Accidental repost -- Nancy Pelosi/No Impeachment (ignore)

http://www.youtube.com/...

(about 20 seconds in)  Heeere's Nancy!  Yes, folks, the person who now looks like she's going to be Speaker of the House (if the predictions hold true) has just promised that there will be NO IMPEACHMENT of President Bush.

Yep, "The Gloves Are Off" Nancy has just said that she won't impeach Bush for any of his wrongdoing.  Not signing statements.  Not lying to get us into war.  Not illegal wiretaps.  It'd be a "waste of time."  

Its her promise.  Its her pledge.  Of course, it means that she's abdicated her constitutional responsibilities to have the House act as a check on the President, but she doesn't give a shit about that.

I can't wait for Nancy's next request for money for the DCCC.  I should get it, oh, in about the next hour or so.  If its like all the other ones, it'll talk about the need to fight Buch, to take the gloves off, to stop the Republican hate machine, to protect American rights and American values....blah blah blah.

Earth to Nancy:  Protecting American values starts with protecting the checks and balances in the Constitution.

What a wanker.

•  Tip Jar/Flames

  I'm so mad I could scream.

  by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:08:52 PM PDT

  •  So does Howard Dean - so what?

    http://www.phillyburbs.com/...

    I asked: Would you support investigations that could lead to articles of impeachment?

    "What we’re interested in is an agenda of improving things for ordinary people," Dean said. "Ordinary people in America have been taking it on the chin for six years, so we have to fix that problem first."

    The Righties, OTOH, are assuring America the Dem's are itching to impeach. It's part of their firewall strategy.
    

    by RonK Seattle on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:19:52 PM PDT

    •  Right, but he evaded the question.

      Pelosi could have done that, too. Instead she said, effectively, "no impeachment." Assuming that was his entire statement, Dean got it right.

      by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:51 PM PDT

      •  We have a contract with America

        Voters are turning against Republicans in droves. They don't care what Democrats have to offer. They're not interested. They're not asking ... with one notable exception, and one we've consistently presented.

        No impeachment.

        by RonK Seattle on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:40:57 PM PDT

        •  I think it's premature to discuss this

          or try to decide based on what's happening right now.

          We don't really know the extent of the damage that Bush and his people have done, nor of the criminal acts they may or may not have committed, so we can't dismiss or promote any kind of legal action at this time.

          Do you believe we actually have to commit to no impeachment to get elected?

          by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:48:46 PM PDT

          •  Take it off the table, or there's no Dem majority

            Voters, Democrats and Republicans are quite clear on this.

            They want us to be the Party of Impeachment.

            We don't want to.

            We'll emphasize it as firmly as we have to.

            by RonK Seattle on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:00:17 PM PDT

            •  I see your point

              but it feels a little like the military commissions act -- you know, trying to preempt appropriate action and/or punishment for bad acts or illegal behavior. If they can scare us into saying "OK, OK, no impeachment!" before we even have a chance to really look at where we are, they may skate once again.

              What if it turns out that Bush did something really, really bad? Don't you think we would be expected to do something about it? And do you believe that those circumstances release us from our pledge (and she did say it was a pledge)?

              Of course, you probably do, but I believe that makes us look very uninsightful, that we couldn't have foreseen the possibility that we may have to take action based on what we may discover once we regain access. Do we have to SAY we'll give the president a pass in order to get elected?

              I still think we do better not to engage the discussion publicly at all. Denying that we will impeach takes away just as much air time from things that count as not denying it.

              I just can't shake the feeling we're letting ourselves be wagged again.

              by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:10:56 PM PDT

              •  Things that count? Plural?

                It's the only thing that counts. The only thing on the public wishlist for a Democratic Congress.

                They expect us to raise taxes and such ... but they won't stand for an impeachment circus.

                by RonK Seattle on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

                •  How do you know that?

                  by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:19:59 PM PDT

                  •  We have a six-point plan, right?

                    How fast can you name the six points?

                    Do you do any canvassing? How often do you meet an ordinary voter who can spontaneously name one point, much less six?

                    Most of our incumbents don't have it down pat. Our candidates congratulate each other if they can tick off 5 of 6 without visibly straining.

                    This has been polled and focus-grouped to death. VOTERS DON'T CARE WHAT WE STAND FOR, they're just fed up with both sides' partisan nonsense and they want elected officials to take care of business. They rate impeachment as partisan nonsense -- a tangent -- not the peoples business.

                    GOP has tried to raise the spectre of Speaker Pelosi, without much effect ... but the Party of Impeachment has traction. That's why Dem leaders, canidates and incumbents are working to scrub it off the table.

                    by RonK Seattle on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:44:44 PM PDT

                    •  We Have More Important Things to Do

                      We don't need to be the party of punishment.  The nation is ready for some healing.  And getting down to business without taking any shit but without getting sidetracked either is what will move us forward.

                      Thanks for being so clear on this.

                      by nudger on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:15:50 PM PDT

        •  where the hell

          are you getting THAT idea from?

