Nancy Pelosi is a COWARD and unfit to be Speaker. Updated.

I just read Mike Stark's diary about his conference with Nancy Pelosi.  I know there are a couple of other diaries about this, but as I started to write about my reaction to what she said, I just didn't feel that I should add a lengthy comment to over 600 existing comments.  This interview is likely to resonate for quite a while, and there's likely to be quite a debate here about her comments over the next few days/weeks/months/years/decades.  

I've tried to be supportive, and as an attorney, I fully well understand that you need to "build a case" before you take it to trial.  But, with all "due" respect, Madame Speaker, you are not building a case, because you have no intention of taking it to trial.  And, quite frankly, such is an act of cowardice on your part which is so profound as to make you unqualified for the position you hold.  

I was stunned when I read this:  

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

I'm sure that the Founders of our nation felt the same way when they signed the Declaration of Independence; that it would be "worth it" of they succeeded.  Of course, they didn't know they would succeed when they signed it.  They risked their lives, the lives of their families, and yes, their "historical legacies," for the sake of this nation, and it's ultimate expression of government By The People, the Constitution.

I'm sure George Washington and the army at Valley Forge felt the Revolutionary War would be "worth it" if they succeeded; but again, as they fought frost bite, hunger, the loneliness of having left their families, and ultimately, risked their own, and again, their families' lives, in combat against British tyranny, they didn't know they would succeed.  They did not ask for a guarantee of success; they knew something that every pee-wee league baseball player in America is taught their first season; that you have to try in order to succeed.  

I'm sure that Abraham Lincoln felt that the Emancipation Proclamation would be "worth it" if the Union could defeat the Confederacy; I'm sure that Teddy Roosevelt felt it would be "worth it" if he was successful at taking on the monopolies that had stranglehold on the people of this country; I'm sure that F.D.R. thought it would be "worth it" to take on the U.S. Supreme Court to pursue the New Deal; that Eisenhower felt it would be "worth it" if the Normandy invasion succeeded; that Kennedy felt it would be "worth it" if he could force Kruschev to back down, and remove nuclear missiles from Cuba.  But not a damned one of them KNEW at the time whether or not they would be successful.

They acted in defense of the principles that we in this country hold dear; they fought to defend our Constitution, which the Decider has described as nothing more than a "piece of paper."  

Then there's this gem:  

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 . . .

Jesus Fucking Christ.  There's so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to start.  

Yes, I do.  First and foremost, if you were serious about "building your case," you would understand what every attorney whose every prepared for a trial or hearing knows:  THE TRIAL IS HOW YOU COMMUNICATE!  THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRIALS!  That's where you present your evidence, and your arguments, as to why you think someone is guilty.  

Sure, you lose some.  But sometimes, even when you win, you present your case effectively enough that, even if you can't persuade the jury, you can still persuade the public.  DIDN'T YOU EVER HEAR OF O.J. FUCKING SIMPSON?  Yeah, they failed they failed to get a conviction on that one; but everybody in America knows the fucker did it!  

You know, I remember one rather effective ad that Michael Jordan did for Nike; in, they show his defeats, and he does a voice-over talking about how many free-throws he's missed, how many shots he's had blocked, how many championships he's lost, and the whole point of it was, failure is the price of success; you can't succeed if you don't try, and inevitably, sometimes you will fail.  But success demands that you at least try; and, I would submit, LEADERSHIP demands not success, BUT EFFORT in pursuit of success.  No championship team had a guarantee when they took the field, but they followed their Coach onto the field anyway; the sailors, marines, and G.I.'s unceremoniously dumped at Guadalcanal and lackadaisically and only intermittently supported and reinforced, didn't just up and fucking surrender to the Japanese; they fought on behalf of Major General Alexander Van de Grift because he led them, and did not mislead them about their prospects for success.  

You want my help, Madame Speaker?  You want to effective communication with the public at large?  

Here is some serious, constructive advice:  DO YOUR JOB, AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!  Stand for something besides political expedience and re-election.  Start an impeachment proceeding, and BRING YOUR CASE TO TRIAL.  

You don't want to take on Mr. 26%?  Fine.  Go after Dick Cheney.  His support is in the teens, last I knew.  They had to get rid of Spiro Agnew before they went after Nixon.  Follow the same strategy.  

