bush even if Dems win the house.

                      But the larger issue is that this is just more heat and spin (no light) from the MSM.

                      Imagine the WaPo asking Alito if he has the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.  He'd say "NO", of course, then imagine the WaPo running a big headline "Alito will not overturn Roe v Wade" and then lower down, "Alito will not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade even if presented with a case dealing with abortion" according to spokesmen.

                      Makes no sense, does it?  Really conveys no information.  

                      CenterDem (below) is incorrect in that impeachment is idiotic.  Impeachment for breaking the law is not idiotic, impeachment for blow jobs is idiotic.

                      But we do have to remember that impeachment is idiotic as an overt partisan strategy.  It's kinda like asking a judge if her/his goal is to convict the accused.  They of course say no, then the WaPo runs a headline saying that the judge will never convict the nasty pedophile.

                      You gotta have 67 in the Senate to make it stick, anyway, which means it can't really be a partisan move.

            •  Yes she did. (0+ / 0-)

              The word investigation scares the Repubs a lot more than the word impeachment, at least today.  They know that one can lead to the other.  It's only people here who don't get it.

              Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

              by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:12:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm trying to understand your comment (0+ / 0-)
                Could you clarify?  Are you saying that we should not use the word 'investigate' either?

                In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

                by yet another liberal on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Depends on what you are listening to. (4+ / 0-)

                  When I was listening to Pelosi on MTP I thought it was crystal clear that a Democratic majority would lead to all kinds of investigations.  She was clear enough about investigation to give Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al flop sweat.

                  On the other hand, I think there is a segment of the population who want to burn Bush at the stake today, and they hear anything the least bit less than that as pandering to the enemy.

                  I was listening with an open mind.  I thought it was really clear that Pelosi was saying investigate, with no promise one way or the other about what happens next.  What some posters here are attributing to her is just dumb - "we'll investigate but no matter what we find out that Dubya did we'll never impeach him".  That just doesn't make any sense.

                  Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

                  by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:31:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  But the problem is... (0+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                davybaby

                Pelosi just said that there will be no impeachment if they take over.  So you can investigate all you want, it won't go anywhere!

                Sort of like a prosecutor bringing a case to the grand jury, but telling the public they have no intention of prosecuting the case, regarless of the grand jury's findings.

                "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

                by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:26:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe you need to check a little further too like (0+ / 0-)

            at Pelosi

            I don't know what God G W Bush listens to, but it is not the one I believe in.

            by eaglecries on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:32:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That was Sunday May 7th (0+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:
              davybaby

              This is Friday May 12th.

              Like Richter was so correct in pointing out...

              Politicians do like to change their minds.  Obviously she has changed her mind about this and will not pursue impeachment.

              "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

              by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:36:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  They are not even going to do investigations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      metal prophet, neroden

      It seems as though they are not going to do anything to challenge Bush's lawbreaking and lying.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:33:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There WILL be investigations if we win (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lrhoke, davybaby, Los Diablo, calebfaux

        back Congress - without a doubt.

        •  Okay... (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          lanikai
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          so you investigate but you won't impeach?

          Pathetic
          pathetic
          pathetic

          Come on...get a friggin backbone will ya?

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:36:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  After you subpoena and investigate, you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Los Diablo, Tod

            decide what the facts warrant.

            One step at a time.

            We haven't had any power or control.  
            There hasn't been any oversight.

            Who knows what all will be discovered with the power of the subpoena OR will BushCo continue to abuse their power and deny Congressional authority?

            One step at a time.  

            First we have to win back control of Congress and then we open investigations and then ....

            •  Read what she said... (3+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              ubikkibu, lanikai, neroden
              Hidden by:
              davybaby

              She said they will not pursue impeachment if they take over control of congress.

              She didn't say that they would investigate first and see where it goes.  So investigate all you want, but Pelosi will not impeach.

              "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

              by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:43:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Actually last week when she (0+ / 0-)

            laid out the first actions for a majority Democrat Congress
            she clearly stated that one of them would be investigations
            and when asked about the impeachment word she said
            we wait to see where the investigations lead and who
            knows where. I have never seen her state that
            impeachment is off the table and I challenge you
            to show me proof of her saying that.

            I don't know what God G W Bush listens to, but it is not the one I believe in.

            by eaglecries on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:07:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  don't worry- she'll be demagog-ing (6+ / 0-)

    at yearlykos. she'll tell you how committed she is to progressive values and, specifically, what a "fighter" she is!

    i've called her "chamberlin" before anad i'll do it again, now.

    •  There are a few litmus tests to be a progressive (4+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      MediaRevolution, metal prophet, lanikai, grayscale
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      I believe one of those litmus tests is whether or not you support the death penalty.

      The other should be whether or not Bush should be impeached.

      If you agree with the use of the death penalty and if you think that Bush shouldn't be impeached, then you are probably not a progressive.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:34:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        station wagon

        No argument on the death penalty.

        And no argument that Bush "should" be impeached... but that's not the same thing as saying that this is where our energies should be directed at this point.  I think progressives can have an honest difference of opinion on this without losing their progressive stripes.  

        My own feeling is that the issue is moot as long as the GOP controls the house -- not only can they prevent impeachment, they can even prevent hearings on the subject.  Given that, I don't even know why Pelosi bothered to discuss it (if she worries about Republicans using this issue against Democrats in the fall, I think her fears are wildly misplaced --with Bush's approval rating now at 29%, I can't imagine any potential Democratic voters, even those opposed to impeachment, turning on a candidate who endorses it).

        If the House goes Democratic, there will be a whole new landscape in January -- a more progressive House may insist on impeachment hearings. At the very least, there will be a shit storm of investigations into everything from Iraq to Abramoff, which could well result in revelations so appalling, the House will be compelled to impeach Bush.

        But step one is victory in November.  So I say put impeachment on hold for six months and focus on the battle against the fascists in the GOP and their allies in the Green Party, who are of course progressive in no way whatsoever.

        •  Read the article... (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          It plainly states that Pelosi will not pursue impeachment if the Democrats take over control of Congress.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:12:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come November... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            davybaby, station wagon

            ...a different Congress may make different demands of Speaker Pelosi if she wishes to remain speaker.  Which was my point above -- along with the possibility that the results of the investigations themselves could add momentum to calls for impeachment and force Pelosi's hand.

            You're apparent belief that politicians never change their positions is sweetly naive.

            •  I can agree with you (0+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:
              davybaby

              that politicians will change their opinions...but when/if Pelosi does change hers, you will see this comment she just made put up in big bold type EVERYWHERE by Karl Rove, et. al.  Why did she have to say anything at all?  Why couldn't she just kept her mouth shut?

              George Bush and company do a very good job at repeating the phrase, "all options are on the table, all the time."  Why can't Pelosi learn to say that?  People respect someone more if they know that that person is willing to consider all angles.

              "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

              by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:29:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's a good Pelosi response... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                davybaby, station wagon, Robb Black

                If the Democrats take control of Congress, we shall of course fulfill our responsibility to the American people to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch.  It's part of our job, though you wouldn't know it from the behavior of the majority over the last five years. If in the course of any investigations Congress uncovers proof of criminal activity, I am quite sure our Republican friends, with their long held belief in law and order, will join us in seeing that such activity is appropriately punished.  

                But since we don't yet know what any investigations will uncover, I can't understand Karl Rove's certainty that we will impeach the President.  If he has some reason to think that this administration has committed impeachable offenses, I think he owes it to the American people to tell them what he knows.  If not, then we can just dismiss such talk as part of an election year strategy to "energize the base" - though if the polls are accurate, come November Mr. Rove may find that the GOP has no base to energize.

                •  Impressive... (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  davybaby

                  You should forward your resume to Pelosi's office.  Tell them you are applying for the position of "backbone" aide.  ;o)

                  "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

                  by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:20:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Or bonehead aide (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    davybaby, Robb Black

                    Actually, I've been thinking in a speechifying way a lot lately because I just nailed my first speech writing gig.

