Skip to main content

Yesterday, there was a bloggers conference call with Leader Pelosi.  When it was my trun to talk, I asked her to explain why "mouth-breathing, nose-picking idiots" that listen to right-wing talk radio were able to beat their Senators into submission and get them to defy their own Republican President, when, with 70% of the nation opposing the war, we can't get her and the rest of our Democratic leaders to do anything to end the war.

Next, Dave Johnson of SeeingTheForest.com asked about the administration's flouting of the rule of law.  I was able to pile on a bit and point out that impeachment could begin with Gonzalez.

Anyway, I'm not going to summarize everything because I'll put up a transcript in the extended comments.  I recorded the call, and you can hear the relevant excerpts (and check out more "analysis" at BraveNewFilms.org)

Mike Stark: Speaker, I wanted to ask you about this immigration thing as it relates to the Iraq war. I think what a lot of our readers have noticed is that a bunch of mouth-breathing, nose–picking idiots that listen to talk radio were able to browbeat their Republican Senators into defying their own president, their own Republican President. But we’ve got 70% public opinion against this war and we can’t get the Democrats to do what we want - to end the war. How can we explain to our readers why that disparity is there?

Speaker Pelosi:
Well, let me say on immigration first, as I said last night on TV, talk radio – hate radio – has beaten this thing to a froth. But they have also hijacked the legitimate questions that some Americans have about the subject; some people in our country have questions about job security, border security in the West... So I wouldn’t characterize everyone who opposes it as that way. But I do think we have to try to fight for a strong immigration bill with border security, workplace enforcement, enforcing our laws, reuiniting our families/ family unification and a path to legalization. But having said that, I don’t want to paint everyone with the same disgusting brush you painted with (laughter), but that would be an accurate depiction of those who have beaten it to a froth. And that’s an anti... it has a market... I don’t think it has a market as big as the Republicans are claiming, but it has a market.

But having said what you said, I’m as disappointed as you are that we can’t get past the sixty votes in the Senate. But it’s no use to complain about that. We have to take... the court of public opinion is where the sixty vote barrier will come down. We can’t kick it down internally. But we can try to point out what is at stake, the ground truth in Iraq, so that in the districts... You know, I’m responsible for the House. We passed – we can pass a bill any day in the House, but if it can’t get through the sixty votes in the Senate to be heard... to go to the President’s desk... then we have to use our energy in another way and I think that is to focus in a public way, as you all have done.

I’m determined to end this war. It is my top priority. And some of that... there are good days. Nobody thought we would ever have a vote, or a timeline in Iraq coming out of the Democratic Congress in a unified way. Now the Senate turned it into a goal, we had it as a definite date of departure; we sent it to the President’s desk; he vetoed it. They only gave us one shot at it. The Republicans in the Senate said you get one shot – we’re not giving you a... you need sixty votes after that.

So I also, in order to end this war, have to take the heat when it doesn’t go well, because this is a strategy that is more than one event, that’s for sure. We are preparing legislation and we’ll announce it either today or tomorrow depending on the House schedule, that has our original language about the timelines – the timetable; that is to say no goal, but a definite date of departure: within 120 days the Secretary of Defense must begin the redeployment of the troops out of Iraq to be completed no later than April 1st of 2008. Not a goal, a timeline. Tougher than what we sent to the President. We think we can get the support of the Senate; we can have unity with the Senate on that – to have a stronger bill to go to the President. And if he vetoes it, it is still the case that the American people will see... it makes it harder every time for the Republicans to vote in favor of this war. You see the cracking of their unity – with Senator Lugar, with Senator Warner, with Senator Voinovich.

And I can tell you without any hesitation, in modesty that absent our changing of the debate on the War in Iraq, that would not be happening. So we had two-fold: we had to change the debate on Iraq, internally, in Congress and we had, we have to end the war.

September is fraught with meaning for us – it’s everything.

We have to make sure the President doesn’t think he can kick the can down the road again.

Again, we have our ups and downs and we have to take the downs in the strategy. But I think overall, I’m very proud of what the Democrats did in the spring. I don’t think anybody ever suspected that we would have the unity that we had to put a bill on the President’s desk. I would like it to be the House language with a definite date rather than a goal, and that’s what we are proposing now – a stronger bill.

Dave Johnson (of Seeing the Forest): We seem to be at a historic time right now with an administration that is starting to frankly assert that they are above the rule of law, and I’m wondering if you as Speaker can give us a short statement on this issue and what Congress is prepared to do to re-assert the rule of law of the people of the country.

Speaker Pelosi: Thank you David. The American people really don’t even know the half of it, but we are trying to build the record, and that’s what we have to do. You know, they’ve been going for six – almost seven – six and a half years, with no oversight. Just absolutely zero accountability, no oversight. And when people talk about this Congress, they have to recognize the big distinction between this Congress and previous Congress’ in terms of shining the light of oversight and accountability on this administration. So when people see what is happening in terms of... What we said last year during the campaign – for the whole of 2006 what we said "Corruption, Cronyism and Incompetence". And that’s some of this unint... Corruption. It’s not just the corruption; this personal aggrandizement that were guilty of, it was the corruption in terms of the governmental process. And they... it’s stunning. It really is stunning. And on many of these things, you have to build a record so that the public sees what it is. And I think that some of our people, Mr. Waxman in particular because he has the committee – The Government Reform and Oversight Committee – has done a spectacular job and I think you might share that assessment of what he has done.

Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege. So the press asked me this morning, "Does this mean you’re going to hold them in contempt next?" I said "No, we’re gonna let the process work out" because you have to build the record. You have to build the record.

On some of these issues the courts are not friendly to us because they are all in the family. You know, the Courts, especially in the District of Columbia if we wanted to challenge them in Court on anything, the decision would not be in our favor. They know that, and we can see what the Supreme Court did today if you need any evidence of the, shall we say, immodesty of the court.

So it is something though that we owe the American people. And our conduct of the business of Congress as a check on the executive branch... that we return to the rule of law. David, you and I could have a very long conversation on this.

They have tried to eliminate judicial review from law. In other words, in order to amend the Constitution, you know the process. But what they want to do is to say, by simple majority, you can amend the Constitution and at the same time, eliminate the Court’s ability to have judicial review of that law as to whether it’s Constitutional. That’s who they are.

I think that if you ever listen to the speeches of Sandra Day O’Connor, you will find that even she was appalled by the treatment that the courts received from the Republicans. They didn’t even know it – this is an inside thing – we went to lunch one day – the leadership, with the judges – right before Rehnquist died... so what would that be? Two years ago? Around this time... And she sat with Tom Delay at the table – there were three tables with three justices at each table, so she was at the table with Tom Delay. And he just blasted – he said, "you know if we don’t like your decisions, we’re not gonna fund or we’re gonna withhold funding for implementation of those decisions... you know... she was stunned that he would talk that way about the separation of powers and the rest...

So she (unint) when she got off the Court, she spoke out against this. So it’s about the rule of law about how corrupt they have been; the rule of law on how they refuse to be accountable; but also the rule of law on how they don’t respect... you know, the executive branch doesn’t respect the oversight that Congress has, but they don’t want judicial review – when they were in power, they don’t want judicial review over their laws even though many of these Courts were appointed by the Republicans...

Even Barry Goldwater spoke out against it. Did you know that they have said in the debate on the subject that Marbury v. Madison, which established Judicial Review, was wrongly decided. A 200 year old decision was wrongly decided.

So as I said, in every aspect of the rule of law and respect for the Constitution and checks and balances and just the rule of law and how they conduct themselves, it’s almost impossible to exaggerate how bad they have been. And again, even Justice O’Connor was stunned, herself philosophically aligned with them, but was stunned to see how far they were willing to go.

Dave: Just a quick follow-up. What are you going to do about it?

Speaker Pelosi: Well, as I say, we’re exercising our oversight on it and pursuing these things with subpoena... first to just invite them to testify, then to issue the subpoena, then to build the record – in terms of the executive branch now – to build the record so that we can be effective in how we deal with it, but the most effective thing of course is for us to win the White House and just say "this isn’t what our country is about, and we will restore the rule of law" and this should be a campaign issue. This should be a campaign issue. It is absolutely stunning.

But I’ll tell you some of the things we would have liked to have done with for example, Cheney... Cheney and the secrecy of his energy policy development. That went to court – we lost in court and everybody said we should take it to the next level – to the three judge court. Well, so did I. But the fact is that the judge at the first court level – they didn’t do precedent. They established that but it wasn’t precedent. If we went to the next court, which was very unfriendly to us in terms of its membership – the three judge court – and they won, it would have established precedent. So we had to carefully consider whether we wanted to establish that decision as precedent and we did not.

So you know, some of these things are not as cut and dry as you might think, but very, very involved in it... and I proudly say that our oversight, if anything, has been so intense that some people think it’s political, but it really isn’t. It’s patriotic and it’s about our Constitution. So again, build the record, make it known to the public, understand that this flies in the face of everything our country stands for, and use it in the campaign and then do it right when we are in power, which I am absolutely certain we will be – I’m certain we will win the White House.

But we need your help on these things. You know, everybody says "What are you doing about it?" What we need to do is make sure that the public is aware of these issues, what we are doing about it... and I thank you for the question so that perhaps we can communicate on how we can communicate with you better so that you can help us with this, but this is as fundamental as our country. I mean, and then you go to habeas corpus and things like that, it’s embarrassing!!

Mike Stark: Speaker, when we do tell the public about it, they say one word. The say "IMPEACH". And I respectfully suggest that if you let this administration out of office without impeaching even Abu Gonzalez, er... Alberto Gonzalez, you will have set a precedent. The next republican administration that takes office will know that they can get away with anything they want because Democrats won’t stand up for the Constitution. That’s what millions of people are saying.

Speaker Pelosi: I appreciate your point. I think that the Gonzalez vote of confidence, as you saw, did not carry. But uhm... yeah, I understand your point, but it’s a choice that has to be made, that is to say "what is the price they are paying for the exposure?"... Look, nobody knew any of these things about Gonzalez. Let’s remember how we got to where we are – and that was by the oversight activities of the Congress of the United States. I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do... If he were at the beginning of his term, people may think of it differently, but he’s at the end of his terms. The first two years of his term, if we came in as the majority, there might be time to do it all...

Mike Stark:
Respectfully, that’s not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances that were missing, are honoring the Constitution. I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress. (unint) Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena. I think that the President’s credibility now, whether its immigration – whatever it is – is so low because of a great deal of the oversight that we have done. But we are in disagreement – I’m not going to try to budge you on that – on whether the President should have been impeached. That’s a different question from "Are there grounds for impeachment?" But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

From here, the Speaker went on to speak about energy, health care and other issues...

Originally posted to Mike Stark on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:10 PM PDT.

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

  •  Nancy, if you're reading this (236+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, Rebecca, Thumb, Sharon, Alumbrados, sj, keirdubois, pb, Mogolori, Inky, itsbenj, SarahLee, Subterranean, Thom K in LA, Hornito, Liberal Thinking, rhfactor, tikkun, Pen, Mike Stark, cosbo, Shockwave, billlaurelMD, LionelEHutz, Pondite, CleverNickName, cookiesandmilk, Pompatus, polecat, LesIsMore, Bexley Lane, acuppajo, HarveyMilk, RFK Lives, 2lucky, BenGoshi, mataliandy, madwayne, dinazina, HighSticking, Birdman, opinionated, Song Jiang, TracieLynn, landrew, notimportant, SamSinister, anotherCt Dem, Cassandra77, linnie, Doc Allen, ScantronPresident, grrtigger, CoolOnion, AlyoshaKaramazov, scamp, murphsurf, Miss Blue, ornerydad, Swordsmith, ctsteve, navajo, sidnora, A Chicagoan in Naples, stacystace, kharma, dejavu, Eddie in ME, Chicago Lulu, Sycamore, praedor, churchylafemme, GN1927, Oy the Billybumbler, joliberal, gnat, fritzrth, walkshills, johne, WV Democrat, YetiMonk, WisVoter, Divertedone, Needa Bigger Pretzel, Little Red Hen, bablhous, rambler american, greeseyparrot, nailbender, Karma for All, angrybird, Fabian, maybeeso in michigan, ZZZzzz, champlain, blueyedace2, asskicking annie, revbludge, mjd in florida, Militarytracy, Philoguy, labwitchy, Webster, truong son traveler, Valtin, david78209, volballplr, Turkana, ratzo, Heartcutter, majcmb1, dopealope, spectre7, thered1, ukben, QuickSilver, wgard, abbeysbooks, illyia, RElland, ADamiani, walkingshark, The Raven, Idaho Progressive, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, deepsouthdoug, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, oibme, Ekaterin, abben, murasaki, hatdog, Tigana, begone, Doug Goodenough, happynz, Shirl In Idaho, trashablanca, BalanceSeeker, Debbie in ME, dharmafarmer, Yellow Canary, victoria2dc, Hear Our Voices, fromer, ejbr, Hobbitfoot, ginja, blueoasis, bess, ormondotvos, TalkieToaster, SJLinNYC, A Siegel, cRedd, Data Pimp, Terminus, betsyross, Rusty1776, Unitary Moonbat, llbear, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, cherryXXX69, RantNRaven, zedaker, liberalpercy, shaharazade, Mary2002, FMArouet, pkbarbiedoll, bstotts, sdgeek, NonnyO, seabos84, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, tonyfv, Iowa Boy, Buckeye Hamburger, ibonewits, Susan Something, xaxado, EclecticFloridian, Cronesense, SparkleMotion, Chas56, karmsy, CTMET, TtexwiTyler, JeremyA, kath25, Owllwoman, ReadyForChange, Matt Z, Rex Manning, jedennis, stratocasterman, Junglered1, beemerr, MaskedKat, MadAsHellMaddie, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, keikekaze, MichiganGirl, rmonroe, Zero Carb Rob, fayeforcure, rogerdaddy, Spoonfulofsugar, LightningMan, pullbackthecurtain, pollwatch, oolali, wayoutinthestix, Foundmyvoice, Cat Servant, Mannabass, Residentcynic, inHI, Lujane, kN3eLb4Z0d, MrJayTee, pickandshovel, landogriffin, Quicksilver2723, royalscam, American Phoenix, LaFajita, costello7, o the umanity, Free Paris Hilton

    I'm very disappointed in you. There has never been a clearer case for impeachment than what is before you, nor has there been more public support for doing it.

    What are you and the rest of the Democratic Caucus afraid of? What is it keeping you from leading?

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:11:00 PM PDT

    •  Mike, your best diary ever, I think. (103+ / 0-)

      I'm a Nancy fan, and would have liked (understatement)
      a better answer to your last question. I mean, I'm really a
      Nancy fan, though I know many of you aren't.

      Did she really say this?

      Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

      I hope it was the on-the-spot dialogue effect.

      It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot.

      by begone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:19:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I generally like Nancy Pelosi (94+ / 0-)

        She's done a lot of good things for California and overall given what she has to work with I think she's done an excellent job as Speaker of the House.

        A problem I have with her is her and the Democrats' in general seeming unwillingness to wield the power of the majority. The Republicans did it to great effect the last few years and I can understand not wanting to seem as ruthless as they were, but still right now this country needs to have a serious course correction as soon as possible but that won't happen until Bush and Cheney are gone.

        I say impeach, remove from office, bring them up on criminal charges, and jail them for the rest of their lives. We must show that shredding the Constitution and the laws of this country will not be tolerated!

        So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:25:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WE must, that's the operative word here (29+ / 0-)

          Our Dieboldly, I mean Democratically elected officials seem strangely shy of doing anything to upset the status quo.  I guess that makes them Republicrats.  That just leaves the average citizens.  Alas, rioting won't really accomplish anything either.  I mean, maybe if you had a list of all the corporate cocksuckers who pull the pursestrings and could take all them out, the citizens would have SOME means of fighting back, but reality is, if we don't have the executive and the judicial branches AND we don't have the Democrats,then folks, what CAN we do?  They even control the elections and when's the last time you saw the Democrats get serious about challenging an election?  I seem to still recall that scene in
          F 9-11 when the black caucus kept trying and trying to get any Democrat to do something about the election in Florida.

          I think Americans have completely lost control of their government.  Completely.

          Conceptual Guerilla, taking the fight online and in their faces.

          by Pen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:58:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pelosi's responses make me want to puke (35+ / 0-)

            They make me want to find some guys that beat their wives and send them to the Democrats congressional leadership so they can enjoy their erotic fantasies of being abused on their own time instead of the taxpayers time. I mean even George McFly had the balls to eventually hit Biff. What do we need to do to get these people to pretend they're fighting for -oh say the future of American democracy on earth?

            You are absolutely right - Americans have not only lost control of their government, but they put the water-boys up to do the coach's job.

            •  tell me again why Gravel is funny (30+ / 0-)

              When he was a Senator

              he stood up against Nixon <bold> alone </bold> and got the draft abolished.

              he read the Pentagon papers into the Congressional Record when Nixon was trying to keep them from the public.

              see Vietnam War and foreign policy

              <bold> 99 Senators </bold> then did exactly what <bold> 100 Senators </bold> are doing now.

              We laugh at people like this and leave them to twist in the wind.

              •  Thanks for mentioning this about Gravel.... (16+ / 0-)

                Perhaps a nice contrast between what he did then, as you mention, and what we have in Congress now, especially in light of Pelosi's latest comments about impeachment.

                Something is very very wrong with the Democratic Party and with our Congressional leadership.  

                I swear that Bush/Cheney 'have something' on both Reid and Pelosi for them to be acting so utterly spineless.

                Sorry, my anger over this is leaking out here.

              •  Don't forget his one-man filibuster (7+ / 0-)

                We just need one.

                One person with the courage of his or her convictions, willing to stand up to the punditry's idiotic predictions and take a stand against this administration's constitution shredder.

                One.

                Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                by mataliandy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:58:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not one Senator (5+ / 0-)

                  Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count

                  It was easy then, so much easier then, than now.

                  2001 Senators

                  Strom Thurmond[5] (R-SC), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Jesse Helms[5] (R-NC), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Joe Biden (D-DE), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Warner (R-VA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Don Nickles (R-OK), Frank Murkowski[6] (R-AK), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John Kerry (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Phil Gramm[5] (R-TX), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), John Breaux (D-LA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John McCain (R-AZ), Harry Reid (D-NV), Bob Graham (D-FL), Kit Bond (R-MO), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Trent Lott (R-MS), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Robert C. Smith[5] (R-NH), Larry Craig (R-ID), Paul Wellstone[7] (D-MN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Fred Thompson[5] (R-TN), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Craig Thomas (R-WY), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Bill Frist (R-TN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Robert Torricelli[5] (D-NJ), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tim Hutchinson[5] (R-AR), Max Cleland[5] (D-GA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), George Voinovich (R-OH), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), John Edwards (D-NC), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Zell Miller (D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Tom Carper (D-DE), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), John Ensign (R-NV), George Allen (R-VA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Jean Carnahan[5] (D-MO), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Dean Barkley[5] {I-MN),

              •  Pelosi needs to revisit Nixon's (15+ / 0-)

                years to learn why it is irrelevant that Bush is leaving office soon. Nixon left office in disgrace. Nothing changed. All was forgotten, except by Cheney, Rumsfeld and their ilk. Lo and behold these republicans get hold of power again and build open their past crimes. They excel because they have learned from their mistakes. If the Dems do not stop this power grab and lawlessness- and thoroughly - our country (should it survive this) will be revisited by people who want to complete the mission. It could happen in '08. There is no Dem lock on this election and we don't own the DOJ and the election system. It could happen after a Dem admin or two. The fact is, the republicans will be back and they will take whatever power the Dems have renounced and resurrect the dictatorship.
                Pelosi's too old and is in too tough a business to be this naive.

                •  and revisit the power (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sassykathy46, madgranny

                  that Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon gave to future Republican administrations.  these guys are pretty much at war with us and we're trying to stop them with the usual everyday rules & procedures to fight it.  reading Pelosi its really difficult to tell if she really gets it.  on the one hand she's saying that we the public don't even know the half of it, but then she's surprised that alberto gonzales is a complete hack..??  when asked what she's doing about the assault on the Constitution she replies in the most bland terms imaginable.  right now Congressional subpoenas are being ignored, the investigations they want to complete are obstructed, and the measures she's planning to use to fight this are...business as usual.  she thinks that people think they have exercised "intense" scrutiny..??  she doesn't seem to understand that of course, no matter what the Dems say or do they will be villified by the Republicans, she's worried about seeming too "political".  does she not understand that she is, in fact, a politician???  "letting the process work" is not enough, because it has been broken already.  she is in a tricky position though, other examples of Congressional success in these areas have been situations where not as many factors were stacked against the Dems as are now.  but I can't help feeling there is a serious lack of imagination, willpower and just plain anger, not to mention leadership in both the House and the Senate.

                  why is a special prosecutor not yet in the works for Cheney, Gonzales?  Cheney's outright refusal to allow Constitutional Congressional oversight should have triggered major red flags by now across the board.  these clowns are only now seeing how corrupt these bastard Republicans are?  and when the punishment phase comes, if it ever does, certain things have to be specified.  1) Bush's appointees, merely as a matter of being such, must be barred from future service in the government.  and not elliot abrams-style banned, actually banned.  2) There must be consequences for brazenly political appointments of justices within the Federal court system.  Justices linked to this chronyism must be revisited in terms of their confirmation in a one time, non-precedent-setting "Reconstruction of the Justice System Act" or something like that.  These positions are too important for Bush's lackeys to have a stranglehold on them.  point being overall, what is going on right now in our government requires measures which are above and beyond the everyday processes which the Repuclians are so easily able to stonewall and ignore.

            •  Hear, Hear! (3+ / 0-)

              I'm crying mad.  I had to read that one paragraph twice.  I could not believe she said that.

              "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

              by Lying eyes on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:31:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It is not about liking Nancy... (36+ / 0-)

            it is about making her understand that she works for us and that we demand that she put impeachment back on the table and that she tells Waxman and Conyers to begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney. It is the only right thing to do... and NOW!

            •  Good comment (19+ / 0-)

              She seems to be saying, in sum, that it's more important to build up the negatives of the Republicans and the president to ensure democratic victory in 08 than it is to do their jobs.  It's all about politics.

              She kept talking about building the record.  I have a question:  once the record is built, and it reveals high crimes, what then?  Do you just sit on it and wait for the election or do you exercise your power and impeach?  I think they're content to have their hearings and weaken the administration but never actually do anything about it.  They couldn't even go after Abu!

              I hate when they prove a Republican talking point true.

              It IS just political theater if you aren't willing to do anything about the crimes you're unearthing.

              ending the Iraq War will be the greatest struggle of our lifetimes.

              by Humboldt Jodi on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:36:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Impeachment is not removal (23+ / 0-)

                She seems to feed into the prevailing belief among most people... that impeachment is an instant vote to remove or not remove from office.

                Impeachment is a trial, where evidence is gathered, presented, and judged.  If the evidence does not prove high crimes, treason and criminal activity, then I will be the first to howl for NOT GUILTY.  But if it DOES show those things, then we need to make sure this crew does not rise again in the next Republican administration strong as ever and unrebuked.  They are here today because Nixon was allowed to slink out with  a personal shame (later diluted and forgotten) while leaving the machinery intact and not discredited.  The foot soldiers and the leadership alike of these criminal cabals need to see that even the operators who carry out these orders are subject to disgrace and prison.  Maybe the next crop will think twice about doing the dirty deeds under cover of night.

                Let's prove our system works.

                www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

                by WI Deadhead on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:09:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's About conviction!!! (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vivacia, Liberaljentaps, fisheye

                  She seems to feed into the prevailing belief among most people... that impeachment is an instant vote to remove or not remove from office.

                  You can't be serious! As if she does not know the difference between impeachment and conviction in the Senate? My God!

                  She made it pretty clear that she did not think we could get a conviction. and she is not alone in that opinion. In fact the Repubs in the Senate would even agree with her because they are the reason we can't.

                  Of course Bush is guilty. But if you don't have the votes to convict him as such then there is no point in proceeding when there are other things to try to accomplish.

                  I don't know about you but most logical people don't behave like a dog chasing their tail that they will never catch. Most spend their time doing something that will accomplish something rather than chasing rainbows and insisting to drive down dead end streets.

                  "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                  by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:55:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You Don't Get the Votes (13+ / 0-)

                    By standing around saying, "We don't have the votes."

                    You get the votes by doing the work that will cause people's opinions to change - and the impeachment process is that work.

                    Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                    by mataliandy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:01:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No GOP Senator will vote to impeach Bush (7+ / 0-)

                      They all remember what happened to Lowell Weicker and the other moderate Republican Senators that voted to impeach Nixon:  The party got rid of them, one by one.  (Weicker took the longest to zap, as he was personally popular; in 1988, the GOP resorted to openly backing his Democratic opponent, Joe Lieberman, to do it.)

                      •  That another good point (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blueyedace2

                        and one I have not brought up. My reasons are in the post below yours and have to do with self interest.

                        But yours is just as valid. If they voted against Bush their own party would purge them. So they have two reasons not to vote for impeachment.

                        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                        by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  time to brush up on your Constitutional knowledge (17+ / 0-)

                        PW

                        Senators don't vote to Impeach.  That is the House's duty.  Impeachment is indictment.  The inquiry in the Judiciary committee leading up to Impeachment is discovery.  The Senate is where the trial occurs, and where the results of the Impeachment inquiry are presented to the world.  

                        If the Democrats allow the Bush Gang crimes to stand without at least laying out the clear case for their removal from office, our nation is no longer the one envisioned by the founders, but one invisioned and instituted by the neocons.  See dlindorff's great diary yesterday for an explanation of why this is so.

                        If the House suddenly finds it's soul and Impeaches these bastards and presents the watertight case to the Senate and the world, then whichever craven Senators decide to vote against conviction will tar themselves with ignominy for posterity, and the world will know that the Democrats at least tried to stop the travesty.

                        Nancy's comment is so putrid because she is saying she won't even try unless she is guaranteed success.  If that had been the case with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, or MLK, the world would be a much more benighted place than it is right now.  

                        "Mommy, am I cruel and venal enough to become President someday?" "Yes, honey, but you aren't stupid enough. You will have to settle for VP."

                        by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:51:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Right on! (10+ / 0-)

                          Nancy's comment is so putrid because she is saying she won't even try unless she is guaranteed success.  If that had been the case with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, or MLK, the world would be a much more benighted place than it is right now.  

                          What she's doing is refusing to lead. Leadership requires taking risks. I'm almost certain in light of evidence revealed through the Impeachment process she would almost certainly be guaranteed of success either through forcing the resignations of Bush and Cheney (to preserve their government benefits) or through conviction in the Senate because as you so eloquently pointed out any Senator who voted against conviction would be exposed as traitorous partisan hacks.

                          So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                          by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:56:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I Think Phoenix Woman (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Cassandra77

                          is well aware of that!

                          In conversation the word 'Impeachment' tends to mean the entire process - the act of Impeachment by the House and the trial by the Senate. It's much easier to use one word for the entire process than to have to type each time the different rolls that each chamber engages in.

                          And without a chance of conviction, which there is virtually no chance of that happening, impeachment by the House is worthless.

                          To read the rest of your post shows that you should not be railing on others about leadership when your victory in a sure loss is "tar themselves with ignominy for posterity". Oh boy. A symbolic victory instead of using the congresses time to try to accomplish things. Now that is a fine example of leadership form you. Not.

                          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                          by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:27:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I wasn't meaning to be disrespectful to PW (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WI Deadhead

                            But I gotta say, in response to your incomplete sentence,

                            A symbolic victory instead of using the congresses time to try to accomplish things.

                            that any "accomplishments" (and what exactly are your referring to?) are meaningless in light of the destruction of the Constitution and the resulting collapse of the republic.

                            Yes, I have been histrionic here of late.  Sorry if that offends you.  Apparently you don't share my belief that we are in the direst straits we have been in as a nation since the Civil War, caused by the willingness of the Democrats to let the crimes of the Bush regime stand as precedents.  

                            You must think the following conversation, a few years hence, between a mother and her child is not a realistic scenario, if the Bush/Cheney precedent isn't challenged; I disagree with all my being:

                            "Mommy, am I cruel and venal enough to become President someday?"  

                            "Oh yes, honey; but you aren't stupid enough.  You will have to settle for Vice President."

                            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                            by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:17:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah you (0+ / 0-)

                            were being disrespectful to PW. You should have known damn well what she meant by 'impeachment'. Now if you didn't then shame on you for being out of step. and if you did then you were being a disrespectful nitpicker. Just as you are with my supposedly 'incomplete' sentence. Evidently you not only nitpick about 'inclusive' terms like impeachment but you are incapable of recognizing a typo that excluded a question mark.

                            /conversation

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry about the grammatical correction (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WI Deadhead

                            I actually didn't see the missing question mark and I wanted readers to know I wasn't clipping your sentence.  My bad.

                            But correcting, on this site especially, glosses or mistakes regarding something as critical as Impeachment procedure, I will not apologize for, even if an fp-er does it.  

                            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

                            by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:57:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  What I couldn't believe (0+ / 0-)

                          was Pelosi's statement early on about impeachment being "off the table."  I kept thinking, when has any politician with a brain in his or her head ever said that a possible solution to a problem is simply off the table entirely?  She could have simply said, "We're not looking at instituting impeachment proceedings at present, but will of course continue to consider all remedies available to us," and let it go at that.  Why announce that she had taken one of the checks and balances the founders gave Congress off the table altogether?  To whom was she speaking and what was she trying to telegraph?

                          Word to all sell-out, corporate-owned Democrats: No donation without representation!

                          by big spoiled baby on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:00:26 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You Won't Change (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueyedace2, fisheye

                      the minds of people who were complicit in the crime! Have you ever thought of that?

                      The Repubs enabled Bush every step of the way through votes and lack of oversight. They are a guilty as he is - and everyone knows it which is why we are now the majority.

                      So do you really think that they will find him guilty when in doing so it would confirm that they themselves are guilty? NO WAY!

                      They are not going to convict and then by doing so lessen their chances of holding on to the seats that they have. They are not going to convict and by doing so lessen the chances of one of their guys winning the WH in '08.

                      If you were a Dem and the Repubs convicted Bush wouldn't you bring up the fact that the Repubs were complicit in the crime themselves? Of course you would. And you don't think the Repubs know that?!!!

                      You 'impeachment' people really need to try thinking things through as Pelosi has instead of being so damned emotional.

                      In 18 months Bush is gone. And if we concentrate all the negative energy here in a positive way and make sure we elect a Dem to the WH and increase our majority, particularly in the Senate, then the Constitution will be back in it's proper place. We don't need impeachment to right the Constitution. We need to WIN to right the Constitution.