          Seriously, that's one of the whackiest things I've heard.

          You got any polls to back that up?

          by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:17:40 PM PDT

    •  Who cares what a DLC'er has to say?

      by Mike S on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:25:31 PM PDT

  •  i don't agree...

    Of course she has to say "no impeachment."  

    If she didn't, then the Rs would take any equivocation on her part as the equivalent of saying "yes impeachment" and that would give them a huge basis on which to rally their side.  In fact it might sway some swing voters to vote Republican.  

    She can always change her mind as the facts come in from the investigations.

    Do you want to lose this election over a few words that can change later...?...

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:37:31 PM PDT

    •  Right on

      Listen cowboys - the lady has to do what she's gotta do and say what she's gotta say to diffuse the backlash growing in the republican ranks to her possible future status as speaker of the house.

      Give her a f'ng break.

      There is nothing that sez, after the hard work of getting this nation back on track is done ( or at least well under way ) that the dems can't have a little fun time and do some investigating that very well might get the country riled up enough to push for an impeachment. She said "she" wasn't for impeachment now, but maybe her constituents and the constituents of other congressmen might feel differently down the road. I'm sure she would then say "well, the people who elected me feel very strongly about impeachment, I'm just doing what they've hire me to do..."

      She's no dummy- give her some slack on this one guys. She knows what she's doing.

      Besides, these crooks are out in a couple years - we'll need all our energy to steer us back on course. Bush and his pals will pay for what they've done, impeachment is too good for them.

      They need to do some hard time somewhere as far as I'm concerned.

      by RagingGurrl on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:53:51 PM PDT

      •  January 2009

        You want these guys in office until January of 2009?

        I don't.  Hell, there are a lot of Republicans who don't want that!

        by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:44:43 PM PDT

    •  She can say that now

      but but she'll be in trouble here in San Francisco. Matt Gonzales, who nearly beat Newsom for mayor could challenge her in '08.

      by McGirk on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:09:38 PM PDT

      •  Pelosi

          cannot be outmaneuvered on the left. Give me a break. That would be a fools venture by Gonzales.

        by usmeagle69 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:27:04 PM PDT

•  Posted more than once here

  ...and it's also been pointed out that what she's saying now, two weeks before a critical election, and what will actually happen if and when Dems take over are very likely not the same thing.

  Yeah, I'd love to hear her scream "impeach the bastards!" from the rooftops, but I'll also allow that it might not help Dems in the upcoming election, so I'll live with it.

  by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:10:21 PM PDT

  •  I think you are wrong

    I'm not asking her to announce impeachment proceedings. I'm asking her to do something other than say in a recorded statement that "impeachment is off the table."

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:11:57 PM PDT

    •  Sure...

      ...but as others have pointed out below, it's really not up to her, regardless.

      by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:14:13 PM PDT

      •  then ... she should say that

        instead of making this inane "pledge".

        by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:19:09 PM PDT

    •  Why?

        what good would that do? Other than legitimize the GOP talking points that claim that's what we're after? Nothing. Except make angry progressive happy for about a week until they find something else to bitch about that's not being addressed to their satisfaction. Leave the woman alone. She's got a House to win.

      by usmeagle69 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:28:26 PM PDT

  •  and

    what she's saying now, two weeks before a critical election, and what will actually happen if and when Dems take over are very likely not the same thing.

     

    How is that a good thing? I don't like when the repugs do it and I don't like when the dems do it. I want honest politicians damnit.

    I am not saying she has to go around screaming "impeach the chimp," but she doesn't have to committ one way or another on it. In fact, she should have a pat answer for that question - an answer that is truthful yet vague enough to give wiggle room - diplomacy.

    by lil love on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:15:40 PM PDT

    •  All politicians do it

      It kind of goes with the territory that people who don't watch what they say, and are careless with making explosive remarks, don't stay in politics long.

      Though we all say we want our politicians to "say what they mean and mean what they say", when it comes right down to it things are a little more complicated than that.

      Pelosi doesn't decide if and when Chimpeachment takes place.  Right now, she's trying to avoid giving the GOP something to rally around.  Not a bad idea, IMHO.

      by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:18:08 PM PDT

      •  Not a bad idea at all.

        Especially given how easy it would be to later say "I went on record as saying no impeachment, but now the voices of the American people are crying out for justice, and as the Peoples' representitive..."

        by EeDan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:30:06 PM PDT

        •  I don't think anyone would care at that point

          If and when impeachment comes up, no one will care if wingnuts whine that Pelosi promised not to hurt their boy-king.

          With Congressional investigations to back up the wrongdoing, the average American already back impeachment.  The pitiful bleatings of a few GOP'ers about how unfair Pelosi's being will only cost them more public esteem.

          by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:34:46 PM PDT

      •  I detest that argument with the burning...

        passion of 10K suns.  ALL politicians don't do it and even if they did, it still doesn't make it right nor is it the right thing for her to do.

