Why Pelosi CAN'T lead on impeachment

This is a response to the diary here.  I agree with Jbearlaw's anger.  I can also see why so many are quick to condemn him for what are, admittedly, inflammatory remarks.  I believe that her earlier statementss were misguided.  The Constitution is always worth it.  Whether now is the right time or whether just announcing impeachment articles against Bush on Monday is a good idea, those are completely different questions.

I believe that Pelosi's response confuses the strategic and tactical aspects of politics.  The strategy is to minimize further damage caused by the Bush regime, and to reverse what we can of the damage that has already been done.  Where Democrats disagree is on the tactics used to do that.  Tactics that don't serve the strategic goals are worthless, or perhaps even damaging.  Simultaneously, strategic goals that are unattainable by tactical means are vapid too.  What so many of us seem to be forgetting is that Pelosi herself has no tactical options available ...

Pelosi can't sign onto H. Res. 333.  She can't call for the impeachment of Bush.  She can't react to the regime's defiance of law as we want her to.  The reason is this:

For those of you who aren't aware (which should be a very very small number of people) Pelosi currently sits third in line to the Presidency according to the law.

That is, if we were to remove everyone from the government who was guilty/culpable in some way with the regime, she would become President.  This is an obvious conflict of interest.  It's why Pelosi's tactical options are so limited.  If she does anytime that can be spun as a power play, impeachment is done.  There are right and wrong ways to go about impeachment, and Pelosi signing on to it now is the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong, I think that impeachment is demanded for what Bush & Co. have done to our nation.  That whole "if not now then when?; if not us then who?" thing resonates with me.  If impeachment isn't used against this Presidency, then it is meaningless.  I understand that there is a lot of emotion on all fronts about this.  This one has to be done by the book though.  Impeachment of Bush, or Cheney, or Abu Gonzalez, or of any other official you can think of, cannot be done in the Clinton manner.  That is, we must be careful not to give the appearance of a partisan witch hunt.  If impeachment is to take place (and it had damn well better) it must be done by the law and tradition of the Republic which we all want so desperately to save.

This means, at a minimum, the procedures outlined in the excellent front-page diary about a minimalist impeachment agenda must be followed.  We must have solid evidence to back up our claims.  While we certainly now that Bush has committed more than enough to lock him up in a dark dark place for a very long time, we have to follow the book on this one.  We are a nation of laws, and the laws say that a person should not be convicted (and that is the strategic goal of impeachment) without evidence.  Let Pelosi build her case; chastise her for her remarks; sign onto the minimalist impeachment agenda.  Just don't demand the use of tactics that would destroy the strategic goals of our movement to restore democracy and law in this country.

•  Tips and flames

  Go ahead and vote here on what I said, tips are welcome, TRs are welcome, just don't turn the comments into a place to argue over whether I should be TRd.  Discuss the substantive aspects, not the procedural :-)

  by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:52:30 PM PDT

  •  hear, hear

    I think you are right on with this. As someone else has said recently, this is all about precedent. We cannot afford NOT to begin impeachment proceedings, simply because we have to re-establish the rule of law. Future presidents (and the American public) must understand that this behavior is unacceptable.

    by GetTogether on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:06:41 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      and I just echoed that below.  If we don't say that this is unacceptable, if we don't set the precedent that defying law and destroying freedoms is treasonous to this country, American democracy will never recover.

      by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:18:41 PM PDT

  •  you're not right unless this whole MIKE diary

    was intended for Bush... Bush doesn't even have a resolution on the table... but Cheney does.  I thought this was all about the dark one!

    by victoria2dc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:09:00 PM PDT

  •  I think this site should be renamed

    Daily IMPEACHMENT

    snark

    by deepsouthdoug on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:26:27 PM PDT

  •  Newt Did, And Nancy Could!

    Plus, Newt was wrong, and Nancy would be wrong not to.  She claims she can get a majority anytime she wants.  She should want.

    by leonard145b on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:33:10 PM PDT

    •  You do remember what happened

      to Newt right?  That whole leaving Congress, exile from politics thing ...