                      Now get off the negative and use your energies in a way that makes sense by helping win elections. Chasing a dead horse impeachment that can't result in a conviction does nothing to help us win. In fact it holds us up from accomplishing things that will help us win - just like Pelosi said.

                      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                      by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:18:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Respectfully, he is not gone. (4+ / 0-)

                        He and the neocons will go underground like the villians they are, and in another decade they will rise up again.  Different faces, different names, but the same ideas, the same tactics, corruption, cronyism, violence and lawlessness.  They will come back like Jason in Friday the 13th.  And if we don't bring the impeachment proceedings against Cheney and Gonzales and Bush,  and shed a bright light on this, so that everyone sees it REGARDLESS OF THE ULTIMATE SENATE VOTE, the new villians will have a much easier time.  I am not willing to spend another eight years of my life like this.  I am not.

                        "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                        by Reepicheep on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:39:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And you don't think that the imprechment (4+ / 0-)

                        case brought before the Senate, in which you are right, the Republicans WON'T want themselves painted in the same corner as the obviously guilty Bush and you are right, the Democrats WILL bring up that the Repubs and complicit and in the end the ONLY way to distance themselves from Bush before the elections is by condemning what he's done...you don't think any of that is a legitimate goal in driving the public away from the Republican party right before the elections?

                        Impeachment NOW would KILL the GOP in 2008.

                        Conceptual Guerilla, taking the fight online and in their faces.

                        by Pen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:48:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  They can vote to convict (4+ / 0-)

                          or they can face their voters and explain why.  Every Senator will have to decide... are they going to give a pass to this bunch, in the face of what I am CERTAIN will be overwhelming evidence with documents to back it up, or are they going to tell everyone they are "shocked!  Absoultely shocked!" to find out what was going on and vote to convict?

                          Some will, some won't.  But I want you to imagine the voters in OR, ME and a few other places going to the polls to cast a vote in 2008, 2010 and 2012 with THAT on the table.

                          Impeach Gonzales first.

                          www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

                          by WI Deadhead on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Very well said! (5+ / 0-)

                      Talex would make a very bad entrepreneur, because Talex would never start a new business unless he was first 100% guaranteed of its success.

                  •  We didn't have the votes to convict Nixon either (9+ / 0-)

                    until AFTER the impreachment proceedings began.

                    Conceptual Guerilla, taking the fight online and in their faces.

                    by Pen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:38:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I said "feed into" (6+ / 0-)

                    I am certain she knows the difference.  But when she says she won't impeach because she "doesn't have the votes", then I intend to call her on it.

                    I believe that the process is important.  Present the evidence and lay out the case.  There is a lot of exposing that needs to happen.  It will be much tougher to stonewall an impeachment hearing than it is to ignore a subpoena from a sub-committee.

                    And what, exactly, are these super-important things we need to do?  What, eactly, will we do with the time if we are not "wasting" it on impeachment hearings?  Can you think of anything we could do to improve America that will get past a veto?  Can you think of one thing more important than exposing the corruption that lies at the heart of this administration?

                    If do not pass a single new law but we expose these liars, thieves and treasonous profiteers for what they then I think this Congress will go down in history as one of the most important ever.

                    www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

                    by WI Deadhead on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Superbly put. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WI Deadhead, bablhous, Cali Techie

                      If do not pass a single new law but we expose these liars, thieves and treasonous profiteers for what they then I think this Congress will go down in history as one of the most important ever.

                      Just the holding of formal House impeachment hearings will at least get on the historical record just how outrageously criminal the Bush admin was.

                  •  You err in thinking that if we don't get (4+ / 0-)

                    a conviction, then impeachment will all be a wasted effort.

                    Formal House impeachment hearings will make public even more Bush criminal activity, which in turn will make it harder for any senate repubs running in 2008 to vote to acquit.

                    It is all about putting the entire 2008 GOP slate in an ever tighter box; Formal House impeachment hearings will do that.

                •  We now need to ask John Edwards to put (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WI Deadhead, bablhous, sassykathy46

                  the subject of impeachment squarely on the campaign table.

                  Pelosi here has encouraged us to make WH abuse of power a presidential campaign issue. If we can get John Edwards to come out and call for impeachment hearings for Cheney and/or Gonzales (but not for Bush), that would really shake up the current Dem impeachment status quo.

                  I say, fine, let Hillary and Obama cop out regarding impeachment, and let Edwards lead the impeachment issue in this campaign; such will serve him VERY well in the primaries.

                  We need to get everybody talking about WH abuse of power and impeachment in the same breath; such will then light a fire under Pelosi and the House Dems regarding impeachment, and that can all happen if Edwards makes impeachment a national campaign issue. We all now need to ask him to do this. I can't see this doing anything but benefit the Edwards campaign.

                  Comments?

                  Speaker Pelosi: Well, as I say, we’re exercising our oversight on it and pursuing these things with subpoena... first to just invite them to testify, then to issue the subpoena, then to build the record – in terms of the executive branch now – to build the record so that we can be effective in how we deal with it, but the most effective thing of course is for us to win the White House and just say "this isn’t what our country is about, and we will restore the rule of law" and this should be a campaign issue. This should be a campaign issue. It is absolutely stunning.

              •  The Dems have become accomplices after the fact (0+ / 0-)

                Bush has publically confessed to a felony.  He has admitted - bragged - to FISA-less domestic spying.  That felony offense is enough to warrant impeachment all by itself.  If you if you aren't willing to do anything about known crimes you, Nancy, have become an accomplice after the fact.

              •  "Building the Record" (0+ / 0-)

                Sounds an awful lot to me like "Keeping our powder dry."

                What bullshit. I think the record we have to date is more than enough.

                You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty.
                - Jessica Mitford

                by Swampfoot on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:35:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's not a popularity contest (19+ / 0-)

              when the constitution is at stake.

              To me her statements say it isn't going to happen in any way manner or form to any of the officials.

              I have a friend who is high up on the environmental committee in the House and I heard the exact same words in reference to other R Misdeeds. 'We have to have it on record".

              In short, in the roulette wheel of politics, they are putting all their chips on the 08 election assuming that ignoring the people's will that they will mistakenly be elected because the alternative is so much worse. I see consultants all over this.

              They are depending on the R's losing the 08 election rather than winning. One thing we have seen from the R's when it comes to elections is they make mistakes, but they quickly regroup and come back stronger. Not to mention, all out efforts to secure those elections are underway especially since nothing has been done about the USAs by impeaching Gonzalez which would have been a start to stop electoral abuse and fraud.

              As of 2006, The D's didn't have any kind of record that stood out in people's minds. No one cares about lying about sex when there sons and daughters are dying and wounded for life. So they were elected in as  veritable unknown based on the turn-out of people who had never voted before, cross-over votes etc with the overwhelming desire for a check on these wackos, not record keepers.

              If we wanted accountants we would have voted for them. No to slam accountants. But by nature they are historians. They have no input into the future unless they are asked to predict based on historical performance. Which is why they aren't often asked about the future as policy makers

              I believe this election was about being bold, showing leadership and showing it all through action. To depend on record keeping and a very very flawed electoral system to fix these problems is not what I was voting for.

              This confirms my worst fears. They have completely lost touch with reality. Instead of record keeping we need a statement from the D's that Bush One used in the run up to DS1: "This will Not Stand". Followed by action. Actions that will work because impeachment is not an all or none proposition. Instead she is claiming their mandate is record keeping and not taking chances.

              She is looking at 2008 as a Cakewalk with flowers and Candy because of record keeping . Why? They assume they will be able to get a message out. Even if that dubious assumption became a reality what are they going to say? "Mission Accomplished" via record keeping. Then we will hear "No one ever thought"... then the blame will be on the American people. They just don't understand how things work here. I've heard that plenty of times here.

              Yes Nancy we do and that's what we want to change. Substantive  change does not start without action from the inside with the hope that somehow someone is going to do your job on the outside which is exactly what the D's are betting on. We are going to do their jobs for them by voting them in so they can keep records.

              How else to say it...

              Nancy, you are the Gop's best friend right now.

              Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

              by Dburn on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:58:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pelosi, like Obama & Hillary, has been infected (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dburn, sassykathy46

                with a case of paralyzing DC beltway consultitis (paralysis by analysis.)

                The Dem DC beltway consultants keep telling the Dem echelon that the American public is too stupid to get it, so don't bother even trying to tell the American public just how criminal the Bush admin is and why the Bush admin eminently deserves impeachment.

                My hope now is that we convince John Edwards, who is now well detached from all the self-paralyzing Dem DC beltway bullsh&t, to start talking about impeachment.

                after seeing Pelosi here, I have given up trying to work this issue directly with her and Conyers etc. via phone calls.

                The Dem DC beltway echelon will need to be FORCED to do the right thing here, not merely be reasoned with.

                We now need to pursue an alternate route to demanding impeachment, to force Pelosi's hand here, and that is where John Edwards can help bigtime.

                I think that John Edwards can really break outta his current rut and positively distinguish himself with the Dem primary base if he starts to call for the impeachment of Gonzales and Cheney.

                Heck, let's shake this baby up!

            •  Please!! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TaraIst, dianem, fisheye, Kickemout

              She works for us? How about she represents her district first. And then she is the leader of the House - elected by combined Representatives - not you.

              Your demands of Pelosi are not based in any kind of reality. I could show you two dozen different individual opinions here in this thread alone about how things should be done. Can you tell me which of those individuals she should represent? Probably you right? And everyone else who has a different view and a different solution can just take a hike. After all this is 'your' country first and everyone else's second! Your views trump all others.

              BTW if you bothered to listen to her answers they make perfect sense....

              Impeachment accomplishes nothing if you can't convict and we would not have the votes to convict so there is no point. I think she made that very clear.

              But you know - when there is blood in the water and the sharks are circling no one listens to common sense reasoning.

              "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

              by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:48:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please back at you (5+ / 0-)

                Nancy Pelosi as a part of the elected officials who are in Washington DOES work for us. We pay her salary!

                Not only does she represent her own district, but as Speaker she represents the House, a group of people who SERVE their constituents, or at least are supposed to.

                Her job is to LEAD and she is doing anything but on this issue. That's why I'm so disappointed in her.

                So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:01:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ignore Talex (5+ / 0-)

                  Its a troll, every post I've seen leads me to think that Talex probably works as a consultant in DC.

                  - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

                  by walkingshark on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:35:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're probably right (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bablhous, Free Paris Hilton

                    But the consultants need to know that we're very unhappy with the way things are going in DC and that if our representatives don't represent us we may just find replacements who will.

                    The interesting thing is, I'm a consultant (not a political one) and while I will advocate for my clients, my job is to provide them with useful advice and give them unvarnished truth about conditions in regards to the context of why they hired me.

                    If Talex is a consultant, then s/he is one of the worst kind - one who is too wed to his/her own advice and who won't alter course when it's clear that advice is not working. It's a sign of incompetence.

                    I've had to backtrack on advice I've given once new information came to light. It's uncomfortable but in the end it has increased my clients' respect for me because they know I prioritize their interests even if it means damaging my own.

                    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                    by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:01:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Someone needs to tell Talex and Pelosi that (4+ / 0-)

                  the Constitution does not say that the House must first be guaranteed of a senate conviction before it decides to impeach (indict.)

                  Whether or not a senate conviction is guaranteed, the House nevertheless has a Constitutional OBLIGATION to investigate any high crimes & misdemeanors possibly committed by the executive branch.

              •  Impeachment proceeding will accomplish (5+ / 0-)

                a great deal, regardless of how the R's in the senate vote.  Impeachment would be the new OJ trial for the media, for one thing.  They would be all over it, and the words HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS would be coming out of every talking head.  The question would be "Bush:  How big of a criminal is he?"  So that is a win.  And when it is splattered all over the TV and all over the paper, then head-in-the-sand people like my sister-in-law will finally be forced to see just what has been going down these past years. That would be a huge win. By the time it goes to the Senate for a vote, it will no longer be relevant what the R's do.  The people will have seen and heard.  The R's will either be forced to listen to the overwhelming majority and impeach, or they will have to say, no they won't impeach the most lawless criminals ever to hold office.  Another win.

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:47:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Great post! (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mogolori, Reepicheep, sassykathy46

                  Pelosi has boxed herself into a catch-22; on the one hand she and the blue dogs are afraid that the public will be too stupid to understand why the Bush admin needs to be impeached, and yet she refuses to do the very thing that will educate the public, namely, hold formal House impeachment hearings.

                  We have to force her hand, it is as simple as that.

                  My best idea in that regard is for all of us here to ask John Edwards to repeatedly call for the impeachment of Gonzales and Cheney.

                  We need to get the entire country talking about impeachment, and we need to shake up the entire Dem DC beltway echelon.

                  Let's put impeachment squarely on the campaign table!

              •  Talex, pls don't ever try to start a new (0+ / 0-)

                business; you see, new businesses NEVER have an upfront 100% guarantee of success, and you seem to insist upon an upfront 100% guarantee of success.

            •  Novel idea - undermining credibility in lieu of (9+ / 0-)

              punishing crime.

              So if I follow the exchange - the "check" Congress will use to "balance" their power with the President is to undermine his crediblity.  I'm guessing that Speaker Pelosi hasnt really looked closely at Congressional crediblity lately or maybe that's how it all stays balanced?  They just all end up with no crediblity and we have a system of government which believe the Constitution is "worth it" only if you have the fix already in so you know that, with no expenditure of effort or commitment or time away from fundraising and lobbyist luncheons - you can already know you'll succeed.

              It's so discouraging to not be able to even work up much liking for 80-90% of the Dems.  It's become almost a biblically inspired event to try to find someone in Congress who keeps you from wanting to see the whole place turned to salt.

              But that "undermining credibility" a the "check" on crime thing - that should go over big with the country.  I guess when an armed assailant has broken into your home and you call 911 and a vehicle with flashing light pull up, you'll be able to really feel a wave of relief as trained men and women with laptop and "google certified" badge appear and launch assault on the crediblilty of the man shooting up your home.  Die content, knowing that it is quite likely that before thing are completely over - they will discover that he cheated on his third grade math test.  

              I'm sure all the criminals in government quake at the thought.  And might I add - with checks like that we should be able to supply table covering s for Italian restaurants throughout the country.

              Mike Stark: Respectfully, that’s not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

              Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances, that were missing, are honoring the Constitution. I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress. (unint) Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena. I think that the President’s credibility now, whether its immigration – whatever it is – is so low because of a great deal of the oversight that we have done. But we are in disagreement – I’m not going to try to budge you on that – on whether the President should have been impeached. That’s a different question from "Are there grounds for impeachment?" But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

              •  Punishing crime? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dianem

                Unfortunately that prospect is not based in reality.
                Impeachment is not punishment, it's a trial. And most of those so adamant to impeach ignore the fact that the dems are not the judge and jury. The judges are biased and the jury is complicit in the crimes. If impeachment failed to conclude in removal of Bush or Cheney from office all of their abuses would be vindicated.

                •  You need to read up on the Constitution (6+ / 0-)

                  Impeachment = Indictment by Congress

                  The Senate is the Jury, usually presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court who does not have any power to decide anything during the trial.

                  The only thing a conviction does in impeachment proceedings is remove the president from office and make it so he cannot run for office again nor can he collect his federal pension (that's probably the real reason Nixon resigned was so that he could keep his retirement benefits). It's not a punishment as much as it is an intervention, part of the checks and balances crafted by the founders of this country in the Constitution.

                  I would imagine Bush and Cheney would do much like Nixon did. In light of damning evidence revealed as part of impeachment proceedings they'd probably resign before it ever got to the Senate in order to preserve their benefits ($400K/year is nothing to sneeze at).

                  So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                  by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:51:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You responding to the parent comment? (0+ / 0-)

                    cause, I think we made the same point.

                    •  I based my response on this (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rlharry, bablhous

                      And most of those so adamant to impeach ignore the fact that the dems are not the judge and jury. The judges are biased and the jury is complicit in the crimes.

                      To me that implies a fundamental misunderstanding about how impeachment works.

                      The "Judge and Jury" is the Senate and while it would require a fairly large number of Republicans to vote in favor of conviction, I think it could happen because the evidence would be irrefutable.

                      The judges are biased and the jury is complicit in the crimes.

                      You're implying the Senate would be biased and complicit in the crimes committed by the Bush Administration, and in the case of Iraq it is true, but in many such as the illegal wiretapping and the circumventing of FISA, outing of Valerie Plame, invoking executive privilege, etc., they would have nothing to do with it and every interest in seeing these crimes brought to light and tried.

                      If impeachment failed to conclude in removal of Bush or Cheney from office all of their abuses would be vindicated.

                      Not true. Failure of the Senate to convict Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal in no way vindicated him or what he did. All it said was not enough Senators (a majority did vote to convict) felt what he did rose to the standard for removal from office.

                      I think what you mean to say if the Senate fails to convict it would be a meaningless gesture with no real impact on history other than Bush gets noted as the second president in a row to be impeached and some will spin it to be payback for Clinton's impeachment. The difference is Clinton lied about extramarital sex, Bush lied about things that have gotten thousands of people killed and he's using the cover of Clinton's impeachment (Democrats not wanting to look like it's payback) to help him get away with it.

                      So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                      by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well you can parse words (0+ / 0-)

                        all you want. I meant what I said. Impeachment is not going to shed light on anything.
                        All the evidence for impeachment would exist in the public sphere before a proceeding would occur.
                        The idea that impeachment would uncover something to sway Republicans to convict is silly.

                        You think I misunderstand the constitution based soley on these absurd opinions about Republican accountability?
                        .

                        . .it would require a fairly large number of Republicans to vote in favor of conviction, I think it could happen because the evidence would be irrefutable.

                        they would have nothing to do with it and every interest in seeing these crimes brought to light and tried.

                        Huh? Did you watch the plame hearings?

                        And btw
                        "vindication" perfectly applies to this statement

                        All it said was not enough Senators (a majority did vote to convict) felt what he did rose to the standard for removal from office.

                        •  Acquittal is not vindication (0+ / 0-)

                          Vindication implies the person or idea is correct. Clinton certainly was not correct when he lied during the Paula Jones civil proceedings.

                          The Plame hearings are not the same as impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings would line up each and every one of the crimes committed by the Bush Administration in one package and bring them all to light. Again, Republicans would be signing their own political death warrants if they didn't vote to impeach/convict. That's very clear given Bush's current approval ratings, which at last check are dangerously close to what Nixon's were just before he resigned.

                          So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                          by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:16:33 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  No GOP Senator will vote to impeach. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dianem, blueyedace2

              Even if they wanted to, they won't.

              Why?

              Because they all know what happened to those GOP Senators that voted with the Democrats to impeach Nixon.  One by one, the Republicans worked to get them out of office.  The last one to go, Lowell Weicker, was taken out in 1988 when the Republicans openly backed Joe Lieberman to replace him.

              •  Sorry? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bablhous, Cali Techie

                Nixon was never impeached. The House judiciary committee voted to recommend articles of impeachment be presented to the full House, but Nixon resigned before that happened.

                And of course, there are no Senators in the House.

              •  you never know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sassykathy46

                really, you don't.  i sure hope that our elected officials don't adopt the attitude you espouse about this though.  there may be an R Senator or two who would happily stand against Bush whether it meant the end of their careers or not.  the Nixon example only holds so much sway in this argument.  the Republicans loved and felt loyal to Nixon.  right now the Republicans are seething against Bush because of immigration.  and because he is widely viewed as a failure, in addition to being publicly disliked.  Nixon was publicly disliked, but his fellow R's did not think he was failed or incompetent, merely guilty as charged.  an actual hearing in which Executive records are seized, poured over and brought into evidence and therefore into the public record would be absolutely devastating to Bush and all Republicans who didn't subsequently back away from any association with him or his gang of nutjobs.  that is a realistic potential scenario.  nothing is certain right now, but putting the impeachment process off the table is an absolutely unwarranted move.  its insane.

          •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bablhous

            However in our system, WE do it through our representatives in Congress. If they are not willing to represent us and our views, maybe we should consider replacing them.

            So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:39:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Democrats are only willing to fight (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shirl In Idaho, sassykathy46

            when they are absolutely guaranteed of a victory.

            They are not willing to fight for principle.

            I think that says it all.

            "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

            by bablhous on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:14:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Calie, she's my US Rep in SF -- and I am (76+ / 0-)

          profoundly dissatisfied. It was clear to me, in the transcript portion posted above, that the question-set before Mike asks about impeachment was intended to neutrally give Pelosi an opportunity to say OR NOT SAY anything about impeachment, as a methodology to even consider, when asked "what are you going to do?"

          And her reply made it clear that she was standing by her decision from over a year ago: Impeachment is off the table. She goes on to make that clear when she says the best thing is to have a Dem president and re-establish the rule of law.

          THEN, thankfully, Mike Stark asks the question that so many have wanted addressed.

          And she failed miserably with her answer. Again, thank you Mike for respectfully following up re "isn't he Constitution worth fighting for?" -- because it couldn't have been stated more concretely.

          Her stammering answer is unacceptable to me, a constituent, and a citizen.

          If she claims she wants to see the rule of law restored, then USE the rule of law and set the example.

          But inasmuch as I believe Ms. Pelosi THINKS or believes in her heart she is doing the correct thing, I will bet she has no context-view for how similiarly she has begun to resemble "The Decider".

          She has extracted promises from Conyers etc to comply with her "off the table" pronouncement, thus effectively BEING The House, vs being its Leader.

          The Decider had his name reinforced by his complete unwillingness to consider a changing landscape, and instead clinging to a "decision" he made years ago. I contend that this is exactly where we are today with Madame Decider.

          She freely admit we had no clue about the depths of abuse in the DOJ prior to the Oversight hearings. But the fact is, this new information -- the backchannel email system, most likely in use as early as 2001, subverted countless initiatives from being documented according to our rule of law; the polluting of the entire DOJ turning it into an arm of the GOP; the pollution of the GSA, turning it inot an election assuranc evehicle for the GOP; the  uncovering of the massive caging and disenfranchisement of voting; the inability to even get subpoenas ENFORCED due to the GOP-striped DOJ -- all fo these things are NEW CIRCUMSTANCES that go well beyond the stuff we already knew about that was bad enough!

          So, it is interesting, to say the least, that Madame Decider claims our President is recalcitrant and unbudgeable in the face of changing circumstances, when, it appears to me, she echoes this exact behavioral trait.

          Finally, she of course avoids one of the most pivotal points: While she claims it is our objective to "build a case" to inform the American people of the degree of wreckage created by this completly lawless adminsitration, no one on the left that I know of has ever insisted "it is imperative that they are convicted in them Senate and removed from office."

          While that is a goal, and a desire, for sure, that many people share, persuasive arguments has been made all over this site that the WAY to make that case, and to have our subpoenas enforceable, is thru the LAW-ABIDING methodology prescribed by our Constitution:

          A impeachment process.

          It's impt to stress that any attempts by Madame Decider to try to connect the two -- as in --

          In order to impeach, we must be able to convict, and we don't have the votes

          is an obfusaction. Because in this day & age of media saturation, the impeachment alone -- where we CAN control that process -- will effectively have these cases of willful crimes against the US Constituiton TRIED in the Court of Public Opinion.

          I just have to say this. Because it is very slyly left out of any discussion of this issue of REMEDIES to the abuse of power being perpetrated against America. I reject out of hand the idea that we would "lose" in the Court of Public Opinion. To lose would require incompetence on the part of the House of Represnetatives.

          Because the evidenciary trail is so exhaustuve -- and that's even BEFORE the enforcement powers of Impeachment are invoked.

          The final 2 related points for the unbudgeable and unchangable Madame Decider:

          (1) You may be correct re not wasting out time with Bush. But you conveniently skip the other two targets: Cheney and Gonzales. How one could think that Cheney would "prevail" in  the Court of Public Opinion OVER the People of the United States witnessing his criminal acts boggles the mind. Is there no self-esteem in the Democratic majority in the House?

          (2) If not now, what IS a crime suitable for invoking Impeachment? What constitutes aggregious acts above and beyond the scope of what has been perpetrated against America these past 6-7 years?

          It's like saying about Katrina: "Well, FEMA was irresponsible and their performance and omissions in performance were bad, but really it doesn't meet the standard of devastation that would be required in order to consider firing the head of FEMA. It would have to take a major breech of responsibility along with major resulting devastation in order to go down that path".

          So, maybe it would be a Cat 5 hurricane AND a terrorist bombing of all bridges blocking access to escape/evacuate -- and FEMA dropping the ball. Maybe THEN it would rise to the level of scrutiny.

          I mean, what do you take us for? Rule of Law? Build a Case? Achieve legislative results -- with the veto power you already speak of?

          Madame Speaker: who's zoomin who here? That's what this constituent wants to know.

          (Thanks Mike Stark! Citizen Power alive and well, even if the Speaker's House is asleep at the wheel)

          -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
          *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

          by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:24:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your point 2 (34+ / 0-)

            I'm not sure if this is really relevant, because I read that part of the transcript to mean something even more depressing: that she believes crimes appropriate for impeachment have been committed, but she still feels politically enjoined from acting on it.

            In my mind, that's even worse than not thinking impeachable offenses have been committed ( over and over and over again).

            And thanks for this, Mike - great diary, even if the insight's not the most welcome.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt "They are a threat to your children, David" - George W. Bush

            by sidnora on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:06:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree, sidnora. (10+ / 0-)

              Pelosi started off by saying that we don't know how bad it really is. That tells me she knows about more impeachable activity than we do. Yet with all that she won't even entertain taking action.
              I think I now understand how the Iraq funding bill went down. They thought all they had to do was "show" that they want to end the war. The same way Pelosi wants to "show" what BushCo's done. "Show" ain't gonna do it.
              Republicans were stronger in the majority and they are stronger in the minority. Our Dems could have held off so much bad legislation if they'd have flexed their minority muscle. They can do so much good if they would flex their majority muscle. I'm beginning to understand the Dems-are-weak meme that I've tried to defend against for years.

            •  Gotcha... thank you. (0+ / 0-)

              It was very late night when I wrote that, and I believe I didn't interpret some of her language correctly. Now, int the light of day, I believe you are dead on. And it is beyond aggregious.

              -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
              *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

              by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:12:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Someone in Teacherken's Impeachment diary (6+ / 0-)

            Impeachment is only a punishment if ultimately the person being impeached is removed from office.

            The Repubs are not going to vote to remove Bush or Cheney from office. Especially given that the reasons for removal are the very things that the Congressional Repubs have supported!!!

            They are not going to say Bush/Cheney are guilty of something which in turn makes them just as guilty.

            And if you can't get a conviction then there is no good reason to drag the country through an impeachment. And this is what Obama probably realizes that many here don't.

            Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

            by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:06:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  $hit. Hit the enter button (17+ / 0-)

              Anyways, what my brain was trying to say (while my fingers did their own thing) was....

              Someone in teacherkens diary on impeachment, while arguing against bringing articles of impeachment against the Pres/VP/Gonzo made the arguement:
              Impeachment is only a punishment if ultimately the person being impeached is removed from office.

              The Repubs are not going to vote to remove Bush or Cheney from office. Especially given that the reasons for removal are the very things that the Congressional Repubs have supported!!!

              They are not going to say Bush/Cheney are guilty of something which in turn makes them just as guilty.

              And if you can't get a conviction then there is no good reason to drag the country through an impeachment. And this is what Obama probably realizes that many here don't.

              I think this whole line of reasoning is interesting, but ultimately, a failed one. During the course of impeachment hearings, evidence of wrong doing will be exposed for the public to see. Maybe really see for the first time, if they aren't political junkies like us. If, after all is said and done, the votes for impeachment FAIL, then the real risk, the real consequence those who would not attempt impeachment are scared to death of is this:
              Insurrection. People so angry that they actually take to the streets. In other words, the bottom line of accountability. Our representatives, if they refuse to represent US, must have a healthy fear of we, the people.

              Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

              by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:13:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LISA - I agree with you that THAT comment is flaw (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sassykathy46

                flawed thinking. And I make a similar point to yours elsewhere here:

                The dynamics are very different from the time of the Watergate hearings. There was nothing even close to the immersive media world we live in.

                I am positive that, in the Court that truly matters -- the Court of Public Opinion, the American people would CONVICT Cheney and Gonzales.

                I don't think they would Convict Bush -- they would consider that so over the top that even though their minds say YES, he's committed repeated Abuse of Power, their guts would overrule -- for the very same reason the commenter on Teacherken's diary mentioned:

                A whole lot of Americans voted for Bush, twice -- and especially in 2004 when it was presented to them time and time again during the campaign that he has lead us into an elective disaster, exacerbated it with bring em on, stripped our Constitutional Safeguards, wiretapped us, endorsed and even ordered torture, claims it's all about 9/11 but has let bin Laden go, then lies about it, gave a big F.U. to the other nations of the world, put us into massive debt -- and yet they said

                "but he's better than Kerry -- and I like how he stands by what he says, I like that he's resolute, vs the other side who bend and crumble constantly"

                That implicates them, and the cognitive dissonance from SEEING Bush's case playing out on TV 24/7 would stab them a million times - because they said

                "this is OUR guy"

                -- and thus their deep awareness that Bush is clearly guilty of high crimes would route into a brain subroutine that says "then YOU are guilty too" - and it comes out of that subroutine filter as

                "Let's leave Bush out of this -- BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE, GET THAT BASTARD CHENEY!"

                (deflection, and projecting all of that wronsdoing onto Cheney; which releases them of responsibility, and relieves the stigma stuck in their unconscious that THEY enabled all of this by convincing themselves

                "Bush was President, but we now see that it was all Dick Cheney pulling his strings; CHENEY's the mastermind and he needs to be terminated from office, he's shamed America, etc."

                -- And this psychological processing enables them to have it both ways -- (1) NOT be caught in the trap of "I am responsible for this because I heard people say these things, but I dismissed it and voted for Bush anyway over some weakling Democrat", neutralized by (2) they DID act, they did the right thing to punish Cheney for abuse of power. That equals clean conscience AND a real remedy for America.

                So, I believe the commenter in teacherken's thread was on the right track re psychological war in head & heart -- but he applied that to the wrong cast of characters. He SKIPPED the jury in the Court of Public Opinion, and went with the academic construct that, once it reached the Senate (the deciding Court), the GOP Senators who went along with all of that enabling would block conviction.

                The huge GAP here is that the TV TRIAL of CHeney and Gonzales would actually be GOOD TV, extremely high ratings, a real life LAW & ORDER, a real life JUDGE JUDY, and, this is important:

                UNLIKE Bill Clinton's TV "trial" where the offense was  considered vulgar and bad role modeling, and the EVIDENCE WAS BOOOOOOORING, since there was so little of it, THE Impeachment Hearings on TV of Cheney & Gonzales would be FULL of espionage, and wiretapping, and torture and anthrax, and undisclosed locations, and a maniacal bad guy (think Anthony Hopkins) --

                Now ask yourself --- how would that be anything OTHER than "Killer TV" !