        Duplicity in any form indicates poor character, and if the Democrats are no better than the Repugs, why vote them into office?  Why is it okay to swap the devil for the witch, just to have change with business as usual?  

        Like everything else in our nation these days, truth and doing the right thing are frowned upon....  Wrong is right and right is wrong....  

        What a world...

        by 99 Percent Pure on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

    •  What's dishonest about it?!?

      There are as yet no official grounds for impeachment.  If and when Conyers gets the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he will investigate.  Then he will report to Congress.  Then his committee will vote on the articles of impeachment.  That's when Nancy will have the opportunity to decide what to do about it.

      Even on Nov 8, assuming the Dem majority is already undisputed, it will still be inappropriate for the Speaker-to-be to prejudge the issue.  Yes, yes, we all know what it's all about.  And yet, I'm all for our side to preserve the niceties in such a situation.

      After all, I despise the newt and his henchmen for how they went about the Clinton impeachment, just as much as the fact that they did it at all.

      I'm proud that our side is behaving so much better, just as responsible statesmen (statespeople?) ought!

      by amitxjoshi on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:57:41 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        There are as yet no official grounds for impeachment.  If and when Conyers gets the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he will investigate.  Then he will report to Congress.  Then his committee will vote on the articles of impeachment.  That's when Nancy will have the opportunity to decide what to do about it.

        That's the truth. When she said she would not go after impeachment - that was not true because of all the reasons you mention - and if she'd said she would go after impeachment - that would also not be true because of all the things you mention.

        I don't know if my post wasn't clear but I never said she should say we are going after him - I said she should give a diplomatic answer that allows for wiggle room - much like what you said. Because that would be the truth.

        by lil love on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:03:32 PM PDT

        •  Paging Mr Spock!

          I don't know if my post wasn't clear but I never said she should say we are going after him - I said she should give a diplomatic answer that allows for wiggle room - much like what you said. Because that would be the truth. [emphasis added by me]

          MR SPOCK: No, lil love, your previous post was quite clear. It is this post which is illogical. "Diplomatic truth" is an oxymoron which is usually defined as lying politely.

          by davidincleveland on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:12:30 PM PDT

          •  well

            Something is certainly moronic around here, but it's not the word "diplomacy." A word that, you will note, I used in both posts.

            first post:

            I am not saying she has to go around screaming "impeach the chimp," but she doesn't have to committ one way or another on it. In fact, she should have a pat answer for that question - an answer that is truthful yet vague enough to give wiggle room - diplomacy.

            According to Merriam-Webster, diplomacy is:

            skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility

            It's not lying or bullshiting. It's saying "a different outfit would be more flattering" instead of "your ass looks big". Or, in this instance, "I'm not ready to even entertain that, I am focused on getting democrats elected so that our country will have a better future." That's how it's done.

            by lil love on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:38:45 PM PDT

            •  You don't know the difference between

              "oxymoron" and "moronic?" May I suggest you dive back into your Webster's and look them up? If that was simply your "diplomatic" and non site-rule-breaking way of calling me an ass, I'll respond more directly [and, perhaps, prove your point]: Telling someone

              "a different outfit would be more flattering" instead of "your ass looks big"

              is just a fancy way of lying by evasion. While it may serve the purpose of allowing both parties to "save face" with each other, it (like diplomacy in general) disparages the integrity and common sense of both parties, since only a fool would believe it sincere.

              by davidincleveland on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:10:30 PM PDT

              •  thanks for yet another example

                It was a play on words, moron. You are not someone I can nor want to communicate with. Done.

                by lil love on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:28:56 PM PDT

                •  You shouldn't attempt such dangerous experiments

                  without an adult present.

                  It was a play on words, moron.

                  Playing with things you don't understand can hurt you.

                  by davidincleveland on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:09:50 PM PDT

      •  then why say anything?

        Why take a fucking pledge?  Why not just evade the question, like Dean did?  

        by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:20:19 PM PDT

        •  Evading the question

            only keeps the subject in the news. It's a loser issue for us. We don't want it in the news right now. Why the hell does this have to be an issue now? It doesn't. Hold the fire...it's not necessary that Impeachment be talked about RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND. Let Pelosi do what she has to do to win the House back.

          by usmeagle69 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Agree, and there's more opportunity

    She says no impeachment for things this president has done. History repeats itself and you can be certain that this president will do so many more things that will incite impeachment.

    It's like a misbehaving child; they will act up again.

    by PBnJ on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:16:38 PM PDT

    •  Hopefully,

      those future impeachable offenses won't include disbanding Congress.

      by Olds88 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:54 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit, in that case, she should not say

    anything...or say "that is up to the House members as a whole, not me."  What an idiot.

    by hcc in VA on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:45:59 PM PDT

    •  Guess we disagree

      Since anything less than a denial would have been spun as "Pelosi admits Dems just want to impeach Bush", She DID have a reason to respond the way she did.

      And since it's really not important one way or another as to whether Bush gets impeached, your response seems a bit over the top.  But to each his own.

      by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:49:14 PM PDT

      •  It should NOT be the first order of business.