                    But I've been saying for some time now that when Republicans bring up the I word, the obvious Democratic response should be "Why are you so sure we're going to impeach the man?"  Another thing Dems really should learn from Rove is to never fight an argument your enemy's terms.  By flatly ruling out impeachment, Pelosi is playing the game the way Rove wants her to play it -- making the issue about the behavior of the Democrats rather than the behavior of Bush.  And what does she get for it?  Is Rove going to stop using the impeachment bogey man now that Pelosi has said this?  Of course not.

                    I don't know if this is a lack of backbone or a lack of good stratagy.  And what WILL Pelosi do if those investigations do turn up impeachable offenses?  I doubt that that is a rhetorical question.  Considering the awfulness of the shit we know, the shit we don't know must be positively thermonuclear.        

                    •  Agreed (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      davybaby

                      all around...

                      Especially the part about

                      Another thing Dems really should learn from Rove is to never fight an argument your enemy's terms.

                      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

                      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:53:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  the WaPo states it clearly and simply (0+ / 0-)

            Pelosi does not.

            MSM doesn't do nuance.  Not good for headlines.

            Daly is quoted as saying "impeachment is off the table" but gives no time period.  Then Babington states that Dems won't seek to impeach even if we win a majority, "her office said" but gives no quote to back it up.

            We don't know what Pelosi said.  It was a closed mtg.

            Like I've written in other posts, imagine the WaPo asking Alito if he plans to overturn Roe v Wade.  He'd say "NO" of course, then imagine the WaPo headline "Alito will not overturn Roe v. Wade even if presented with a case"

            This is heat and spin, not light.

            Asking Pelosi now to declare her intent to impeach is like asking a judge if she/he intends to convict the accused.  Of course, they say no, then we get a headline reading "Judge will never convict icky pedophile"

            But KEEP ON SHOUTING!  We gotta move that Overton window.

            Come November, it will seem really moderate and sensible to investigate Bush when not so long ago it was treazonous just to question him

      •  The line for litmus tests starts here. (0+ / 0-)

        It wouldn't be hard at all to add 10 or 20 more litmus tests.  That should be enough to eliminate pretty much everybody.

        Choice?
        Bankruptcy reform?
        Immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
        Darfur?

        Immigration? Gun control?

        You named your two like you are the only one who gets to pick the litmus test.  Once you start then everybody lines up with their own, and nobody can survive that obstical course.

        Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

        by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:16:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Litmus test (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          I firmly believe that if you call yourself progressive you cannot support the death penalty.

          As far as the impeachment issue...I can take it or leave it.

          But if you believe that the state should be allowed to determine who lives and who dies, you are NOT progressive. No ifs, ands, or buts.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:19:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Investigation prior to Impeachment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buzz in illinois, Tod, eaglecries

    While I'm no fan of Pelosi's, the thing she's doing is following the correct procedure and not getting out in front of the process. She is saying impeachment is off the table as A FIRST THING. The first thing is getting subpeonas and investigating the activities with respect to their legality. Only if the findings support impeachment would a Democratically controlled House then vote for impeachment and send the motion to the Senate where it would stand trial.

    While I'd like to see this whole gang of criminals currently in office dragged through the streets for their behavior, the thing to focus on is winning the November elections based on Republican malfeasance and incompetence conjoined with a Democratic alternative. Putting too much emphasis on impeachment now would muddy the waters, so to speak. The direct shot is at investigative authority. Then, consequences following investigations. This produces clearer waters for the voter at the polls.

    The Moe Sizlak Experience, featuring Homer Simpson.

    by lepermessiah on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

  •  Where??? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tinfoil Hat, darwinsjoke, GreyHawk

    Long ago, Lincoln told some people who came to him urging him to issue a proclamation to free the slaves something like:
    "I wouldn't have the support of the country, so I'm not going to do it. I'm not even going to talk about it. You people, on the other hand, can talk about it as much as you want. The idea needs to be part of public discourse."
    I am, of course, paraphrasing; but the idea was close to what he expressed.
    So talk about impeachment all you want. Just keep your criticism on Bush --- where it belongs -- instead of on Pelosi.

  •  George BUSH is DESPERATE for us to (5+ / 0-)
    impeach him.

    What a method to rally his troops!! When they impeached Clinton, it pushed him up, up, up.

    Impeachment is an idiotic, ridiculous policy.  It basically is perceived, and somewhat correctly, as "revenge politics".

    I think Pelosi is really smart.  I agree 100 %.  No impeachment.

    •  So we should let Bush (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      lanikai, neroden, grayscale
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      break laws and lie to the country with no retribution?

      weak...very weak...but then again you are a "centerdem".  I guess it should be expected.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:37:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not because I am centerdem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tod

        but because I am not an idiot.

        Impeachment = no Dem gains.

        We need a positive, forward-looking set of proposals which will help Americans.

        If we have those, they will elect Dems.

        If we promise them 2 years of infighting, sniping, arguing, WE WILL NOT BE ELECTED.

        This is your 6 month warning - impeachment is the worst possible program.

        Thank Gawd Nancy Pelosi is a smart woman.

        •  There is a difference (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          between setting a forward looking agenda and publicly stating you are NOT going to do something.

          I agree that you have to have a forward looking agenda.  Should that agenda include impeachment?  There is a good argument that it shouldn't.

          However, that is not the case in this instance.  She purposefully went out of her way to say that impeachment was off the table if the Democrats took control of Congress.  It is one thing to not make it a part of your agenda, it is another totally different thing to make a point that you will not do it if you gain control.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:15:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

          First off, this varies greatly from 1998. Back then, Bill Clinton was very popular and the impeachment against him was clearly politicized and over issues that Americans repeatedly said they didn't care about. In 2006, Bush is unpopular and so is his war in Iraq. A war which the public increasingly believes was not only unjustified, but probably dishonestly entered into. I don't think that taking impeachment off the table will help us any and I don't think that leaving it open as a possibility will hurt us at the polls.

    •  How many more will die in Iraq (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, grayscale, Robb Black

      before 2008? How many will die for Iran's oil? Will the debt ceiling be extended above $10 trillion?

      I understand your point (and made it below), but I disagree for the reasons above and more.

    •  I believe... (4+ / 0-)

      that this is a total misreading of almost every issue related to impeachment.

      Clinton was impeached on a stretch, while holding a 60% approval rating. That has little or nothing to with impeaching a president who's admitted to actual constitutional violations, and who sits at below 30% approval.

      Impeachment isn't a policy. It's a self-defense mechanism for the Constitution, and you do more to "rally the troops" for the GOP by repeating their "revenge politics" meme than the procedure itself does.

      Futhermore, the last little trick that Rove said would rally his troops -- statewide ballot referenda prohibiting same-sex marriages -- actually had the opposite effect, yielding a net turnout advantage to Democrats. Yet we all credit him with this particular piece of "genius," and take him at his word when he says he can do it again.

      I understand what Pelosi is doing. But not you.

  •  Pelosi's trying to head off the swiftboat types (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    metal prophet, buzz in illinois, Tod

    who are going to come after Dems with the CHARGE (as if it were a bad thing) that all we want to do is impeach Bush. I disagree with her, but that's what she's trying to do:

    Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

    What she doesn't realize, I think, is that much of the GOP is fed up, too.

    Just my .02.
  •  George BUSH is DESPERATE for us to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thistime
    impeach him.

    What a method to rally his troops!! When they impeached Clinton, it pushed him up, up, up.

    Impeachment is an idiotic, ridiculous policy.  It basically is perceived, and somewhat correctly, as "revenge politics".

    I think Pelosi is really smart.  I agree 100 %.  No impeachment.

    •  Impeachment not idiotic (0+ / 0-)

      if the charges are not idiotic.

      When Nixon was impeached in July of 1974, it did not push his popularity "up,up,up".  But that's because Nixon wasn't impeached for a blow job.

      But I think Pelosi is correct, now, as talk of impeachment is premature.  Reading the article, I think the WaPo is spinning it as more than it is (no surprise).  Pelosi of course supports investigations, the goal of which should be finding the truth.  But the WaPo wants to force Pelosi's hand now, by declaring "Dems will never impeach Bush" which is not what she said.