                I think the Pelosis of the world mistake the LEGAL SEQUENCING of Impeachment with what would happen in the COurt of Public Opinion. THEY think this "24/7 TV show" would be a dud -- and people would say "TOO MUCH! STOP THIS! MAKE THIS GO AWAY!" -- but they completely miss the psychology of the American People:

                This would be like THE SOPRANOS, or LOST, or "MUST SEE TV" -- and THAT kind of thing they simply cannot get enough of. They would be CRAVING "the next episode" where Witness X is brought inot the "Courtroom" and drops an evidence shocker in Cheney's lap. They would be CRAVING to see the CLOSE UP on CHeney, in a "WHoa! That dude is FRIED!" kind of way.

                --
                All of the above is what I mean by the Court of Public Opinion. It's the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM -- but the Pelosis and Reids and entire DC Beltway Crowd are focused on an entirely different "calculus" -- That it would always be pointing to the 2008 Pres Elections.

                But I think THAT thought and psychology of "who's wasting the taxpayer's money" would be pre-empted by a friggin KILLER Season of Crime Drama on TV.

                I mean -- step out of blogland and DC land for a minute and go to any news site in America, and look at "MOST EMAILED STORY"... You're going to see Paris Hilton or WOman CHops off Man's Privates or Hurricane Devastates New Orleans, again.. NOT "how's Obama doing in the race"

                Mainstream TV drives policy in America, for better or worse (it's for sure worse) and THAT's why people crave Hannity, Oreilly, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Ann Coulter, Keith Olberman, and any GOTCHA TV episodes of politics.

                The NETWORKS get this big time, and they morph inot whatever it is that's a ratings hit. In my view, CHENEY and GONZALES on COURT TV (cspan) would be a ratings hit -- where instead of "I'm asserting Executive privilege, they get "ANSWER THE QUESTION, MR. VICE PRESIDENT, THAT IS NOT A FACTOR HERE!"

                It couldn't be more high-drama tha OJ's trial or Paris' trip to jail, etc.

                And that;s where the DC Beltway COnsultants are not worth a sheet of toilet paper. They exclude these kinds of factors because they are too enmeshed in DC CUlture to "get" the real pulse of America.

                GREEN LIGHT the Cheney & Gonzales Series! Order up a season. It'll sweep everything else off the TV screen for a long time, in a big WHO DONE IT.

                and so they )

                -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
                *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

                by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Lisa... sorry but your comment is BS... (9+ / 0-)

              the only ethical thing to do is to STOP CRIME! If you saw a child drowning, would you try to help?  Would you jump in the water and swim to that child and do everything within your power to save her life?  

              I know you would.  So why won't Nancy do that for the country?  What the hell does she think she's doing just watching and hoping someone else will do it or that the child who is drowing will save herself.

              BS... she must allow Conyers and Waxman to prepare the case and to present it NOW!

              Obama/oslama... Mr. Obama is a political candidate.  If he won't stand up and speak to power then I hope that people see him for who he really is.  He is not my candidate and his opinion, at this point, isn't relevant to this situation.  Of course his opinion as an American is a given, but it deserves no more attention than yours or mine.

              IMPEACH Nancy... NOW!

              •  Sorry if what I said was foncusing (6+ / 0-)

                but I think we're on the same page. I want impeachment hearings now, I think the Dem leadership is acting like they fear losing their jobs MORE tnan they fear losing their relevancy or their Constitutional democracy, and certainly more than they fear a rebellion among the faithful (us?).
                They're playing chicken, with the white house, and with the voters. I think they are hoping we fear losing our democracy so much we'll vote for and support them no matter what.

                Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

                by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:57:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Good... (16+ / 0-)

            then please take action.  Call every office, every day and demand that she puts impeachment back on the table.

            • Ask your friends to join you
            • Ask your family to join you
            • Write LTEs to the local papers
            • Host local Code Pink members to sit-in at all of her offices
            • Surround her home while she's there this week
            • Stand on street corners for an hour a day
            • Plaster signs all over San Francisco
            • Call the local groups who elected her and ask them to exert pressure

            Please don't let her think that you (we) agree with her.  Let her know that she must move impeachment to the dinner table NOW or suffer the political consequences personally.

          •  I agree and disagree. . . (0+ / 0-)
            On one hand, I agree that a record must be made of the actions of the past 6 1/2 years.  To do otherwise is to imperil any chance of impeachment since the impeachee (is there such a word?) can merely resign to avoid said impeachment.  Nixon did it.

            On the other hand, who says the Democrats WILL actually attempt to  restore the rule of law?  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

             

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

            by givmeliberty on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree and disagree. . . (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rhfactor, Reepicheep, Cali Techie
            On one hand, I agree that a record must be made of the unlawful actions of the past 6 1/2 years.  To do otherwise is to imperil any chance of impeachment since the impeachee (is there such a word) can merely resign to avoid said impeachment.  Nixon did it.

            On the other hand, who says the Dems WILL actually attempt to restore the rule of law?  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  

            .

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

            by givmeliberty on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:45:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Impeachment visibility at whatever 4th of July (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, Reepicheep

            Can you quickly organize a huge Impeachment visibility activity at whatever parade she's going to be in this weekend?

            Get people with signs at both ends of the route, and get others with clipboards and petitions lining the route. All of it nicely understated (no yelling, no fighting, just visible).

            Hand deliver the signed petitions to her office when it opens (probably Monday), with press.

            If she says the court of public opinion is needed to change minds, get the court of public opinion to make itself visible in a way she can't avoid.

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

            by mataliandy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  mat - are you asking ME that question? (0+ / 0-)

              If so, the answer is a sincere "no, i would not be able to pull that off" for this simple reason: I dropped out of SF post-Dean on the streets activism and my "currency" there is now minimal.

              It would have to come from real Orgs with deep logistical resources:

              (1) MOVEON -- Wes Boyd is literally in Berkeley
                           (so is Markos, so is George Lakoff, btw)

              (2) DFA SF / or SanFranciscoForDemocracy
              who, as you could imagine are very very resourceful

              Having a Deaniac like you ask them -- from a national-constiuency perspective -- would have more impact. The current President is Tom Brown. CONTACTS PAGE, including phone numbers:

              http://www.sf4democracy.com/...

              .

              -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
              *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

              by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:13:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  fyi, this is a MAP of greater Pelosi-ville, N. CA (0+ / 0-)

                At the top is Marin County, to the east is the "East Bay" area comprising Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville. Then there's downtown San Francisco, part of Madame Speaker's District.

                These are all the "draw areas" from which protesters would come, if organized, when Madame Speaker visits her District.

                Map of Pelosi's Northern CA protest-base

                .

                Click here for FULLSIZE IMAGE.  (160k)

                .

                -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
                *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

                by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  exactly, you nailed it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snazzzybird, Cali Techie

          no other option. we need to stop this criminal insanity, and kill it. no more popping up later like cheney, rummy, et al...

        •  If enough calls came in to her office and (0+ / 0-)

          the offices of the other house members, they would move for impeachment.  If some mouth breathing
          radio guys started banging the drum for Bush & Cheney's heads, then heads would roll.

          There are over 700 comments on this diary right now.
          Imagine what 700 calls to Pelosi's Office in a day would do.  Imagine if each one of the 700 commentors
          were able to convince 3 of their friends to call and those 3 friends were able to convince 3 of their friends to call........
          You get the picture?  

          Their has to be a major ground swell for impeachment, not just some poll numbers.  

          Talking about impeachment at DKos is preaching to the choir.  

          "United we stand, divided we fall"

          by Cassandra77 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  impeach - can't wait (0+ / 0-)

          citizens have to demand that the Democrats impeach to bring  the government back in line with the Constitution now before there is more damage; on the conference call Pelosi made it clear that she doesn't think anything will get done until we have the WH in 09: well even if we win 08 Cheney/Bush still has power of office for seventy seven days thereafter and you know what they is going to do with those 77 days; Pelosi says they can pass in the house but they don't have the votes in the Senate;

          I have come to believe there has to be a Cheney impeachment then Bush;

          letting it go without removing Gonzales under the law,  would that be called impeachment too, is wrong for this country; how is it right for the Congress to let the neocon lawlessness, their  political subversives, get a pass and notbe accountable to the American people the Consitution and the law for what they do;

          Bill Clinton did not pursue the Iran Contra criminals when he took office and they are our government now;

          It can not be the presidents work to do - it is the citizens work to demand that we have our Constitutional government in working order;

          http://www.worldcantwait.org/

          http://www.worldcantwait.net/...

          this was a bloggers' conference call to Nancy; the question of impeachment was put on the table and she swept it off again; there is not room for doubt they are not going to work for it - citizens have to;

          "They tell you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps then they steal your boots " - Rep. Dennis Kucinich 6/28/2007

          by pollwatch on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:26:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nope! This diary just hits home on this (17+ / 0-)

          night--when, if all were right--not in the world--but in
          this country, impeachment would already be on the table,
          and we wouldn't have to wait for what, I admit, a snagged-up
          process is impeding.

          And yet I like Nancy & thinking she's working her butt off.

          It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot.

          by begone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:39:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is that your question was nonsensical (16+ / 0-)

          and that's why the answer is nonsensical.

          Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

          Whether the Constitution is ... "worth it"?  Worth what?  What does that even mean?  "Worth any possible action putatively taken to save it, regardless of its likelihood of success?"  If you were asking her if the Constitution is worth sacrificing our first-borns on an alter in order to save it from destruction, she might say "yeah, well it's worth it if you can succeed by doing that and there's no alternative, but that's so far-fetched it's not worth discussing."

          Mike, when she said

          Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances that were missing, are honoring the Constitution.

          she was inelegantly blowing off your inelegantly phrased question so she could go into her set speech on the topic.  She clearly didn't understand what you were trying to say, because you didn't express the thought clearly or completely.

          What you presumably wanted to say was something like

          Given that the stakes are the possible destruction of the Constitution, don't we have to take this action pretty much regardless of the odds?

          to which she would say something like

          I don't accept the premise of your question, because I think what we are doing is the best way to honor and protect the Constitution, and your approach wouldn't do the job.  We're not refusing to impeach because we think the Constitution isn't worth it, but because we think that an action that won't succeed isn't worth it.

          As it happens, I don't agree with her, given the events of this week.  But to turn this into her demeaning the "worth" of the Constitution in some way is silly, and if people are really interpreting her answer to your vague and garbled question that way, based on your having posted this diary, it's now incumbent on you to correct things.

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:11:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Major Danby (22+ / 0-)

            With all due respect -- I mean your point is, on the one hand, well taken, but on the other hand -- Who do you know who has been able to ask that question on behalf of American Citizens?

            That's kind of like "shame on you for wasting your opportunity".

            Wrong. He created an opportunity based on an aggregate reputation that enabled him to be part of the call to begin with. And he TOOK THE SHOT so many could have taken prior, yet haven't.

            Maybe I am misreading you. Maybe I missed a snark tag... it's possible. It's 2:35 am and I am pretty tired. But jesus christ, Mike put The Question smack on the table, where it has belonged.

            Do you honestly believe that had he phased his followup more elegantly we would have gotten a more satisfactory answer?

            Me=no

            -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
            *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

            by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:33:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He would have gotten an answer (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WI Deadhead, dejavu

              that still said that "impeachment wasn't the best path to take," but that answer would not have been phrased in a way to lead all of the posters you see below to assert that Pelosi was somehow devaluing the Constitution.

              That's Mike's "scoop" in this diary, it's what people are reacting to negatively, and it's just flat out wrong.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:39:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don''t see her comments that way (24+ / 0-)

                For me she made it clear that winning the election takes precedent over anything and everything - including impeachment. And this sir, is my biggest fear. I am not interested in any Democratic President that has not ackowledged the Cheney power grab and taken action (impeachment) to ensure it will not happen again. Her response has been questioning the ethics of the entire party and that I can say I have never done in the past. I am outraged by her comments regardless of how the question was asked. She made HER priorities perfectly clear. My question is  - is there a way around her and what would that be.

                •  I meant "has me questioning (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, AmericanRiverCanyon
                  •  My take is that we are being asked to "trust" (8+ / 0-)

                    that the Dems, once elected, will just 'give back' all the acreted power now residing in the office of the presidency. They, being for the rule of law, will reverse all the envelope pushing law stretching naked power hijacking and restore balance and order.

                    Trust them. They will. Just throw your money at them, make calls and pound pavement for them, get them elected, and you'll see....

                    Heh.

                    (Ya know something? I'm just about desperate enough to take them up on it. Just about.)

                    Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

                    by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:01:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair Question (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mataliandy, 3goldens, zbctj52

                      I think that is a fair question and one that must be examined in more detail once the final few presidential candidates are determined (and hopefully we are closer to a filibuster proof majority). How far will they be willing to go? As far as criminal proceedings against the past administration for crimes against humanity? violating their oath of office? How about impeachment against the SCOTUS members who lied in the senate confirmation hearings about how neutral they would be in their respect of precedent, or other lies that have been outlined here on dKos. Or will there be some sort of truth and reconciliation panel with immunity, but legal mechanisms put in place to prevent abuse by any future administration?

                    •  I do not trust them Lisa... (8+ / 0-)

                      Why?  Because we have no guarantee that there will be a tomorrow, an election in 2008, and because I believe that we have only the now.  The past creates the present and the present creates the future.  King GeorgeCheney I. has everything ready to shut down our current system of government.  Ya' know the one that was established by the US Constitution that discusses all three branches of the government?

                      Not only is it playing politics with the Constitution of the United States, it's playing politics with the lives of our soldiers and the people of Iraq.  I'm not willing to give her time.  I want her to live in this moment.  I want her to do the job she was elected to do.  She is not doing that.

                      •  I hope you could tell (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mataliandy, 3goldens, blueyedace2, nymosyn

                        that my comment above was more than a little bit tongue in cheek. I'm feeling pretty depressed about the prospects of seeing the Bush crime syndicate ever being brought to justice. I hope for it, I take action to try to bring it about... but at the end of the day, we just don't have a whole lot more we can do about motivating 'our' leadership, other than screaming louder and hoping they listen.

                        Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

                        by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:40:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I think she meant (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueyedace2, Major Danby

                  losing an impeachment battle is not worth it, and could very well do more to damage the longer term credibility of the constitution than fighting winnable battles.

                  In response to a comment above. Rescuers don't frantically dive into troubled waters to save people by putting themselves in equal peril. They throw a life line and control the evacuation.

                  Some of the frantic calls for impeachment and admonishments of the Democratic leadership would blithly ignore realistic consequences of a failed impeachment that would vindicate this administrations abuse of power and further discredit Democratic effectiveness.

                  Just look at the back lash of their failed attempt to set timelines in the last war supplemental. They were willing to eat that crow in order to "ratchet up the pressure" but making crow of the constitution is unpalatable to Pelosi and prudence. I tend to agree until they have a realistic prospect achieving removal from office. There is no second round in  impeachment and I don't think banking the constituition on a known unwinnable battle is worth it.

                  Is the constitution worth making a mockery of through a futile impeachment? Or would that be the height of hypocricy.

              •  Major: well okay, I misunderstood your point (13+ / 0-)

                I had no idea that you feel as though nancy is doing a superb job in taking her oath of office seriously and with high integrity.

                I don't think any of us are kissing the point. I for one don't for a moment believe that Nancy is ambivalent about the value of our Constitution. I believe she probably truly believes she is serving the American people in the best possible manner. And that the Consitution is a sacred document.

                The problem, as I see it, is that her view of the landscape of America is clouded by coke-bottle-lenses aka DC Bubble. I don't believe she has a clue about how ordinary Americans see these abuses of power.

                I believe she truly does have a School Principal mentality. "There will be no marijuana smoking at this school, is that understood?"

                "Yess, Misses Pelosi"

                the chorus replies, then as soon as she turns her back, kids are lighting up.

                The more I ponder her resemblance to Bush as The Decider -- I'm suddenly seeing and hearing Poppy Bush by way of Dana Carvey:

                Not gunna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

                -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
                *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

                by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:10:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ooops. missing the point, not kissing it :) (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueyedace2, Lisa Lockwood, blueoasis

                  -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
                  *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

                  by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:11:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  rhfactor!!!! ((((hugs)))) (5+ / 0-)

                  The problem, as I see it, is that her view of the landscape of America is clouded by coke-bottle-lenses aka DC Bubble. I don't believe she has a clue about how ordinary Americans see these abuses of power.

                  I believe she truly does have a School Principal mentality. "There will be no marijuana smoking at this school, is that understood?"

                  You speak for me.  She truly does NOT get it and it's our responsibility to push her, pressure her and make the people who work for her WORK hard to make sure she receives and understands OUR MESSAGE!  

                  Thank you!

                  •  and a virtual hug back to you (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't think we will be successful with Madame Decider. My energy level has gone down. Can't believe this topic got bumped -- when it's the direct link to Pelosi's head. Everyhting else is speculation.

                    Mike Stark gave use infomration!

                    -----yKos ? > emailme re ad-hoc mtg on -->
                    *video townhalls *site-to-site collab tools *collective resrc

                    by rhfactor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:16:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Major Danby... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WI Deadhead, xaxado, costello7

                that still said that "impeachment wasn't the best path to take," but that answer would not have been phrased in a way to lead all of the posters you see below to assert that Pelosi was somehow devaluing the Constitution.

                She is (not was) devaluing the Constitution of the United States with her inaction.  What makes you/her think that there will even be an election?  Has King GeorgeCheney I. given you any reason to believe that they will allow us to even have an election in November of 2008?  

                •  There will be an election in 2008 (probably) (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueyedace2, pullbackthecurtain

                  I share your concern that elections could be "postponed" at the whim of Decider guy and his puppet master.  I think it is very unlikely, but not out of the question.  

                  If I had to guess I would put the chances at less than 1 in 50 that something will happen to postpone or disrupt elections in 2008.  A small, tiny, miniscule chance.  But not zero.

                  www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

                  by WI Deadhead on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:02:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If they're prepared to cancel the 2008 election (0+ / 0-)

                  what makes you think "they" are going to allow impeachment to go forward?

                  My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                  by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:16:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Major D, thanks for making me think harder (4+ / 0-)

            tonight. Am still not sure where I stand on the subset of
            this diary, but thank you for kicking in and making me
            think harder.

            At least, I think am grateful for thinking harder. I very much
            appreciate what Pelosi is doing, but...yet....she might have
            found a way to answer--even if the question wasn't as
            eloquently phrased as it might have been? Given the dire
            circumstances, and someone willing to ask that straight on
            to her?

            It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot.

            by begone on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:37:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was a brush off of a garbled question (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DMiller, begone, Yellow Canary

              In brushing it off, she gave a garbled answer on her way to giving her anti-impeachment position.  Hold her accountable for the anti-impeachment position, sure, but not for the garbled answer in response to what Mike said.  Her point was: impeachment is not going to do any good, so nothing can be worth "it."

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:42:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay--I' guess we'll agree on wishing she had (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Major Danby

                It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot.

                by begone on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:43:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I call BullShit (8+ / 0-)

                Major, you, as a commenter above so aptly put it, are exercising the "School Principal mentality" on us. I know your thoughts are well respected on this forum, but, please, stop telling us that "Father Knows Best."

                What you are doing is playing Monday Morning Quarterback. Telling us that Pelosi would have given a different answer it the question was different is just bullshit.

                I had no problem understanding the meaning of the "constitution is as stake" question, and I doubt Nancy did either. If the question had been stated more elegantly (hard to do while rebutting an official-on-a-roll) all we would be reading is a more elegant statement of how Nancy doesn't "get it."

                We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                by EclecticFloridian on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:19:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can't even tell what Mike's question *was* (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TaraIst, Old Gardener

                  Yes, Pelosi opposes impeachment.  Go after her for that, if you wish.  But going after her for thinking that "the Constitution is not worth it" -- whatever that means -- is unfair and wrong.  And it drives a wedge between Pelosi and this forum at a moment when we need it least.

                  My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                  by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:42:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're a smart guy, I'm surpriesed you didn't (0+ / 0-)

                    understand the meaning of the question. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the room, but I had no trouble understanding it.

                    The question in ... er ... question (in context this time) is: "Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it."

                    That doesn't sound like "going after her" it sounds like leading her away from her stock, prepared answer to a question that wasn't asked toward an answer to the question that actually was asked. That seems like a fair "journalistic" response to political avoidance of a tough question. Political side-stepping of the real question is usually a good indication that the politician in question knows their real answer is weak.

                    In that situation, I guess you can call it "going after" her if you wish, I call it an attempt to get a straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question.

                    As to driving a wedge between Nancy and this forum, get real. There is no closeness that can be wedged apart, except possibly in your mind. That thinking strikes me as wishful belief in the power this forum commands.

                    In addition, that thinking smacks of the same kind of thinking that is possibly going to allow the establishment of a legal principle that accepts defiance of the Constitution by public officials. What you are really saying with that objection is, "Don't speak truth to power. It may cause them to say bad things about us."

                    Are you really saying that bloggers should engage in MSM stenography in order to protect the forum?

                    I call Bullshit!

                    We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                    by EclecticFloridian on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:19:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's no better (0+ / 0-)

                      "Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it."

                      Worth what?  Worth protecting the Constitution?  Are you asking if the Constitution is worth protecting the Constitution?  That doesn't parse.

                      What I think you mean to say is: "Even if it's not worth impeaching Bush for its own sake, isn't it worth impeaching him to save the Constitution?"

                      And her answer is: "no, it's still not worth impeaching him, because doing so won't save the Constitution."

                      Agree with her or not on the substance, but don't assert that she is devaluing the Constitution with that statement.  She is devaluing impeachment.

                      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                      by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:38:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Even if the question was garbled... (3+ / 0-)

                ...Nancy´s answer was indicative of a defensive posture.  Nancy is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and she does not seem to have a clue about how to go on the offensive.

                Verge of an election?  Greatness?  We need to do something now and Nancy has no plan.  I wish she stepped aside, these are not business as usual times.

                Thinking about the July 14 assignement.

                Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

                by Shockwave on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:46:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent reading. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TaraIst

            (Birdy short-claw for "Tweet!  That's how I read it, only better!"

            If found guilty of the war crime of Aggressive War, George Bush should be hanged

            by Yellow Canary on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:22:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You should listen to the audio if you haven't (8+ / 0-)

            The dialogue provides the necessary context:  She just said "The President isn't worth it"...

            On these calls, she filibusters, so you have to do your best to be heard.  Sometimes that means a quick follow-up insistenly asked...

            And that's what this was...

            Pelosie:  "the president isn't worth it"
            Stark:  "that's not the question.  the question is whether the Constitution is worth it."

            I think she caught the meaning behind the question; she's just not used to being "talked back to".

            •  Still a nonsensical question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ablington

              If she's saying "it is not worth getting rid of this President to risk A, B, and C," your question is then tantamount to "but is it worth [saving] the Constitution to risk A, B, and C?", where A, B, and C are presumably the negative expects she effects from impeachment.  How does your question make sense?

              And taking a step back, look at the nice dose of Pelosi-bashing you've invoked here, some of it legitimate antagonism to her opposition to impeachment, and some of it (the more virulent portion, so far as I can tell) antagonism to her supposedly devaluing the Constitution.  You're an activist, Mike, and you've driven a wedge between Pelosi and this site at a terrible time.  This is not going to lead to Pelosi's replacement (let alone her replacement with someone "better"), and only makes it harder for her and people from here to work in tandem.  What was the thinking behind this?  How does it serve our aims?

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:50:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I drove no wedge (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rlharry, EclecticFloridian

                I exposed the gulf between Pelosi's agenda and our own.

                To the extent that Pelosi is supposed to be a servant of the people, well, it's she that's created the gulf, not I.

                And really, I think it is your argument that lacks sense:  you really think Pelosi respects her oath?  Because I don't.  

                Impeachment is required.  There is no room - none - zero - nil - for argument; the lawlessness of Gonzalez, Cheney, Bush and others is unbounded.  No serious people argue otherwise.

                What is the penaly for a lawless executive?  What does the Constitution require?  There's only one answer to that, and it's not "more ice cream".

                Listen - she said the President isn't worth impeaching.  That is a plain-as-day cop-out; it's lip-service for the stoooopid.  

                Impeachment should never be about the man.  It should only be about the country; about the Constitution.

                Pelosi chose to treat the question dismissively.  I chose to force a serious answer.  And you find fault in that?  Sheesh, Major...  I respectfully suggest further inquiry and reflection on your part.

                •  Fine way to end an argument (0+ / 0-)

                  Impeachment is required.  There is no room - none - zero - nil - for argument; the lawlessness of Gonzalez, Cheney, Bush and others is unbounded.  No serious people argue otherwise.

                  She is saying that failed impeachment on the substantive crimes you mention would end up doing more harm than good, partly because she thinks that it would do no good and would preclude doing other good things.

                  Disagree with her if you will; I do, in part.  But you seem unable to even conjure up the possibility that you could be wrong.  No serious people would argue with you, I suppose -- because it would apparently be pointless.

                  My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                  by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:42:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Here's another example of what you did (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TaraIst, victoria2dc

          as it usually comes packaged from the right:

          Conservative: Isn't freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny worth it?

          Liberal: Well, "freedom" is worth it if you succeed [in freeing them].

          Not an elegant answer, but the underlying point -- for Pelosi and for the liberal in my example -- is that "worth it" depends on what "it" is, and if "it" doesn't do any good than even something very desirable isn't worth "it."  The reason that "freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny" wasn't worth "it" is that "it" -- the invasion and occupation -- was not going to have that effect.  That answer does not disparage "freedom" itself, as people seem to have taken it here.

          Why we're firing our bullets at Pelosi, this of all weeks, I'll never understand.

          My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

          by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:36:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because she ought to be on our side (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soundacious, victoria2dc, blueoasis

            And, apparently, she isn't.

          •  Major Danby... (6+ / 0-)

            Why we're firing our bullets at Pelosi, this of all weeks, I'll never understand.

            • She is the decider
            • She is wrong
            • She is playing politics with the Constitution of the United States
            • She is allowing them to literally get away with murder (the murder of our troops, the murder of the US Constitution, and the murder of the legal system here in the United States
            • She works for us and she needs to listen to us
          •  Major- You are Flat out wrong (0+ / 0-)

            I think you're trying to defend the indefensible because  Mike did a far better job than any of our so called Journalists, especially on a follow up. Also you are degrading Pelosi's and Stark's intellect . Degrading Stark for not being precise in a quick follow up and degrading Pelosi for not having the depth of intelligence to understand what he was asking.

            If you really want to Monday Morning Quarterback, then you should just say- Pelosi was acting stupid because if everyone understood the question and the follow-up but her, she is either stupid or is acting stupid and I don't believe she is stupid. She just believes that 2008 is the answer to all of the D's problems.

            Quite frankly you owe Mike an apology. He was in the heat of a very tense situation without years of experience or training going up against a very seasoned politician. Yet you ridiculed his question. You are assuming you would have asked the exact question that you believed was correct having not been there.

            What makes you believe that a seasoned politician who has no intention of doing the right thing would have been able to wiggle her way out of "the Correct Question".

            Mike did one hell of a job and you are jumping him for it. Tell us what experience you have in these matters and when was the last time you were able to get a politician to answer a question they didn't want to answer it by making it more "precise and not "garbled"?  

            Also, it should go without saying that  I totally disagree with your characterization of the question. But just in the event I'm not being precise enough, I wanted to be sure you understood this.  

             

            Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

            by Dburn on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:30:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If people here want to oppose Pelosi (0+ / 0-)

              because of her opposition to substantive impeachment, that's fine.

              If people want to read into her comments that she does not value the Constitution enough to protect it, that's ridiculous.  She doesn't believe impeachment will work, any more than hitting Bush over the head with a sock would work.  She could be right, she could be wrong, but that is what "worth it" meant in that sentence.

              I've interviewed and been interviewed.  I don't begrudge Mike asking the question; in fact, I applaud him for trying to do so.  But coming here and presenting something this inflammatory when it doesn't clearly reflect her position just undercuts our efforts.  What's the plan here?  We want to get her to resign and get the Democratic caucus to replace her with someone more liberal?  Thanks, but "it" is not "worth it," because "it" won't work.

              My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

              by Major Danby on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's the accountability. (3+ / 0-)

                It's not about opposing Nancy Pelosi.

                It's about wanting representatives who will uphold their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, who will preserve the rights and freedoms that I've know for the generations to come.

                Pelosi's attitude is downright Falstaffian, and I can't respect that. She's laying down and playing dead. I want a Prince Hal to lead us out of this mess.

                And lack of respect for Nancy Pelosi on this crucial issue of accountability doesn't undercut my efforts -- I'm here to hold our elected officials accountable.

                For six and a half years the federal government has been bastardized and trampled into the ground by a dangerous cabal who have also managed to destabilize the world.

                I'm sick from six and a half years of Congress' self-induced impotence and an imperial presidency/vice-presidency/Fourthbranch. Electing Democrats isn't enough for me; I want government that will bend over backwards to uphold standards this nation has held true for over 200 years.

                I want leaders who will fight back against the weakening of our system rather than wait for the criminals in charge to move along -- because with that attitude, they won't.

                We don't have the luxury of looking the other way or fighting crimes against our nation perpetrated from within "over there". We need to fight here and now. The damage to the republic will already take years and years to repair, and we just can't sit back and watch while more damage is done.

              •  Presenting a transcript is inflammatory???? (0+ / 0-)

                I may be inflammatory, but not because the question was asked.

                It would be inflammatory because a Democratic leader acknowledges the depth of illegal acts of the Bush League, then goes on the say they "aren't worth Impeachment." WHAT???

                You're damn right that's inflammatory. But the questions that caused Pelosi to spew this utter stupidity are not the cause.

                We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

                by EclecticFloridian on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:56:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  With Leadership comes Responsibility (0+ / 0-)

                You of all people should know that. Her Caucus is looking to her for leadership on the issue of law breaking. It's Not   stealing a few candy bars and taking home some office supplies law breaking, but people dying by the thousands and ripping up the constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to make it legal kind of law breaking.

                I had nothing but the best thoughts for Nancy Pelosi until I read that exchange. But now only one phrase pops into my head during urgent times like these:

                Lead, Follow, or get out of the way.

                Leading her followers in the art of record keeping so they can politely legislate after the American's politely elect ("Heh Heh, Who else will they vote for") more Democrats is a slap in the face to everyone who shelled out a dollar or worked a minute to get these people in office.

                Betrayal is not to strong of a word here. Not betrayal of us or anyone who pulled the lever, but betrayal of all one's principles for the nebulous goal of a stronger majority meaning greater power.