        What I would do, after we take over either or both Houses, is to begin the oversight that is constitutionaly mandated...and NOT in a small basement room, as they forced Conyers and others to do...issue subpeanas, have witnesses testify under oath...do what it takes to delve into everything that has happened.  Then, if they are able to uncover even more blatent illegalities, then we should consider impeachment...after all, how can you NOT impeach a President that admits committing illegal acts??  And didn't the Supreme Court verify that over his Guantanamo trial procedures?  

        by hcc in VA on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:29:12 PM PDT

        •  Impeachment is just

            not that simple, as the GOP found out in the Clinton years. All the factors necessary for impeachment just aren't there. We would be stupid to bring up articles of impeachment if we had no chance to convict. We will not have any chance of convicting the President in an impeachment trial. Therefore, we should focus our efforts on what can be accomplished. Impeachment is a losing issue.

          by usmeagle69 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:34:01 PM PDT

  •  Jonathan is spot on

    Dems must stand for "issues" right now, and try to get as much as the "First 100 Hours" (brilliant framing, by the way) out as possible.

    If, once some small back room public hearings with subpoena powers results in a full-blown investigation that uncovers undeniable abuse of office -- WELL THEN... that sort of changes things right? WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE COMMITTED SUCH HEINOUS ACTS??

    AFTER ALL, WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY KNOWN THAT TERRORISTS WOULD FLY AIRPLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS???

    by TX Unmuzzled on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:11:15 PM PDT

•  Sorry -- hadn't realized it was posted previously

  looked through the diaries and didn't see it.  

  by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

  •  No problem

    Al Frankin talked about it today, too.  It's been around for the last couple of days.

    by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:11:44 PM PDT

    •  I'll retitle the diary

      I'd delete it but everyone goes nuts when a diary is deleted.

      by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:12:41 PM PDT

      •  Don't delete it

        by The Termite on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:14:03 PM PDT

        •  No, I haven't deleted it

          Nor would I

          by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:22:28 PM PDT

          •  Nor should you n/t

            by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:51 PM PDT

          •  I'm glad you didn't delete the diary

            because some of us don't spend our whole fucking lives here and I had no idea that Pelosi had said such a stupid thing.  Thanks for the diary.  Recommended.

            ps. I get tired of the sanctomonious self-appointed dkos police force.

            by benthos on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:26:59 PM PDT

  •  It's all right.

    Frankly, it isn't up to Pelosi whether or not Bush gets impeached.  It is up to her to encourage investigation as to what this maniac has done, as well as what the Congress has done.  And if we take back Congress, I don't see the heads of those committees not doing their job of oversight.

    by Nightprowlkitty on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:12:59 PM PDT

•  Isn't that powder dry yet? (N/T)

  by roxtar on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:11:38 PM PDT

  •  Let me put it this way...

    ...if and when Dems take over Congress, it will be with the help of a whole lot of Dem freshmen -- new lawmakers who very likely decided to run precisely because they were sick of what the Dems weren't doing, as well as what the GOP was doing.

    There are going to be more and more good people in Congress who aren't thrilled with sitting out fights like the Dems have been doing.  And it's about time.

    by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:13:24 PM PDT

•  Something tells me that

  this is one of thousands of diaries on this subject.

  Personally I think it was a smart thing to say.  It takes a talking point out of the GOP's arsenal and is easy to ignore if any of our investigations turn up irrefutable evidence that he has committed an impeachable offence.

  by Mike S on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:12:27 PM PDT

•  She would be 3rd in ilne

  Let others discuss impeachment, her position as Speaker would be far to close to the office for her to become vocal about the prospects.

  As the old Southern saying would have it Nancy's "got a dog in that hunt".

  by wmc418 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:13:08 PM PDT

  •  I think you are confusing two sayings....

    • That dog won't hunt (i.e.,  it ain't gonna work) and
    • I don't have a dog in that fight (i.e., none of my business).

    I say this only as the child of Southerners, so actual Southerners may correct me.

    by Bensdad on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:19:52 PM PDT

    •  She's got a big dawg in that fight.

      y'all.

      by EeDan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

    •  Yes it's the opposite

      Her dog in the hunt is "becoming President" which would require the Southern Genteel Person not to be the one who presses the fight since she stands to gain so much from the outcome.

      This from a Tarheel living in Paradise for the past 25 years.

      by wmc418 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:33:46 PM PDT

•  Now hang on a minute

  Our base is energized.  The way to keep it energized is to make sure we ferret out all of the nastiness that the GOP has hidden for the past 6 years.  Impeachment sort of kills that buzz.  It makes more sense to be thorough.  We should "let every worm that lies in the mud hatch out" first.  Then, public outcry may be so great that she'll have to eat that promise.  What are the Republicans going to do?  Scream, "But you PROMISED!" as their asses are hauled off to jail?  Let's have a truth and reconciliation commission and get to the bottom of it all.  The public will be furious and the current GOP will get what it deserves: Decades in oblivion.

  by goldberry on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:13:54 PM PDT

  •  Yep. That's what I think will happen

    What you say as a politician is "I think it'd be suprising to have an impeachment.  I have no current plans to impeach.  I'm focused on winning the election, not taking on impeachment."