      Put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine the WaPo asking Alito if he has the explicit intent of overthrowing Roe v Wade, and he would of course say NO,  and then imagine the WaPo running a headline saying that Alito will never overthrow Roe v. Wade.  

      Doesn't make sense, does it?

      Of course, impeachment is not our end GOAL, no more than conviction is the goal of a judge.  Justice and truth is our goal, and like Pelosi says, you never know where that will lead.

      Finally, for a minority party, talk about impeachment is just so much flatulence.  And even for a majority party, it isn't worthwhile unless you can make it stick in the senate (as Clinton proved) which means to impeach AND remove Bush, Congress as a WHOLE must impeach him, not one party alone.  Because you have to have 2/3 of the Senate, it just won't work as a partisan tactic.

      •  Pelosi okay, but keep shouting! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yet another liberal

        I also want to say that we should keep shouting from the rooftops that Bush needs to be impeached, even tho' Pelosi won't echo our cry.

        The more impeachment is injected into the public mind, the more it shifts the Overton window (sp?) in our direction, and the more power it will give Pelosi and other Dems in calling for investigations.

        We have to realize that no substative investigations of the Bush administration have taken place, and that's because the Repugs have shifted the Overton window so far to the right (e.g. critizizing the prez is treazon).  Shouting "IMPEACH" whenever and wherever helps make Pelosi sound more and more reasonable when she just wants investigations.

  •  Impeachment talk should be off the table (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    killjoy, Tinfoil Hat, Tod

    Talk about oversight and accountability.  Then when we have the majority, impeach the bastard.  

    Talking impeachment now could hurt our chances.  Oversight and accountability are better "buzz" words at this point, in my opinion.

    "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention"

    by egarratt on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

    •  After they take power (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Quicklund
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      she is saying that it is completely off the table if they get the majority.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'They'??? (0+ / 0-)

        That would be "we," asswipe!

        •  Name calling among other things... (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby
          1.  I have no allegiance to the Democratic Party.  So yes..."they"
          1.  Asswipe?  How old are we again?
          1.  I did have TU status for awhile today.  But because of your childish behavior and your abuse of troll-rating I've lost it.

          Oh well...all I got to do was see hidden comments.  Not that big of a deal.  I could care less about being able to troll rate people.  Unlike you who seems to get off on it.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:07:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Dumb (7+ / 0-)

    You know what's so dumb about this?  These Democrats really believe the country -- that is, the rest of us -- can survive another 2 1/2 years of this administration.  Why risk a backlash from impeachment when they can sit back and reap the spoils of keeping Bush/Republicans weak and tame at 29, 25, 20% in the polls?

    I have no affection for this administration, but this tactic is just going to wind up killing the presidency itself.  Lazy, calculating, uncomprehending, the Democratic establishment is thinking only of elections to come, not ever dreaming that by the time they are poised to "take over," there will be nothing left that Americans will patiently allow them to take over.

    These Democrats are going to reap the whirlwind - so intent are they upon reaping political profit at the expense of the country's health and welfare.

    •  I couldn't have said it better myself (5+ / 2-)

      Democrats are more concerned with power than with principles or issues.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:39:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  further thought (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robb Black

      The assumption that the American people will remain politically inactive, docile and forgiving indefinitely, seems to be one that the Dems are banking on.  Or, they are banking on the notion that Americans will choose to express their anger at the ballot box, indefinitely.  They are thinking of how they will position themselves politically in a tame, familiar world of public opinion and action that may no longer exist by fall 2008, much less later.

      I question whether they are going to be able to hold back the floodwaters at all, but certainly not if they allow the presidency (and Congress) break down even further.  It's like the White House is filled with animals, and they're peeing and crapping all over the place with impunity, and the Dems think that after Election Day they will just be able to do a little cleanup and move right in.  Well, the urine is not only stinking up the floorboards, it's dissolving them.  The house may have to be demolished.  Pray not.

    •  so...not impeaching weakens the prezidenzy? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hypersphere01

      and impeaching Bush strengthens it?

      Black is not white.  Dems are not Repugs.  Please don't blame Dems for Bush's failures.  Please remember that it's the current leadership of this country, the current Repuglican party is the one that is intent on reaping political profit at the expense of the country's health and welfare, not the Dems.

      Yeah, you can call Dems lazy, unfocused, cowardly, too focused on surviving elections, etc.  The Dem party has its faults and we need to "crash the gate" just like Kos says to get our reps to respond, to do the right thing.

      But we are not responsible for Bush.  And neither is Bush's collapse in the polls some crafty Democratic scheme for taking back Congress.  It's just the inevitable result of really awful government, and it's finally come home to roost, and it's roosting rather suddenly.  A lot of us have known for a long time how awful Bush is, but the nation as a whole has been strung along by the Repugs and MSM as long as possible, and only now is the truth really sinking in. (like the Titanic "sunk in")

      And speaking of the MSM, we shouldn't trust the WaPo more than Pelosi.  She is calling for investigations.  She is not giving up.  The WaPo is spinning this into "Dems will never impeach Bush" which is just not what she said.

      •  Uhm... (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        davybaby

        Actually she did say that.

        Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

        Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

        "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

        by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:23:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  uh, no, she didn't (0+ / 0-)

          the mtg was closed.

          Daly is quoted as saying that impeachment is "off the table".  Notice that no time period is given in his quote.  Babington then says that the dems won't seek to  impeach even if they win a majority in Nov, "her office said," but gives no supporting quote to back up the time period.  "Off the table" usually means for now, and heck, we could have a new Dem leader (minority or majority) come Jan '07.

          So I'm very suspicious that Babington is spinning this for as much as he can get.  As I've posted elsewhere, this is really much more heat than light.

          Imagine asking Alito if he will seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.  He'd answer "NO" of course, and then you could run a headline "Alito will not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade even if presented with a case."

          Makes no sense.  More heat than light.

          As I've posted before, asking Pelosi now if she intends to impeach Bush is like asking a judge if she/he intends to convict the accused.  They have to say no, whereupon you can accuse them of having no backbone and running a headline "Judge will not seek to convict pedophile!"

          But KEEP ON HARPING.  Makes Pelosi reasonable, just calling for investigations.

          Remember, WE GOTTA SHIFT THAT OVERTON WINDOW!!

          •  My View (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            davybaby

            Is that Pelosi's statement is the equivalent of a prosecutor sending a case to a grand jury but publicly stating that they will not prosecute regardless of the grand jury's findings.

            See...I have my legal metaphor too so there....

            :op

            "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

            by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:09:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you're still falling victim to spin (0+ / 0-)

              She didn't say anything like "will not prosecute regardless of the findings"

              The only direct Pelosi quote we have is from Sunday, when she pushed for investigations, and said "you never know where that will lead you" (paraphrase).  That is much like a prosecutor saying they will follow the truth wherever it leads.  Not like they will not prosecute someone regardless.

              Again, you're reading way too much into this.

              Do you want to toss Fitzgerald as a prosecutor because he has not publicly stated that he seeks to indict Rove?

            •  but keep on shouting, gotta shift the window (0+ / 0-)

              The more we shout IMPEACH
              the more the Overton window moves to the left

              and the more reasonable Pelosi looks, just calling for investigations.

              Remember not too long ago, it was treazonous to even kwestion the dear Prez.

            •  reply to Ba Jin (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rita in DC

              I'm not a postmodernist.

              You have your thoughts, and I have mine.  I can't change that, or even change your thoughts.  But if I share my thoughts with you, you might choose to change your thoughts, as I might change mine after knowing yours.  Otherwise, what's the point?

  •  She is totally lost (6+ / 0-)

    I don't support Pelosi anymore, at all.  She needs to be replaced.  This is incredibly weak.  A fighter my ass.  Get out of the way Pelosi.  You're not doing your job, at all.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:36:48 AM PDT

  •  for now...... (0+ / 0-)

    For now, she may be right.  Look at all the things
    we HAVEN'T been able to accomplish, most recently the tax cut increases, and you think we could be successful on impeachment?