                The last Poll taken on those leaning ( note leaning) democrats was taken on 3/22. HR-Capitulation-1 followed a month and some change later. The democrats are operating under the assumption that that poll taken on 3/22 is all that matters. As I noted, it indicated a double digit lead for those leaning democrats. As I recall at that time, Bush was having a daily tantrum over the funding bill. Pelosi was saying calm down. It looked to all who cared that the democrats were standing up to these thugs. That's what caused that whopper lead.

                Then they got rolled once with the funding, twice with Gonzalez and The USAs and that's just on the big stuff.

                They can self justify all they want, but I promise you, the American Disgust with them will register in the next poll done like that. By the time it gets through to them they'll have little or zero chance of doing anything because then all actions will be ridden home by an R leaning press and it's surrogates as poll driven during an election year ( with anything 16 months or less from the election being defined as an election year) .

                The odds of The R's doing one thing right before 11/2008 are far greater than the D's making up for all they did wrong. So waiting on 2008 is not leadership. If she thinks that was all that election was about, she needs to step aside. She needs to do that now.

                Say Impeach LOUD. They need a wake up call. You can't nose-flick em. Do the next best thing

                by Dburn on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I would've liked to tell her that (66+ / 0-)

        the Constitution is important to fight for whether they win or lose.

        Revolutionary soldiers didn't calculate whether they could beat the British. They just fought to win; they fought on principle.

        What am I missing?

        You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. - Lee Iacocca

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:33:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  that makes me (12+ / 0-)

        want to vomit.  I am so disgusted.

        "Rarely in the history of the law have so few undone so much so quickly" Justice Stephen Breyer - Supreme Court

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:07:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks begone (17+ / 0-)

        See my new sig line.  Let her words live in infamy up there with the other American historical greats that gave us the country we (used to) love.  Maybe she'll come across it again as the Dems become the minority party again in '08, under a republican president.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi

        by Susan Something on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:16:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's put this thinking in an historical context (34+ / 0-)

        Lincoln: Well, yeah, the Union is worth it if you can succeed.

        Roosevelt: Well, yeah, stopping fascism is worth it if you can succeed.

        Reagan: Well, yeah, beating Communism is worth it if you can succeed.

        Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

        And Pelosi actually had the nerve to use the word "pride"?

        We are not exempt from history.

        by MrJayTee on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:21:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That line killed me too... (21+ / 0-)

        "if we can succeed?"

        I think in this case, failure simply cannot be an option.  Not if we want to preserve the America that has been the beacon of hope and human rights for the world, for well over 200 years now.

        Why why why don't Nancy & co. get the enormous pro-impeachment groundswell rippling throughout this nation right now?  I mean, even FOX news viewers are admitting that they trust Dems more than repubs right now.  FOX, for crying out loud!

        The fact that Congress is too cowed to even begin Impeachment proceedings is such a terrible reflection of the Democrat leadership's willingness to fight for and defend our nation against threats to our constitution, civil rights and freedoms (remember those quaint, forgotten "freedoms that "they" hate us for?")

        How can the American people trust the Dems to ever stand up to injustices and outrages from hostile nations, if we can't even stand up to our own lying, cheating, traitorous psycho administration?

        I'm usually a quiet letter writer/donation giver kind of person, but I have to say, we need to ratchet up the pressure on these guys at least 100 fold - keep beating them over the head with the truth until they get it:

        AMERICANS WANT IMPEACHMENT!

        AMERICANS WANT TO SEE LEGISLATORS WHO WILL PROTECT US FROM TRAITORS, USURPERS, LIARS, AND DEMAGOGUES.

        Enough "political stratgey," Nancy.  It's time to make the TRUTH the only strategy, and to go to the mattresses for it.  You saw the uncompromising position John Edwards took - let's spread a little of that kind of love around Capitol Hill and pass out new backbones for everyone involved.  

        Dems, you are letting America twist in the wind and until you can shed the crutches of beltway etiquette and the rules that you (and only you - the WH is not playing by ANY rules) are playing by, you are letting this great democracy, little by little, swirl down the drain.

        I believe there's something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government. -Woody Allen

        by hopesprings on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:50:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When someone walks, talks and acts like a duck... (5+ / 0-)

          ...proves it the way Bush & Cheney has (and does) every day, that they are indeed megalomaniacal sociopaths "as advertised", and gets away with literal murder with impunity, it makes me wonder, no it makes me shout at the top of my lungs:

          What the hell do they have on Congress that they won't carry-out their oaths of office and put the brakes on these lunatics?

          Nobody that high in government, like Bush and Cheney, can possibly be that incompetent and that ballsy, unless they have one hell of a lot of enablers cheering them on along the way!

          As far as the 108th, 109th, and the 110th Congress's are concerned, "Methinks the 'lady' doth protest too much"! They couldn't "have their way with her" unless she first "lifts up her skirt"! imo.

          "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:20:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Great point (0+ / 0-)

          you can shed the crutches of beltway etiquette and the rules that you (and only you - the WH is not playing by ANY rules) are playing by, you are letting this great democracy, little by little, swirl down the drain.

          Our people insist on tying themselves up by pretending that the other side is subject to the rules.  The other side has jettisoned the rules and will use the restrictions of the rules against us.  There are only three ways to deal with this.  

          1 Use the rules to bring them back.  This means impeachment.  

          2 Stop following the rules ourselves.  This means chaos and ultimately the end of our democratic form of government.  

          3 Ignore the problem and hope it goes away.  Which means tyranny.

          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

          by Rebecca on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:26:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, Mike for the exposé... (10+ / 0-)

        And that's exactly what that conversation was... an exposé into the character of the Dem leadership. They are only interested in their majority.

        Sure, they're going through the motions on oversight but there really won't be any consequences for Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez to pay.

        They're treating this "oversight" business like a case for prosecution of someone already incarcerated, or effectively out of business. In this case, that course of action is absurd.

        THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL COMMITTING CRIMES FOR CRISSAKES!

        Everyday that these people are left to their wretched wiles, the rule of law suffers - as does our Constitution and Americans in general. THIS IS AN ONGOING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE HERE - and these people are being allowed to wage their wars - not only on sovereign countries but also on the rule of law in this country, on the environment, and on the American people.

        THEY MUST BE STOPPED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

        Pelosi and Reid are taking the easy way out and our democracy (or what's left of it by the time BushCo gets done with it) will surely suffer the grave consequences.

        We have to exert more pressure on the Dem leadership. Perhaps we need to shame them into it. Make videos calling them out. Denounce them in public - even threaten them with the one power we do have... our votes.

        This is going to be harder than I think any one of us thought it'd be. But it's not an impossible quest. We are right and the law's on our side.

        We must organize. Hold protests, economic boycotts... labor strikes. Whatever it takes.

        We must prevail.
        The Constitution must prevail.
        The rule of law must prevail.

        Period - at all costs.

        •  Ok marktheshark and Mike Stark... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          markthshark

          we all agree.  What the hell are we going to do about it?  What's the plan?

          •  It's impossible for me to gauge the... (0+ / 0-)

            sentiment for impeachment in Speaker Pelosi's district in northern California. Only she and her constituents can know that. I have my suspicions that they're every bit as intense as they are anywhere else in the country, but her actual constituents would have to take the initiative from a more personal standpoint.

            I do know "Think Pink" and a few other organizations have gone as far as camping out at her residence to get their anti-war points across.

            Outside of organizing some sort of protest there or at her congressional office in D.C., I don't see any other venue other than those I mentioned in my initial comment except for a more intense email campaign along with a sustained barrage of phonecalls.

            I happen to think a series of organized and sustained economic boycotts is a great way to get her/their attention, but that's just me.

            The problem here that I can see is mobilization.. The evidence for impeaching both Cheney and Gonzalez is clear and extensive. The case for impeaching Bush is a little less obvious, and more susceptible to the political winds. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of evidence against Bush but it's always harder to impeach a president than it is an official in the administration.

            Perhaps, we can get well-known bloggers from the major blog-sites to form a coalition of sorts to explore the choices available to us.

            Pelosi's comment: "... if we can succeed." really, profoundly disturbed me. That is "defeatism" at its pinnacle, and very telling.

            We absolutely must change that mindset, and if every blogger who feels impeachment is a necessary remedy to save our Constitution, sent an email to the Dem leadership, (both the House & the Senate) every single day; we might actually accomplish that feat.

      •  That answer really bothers me. (6+ / 0-)

        Bzzzt!  Wrong answer, Ms. Pelosi!  The Constitution is worth it even if you DON'T succeed.  It will establish something important, that the Democrats stand for our country and our Democracy and our Constitution, and that they will even risk their own political careers if it means saving our country from Facism.  That's not a good answer, and I will call the Speakers office on Monday and tell her that. Thanks for sharing that, Mike!

      •  Nancy fan? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, Hornito, Spoonfulofsugar

        She isn't a rock star.  She is supposed to be employed by us. She belongs to us.  She works for us - or she is supposed to work for us.

        Who are you?  I am part of the American group "We the People," and our job is to remind her that she works for us. Are you?  If yes, then you must change your image as a Nancy fan to a person who is a patriot who wants to save the country from her and King GeorgeCheney I.  Nancy works for you and for me.  We want her to put impeachment back on the table.  Do you?  If yes, then please don't call yourself a Nancy fan until she does the job that she is there to do.  Right now I would fire her and send her back to her millionaire husband and tell her to enjoy getting old and invite her to spend more time with her grandchildren while "We the People" impeach Cheney.

      •  that quote really jumped out at me too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, Cali Techie

        The article cited makes some really good points beyond that, but I think this is the most important statement that came out of the interview. It really puts everything in perspective, and explains why nothing is going to change. As Mike says in his original article, it's all about politics, all about winning control for your party. That holds whether its about an immediate danger like the "shredding of the Constitution" or CAFE standards (35 mpg by 2022, when foreign auto companies can already get 40 - 60 mpg now).

      •  Don't take it (0+ / 0-)

        out of context. She is saying...

        "of course The Constitution is important."

        and...

        "yeah, impeachment would be a nice way to defend The Constitution... if we could succeed in impeaching."

        Which... sadly... we can't.

        "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

        by Andrew C White on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:05:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Making the Constitution "worth it" is her JOB (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hornito, rlharry, Cali Techie

        whether she "succeeds" at it or not.

        I'm not upset that the Gonzalez no-confidence vote failed. I'm not upset that the Cheney de-funding vote failed. Why not? Because Congress acknowledged that there was a problem and at least MADE AN EFFORT to solve it. And here's the silver lining--the votes leave a record of who ass-kisses Bush, and the Dems can use that record as a weapon against the GOP in '08. THAT'S why impeachment should be on the table--SO WHAT if the effort fails? The resulting vote can work in the Dems' favor. In fact, EVERYTHING that the GOP blocks, vetoes, filibusters and otherwise obstructs can pry a plank out of their '08 campaign platform. So rather than just lie down and let the GOP walk all over you for the next eighteen months, MAKE THE EFFORT, NANCY! Token resistance is always better than none!

    •  I continue to believe (16+ / 0-)

      that all of this spying that was and is being done by the criminals in power, has resulted in thousands of blackmail opportunities against almost any official who has been in Washington D.C. over 8 months.  And that is why the freshman group often can make better decisions than the ones who have been there for a while.  They just don't have all the dirty laundry yet.

      There just is no other reason.  Now someone will say that it is all because of the money that both sides receive.  This is probably a factor, but the truth is that they could live without another $100,000 being passed to them under the table, but they can't live when all of their emails, phone calls, hooker receipts, well you get my drift, gets funneled to their friends, family and constituents.

      "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid." Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)

      by maven98 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:23:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There must be something (17+ / 0-)

        Because if the tables were turned the Republicans would have begun impeachment proceedings the minute they were sworn in and established their committee chairs.

        To Speaker Pelosi, the rest of the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Caucus for that matter, I say FULFILL YOUR OATH to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Failure to do so makes you as guilty as Bush and his sycophants.

        So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:35:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I made a comment - half facietious - (11+ / 0-)

          in another thread where I suggested all the blackmailees stand up at once - everybody - do a huge round robin mea culpa, and thus take all the power away from the wanna be blackmailers.

          Once the truth is out there, what are they going to do?  No more leverage; no more power.  You can't control with fear when people refuse to be afraid.

          Let's just have a big truth fest and move on with the more important business of SAVING THIS COUNTRY.

          So, congresspeople, you may be protecting your own reputation by hiding that falsified expense report, or Cayman Islands account, or shady hedge fund dealing from your constituents.  

          But you are LOSING THIS COUNTRY.  

          Get a conscience.  Get a backbone.  Come clean and do what you were elected to do.  What you swore before God to do.

          Courage can spread like a virus, you know.  Once a few of you start daring to fight the darkness with the light, I think you'll be surprised the army of supporters you'll find behind you.

          I believe there's something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government. -Woody Allen

          by hopesprings on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:56:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Easy for you to say (3+ / 0-)

            you don't know how royally pissed some of their wives are going to be.  /snark

            Love what you're saying hopesprings, even though I'm not convinced it's blackmail.

            "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi

            by Susan Something on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:16:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are so right hoesprings!!! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thered1

            all the blackmailees stand up at once - everybody - do a huge round robin mea culpa, and thus take all the power away from the wanna be blackmailers.

            Once the truth is out there, what are they going to do?  No more leverage; no more power.  You can't control with fear when people refuse to be afraid.

            And if they have done something illegal (the Dems I mean) then they too should suffer the consequences.  They may have dirty laundry.

          •  OK - so all that blackmail info exists somewhere (0+ / 0-)

            How can we get it? Anything that exists can be gotten some way or other (except for Osama Bin Laden). Then we can use it - or at least neutralize the effects of the threats from the criminals in power.  

            "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid." Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)

            by maven98 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:49:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's almost as good an explanation as any (11+ / 0-)

        but I tend to think it's more to do with

        1.  mutual interests in both personal and global economic business interests

        and/or

        1. a complete failure to maintain perspective.  There's some kind of institutional Democratic attitude that overtakes them when they get to D.C., and it is delusional and lacking the kind of vision and honesty we need from our "leadership".

        This is why people hate politics and politicians and why half of them don't vote. Their behavior contradicts what we are taught to expect from our representatives.  People don't give a flying fuck about the points Nancy scores showing how rotten Bushco is if she's not going to do anything about it.  

        I'm sooooo pissed tonight after hearing that recording from Mike (and tyvm Mike).  grrrrr

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi

        by Susan Something on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:39:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  maven98 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Techie, mudslide

        I agree completely. This, IMO, is the reason John McCain, who I actually had some respect for back in 2000, has so completely fallen apart in the seven years since. Bush smeared this guy into oblivion in that campaign, and yet: I Luuuuvs U Daddy! Imagine that.

        That's the kind of thing that not only keeps dirty hippie Dems in line, but also enemies within one's own party.

        -5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWOT is over. -- Richard Clarke

        by Porfiry on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:14:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  honeypots abound (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        victoria2dc, blueoasis, Cali Techie

        in D.C., where any temptation can be had, for a price.

        If Hoover kept files on every politician in Washington, it's reasonable to expect that the current powers that be would find a way to do the same thing. In the case of the current administration, I suspect that they have had some help from people who might also happen to have the goods on them.

      •  Excellent hypothesis (8+ / 0-)

        I was just thinking along similar lines.  

        There must be something else at play here.  "We want to win in '08" doesn't pass the smell test.  I'm inclined to suspect not blackmail, but death threats to Congresspersons and their families.  The Bush family is in black-ops up to their eyeballs, and it would be totally in character for them to send thugs to any "problem congressperson" to "explain" things to them.

        Thus Pelosi, fearing for her family's safety, puts all her hopes in winning the WH in 2008, as if that will make the thugs go away.  

        I'm at a loss for alternate explanations for why otherwise intelligent, patriotic men and women would so easily give up on over 200 years of history's greatest democratic experiment.  Our troops give their lives every day for their country, and yet Pelosi cant risk her career for her country?  I don't buy it.  We don't know the whole story.  Something else is compelling Pelosi and her fellow congresspersons to give Bush absolute power.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:38:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Remember when Comey (0+ / 0-)

        and Goldsmith suddenly resigned?  That is when the shit hit the fan. Now we know it was the secret wiretapping program.  Notice how hard they fought to keep that silent.  Notice how they are still fighting.  Why?  They have impeachable offenses everywhere and they are counting on Pelosi and Harry to be weak leaders and to keep us quiet.

        Hey guys, I don't know about you, but I will NOT be silenced!!!!  We have to find out what they've been doing, and we know that they began the illegal wiretaps immediately after 911.

        We have to push her to the max.  Are you with me?

    •  This is how I would've done it... (15+ / 0-)

      ...minus the smoke and mirrors:
      I would have taken that vetoed Iraq Supplemental, and sent it back to Committee, faster than Bush can say, "Bring it on"! I would have included "special instructions" to re-write it or "refresh" it, with a new set of timelines and iron-clad instructions on how the Comander-in-Chief WILL spend the money. No blank check. No unending commitment to his war of aggression and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, anymore!

      Once "refreshed" or re-written it would no longer be under the "3/5ths Rule" of vetoed bills! Why? Because it would now then be a NEW bill, and as any other fresh new crispy bill, it would only require a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

      Then as Speaker, I would draft my own personal set of Impeachment Articles, and every time he breathed  or thought the word "VETO", I would dangle those lists of articles in front of his face, and I would say, "Go ahead, Mister Bush, MAKE MY DAY"!

      Now that's leadership. That's courage of convictions and willingness to risk it all to follow the will of the people, not a wanna-be King!

      And that's how to effectively use the power Speaker, the most powerful member of Congress and 3rd in line to the presidency! imo.

      "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:03:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (11+ / 0-)

        And how I would have changed it would be to make it even less palatable to him than the first. Shorten the deadline, more stringent requirements to rotate troops in, etc. Things that would have made him wish he would have signed the first one.

        All the while telling the media "We kept giving him the money to support the troops and he was the one who vetoed it."

        So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:23:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll tell you my main beef with Pelosi/Reid... (13+ / 0-)

          ...Why would Pelosi reveal her end game strategy to Mister Bush? Whether or not impeachment is practical even in the abstract, why would they take it completely out of their realm of options?

          I can just imagine if Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had told Adolf Hitler that,"We're taking 'off the table' the option of day-time and night-time bombing of the industrial heartland of Nazi-Germany". He would've danced a jig making the one he danced after France surrendered, look like a square dance, by comparison!

          Or, what if they had told him they had broken the German Enigma Battlefield Communications Code, but we weren't going to use it, thus costing millions more battlefield deaths? We knew every "order of battle" that Hitler ever gave and every battle plan he ever made and broadcast to his battlefied commanders. What if we decided to take the use of that code "off the table"? It took the Allies nearly six years to defeat Hitler, and that, while knowing all of his encrypted communiques and orders of battle!

          Hitler would no doubt still be ruling Europe to this day, and well on his way to fulfilling his dream of his Thousand Year Reich, had we taken day and night bombing, as well as using Enigma "off the table"! We didn't forsake our most potent offensive punches then, and Pelosi/Reid shouldn't have done it now.

          So my main beef with Pelosi/Reid is that, to telegraph her end-game strategy to Mister Bush that "impeachment is off the table", even before the battle was really even enjoined; and adding further to our demise by capitulating to Bush over the timelines before the smoke cleared in that skirmish, just boggles my mind!

          Why would ANYONE on our side want to give Bush the edge or margin of victory?

          Anyone care to tell me why they took "off the table", the singularly most potent weapon we Dems had to hold this war criminal POTUS accountable to the people and the rule of law?

          Every time he even thought of the word "VETO" on anything from timelines to stem cell research from now until January, 2009, he would be staring "down the barrel of a volley" of IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES!

          The Articles of Impeachment would have been the hammer and the timelines would have been the anvil!

          You don't tell your opponent, whether political or mortal enemy, that you're taking the most potent weapon in your inventory out-of-action!

          This isn't a game, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. There are millions of lives at stake here, who counted on you and Harry Reid to hold this POTUS' feet over the firey coals of accountability! And you failed us all miserably!
          But more importantly, you failed yourselves!

          I'm constantly wondering now, just whose side are you on, anyway? That's why I am so "shocked and awed" at our leadership's apparent lack of, well, leadership!

          The mere threat of impeachment would have been an effective counter to Bush's veto power, him highly reluctant to risk an indelible ink blot on his precious legacy!

          "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:52:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She's playing by PTA rules in the UFC. (6+ / 0-)

            She's society. She's polite. She doesn't threaten.

            She "Builds the record" and then she's gonna "tell the principal" that you pulled her hair.

            But you didn't pull her hair. You broke the Constitution. It isn't about the schoolyard, or the PTA. It's about the LAW in the Empire, and if the LAW falls, the Empire falls.

            Cut the Gordian Knot, Nancy!

            Crashing the Gate: Electing Progressive Democrats.

            by ormondotvos on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:53:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Duh... what's the UFC??? (0+ / 0-)

              You are right though about polite and non-threatening.  That's why we need to speak for her or kick her butt out and find someone who can do the job.  

              •  Ultimate Fight Club. Mixed Martial Arts. (0+ / 0-)

                Bloody, very very very popular. Nobody gets killed, but I watched an hour in which a rib was broken, a knee fully dislocated, and a back injury which required a stretcher.

                I don't think Nancy watches that stuff. I do. It reminds me of what the real world is like.

                So I don't do what Nancy does: bring a knife to a gun fight.

                Athens had a troll. They made him drink hemlock.

                by ormondotvos on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:08:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  ImpeachKingBushII... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ImpeachKingBushII

            Please edit that down to an LTE size and let's send it to her home newspapers, to her offices a million times... via e-mail and snail mail, and let's post it all over the Web.  Why not?  It's the truth... and it does matter!!!

            I'll start that if you send an edited version(s) to me at the address on my profile.  Why not?

            •  Great idea victoria2dc! ... (0+ / 0-)

              ...I'll cut-out the "fat" and leave the meat. I'll be in touch, and do the other things as you suggested! Thank you for your kind words.

              My love for America and our eternal freedom far exceeds temporal allegiance to any mortal wanna-be King! There are things which are worth the fighting; and indeed the dying for, if made necessary by the scourge of tyranny, not the least of those values as spoken of by Thomas Jefferson being, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". :-)

              "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

              by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:22:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llbear, Cali Techie
    •  Image made the day after Dem victory (5+ / 0-)

      We thought it was our victory...
      IronfistImpeach2200tigblack

    •  And how's that subpoena power working out? (n/t) (6+ / 0-)

      Are you just going to gripe about it, or are you going to do something to change it?

      by smithbm on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed, especially for this part: (10+ / 0-)

      Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

      No, Madam Speaker. The Constitution is always worth it, whether or not you can succeed.

    •  First, Mike thank you for doing what you did... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      o the umanity

      I read about the phone call.  I understand now:  were you the mystery blogger?  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  In fact, THANK YOU!  Now we know that she is still on record to keep impeachment off the table.

      We have to push her past this thought that the president isn't "...worth it."  I'm astounded.  

      So Mike, all of us here know you.  Speaking for myself, I'd say that George Allen would still be in office if you had not been out there pushing him over the edge.

      We must once again dance on the edge of this deep, deep canyon and work for the people to save the Constitution of the United States of America from being trashed and lost to the fascist corporate Bush thugs.  

      Mike, does Karl Rove, the FBI or someone in the spy business have something on Nancy?  Could they have blackmailed her to keep her quiet?  Her logic defies reason. Her logic makes zero sense from a political point of view AND from a spiritual point of view. What I mean by spiritual is this:  we don't have tomorrow.  We can't wait to establish the record, as she puts it. Tomorrow may never come!  All we have is NOW and everyone who has paid any attention to the hearings knows that what these thugs have done is on the record.  We also know that the only way to force them to produce what we need is to do the investigations under the banner of impeachment and a criminal investigation.  We know that they have to produce the documents and the testimony of Harriet Miers, Sarah Taylor and Karl Rove if our articles of impeachment are all about a criminal investigation!

      Mike, Waxman, Conyers and Leahy are all smart enough to lay this out and to FORCE the truth, but this will only happen if Nancy and Harry have the courage and the love for the people of this country to stand up to  King GeorgeCheney I.  If they don’t, then what can we do?  Can we/should we then move forward to remove Pelosi from her leadership position? What is Harry’s opinion? Can "We the people do that?"  Is it possible to remove her (impeach her)?  What kind of action do we take?  Who are we?  What is the plan to meet and make a plan?  First, Code Pink can and will camp out at her doorstep and exert the pressure.  It doesn’t matter to them what the media and the right wing pundits say.  They will do what is necessary to bring the leadership back to reality.  I know that.  Any planning efforts should include the women of Code Pink.  They will help us save this country if the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives won’t do it.

      It seems that Nancy really doesn’t get it, i.e., the point.  She thinks this is all about the election, but her mind is clouded:  if we don’t stop them RIGHT NOW, there may not be an election in 2008. Is she living in lala land? Does she know that they have everything in place to enact that scary, scary executive order/directive that removes the legislative and judicial branches of government from power and puts them under the direct "kingship of King GeorgeCheney I." for any reason they so choose?  All they need to do is make the decision, take the action and begin bombing Iran.  Then they put this directive in place, while knowing that their private army (Blackwater) is available to pick-up dissenters and put them in those prisons that KBR has been building around the country?  Does she live in reality or is she living with the thought of looking bad to the American people during an election year?  Is she even aware of the pulse of America?  I hope that none of us in our right minds who have clarity of thought recognize that this is something they could do.  That directive is so loosely worded that even this "car bombing" story in London could cause them to take over their kingdom. They can also blame Iran for "starting something" and then send their bombers to do the job.  Is there anyone living in the kingdom of King GeorgeCheney I. who trusts them not to enact their plan?  If they didn’t have something in mind, why are all of the pieces of it already in place?  Can anyone answer that? They could do it.  Cheney could and would do it.  The neocon war machine could and would do it, and they would not ask Nancy and Harry if it’s okay. Then there is the "talk/rumor" that Israel gave the United States until the end of 2007 to do something about Iran before they take action.  Have you heard that Mike?  Is it true Mike?  I can’t say that it is, but I don’t think that Nancy can say that it isn’t.  

      Is she willing to sit here and say what she said on this telephone call that impeachment is still OFF the table? It looks like that’s exactly what she has said.

      So it’s up to us to either pressure her to call for the only remedy available to us, which is a ten course state dinner with the King GeorgeCheney I. and the people of America who are quite literally starving for a return to law and order and relief.  Knowing what I know right NOW,  I won’t allow her to pull a Don Rumsfeld on us (remember his attempts to protect himself with this kind of  rhetoric, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."  

      http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

      And what about this one:  
      http://news.uk.msn.com/...

      On unknowns: "I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know." Or what about this one:  "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know." Or..."I believe what I said yesterday...I don't know what I said, er, but I know what I think, and...well, I assume it's what I said."

      http://news.uk.msn.com/...

      On his colleagues: "Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said." Or... "Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning."

      http://news.uk.msn.com/...

      On the hunt for WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." And when no weapons were found... "There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

      http://news.uk.msn.com/...

      On the future: "I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past - I think the past was not predictable when it started."

      I assert that there may be no tomorrow if we don’t act NOW!  Now is all we have and meanwhile, our Speaker of the US House of Representatives is talking like the retired Republican Secretary of Defense!

      So what can we do?  We certainly can’t make the plan and broadcast it right here.  How do we push her to action?  Let’s make a plan and let’s do it.  We must engage Code Pink to sit on her doorstep while we make an assault on her telephones, fax machines and e-mail boxes.  We need to tell her in no uncertain terms that "We the People" have spoken and she works for us!

      •  yes, astonishing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Techie

        We have to push her past this thought that the president isn't "...worth it."

         

        We, the People, are not going to be able to do that.

        So there are two choices:

        1. sit back and wait
        1. stand up on our own, and apply the part of the Declaration of Independence where it says:

        when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        That's right. Right there in the DOI. IT IS OUR DUTY.

        Keep your eye on the ball, folks. Don't let this shit turn US against ONE ANOTHER. Turn your abilities and your love for your Constitution on THEM.

        Every last one of them needs to go. NOW.

        "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

        by o the umanity on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:00:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Impeach on principle, not "Democratic Victory" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry, Dunbar, victoria2dc

      Speaker Pelosi, sometimes principles really do matter more than victories.  This one is for posterity and precedent for all future administrations.  We risk an elected monarchy.  

      You say that the road to impeachment wouldn't lead to a democratic victory, that W's not "worth it."  I used to agree with you, the pragmatist that I am- however, I have seen things grow even worse in this last year.  How bad does it have to get before you can reconsider your earlier words of taking impeachment off the table?  The public WILL understand that with new information, so must smart leaders be willing to take new positions.

      DO NOT LET THIS ABERRATION OF OUR NATION STAND WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES.

    •  I am, too, & disappointed with us (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, Cali Techie

      I just saw SICKO yesterday, and I'm just appalled that we can't get what we want in this country (universal health care, an end to the war, etc).  If we really have a democracy, we should have the things that most people want!  IMPEACH Cheney first, then BUSH!

      In TX-32, visit Sessions Watch to keep an eye on Pete Sessions

      by CoolOnion on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:07:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We can't get what we want... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoolOnion

        because we're too lazy to decide what it is that we want and to pursue it relentlessly until we get it.

        •  SICKO explains that, too (0+ / 0-)

          It's not so much laziness, but being overworked, and tied to a job (sometimes 3 jobs) that we don't leave out of fear of losing benefits.

          In a real Democracy, according to politicians interviewed in the film, government is afraid of the people, not the other way around.  In France, for instance, they have good benefits 'cause the people take to the streets when they're dissatisfied.

          We're too tied down, saddled with debt (school loans, for instance), worried about health care & so forth.  Plus, we have a media that gives us stories about Paris Hilton instead of news.

          In TX-32, visit Sessions Watch to keep an eye on Pete Sessions

          by CoolOnion on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:35:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No pathway to 'greatness' this way (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hornito, Cali Techie

      So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

      Respectfully, Ms. Speaker, we are on the verge of thousands more deaths in the Middle East, we are on the verge of species die-off and coastal destruction, on the verge of the utter looting of the national treasury by corporate interests even as our people's healthcare, education and infrastructure are imploding.

      How do we get from here to "greatness" then?

      One start would be a Congress that acts as the lawmaking -- and Constitution-upholding -- branch of our Government. Not after the next election. NOW.

      NOW, damn it. NOW.

      Hope is, after all, the currency of popular politics, and a coin surprisingly hard to devalue. -- Fred Anderson, Crucible of War

      by ornerydad on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Listen??? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm very disappointed in you. There has never been a clearer case for impeachment than what is before you

      Did you even listen to her response as to why impeachment is not a good option because we can't get a conviction? did you hear here talk about more important priorities and the fact that Bush is at the end of his term?

      You only want the answers you want and block out all else that makes sense.