      Besides Newt was a self-serving power hungry jerk, which is exactly what Nancy can't be.

      by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:36:51 PM PDT

      •  Newt left because he led the Republicans

        to electoral defeat in the previous election, plus it was just about to come out that he was dumping his 2nd wife for the babe he'd been porking while exhorting moral rectitude on Bill Clinton. No parallel at all.

        by Jim P on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:26:21 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, it's like comparing an impeachment of Bush

          to Bill Clinton's.

          This is an obvious conflict of interest.

          Too bad.  Like that stops the Republicans?  This isn't a court case, this is about political power.  Oh, but when the Democrats get into power, they must never use it!  Pshaw.

          by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:13:56 PM PDT

          •  Hell, Pelosi could even announce

            at the moment she endorses impeach B/C that she will decline the office of President if they are really worried about that.

            by Jim P on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:26:50 PM PDT

            •  If Pelosi declines

              (and I'm not sure that's an option under the Succession Act), then it goes to Byrd, who's almost 90. And if he declines, then Condi becomes Madame President.

              Nice idea, but looks where it leads.

              On the other hand, a deal could be arranged where we get rid of Cheney and leave Bush in place but cut down in power. Enough GOPers are worried about / disgusted with Cheney that it just might sell.

              by DanK Is Back on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:40:18 PM PDT

              •  That's the first compromise I've

                heard that has some appeal. Or am I just exhausted? Thanks for something to chew on.

                by Jim P on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Excellent point!

    by Peperpatch on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:16:42 PM PDT

•  Here's how I interpret it.

  I don't think this is how she meant it, but it's true nonetheless.

  "The Constitution is worth it, if you succeed" because if you try and fail, the Constitution's pretty much done for.

  Follow my reasoning.  Unless you've got a massive amount of support for impeachment both in the general public and among Congressional Republicans, any effort at impeachment is going to rally the GOP to protect the President.  Right now the GOP is fractured and drowning; a real threat of impeachment would unify them.  And a unified GOP - probably behind Fred Thompson - has the ability to take back the White House in 2008.

  If we lose the White House in 2008, we lose America.  Period.  The next President is probably going to get to nominate two SC justices, and there's no question that any Republican is going to nominate more Alito clones - Alito clones who want to stifle free speech, put the country in control of those who have money, and undo virtually all the progress our society has made in the past 100 years.  With a toady-packed Supreme Court to declare the Executive just as Unitary as he wants to be, they'll be able to do anything they want no matter what Congress says.

  So if we're going to move on impeachment, we do have to know we're going to succeed, because it's pretty much shooting the moon.  I'd much rather bide my time, concentrate on winning back the WH in 2008, and work at the chess match that is using Congress to stymie the Bush administration wherever possible.  It's not nearly as sexy or dramatic, and it feels slow as hell to everyone who's frustrated, but it's much more likely to succeed.

  by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:05:25 PM PDT

  •  So without...

    any proof it's unpopular at all you'll simply ceed the Republicans the Whitehouse in '08 if we say boo about impeachment?

    If my aunt had wings she'd be a bird.

    by ek hornbeck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:09:00 PM PDT

    •  I'm not ceding anything.

      But I think impeachment would unify our opponents.  If they're unified, and our candidates (especially the ones in Congress) are tied up in impeachment, we lose.  If they can spin impeachment the same way we spun it in 1998 (our spin had the advantage of being true), where it becomes a political play instead of a defense of the Republic, we lose.

      If we lose in 2008, we lose the Republic.

      by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:16:30 PM PDT

      •  They are unified.

        All 28% of them.

        We lose how?  Last time I looked 72% was pretty election winning.

        What way did we spin impeachement in 1998?  Where were the aglingment changing Republican loses?

        Oh wait, that was 2006.

        You care more about what it looks like than whether it's the right thing to do.

        We could lose our Republic a lot sooner than 2008.  What will you do then?

        by ek hornbeck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:22:45 PM PDT

        •  Very true

          what happens if Bush just refuses to leave?  What if there's another attack between now and then and elections are "postponed" because of security concerns?

          Think it can't happen here?  We've already legalized torture, suspended a millennium long precedent in jurisprudence, and destroyed our goodwill around the Earth.

          by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:25:04 PM PDT

          •  Perhaps then...

            we can have permission to impeach.

            by ek hornbeck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:35:01 PM PDT

            •  But will it matter then?