    OF COURSE, its warranted, but for it to be successful, we need to have the country and enough of congress behind it, otherwise its a waste of time.

    I think the important thing is to focus on educating the public as to what is going on AND winning the fall elections.

    And then there is the problem of President Cheney....couldn't we just have a recall election?

    On the other hand, should we retake the house, should Pelosi be speaker, I'm not sure about that and I'm not up on the legalities.

    I do think the suggestion that we should support a challenger to her in the election is foolish.  She's not that bad at all.  I don't know if she should be speaker, but she isn't Lieberman for godsakes.

  •  what would 'keep all options on the table' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    Joe Klein think about this?

    The Republican Party: The Bridge to Nowhere

    by flounder on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:37:48 AM PDT

  •  I she means 'before November' I might agree (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, Quicklund
    Hidden by:
    centerdem

    if she means "ever", I don't.

    -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

    by calebfaux on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:38:08 AM PDT

  •  what would 'keep all options on the table' (0+ / 0-)

    Joe Klein think about this?

    The Republican Party: The Bridge to Nowhere

    by flounder on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:38:44 AM PDT

  •  Don't be stupid. Impeachment is a DIY movement. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo

    The problem with Democrats is that they expect their politicians to spend all their political capital on every single issue.  Democratic voters have to DIY like the conservatives do.  Do you really think the Republican politicians in Washington cared about the Clinton impeachment or abortion restrictions or anti-gay legislation?  Of course not.  They do it because their grassroots supporters build a movement, put some money and muscle behind it, and force the politicians to be accountable to their concerns.  We have to do something on our own.  You cannot expect politicians to commit this early to an impeachment inquiry.  It's political suicide.  Their job is to win the elections.  Our job is to develop support for an agenda that we want them to carry out.   Let's follow the grassroots movements developing in the states and local communities across this country and build a case for impeachment.  Then we can get the politicians to buy in.  It's like building a company and then inviting investors to put some money behind it.  We build the company, the politicians invest.  But don't expect them to invest until we've done our own homework.

  •  sorry, I'm with Pelosi (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Tod, centerdem

    It's a waste of time and an unnecessary campaign "issue", whatever the emotional drive.

    The hard politics of it is: 24%.  As long as Bush has his hardcore conservative bloc with him, removal is not in the picture and mere impeachment is just partisan/factional retribution.  When that last bloc yields and admits the election result was a bad one, then it's all over but for kicking dirt on the coffin.

    When Bush approval breaks through the 24% floor in polling, then his Presidency is a corpse and he's a pinata for his own crew.  And then it's only a matter of a slight push to force his resignation.

    I say it's something of a waste of time to overly focus on the man and his buddies now.  Let the Plame investigation and the other stuff coming down the pike pick off most of that mafia.  Let the policy failures drag them and their many enablers and peons down until they're inviable.  Focus on getting the toeholds to break the generation of Rightist hold and bias in the institutions- media, judiciary, military, intell, civilian federal bureaucracy- so that come February a Democratic Congress can clean the Republican appointee and minions out of them efficiently and thoroughly during '07-'08.

    Renewal, not mere Reform.

    by killjoy on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:58:21 AM PDT

    •  But to say that impeachment is off the table? (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      metal prophet, yet another liberal, Quicklund
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      Why do you pre-emptively tie your hands?

      It is like a prosecutor saying, "We are going to have a grand jury to look into this situation but I can tell you right now, we will not prosecute."

      If a prosecutor ever said that, he/she would lose his/her job just like Pelosi should.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:00:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She could say ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davybaby, Robb Black, Quicklund
        There'll be no need to impeach.  With Bush's job approval ratings, I wouldn't be surprised if he just resigns.  This administration is a complete failure and now we find out they're spying on millions of innocent Americans.

        Can't she think of something to say?  Leader of the opposition party?  Come on, this is lame.  She's just gonna wait and keep her fingers crossed.

        Wow, some leader.  I am truly inspired.  /snark

        In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

        by yet another liberal on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:07:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, centerdem

    by taking impeachment off the table the gop can`t run around saying all the dems want to do is impeach bush. also if we take congress by the time they get investigations going and get a result it will be close  to 2008. better to have a mortally wounded bush twisting in the wind to help get a democrat elected president.plus i`m against impeachment unless it`s viable to throw him out of office and there is no way the senate has 67 votes for expulsion even if we win the senate.it`s a waste of taxpayer money that could be put to better use.

    •  Waste of money (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      metal prophet, Quicklund
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      to hold someone accountable for the lies that have led to thousands of deaths?  Waste of money to hold someone accountable for illegally spying?

      But what I don't get is this...

      i`m against impeachment unless it`s viable to throw him out of office

      The very essence of political leadership is doing the right thing, regardless of whether or not you think you will ultimately succeed.  How many times have the Republicans brought up the Flag Burning Amendment?  How many times have they brought up other useless legislation only to have it voted down.  They do it because it demonstrates to their base their willingness to fight the good fight, regardless of whether or not they win.  There is value in that.

      Too bad you and Pelosi don't see the value of political leadership...because that is why the Democrats continue to fail.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:05:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grayscale, Quicklund

      Maybe we should have taken banning the Bible off the table last time.

      Huge mistake, tying ourselves publicly to an effort to ban the Bible! What were we thinking?

  •  What Pelosi and a lot.... (7+ / 0-)

    ....of other cautious Democrats don't understand is that you have to ask for ten if you want to get five. If you ask for five, all you get it one. What Republicans understand is that winning elections is about moving the center to you, not moving to the center. With Republicans, more or less everything is on the table. An idea might not be popular now, but just mentioning it and not dismissing it out of hand makes that idea a possibility and allows you to shift the debate to your side. By taking cards off the table, particularly when these cards do have public support, you limit your chances of victory and you limit the field of debate. DC elite Democrats and DLC types don't understand this. If Democrats are truly interested in progress and new ideas, we shouldn't be in such a hurry to take ideas off the table.

    •  Once again... (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      Brilliant analysis...couldn't agree more.

      You should work for the Democrats.  If you did, they might actually start winning elections.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:10:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whew - those gloves are really coming off, huh? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayscale, Quicklund

    Don't think Pelosi will want to show up at this site any time, soon.

  •  Timing's all wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    You're supposed to wait until the Democrats actually have the power to do anything before exploding the party and giving it all back to the Republicans again.

    This is about tactics, not strategy, and not right and wrong.

    Impeachment takes more than a simple majority in the Senate (I think 60% but it might be 2/3).  So, the Repubs will have enough votes to block it unless there is a huge landslide of support not just from the far left world of DailyKos.  We're not there yet.

    So, if Bush is not actually going to be removed from office you're just stamping your feet about a gesture that will not succeed.  Pelosi is not crazy for thinking that a push for impeachment, before we have held a single hearing and before a large majority of Americans believe impeachment is called for would do more harm than good.  That's the other reason you have hearings.  Besides learning the facts, you have the opportunity to convince the rest of America to agree with you.  You may disagree, but people who disagree with you aren't trators.

    It's much better to think of Bush after the mid term elections like Saddam in Iraq around 2000.  He was still in office, but he was contained.  He wasn't the same threat to the world that he once was.  That would be a great achievement and it's a little early to burn anybody at the stake who is trying to get us there.

    Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

    by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:09:16 AM PDT

    •  She is taking impeachment off the table. Period. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grayscale, Robb Black

      Investigasions could reveal Bush personally took gold ingots from Fort knox and gave them to Osama, and Rep Pelosi would say, "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it,".

      Thatis the message the Minority Leader delivered to America today.

      Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

      by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:04:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read a little further. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        station wagon

        Here's enough to keep Dubya awake at night:

        She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

        All she's doing is taking it off the table as fodder for Republican ads in this election cycle.  Do you believe everything else a poltician says is an oath signed in blood?  The door is plenty open after the election, IF we can convince enough of the public, and enough Republican senators, that it's the right thing to do.

        Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

        by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:25:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She said that on Sunday (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          Her comments today were to clarify her Sunday comments.