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:36:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to make the argument you're making (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hornito, NonnyO, o the umanity

        About April I decided impeachment would be nothing more than an empty symbolic political gesture and that Bush would be out of office before the process could complete. The events of the past week have changed my mind on that.

        I'm now of the mindset they CAN get a conviction because the evidence is OVERWHELMING. Even more so than in Watergate. The Bush administration has clearly shown contempt to Congress by lying to them (hey, that's a federal crime!), refusing to answer subpoenas claiming executive privilege (the same thing Nixon did while he was trying to cover up Watergate), he ordered the invasion of a sovereign country against international law resulting in the needless deaths of over 3500 US servicemembers, the maiming of many thousands more, and the deaths of untold numbers of Iraqi civilians. Bush has even ADMITTED to breaking federal law when it came to warrantless wiretapping!

        House and Senate Republicans would HAVE to vote to impeach and convict because the evidence that would come out during the proceedings would clearly rise far above the standard set by the Constitution and they'd have no choice otherwise they'd look like unpatriotic partisan hacks who cared more about their party than the good of the country.

        So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:37:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton (0+ / 0-)

          lying under oath was overwhelmingly grounds for impeachment. A President who swears anoath of office to uphold the laws of the  land - swear an oath! - lied under oath.

          If that is not  a case to vote for impaechment then what is?

          You see the Clinton example shows that the worst offense short of treason was not enough in the discretion of the Seante to convict. And the key word in that last sentence is 'discretion'. The Senate is not bound by the same rules that a trial jury is in sweraring to render a verdict according to the evidence. They can judge and use their discretion.

          Now as to why the Repubs would not vote to remove Bush fome office you can read these:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          to look at the evidence as it is presented and judge by that evidence.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:28:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Using that standard (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rlharry

            Bush certainly qualifies for impeachment. Clinton may have lied under oath, but lying to Congress even while not under oath is a crime, arguably a worse one since the implications of such can lead (and has led) to the deaths of thousands if not millions of people.

            Clinton wasn't convicted because his impeachment was nothing more than theater designed to keep him from being able to perform his duties as president and the Senate knew it. He lied to a jury in a civil case that was engineered by his political rivals for purely political purposes in an attempt to embarrass and discredit him and keep him from implementing his agenda. She refused to settle the case for $700K donated to charity, but agreed to settle for $850K given to her. Two weeks later the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the suit. WAPO Story

            Lying about extra-marital sex is not nearly as bad as lying about things that get people killed. By that standard conviction by the Senate should be a no-brainer.

            So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:45:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  thank you! (0+ / 0-)

              Lying about extra-marital sex is not nearly as bad as lying about things that get people killed. By that standard conviction by the Senate should be a no-brainer.

              I need to further research some of the more obscure text in some of these new "laws" passed by BushCO. I am starting to have a sick feeling that Pelosi, et.al, are not impeaching a clearly-impeachable administration because somewhere, buried in one of the laws "decided" during 9/11, there's some vague line item that has taken Congress' ability to "impeach", period.

              That would sure as hell explain why it hasn't happened yet. This "we don't have the votes" defense does not stand up under close scrutiny, yet (a quickly-dwindling number of) people still cling to it like it's gospel.

              The Democrats wouldn't lose willingly, and concede to this bunch of madmen, not after all that they fought so hard to gain. I submit that if the teeth have been removed from the impeachment clause of the Constitution, and the American people learned about it, every representative of the Federal Government would have reason to be scared shitless of The People.

              A perfect reason to keep "impeachment off the table", with nonsensical spin run amok. As long as they can keep spinning it, it will keep the hordes of highly-pissed-off rabble off the Mall.

              They sure as hell don't want that, not as long as there's still a Second Amendment.

              "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

              by o the umanity on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:10:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not the reason (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                o the umanity

                I am starting to have a sick feeling that Pelosi, et.al, are not impeaching a clearly-impeachable administration because somewhere, buried in one of the laws "decided" during 9/11, there's some vague line item that has taken Congress' ability to "impeach", period.

                Not possible. The power to impeach is vested in Congress by the Constitution. Congress cannot give away that power without a constitutional amendment.

                I think what they are trying to do is take the "high road" and portray themselves as somehow being better than Republicans who have used impeachment as a political tool by not using it even though it is clearly warranted. Bush is taking advantage of their reluctance to impeach to set a precedent for a powerful unitary executive who is not answerable to anyone. That's why even if the Senate does not convict it will still serve a purpose by bringing all of the things he has done to light and at the very least they can say they tried to hold him accountable. That's FAR better than just sticking their heads in the sand and waiting it out in hopes people will be so sick of Republicans they will win both the White House and Congress in a landslide. I think that strategy will backfire on them.

                So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

                by Cali Techie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  are you sure that someone else (0+ / 0-)

                  didn't give it away?

                  Not possible. The power to impeach is vested in Congress by the Constitution. Congress cannot give away that power without a constitutional amendment.

                  Not trying to be contrary, but I specifically don't remember a "constitutional amendment" to rescind this:

                  Section. 9.
                  ...

                  The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

                  Keeping in mind that Gonzo's interpretation of that privilge and its ability to be suspended appears to be shaky at best, it would appear that nothing is "impossible" for this bunch, and there is little, if anything, about our over 200-year-old government that they actually respect.

                  With that in mind, taking the "high road", while noble, would appear to be pointless.

                  So...I'll keep looking...but thanks anyway! :)

                  "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"--Peter Garrett, Midnight Oil

                  by o the umanity on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:04:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Madame Speaker, you must lead (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hornito, rlharry, Cali Techie

      That is the essence of your role and if you want greatness for yourself and this country then you must lead. That means  making the Attorney General accountable. Our constitution provides a very effective tool. That tool is of course, impeachment. Now is the time. Here is the place.

      11/7/06. America won. The Republicans lost. Our duty is to earn that trust.

      by Dave from Oregon on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:57:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Her answer above to Mike is (0+ / 0-)

      that they cannot succeed in impeachment despite the case and that their best option for crushing modern day republicanism is to "build the record" leading into the 2008 elections where an overwhelming Democratic majority along with a Democratic President can and will be elected as a result.

      At that point they can rebuild The Constitution and the Rule of Law.

      Is that satisfying to us? No, not particularly but if they can't succeed in impeachment and the stronger path to defeating republicanism is to build the record/case towards an overwhelming victory in 2008 then I can't argue with that.

      "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

      by Andrew C White on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:01:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

      This sounds way too much like. . ."if we build up all these lists of failures, incompetence, and down right criminal behavior, we can beat them and the Republican candidates over the head with it in the election cycle.  Then we will win."

      It sounds totally like a political strategy, not a doing what is right.

      I hope if I ever get in trouble with the law that I can use a strategy like that to keep me out of jail.  Somehow I doubt that option will be available to me.

      *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

      by Shirl In Idaho on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:44:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Being spineless will never get you votes Speaker! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hey Mike (12+ / 0-)

    If it would help, can you give one of you gigantic balls to the Speaker of the House?  Well done, sir!

  •  I'm distressed at the weakness of the Speaker (32+ / 0-)

    It appears that keeping Bush in office is sufficiently politcally expedient to not bother.

    How exactly can the Democrats in Congress enact important legislation, if there is this complete and utter refusal to hold the administration accountable. Is there any branch of the government untouched?

    And thank you Mike--thank you for forcing this issue, and pressing what so many of us here agree is the course of action necessary to save the government. After the gutting of Brown, yesterday, it appears that Congress is the only bastion of hope, and well this is depressing.

    •  "the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed" (27+ / 0-)

      No. The Constitution requires you to succeed, Ms. Pelosi. But keep right on keeping your ^$)(*&^ powder dry, babe, until the thugs realize that they have to impeach these cretins and you and your wimpy, passive-aggressive ilk are left out to dry- to be replaced by the next generation of Nixonian/Bushian neocons that you will so skillfully enable through inaction. What'll you think they will do with and/or to us, hmm?

      I'm not impressed. I was around, and aware, for Nixon. Apparently you were shopping somewhere, becaus it is the same folks reaming us more ever so much more efficiently now. So, looking forward: how much more do we need to dilate? I ask strictly for informational purposes...

    •  I am pulling my hair out (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, blueoasis, TexasTwister

      How Dare She seriously. No more emails for me. I sent tons. They mean nothing. Its time to step it up. After July 4th she needs to see a lot of people outside her window.

      •  She needs to see both notimportant... (0+ / 0-)

        Don't you think?  

        Here is what I'm proposing:

        • Call every office, local and DC, every day and demand that she puts impeachment back on the table
        • Ask your friends to join you
        • Ask your family to join you
        • Write LTEs to the local papers
        • Host local (SF and DC) Code Pink members to sit-in at all of her offices
        • Surround her home while she's there this week
        • Stand on street corners for an hour a day
        • Plaster signs all over San Francisco and DC
        • Call the local SF groups who elected her and ask them to exert pressure

        We can't let her think that we agree with her.  We need to do that immediately and tell her that her phone conference call was an eye opening event for us because we now understand what she is thinking.  Refer to her as a mirror image of King GeorgeCheney I. (the Decider). Someone here wrote this - it's perfect:

        • She's telling us she sat down a year ago  and wrote out a blank check to George W. Bush. At least that's how I read it.
        • Yes, Madame Decider, the mirror image of The Decider.

        To expand on this, the next comment reads:

        Yes, Madame Decider, the mirror image the Decider.

        Same incalcitrance. Same insistance that the world doesn't chnage in a year. If I decided it a year ago, it's a closed issue. Stay the course.

        Let her know that she must move impeachment to the dinner table NOW or suffer the political consequences personally.

  •  Thank you, Mike, (23+ / 0-)

    For asking her that for us.  At the least, it's nice to hear some raesoning from her past "impeachment is off the table".  Now at least her reasoning is clear:

    But we are in disagreement – I’m not going to try to budge you on that – on whether the President should have been impeached. That’s a different question from "Are there grounds for impeachment?" But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way.

    I think the Speaker is wrong about those being different questions -- if there seriously are grounds for impeachment, then I think the President should be impeached.  Also, I think she's wrong that it would not result in oversight--impeachment IS oversight, that is how impeachment hearings work.  The House holds all the cards here.  And considering the current obstruction of The White House towards what oversight we do have, impeachment hearings may ultimately be the only way to get real oversight.  I hope the Speaker is successful in her efforts, but otherwise, I really hope she realizes this sooner rather than later.

  •  I thought so... (7+ / 0-)

    "Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege. So the press asked me this morning, "Does this mean you’re going to hold them in contempt next?" I said "No, we’re gonna let the process work out" because you have to build the record. You have to build the record."

    That's right!  Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves!  If congress moves too fast now they could end up stepping in their own sh*t!

  •  Not worth it? (23+ / 0-)

    I, Nancy Pelosi, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic unless it happens with only two years left in the administration; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same unless it happens with only two years left in the administration; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter unless it happens with only two years left in the administration. So help me God.

    I intend to live forever - so far, so good.

    by Zwoof on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:23:20 PM PDT

    •  Can't Possibly Happen. It'd be Horrible Precedent (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonmug, YellowDogBlue, SherriG

      For the Speaker to launch the machinery to take over the Presidency.

      There has to be a deal made in case of a double impeachment to keep the WH in the hands of the same party and further not going to the Speaker.

      We can't formalize a literal coup.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:45:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a coup (14+ / 0-)

        if the legal machinery laid out in the Constitution is followed to the letter.

        Using the legal method for removing the President that's specifically spelled out in the Constitution is not a coup.

        •  Bush v Gore In 2000 (5+ / 0-)

          Was a coup.  This would just be following the Constitution, but I admit it probably might be seen as that.  That's why it's important to impeach Cheney first, put in a placeholder Republican, and then show the electorate in 2008 that voting for Democrats doesn't mean voting for wimps.

          I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why I cannot tell; But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

          by opinionated on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:16:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Founders may not have been so bothered (7+ / 0-)

        by a party switch upon impeachment.*  Prior to the 12th amendment is 1803/1804, the veep was the runner up in the presidential election, so an impeachment of the President would mean the other party takes power.

        * Not that some of them were all that enthused about parties to begin with.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:24:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No... but she can be over ridden. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        And that's what I'm afraid she's going to do is block any chance of such a thing happening at all. Even if every Democrat in the house stood up and said "Impeach" she'd block it so the Democrats could ride into the WH.

        "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

        by RElland on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:02:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She is stupid if she thinks (0+ / 0-)

          that the American people are smart enough to know what's going on.  Yes, they don't know what we know, but the Rovians will swiftboat us next year and they will make it look like it's ALL our fault because we didn't do our jobs.  They will find some way to turn it against us.  We have to slap them down.  And now.  Not later. Not next year... NOW!!!

      •  I'll show you a coup d'etat... (9+ / 0-)

        ...When this or any POTUS can take the laws of this land and re-write or re-define them in his own image; or assume the power of the SCOTUS to hold his own court of judicial review, thus overthrowing ipso facto the other two Branches of this, OUR government:

        Then that, sir is the true definition of de facto coup d'etat! And that is precisely what Mister Bush has done with every single Signing Statement he has signed som 800-plus times since 2001.

        And that's over 800 counts of a coup, my friend!

        And I won't even talk about him overthrowing the Constitution by nullifying the Writ of Habeas Corpus with the MCA, which is the very essence of YOUR freedom! And we won't talk about how he has codified TORTURE, which usurps and violates the very foundation with which our Republic is based!

        So let's talk about "impeachment being a coup", shall we? And while we refuse to hold them accountable for their grevious un-checked offenses, they are busy enslaving us with the bonds of tyranny!

        "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

        by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:11:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not to mention those behind him who have been (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ImpeachKingBushII

          pushing this agenda since Reagan, and his "October Surprise".  The keystone that stymied Carter from finding a solution and tanked him in the polls.  Dirty tricks of Bush/Baker that injected the Reagan virus into out body politic to start laying the groundwork to start wrecking the middle class and subvert this country:

          • Initiatives to destroy news services and educational systems for an informed electorate;
          • destroy unions, the only real Democracy in the workplace;
          • spread disinformation and move the "window" with "think tanks" and propaganda media like the Washington Times, FOX, Right Wing hate Radio;
          • corrupt and marginalize the Democrats even more with the "DLC"
          • make everything Democratic a scandal no matter how meaningless so people do not want to pursue real justice aginst real traitors and crooks--Clinton, a BJ!  Rostenkowski--stamps!  So quaint, now days.
          • to privatize everything, even our vote;
          • to bring us to this place where so many think Paris Hilton is "news" and could not find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it!!

          This is not just Bush, he is just the most visible prong of an attack on our Democracy by those who think they own it all; and, at this point, do!  The question is will we wake up with enough force to take back that which they stole!  

          Then, the more important question is will we understand how they stole it by exploiting the greed within us all?  Pushing it until we believed the subtle lie of what is good for one is good for all. Forgetting the real, universal truth of What is good for all is good for one!!

          The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

          by FightTheFuture on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:51:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mike (26+ / 0-)

    you did a great job.

    And it was easy to really get into her mind and see where she is coming from.  That is what good questioning is all about.

  •  What the..... (20+ / 0-)

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    So the Constitution is only worth fighting for if impeachment can be successful?

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding her, but that is seriously flawed thinking. Seriously.

    How incredibly disappointing.

  •  So When Push Comes To Shove (7+ / 0-)

    Pelose is hoping to get a Democratic win rather than stepping up to protect the constitution.  Damn, here we go again.  They keep disappointing me over and over again.  Though I've left the Democratic party proper, Gore could get me back now or a Dean Democrat could get me back in the future.  Till then, I'm seriously considering working for Bloomburg if he runs.

  •  I'm simply agast. (19+ / 0-)

    SHE speaks of precedent?  Think of the precedent that is being set by the INACTION of the Congress.

    Goodbye Republic.  The Executive can do anything he wants.

    Total disgust.

    Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:25:26 PM PDT

  •  mike you are awesome (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    victoria2dc

    and I think much that Nancy said/acknowledged was quite extraordinary and validates what we say on the netroots and on progressive talk radio and it's why John and Elizabeth Edwards are risking everything they have to expose and stop these people.
    Anyone who wants to stop them, please consider contributing to John and Elizabeth's brave campaign tonight so that it doesn't become a 2 person (safe corporate candidates) race: www.johnedwards.com.  The Edwards are keeping faith with us.

  •  Over and over again with the "60 votes" fallacy (12+ / 0-)

    The truth of the matter is that she can end the war with 218 votes in the House. Defunding works, and we should do it after a date certain.

  •  They're not just keeping their powder dry. (14+ / 0-)

    They're throwing the ball around the court like the four corners stall of pre-clock college basketball except they are the team that's behind.

    Unbelievable that they think it's a valid choice to not TRY to hold them accountable. Oversight is not enough. Watching a criminal walk into a bank with a gun and say "We see you" but doing nothing is not acceptable.

    They can't stand on the street while the woman is raped and beaten and say to the criminals "We see you".

    They have to try to stop it.

    You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. - Lee Iacocca

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:31:08 PM PDT

  •  Jesus H. Christ. (19+ / 0-)

    I’m as disappointed as you are that we can’t get past the sixty votes in the Senate. But it’s no use to complain about that. We have to take... the court of public opinion is where the sixty vote barrier will come down. We can’t kick it down internally.

    But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory...

    So Nancy says "fuck you" to a quest for justice because she can't be assured of success in advance. Jesus H. Christ, whay couldn't we get someone who had a smidgen of assertiveness to take care of this?

    Disgusting.  And humiliating.

  •  Oh well. (15+ / 0-)

    La la la. I'm sure things will sort themselves out. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Third time's a charm.

  •  A dark thought..but..... (10+ / 0-)

    What if
    the party wants to ignore the many abuses of the current administration because they want to use them in the future.

    One candidate has already said:

    Candidate said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

    Just sayin'

    I intend to live forever - so far, so good.

    by Zwoof on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:38:15 PM PDT

  •  That woman needs an infusion of courage and (8+ / 0-)

    purpose; the Constitution is not something to play politics with.

    I fear that the Republicans could be the ones to actually step forward and capture the imagination of the American people on this. Picture that and cringe.

  •  I called Pelosi's office today (9+ / 0-)

    and said it's time to impeach Cheney. Now I'm one of her constituents, which I suppose makes me one of those San Francisco zanies (actually, I'm quite reasonable on this topic compared to some others I know). I didn't know you'd be having this conversation with her and raising the same topic.

    I'm disappointed in her (but not in you), but I did notice her carefully worded statement that they're "building a record." What for, I have to wonder. What for?

    Side note: the speaker was careful (assuming the transcript is accurate) to say "Mr. Waxman" and give titles to the senators, but she did not extend that courtesy to Cheney and Gonzales. And she's been in politics too long to make an accidental slip. Just FWIW.

    It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

    by DanK Is Back on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:40:10 PM PDT

    •  That's what I kept thinking - building a (5+ / 0-)

      record - for what?  To my way of thinking  it is for impeachment.  She makes pretty clear that she's looking at the next election, but I think we need to keep after her - she said impeachment wouldn't be successful, but how can you make that determination until you've made the case - which is what is happening in commitees now.

      Buy a Boat. Save the Seed.

      by cumberland sibyl on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My take (3+ / 0-)

        was that she's building a record so that they can wipe their asses with it.

        My serious take is that she's building a record for the public to see election time.  Sort of like 'Don't vote for Republicans or you'll get more of this...' The problem with that is she's assuming that the public will be paying attention that they'll care and that the repubs haven't rigged the elections enough to steal them.  The repubs wouldn't be doing all this if they weren't at least partly secure that they'd win in 08.  06 was a fluke and Karl Rove underestimated.  When he talked about having numbers that told a different story right before Nov 06, he wasn't talking about poll numbers.  He's gonna be much more careful in 08.  You can be sure of that.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of us were considered ineligible to vote in 08 for simply being on this blog.

        Nancy doesn't get that.  She still thinks that the repubs actually care about the people and will simply step aside in 08 so that a Dem president can come in and undo all they have done.  She doesn't get that these assholes will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stay in power.

        Note to Nancy, nobody gives a shit about building a record unless you use it to impeach and/or imprison these fuckers.  Nobody is going to vote for you simply because you wrote a bunch of reports.  They WILL vote for you if you take action.  Writing a paper isn't action.

        •  No... they have a case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rlharry

          They have enough right now to open an impeachment case, which would force the administration of King GeorgeCheney I. to submit to full scale investigations of EVERYTHING.  It would make their claim for executive privilege null and void.  So she has to do it if she's serious.

      •  We need to let her know she is loosing us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        victoria2dc
      •  Pelosi calling for impeachment would be stupid. (3+ / 0-)

        Incredibly stupid.

        "HEY, HERE WE ARE! HERE'S OUR PLAN!"

        It's one thing for us to call for impeachment. But for the speaker of the house, up against these ruthless bastards??

        In addition to the reasons she gave for going slow and building a case IT'S FUCKING STUPID TO TAKE ON BUSHCO AND NOT PLANNING TO SUCKER PUNCH THEM!" Why the fuck can't people around here see that? Why do you think they're spending so much time focusing on the Justice Dept? Do i have to spell that out for people too? It certainly is the plan I'm hoping they'll use, employing lots of misdirection until the right moment.

        These guys need to be dealt with deviously until the case is made where even their constituents demand impeachment as loudly as we do.

        BTW, I care less for impeachment than seeing in the end that severe penalties are served by these lawbreakers. And that won't happen in less than a year and a half. I don't care how long it takes until an example is made of neoconservatism and justice is served.

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

        by Noodles on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:58:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're wrong Noodles... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rlharry

          Opening up the impeachment case will FORCE them to turn over all of the documents, the people we want to question and whatever else is necessary to force them to provide Waxman, Conyers and Lahey what they need to convict.  They have to have the documents, the witnesses and whatever else it takes to reveal the truth. Impeachment hearings = the key to the door that has been locked in our faces by the crimes of this administration.  

          •  Not necessarily. I'll give Pelosi the benefit... (0+ / 0-)

            ...of a doubt for a while. Do we know everything that's going on behind closed doors when they talk to the administration? What threats are privately being held over the heads of congress? There might be other timing issues at stake that we're not aware of.

            The justice dept., Cheney, et al were supposed to turn everything over when subpoenaed and we see how swimmingly that's gone. Who's going to back up Congress if they move to impeachment and ask for the documents? Them and what army are going to bring a different result?

            I think congress needs to dismantle the logjams at the justice dept. first, counting on career employees there who will take their role seriously if they can have their hands untied. I bet some of the Dem leadership are likely trying to suppress some kind of really extreme action on the part of Bushco without setting it into motion. I also suspect other elements of the Dem leadership are also compromised making it that much more difficult.

            It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

            by Noodles on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:14:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is the ABSOLUTE reason for impeachment: (0+ / 0-)

      Who can explain the rules under impeachment that explains the impact of IMPEACHMENT on executive privilege?  EP cannot be claimed when they are using impeachment as a tool to investigate crimes by the administration.  Bush can’t claim it and even the Supremes couldn’t argue that one.  Could they?
      So instead of allowing Bush to send Mr. Friggin' lying Fielding out to say, "Fuck you Waxman, Conyers, Lahey, Congress and people of the United States," they have to comply with the subpoenas when they are investigating crimes under the rules of impeachment.

      That is the primary item she has forgotten.  All of the time, effort and expense of holding the hearings that have been very successful until now will be useless and wasted unless we can find the way to FORCE them to submit those documents.  That way is impeachment, but I can't explain it well because I don't understand it that well.

  •  wow, that is a splash (6+ / 0-)

    of cold water in the face.  Ms. Pelosi really seems not to get it.  I had been hoping that the delay was some kind of let-the-GOPers-start-the-avalanche uber-patience, but this makes me worry that the DC Dems simply DO NOT understand the Constitution and their duty.

    What gives?  I remain optimistic (unsustainable trends tend not to be sustained); but this makes me sad for my party.  And sad for Ms. Pelosi.  She is perhaps not fit to be Speaker after all.

    Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Justice Hugo Black.

    by Pondite on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:43:15 PM PDT

    •  Ms. Pelosi (4+ / 0-)

      gets her game just fine. How else can you explain that she's Speaker of the House, 3rd in line to the Presidency?

      But her game isn't the same as our game. She needs to accomplish whatever she can under the rules and laws and Constitution.

      I have recently come to disagree with her that Chimpeachment is worthless without having in the bag the 67 votes in the Senate to remove the perp from office. CW is on her side. It's our job to bring CW around to our side, or the HR will fail to impeach any of the perps. If we can't flip CW, then at least a majority of the House.

      Gonzales & Cheney are slam-dunks. Impeach them!

  •  My take on the timelines and impeachment... (8+ / 0-)

    ...I've never seen anyone accomplish anything they set out to do, by prefacing it with, "I don't believe I can reach my goals". Neither Washington, Napoleon, Grant, FDR, MacArthur, Eisenhower nor any other GREAT LEADER ever won any battle or war by capitulating, or by surrendering to their opponent before, during, or after the first battle of the war!

    Those who oppose standing for their convictions, will be carried off in the bonds of slavery by their opponents; and indeed they deserve such a fate by virtue of the fact they have already defeated themselves by refusing to stand, and by finally once standing, to fight!

    Bush and his cabal must be celebrating their cheap victory over the timelines and our refusal to even consider impeachment every night over champagne! If we don't fight for this freedom that millions of patriots shed their lifesblood and risked everything they owned in this world, then what was their sacrifice for? Or was it all for naught?

    Impeachment is the only checks and balance, save the power of the purse and the ballot box, that we have to remove a tyrannical ruler. Except, that there be another revolution. No chance of that. We already "don't have enough votes"! imo.

    "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:43:47 PM PDT

  •  Now let's talk about political reality... (9+ / 0-)

    ...I understand the political climate of the country. And I understand the rationale of our Dem leaders. I even agree with some of your points. But just because it's not politically expeditious or expedient, in a practical sense, because of the coming elections, it doesn't give us a bye.

    When I was a young man I was a cop after a stint in the Army. If I took the easy way out and looked the other way because the perp who committed a crime would just lawyer-up; and that it would mean months of trials in a courtroom, just what kind of officer would I had been? Not one I would want working in my town.

    So the elections be damned, imo! We can't get 50% of the people to vote now. How many will participate at all if we let Bush walk? They're not stupid-or blind. If he walks, they will just give-up on a system of justice where our POTUS can just spit on our Constitution and get away with it!

    We want freedom, and sometimes the difference between wanting and having, is in the defending.

    It's about respect for the rule of law, not men.

    It's about self-respect and knowing we did our duty to our country and to each other.

    It's about restoring any measure of respect the world ever had for America, and was lost under the Bush regime. imo.

    "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:45:12 PM PDT

  •  Madame Speaker, have you no shame? (8+ / 0-)

    These two Pelosi quotes from your diary say it all:

    I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do... If he were at the beginning of his term, people may think of it differently, but he’s at the end of his terms. The first two years of his term, if we came in as the majority, there might be time to do it all...

    But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

    And in the second quote, she speaks of even the possibility of impeachment in the past tense!

    Time to grab the torches and pitchforks and storm the Bastille, because our loser "leadership" is clearly morally bankrupt!

    "If I don't see you no more in this world, I'll see you in the next world...and don't be late!" (Jimi Hendrix)

    by Faheyman on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:51:21 PM PDT

  •  two things that stand out (6+ / 0-)

    other than the elephant in the room.

    Thank you David. The American people really don’t even know the half of it, but we are trying to build the record, and that’s what we have to do.

    don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

    So what don't we know the half of, that was worth giving up impeachment so they could look into it, that will all them to "get rid of them in a major way?"

    This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

    by VelvetElvis on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:53:41 PM PDT

    •  impeachment gets rid of one guy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc

      or two or three at best. They want to get them out of Congress as well, get a real majority AND the White House.

      I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

      by Buffalo Girl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:21:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the comments I'm seeing (22+ / 0-)

    people say Pelosi doesn't have the courage to impeach.  Or she's afraid for whatever reason.  But lookit, the point isn't that she needs more support.  Or more courage.

    Look:

    I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago

    She decided not to impeach.  It's not a question of "courage" or of needing "more evidence".  She decided not to.  

    Any further demands that Congress impeach or get the courage to impeach are therefore completely missing the point.  She isn't building a case to impeach, at all.  She decided not to.

    , that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do... If he were at the beginning of his term, people may think of it differently, but he’s at the end of his terms.

    There.  That's all there is to say about it.  

    She won't try to impeach Gonzales either, if I followed the conversation.

    Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:54:02 PM PDT

    •  She honestly believes that pragmatic approach (4+ / 0-)

      is what's best for the country.

      I happen to agree with her. Others may not.

      However, to disparage her courage, her character, or her patriotism -- as many do in the comments above -- says a lot more about the commenter than about Rep. Pelosi, IMO.

    •  She just doesn't get it... (7+ / 0-)

      ..."would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching.

      The reason we need to impeach and fire him is precisely why you refuse to do it! This war criminal president is not worthy to hold the office, and our Constitution is most certainly more worthy to defend than the man doing everything in his power to upend it!

      It's the Constitution and this Republic that is "worth it" Madame Pelosi. And if you don't understand that one unavoidable fact of life, then I wash my hands of you! imo.

      "Our past patriots are spinning in their graves. Did they all die for this tyranny?" Change Course. Change Captains. Change crews. But save the ship!

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:23:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess it's time we impeach her (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, blueoasis

      Electorally of course.  Maybe it's time to get a primary candidate against Pelosi.  Worked for Jane Harman.  Got her to stop kissing Bush's ass and shut her the fuck up.  Until Marcy Winograd scared the hell out of Jane she was the Joe Lieberman of the House.  Heck Marcy didn't even win and that district got a better representative.  Get an early primary candidate against Nancy who would have impeached Bush and we'll see if her decisions change.  If not then maybe we'll get someone more representative of SF.

  •  Stunned and sickened beyond belief. (11+ / 0-)

    Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

  •  Moral cowardice (8+ / 0-)

    "Not worth it" indeed! As though the only thing standing between us and universal healthcare, an end to the war, a decent and humane immigration package, embryonic stem-cell research, union card-checks, CAFE fuel efficiency standards and god knows what else is our maddening drive towards impeachment.

    We can do nothing else.
    Do this.

  •  How in the HELL did we... (6+ / 0-)

    ...EVER get saddled with someone so utterly, miserably weak in such of a position of responsibility?

    Anyway, great questions, Mike.

    •  She's not weak. She doesn't believe (16+ / 0-)

      the American people believe in the Constitution.  She has no faith that Americans want anyone to stand up to Bush.

      Listen to the audio.  Listen to the way she says "The American people don't know the half of it".  Listen to the way she talks about stuff Sandra Day O'Connor said . . . Pelosi says this to the bloggers as if she couldn't also just as well go on TV and tell America what Sandra Day O'Connor said.  She has no faith the anyone would care.