But for God's sake, DO SOMETHING besides asking me for more money for T.V. ads for the next election.  Isn't that what you really mean, when you talk about "communicating" with the public?  Bullshit.  

Be like Mike:  JUST DO IT.

Otherwise, you are unfit to be Speaker.  If you can't, or won't, lead, then get the hell out of the way.  

UPDATE:  

Well, I certainly didn't expect that.  But I stand by what I said supra and infra.  I also took an oath to serve and defend the Constitution, and I take that responsibility seriously.  Which I did, in this diary.  Those who don't agree with me, well, some of your arguments are worthy of consideration, and or respect:  but as for those whose criticism consists solely of invective, well, back at ya.  

A couple of quick points, from my comments below.  

1.  Impeachment is a Constitutional investigatory procedure.  Nancy Pelosi has made a big deal out of the subpoena power, but the White House has said for months, at least, that they do not intend to comply with subpoenas, and frankly, I wouldn't trust what they would turn over anyway.  There have been numerous front-page articles on exactly how useless the subpoena power is, under existing circumstances.  That's why the framer's created an impeachment process.  The House doesn't have to get approval from the Courts, doesn't have to waste time on appeals, and have the whole thing turn on Justice Kennedy.  

2.  Pelosi's comment was way out of line, and I called her on it because I think it represents her actual, honestly held position.  And that position is abhorrent to me.  As an attorney, I am disgusted and appalled by what this administration has done to the rule of law in this country, and I want them held accountable.  Nancy Pelosi has made it clear, in numerous statements, that impeachment is off the table.  I think her statements, as contained in the interview, show that even if she were presented the evidence she wouldn't impeach (leaving aside the question of how she'd going to get the evidence without impeachment).  She simply will not do it, because it is not politically expedient.  

And I regard that as cowardice.  

cow·ard      /ˈkaʊərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kou-erd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.  
–adjective 2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.  

3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.  

 

She's afraid that impeachment will negatively affect the next elections, therefore, will not proceed with impeachment.  That's cowardice, by definition.  

I would argue that it is counterproductive cowardice, as well.  The Speaker, and some commenters, argue that impeachment would be counterproductive, with which I strongly disagree (obviously).  This isn't about a blowjob, and I trust the American people to know the difference.  Occam's Hatchet also has a great diary up today, but, based upon the Speaker's comments, and some of those below, it appears to me that his is wasted effort.  If what these guys have done isn't worthy of impeachment, I don't know what is.  

And as far as being offensive goes -- her offhand dismissal of the Constitution was far worse than my reply.  

Thanks for the debate.  Gotta go.  

•  Tips

  To show our esteemed Speaker that she needs to get off her ass and defend our country from these thugs.

  Rec's also appreciated, So that maybe she'll take notice.  Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.  

  Fuck.

  by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:24:23 AM PDT

  •  Come back

    when you can offer substance instead of just talking shit.

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:36:39 AM PDT

    •  You DON'T come back

      TR-abuse not welcome here.

      by Argyrios on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

      •  I've been here

        longer than you have. By a fair piece.
        You don't define ratings abuse or what is or is not welcome for me, thank you very much.

        by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:44:47 AM PDT

        •  I've been here longer than you

          Not that it matters, but since you're claiming authority based on your tenure, I can trump that, even though my longevity here doesn't make more more likely to be right than anyone else.

          IMHO, it is ratings abuse for this diary to get 9 troll-ratings. A troll rating is not supposed to be code for "I strongly disagree" or "how dare you attack our guys".  Attacking Nancy Pelosi for what she said is fair comment.

          Not that I entirely agree with the diarist; Pelosi's reluctance disappoints me, but her rivals (people like Steny Hoyer) are even more timid than she is; she doesn't yet have the votes in her own caucus to start impeachment.  She needs to stop blaming the Senate; the House, too, doesn't really have a progressive majority.  But removing her as speaker would give us Hoyer, who's far worse.

          That said, Pelosi's comment about the Constitution only being worth it if you have the votes deserves strong flames.  It was a major faux pas.

          by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:04:15 PM PDT

          •  You want to accuse someone of ratings abuse?