          Sorry...but she doesn't want to impeach Bush.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:33:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just had another thought. (0+ / 0-)

            Impeaching Bush doesn't do any good if it just gives us President Cheney.

            So, assume that any impeachment scenario doesn't involve Cheney for one reason or another (like maybe he's impeached first).

            If we make that assumption then who would become president?

            You got it.  President Pelosi.

            Beyond wanting to take the issue away from the Republican fundraising this election cycle, that seems to me to be a pretty compelling reason for Pelosi to be very obvious about not leading the charge.  Impeachment won't happen unless there is a tidal wave demanding it including a lot of Repbulicans who don't post on DailyKos.  If we are lucky enough to get there Pelosi would want to be in the position of stepping into the White House with reluctance and humility, not looking like the Repubs. going after Clinton.

            Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

            by Tod on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:55:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  we don't know what Pelosi actually said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            she made no "comments" to clarify what she said Sunday.

            She spoke during the regular closed mtg on Wed.  We have no direct quote of Pelosi, only of Daly, and all he said was impeachment was "off the table." Again, Daly gives no time period in the quote.

            Babington writes that Dems won't seek to impeach even if they win a majority, "her office said," but gives no  supporting quote to back up the claim that impeachment is off the table even after November.

            Again, more heat and spin from the WaPo than light here.  To say that Pelosi doesn't want to impeach Bush is like asking a judge if they want to convict the accused.  The judge says "NO" of course, and then you can run a headline about how the judge has no backbone and is soft on pedophiles.

            BUT KEEP ON SHOUTING!!
            We gotta move the Overton window to the left.

            •  Applause for the limber (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robb Black

              You are bending over backwards to give RepPelosi benefits of doubts she probably does not deserve.  Since you brought up the Overton Window, you can probably give your back a rest and start working out your diaphragm.

              SHOUT IT OUT!

              ;)

              Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

              by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:53:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but you bend over backward to believe the WaPo (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund

                Firstly, Pelosi doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt?

                She's excoriating the president any chance she gets.  She harping on investigations.  She and Reid are the first leaders with any backbone that we've had in a while.

                Secondly, I'm not bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt.  I'm saying there is nothing in the substance of Babington's article. Plenty of "truthiness" but no actual information.

                You want to believe the WaPo's spin instead of Pelosi?  

                As I've written in a response to KragoX, when impeachment comes, it should come like it did to Nixon, not as it did to Clinton.  The Repugs never have been able to spin Nixon's impeachment as partisan because it was obviously not.  Congress impeached Nixon in July of '74.  Congress, not the Democrats, will impeach Bush.  It might even be a Repug led impeachment of Bush.

                The Republican party will impeach Bush, and they will do so because they have to impeach Bush to remain a viable party.  George H.W. Bush was the RNC chair in '74, and he had to give the bad news to Nixon.  We need to find some Repug relative of Nixon  somewhere in the GOP today to return the favor ;-)

                Meanwhile Pelosi and Reid will be shedding tears and wrining their hands at how awful it is to have to impeach a president and how they wouldn't be doing this if there was any other way but Bush has just left them no choice and if Bush wasn't so defiant of the constitution....blahdyblahdyblah

                Remember, Pelosi is loudly calling for investigations.  She has not said that she will never impeach Bush, no matter what the WaPo spins (and you swallow).

                And yes, I am shouting, but I'm shouting "IMPEACH BUSH" not "IMPEACH PELOSI"

                •  Touche' (0+ / 0-)

                  OK, you've got me.  I'll go back and read the WaPo article a third time to see if I can pick up the same nuance you have.

                  I comprende also the let-the-GOP-dispose-of-their-own-Fredo angle.  Indeed, this is part of the thinking behind my impeach Rumsfeld personal crusade.  (That angle goes something like, Knock out Rumsfeld -> DoD employees breathe sigh of relief, start leaking -> GOP takes out Bush before things REALLY hit the fan.  The idea is, once Rummy is out the whole castle WILL come tumbling down, one way or another.

                  So anyway, I do actually agree with your general way of thinking and most of what you say.  I'll go so far to say that your approach is entirely acceptable - at this moment in time.  There is still ample reason to steer the national debate so that Bush is pressured from office as soon as can be reasonably expected.  So in that sense it is not critical for Nancy Pelosi to come out swinging haymakers from the heels.

                  However, that window of time is rapidly closing.  Before long the Democrats will have to show some inclination to act.  I am not a DNC decision-maker.  Mt role is different than theirs.  My role is to send a shot across their bow, to let them hear in no uncertain terms that "taking impeachment off the table" is unacceptable.

                  Did she really says this?  Is it some tricky political gambit?  Do I give a fuck?  No.  I am a mere citizen; I can learn only so much.  Well, I heard a story and maybe it is true.  Nancy Pelosi has to understand that, if true, that idea of hers is unacceptable.  

                  As a politician, she has to be smart enough to know people in general will react as though that headline is true.  She needs to hear, loudly, that that little test flag got shot off the frigging flagpole.

                  Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

                  by Quicklund on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:38:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I re-read it and still (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robb Black

                  I do not see how you conclude this story lacks any substance.

                  All remarks attributed to Pelosi were voluntary comments made by her office through her official spokesman.  Why should I not conclude thather official position is anything other than what the article states it to be?  Straight from the Minority Leader's mouth, it seems to me.

                  Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

                  by Quicklund on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:02:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  No, read more CAREFULLY (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robb Black

          These comments were uttered before, on May 7th on "Meet the Press".  The reporter contrasted Pelosi' words from today, with those from May 7th.

          One presumes the new announcement by the Representative superceeds the older announcement, yes?  

          Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

          by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:49:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A tool is a tool is a tool (3+ / 0-)

    whether they are Democrat or republican.

    Pelosi is a tool, an out of touch someone that if you or I woke up tomorrow reincarnated in a new life with her as your mother, you'd end up a teenager with blue hair and safety pins in your nose just to balance out the scales a bit.

    I support her above any republican, but I wish to god we had someone better in her position.

  •  Americans want a positive program, NOT impeachmen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    One Pissed Off Liberal

    You can't beat something with nothing.

    You can't beat tax cuts with impeachment.  You can't beat al qaeda with impeachment.

    What does impeachment do for the Dems that they can't do without it?  NOTHING.

    What voters does it gain for us?  NONE.

    Impeachment is a loser program for short-term thinkers who are obsessed with Bush.  We don't need to destroy Bush.  We need to destroy BUSH-THINK.  We need to convince voters that Dems have better ideas, sounder ideas, ideas that do THOSE INDIVIDUAL VOTERS some good.

    Impeachment is a really dumb idea.  Thank god Nancy Pelosi is smarter than most people here, and has made a really smart move that is politically sound as well.

    •  No one is saying (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Brian Nowhere
      Hidden by:
      davybaby

      make an issue of it...I'm not even saying that.

      What I am saying is why do you give up the fight before you even win?

      Why did she have to say ANYTHING about it?  Because she is a worthless leader who has no clue about political strategy.

      "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

      by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry - the only clueless one (0+ / 0-)
        is you, bud.

        She is Minority Leader.  You are writing diaries on dKos.  

        I think SHE wins the Political IQ derby here.

        •  If you say so... (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          I'll put my political savvy up against hers any day of the week.  You might know me as a diary writer on KOS...but I do more than that in real life.  ;o)

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:23:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  she said something because she was asked (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, what would Fitzgerald say if asked "Do you seek to indict Karl Rove"

        He'd have to say no, of course.  The intent of a prosecutor can never be to indict a specific individual.

        She said something because someone (Babington of the WaPo) asked her.  Her case is a little different from Fitzgerald's in that "No comment" would be only silence into which pundit fops could insert more of their spin and nonsense.

        Again, do you want to toss Fitzgerald because he has not publicly stated that he "seeks" to indict Rove?  Does this mean that Fitzgerald will never indict Rove regardless of the evidence.

        Again, you're falling victim to spin.

        BUT KEEP ON SHOUTING.  Gotta move that Overton window.

        The more we call Pelosi milquetoast, the more she will seem at least reasonable to the rest of the nation.