      Listen to how she says "You have to build a case" over and over.  She doesn't think the American people already know enough, or are angry.  "The American people don't know the half of it."  "You have to build a case."  "We wouldn't succeed."

      She's utterly, completely convinced that the American people don't care.  Are robots.  Are hopelessly uninformed.

      It's like she thinks this doesn't matter:

      The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg released poll results yesterday on the scandal involving the firing last year by the White House and Justice Department of eight U.S. Attorneys. A slim majority of us, 53 percent, believe that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should resign from his post for his role in and reaction to the controversy.

      I'm not sure what to say.  Above I said it's disorienting.

      Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

      by LithiumCola on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:28:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 53% says it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buffalo Girl, Sagittarius, DBunn

        That's not enough majority to hold through a tough fight--particularly with the media on their side.

        And there are real costs to pursuing an impeachment battle. And even worse costs associated with losing.

        •  That's my point. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          begone, flumptytail

          She believes that the American people are emotionally childish.

          Republicans impeached Clinton and then won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  So don't bother with "costs of losing".  Rush Limbaugh told them to vote Republican so they did.  Even though Clinton was at high approval.

          That's what she's thinking.  She's thinking if she tries to impeach, Rush Limbaugh will tell them to vote McCain into office with majorites of Republicans in both houses.  And it'll work because Americans are emotionally childish.

          Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

          by LithiumCola on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:39:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but there's only one way to bump that number (3+ / 0-)

          That's to make impeachment an issue.

          And to judge from the number of Cheney impeachment articles I've read this week, it's not clear that the media likes them all that much.

          Being fully aware of those costs, we have no choice but to pay them.

        •  Yet she feels confident enough to say (0+ / 0-)

          "I am absolutely certain we will be – I’m certain we will win the White House."  

          •  With this group in the White House NOW... (0+ / 0-)

            we can't even be sure that there will be an election in November 2008.  What a false way to think.

            (1)  She starts off by saying she can't win and then gives up before she tries

            (2)  She then attempts to say that the American people don't care, but she doesn't seem to understand that her job is to follow the law, not the political opinions of Washington insiders who are only interested in keeping their jobs and their slush funds coming

            We need to take her out too... she is not worthy of a leadership position.

      •  How is that not weakness? (3+ / 0-)

        Just because her failure to lead stems from cynicism about the American people doesn't excuse her.

      •  Point (7+ / 0-)

        If she doesn't believe, then she has a point. The American people are notoriously fickle. They may want their rights or they may want a sandwich.

        That's really beside the point. She's the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America. She's supposed to be a responsible leader. She's supposed to do the right thing for the country even if it costs her her job. She's supposed to be at least a professional, that would be the minimum requirement for the post.

        If she put her mind to it and used the power of her office, the third most powerful post in the land, then she could lead the American people and she could shape what they want and what they expect from their government.

        Lack of faith is still weakness. If you don't believe in the power of the idea, then you lose the strength of that idea.

        •  well said nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Residentcynic

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it *if* you can succeed." Speaker Pelosi

          by blueoasis on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:58:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good point, and I agree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc, Residentcynic

          I guess that's part of what's "disorienting" about it to me, as I said above.

          Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

          by LithiumCola on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:43:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In her defense, though, I think (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buffalo Girl, phaedras, Residentcynic

          she really believes it would do harm than good to seriously go after Bush and his handlers.  Not: "harm to her career".  I mean: "harm to the country".

          I think she thinks her responsibility is to save America from itself, and if she pursues Bush aggressively, America will rise up in Bush's defense and destroy itself to save him.

          So she's negotiating an extremely difficult path here, with no safe route.

          Winning the White House in 2008, Democrats could fix the country easily and without risk to America in her mind.  To do it now puts America at risk.  Because American are stupid enough to lose the constitution.  Again, that's my take on what she seems to be saying.

          Obviously, this might be wrong: she might just be playing for a win in 2008.  

          Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

          by LithiumCola on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:50:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She "is" wrong Lithium... 100% wrong n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Residentcynic
          •  She May (0+ / 0-)

            She may believe that. If she does, then she's wrong and needs to be replaced. The times demand something be done immediately. The issues demand immediate attention. Not acting could sign our death warrants if global warming, for example, is not dealt with soon enough. She's acting like we've got all the time in the world. Unfortunately, we don't know that and if we don't have time to wait for the next election cycle then we may not get the chance to go back and do over.

      •  Oh my god; she really has no clue? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        victoria2dc

        Or is she just desperately truing to slither out of it?

        •  Well, listen to the audio. (0+ / 0-)

          I think she is really insulated and really thinks most of America listens to Limbaugh and will believe anything Russert/Broder/FOX says.

          Free markets do not create healthy populations. They presuppose healthy populations.

          by LithiumCola on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:45:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  they are called democrats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DBunn

      I normally support third party candidates who don't believe in compromising one's ideals but in light of the war and the criminality of the bush administration decided it would be better to see what I could do to help out the democrats for a while.

      Seriously, once the war is over and things simmer down it's going to be time to start seriously organizing electoral reform so it's easier for third parties to get their message out.

      It's quite possible that she thinks she can do more good for the country by not turning congress into a circus for a year.  She did say some interesting things about us not knowing the half of it having a plan to really get rid of them for good.

      This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

      by VelvetElvis on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:31:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we were not looking closely enough (0+ / 0-)
  •  ... he's not worth impeaching (11+ / 0-)

    Not worth it?!  For pete's sake, he's the Poster Boy!

    She really doesn't get it, does she?  :o(

    •  Hi, Terre. (7+ / 0-)

      What's withering to me is that she does get it, and reverts to type anyway.

      Her story about Sandra D oC?  She gets it.  She knows of their contempt for our system of government.  Oversight has been fatally delayed; we could spend the next year-and-a-half holding hearings (without ever holding anyone accountable?) and Nancy's magical ending is Dems win the WH in 08?

      Because the American public is going to change its abysmal opinion of congress under Dem rule and go Dem wild in 08?  

      Is it just me, or did Clinton actually face impeachment proceedings.  I swear to God I thought he did, but maybe I imagined it.  

      Small varmints, if you will.

      by 2lucky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:21:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  With all due respect, Speaker Pelosi.... (23+ / 0-)

    With all due respect, Speaker Pelosi, you made several statements that really bother me.  You say that we can't pass legislation in the senate because we don't have sixty votes and we can't challenge this administration in the courts because they have stacked the courts against us.

    The progressives led the way in trying to get the Democrats to filibuster the cloture vote on Alito and we were told to shut up; now we are seeing the results of that decision.  We also warned of the impasse that would result in the senate if Joe Leiberman should be reelected and once again we were told to shut up; now we are paying the price for that myopic decision.  

    The progressives have been right on many issues while the leadership has shown very poor judgement on the same topics.  Now, we see the long term damage that will be done to the Democratic party and the nation if you do not impeach.  It's about issues that are much larger than this president.  

    If you do not enforce the subpoenas, if you do not take very strong action, you and the Democratic leadership will lose the confidence of the Democratic base in a way that will come back to haunt you.  If the Democratic leaders allow this administration to run out the clock on the issues that you are unwilling to confront, then I believe the progressives will move to make you and the leadership irrelevant after the 2008 election.  We will support the Democrats long enough to take the government out of the Republicans hands, but after that we will redouble our efforts to elect people of courage.

    The confrontaion between Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter was welcomed by many people in this nation because we are desperate to find anyone with enough courage to stand up to these bullies.  Notice the outpouring of support for her compared to the ridicule and condemnation the Democratic leadership received after it caved in to the president on the funding legislation.

    After your promotion to the Speaker of the House, I was one of your ardent supporters, but after you participated in secret meetings on trade issues and after you caved into the administration on the funding for the war, I withdrew my support.

    I hope - as many here do - that you will reconsider your decision to take impeachment off the table.

    •  I hope you will copy/paste this .... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      and send it to Madame Speaker.

      "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

      by lurks a lot on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:23:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd Give You Two (5+ / 0-)

      recommends, if I could. The point about Edwards is salient. Both of them are very much in tune with what we need. They are possibly the strongest Democrats to come down the pike in the last forty years. They won't be bullied. It just shows why he was such a success as a trial lawyer.

      If the Democrats want to win the White House next year, they have to start acting like they can run the country. Maybe this is just part of the lack of a strong presidential contender. Members of Congress, especially longstanding members, have been conditioned to think they have to compromise on everything.

      It reminds me of the HBO series Rome. Pasco says that they should make peace. Antony tells him, "You're thinking like a slave, Pasco!"

      Free men (and women) don't compromise with bullies, Nancy. They may retreat, but it's only to gain strength and return to battle. We aren't paying you to make deals with Bush or the Republicans. You have to make your deals with us, the public. Screw them, they don't have a constituency any more.

  •  Aagh. (10+ / 0-)

    It's horrible - she gets it, but then again she doesn't.

    She witnessed this firsthand:

    And she [Sandra Day O'Connor] sat with Tom Delay at the table – there were three tables with three justices at each table, so she was at the table with Tom Delay. And he just blasted – he said, "you know if we don’t like your decisions, we’re not gonna fund or we’re gonna withhold funding for implementation of those decisions... you know... she was stunned that he would talk that way about the separation of powers and the rest...

    God only knows how many like "insider" tales she could tell; and the tales would all sound like DeLay at the luncheon: utter contempt for our system of government.  

    The case against Bushco has been built in the public record.  Pelosi herself makes it clear that there will be no judicial relief.  

    It's true that Congressional hearings have exposed the depth of the rot in DOJ, but are we going to spend the next year and a half building a case...to what end?  The next election?  

    Any half-wit knows that Bush is going to run out the clock on Congressional oversight.  Bushco is NOT quaking in its boots due to increased oversight. They're are mocking the oversight.

    Speaker Pelosi (and Reid) have caved on war funding, and are simply going to let the workhorses (Waxman, Leahy) plough through the muck until Dems win the WH. She's banking on this?
     
    My worst fear realized.  Pelosi thinks this ship will just right itself.    

    Small varmints, if you will.

    by 2lucky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:03:38 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Mike (11+ / 0-)

    I must say, I'm rather extremely disappointed in what Speaker Pelosi had to say about the issue of impeachment. If we were dealing with a normal Executive Branch and Judicial Branch I could almost go along with her idea of methodically plodding along with investigation and oversight. But neither of those branches, and especially the new Forth Branch from Hell named Cheney, are normal.

    She said, Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena and I must beg to differ. Without the consideration of conviction how on earth can suboena be considered anything more than a joke to them? They own the Judiciary and the own the Supremes. They own the military. All we have is Congress and not very much of it.

    We have to convince the Congress that these are extraordinary times that require extraordinary action. If they won't take action, then I suppose all of us will have to, eh?

    It's always because we love that we are rebellious; it takes a great deal of love to give a damn ~Kenneth Patchen~

    by cosmic debris on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:04:14 PM PDT

  •  Mike, two more querstions... (11+ / 0-)

    ...if you could ever ask them:

    Ms. Pelosi -- how destructive to the Constitution and this nation would these people have to get before you'd consider impeachment?

    Ms. Pelosi, do you then believe in general that a quest for justice should not be attempted unless one is assured of success in advance?

  •  a decision for greatness? (5+ / 0-)

    right.

    "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:14:23 PM PDT

  •  Uh... what? (10+ / 0-)

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    So it's not worth jack if you fail?
    Please tell me that's not an exact quote.
    The Constitution is not something that you fight for only if you have the votes! It's a symbol of our very right to vote in the first place. You fight for it whether you have the votes or not.

    "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

    by RElland on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:14:48 PM PDT

    •  That galls me too (3+ / 0-)

      I would have spit in disgust right in front of her if she said that to my face and I would have not been so polite.  

      The men who wrote and signed that paper did it with the full knowledge that they were putting their lives at risk by doing so.  They were willing to sacrifice their lives for an ideal.  Now Nancy comes along and says it's only worth defending that ideal if she knows that she can succeed?  

      I wonder if the founding fathers knew whether or not they could succeed.  I doubt it made much of a difference.  

      I wonder what changed besides the fact that our current leaders are fucking cowards when compared to our founding fathers.  

      I wonder why we're even celebrating the 4th of July other than celebrating the fact that we have a paid day off.  Now I know what Judas felt like when he got his silver.  Our constitution is getting tortured beyond recognition and all we got to show for it is some chump change which they want us to spend anyway.

    •  Yes, she said it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc

      You can hear it on the audio.  Appalling.

  •  I do think I see what she means though, (6+ / 0-)

    Strategically speaking...

    Basically, she is saying that all of this time the Democrat's agenda is to change the minds of everyone in America. You know, the "court of public opinion". It essentially is a form of, not exactly theater, but a form of presentation. Their probes and investigations and whatnot have kept Bush Administration corruption in the news more or less constantly, and just look at Bush's approval ratings! It is possible that Pelosi and her folks in Congress intended that to happen? Is it possible that they are secretly stupendous baddasses who have been playing public opinion, setting things up so that we can get out guys in the Whitehouse?

    It's just an interesting thought. I'd actually love to see impeachment, and I'd love to see impeachment hearings employed irrespective of any result other than  extracting testimony and furthering a tidal change in public opinion. I want impeachment a lot! It would be the ultimate thing. Ever.

    But I'm going to do anything I can to help and support our party. FUCK IT! The GOP wins by forming a united front. I want there to be a Lefty United Front. I want to be a part of it. Some people are more impeachy, and some people, like Pelosi, are playing the long game. I still want all of us to WIN.

    I personally plan to show A LOT more support for the Dem leadership. I want to focus on areas of agreement between all leftward people. I want the approval numbers of the Dem leadership to to go up, and I want everyone in America, and the news, and the polls, to notice that happen. That would be a good thing to shoot for as far as the long game/plan B contingency of getting a Dem in the WH. If the impeachment thing doesn't happen, I don't want to take out all my rage on OUR GUYS, and weaken our party. I want to focus my energy on this bigger picture of public opinion changing. If strategic baddassery is how the Dem leadership is doing right now, then I want to be a stupendous strategic baddass too. Supporting OUR GUYS will really help. After all, they're all we've got!

    •  Loved this line (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry, Buffalo Girl, VelvetElvis

      Is it possible that they are secretly stupendous baddasses who have been playing public opinion, setting things up so that we can get our guys in the Whitehouse?

      Well, yes. Exactly.

      And with a lot riding on that outcome -- the Supreme Court, global warming, and universal health care, for starters -- I'm not a fan of taking chances with that outcome to pursue some abstract principle.

      •  The Constitution is an abstract principle? (8+ / 0-)

        Also, where are we making progress on the issues you list as "starters"?  

        We have the oldest judges on the court - if one has to retire or dies, that gives Bush yet another one, and all those 5-4 decisions become 6-3 for another 30 years.

        Global warming - let's veto Cafe standard increases.  Let's invade other countries to secure their oil, killing hundreds of thousands of people along the way!

        Health Care - Bush said just the other day that universal health care is not the right direction for the country.  It ain't gonna pass or even get a smidgen closer while they're obstructing it.

        •  The chance we'd be taking (0+ / 0-)

          is the loss of the WH in 2008. Read again.

          And even if impeachment were pursued, there is practically no chance of Bush being removed from office, and even less chance it would occur substantially before the end of his term.

          •  The chance we're taking by inaction (4+ / 0-)

            is the same.  If the Dems are perceived as weak and aren't willing to stand up to criminals do you think the base will come out and support them? If the outcome is the same regardless of the action, why sit idly by and let that outcome become reality?  Frankly I'd rather try to change reality.  You don't get anything done if you don't try.  Besides this notion that by pursuing impeachments the Dems are jeopardizing the 08 elections is pure, utter horseshit.  Public opinion is on our side on this and as more people hear about the crimes of these bastards, the more likely they'll vote against their party, not for it.

            Also what makes you think the repubs aren't working as we speak to steal another election.  It took unprecidented turnout and enthusiasm by the left to get bare majorities in congress to begin with.  It's going to take much more effort to get the white house and keep those majorities now that the repubs have had time to see where they made mistakes in 06.  

            The way to sway public opinion and make sure that the leads are too big for any sort of malfeasance to take place is to hold investigations and bring justice to these criminals.  Sitting on your hands and keeping the powder dry won't sway public opinion.

            •  Investigations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              victoria2dc

              are exactly what Waxman and the Dems are doing.

              Your statements regarding the political repercussions of an impeachment attempt are speculation.

              That is true no matter how strong the language, or number of adjectives, you use to deride those who disagree with you.

              •  The investigations are being stonewalled (0+ / 0-)

                We don't have much time left, and the Bushies are trying to run out the clock.  It is time to stop with the investigations that can be blocked.  Impeach, run the investigations and then take it to the Senate for them to decide to remove Bush.  If the Senate decides not to, then I believe America will remove most of the 22 Senate Republicans up for re-election in 2008.

            •  They are... (0+ / 0-)

              Also what makes you think the repubs aren't working as we speak to steal another election.  It took unprecidented turnout and enthusiasm by the left to get bare majorities in congress to begin with.  It's going to take much more effort to get the white house and keep those majorities now that the repubs have had time to see where they made mistakes in 06.  

              That was the reason behind the USA firings, the Tim Griffin caging story and all of the rest of it.  We haven't stopped them yet because we don't have the truth... and we won't get the truth until we get the documents and the witnesses under oath and being subjected to charges of perjury if they are caught lying.

              Opening up the impeachment door gives us that opportunity.  Why?  They can no longer claim executive privilege when they are impeaching for crimes.  Simple as that.  If she won't put impeachment back on the table then we will never get to the truth unless Libby, Tenant, Powell, Rice, Rummie or another member of the crime family decides that they love this country and want to tell the truth.

          •  We aren't even talking about BUSH!!! (0+ / 0-)

            the articles have been filed against Cheney.  Cheney is the one we're going after. Cheney is the president.  Cheney created all of this crime.  Did you read the Angler articles in the Washington Post? Did you understand how he manipulated everything to do what he wanted, and did you understand at all why he fought so long for Rummie to stay?  Rummie did anything Cheney told him to do.  <sigh>  

      •  I'm not a fan, either. (4+ / 0-)

        But on the other hand, letting things stand as they do now means that in order for Democrats to govern, we must win or hold a minimum of 270 federal elective offices -- a majority in the House and Senate (plus 9 more if you want to break filibusters), and the presidency.

        The Republicans need win only one.

        And that will remain true in perpetuity. How often can we count on beating those odds?

        •  The idea that impeachment will set precedent on (0+ / 0-)

          future Presidents, Republican or Democratic, seems weakly supported to me.

          Sure, what's to keep a future President from asserting the unitary executive?

          But realistically, even after impeaching this President (and not convicting, which no one expects), what's to keep a future President from asserting the unitary executive?

          Impeachment is a political act, a one-time deal.

          •  The precedent is of most value... (7+ / 0-)

            to Congress. Moreso than to future presidents.

            I'm not nearly as concerned that future presidents come to fear impeachment for these types of acts as I am that Congress not fear it.

            Presidents come and go. Teaching one or another or even all of them to fear impeachment is, at best, a solution with a renewable 8-year term.

            But Congress as a whole is a continuing body, carrying its lessons and wisdom over from year to year, as Members continue from year to year, and impart those lessons and wisdom to new Members. The precedent is of much more value to them than it is to a term-limited president.

          •  Precedent (3+ / 0-)

            The idea that an impeachment would damage the reputation of the party pursuing it is based in most cases on the precedent set by the Clinton impeachment.

            Where do you get the idea that it's a one-time deal? I mean, unless it's successful -- in which case you wouldn't need a second time -- the House could keep impeaching on whatever new grounds they wanted to for the rest of Bush's term.

            Even if an impeachment was a failure, it would mean impeachment articles would be drawn up by the House Judiciary committee. The supporting evidence for the articles would be laid out in hearings. The articles would be debated on the House floor. Assuming the Democrats presented a united front, they would pass the House. The Senate would then hold an impeachment trial. The Senators who supported Bush would have to publicly vote on evidence that was presented in a public forum, where the voters could hold them accountable for their support. That really doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

            Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

            by darrelplant on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:23:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not weak at all (2+ / 0-)

            The precedent is simple.  You spy on Americans, torture them, imprison them without basic rights, disobey/break laws passed by the legislative branch by exerting a special priveledge or start illegal wars with no end and you will be removed from office so don't go there.  And so on.  The only problem here is that there are literally so many crimes committed by this admin that if one is missed that could be construed as being okay by future presidents if this one isn't impeached for it.  

            As for the convicting part.  Unless you try you don't know whether or not that is doomed to failure.  Even if it does fail, future presidents will be much more careful about counting senators before engaging in illegal activity.

            •  Bush's actions are par for the course (0+ / 0-)

              for American Presidents. There are very few of these crimes that don't themselves have precedent in the actions of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.

              The differences are of degree, and are amplified by this administration's assertion of legality for the kind of acts that were previously acknowledged to be illegal and simply kept secret.

              "You never know unless you try" is a poor argument for embarking on a risky venture. The whole point of political skill is to being able to predict how your fellow citizens or lawmakers will vote under possible future scenarios. I think Reid and Pelosi are skilled in that regard.

      •  re: leftist front (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YellowDogBlue, Simplify

        Oh, ha ha. Yeah, I didn't mean that. I mean, actually, I understand and appreciate what Marx was trying to say (not so sure about Lenin). I have commy friends, and I get it, but when I'm talking to them I always tell them i can't past that whole bloody revolution/dictatorship thing. (!!!)

        Isn't it interesting how all of the political systems have something beautiful about them in the abstract? Take the conservative capitalist system of though, even - which is basically the idea of creating a country where an exceptional individual is free to develop themselves, and basically be left alone to seek their fortune. That's basically the American dream, right? Or take communism, where the goverment makes sure that everyone is given an equal amount of stuff. These are all great ideas, really. It's weird how these basically sell-intentioned systems can so rapidly foster these different kinds of corruption.

        By the way, speaking of people from different systems: I love it when some Republican in the beltway just suddenly can't take it anymore, and suddenly takes a stand on something like the war. Like has been happening, lately. It gives me some hope for the human race, that there are people in the GOP who have a limit, and who basically are, somewhere in there, good people. Maybe there are good people everywhere, just like there are pretty awful people everywhere.

        Don't mind me. I have a dispassionate analysis problem. Humans and there ideas are just very interesting to me. I'm seeking medication for the problem.

      •  thankya for liking my line! (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe I should be a professional dumbass socratic ironist with dumb lines like that?

        Anyhow, I THINK you were saying you agreeing with me?

        Of course, I have no idea if I agree with myself or not. Actually, I deeply believe that reserving a certain measure of skepticism about the absolute unassailability (is that a word?) of one's own beliefs is a good step in the direction of being a truly ethical person.

        Feel free to slap me when I say things like that.

        So. Impeachment. I'm willing to wait a little longer to find out which way it goes because....I HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE BUT TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS! I don't presume to know how politics actually works from the inside, but I do hope there is some sort of magic turning point, at some point. A swing of the pendulum. Whatever happens, I do want to see the Bush administration exposed in front of the world. Whether it takes the form of impeachment or not, I absolutely believe that that is what Pelosi and her guys are trying to do. I mean, look at all of these corruption probes! They're magnificent!

    •  oh yes... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Quicksilver2723

      just ignore the rising tide of deaths as the supposed winners take the WH in 2008.
      Best damn sacrifice I've seen of our military in a long time. I'm stunned no one has an altar out on the floor of the Congress with a soldier strapped on top of it...
      Supporting the continuing murder of American lives... George Bush started it. The Democrats by these statements seemed to have said that they're willing to continue it. For power...
      Sacrafice of the willing is still murder.

      "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

      by RElland on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:47:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah. (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't mean that.

        I suppose I meant I want BOTH. Why create a dillemna when there isn't one? I want it fucking ALL!
        Isn't ALL preferable?

        I want impeachment procedings, AND I want the Dems WH long game of public opinion to succeed. I don't think the two are exclusive. The way I think I can do my part is to support our guys. I also want to PERSUADE them to see OUR side, the impeachment side. I've never succeeded in changing someone's mind by directing mighty rivers of psychic hatred at their stomachs. Changing someones mind is a little bit like...sex? Trust is involved. So I'm just trying to remain constructive, strategic, and diplomatic whihc my people. So, I'm going to be playing both the long and the short games.

        Ok, maybe if I met the Dem leadership in a dark alley I might scream at them a little. By I don't want anyone else in the country to know I feel that way. I want the numbers to reflect confidence in out own shit!

        That's my crazy crazy plan

        •  Hmn.. (4+ / 0-)

          But I wonder if that's the price they've decided to pay to get to the White House?
          What's a few more dead to walk over on their way in?
          Again, which is more evil?

          "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

          by RElland on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  - (0+ / 0-)

            I hear ya, buddy.

            And I don't know which is more evil. I can't figure it out. We all do the best we can, I guess. Right?

          •  continued (0+ / 0-)

            Ok, I have a brilliant question! Do you think, in the abstract, that it's possible to try to change the Dem leadership's mind while also supporting whatever the other shit they are trying to do in the long run?

            I think it's somewhat analogous to fighting the war while supporting the troops. I mean, do you think it's possible to support our guys, and also try to get them to do the most right thing?

            Because I suppose that's what I'm proposing, here. Sort of an extreme lefty/strategic moderate master plan. A plan of Winningness!

            •  Ask me after I've calm down and looked at this (3+ / 0-)

              a colder eye other than the fact that I have a friend in Afghanistan right now that I can't help wonder if he's just being seen as either the Bush Human Shield Program or the Democratic White House Win Strategy.

              And is it possible to support our troops?
              Throw it back on the one's asking. "Are you supporting the troops, or Bush's right to use them as Human Shields. Like Saddam did in Iraq with volunteers who went there because they were against the idea of war.?"

              "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

              by RElland on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:17:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  = (0+ / 0-)

                "a colder eye other than the fact that I have a friend in Afghanistan right now that I can't help wonder if he's just being seen as either the Bush Human Shield Program or the Democratic White House Win Strategy."

                Well said!

                By the "support the troops" analogy, I meant to say; much in the same way that you can be against the way while supporting the troops (which flies in the face of the false GOP dilemma that they are always trying to blackmail us with) I was saying it was similarly possible to support the impeachment thing but then also the other thing.

                But, you know, your friend is right there in the middle of the war, and just because I'm taking an incrementally more moderate strategy here, doesn't mean I don't think the balls out impeachment guys aren't doing a good job by doing exactly what they are doing. Someone needs to be doing it! Loudly! And they're being noticed! You hear about it on the news. It's part of the overall machine of regime change.

                One little note in defense of the Dem leadership as far as your friend in the war. It just would appear that the Dems are looking at a lot of shitty horrible choices right now. I mean, to stop funding for the war (their only real leverage); that is almost a literal definition of not supporting the troops! So the GOP have this horrible blackmail drop on the Dems! And now there's a similar conundrum facing them regarding impeachment. So they're trying to make their best of it all. But I earnestly believe that the Dem leadership...I think their WHOLE DEAL is getting your friend back home. I don't think your friend is part of their "plan". Not like that.

                But maybe I'm a cuddly optimist. You tell me! Am I?

                •  The president funds the troops (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, Quicksilver2723

                  Not the Congress or Senate
                  The PRESIDENT gives the orders to where money goes.
                  Defunding the war in Iraq is not defunding the soldiers. Congress funds the WAR that the President orders the troops into.
                  If he leaves them over there when the defunding happens then the PRESIDENT is abandoning the troops not Congress or Senate.
                  He's betrayed his oath as Commander in Chief at the moment he decides to do that and should be brought up on charges of treason to the military he so inable commands.
                  Or if you want a frame:
                  "You've defunded the TROOPS!"
                  "Oh? Is the President abandoning the troops in Iraq then?"

                  "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

                  by RElland on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:15:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  where have I heard that before ? (0+ / 0-)

      A united leftist front . . .

      Oh yeah

      http://www.marxists.org/...

      I've actually always really liked Lenin with the exception of the few odd places where I find him sorta terrifying.

      This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

      by VelvetElvis on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:53:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In a Word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry, blueoasis

      No.

      Is it possible that they are secretly stupendous baddasses...?

      It doesn't require talking down impeachment to do this. In fact, being coy about impeachment would serve the investigative process far better. If Bush knew that she could be persuaded to allow impeachment to go forward at any time, then he would be under much greater pressure to respond fully and truthfully to subpoenas and to have his minions testify truthfully in Congressional hearings. He'd have to back off the "President-knows-best" attitude. He'd have to allow much more oversight on FISA, for example. He'd probably have to restore essential rights of freedom like habeas corpus.

      No, all this does is put Democrats in a weak position where they have to compromise and deal. The chances of it being a brilliant ploy are zip, nada, zero.

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

    •  Even worse yet guys... (0+ / 0-)

      this diary and this sound will make its way to the right wing and then they will use it against us:  They will talk about her weakness, they will swiftboat her/us and then they will do whatever they can to turn the American people on to our weaknesses... Well, you know those Democrats are weak on terror... they this, they that and whatever else the friggin' right wing criminals can find to keep going.

      I am sick.  

  •  Projection (4+ / 0-)

    Anyone who thinks impeachment is "inevitable," or that the Democrats have a secret plan to impeach Bush/Cheney/Gonzales, is engaging in rank projection at this point.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:16:34 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Mike (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    victoria2dc, ormondotvos, flumptytail

    Madam Speaker, we're waiting.

  •  If the situation were reversed (7+ / 0-)

    The republicans would've said (in order to get elected) that "impeachment's off the table"... then as soon as they got in, impeached. We should've been prepared to do no less.

    With all due respect to Ms. Pelosi, she seems to be totally caving to these thugs. It's like putting a chihuahua up against a pit-bull and she just doesn't seem to realize what these guys are capable of and the long term repercussions of not impeaching.

    When she says things like "The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching." well, it's frankly depressing as hell that she doesn't seem to understand what's at stake here if we don't and why he most certainly is worth impeaching.

    In fact, I'd argue that of all the presidents in the history of this country George Dubya Bush and his mutant overlord Dick are very much worth impeaching.

    If we don't we'll get more "Dubyas" down the road who think they can literally get away with murder and ya' know what? So far they apparently can, have and will continue to do so every day, laughing all the way to the bank. There has never been an administration more deserving of impeachment to my knowledge. Ever.

    Then she says: "Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena."

    Is she awake? 'Cause they just flipped "their worst nightmare" the bird and laughed in our face. And she still doesn't seem to get it.

    To sum up what I think she seems to be saying: We Democrats are too weak to impeach a dog catcher, let alone the POTUS. Setting a precedent that they can't get away with what they've gotten away with isn't important. Wiping their ass with The Constitution of the United States isn't important.

    Oh and BTW; we're their "worst nightmare".

    Does anyone out there think Dick Fuckin' Cheney is having trouble sleeping tonight? How can you be anyone's "worst nightmare" when you say, in effect that 1) We just can't muster the will, votes or energy to impeach and 2) Even if we could, Dubya's not worth it??