            I suggest you start with the admin that trollrated the tip jar.

            by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:05:31 PM PDT

            •  that admin made a mistake

              At least, in my opinion.

              by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:16:59 PM PDT

              •  But not

                in mine.

                by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:19:31 PM PDT

              •  see, that's it

                it's your opinion.

                by taylormattd on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:32:19 PM PDT

                •  and we do not troll-rate ...

                  ... based on differences of opinion.

                  by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:20:07 PM PDT

          •  If you

            think it is ratings abuse, then report it to the admins.

            But it won't matter because you are wrong. Tip jars of shitty diaries have always been TRed. In fact, an admin TRed the tip jar on this shitty diary.

            by taylormattd on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:23:25 PM PDT

            •  I think it's bad for the site

              At least one admin troll-rated the tip jar.   I think this is a mistake, and that policies that justify the action are also a mistake.

              Better not to recommend or to troll-rate, to point out to the diarist that replacing Pelosi gives us Hoyer, but to provide space for cries of frustration that we can't get done what most Kossacks want done: impeach the bastards.

              Also, I'm seeing some folks (Elise for example) suggesting that accusing Democrats of being weak, cowardly, can't lead, etc. is a Republican talking point that should be bannable.  It would be disasterous for DailyKos to make this the policy: the way to get rid of this talking point is be strong, to be courageous, and to lead, not to be quiet when our leadership does none of these things.

              by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:41:13 PM PDT

              •  If you

                want to talk about Elise's opinions, please respond to her.

                I was pointing out that you are completely wrong about TRing tip jars of shitty diaries, which has always been the practice at this site.

                by taylormattd on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:44:42 PM PDT

                •  it's not a shitty diary

                  ... and troll-rating the tip jar of an obvious troll diary is appropriate.  I don't agree with the diarist that Pelosi should be replaced, and I might have used a more diplomatic word than "coward", but I wish that Democrats would show more bravery, and I fear that their strategy of doing nothing and holding on for 2008 isn't going to work.  I don't think we're going to get 60 Senate votes in 2008, and if the Republicans have the cojones to aggressively use the rules and the Democrats don't, the Republicans retain a veto for the indefinite future.

                  by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:12:01 PM PDT

        •  Are You Fucking Serious?

          I've been here longer than you have.  That's your argument?  Oh, wait... I see.  By a fair piece.  Yep, much better.  Game, set, match to the lower uid.  Unreal.

          by Savage on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:54:36 PM PDT

        •  Why does anyone think they have the right to say

          who is and isn't welcome here?  Everyone ridicules accusations of cliquishness, yet when language like you used in your first comment is prevalent it simply reinforces that perception and puts others on the defensive.  Totally unproductive.  I think if people addressed their problems with the comments or issues, as I believe is written in FAQ somewhere, or is just a matter of blog courtesy, instead of trying to make imaginary lines of stature, status, and control on Dkos things would be better here.  Every year there's a whole new crop of people who are mostly telling everyone else what to do and it creates unneccessary tension.      

          by Karma for All on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

    •  it doesn't get any more substantive that this:

      First and foremost, if you were serious about "building your case," you would understand what every attorney whose every prepared for a trial or hearing knows:  THE TRIAL IS HOW YOU COMMUNICATE!  THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRIALS!  That's where you present your evidence, and your arguments, as to why you think someone is guilty.  

      Sure, you lose some.  But sometimes, even when you win, you present your case effectively enough that, even if you can't persuade the jury, you can still persuade the public.  DIDN'T YOU EVER HEAR OF O.J. FUCKING SIMPSON?  Yeah, they failed they failed to get a conviction on that one; but everybody in America knows the fucker did it!

      The only thing I would add is that OJ Simpson skated because of incompetent detective work and prosecution, yet his guilt was established enough that even with a criminal aquittal, he lost the civil case against his wife's family.

      And this isn't an LA whodunit.  This is about the collapse of the Republic and the shredding of the Constitution.  If you don't think that is a substantive issue, you deserve whatever America devolves into after the Bush crimes are allowed to stand.

      by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:45:28 AM PDT

      •  Ok, sure

        but you don't know what's happening offmike.

        by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:46:16 AM PDT

        •  Hey kestrel...