    •  It's not a political agenda. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grayscale, Quicklund

      It's a constitutional defense mechanism.

      You can oppose impeachment on the merits (if there are any), but please don't play Rove's game for him.

      What do voter gain? They gain a written referendum, drawing a line in the sand once and for all against the steady creep, under Republican administrations since Nixon, of executive power at the expense of the legislative power.

      Watergate spawned Iran-Contra, and Iran-Contra spawned today's situation. If you want to talk about this in terms of positive policy programs, give me an outline for how you're going to roll back executive encroachment in a way that's more permanent than what are now the obvious failures following the previous two iterations.

    •  Americans want accountability (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grayscale, Robb Black

      If the law was broken than the law-breakers need to be stopped. Abusing the sacred public trust in the way this administration is suspected of is an impeachable offense.

      Let us investigate, then let us hold the lawbreakers (if any) accountable.

      •  Oversight, not impeachment. (0+ / 0-)

        We need oversight. There is so much failure out there, and we need to correct it.

        •  Oversight is worthless... (0+ / 0-)

          without the ability to resort to impeachment.

          What's the plan for when the administration ignores our efforts at oversight, as they already have with what little the Republicans have demanded?

          •  you're falling victim to spin (0+ / 0-)

            we're arguing over what Pelosi didn't say.

            As I've written in several other comments, Pelosi is not quoted by Babington.  Only Daly is, and he says impeachement is "off the table" but gives no time frame in his quote.  We have to trust the WaPo (and I don't) that they really do not "seek" to impeach Bush, even if we get a Dem majority.

            No direct quotes from Pelosi, no direct quotes from anybody with a time period.  Big emphasis and much use of the word "seek".  And you swallow it.

            As I've written in other comments, what would Fitzgerald have to say if asked if he "seeks" to indict Rove?  He'd say "NO" or "no comment", of course, and "no comment" is not an option here for Pelosi, as it would be just silence into which pundit fops could hurl more spin and nonsense.

            Pelosi has not said that the Dems will not impeach, just that she is not SEEKING to impeach. BIG DIFFERENCE, all the difference in the world, really.  And BTW, impeachment is "off the table" probably just for now, which Daly probably said and Babington conveniently left off.

            It's like judge saying that, no, he or she does not SEEK to convict the accused.  Then you can run a headline saying that the judge is spinless and soft on pedophiles.  Or Alito saying that he does not SEEK to overturn Roe v. Wade.  You can then trumpet that he does not SEEK to overturn abortion rights even if presented with a case.

            Meaningless.  More heat and spin and hits on the WaPo website than light.

            But KEEP ON SHOUTING.  We gotta move that Overton window to the left.  Soon Pelosi will seem downright  forgiving (to everybody, not just us) for just calling for investingations.  Remember, not so long ago, merely kweschuning our dear prez was treazonous.

            •  Well, I don't think that's entirely true. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm arguing over what the implications are if what she is reported to have told the Caucus, if accepted at face value. I'm not calling for her head, but I think that if we're to take her intentions as the report would have us take it, then I strongly disagree.

              I think if I were calling for her resignation, you could fairly say I had fallen victim to the spin. Arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of a proposed tactical position shouldn't really be characterized that way.

    •  You make some good points... (6+ / 0-)

      But, with respect, this American wants justice, and that is spelled i-m-p-e-a-c-h-m-e-n-t!

      Do I care if it's practical?  NO!

      Do I care if it doesn't poll well?  NO!

      Do I care what the focus groups say?  NO!

      Do I think Pelosi (however smart she may be) is a good leader?  NO!

      Do I care that Hillary is smart too?  NO!

      Do you let somebody rape and pillage your country without seeking retribution?  NO!

      Do I want Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Gonzalez tried for their crimes?  YES!

      Does it have to be impeachment?  NO!

      A good old-fashioned war crimes tribunal would be just fine by me.

      Cheers!  :-)

      •  Your position appeals to left-wingers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        One Pissed Off Liberal

        but not to centrists.

        We don't need to convince people who are already convinced.

        •  But you do have to appeal to your base (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          hypersphere01, One Pissed Off Liberal
          Hidden by:
          davybaby

          and that is what the Democrats have failed to do time and time again.

          "You have your thoughts and I have mine. This is the fact and you can't change it even if you kill me."— Ba Jin

          by Robb Black on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:24:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The centrists are the problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robb Black

          I'm trying to convince centrists like you to see the light.

          Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the centrist Democrats the ones who voted FOR the Iraq war, and FOR the Patriot Act?

          I say God save us from the Lieberman centrists (not saying you are one, just saying).

        •  I will say this... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robb Black

          I just saw the announcement on CNN (of Pelosi's statement) and I see how it neutralizes the GOP "Rally 'round the Prez" strategy.  I do agree that that is pretty clever.  Now, if I could only believe that once the Democrats take power that they will take a page out of the GOP handbook and disregard all previous statements and do what they damn well intended to do all along (something that might rhyme with encreech the president), I could even get behind it.  I am just one of those who feel so abandoned and betrayed by our so-called leaders and their roll-over response to the evil machanations of the neocons that it's hard for me to be very hopeful.

          I hope I'm wrong, that that those who support her move (to disavow impeachment)are right, and that Nancy Pelosi is just being smart and will in the end come through for the American people.  I would beg her forgiveness for doubting her in that circumstance, but I'm putting them all on notice - they're going to have to SHOW me.

    •  You're half right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robb Black, Quicklund

      But we should just not be taking ideas off the table. When we do so, we allow the Republicans to set the terms of the debate.

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        There are two kinds of issues:

        1. You set the agenda.  They must respond.  These are positive issues.  Usually, with such issues, you put the other guy in a bad light AND YOU MAKE THEM EXPLAIN.

        When you are explaining, you are losing.

        1. You make a defensive proposal.  Then you have to explain it.  

        This is a loser proposition.  When you are explaining, you are losing.

        •  We let the GOP set the agenda on this one. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robb Black

          By turning it into something we had to deny.

          Now, instead of impeachment being something Republicans are embarrassed to have to discuss because it means their president is an abject failure, it's something that Democrats have to deny because they're afraid it will make them look partisan.

          I understand that concern, but why is this the only issue on which the "will you take it off the table" question is answered straight up? Nobody EVER answers that question that way. And for good reason! Nobody ever believes the answers, and it doesn't stop the other guys from continuing to make the accusation!

          Once you've committed to an identifiable answer, they have only to make the accusation again to force you off your message and onto theirs. It's a first class tactical blunder, committed in the name of not making a second class tactical blunder.

          •  Only if you believe the spin ('SEEK' != 'WILL') (0+ / 0-)

            Pelosi has not said that the Dems will not impeach, just that she is not SEEKING to impeach. BIG DIFFERENCE, all the difference in the world, really.  And BTW, impeachment is "off the table" probably just for now, which Daly probably said and Babington conveniently left off.

            Don't let the Repugs (or the WaPo) frame the debate.

            •  I think it's been framed already. (0+ / 0-)

              There's a stock answer to the "off the table" question, and they declined to give it. What their thinking was, I'm not sure. But the stock answer stands us in good stead. Better stead, in fact.

              Now we're stuck parsing how big the table is, and how long we're going to keep it clear, instead of what we do and don't actually think we want to do about Bush.

              •  so what's the stock answer? (0+ / 0-)

                So what's the stock answer that they didn't give, and why would it serve us better?

                We're not parsing tables.  The Dems aren't going to try to impeach Bush now.  We don't have to worry about what we want to do to Bush.  Pelosi has made it very clear that we will INVESTIGATE if given the chance in November.  The Pelosi quote, the only Pelosi quote (from Sunday) is to the effect that Dems will investigate, and where that will lead, no one knows.

                The best outcome is a Dem majority in November, leading to serious investigations, which will eventually lead to the impeachment of Bush.  But when that happens it must be not perceived as a Democratic impeachment of Bush (as that would be a fiasco like the Repug impeachment of Clinton).  It must be a congressional, even a Republican led impeachment of Bush.

                The Republican party will end up impeaching Bush, and doing so because they have to do so to remain a viable party.