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:21:07 PM PDT

  •  Sternly disagree

    Dems who understand politics see this for what it is--an empty "pledge" meant to pacify centrists who are being painted as "loony" and "vengeful" and "obstructionists".  This prevents the GOP from running ads claiming that all Dems want to do is fuck the President, that all they want is revenge.

    There's a WORLD of diff between what she says she's pledging, and what they'll really do after all the investigations are over.   So PLEASE, realize this...

    by topicalstorm on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:22:01 PM PDT

    •  Ummm, how are we disagreeing? n/t

      by goldberry on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:24:05 PM PDT

      •  Sternly n/t

        by Jonathan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

      •  because...

        ...i read like an idiot, and respond likewise.

        Between the diaries on Diebold, Liebs, and everything else, my blood is boiling.  I should not be allowed to comment when in this state of anger, b/c I misread your comment completely.

        by topicalstorm on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:29:29 PM PDT

•  She's got her fingers crossed

  behind her back.

  by Loquatrix on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:15:22 PM PDT

•  Trying to get Dubya impeached

  would probably cost us 2008.

  Unless we caught him with the young pages.

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:15:46 PM PDT

  •  I dont think so.

    A slight majority supports the idea.  Its legit (unlike the Clinton attack) and it is simply the right thing to do.  We have to stand up for whats right - that will get us votes.

    by environmentalist on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:19:04 PM PDT

    •  Spend our powder

      on sending a few dozen (or more) GOP Congress-folk to prison. Shut down the money channels into the RNC.

      Impeachment would be a circus (a deserved circus) but ultimately a distraction from preparing for 2008.

      by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:22:04 PM PDT

      •  I at least agree with this:

        ....on sending a few dozen (or more) GOP Congress-folk to prison. Shut down the money channels into the RNC.

        Yes.  That too.

        by environmentalist on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

•  People might not agree with her

  Ok, this is only an online poll, but see ilovehunter's diary on it.
  http://www.dailykos.com/...
  Impeach the Dunderhead?
  Yes: 58%
  Maybe: 28%
  No: 13%

  As I pointed out in the comments there, the "No" for Bush is comparable to the "Yes" for Clinton. Go figure.

  by Dr Benway on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:15:59 PM PDT

  •  the ABC poll

    is heavily in favor of impeachment.

    http://www.abcnews.com

    by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:23:01 PM PDT

•  Yup, she should say this

  Why give the wing-nuts locker room quotes to rally the base? "Those nasty liberals just hate President Bush" is a common winger talking point.

  Bush is a lame duck. Rather than impeach, I would prefer the House subpoena the heck out of every GOP Congress-person who ever knew Abramoff's name.

  Come 2008, I would prefer a solid Democratic Congress in preference to the scalp of GWB.

  by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:16:27 PM PDT

  •  nice....

    Come 2008, I would prefer a solid Democratic Congress in preference to the scalp of GWB.

    Couldn't have said it any better.  2 Houses minus Bush in jail versus 1 House plus Bush impeached but ultimately cleared by the Senate?

    I'll take the former.

    by topicalstorm on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:25:07 PM PDT

•  Impeach Pelosi!

  by curmudgiana on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

  •  Can't do that until the Lady Speaker has

    become President.  We'll discuss it then.  And you forgot the snark tag...

    by EeDan on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:35:32 PM PDT

•  If not now - then what the Fuuu!

  If the action of this president and the administration does not warrent an impeachment proceedings - then there will never be a need.

  We just might as well get rid of that part of the constitution.

  Nancy - Get real.  You should be singing loud and clear we will show what the founding fathers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors.  Have a full accounting of every freakin thing they have done - or just forget it.

  We will demand that a new speaker be selected.  The people will uprise and get you out of the position of power.

  by totallynext on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:18:03 PM PDT

•  Impeachment would give Bush the chance to

  play the 'victim'.  I'd rather see investigations of all his wrongdoing (and his cronies).  Democrats pushing good legislation (that he vetoes, because, well because it's good).  Etc.  Take away his bully pulpit to whatever extent possible.  He'd be kicking at the dirt and whining for his mommy in no time.

  by bherner on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:18:42 PM PDT

  •  Let Bush play the victim.

    It's about as politically attractive as when Democrats play the victim.

    I.e., not at all - though a certain class of Washingtonians (largely Democrats in recent years) - seems to think that Democrats look good doing it. Coincidentally, they also think Democrats look good when they lose and act weak.

    Plus, for Bush to play the victim is twice as bad for him as it would be for a Democrat: Republicans hate playing the victim. They don't do it unless they've got no other choice. It makes them look even worse, because it contradicts the central tenet of their political philosophy, which is, "I'm gonna do what I want, and screw you if you disagree!"

    by Christopher on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:46 PM PDT

•  That can change in a minute

  If our committee chairmen dig up sufficient evidence to impeach, I have no doubt she'll switch her position on that one.  

  by Neil Sinhababu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:18:55 PM PDT

•  "My name is Nancy Pelosi..."