          ...you are always thoughtful.  Here I think there is no dispute that Nancy said these words, and the diarist's interpretation is not out-of-bounds.  I agree that the "coward" name-calling is harsh, but it's certainly within the diarist's rights to use it, especially since he backs it up with several examples from American history where leaders stood up to LEAD as opposed to waiting around for public opinion to shift.  In any event, I do not think this is a troll diary, but an attempt to light a fire under us by recalling our history.  

          As a wake up call, this diary therefore succeeds.   I hope you'll reconsider you're rating.

          by maxschell on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM PDT

          •  Read

            this.

            The TR stands.

            by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:54:09 AM PDT

            •  I read it.

              And I agree with parts of it.  However, some of your own diary is pretty harsh and a bit ad hominem.  

              So, I would ask you the following questions:

              Were you troll-rated for it?  

              Would you have felt a troll-rating was justified for your diary?  

              Or would you rather have those who disagreed with your position express themselves in the comments (as apparently occurred)?

              As I said in a separate comment, I think the title of this diary is harsh but the substance is a wake-up call with significant historical references, together with the admonition to use the impeachment trial as a means to generate public support.  That to me is a rather substantive, and creative position.

              Given this, I think one way to handle this could have been to ask the diarist to remove the name-calling from the title.  He might well have done it for you (and still might?).  

              by maxschell on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:12:37 PM PDT

            •  I just read it.

              Here's your money quote from that diary, k9:

              Conveniently discarding the fact that impeachment is a TRIAL process, which requires EVIDENCE.

              In fact, that is the crux of this diary: Nancy's refusal to consider the Trial at all, no matter the evidence (which is already beyond overwhelming), unless success is guaranteed her.  And that is the crux of her cowardice.  

              If you think about it, she is asking the Republicans to save the nation for us, by coming out in favor of Impeachment, otherwise we are fucked.

              That is the rub.  Your previous diary never anticipated her demurral.  That would have pulled the rug out from under it.

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

              •  No,

                THIS is the money quote:

                Hope for the best, trust and support, or continue this

                   

                It's a bullshit phony move from bullshit phony Democrats to parade bullshit phony rhetoric about bullshit phony "oversight" and it all means precisely NOTHING!

                tantrummy, unproductive bullshit and work to make sure that Feingold, Conyers, Slaughter, Kerry, and others will neither listen to us or post here any more.

                by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:22:56 PM PDT

                •  the time for hoping is over

                  now is the time for action.  Pelosi is refusing to act on the evidence of clear criminal and anti-Constitutional offenses.  That is what she said yesterday.

                  And the time for trust is over as well, for the same reason.

                  by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:26:54 PM PDT

                  •  Fine.

                    So call her a coward and various other names.
                    Yeah, that'll fix it.

                    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:28:24 PM PDT

                    •  I think she knows by now

                      what a significant portion of this site thinks about her comment yesterday.  We shall see if our opinions mean anything to her.

                      As to fixing it, that is her responsibility.  Mine is to make her and her collegues know what I think to be critical to the survival of the Republic.  

                      Sometimes calling someone a name, if you consider it accurate, is appropriate, especially if that person appears to be oblivious to the catastrophic conseqences of her inaction.

                      by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:36:13 PM PDT

                    •  Oh, grow up.

                      Is that your bitch?  That I called her a coward?  I'm sorry, but haven't you ever heard of the freedom of speech?  I also took an oath to defend the Constitution when I was sworn in.  And I've argued cases on up to my state supreme court to defend the rule of law.  If she won't defend the Constitution without a political "get out of jail free" card, then she is unfit to lead.  Get over it.  

                      by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:38:11 PM PDT

                      •  As long as you're playing

                        the "freedom of speech" card, you might do well to remember that it works for those of us speaking up to express our displeasure at the way you've phrased this diary. "Freedom of speech" does not mean that you get to say whatever you want and then make everybody who heard it applaud like crazy.

                        by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:12:06 PM PDT

                        •  What the fuck are you talking about?

                          Nobody is trying to make everyone applaud like crazy. Is that really all you've got?

                          Express your free speech DISAGREEMENT OF OPINION in the comments like everyone else. Troll rating is appropriate in limited situations. This is not one of them.