    Again, with all due respect, she's making me want  to mainline Prozac in my jugular vein and move to Canada because if she keeps acting like a chihuahua, these pit bulls are gonna tear her to shreds - and the rest of this country's ideals along with her and laugh all the way to their off-shore, tax-free bank in Dubai.

    In a way, I feel worse than I did when we caved on de-funding Iraq. She basically just told me there's not a helluva lot of reason to care and it's depressing as hell.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:28:33 PM PDT

    •  Thinking Panama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc

      or possibly Costa Rica.  Canada has very tough immigration laws.  Seriously, I'm researching leaving the country I love because the government is no longer representing the interests of its people. This coming from a patriotic four generation military family.  I'll continue to fight a while longer, but if things don't improve, I'm outta here.  Calling it my Contingency Plan B.

      If you're Republican, you're either corrupt or misled.

      by rlharry on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:55:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UniC, ormondotvos

    I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress. (unint)

    Now, does that (unint) in this case mean unintelligble, or unintentionally funny?

  •  This is disturbing on so many levels. (8+ / 0-)

    From what the lady said, I have a feeling that the move for Impeachment is never going to get out of committee.
    And she has no clue just how deeply angry this country seriously is now.
    It's not just us...not just the bloggers. No, it's a tension that's coming out in some bizarre ways. The crime rate is going up because of the frustration with how people's lives are being affected, friends in Iraq, a morale that's hit bottom in spite of the 'good finance news' (a lie since it's only helping the upper class with the middle and lower going nowhere).
    George Bush and Dick Cheney are up in the national capitol doing whatever they want and all that people are seeing is a 'free pass' by Nancy Pelosi and her cliche of Democrats.
    This has truly gone past FUBAR.
    And not one of them has a serious clue how people are going to react in the future. They let this go, they'll be lucky if a third party doesn't come along and sweep it all up.
    My biggest worry is that said party will ultimately turn out to be a new Naziesque party in disguise. All it will take for a desperate people is to have just the right voice at just the right time... and America could very well die. (Right now it's hurt, but not completely dead yet)

    "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

    by RElland on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:42:23 PM PDT

    •  We need to take action NOW... and show her! (0+ / 0-)

      And she has no clue just how deeply angry this country seriously is now.

      It's not just us...not just the bloggers. No, it's a tension that's coming out in some bizarre ways. The crime rate is going up because of the frustration with how people's lives are being affected, friends in Iraq, a morale that's hit bottom in spite of the 'good finance news' (a lie since it's only helping the upper class with the middle and lower going nowhere).

      She doesn't care... she is a multi-millionaire and the Speaker of the House.

      Mike, what is your plan?

  •  When you sit on a jury, you are supposed to (6+ / 0-)

    hear all of the evidence before you make a decision. Apparently, the Speaker is only going to consider vote counts along party lines.  

    Frankly, I give some Senators more credit than that with the nature of indictable offenses facing Gonzales - not to mention Cheney & Bush.  The Republican Senators will try to save their own asses when dealing with impeachment.

    Mike Stark: Respectfully, that’s not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

    Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances that were missing, are honoring the Constitution.

    Attn: James Nicholson is still Sec. of VA. There is no excuse for that. Thankyouverymuch

    by llbear on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:42:51 PM PDT

  •  Okay... time to up the ante. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ekaterin, begone, sdgeek, Quicksilver2723

    How's this for a frame?
    One to take to the Democratic 'Leadership'.

    George Bush got us into Iraq.
    The public put you in office to get us out of Iraq.
    But what is the American Public going to see?
    That you're keeping the soldiers in Iraq to get into the White House.
    They won't see the fights against the Iraq war.
    The public will only see the failures.
    And wonder if it's on purpose.
    Every soldier's death is a step to the White House for the Democrats.
    And now one wonders... who's the true evil? One's who put them there out of incompetence in the first place? (Which is the general public view of Bush)
    Or those who claim to want to save them, but 'fail' so they can use said deaths to get into power?
    Want to be seen as a real good guy to the public?
    Take on George Bush, Dick Cheney and all their sycophants directly.
    Impeachment is your last line of defense Madame Speaker. And by not using it, one has to wonder what the cost of winning the WH will really be.
    And seriously, perhaps the public should be asked that.

    "If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken

    by RElland on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:58:11 PM PDT

  •  hey stark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ormondotvos

    i don't know what your background is, but i remember months ago being happy to see your diaries, now i wonder if you're just an alibi guy.

    here's a checklist for people who breath through their mouth whilst picking the nose:

    members of congress need millions of dollars to win a campaign. check

    the same corporate powers which fund campaigns benefit mightly from the bush admin actions and its supreme court appointments. check

    based on the "election" last year, and where we are still today, it's safe to say there's a direct correlation between who funds campaigns and who benefits from inaction in the legislative branch. check

    the framers knew this would happen, so they wrote the convention clause into the constitution (article v). check

    so why aren't you talking convention? are you one of them? when are you going to start? if you're just another shill, ignore.

    •  Helloooooo, purity trolling... (6+ / 0-)

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  constitution mentioned all over this thread (0+ / 0-)

        respecting the constitution. stark has been informed about the convention clause and efforts to get it before the people who need to know about it. i've e-mailed him in the past. this is not about purity trolling, but about saying what needs to be said.

        if it's not clear to him now, then this was another attempt to get him to realize what's going on.

        if he is not a mouth-breathing, nose-picking moron, he should be able to recognize the importance of talking convention. or, if he's an operative, then he can ignore such comments. that seems pretty simple.

    •  john, I think you owe it to mike to research (8+ / 0-)

      his background.

      He gave us the edge on the "macaca" monent and a whole lot else.

      Really, a tad of easy research before you post wouldn't hurt too
      much, would it?

      It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot.

      by begone on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:18:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so what? (0+ / 0-)

        he's done good in the past but fails to recognize what's going on now? i'm attempting to notify him (again) to recognize the SOLUTION, i.e. the u.s. constitution. this is not my subjective opinion we're talking about b.g. we're talking about the one and only thing that's going to redirect the course of things. if you don't believe me, i'm sorry, but based on the facts of the last few months, alongside the facts of the last forty-plus years, alongside the combined words of the u.s. constitution--he needs to pull his head out of the sand. we need to start talking convention. he was engaged in a conversation with a top politician in our government.

    •  That's a great idea, (0+ / 0-)

      why don't you get the conversation started? You know, since it's so easy...

      •  if i was on the phone with a politician (0+ / 0-)

        i would. why he did not, seeing how he's been informed? maybe it slipped off the radar for him. this is a reminder in case he gets another chance.

        •  A convention (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't start with one politician. If it was that easy, Feingold would have been able to censure Bush, impeach him and defund the war. All last year!

          Impeachment is a movement, as would be a convention. Not knowing exactly what you are refering to, I can safely say that anything the framers did or thought possible in the 1780's is not necessarily something that can happen today. Back then, a bunch of rich, white, land-owning revolutionaries took over the country. We've had the same thing happen today, only it has led to the decline of our nation, not the building of it.

          Bottomline, things are too different to start comparing what the Founding Fathers did to what our leaders can do today.

          •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

            one politician saying "Article V Convention" and staying on point will do it. that's all we're waiting for, is the power brokers to pick their horse and have them start saying it. the msm will get all over it, and a resolution will be drawn up, and the call finally issued. after that, it's all downhill. the law will do what it's meant to and purge the corruption. why? because when people come together consensus happens, and what needs to be done is not rocket science. look at the convention clause of article v as a consensus machine. turn it on and it makes toast out of politics as usual.

            it's not who wrote the constitution, it's what the thing says.

  •  Neo-cons willing to go to jail for their shit! (10+ / 0-)

    And what kind of leaders do we have fighting them?

    Look at it this way:  Scooter F@cking Libby went to jail rather than tell the truth about Cheney and the administration.

    The son of a bitch chose to rot in jail out of loyalty to those monsters.

    But our Congressional Dems won't even risk the possiblity of a rough ride to Impeachment because they might lose?

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    I just cannot get that morally evacuated shit out of my head.

    This is what we have battling for the survival of the Republic, vs. people willing to go to jail to perpetrate their neo-con depravity?

    Outrageous.

    We are not exempt from history.

    by MrJayTee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:11:06 AM PDT

  •  not buyin' it (5+ / 0-)

    Soldiers are dying, Pelosi.  They're dying because Bush/Cheney and their cronies are using our military to build their own personal fortunes.  They're dying because you and your colleagues refuse to defend the Constitution and this Nation.  

    I will not vote for Democrats. I will not defend you.  I will do for you what you have done for the People -- nothing.  

    Y'all go on having your ritzy parties in Washington, D.C., go on with your backslapping and festivities and fund-raising.  

    Your immigration bill was a writ of indentured servitude that would flood the markets with cheap labor so more of American workers' equity would percolate to the top tiers.  And you have the nerve to tell us we are hateful because we oppose slavery masquerading as opportunity?!  There was no path to citizenship.  And the legislation gave amnesty alright -- to corporations exploiting the poor!

    None of you live in the world you create for the rest of us.  How many of your kin are currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq?  How long do you think We the People are going to give up our sons and daughters to defend a government that so ill represents our interests?

    The Democratic leadership is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  

    Nice to know y'all gave yourselves yet another raise though.  Especially since our injured soldiers are not getting the medical care they earned.  

    What's the use.

    It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. Alfred Adler

    by Quicksilver2723 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:11:29 AM PDT

    •  Jeebus! (7+ / 0-)

      Then she says: "Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena."

      Is she awake? 'Cause they just flipped "their worst nightmare" the bird and laughed in our face. And she still doesn't seem to get it.

      Crashing the Gate: Electing Progressive Democrats.

      by ormondotvos on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:39:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlharry, Dave925, MichiganGirl

        First we're told that the Democratic congress is Bush's worse nightmare because of the power of subpoena.  Then we're told that because the judiciary is in the family, they can never win any legal showdowns.

        Do they really expect us to believe that BushCo gives a rat's hiney about their corruption being exposed but unpunished?  

        Do they really think we're that stupid.  This whole line of reasoning from Pelosi is insulting.  

        It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. Alfred Adler

        by Quicksilver2723 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:52:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Luv ya Nancy... IMPEACH! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, gnat, dangangry, keikekaze

    Just so you know, we got your back.

    Will you respect the Constitution and Rule of Law enough to save them?

    I M P E A C H !!!

    "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, every post WWII US President would have been hanged." =Chomsky

    by abenjaminc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:58 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi Will Lose 2008 Elections for the Democrats (20+ / 0-)

    Where have I heard this story before, oh that's right 15 years ago with Iran-Contra and then-House Speaker Tom Foley, another spineless Democrat who helped set up the whole mess we've been in since the Republican Revolution in 1994.

    From, "Iran Contra Pardons Saved Poppy Bush" by Robert Parry:

    But the Democrats -- led by then-House Speaker Tom Foley and Rep. Lee Hamilton -- chose a very different course. Apparently believing that battling for answers would distract from the domestic policy agenda, such as passage of a universal health care plan, the Democrats chose to shut down all the investigations.

    In December 1992, Foley signaled Bush that he would have no problem with the Iran-contra pardons. After the pardons were issued, a few Democrats groused but no hearings were held and no formal explanation was demanded, even though this may have been the first time a president had used his pardon powers to protect himself from possible incrimination.

    That's sounds familar... We wouldn't want to distract from our pointless domestic agenda by sullying our hands by impeachment! Let's have our Speaker signal this Bush that he can do whatever the hell he wants to do.

    Beyond obscuring these important chapters of recent history and thus adding to the confusion of the American people, the Democrats discovered that their deferential strategy gained them nothing from the Republicans. If anything, the Democratic behavior was taken as a sign of weakness.

    After the Democrats folded the Reagan-Bush investigations, the Republicans simply swept their easy winnings off the table and raised the stakes.

    Speaker Pelosi you are, once again, demonstrating Democrats are weak, spineless worms. Americans want to vote for someone who will fight on their behalf. Speaker Pelosi, you won't fight. You cannot win your domestic agenda if you won't fight. You are setting up the party for defeat.

    Having retreated so far and so often, today’s Democrats seem incapable of fighting back. It is a pattern of behavior that - as much as anything - has made the Republicans the dominant political force in Washington and left American democracy in an endangered state.

    Yup. Republicans fight. And, if Speaker Pelosi has her way, Democrats will be the minority party once again in 2008. With the way things are going, you might follow Speaker Foley and lose your seat too. Thanks for nothing.

  •  "What are you going to do about it?" (5+ / 0-)

    Best question of the hour.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:19:12 AM PDT

  •  The Obligatory Impeachment Framing Page (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, victoria2dc, keikekaze
  •  Don't blame me! (4+ / 0-)

    The republicans made me do it!

    meh.

  •  She's not gettin it (20+ / 0-)

    Failure to impeach this president and vice president will set a precedent. That precedent will doom the republic. We are vitually living in a dictatorship as it is. There will be nothing virtual about it in the future.
    The dictatorship will come (or, it will continue and become more boldly authoritarian as time goes on). After that the dictatorship will come to an end, and when it does we will have the rule of the mob.

    History guarantees it. Read some of it.

    Failure to impeach is a failure to defend the constitution. I wonder how long Madam Speaker will continue to assert that torture, illegal detainments, mass murder, treason, bribery, illegal spying and running a global protection racket "aren't worth" stopping and prosecuting?

    WHAT IS WORTH IMPEACHMENT? Starting an unprovoked nuclear war? Cheney is working on that one. Declaring martial law and seizing absolute power? Bush is preparing for that one. Genocide? Well, the PNAC plan to militarily occupy much of the muslim world will likely include that strategy in the future, if it doesn't already. Read some of Bush's rightwing religious fanatic's polemics. They track the "Jewish Menace" literature quite closely.

    It doesn't matter if we don't have the votes to remove in the Senate as of right now. We'll get the votes if we start the impeachments, OR, we will get an acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt that will smash the Republican Party to pieces in the next election, AND THEN we will throw them in jail.

    Final thought: No pardons for impeached officials. The pardons won't stand up in court. And if you get a judge who says otherwise, impeach him.

    Madam Speaker, you aren't likely to get any meaningful reform, legislation or oversight while Bush and Cheney are in office. You aren't likely to see any prosecutions of criminal "loyal Bushies" either. At least if you try and fail to remove these criminals, you'll have a ready answer for any who criticize your lack of productivity. Otherwise, you're still on the same side of the Looking Glass with a whole roomful of mad hatters.

  •  she's the gift that keeps giving (12+ / 0-)

    to the Republicans. Honestly, how is her willingness to subordinate the Constitution to political expediency ("Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed") any different than the Republicans' willingness to do the same? Only the motives differ -- in their case, it's malice, and in her case, cowardice.

    If present-day Republicans were faced with a Democratic chief executive after regaining Congress, they'd impeach the president for jaywalking their first day in power and find a way to make it stick.

    But here's Speaker Pelosi, presented with arguably the greatest array of offenses committed by an American administration in our nation's history, and she's talking about how Bush and Cheney are scared to death because -- GASP! -- they might be subpoenaed.

    Pathetic. Honestly, unswervingly, irredeemably, pathetic.

    "If you want a picture of the neocon future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."

    by DavidHW on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:35:13 AM PDT

    •  It isn't cowardice (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctsteve, victoria2dc, blueoasis, jhecht

      and that's the most depressing thing about her decision.... That it is apparently just a decision she's made out of selfish political motives.

      I guess the thing that upsets me the most about this is her choice isn't made through cowardice, she came to this decision through a character flaw of some type, or maybe just moral bankruptcy.

      You always have a chance to give a coward strength... I don't think anything can be done in this situation.

      We're fucked.

      "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

      by MichiganGirl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:04:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's also laziness (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ctsteve, gnat, victoria2dc

        When you can't get the votes necessary to enact the type of legislature that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor, than it's time to get to work. Start running radio and TV ads in districts where the opponents are vulnerable. Start polling in those places. When their representatives see that a vote against these bills, are a vote against themselves, those votes will change. I'm tired of them giving up without a real fight.

        If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

        by jhecht on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:17:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Clearly Nancy thinks there are grounds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YetiMonk, Sagittarius, NonnyO, OregonOak

    for impeachment. Yet, she insists that Bush is not worth impeaching. IMO, she is stating that Bush is an idiot and Cheney is the main actor. She is also correct that with regard to the public and impeachment, we have not reached a critical mass of the demand for impeachment. Remember, most of the current Congressional oversight hearings are not seen or heard by the vast majority of Americans.

    Compare that to the Senate Watergate hearings that were carried by all the major networks for 8-10 hours per day for several months so that public opinion was slammed continuously by the sheer repetition of the crimes of Nixon. Impeachment was the only way to end the misery that was widely felt across the country in 1974. Today, with the MSM giving scant coverage to these oversight hearings and none of the hearings carried on any of the major television networks, the case is just not being made to the majority of Americans that impeachment is the only alternative.

     

  •  And we can all thank DIebold, etc. for this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, smkngman, victoria2dc, Snarcalita

    sad state of affairs.   Of course, they'd have to stand in line while we thanked all the members of the main stream media.  Then again, since the elections being stolen in 2000 and 2004, and with nationwide gains by Diebold, etc. in replacing  alternative balloting methods for their voting machines (Example:Diebold Dazzles  Democrats) making pretty certain that even more elections will soon be stolen, I guess it is safe to say that what the media got them, election theft will keep them.

    Which means they really are above the law since you can expect the Republicans to keep the Dems from gaining, just always out of reach to keep the populace hypnotized, perhaps.

    Conceptual Guerilla, taking the fight online and in their faces.

    by Pen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:48:41 AM PDT

  •  Obama Also Says No (9+ / 0-)

    From USA Today:

    "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

    "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

    •  Makes me sick to my stomach (10+ / 0-)

      Saps any enthusiasm I might have had for his campaign and confirms my worst suspicions: that his desire to change the national dialog and rise above red/blue will result in a failure to stand for what is right when it is necessary.

    •  Adding to the list McDermott, Inslee, Conyers, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gnat, lurker123, Geekesque

      Feingold,* Sanders*...

      McDermott:

      "...it wouldn't help...There's plenty on our plate without getting into that bruising battle," he said. "I understand vengeance, but that's not where you should be putting your energy....House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has nixed the idea of impeachment, anyway, but there's another reason to avoid it. I'd much rather have Cheney under oath talking about Halliburton and other things."

      Bonus points there for repeating the Republican lying talking point about "vengeance."

      Conyers:

      Someone in the audience was holding a sign that declared simply "Impeach." U.S. Rep. John Conyers, who'd come to the University of Detroit Mercy lecture hall on a Friday night for a give-and-take with more than 100 people, started things rolling by offering a bit of informed advice to the guy calling for President George W. Bush's removal from office.

      "You can give that sign a rest," said the long-serving Democrat from Detroit.

      Although apparently Conyers's wife is active on impeachment.

      Inslee:

      "But all impeachment would do is rally support for George Bush. Among Republicans, it would make him a hero. And it would make it that much harder to end this war."

      Feingold:

      I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense.

      Sanders smacked down the impeachment idea on the Thom Hartmann show, saying it would only get us President Cheney.

      * In the Senators' cases, it's not up to them, since impeachment starts in the House of Representatives.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:16:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another reason NOT to vote for him (4+ / 0-)

      Thanks Barack.  You're sounding more and more like your mentor Joe Lieberman and giving me more and more reasons NOT to vote for you.

    •  Screw Obama... (0+ / 0-)

      apparently he is too busy to learn what's going on. This is the GRAVEST of grave and he is too uninformed to know it.

      Screw him... and screw his candidacy.  I'm a Gore/Edwards backer.

  •  Nancy Pelosi and the Pansycrats (6+ / 0-)

    Its all party first, constitution and country second. Maybe I read the transcript completely wrong but all I read was 'lets set it up for a democrat in 2008 to be president' and everything will work out for us. Really, someone tell me why I should even want to vote for a pansycrat, they are completely worthless if they disregard the Constitution like this.

    In the meantime we will be at war with Iran, Syria, and who knows how many other millions of people, while Pelosi and the rest 'build the record'. Cheney is a psychopath, goddammit! Do the Pansycrats want to be remembered as the Neville Chamberlains that allowed the destruction of America to happen?

  •  How is 16 months from an election (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, shaharazade, MichiganGirl

    "on the verge of an election"? We're not on the verge of anything. Pelosi is doing Bushspeak. Fuck her.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:02:05 AM PDT

    •  Show a Little Respect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry

      Now, now. Let's not make it personal. Maybe she just needs to be educated. We're liberals, after all. We're supposed to be tolerant of those who need a little extra help. Clearly, that class includes the Speaker.

      Based on past experience, impeachment only takes an hour or so. So, yes, there's plenty of time. I want to second that point, JUST IN CASE ANYONE IS LISTENING.

      •  Well in that case, I think the same thing (0+ / 0-)

        can be said of the Bush administration. We just need to educate him. Actually, no. That's not what it is about. Bush operates in bad faith, always. Pelosi says we are "on the verge" of an election. That is a blatant misuse of the phrase "on the verge." She is operating under bad faith. And when she also says the reason we shouldn't impeach him is because he is not worth impeaching, she seals the deal. She is full of shit. She doesn't need to be educated. She KNOWS that what she is saying is bullshit. It took many people a long time to realize that about Bush. They thought he just didn't know what he was talking about. I hope it doesn't take too long to realize that Nancy is just pulling our legs. There is no "verge" about when the election is going to happen. It's 16 months from now, actually 17, I think. To call that a "verge" is to abuse the language and to abuse us. It's like Bush was speaking through her.

        Republicans are liars.

        by tr4nqued on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:03:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, Speaker (6+ / 0-)

    But, you just don't get it, do you? If you did, then you wouldn't make inane comments like:

    The Republicans in the Senate said you get one shot – we’re not giving you a... you need sixty votes after that.

    To which she should have said, "No, listen you fools. YOU only get one vote. You either support limits or we let the funds run out. That's your choice."

    You know, I've heard this over and over. It's the one thing that makes me angry about our party bosses (I won't call them "leaders"). They appear to be too stupid to understand the situation. If they can't understand this, then what hope do we have that they will be able to lead the Congress, let alone the country?

    Let me spell it out for you. We didn't have to vote them anything. THEY had to get us to vote to fund the war. All we had to do was not let that come up for a vote. We didn't have to let it come up for a vote the first time, let alone the second.

    So, when I see someone talking about how the Republicans only gave us one vote I just see red. I really expect more smarts from our leaders and I'm not seeing it.

    And don't tell me this wasn't obvious before the vote was cast. Go back and listen to the Keith Olbermann rant on this topic and then try to tell me that. It just won't wash.

    What this is is either that our party made a colossal error or that they were bought off in some way. What am I to believe in the absence of a confession and an abject apology? I'm to believe the latter. I don't want to have to do that.

    There are certain issues where we should support our troops even if they make mistakes. This isn't one of them. The consequences of this are that people are dying unnecessarily. You can't fix that. It's non-recoverable.

    I wish I could be more generous than that. The only way I can see fit to forgive Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid is if they take an equivalent amount of money out of the general appropriation for the Pentagon, so that they have to start winding down the war anyway. That's their out. They should sign up for my 5X program (described elsewhere) that would limit the military budget to the sum of the next five largest military budgets in the world and cut the Pentagon R&D budget by half. Until I see something with the scope and effect of that then I'm out. I'm, in fact, going to be supporting challengers in all the Democratic primaries next year. I've got a list on DKosopedia I'm trying to fill out. Help me do that.

    Thank you!

  •  "Not worth impeaching"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, victoria2dc

    What a condescending asshole.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:19:36 AM PDT

  •  Changing Venue (4+ / 0-)

    You know, the Courts, especially in the District of Columbia if we wanted to challenge them in Court on anything, the decision would not be in our favor.

    Well, maybe. But you have Senators and Representatives from all over the country. There's no good reason why one or more of them couldn't file in their own state. In California, say. What would happen if the challenge came from outside DC? They wouldn't expect that, would they? They'd be caught totally flatfooted and maybe you'd build some precedent before it reached the SCOTUS.

    I don't see why any Senator could not file in their own state to demand that the President honor the subpoenas. For example, why couldn't they be filed in Vermont?

    So, I think if you're going to do this then you should shop venues because that would make it just wild and possibly bring a lot more attention to it. It might not work legally, because someone would kick it back to DC, but it would work politically.

    And, ultimately, it doesn't matter what the courts rule because it all comes down to impeachment, which is the sole prerogative of Congress. If the courts turn it down, then Congress has to say, "This won't stand" and use their impeachment power to make them turn over the documents.

  •  Great interview... (0+ / 0-)

    Great interview...

    Suffice it to say, no matter how much they all deserve to be impeached (which any sane person believes they they do), the House is not going to impeach him or any of them no matter what.

    This interview just cemented that fact.

    It's a waste of time to keep beating this drum, but I guess the recommend list enjoys 5 out 10 diaries with the word "impeachment" on it and may go into withdrawl without them.

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at GregNYC at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:27:44 AM PDT

    •  A waste of time (6+ / 0-)

      to demand that our "Representatives" in Congress represent us?

      Even if it's next to hopeless, if we don't represent ourselves to them, they will never represent us.

      Unless you think any democratic republic is doomed to failure, and we might as well get on with the oligarcy, since it's inevitable.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:19:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  GregNYC... I don't agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hornito, bee tzu

      they work for us and we have to take ACTION!  If we know what we know and don't do anything to save our country, then we are as guilty as she is/they are.

      We need to act boldly and I know Mike... he won't just sit back and take it. And I would imagine that at least 2/3 of the dk members would be willing to do something for their country.  I hope I'm not wrong.

  •  Congresswoman Pelosi (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, rlharry, NonnyO, MaxUS

    In case you happen to be reading, I'd simply like to let you know that some of us here are very much dissatisfied with the Democrats' performance since the last election -- so much so that you have lost our votes in 2008.  We did not work to elect you in 2006 only to see you capitulate to Bush on the Iraq funding bill and also on many other issues.  We worked to elect you so that you would end the war -- or at least to end business-as-usual until the war could be ended.

    Sadly, some of us have concluded that the Democratic Party is not a true opposition party; rather, it is an enabler party that talks a good line, but is completely lacking when it is time for action.  And, as such, we will NOT support Democrats in 2008; we'll take our chances with independent or third party candidates or we will simply elect not to participate in the process until a choice exists that represents meaningful opposition to Bush and his sociopathic policies.

    I support THEY WORK FOR US. :::::::: I BOYCOTT the NY Times and the Washington Post.

    by asskicking annie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:27:55 AM PDT

    •  I have to agree with this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry, Dave n Indy

      Back in 1992 I was of the opinion that a vote for Bush Sr. was a vote for revolution. At that time I decided to give Clinton a try and I didn't regret my decision.

      Although, I may not go so far as to actually tick the Republican box this time around, I'm at the point where I'm feeling so disenfranchised that I'm inclined to roll the dice and let the country go where it will.

      My take on the comments by Ms. Pelosi:  It is, to me, a blatant admission on the record by a leader of the Democratic Party that Democrats are choosing to use the Legislative Branch of our government to further the agenda of the DNC in order to elect more Democrats in 2008. Sadly, I just can't see the difference between the position and motives described in the interview and the RNC's, immoral but arguably legal, manipulation of the DOJ in order to elect Republicans.

      For me, a true blue, dyed-in the wool lifelong Democrat, it is a shameful moment in history.  I've always ever assumed we were above that kind of behavior.  I've always believed that principles mattered to Democrats and that their actions, even when labelled partisan by the oposition, were always based on principles.  It appears I was mistaken.

  •  Winning Isn't Everything (11+ / 0-)

    ...the most effective thing of course is for us to win the White House...

    First, this isn't how you go about winning the White House. You don't win it by showing everyone how weak you are.

    Second, it's not the most important thing. The most important thing is restoring the rule of law. We have a situation now where the people in power totally abused that power and are getting away with it. No one is holding them accountable. They have admitted, nay, flaunted, ignoring the law. They've written down over and over, "I'm not going to obey this law." They make a signing statement every (maybe almost every) time that says, in effect, "I'm a criminal and there's nothing you can do about it."

    Here's what holding them accountable would really look like:

    • Putting them both on trial in the Senate.
    • Removing them.
    • Sending them to court to stand trial for federal crimes, like violating FISA.
    • Transferring them from our federal prisons to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

    And, to clean up, sending their buddies who looted the treasury up on charges of war profiteering.

    That's what accountability would look like.

    Now, let's compare that with what's going on. Not much of a comparison, is it?

    •  She's making the explicit argument (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking, lotlizard, hatdog

      that power is more important than freedom.

      There's one thing I can admire Dick Cheney for -- when Jim Jeffords threatened to throw the Sente to the Dems in 2002, demanding federal funds for social programs, Cheney essentially said, "Go right ahead.  I'm not going to sacrifice my principles for short-term power."  Now that is how you play political hardball.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:23:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And she may be right (5+ / 0-)

        for herself.  But she is there to represent the people.  And while it might be really neat to have all of the trappings of power, it's not about her.  It's not about the Democrats.  It's not about who wins the next election.

        The Republic and our democracy are at stake.  As Churchill said,

        "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival..."

        It ain't gonna get any easier.
        Impeach now.

        Who say's they'll allow an election next fall anyway?

        "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius "I'm a gun carrying member of the ACLU" me

        by Mosquito Pilot on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:05:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes!!!! (0+ / 0-)

          And she may be right for herself.  But she is there to represent the people.  And while it might be really neat to have all of the trappings of power, it's not about her.  It's not about the Democrats.  It's not about who wins the next election

          She is supposed to be a leader.  It looks like she should resign her leadership position and the rest is up to the people of CA.  Does she represent you?  Does she follow your lead?  Do you have another candidate you can run?

          So Mike... wanna' do a campaign to get her to resign?  

  •  Reading Assignment for Speaker Pelosi (10+ / 0-)

    I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching.

    Dear Speaker. It's time you read the obligatory impeachment framing page on DKosopedia. If you did, then you would know that this is a bunch of hooie.

    Let's just take a moment to examine this incredibly weak argument.