  "...and I promise no impeachment of President Bush."

  

  by TheBlaz on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:19:49 PM PDT

  •  yeah that's real attractive

    that's why so many people don't vote.  Why they hate all politicians, regardless of party

    by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:24:28 PM PDT

•  It was a great PR stunt by Pelosi...

  Trying to get the "boogeywoman" image off her and portraying her as more of a centrist.

  If evidence of high crimes and misdomeaners comes to light I am sure the Democratic majority will do the right thing.

  One thing to consider, is it worth pursuing impeachment if it is almost assured even if the Democrats win 7 senate seats that it will be voted down by more than 1/3 of the remaining Wingnut Senators?

  I think it would be better for the party and the country to keep the investigations and oversight going right up until the November 2008 elections so we can win back the executive branch as well.

  by dvogel001 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:21:12 PM PDT

  •  Portraying her as a chump is what it does.

    Would Tom DeLay have ever promised not to impeach a Democratic president? Republicans know, and apparently Democrats don't, that you. do. not. piss. away. political power. Someone puts a gun in your hand, don't give it back to them. You don't have to fire it at them immediately, or yourself, but you don't push it away because you're afraid of it.

    You don't bring a knife to a gunfight; you don't leave weapons on the table. There's a dozen ways to reply to that question without backing off of a strong Democratic position:

    "We've got other priorities, but if impeachment is warranted, we're not going to let Bush get away with avoiding it."

    "Why do people keep asking about that? It's almost like you want him to be impeached, and you're trying to get me to say it so you don't have to."

    "The American people are sick of corruption and ineptitude, and we're going to fix that, both by changing how Congress acts, and by going back and correcting what they've screwed up. If it turns out that impeachment is warranted, then that's the fault of this Administration, and not us."

    "Why are you trying to protect Bush? Do you think he should be kept in office if he has done something that he should be impeached for?"

    "What would be an impeachable offense? It's a harsh remedy, and I wouldn't say we'd use it, but if I said we didn't, then I'd be giving this Administration a license to do whatever it wanted. If you've talked to any voters lately, I don't think they're saying we need even more of that."

    "Come on, you'd love impeachment - it'd put your ratings through the roof."

    "I can't say we won't; what if it turns out Monica Lewinsky was giving him blowjobs, too?"

    "That's quite a double standard you've got - last time we had a president besieged by talk of impeachment, it was by a band of conservative extremists who thought they'd coopt the media into talking about blowjobs for the last three years of his term, and you guys in the media went right along. I seem to recall you (note: collect a few quotes before going on any given show) saying that impeachment was a very serious matter, and that when a president lies about anything, it's important that he be punished for it. You said that. You treated impeachment like a slap on the wrist, and now George W. Bush is daring us to hold him accountable for all his lies and fuckups, and you're going to tell us we better not do it? Why, because it'd make you feel like an idiot if people dug up those comparisons?"

    (okay, it's not a dozen, and they're not all things a politician could say to a "journalist" but you get the idea)

    by Christopher on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

    •  exactly

      foot, meet mouth, Nancy

      There's only ONE reason for her to say what she said -- and that's that she would be in line for the Presidency.

      She knows it.  And she knows the Repubs would jump ALL OVER that.

      But like you demonstrated, there are a million other ways she could have/should have put it.

      by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:42:22 PM PDT

•  We get to HER through John Conyers and H. Waxman

  
  
  What we do is this:

  1.  Raised holy-hell to John Conyers to investigate these exact breeches of the U.S. Constitution and outright Treason against our own Citizens by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

  2.  Keep the pressure up on John Conyers and Henry Waxman and never let go of it.   Once some degree of discovery and disclosure takes place -- the public will demand and outcry for Impeachment will grow and grow.   If we have a Democratic majority, then we can get it through the House.

  3.  Pelosi will change her tune, once the Dems have the real control of the House and Conyers/Waxman lead the charge.  At worse case, they'll be a vote somewhere along the line.

  
  

  by PeopleVsEconomicRoyalists on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:21:15 PM PDT

  •  We don't need to pressure

    Conyers and Waxman, they've both got stacks of supoenas for the Downing Street memo, Cheney's energy task force, Valarie Plame, Jeff Gannon, ect. Those to are already good to go.

    by McGirk on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:21:40 PM PDT

•  Who gave her the authorité?

  I'd like to know for whom she speaks because I wasn't aware that we all decided that George Bush hasn't committed any high crimes or misdemeanors. And is she saying no impeachment ever or just next year?

  I don't even begin to understand where this is coming from since it would be very simple for her to just refuse to address the issue. ("We do not have the necessary information to make such a decision at this time.")

  Did I miss a vote?

  by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

  •  This is the smartest thing I've read on this

    topic and I'm jealous as hell that I didn't write it.