                          by Argyrios on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

                          •  And when I need advice

                            on community moderation, or the traditions of this site, I'll be sure to call someone who understands them. Which leaves you out of the running. I've been here four times longer than you have (at least). One of us knows what he's talking about. It isn't you.

                            by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:33:23 PM PDT

                            •  boy is that an irrelevant canard nt

                              but take me off your call list while you're at it, if you don't mind.

                              by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:45:24 PM PDT

                              •  That's OK

                                You were never on it.

                                by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:46:42 PM PDT

                                •  pass the handkerchief nt

                                  by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:08:45 PM PDT

                                  •  Use your own (n/t)

                                    by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:39 PM PDT

                                    •  I just spit on the ground instead nt

                                      by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:22:18 PM PDT

                                      •  Which is about the only effect

                                        you'll ever have on politics if you keep following this line.

                                        by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:53:32 PM PDT

                                        •  hey, will rogers was pretty good at it.

                                          by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:00:54 PM PDT

                                          •  If you think you're Will Rogers

                                            (or anywhere near that good), think again. Hard.

                                            by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:08:04 PM PDT

                                            •  ok. pass the spitoon then.

                                              by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:13:14 PM PDT

            •  I read it, and I disagree

              One problem with the kind of loyalty you want is that it tends to push Democrats to the right.  The Republican base demands action on its issues, and beats up its own party when it falls out of line.  However, too many Democrats are "realistic".

              We need to badger elected Democrats to take progressive positions in cases where a majority or plurality of the public takes those positions.  Too many elected Dems are careerists, and if they think that no one was ever harmed for pissing off the left, they will try to please their big corporate contributors instead, and by doing so depress their own base and lead independents to conclude that Democrats stand for nothing.

              So, in my view, strong pressure from the base to take action now helps the Democrats, even if it takes a while to actually get action.  It needs to become so obvious to the leadership that the American public demands action that the waverers realize that taking action is safe.

              by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

              •  Pressure good

                "Coward" "unfit" bad.

                by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

              •  Agreed.

                I don't know how many times I've seen people on this site comment about how tired they are of being taken for granted.  

                Pelosi's comment was way out of line, and I decided to call her on it.  Troll rate away, if you feel like you have to.  But it doesn't change the fact that Pelosi denigrated our Constitution, a document I have sworn to uphold as part of my professional obligation, and I will stand up to defend it.  

                by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:34:07 PM PDT

          •  Thank you.

            My point precisely.  I've argued on behalf of Nancy Pelosi a number of times on this site, and took some crap for it too, particularly with regard to the temporary war funding bill.  

            But I felt her comment about the Constitution was just about unforgivable.  Of everything that this Administration has done, undermining the rule of law the way they have hits me, personally, harder than anything else.  I've spent two decades, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, pursuing a career in the law.  And to watch this administration shit on the Constitution, and have the Speaker of the House, of MY party say that . . . words cannot describe.  

            by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:02:45 PM PDT

        •  we are her base.

          If she is feeding us bullshit, or if her comment is straight up and she is really that craven, either way, we are being ignored and dissed.

          And I can't buy into the "they must know something we don't know", especially after the history of the Democratic Party in the last decade, a history that is rife with examples of letting the neocons have their untrammmelled way.  Roberts, Alito, AUMF Iraq, Patriot Act, FL 00, the surge...in fact, the only significant impediments to the Bush cabal have come from the right: Immigration and Miers, oh and there's Bruce Fein's brilliant call for Impeachment the other day.  

          I'm getting sick and I have to stop now.

          by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:07:44 PM PDT

          •  you live in San Francisco, then?

            technically, if you don't, you aren't her base at all.

            by Buffalo Girl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:27:53 PM PDT

            •  she is the Speaker of the House of Representative

              s, the leader of the Democratic Party and the controller of agendas in the People's House.  I am a Democrat (registered in Camden, ME) and a citizen of the US.  I am a memeber of her base.  

              by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:48:39 PM PDT

            •  Wow,

              What a ridiculous comment :(

              by SpecialEFX on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:49:40 PM PDT

              •  if you're talking about the people

                who literally elect her, it's not ridiculous.

                by Buffalo Girl on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:10:19 PM PDT

                •  I pay taxes

                  She's the Speaker of the House of REPRESENTATIVES. Therefore she represents ME.