                •  The stock answer... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robb Black

                  is the answer everyone gives to the "are you running for president" question. First, they say, "I'm concentrating on doing the best job I can for the people of... blah blah blah."

                  Then, the follow up question is, "Are you taking a presidential bid off the table?" And the answer is, "You can't predict the future. But that's not what I'm looking at right now. My commitment is to the people of... blah blah blah."

                  That's just about what she said on Sunday. It should have been reiterated on Wednesday.

                  My preferred answer, of course, is "Look, the answers to these questions -- whether about impeachment or merely about the president's approval ratings -- are in the president's hands, and nobody else's. The president is responsible for his actions. The president is respsonsible for his own popularity, or lack thereof. The president is responsible for his own fate."

                  In other words, don't ask me what's going to happen if the president continues to break the law. Ask the president when he's going to stop breaking it.

                  But I'm not sure that's actually better than the stock answer.

                  At any rate, I very much support the last half of your answer.

                  •  if you read carefully... (0+ / 0-)

                    If you read carefully, what Pelosi is saying is not far off from what you'd like. "You never know what [investigation] leads to" is pretty much what you are saying.

                    But running for president is not quite the same as impeaching a president.  It's not really an option for Pelosi to now say "well, we're not sure, we considering it" is tantamount to saying yes, we're going to impeach him, it certainly gives Liddy Dole and pundit fops more fodder to chew on.

                    To be fair, I would have had Daly answer the question differently.  I would just never use the word impeachment.  The Right is very good at this.  They never answer the question, they just say what they want to say.  We should do the same.

                    As others here have written, we need to emphasize investigation, not impeachment.  

                    For example:

                    Q: "Will the Democrats impeach Bush?"
                    A: "The current Republican leadership has consistently failed to seriously investigate any of the failures of this admininstration.  We need to investigate the NSA wiretapping of Americans.  We need to investigate the massive corruption in Congress.  We need to investigate the leaking of classified information for partisan political gain.  We must investigate the bad intelligence on WMD's. Me must investigate the botched occupation of Iraq.  The Republican leadership has avoided or whitewashed all these issues."

                    Q: "Yes, but do you plan/seek to impeach the president if you win a majority in November?"
                    A: "If we win a majority we will lead real, substantive investigations into these and other issues.  We will find out the truth.  The American people deserve the truth."

                    and so on
                    you can even insert Pelosi's "you never know where it leads to" quote in here.

                    Just a simple gramatical substitution.
                    Whenever the verb root is "impeach" and the object is "Bush" our reply should use "investigate" as the verb root and (wiretapping/corruption/Plame/Iraq/WMD/etc.) as the object.

                    Don't be too disappointed in Pelosi.  All the news I've read or heard is about NSA wiretapping/phone records, Fitzgerald and Rove, Iraq, Cunningham, etc.  So far, so good. Babington's article has spun out.

                    But keep shouting "IMPEACH!"  It's a good backdrop for Pelosi, keeps shifting the Overton window.  But as I've written to Quicklund, just remember to shout "IMPEACH BUSH" not "IMPEACH PELOSI" :)

                    •  If you stand on your head... (0+ / 0-)
                      you can read it any way you want.

                      I'm not all that unhappy with the things Nancy herself has actually said, though I'm not thrilled. Daly was just flat wrong, and it's going to make trouble.

                      No, it's not an option to say "we're considering it." Which is why I don't ask her to say that. I ask her to say what I asked her to say in the last post:  It's not what we're looking at. And any question of the president's fate is in his own hands.

                      The biggest problem I have in discussing this is almost never what Nancy Pelosi says. I usually have a bigger problem getting people to recognize what I'm saying, and not what they fantasize I'm saying.

  •  What Pelosi should be saying ad naseum (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    centerdem, Quicklund

    is that Democrats in power will bring back OVERSIGHT.

    if this leads to Bush's total vindication, then so be it. If it leads to impeachment then so be that.

    The point is, that currently the checks are lost in the mail and the balances are all  heavily titled to the right.

    This needs to be fixed, and let the chips fall where they may.

  •  One more dagger in the back... (3+ / 0-)

    ...of the American people.  Thanks for nothing Pelosi!

  •  Conyers agrees with Pelosi (0+ / 0-)
    and I agree with Conyers.
    Impeachment is not the important thing.  Investigations and oversight are the important thing.  Once we get those going, accountability will come in one form or another.
    •  That is different than her announcement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robb Black

      _"Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

      Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said."_

      bolding mine

      Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

      by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:59:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Over 100 poll votes supporting the dairist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robb Black

    And only 6 reccomends.

    Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

    by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:30:29 AM PDT

  •  What happened to taking the gloves off? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayscale, Robb Black, Quicklund

    The Rovist spin machine feints in the form of Tim Russert and Pelosi retreats meekly to her corner of the ring...taking the Dems with her.

    There is a criminal running the precinct house currently.  There are crimes being committed and malfeasance of office that should get the guy shit-canned.  Even if they don't INTEND to impeach, why cower everytime the spew starts flowing from the media organ.  Surely there is a better and more savvy response than one that paints the Dems into a corner and doesn't look like they are still on their knees trying to fellate the Right.  

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:35:26 AM PDT

    •  I believe the Dems know... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robb Black

      that the commencement of serious impeachment proceedings will trigger the imposition of martial law by Bush. That, in turn, would surely lead to a cancellation of the 2006 midterm elections and Bush would certainly begin to rule by decree. Thereafter, he would likely dissolve the House of Repreentatives - ruling that the term of the Members had expired. As far as the Senate is concerned, Bush would probably just continue to ignore it, pretty much as he has for the past 5 1/2 years.

      The U.S. court system is toothless and Bush would ignore it, too. The U.S. Constitution is not an issue because it has been nullified de facto already by Bush.

      All of this is likely to happen very quickly and almost before we realize it, the American experiment with democracy will have ended, probably for a very, very long time.

      The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Dump Chafee in '06.

      by jayatRI on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:51:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Don't Doubt That Bush... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grayscale, Quicklund

        is capable of any number of things. He's shown us that. But I have a few responses to your post...

        1. Pelosi's taken impeachment off the table for AFTER the 2006 mid-terms, not before them; and
        1. she is signalling, IMHO, fear - If what you say is true (and I don't really know if it is or not) then Bush can keep threatening martial law with whatever he please..."Oh, you want to investigate that?  Fine, martial law.  Oh you want to indict him?  Fine, martial law."  

        Ya see, it doesn't stop.  At some point, one has to act out of courage and not out of craven fear.  

        Again, even if they DON'T intend to impeach...why not leave it out there and be skillful in the frame.  There's plenty of support for it and we all want CRIMINAL$ to be brought to justice, no?

        "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

        by mayan on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nancy Pelosi is... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayscale, Robb Black, Quicklund

    one sad sack son of a bitch (pardon the gender confusion). The decision on impeachment is too important to be left to her alone. There is no question in my mind that impeachment MUST remain on the table. The only debate that may remain is when action should commence. Yes, the first priority is electing a Democratic Congress. And the first priority of the new Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives is to elect a new Leader. Pelosi is a weasel. She has to go. Remember that the Bush Crime Family will still be in office in January, 2007. All of our people in Congress at that time will need to have adamantine steel backbones. Pelosi certainly does NOT fit that description.

    The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Dump Chafee in '06.

    by jayatRI on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:38:12 AM PDT

  •  Defending the Constitution is no political tactic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayscale, Robb Black, zephron

    It is every Congressperson's sworn duty.  That includes Nancy Pelosi.  

    Honest people of honorable intent may debate the political wisdom of making impeachment a campagin issue.  I happen to believe the issue must form part of the campaign debate.  But I am sympathetic to those who feel the impeachment debate must wait until after the election.  I feel that is the short-sighted view, but their heart is in the right place.  They understand the need to prove our President is subject to the law of the land.  We disagree on the route, but not on the destination.