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:35 PM PDT

  •  What you missed is the RWCM spin point

    Had Pelosi said

    ("We do not have the necessary information to make such a decision at this time.")

    the headlines everywhere would have read FUTURE SPEAKER REFUSES TO RULE OUT IMPEACHMENT OF POTUS!!! [the "moderate" papers], or NANCY LOOKING TO DIG UP IMPEACHABLE DIRT ON GOP!!!!! [the rest of them]. Refusing to answer the question at all would produce the same headlines.

    Nancy Pelosi has no business being "for" impeachment PRIOR to formal House investigations. If she took any other stance, she would violate her own oath to uphold the Constitution. Allowing the meme or spin

    The Democratic Party supports impeachment before they've conducted investigations!

    to exist would be monumentally stupid politics.

    Thank the Universe (and your lucky stars) that Grandma Pelosi doesn't need you to teach her how to suck eggs.

    by davidincleveland on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:57:58 PM PDT

•  Nancy is right

  It is a total waste of time to talk about impeachment.  Never has a president been removed from office through impeachment procedings.

  It's the elections, stoopid!

  by willb48 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:23:45 PM PDT

  •  Then she should not promise that

    "impeachment is off the table."

    Who let's her set the table?  When do I get to sit at the table?

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:25:25 PM PDT

    •  if she became majority leader

      she would very much be setting the table on this issue.

      by AnnArborBlue on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:27:06 PM PDT

      •  Ah...then you see my point

        I'm listening to what everyone says.  

        There's one camp that says "She can't set the agenda!  She's only one vote!" -- OK, then, fine, she's meaningless.

        Except she's not.  She'll be the Speaker.  She can very much influence what comes to the floor

        There's another camp that says "She's lying!  She'll break her pledge and set this as an agenda item if things warrant it!"

        To which I say -- why lie?  Why not do what howard Dean is an deflect the question?  Why not say something like, "No one today is talking about impeachment except the Republicans.  I'm focused on the election -- not what happens after."  or one of a million other statements?

        by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:32:39 PM PDT

        •  New "circumstances" will develop

          if in January 2007 it is determiend that long term advantage can be gathered from an impeachment.

          Yelling about it now simply is "not helpful"

          That said, if the House impeaches and the Senate aquits we are nowhere, IMHO.

          by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

        •  ahh I see

          yeah, those are two possibilities.

          I'm of the third camp; I think she means exactly what she says. I think she both has the power and isn't lying.

          But even if it's number two, the reason she doesn't dodge the question is because Republicans are trying to scare people with the possibility of impeachment. Dodging the question doesn't address that. A straight denial does.

          by AnnArborBlue on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:35:50 PM PDT

    •  she didn't promise

      and it doesn't matter.  This diary is really lame.

      by TeresaInPa on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:31:16 PM PDT

    •  When you become . . .

      a Representive in the U.S. Congress.

      by JRG on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:07:26 PM PDT

      •  Yes. You are right.

        :)

        by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:44:07 PM PDT

•  Now is not the time

  to discuss this.

  Fear is Rove's only weapon. Talk of impeachment allows the GOP to frighten their base. It's like a Detroit Tiger player telling a reporter they are going to whup St. Louis. It hurts the cause.

  by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:24:12 PM PDT

  •  What cajay said above.

    She's a politician.  She could have diffused this without a "promise" or a "pledge" to keep impeachment off the table.

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:26:13 PM PDT

    •  Let's avoid "blue on blue" fire

      Two weeks before an election. Okay?

      by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:27:59 PM PDT

      •  heh

        This comment makes you seem a lot newer than you are.

        by Mike S on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:29:20 PM PDT

        •  Pssssst

          IMHO, Nancy Pelosi is not incapable of lying. Thus, no need to rub it in to the GOP-ers.

          Pass it on. Quietly. ;-)

          by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:32:54 PM PDT

    •  Impeachment plans "not on the table"

      I'm cool with that so long as they are in the briefcase. If in Spring of 2007 or 2008 we have a fighting chance of a conviction.

      by Bill White on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

  •  Plus, it's no surprise that it's a possibility.

    There's no need to discuss it now, nor rule it out. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Our leaders in Congress should be keeping those lips tight right now about everything except the public agenda on which most are currently running.

    by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:35:20 PM PDT

•  Old school

  Pelosi is the old school of Democrat - the one that like a Pavlovian dog mechanically responds to any frame the rethugs put out there. The video illustrates this nicely. Instead of rebuking the interviewer for the impeachment = revenge presupposition, Pelosi takes the bait hook, line, and sinker. Sooner or later this is a problem we'll have to address - by now, a ton of evidence has accumulated all pointing to Nanci Pelosi not really being quite as efficient as we would like her to be.