                  You can parse all you want, but it was still a ridiculous thing to say....

                  by SpecialEFX on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:19:17 PM PDT

            •  For what it's worth, I live in SF...

              ...and agree with nailbender 100%. Not sure what your point is anyway.

              by StupidAsshole on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:47:58 PM PDT

          •  I live in SF

            and I voted for her.  Pelosi isn't listening to the people who put her in office to become speaker. Pelosi has disappointmented her constituents and we have a right to complain.  SF voters voted for our representatives to pursue the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.  Pelosi is not heeding the will of the the voters.
            http://smartvoter.org/...

            by elliott on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:20:02 PM PDT

        •  So, what is that supposed to mean?

          That we aren't allowed to question our leaders?  That we are supposed to simply trust them blindly?  Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that she has no intention to pursue impeachment.  

          And, yeah, as an attorney, I know it takes time to build a case.  

          But what she's saying is self-contradictory.  She's saying she's building a case, but she also makes clear, and has for well over a year, that even if she gets the case put together, she doesn' intend to bring it.  

          by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:08:53 PM PDT

          •  "Coward and unfit"

            is not QUESTIONING.
            You're out of oder. This diary is out of order. Objection. Sustained. Jury will disregard.
            You come at it like that and I have no interest in the rest of your argument.

            by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:13:23 PM PDT

            •  OK

              You come at it like that and I have no interest in the rest of your argument.

              ...and yet you're still here.

              by Savage on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:40:13 PM PDT

            •  Then why are you still here? nt

              by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:40:28 PM PDT

            •  judge, jury and executioner:

              you should consider running for President if we don't negate Bush's precedents, kestrel.

              Until then, please know that one way to question outrageous behaviour is to label it for what it is.  If more of us had been "out of order" and dissed the neocons by calling the Iraq Invasion the "act of criminal minds," maybe we wouldn't be watching the country go down the tubes right now.

              Calling Pelosi a coward for a cowardly strategy that will result in the collapse of the Republic is the least we can do for our country, our progeny, and our party.

              by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:06:41 PM PDT

          •  I think the case of which she's building...

            is a case for veto-proof majorities in '08.

            It's a specious argument though, imho. The only case I see her building is a case for Independents looking to run a 3rd party candidate.

            This is a grave error in judgment on her part, imho.

            by markthshark on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:45:50 PM PDT

            •  bingo.

              and the exclamation point is inappropriate.

              Interesting how "grave" and "fatal" have overlapping implications in more than one sense.  She could be engineering the demise of this Party.

              by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:58:56 PM PDT

    •  You know Kestrel

      you've rec'd my diaries, and comments, before, and you'd ought to know that I am no troll.  

      by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:49:13 AM PDT

      •  No- you aren't a troll.

        That doesn't mean you can't write a troll diary.

        I could write a troll diary right now and I'm not a troll...but if I wrote one, I'd expect to get trollrated.

        by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:50:21 AM PDT

        •  I'm Trying to Find

          an appropriate word the Founding Fathers, who created the role of House Speaker and Congress to counter-balance the Executive, would use to describe the actions of the current House Leaders.

          Forgive me, but I don't believe the word would be charitable...

          by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:04:43 PM PDT

          •  Aw...well that's nice. But I'm a Democrat

            so I don't USE Republican talking points to insult my party. I'm not entirely sure what your affiliation is, but when I read your diary I thought, "Gee, Karl Rove sure would appreciate this diary."

            So...I guess that's all I have to say.

            by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:06:12 PM PDT

            •  I'm Not American,

              so I'm not nor can I be a Democrat, unless I move to the States.

              That said, I'm from north of your border and have, in my lifetime, voted for the Liberal Party every time I put my "X" on the paper.

              I apologise for using "Republican Talking Points," since I wouldn't know what they are, as I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or the insufferable Tony Snow...perhaps you could tell me what about my comments qualifies as such, I'd be much obliged...

              by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:10:16 PM PDT

              •  "Democrats are weak/cowards/useless/can't lead.."

                etc.

                by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:12:51 PM PDT

                •  Democrats Are Human

                  and so will exhibit human qualities, running the gamut from "lion-hearted" to "despicable."