              To quote Babylon 5 (best TV series of all time btw), by then, "The Avalanche has begun. It's too late for the pebbles to vote."

              by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

        •  They're more than 28% of the House/Senate.

          And more than 28% of the public, too.  Let's not kid ourselves.  One of the reasons for Bush's low approval ratings is that people on the Right don't think he's conservative enough - they didn't like his stand on the immigration bill, don't like his budget, don't think he's a real conservative.  If we tried to impeach now, they'd rally around him.  I'd estimate if we impeached he'd have about 35-40% of the country right there.

          I'll freely admit that I care more about how it looks than whether it's right - or, rather, I care about whether it's the smart thing to do more than I care about whether it's the right thing to do.  In a perfect world, we would impeach, but in a perfect world we wouldn't have to because the people would have known about the Bushes' crimes in 2004.  We have to play the hand we're dealt - and the way I see it, quite simply, our Republic is under threat, and November 4, 2008 is the date of the battle royal.  

          Every single one of our hopes, and every single one of their hopes, rests on that day.  If we lose on November 4, 2008, we lose the Republic forever.    A GOP President would have virtually limitless power to do whatever he wanted.  If we win on that day, we have a chance to take this country back.

          Impeaching, I think, would hurt our chances in 2008.  That's why I'm opposed.  We can worry about ideals and precedent later, and we can investigate the Bush administration long after they're out of office (and hand down any criminal prosecutions necessary); right now we have to worry about one thing, and that's saving the Republic.  And in my opinion, the only way to do that is to win in 2008.

          by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:31:15 PM PDT

          •  They are...

            Representatives, they work for us.

            Or if they don't we should get new ones who do.

            by ek hornbeck on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:33:07 PM PDT

        •  The Republicans lost ground

          in the 1998 elections.

          by jiacinto on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:45:32 PM PDT

      •  the Clinton Impeachment Trial

        lasted all of about 28 business days total.  28 Days to save what is left of the Constitution is not much to ask.  Any of the million crimes will do.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:30:46 PM PDT

      •  I think there IS a risk of exactly what you ...

        ...are saying - that Dems could be hurt if the House impeaches and the Senate fails to convict. I don't know what the chances of that failure is, but it certainly is not small.

        Nonetheless, I think impeachment proceedings against Gonzales (followed by proceedings against Cheney and Bush) should be begun because of their brazen attempts to dismantle the Constitution, something that cannot be allowed to stand.

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:12:08 PM PDT

  •  and so....

    by not impeaching, the Dems "teach" America that impeachment is for lying about BJs - but not for undermining the "rule of law" and Constitution.
    The reality is - impeachment proceedings would hurt Hillary - and the House Dems aren't about to risk that!

    by annefrank on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:09:26 PM PDT

    •  Why would it hurt Hillary? Kucinich is the only

      candidate supporting impeachment.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:14:32 PM PDT

      •  Because Bill is her husband? n/t

        by PatsBard on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:22:16 PM PDT

        •  You mean with the fact that they'll bring up his

          impeachment in the media as a comparison?

          by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:23:08 PM PDT

          •  Yes

            Turn it into "All Clinton, All the Time" again.

            by PatsBard on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:27:18 PM PDT

            •  That could help her in the primaries by pissing

              off Democrats, who outside of DKos miss Clinton more than ever.

              by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:31:10 PM PDT

              •  I was thinking more of Clinton Fatigue

                and those who will say she's using it just to get her foot in the door, just as they say she's used her husband's popularity.

                by PatsBard on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:40:09 PM PDT

          •  It's doubtful the media would compare it

            since the Hillary-Murdoch merger - but the hearings would probably be on C-Span.

            by annefrank on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:16:26 PM PDT

      •  Repubs would be continuously referring to Bill's

        by annefrank on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:15:11 PM PDT

    •  The reality is...

      ...that in my opinion, impeachment proceedings at this point would hurt every single Democratic candidate for President, and the party as a whole - and this while we're the last hope for American democracy in 2008.

      by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:14:40 PM PDT

      •  This thinking is the problem

        nothing against you personally, but if we don't set precedents against this kind of behavior, our democracy will be irreversibly crippled.