  But, the time to go after her isn't now. Let's win this thing and attend to our wanting leadership later. And yes, this pledge is a terrible mistake that will likely come back to haunt us - but it's a done deal now, there's nothing we can do.

  by brainwave on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:27:35 PM PDT

  •  Wait, I'll take that back

    I watched the video again and it's not actually clear that the interviewer said the impeachment = revenge thing to her face - that's voice in the off.

    by brainwave on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:31:22 PM PDT

•  Completely wrong reading, I think

  I think Nancy Pelosi's acting as a - gadzooks! - savvy politician here.  What kind of fucking imbecile would declare, good and loud, that if their party is in the position to do it, they'll impeach the president - before the damn election?  It's like the band that wants to make showtunes but knows it can't get signed unless it does rock 'n roll, does the rock 'n roll to get signed, then embarks on their dream project of showtunes.  Same here.  Don't believe a word Nancy says regarding a non-impeachment of Bush.  She's just keeping her cards close to her vest, and - well - lying her ass off.

  Being a savvy politician, or.

  by Nathan Hammersmith on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

  •  How about a savvy politician...like Dean?

    who managed to avoid promising that impeachment was "off the table"?

    by Cthulhu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:33:58 PM PDT

    •  The other party is comprised almost solely of

      grotesque gutter-fucked animals, and you have to fight their fire with some of your own, equivalent flamage.  That's #1.  What's #2?  The establishment (read: MSM, the business world, people like Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof) does not like impeachment talk, because it conjures up nightmarish scenarios of a country that's not projecting rock-solid confidence in its political leadership, which may (in their eyes) lead to unstable markets and the loss of a few dollars.  Of course, the imbeciles don't realize there's every reason to think that a righting of the American ship would do wonders for their fabled markets, and that Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to stumble down the road toward their lovely, manicured lawns...I sure hope, therefore, that what's going on here is a "No, of course we won't impeach him" pre-election stance, and a "Ha!  Just kidding!  We're impeaching his ass all the day long" post-election.  That's what I would do, and that's what baseball managers do as well: fool the opposing team via any 'n all means possible.

      But if she doesn't work to impeach Bush, yes, then let us work to impeach her.

      by Nathan Hammersmith on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:40:58 PM PDT

      •  dude

        when I saw the line "gutter fucked animals" I thought "who the hell is writing this?" then I had to scroll down to see ... my man, Nathan Hammersmith!

        Right on brother

        by theyrereal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:27:37 PM PDT

    •  Or a ballsy politician...

      ...who says, "Hmm... We've spent six years having people wonder what we stand for, while the president breaks the law, brags about it, and dares us to stop him - at the same time that people are screaming out for an actual fucking opposition party, for someone to say, 'You can't do that, that's a bad idea, and we're going to stop you.' Oh, and by the way, half the country already thinks Bush should be impeached (see the recent poll), more think 'if' he lied about WMD/Iraq he should be impeached, he's authorized a warrantless wiretapping program of unknown and unlimited expanse that's flagrantly unconstitutional, and he's told both Congress and the Supreme Court that he doesn't give a fuck about them if they dare to contradict him, creating a constant game of Constitutional chicken by which he dares everyone and anyone to oppose him. And he's avoided every other measure of political accountability, while pissing on the Constitution and civil rights. Fuck, if we don't impeach him, we may never stop him."

      Of course, I should also mention that I think impeachment can be a political winner (though, like any idea, it depends on the party actually uniting around it instead of stabbing each other in the back the way they often do, whether it's Lieberman or the money/media/moderation bitchfest that is most Dean/DNC coverage, so that might well be an impossible condition off the bat), and if it didn't get my party elected into power the first time, I'd try it again.

      I could be very wrong, of course, and I'm not a Democratic politician, and nobody's going to take my advice (for better or for worse; the consensus will probably - and I'll admit probably rightfully, given the minefield of current Democratic bickering that would turn it into a weapon to be used against the party - be that it's just not feasible now, on these terms), so we'll never know, but it seems awfully similar to the attitude of many Democrats in 2004 of "Well, if you want to call Bush a liar, you had to start in 2002," and the rest of us said, "We were calling him a liar then!" and they said, "Well, we weren't, because that would've been rude, and we're certainly not going to start now, and we're certainly not going to help YOU start now, either."

      by Christopher on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:55:32 PM PDT

•  I'll be just fine with having

  GW fuck off to Crawford for his remaining years, growing frailer and weaker until he's left sitting in a rocking chair in the sun. The Orange falls to the ground, and it's over.

  by tigercourse on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:29:33 PM PDT

  •  I think we should just agree to extradite

    should the Hague come a-callin'.

    by cajay on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

    •  That works to.

      by tigercourse on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

•  please delete this diary

  it is in no way helpful to winning back congress.  Your anger at her is a distraction.  The republicans are running adds all over the country about the evil liberal Nancy Pelosi and the guestion was a "gotcha".  

  Seriously, delete this.

  by TeresaInPa on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

  •  No. I've been told not to.

    I offered to delete it earlier (as it was repetitive) and was told not to do so.

    And further:  Pelosi invited this debate on her leadership when she promised that impeachment was "off the table" two weeks before the election.  

    There are ways that a politician should be able to dodge th