                  I try not to look at the politicians' letter before deciding if I like their behavior or not...the temptation to do otherwise leads to...well...the other side...

                  If they are to lead, then they should lead...and saying that "The Consitution is worth it...if..." is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I am sure of it...

                  I don't think Madam Speaker is a coward.  Her actions, however, are lacking in what I would call "courage..."

                  If this President isn't worth impeaching, I don't know what the point is to anything to do with Dailykos or any other political weblog...if he isn't worth impeaching, I don't know what abuses the next despot will inflict upon you all...I'd rather not find out...

                  by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:19:10 PM PDT

                •  so what are we supposed to say ...

                  ... on those occasions where a particular Democrat is not leading, is too cautious, is allowing herself to be rolled?

                  The reason that the Republicans use this particular talking point is because it is often true.  The way to counter the talking point is not to refuse to bring the issue up, but to push our leadership to take action.

                  I got active in politics because of Howard Dean, who at the time was making extremely strong attacks against his fellow Democrats.  In early 2003, he spent more time attacking Democrats than Republicans.  He attacked them for not leading, for not being courageous.  By your logic, you would have to troll-rate the Howard Dean of early 2003 off of this site.

                  by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:29:30 PM PDT

                  •  I don't see any evidence that Pelosi

                    is "allowing herself to be rolled"...I see evidence of a Speaker who is making strategic decisions based on all the information she can gather. And I see a whole lot of people whining about how things aren't moving fast enough for them.

                    by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

                    •  when your tit is in the wringer

                      it is a right proper thing to complain that relief is not coming fast enough.

                      by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:04:44 PM PDT

                      •  Now You Can Come Over Here

                        and wipe the coffee from my monitor and keyboard...

                        by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

                      •  Jesus, my grandmother used to say that

                        all the time.  For that comment and the name (which go together perfectly BTW), I wish I could give 10 reqs.

                        by Ken in Tex on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:38:09 PM PDT

                    •  but she isn't

                      The Democrats are not using the tools that they have aggressively enough.  They didn't have to give Bush everything he wanted in the supplemental funding bill. They are taking too much time; they should have declared Bush and Gonzales in contempt of Congress before now.  Starting an impeachment inquiry is another tool and does not commit the House to actual impeachment.  There are other avenues they can investigate if the Justice Department refuses to implement subpeonas; they can use civil action against the former Justice employees; they can look into inherent contempt.

                      by Joe Buck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:18:08 PM PDT

                  •  Why not stick to the basics?

                    If you believe Democrat X is "...not leading, is too cautious, is allowing herself to be rolled..." then fucking SAY "Democrat X is not leading, is too cautious, is allowing herself to be rolled..." Amazing what a basic command of the English language can do for one, isn't it?

                    by musing85 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:09:45 PM PDT

                    •  I think the whole point of this diary

                      is that many of us are beyond talking quietly to our "leadership."  Now, you may not agree that we are actually in a Costitutional crisis that will cause the collapse of the Republic if it isn't resolved by Impeachment, but that is how many of us feel (based on some very good reasoning) and when someone who believes this hears the leader of the body responsible for that Constitutional remedy-for-despotism say that she won't use it because it isn't a guaranteed slam dunk, screaming at that leader is the reasonable thing to do; it is tantamount to screaming at an airplane pilot who hasn't noticed the mountain wall looming ahead.

                      I will not stop till Articles of Impeachment are brought out of committee.

                      by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:27:08 PM PDT

                      •  So?

                        Go do whatever it is you feel you have to do, and shut the fuck up about it already.

                        by musing85 on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:19:07 PM PDT

                •  In the case of Nancy Pelosi

                  the Republican talking points are correct.  She is weak, cowardly and unable to lead.  She needs to be replaced by a real Democratic leader.

                  by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:02:51 PM PDT

            •  So when you became a democrat…

              You lost your capacity for critical thinking?

              Think about your statement, "I'm a democrat." Does party affiliation trump an honest assessment of the Speaker's statements during that conference call on Thursday? Are you so invested in your identity as a "Democrat" that you'll put up with a political leader who, by her own words, is putting political gain over consitutional integrity?