    • "Impeachment was something that we could not be successful with". Well, isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you had gone into your own elections with that defeatist attitude, would you ever have become Speaker of the House? How about making the effort before telling me it can't be done?
    • Is it necessary to "succeed"? What is "success"? Maybe impeachment is successful even if it doesn't remove Mr. Bush from office. Maybe it's success should be measured in Congress standing up for what's right. Maybe it should be measured in how effective it is in educating the American people about what the rule of law means.
    • What "important things" do you plan to accomplish with Bush in office to veto all of them? How would that be different from what the Republican Congress would have accomplished, should we have elected them last time? How, exactly, do you plan to address global warming? Are you planning to bring down the deficits by, say, restoring the taxes on the rich that Bush jettisoned?
    • Is Bush worth impeaching? Hell, no. If that was what it was about then I'd say let him languish in office and enjoy the sour taste of becoming increasingly irrelevant. That's not what it's about. It's about setting limits to corruption and the abuse of the fantastic power that the American system grants our Presidents. It's about setting a clear distinction between the legitimate use of power and the politicizing of it. It's about responsible stewardship of the world, a stewardship granted to America on behalf of the human race and all species on the planet for the good of all. That's what it's about. If that isn't important to you, then by all means dally and dilly. But if you think this planet is a pretty good one and worth saving from disaster, if you think people are important and should be protected from harm, then you've got to impeach these guys. Right now. Yesterday would not have been soon enough, really.

    Got it?

  •  Geez Pelosi (8+ / 0-)

    Those were ALOT of words to just say, "hey we're too chickenshit to impeach, we think it would be a bad political strategy."

    "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:17:37 AM PDT

  •  In Conclusion (11+ / 0-)

    Why is Pelosi against impeachment? Not because Bush doesn't deserve it. Not because there aren't grounds. The reason is because she thinks it will interfere with getting Democrats elected next year.

    First, this is morally irresponsible. Here is a guy who clearly abused the power of the presidency with fatal results to tens of thousands of people. He destroyed U.S. credibility through much of the world. He rang up deficits that would have made Reagan blush. He ran roughshod over the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Magna Carta, and all the cherished rights of free society. He corrupted the entire executive branch, making it at once ineffective in the face of disaster and at the same time a channel for loot for his cronies. If any executive in the history of the world, save a few outstanding dictators we all know from the era of the second world war, deserved to be ejected from office, Bush is surely the one.

    Second, it is ineffective. The American people will rightly distrust a power structure that is so self-serving that they will put their own political fortunes above the good of the country. They will recoil from a power structure that is so weak that they won't take on a President at the ebb tide of his power and hold him accountable. Far from getting us victory in 2008 it may spell disaster.

    Third, it is extremely detrimental to the long-term health of democracy and to the vital interests of the country. One, fairly major, example. By not taking down this President we are putting the imprimatur of Congress on his actions. We are saying that he was right to go into Iraq and that we, the American people, support that action. If we do that, the rest of the world will look down their collective noses at us for the rest of this century. And we would deserve that opprobrium, because we would have accepted his actions and supported them, instead of standing up and denouncing them when the times called for it. Lest I be mistaken for blaming America first, I want to make it clear that I'm blaming Republicans first. The hit to our standing in the world will never really be recoverable, and that, more than anything, will be our legacy. In this situation, where do we go for friends when we need them? Right now, we can control enough of the world's resources to have our way. Tomorrow, it will be different. It's not a bed I want to lie in.

    This is the wrong course of action. It needs to be immediately reversed. Until impeachment is the policy of the Democratic Party, I'm going to put my money into opposition candidates. I'm looking for people to run in the Democratic primaries next year. I want it to cost the incumbents who do not get with the program in dollars and cents. If a moral argument, if logic, will not persuade them, then perhaps the whip of money will. Don't for a minute dare believe that this is only empty talk on a blog. It comes with a dollar value. If all politics is retail, then I'm shopping.

  •  You know my brother (7+ / 0-)

    just took a job in Canada. He and his 3 kids move there next week.

    I couldn't really understand leaving, I guess it just seems so extreme. He said this country is getting worse by the day, he had hopes that if the dems won the majority that things would change, but now he knows they're all alike and he doesn't want his kids to grow up in the country the US has become.

    Right now, I think he's right. As soon as it gets late enough to be acceptable for phone calls, I'm going to call and tell him I understand now.

    This is just so fucking sad. Nothing is going to get better, it will only get worse from here. I give up.

    "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

    by MichiganGirl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:24:39 AM PDT

    •  A Little Too Soon to Tell (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      I hear what you're saying, but I think it's a little too soon to tell. The political movement you see all around you hasn't crested yet.

      In the SJ Mercury News today there was a report of a protest in China. That's right. China. The locals protested a new chemical plant because they are worried about toxic chemicals released in their neighborhood and the possibility of a disaster like the one in northern China last year. The government censors and security agencies tried to suppress it, but they didn't succeed. There were too many text messages and blogs. They'd shut one down and the next would spring up. They can't stop protests even in China.

      We are not going to be upstaged by the Chinese.

      It may seem bleak with Cheney in the White House, er, Blair House, but I have not lost heart and neither should anyone else. What we are seeing in this administration is an aberration. The long-term trends are with democracy and freedom. We just have to be strong and do our part.

    •  I took a job here... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, blueoasis

      Not because of the things in the US at the time (2003) but I am sure glad to be here with no plans of returning any time soon.

      -6.5, -7.59. I want to know who the men in the shadows are... ~Jackson Browne

      by DrWolfy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:05:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be honest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        I have been wondering lately what's in it for immigrants?  Sure, if you're a poor laborer who can't find work that makes sense.  But someone with an education able to get a good job?  What's here for you that you can't find as good or better in your own country?  I don't think I would have wondered 20 years ago but now things are a bit shaky.

  •  Hmmmm, I have to say, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    victoria2dc

    I'm not exactly feeling encouraged by this whole interview. It's just leaving me wanting more, ya know?

    No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

    by WI Dem on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:57:00 AM PDT

  •  Short Pelosi... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, victoria2dc, NonnyO, lizpolaris

    We don't have the votes so we're not going to do the right thing.

    Very disappointing.

    -6.5, -7.59. I want to know who the men in the shadows are... ~Jackson Browne

    by DrWolfy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:04:09 AM PDT

  •  A man that is not worth impeaching... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, Dunbar, blueoasis, NonnyO

    ....is not worthy to be in office!!

    This is the leader of the world's most powerful nation?  A man that is not worth impeaching?

    This is Mr. Veto who will nix each and every piece of legislation congress sends to him, and you think you're going to accomplish greater things by leaving him in office?

    Tell me how to make this whacky equation work, Pelosi!

    It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. Alfred Adler

    by Quicksilver2723 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:13:39 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi (4+ / 0-)

    I am extremely disappointed in you.

    If Bush is not worth impeaching then no one will ever be worth it.

  •  Its time to change the message to pelosi (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    victoria2dc, blueoasis, blue vertigo

    no more asking for impeachment to be put on the table. Its time to lay out the consequences for her party and her personal responsibilty if it goes down

  •  I really can't understand her position (5+ / 0-)

    on holding the administration in contempt.  Why should she fear that the judicial branch is too stacked against her?  We've seen a plethora of cases where Bush43 appointees have bucked the White House.  It's tough to find people as criminal as the Chimpy and his minions or as willing to destroy our constitution.  Even Ashcroft couldn't stomach what they were doing.  And her answer is, gee, we're afraid that contempt proceedings won't succeed so let's not try that?  Weaker than I expected of her...

  •  Sigh... She might as well have said (6+ / 0-)

    "You're acting like he got a blowjob or something!"

    Hello? Ken Starr burned $50 million taxpayer dollars to impeach a president for lying in answer to a question that should never have been asked in the first place - a question that this president wouldn't spend one second of his "beautiful mind" pondering.

    These hyenas literally are responsible for torture, murder, rape, hell WAR CRIMES and she says it's "not worth it"?!?!?

    OK, plese tell us what IS worth it? WHAT would the guy HAVE to do? I don't even wanna know.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:29:40 AM PDT

  •  Stopped reading when... (0+ / 0-)

    you said...mouth-breathing, nose–picking idiots that listen to talk radio...

  •  There it is, straight from the horse's mouth (6+ / 0-)

    Politics and 2008.

    "We don't know the half of it," she says.

    We would find out in an impeachment trial. In fact, they have to turn over any evidence that the senate asks for. They can't stonewall an impeachment.

    If SCOTUS is allowed to rule on the subpoenas we all know which way it will go and that it could set a dangerous precident. That would make the democrats extremely wreckless and basically responsible for long-term damage to the seperation of powers argument.

    FACT: congress has constitutional oversight authority of the executive branch. Denying that is a breach of the constitution which is an impeachable offense. That is a valid point of view that congress should take and a remedy the constitution suggests is impeachment.

    Let the executive defend their position in the Senate, not in the Supreme Court.

    This sentence has threee erors.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:54:24 AM PDT

  •  I think highly of Nancy Pelosi (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, ctsteve, rlharry, Dunbar

    but on this, she is just plain wrong!

    Impeach Bush/Cheney/Gonzales

    by dangangry on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:59:49 AM PDT

  •  If you have opportunity to speak to her again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, gnat, Dunbar, o the umanity

    You might mention that impeaching these sobs ould go a long way toward restoring Americas faith in government and the rule of law.  Between that and  defending the constitution, she has no leg to stand on here.

    Impeach Bush/Cheney/Gonzales

    by dangangry on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:02:10 AM PDT

  •  Reluctantly, I Agree With the Nays (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madame defarge, Buffalo Girl

    If you shoot at the King, you'd better be sure of your aim. An impeachment effort ending with Bush being found "not guilty" would indeed be a disaster for all eternity. Better to let him leave office with an immovable cloud over him.

    "Follow those who seek the truth. Beware of those who find it."

    by gnolti on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:08:34 AM PDT

  •  Ok, in Nancy's favor . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madame defarge, Buffalo Girl

    I think her responses were really smart. I'm as pro-impeachment as they get. Bush, Cheney, and friends belong in the Hague as war criminals. And if we don't impeach, even on the last day in office, and then the day after start prosecuting for crimes while in office - then we cannot even make symbolic resistution for the wrongs done in our names.

    BUT - Nancy's strategy is SMART. What she said about the three judge court and precedent is SMART. She feels the same way we do - which is why I'm damn confused when I read stuff like 'what she says makes me puke.' She WANTS to impeach. She's waiting for the AMMO. She's building the case. I don't think she's playing coy with the risks - though a LOT of other dems are. But she wants to take him down - but you only get one shot.

    As they say - if you're gonna try to kill the king, you only get one shot. Bush may no longer be king, but if you try before you can be sure you will take him down, you could MISS - and if you do, they won't let you 'do over.' This is too important. I think patience will pay off here.

    This will hopefully boil to fever pitch. I give it september/october, and the subpoena issues, defiance, etc., will give us some sort of nixonian moment of truth, and then that turning point.

    Don't take the pressure off them one bit. But from what I can tell, Nancy's on our side.

    "so this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause"

    by from the puggle on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:26:06 AM PDT

    •  Um...no. (0+ / 0-)

      The ammo has been displayed on a 50-foot long spread right in front of our eyes for half-a-decade.

      So much so that a Joe Six-Pack who can write with one week of training could likely draw up effective articles of impeachment.

  •  If I don't know the "half of it" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, shaharazade

    ...tell ya what, the half I do know is more than enough to call for impeachment of BushCo and prosecution for numerous crimes.

    So you know twice as much as me and you're keepin' the powder dry for 2009.  

    It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. Alfred Adler

    by Quicksilver2723 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:37:49 AM PDT

  •  Recall Pelosi (9+ / 0-)

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    No ma'am.  For some, it has been worth their lives, their fortune, their sacred honor.  It was not about winning.  What idiot would have ever thought the colonies could win against the British Empire?  

    It is not about winning.  It is about fighting for the dream that

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

    It is not about winning.  It is about fighting for the belief that

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Congresswoman, next week, declare our independence or GO HOME

    "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius "I'm a gun carrying member of the ACLU" me

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:52:15 AM PDT

  •  Sickening. Shocking. (8+ / 0-)

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    (My emphasis.)

    WTF?  "If you can succeed"?  No, Speaker Pelosi.  The Constitution is worth it - period.

    And frankly, I'm tired of busting my ass out here only to have you and "Leader" Reid reinforce at every turn the notion that the Democratic Party is full of spineless cowards.  

    Enough. Do your job, or get out of the way for someone who will.

  •  "The constitution is worth it if you succeed" (7+ / 0-)

    Wow. that sentence alone blows my mind.  My esteem for Pelosi has dropped into the bucket.  My follow-up would be: "And if you dont try, then the constitution will be worth...?"  Appently not much, given Pelosi's implicit reasoning, which is that  the constitution's very existence is already predicated on a possibly unsuccessful attempt to defend it.  Now that's scary coming from a Democratic leader.  So much for that oath of office.              

  •  What a crock, Nancy! (7+ / 0-)

    Did you really say, "the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed"?  

    I understand now.  We have totally different values when it comes to preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.  Guess I've been wrong all this time.  Stupid me!  You only do these things IF YOU CAN SUCCEED.  Uhmmm, I also thought there was an OATH involved.  Guess I missed the part about you only do this under certain circumstances.  Glad Nancy pointed this out.

    Another misconception I had that's now been cleared up.  I thought we had a REPRESENTATIVE government.  Let's see.  We ELECT our REPRESENTATIVE to REPRESENT us.  Nancy tells OUR representatives they CANNOT consider impeachment--a process provided to us in the Constitution (you know, that document you only defend under certain circumstances).  So Nancy has issued her own "Signing Statement" redefining our representative form of government.  Hey, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about this Speaker's Directive.  Appears I'm no longer being represented--only Nancy is.  

    And isn't the line about "Yeah, we'll really change things if you just vote for us in the NEXT election" getting a little old?  But that's right, you only stand up for things "If you can succeed."  The carrot is also getting a bit old--and rather distasteful at this point.  We say PRINCIPLES matter!  We worked our asses off to get you guys in office so that YOU WOULD STAND UP FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND PRINCIPLES WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUCCEED!

    And, yes, I'm also really ecstatic about that little comment of Nancy's about how impeachment maybe would have had a chance if it had been initiated just a tad earlier.  Gosh, just who was it that took it OFF THE TABLE?!

    I'm getting a little tired of this game.  It's all about politics.  Nothing else seems to matter.  Principles, values, the Constitution, all is secondary to politics.  And, I'm pretty sure at this point that you don't even have that right.  What do you attribute the Dems declining poll numbers to?  Could you just MAYBE be playing this all wrong, Nancy?

    And, Nancy, I hate to burst you bubble, but all that "stuff" you keep sending me email about in your newsletters.  Well, sit down and take a deep breath--I'll try to say this quietly, but the only thing that's really been passed is the minimum wage increase you snuck through in THE DAMNED OCCUPATION SUPPLEMENTAL YOU HANDED TO BUSH, AGAIN!  

    Impeachment is not a distraction.  Impeachment will not divide the country--have you noticed that about 70% of us are rejecting this President and Vice President, who are not really Republican or Democratic, but are just VILE to most citizens?  You are denying us the opportunity to stand together for our country and our institutions.  Yes, that IS what you are doing by denying US access to impeachment.

    Impeachment will not solve ALL the problems facing this country.  But impeachment will go a long way to help prevent most of these problems from getting worse.  But most important, if you don't allow impeachment to be openly considered then you are allowing the actions (both abuses and actual crimes) to set a precedent.  Nancy, you mentioned the importance of precedence in your comments.  So, at a future point in time, to future Congresses, the bar will have been set by the actions of this Congress.  Hey, that Congress in 2007 didn't feel the abuses of Bush and Cheney (even breaking the FISA law) didn't merit pursuing impeachment, so appears that's the standard that would apply.  Thanks for the great outlook on the future.

  •  In one sentence. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, victoria2dc, NonnyO

    By not impeaching, regardless of her whole list of horseshit, talking point reasons, Pelosi is essentially just saying, "fuck you" to justice.

  •  No more money for Democrats, Pelosi, from us (6+ / 0-)

    Until you stand up to these criminal scum and throw them out of office, and get us the hell out of Iraq.

    The list of unequivocal felonies committed by both Bush and Cheney runs for a couple of pages, and you and the Democrats still are trying to whistle past the graveyard, assuming you will take power in 2008 wihtout having to risk taking any hard stand on anything.

    That is NOT THE POINT.

    The point is that the sheer utter lawlessness, the total disregard for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law, by this administration, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND UNPUNISHED.

    If Congress dos NOT act, then it acquisces, no precedent is set, and our entire system has been bankrupted. And I will expect nothing less that behavior just as egregious from all future members of the executive. And that INCLUDES his highness, Darth Cheny's office, the vice presidency.

    I have informed your office as speaker via web form that you might as well quit mailing me every 4-5 weeks begging for more money for the congressional campaign fund for Democrats. My wife is going to drop kick me if I write one more check to a Democrat before they show some signs of life and giving a damn about the Constitution. Where is the outrage? We are in the middle of the worst Constitutional crisis since our Civil War, and you continue to act as if it is business as usual.

    This administration is CRIMINAL, and it must be exposed and punished.

    Now get busy and do it.

    P.S. I phoned Baron Hill's office this week and told him the same thing, in response to email from him asking for more money. Forget it. Not until he and you and the other Democrats put THEIR money where their mouths are, quit saying you are going to tackle this issues, and ACTUALLY DO IT.

  •  60 votes = paragraphs of excuses. b.s. thugs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HarveyMilk, ctsteve, gnat, blue vertigo

    had 60 votes when?  how much have they accomplished since Fascist #1, RayGun? When did they have 60 votes.

    her analysis is like some grad school poli sci dissertation,

    hello Nancy! Your analysis is bullshit.

    this is POLITICS

    fight the fuckers, instead of making goddam excuses all the time.

    do you f$$$ing clowns know ANYTHING about shaping and LEADING public opinion so that the public is AGAINST the fascists?

    obviously not.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:19:15 AM PDT

  •  Jumpin-fucking-Jehosephat. (6+ / 0-)

    Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

    Jesus H. Christ, we're trapped in a fucking Twilight Zone episode with both Bush AND Pelosi.

  •  the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. (7+ / 0-)

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

    RIGHT THERE, in as short a form as possible, Pelosi shows us what is wrong with the Dem "leadership".

    Pelosi, you have no idea what "succeed" means here. And you sure as hell don't seem to get that every day since the end of "the first 100 hours" you have actually ALREADY been FAILING.

    You're failing RIGHT NOW.

  •  good job mike! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    victoria2dc

    mouth breathing, nose-picking...

    lol!!!!

  •  So let's Fail, then... (6+ / 0-)

    What Nancy doesn't get is that their crimes are so obvious that if you cannot "succeed" in impeaching these bastards then all is lost. Period.

    Show them that, Nancy. Go for it. Fail. Maybe that will open the eyes of the American people as to how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. Then maybe, just maybe, we can save our Constitution.

    Because, dear lady, contrary to you, it is worth saving no matter what.

    Imagine those guys -- you know, the Founding Fathers -- saying, "this fight with King George is only worth it if we succeed." And how powerful was England at the time?

    Sheesh. Someone put us out of our misery. Our leaders are a joke.

  •  Hey, she's in and it's not an election year. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, blue vertigo

    So she feels she has time to kick back and relax.

    A classic do-nothing.  A Denise Hastert.

    •  Ah, but they've held oversight hearings! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Thorby Baslim, o the umanity

      Let me tell you something. I've worked in a Legislature and hearings are just PR for the majority party to get their message out. That's not an accomplishment in itself. Sure, it puts people on record and gets press and scores points, but it changes very little. When I lobbied the Leg (for fair taxes), when we didn't have power, we'd at least try to get hearings. That was a good strategy but NOT in and of itself.

      Hearings get my attention. But Legislation and action gets my respect.

      •  Yep. The hearings are being stretched out.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlharry

        ...for the attention.  A gigantic red herring from the far more important issues.

        I dunno.  maybe it's a form of avoidance.  This way they feel they don't have to tackle anything challenging or -- god forbid -- "risky."

        •  But..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dov12348

          they're "building a record."  !?!

          If you're Republican, you're either corrupt or misled.

          by rlharry on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:27:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. Building an infinite record... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rlharry

            ...so they can be infinitely sure.

            •  If they don't impeach (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dov12348

              then we can be sure that we're wasting time with hearings.  Why?  Because they won't respond to the subpoenas.  They have refused.  You've all read Mr. Fieldings' BS letters.  

              If they open the hearings into a criminal matter, the Bushies will be forced to respond or go to jail.  Why wouldn't they send them to jail?  If we ignored a subpoena from Congress, we would go to jail.  What about Condi?  They should jail her first.  She has been thumbing her nose at Waxman for how long?  

              Don't forget that executive privilege doesn't apply when they have enacted an impeachment ivestigation into potential criminal matters.

              What the hell is wrong with her?

  •  Nancy is corrupt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman

    I'm sorry, Nancy, but that has to be the only explanation. To keep making this inane argument shows that something is rotten here and I can only assume you're in on it.

    Prove to us you are truly a servant of the people and a defender of the Constitution. This arrogance must not stand.

  •  I'm sorry, but I just heard/read, "Blah, blah ... (5+ / 0-)

    bloody blah," from Madam Speaker.

    What she SHOULD have said was:

    Mike, you're right:  we haven't been responsive to the will of the American people.  That's going to change.  As soon as we go back into session I and Senator Reid and a host of co-sponsors in our respective chambers will introduce bills that, if passed, will begin the orderly redeployment of our military forces to places other than Iraq.  It will take almost a full year to do this, so we need to begin now.  If it doesn't pass, then we'll make sure that the American people, and the world, know that Republican Americans have highjacked the will of the people and are themselves at war with the United States.  If it passes and Mr. Bush vetos the bill, we will, number 1, keep reintroducing and passing it and, number 2, make sure that American and the world knows that Mr. Bush remains defiant of THEIR will while favoring creating more war, havoc, anarchy, death and destruction in the Middle East and that he continues to push our troops over the cliff in Iraq.

    THAT'S what she should have said.  Period.

    BenGoshi
    ___________________________________________________

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:51:55 AM PDT

  •  We dont know the half of it.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, royalscam

    and we cant "prove it" yet in the court of public opinion; the public are conditioned to look away and ridicule the messenger.  The courts of the government are corrupted, since they no longer believe in precedent, arguing we live in "unprecedented times" and the legislative branch is barely able to get 50 percent in suppot of easy bills passed. The media is off  on trivia and color images, and the public is lulled into football, hate radio and disdain for any intellectual debate.

    Now.. we can throw ourselves at the windshield and be splattered like a bug, or, we can reproduce, and when the car stops, swarm in the windows. I have lived long enough to have been politically splattered and discredited a time or two, and I sense the moment is approaching when the Conservative car will stop for directions and open the windows.

    I think Pelosi is reading the political moment correctly. We are trying to rebuild  support in a Republic, and there is deep skepticism out there that a Republic is workable. They, the Corporate/Neo/Theo Cons have won the psychological battle against Democracy, and now we are in the same position as Jefferson and Adams in 1770.  Hold your principles, dont waver, argue and gather evidence, and be prepared for a fight. This could go in any direction, but with wise heads, Democrats, who know how to BUILD democracy, we will win with the minimum amount of splattering bug. The run up to the American Revolution was similar, in that Moderates had to be brought along, by peeling off the Tory support for the Corporate/Neo/Theo Monarchists one at a time. The Pre-Revolution took decades, but we won. We will win this one too.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:53:48 AM PDT

    •  No. Pelosi is actually.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smkngman, victoria2dc

      ...proving to be incredibly weak -- as we already have the evidence.

      Pelisi's credo: "Justice can go fuck itself; political calculation is all."

      No thanks.  Give me a statesman...not another fucking do-nothing.

      Might as well have kept Hastert in there -- at least he was less pretentious.

      •  The wheels of Justice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snazzzybird

        grind slowly, but finely.

        Stay committed to it.

        Hastert's sense of justice was to overlook every trasngression and look big.. no wonder he was unpretentious. He had nothing to be pretentious about.

        Pelosi is so smart that she must always be on guard not to show it given the anti-smartness meme implanted by the NeoThugs. Some pretentiousness  is warranted in her case.

        And if you think she is a do-nothing, its because you are not reading between the lines, or even the lines themselves. Bringing along 435 people is no small task given the pressure not to go along. I think she deserves the Medal of Honor for heriosm above and beyond the call of duty.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um...no. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smkngman, victoria2dc, blue vertigo

          You don't need absolute assurance of success before you at least TRY to do justice. You try to do justice.

          I actually think Pelosi might be rather dull-witted -- not quite a Forrest Gump -- somewhat above that -- enough to fool a lot of people that she's "working" at it.

          Consider that she may simply be unable to grasp the larger context -- and the job is a Peter Principle thing.  She's been promoted to the level of her incompetence.

          But who knows for sure?  Maybe she IS controlling the other Dems -- she's gotten them to shut the hell up about impeachment -- or she'll hurt their careers.

        •  You are absolutely off track Oregon Oak... (0+ / 0-)

          I don't want to be rude, but you don't stop the impeachment process until you know you can win.  You start, investigate and allow the evidence to move you forward.  All we need to do is get Condi, Rove, Miers, Alberto, Addington and other Cheney crime family members and force the e-mail issue, get Ashcroft to testify about the warantless wiretapping issue, put Comey back, get Goldsmith up there and force them all to tell the truth.  Oh, and I forgot Cheney, the man who should be the primary target of our efforts.

  •  We're gonna get outflanked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    praedor, victoria2dc

    There is so much to agree with in all of the comments above, despite some of the personal attacks on the Speaker (with whom I am as disappointed and disgusted as anyone), but one thing really stands out: it is so obvious that Democrats are going to be outflanked on this when someone from the right starts calling for impeachment.

    On another note: Barak Obama, I was already leaning against you when I found out about your Illinois coal sponsors and your subsequent "clean coal" support, but you lost all hope for my support when you came out against impeachment. I understand why you would want to hold back your opinion while you're running for president, but coming out against it? You lost me.

  •  How about an impeachment vigil in front of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, victoria2dc

    Nancy's office?

    Don't tell them to end the war! Tell them to END THE OCCUPATION .

    by CTMET on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:17:19 AM PDT

    •  My thoughts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hornito

      We call SF offices/DC office every day and demand that she puts impeachment back on the table.

      People in SF:  

      •  Ask your friends to join you
      •  Ask your family to join you
      •  Write LTEs to local papers
      •  Host local Code Pink members do a sing-in/sit-in at her office in SF
      •  Surround her home while she's there this week
      • Stand on street corners for an hour a day
      • Plaster signs all over San Francisco
      • Call the local groups who elected her and ask them to exert pressure

      The rest of us nationally:

      • Bombard her DC office with millions of calls, e-mails, faxes and visits
      • DC Code Pink members do another sing-in/sit-in at her DC office
      • Surround her DC home (Code Pink... are you ready?) when she returns to DC after the 4th?
      • Stand on the streets of DC every day for at least an hour with an impeachment sign
      • Wherever you go, every day TALK impeachment to anyone who crosses your path. Be cool, be professional but talk to people.
      • Call in to local and national talk radio programs
      • Plaster signs everywhere
      • Write IMPEACH on all of the cash you spend in BIG RED letters!
      • Make or buy bumper stickers IMPEACH

      I hate to say this because it sounds mean-spirited, but we should keep those DC switchboards so busy that they start to complain to her.  

      We should create such chaos in her offices that the members of her staff start giving her a hard time!  Talk to them and ask them to influence her.  Why not?  They are right there?

      We can't let her think that we agree with her. When you call the office, tell them you are calling in regard to her conference call with bloggers.  Tell the people who answer the phone that you are very unhappy with her position.

      Let her know that she must move impeachment to the dinner table NOW or suffer the political consequences personally. Tell her that it's not enough to talk big about Iraq in the coming weeks and then not accomplish anything. Tell her that the only way to win the fight over executive privilege is to call for impeachment.  Let her know that you understand the impeachment process and that and you expect a change, and NOW!

  •  One step above "idiot liberals"..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, gnat

    I am so tired of being told by the political elite in this country that they can't do what people are demanding. Don't have the votes? BS. Fund ONLY a responsible withdrawal. There are enough Dems in the House to do that, with or without the Senate.

    Of course, that would take guts.....and risk. But risk something, for crying out loud. Stop playing political games with us and the American people.

  •  I'm disgusted (7+ / 0-)

    Here is my e-mail today:

    Dear Madame Speaker:

    I am writing in response to the comments you made in reply to Mike Stark in reference to your duty to ensure that justice prevails in the USA by supporting our Constitution:  

    But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...

    Madame Speaker, neither you or any political strategy outweigh the Constitution and its clear path toward justice.  What greatness will you have achieved when the United States will be a nation that has allowed criminals to occupy our White House, continue an illegal war, subvert our very Constitution and the answer was to run from our duty to bring justice.  Justice is not optional, it is not subjective, it is not only when convenient for your political party.  To think and behave in such a manner is to have adopted the same approach that the Bush administration has to our government, that politics trump all, that a political party or individual, or group of idealogues are above the Constitution and it is to be willfully ignored when advantageous to government servants.  That is a horrible and cynical precedent.  There will be no greatness in any future victories built on the stand you are taking, there may not even be any victories.  I find myself once again disgusted with the leadership of the Democratic party and reconsidering the work I have done and money I have removed from my family during these hard times to support it.  

    I appeal to you to change your mind, while there is still time, and behave with justice in mind, and faith in our nation's Constitution, first and foremost.  The rest will follow, Madame Speaker.  There will be no "greatness" in the result of future elections you may or may not win that are based upon this stance.  There will be generations of people who will look at these times and see that the Democratic party relied upon cynicism to govern and chose their own political strategy and what they perceived as advantageous to them in terms of winning elections in the future over dealing with the crimes directly in front of them.  

    What you are showing us now is that our politicans have no faith in the power of the Constitution, and no regard for justice for the sake of justice; that politics are the tool we must rely on and the Constitutional powers set by our framers to maintain checks and balances are second to any political party's perception and strategy. That is a tragic view in this new century of the country that I love, one that I will not adopt, ever.  

    Other thoughts:  

    1.  She is talking about impeachment as if it is in the past.
    1.  She is supporting the sentiment behind my satire diary yesterday, in which the preamble to our Constitution has been changed, in the eyes of the Democrats:  

    The Constitution of the United States of America
    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this system of political strategizing and endless campaigns for the United States of America.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    It took a full year before the Democrats would even pretend to listen to us when we asked for an end to the Iraq war.  Despite protests prior to the war, the Democrats largely ignored all evidence that it would be illegal and catastrophic and chose to go along with Bush.  They continue to compromise with criminals, and now find that it "isn't worth it" to use the law set out in the Constitution to bring this administration to justice, preferring to depend on their brilliant political strategy of never addressing his crimes outright to result in a positive outcome for the Democratic party in the next election.  She said it right there, in her last line in her response to the call from the people for impeachment:  

    So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness.

     It's not about justice or setting things right for the next century or so of our nation.  It's about the next election.  I am so disgusted with her response.  

    •  If I were you... (0+ / 0-)

      unless you already sent it, I wouldn't use Mike's name.  He's going to get enough shit from the right wing... why get it from the Dems too? They might try to block him out on future c