    But this .. this from Nancy Pelosi is different.  This is a flat dismissal of impeachment proceedings, under any circumstances.  Regardless of what investigations might turn up.  Regardless of the year, 2006, 2007, 2008, regardless of a Democratic majority or not - Nancy Pelosi has no interest in impeachment, ever.

    This is unacceptable.  Who does Rep Pelosi thik she is, to choose to ignore criminal behavior by the President?  This is dereliction of duty.

    Rep Pelosi is urged to contact the media with follow-ups, explanations, CYS's, and mea cuplae.

    Now.

    Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

    by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:55:34 AM PDT

  •  Necessity! (4+ / 0-)

    Impeachment is a necessity, not an option, not a strategy, not a bargaining chip.  Full stop.

    Think about that.  Congress can grind to a halt.  They can pull the plugs on the war budget.  They can jump off a cliff!  And none of that will stop this administration from doing whatever the hell they want to do!  Impeachment isn't about winning this or that election, it is about restoring democracy, restoring the constitution, restoring faith in our government.  If you can't see that, after five and a half years with these people, where have you fucking been?

    Now, we can discuss how impeachment might be counterproductive (it's not!), or how this or that might be a good tactical decision, or how "it's the job of Democratic leaders to win elections" (which is total bullshit, they're job is to lead for fucks sake!).  But we cannot discuss whether or not the cause of impeachment is righteous, or necessary.

    I'd assert that Removal from office isn't the end, but the beginning.  I'm for hanging them on the Capital steps!  Why?  Is it for revenge?  No, though the rage I feel each day is more than sufficient.  No it's because I'm afraid of the next group of fucktards that want to rape and pillage my country!  The ones who aren't idiots.  The ones who won't give us so much obvious cause for their heads.  The ones who will succeed.  They need a message.  They need to know that this will not be allowed.  That there masters, the citizens of the United States of America, will extract a high price indeed for any foolish enough to try!  That is why.  That is why this can't be optional.

    Finally, do you really think that American's want a "positive" agenda and all that crap?  If they did why do they keep voting for Republicans?  They want to know where we stand!  They want to know what we believe.  And most of all, they want to know if we'll fight.  Impeachment is the beginning of a stand, and call out to fight.  Articles of   impeachment are unequivocal statements of those principles we will not compromise on.  Tactical maneuvering, on the other hand, is always received by suspicions, and rightly so.

  •  Still only 10 reccomends (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robb Black

    Hundreds of comments and poll votes.

    10 reccomends.

    Sad.

    Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

    by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:19:49 AM PDT

    •  storm in a teapot (0+ / 0-)

      more spin and heat than light.

      we're arguing over what Pelosi didn't say.

      not much to recommend (except a good argument over not much).

      I'm enjoying it, but I can't recommend it to others in good conscience.  Wouldn't want to waste their time.

      As I've written above, Pelosi is not quoted by Babington.  Only Daly is, and he says impeachement is "off the table" but gives no time frame in his quote.  We have to trust the WaPo (and I don't) that they really do not "seek" to impeach Bush, even if we get a Dem majority.

      No direct quotes from Pelosi, no direct quotes from anybody with a time period.  Big emphasis and much use of the word "seek".  And you swallow it.

      As I've written above, what would Fitzgerald have to say if asked if he "seeks" to indict Rove?  He'd say "NO" or "no comment", of course, and "no comment" is not an option here for Pelosi, as it would be just silence into which pundit fops could hurl more spin and nonsense.

      Pelosi has not said that the Dems will not impeach, just that she is not seeking to impeach. BIG DIFFERENCE, all the difference in the world, really.  And BTW, impeachment is "off the table" probably just for now, which Daly probably said and Babington conveniently left off.

      But KEEP ON SHOUTING.  We gotta move that Overton window to the left.  Soon Pelosi will seem downright  forgiving (to everybody, not just us) for just calling for investingations.  Remember, not so long ago, merely kweschuning our dear prez was treazonous.

  •  12 recs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robb Black

    and congrats to the original poster for taking this topic on.

    I don't think criticsm of Nancy Pelosi is comfortable for everyone on Daily Kos.

    But having seen what reflexive dismissal of criticism has done to the Repugs (and the rest of us), I hope the Kos mavens will be able to summon the tolerance for discomfort to hear viewpoints with which they do not agree.

    On a related topic, I hope this diary stays up. -
    Tags for Pelosi were repeatedly deleted from my diary regarding a different facet of this topic (the Dems falling for the Brer' Rabbit tactic again).

    Shortly after I called attention to the repeated deletion of the Pelosi tags, the whole diary was yanked.

    I don't know you, Robb Black, but whoever you are, I hope readers will be willing to look at your criticisms and form their own opinions.

  •  'Please don't throw me in that briar patch!' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robb Black, kirk murphy

    Bre'r Rove and the Pelosi Patch.

    1. GOP puts out a bluff. We dare you to campaign on impeachment.  Our loyal base will be enraged and will vote en masse to defend their beloved President!
    1. Democratic Party Swallows Bluff Whole.  Ah HA!  The GOP base will turn out en masse if we discuss impeachment.  What to do, what to do ... I got it!  We won't discuss impeachment.  Advisors: Brilliant!
    1. Repeat as neccessary.

    Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

    by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:19:03 PM PDT

    •  you got it backward (0+ / 0-)

      The GOP is crying "they're going to impeach Bush"!

      Briar patch = a largely partisan Dem impeachment effort
      (e.g. the party line GOP impeachment of Clinton)

      The GOP threw Clinton into the Briar Patch and Clinton got away, and the GOP got all tangled in the briars.

      Now they are trying to get us to throw Bush into the same patch (or at least rally their base around the prospect).

      The best outcome is a Dem majority in November, leading to serious investigations, which will eventually lead to the impeachment of Bush.  But when that happens it must be not perceived as a Democratic impeachment of Bush (as that would be a fiasco like the Repug impeachment of Clinton).  It must be a congressional, even a Republican led impeachment of Bush.

      The Republican party will end up impeaching Bush, and doing so because they have to impeach him to remain a viable party.

      George H.W. Bush was RNC chairman in '74, and was the guy who gave the bad news to Nixon.  We need to find a Repuglican Nixon relative in Congress to return the favor in '06

      •  Yeah, the GOP has been real feeble in the 2000's. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robb Black

        Yeah, look how that Clinton impeachment blew up in the Republican faces.

        Won Presidency, House, Senate in 2000 (before the Jeffords defection)

        Won House, Senate in 2002

        Won Presidency, House, Senate in 2004

        GOP 8, Democrats zero.

        Yeah, they sure outsmarted themselves.  How did they dare think they could challenge the Mighty and Fierce Democratic Party.

        What was I thinking?

        Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

        by Quicklund on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:12:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  c'mon, that's not what I said (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't say the Repugs were feeble.

          I said that the partisan impeachment of Clinton didn't work for the GOP.  During BJgate Clinton's approval went up from 58% to the 60's, and the GOP lost seats in '98 (as well as causing a few resignations over sex, like Bob Livingston).

          When Newty tried to shut down the govt in late '95  Clinton successfully spun it into a "Republican" shut down of govt. I don't know that the GOP lost seats over it, but Newty had to back down.

          These tricks didn't work for the GOP, even though the GOP were, on average, gaining in political strength during the 90's

          Let's not repeat their mistakes.

          •  Apples / Oranges (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robb Black

            You said the GOP got tangles up in the briar patch.  Well, they ran a BS impeachment try on trumped-up charges against a popular president.  For doing this they suffered ZERO political defeats.  Oh sure, a few seats were lost in 1988, but not the majority.  Yeah, Gingrich and Linvingston suffered personal setbacks, but not the GOP.  They have thrived.

            So what the ^$%^$%!! should the Democrats fear about impeaching aninept, hated President, for actual "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" based upon cold hard facts and probably a dozen different impeachable offenses?

            I am suppposed to ignore al that because some Democratic politicians might suffer some career difficulties?

            I don't give two damns for the Democratic Party.  My damns are reserved for my country.

            Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

            by Quicklund on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:43:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  'Tricks' (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robb Black

            I can't beoieve you call impeachment a "trick".

            Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

            by Quicklund on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site