              That one statement by you, sums up what I've found so creepy about the modern republicans. They're willing to suspend doing what's right to futher the aims and the goals of the party. That always seemed like the first step down the road to the corruption that the DeLay GOP rode to power and then ignominy.

              It's not a purity thing, it's a "They're politician's not rock stars" thing. And I for one, refuse to be another fanboy.

              Everyday on the intertubes, sites like SadlyNo, TBogg, etc dine out on making fun of the GOP faithful who uncritically support the the Republican leadership.

              It's just sort of sad that you've fallen into the same trap.

              by Sharon on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:22:40 PM PDT

              •  No actually-

                I believe everyone stamping their feet and screaming "cookie now" lost their critical thinking abilities.

                You see, I have thought through the possibilities and the consequences of each and I've made my judgment call as to what should be done. I think the Dems are absolutely doing the right thing and the smart thing and I have faith in them.

                I'm not a fanboy or girl. I'm a person with faith in my party.

                And...no where in the Constitution does it mandate impeachment. It sets guidelines for impeachment, but it does not mandate it- so don't talk to me about "constitutional integrity". Winning in 2008 will bring back integrity to the Constitution.

                by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:27:22 PM PDT

                •  "Winning in '08"

                  might not be recognized by the Supreme Court in its current make-up...my jaw is still agape at the "No-Precedent" decision that decided '00...

                  You sure you wanna wait that long?

                  by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:29:48 PM PDT

                  •  That's a silly conspiracy theory.

                    When that happens...then we deal, but I see no evidence that that will happen.

                    by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:31:02 PM PDT

                    •  I Hope You're Right...

                      and I wish to god that Al Gore was running...only because I don't think any Republican on earth could beat him in '08, and not because I think he's the Democratic Messiah...

                      I was disappointed in him when he distanced himself from President Clinton during his own campaign...I think that killed him...

                      Regardless of who's on the ticket, I hope the Dems win in '08...and I hope Mr. Bush finds himself in a docket in the Hague, if his own people won't hold him to account...

                      by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:36:03 PM PDT

                      •  Al may run yet. We'll see.

                        And frankly, I'd prefer to see Bush in the Hague rather than impeached...because impeachment doesn't necessarily lead to conviction. He's got a greater chance of punishment in the Hague anyway.

                        by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:37:56 PM PDT

                        •  Said the Starving Man at the Drive-Thru Window:

                          "Ma'am, I'll take anything you're offering..."

                          Right now, I'd be happy seeing him sent to his room with dinner...anything...please...

                          by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:42:08 PM PDT

                        •  Now who's being "unrealistic?" nt

                          by Jbearlaw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

                        •  If Al runs I'll be overjoyed

                          but as to your comment about Impeachement not leading to conviction: in fact it is the only action that will preserve criminal prosecution, since Impeachment precludes pardoning.  And if Bush survives till 1/09, you will see a long list of Gerry Ford-style blanket pre pardons for everyone, including W himself (what's to stop him?).  That is, if he deigns to relinquish the presidency at all.

                          too far out?  What was too far out to you 8 years ago?  That a bunch of fundamentalist crazies would take over all aspects of government, abolish the most critical parts of the constitution, destroy the military, make us the laughingstock of the world, and put us on the low road to neofascism?

                          Yeah, I didn't think it was possible either.  But is was.  And Democrats share some of the blame.  And they will share much more of the blame if Bush's legacy of constitutional abrogation is allowed to stand.

                          That's why I'm angry with some of our leaders right now.

                          by nailbender on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:39:04 PM PDT

                    •  Silly CONSPIRACY THEORY?????

                      It frakking happened once already! Hell there are those who think they stole '04 as well. You still have faith in the system as is? Wow...

                      by SpecialEFX on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:57:09 PM PDT

                      •  No- I have faith that Dems will win

                        by a large enough margin that it won't be an issue. I also have faith that once we win, we can fix the problems that exist...Durbin and Obama have each worked hard to show that that's what they'll do...Durbin has the Fair Elections Now Act and Obama has worked towards election fairness for a long time.

                        by Elise on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:03:20 PM PDT

                        •  A serious question, though.

                          What would be the motivation for the party holding the Executive Branch to diminish its power? What would be the President's motivation to voluntarily give it up?