        Having the Presidency (or Congress, or the courts, or whatever) does little good if we don't have a Constitution anymore.

        by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:17:24 PM PDT

        •  Losing the Presidency...

          ...virtually guarantees we lose the courts, and then we definitely don't have a Constitution anymore.

          by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:19:35 PM PDT

          •  But if we do it right we shouldn't lose

            the Presidency.  If Pelosi does it, we probably lose, cause it looks like a grab for power.  If it's done right, Bush and Cheney (et al) are exposed for the corrupt power-monkey's that they are, some lame-duck Republican serves out his term, and then it's 1976 again.

            by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:23:29 PM PDT

            •  "If it's done right"...

              ...is the operative term there.

              Starting the process now, I think, wouldn't be doing it right.  We could impeach Gonzalez now, and I think we should, but not Cheney or Bush.

              Let the hearings continue, and let them be televised, and if the administration people don't show up let their absence and cowardice before oversight (and I wouldn't be opposed to a House member or two using the "C-Word" to describe the Bush administration's fear of light) be televised.  Let the charges mount and let every Democrat with a voice repeat them ad nausaeum.  In this case, the voice for impeachment must come from the people, and the people must be convinced that impeachment is imperative.  They haven't yet.

              by mistersite on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:41:33 PM PDT

              •  Yes - let the House Dems begin with Gonzo

                Clinton's impeachment was all about politics and smearing the Dem Party - not removing him. And it's the politics that are now keeping Dems from impeaching any of the Bush gang.

                by annefrank on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:21:21 PM PDT

      •  I'm not seeing where there would be a public

        backlash should they proceed with impeachment, whether for Gonzales, Cheney, Bush or all of the above.

        I can see where Pelosi would have to keep relatively clear of it because of the conflict of interest thing, but it shouldn't stop anyone else at all.

        And on that line, I think Pelosi should simply state "As third in line in the succession, I don't feel comfortable answering questions regarding impeachment."

        by PatsBard on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:25:24 PM PDT

        •  Nobody who leans Democratic

          will vote for a Republican President just because "those mean Dems tried to impeach Bush". The only risk I can see is that impeachment might increase Republican turnout in 2008. But it might inspire disappointed Democrats too.

          But don't take my word for it; I'm a lousy prognosticator.

          by MyBrainWorks on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:10:24 PM PDT

      •  You are explicitly advocating power

        over democratic principle.  That's fine; just want to make that clear.

        by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:16:34 PM PDT

  •  The problem with your argument

    is that the GOP in 1998 impeached Clinton on obviously specious grounds, did not succeed in convicting him, made us a laughing stock around the world, and still won the White House, held on to the House, and split the Senate, in 2000. Granted, Gore made a lot of mistakes, but the country did not punish the GOP for its impeachment by taking the House - where impeachment starts - away from them.

    No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans are going to scream that it's partisanship, and any move toward impeachment will be called revenge for Clinton's. You know what? Let them scream. Most of the country is sick and tired of the Republicans anyway.

    Impeachment will be a plus for the country, even if we can't get a conviction, if it is carefully grounded in solid evidence (and despite WH stonewalling, there's plenty of it), and a clear case is made to the country that Bush, Cheney, et. al, have committed high crimes and misdemeanors and are not worthy of high office. The more the GOP tries to argue against such a solid case, the worse they will look (and yes, it is possible for them to look worse than they do now).

    by DanK Is Back on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:47:49 PM PDT

•  We're not talking about the

  impeachment of Bush, we're talking about Cheney and Gonzo... so what's her excuse for that that?

  by victoria2dc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:07:37 PM PDT

  •  True, but it seems that many

    view impeachment solely as a remedy to the problem of the President, and not to the VP or even Gonzo.  As this diary states, Gonzo isn't "on the radar screen."

    Cheney has his resolution in the House, but I'm pretty sure that most of our elected representatives see impeachment as something to be directed against the President.  If I remember my American history, no VP has ever been impeached ever.

    It's a perception problem, which we should fix, instead of just crying treason over.

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:13:28 PM PDT

•  I Don't Care If Y'all

  do Rock-Paper-Scissors....just get rid of the guy, someway, somehow...please....

  by Machiavelli Winked on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:10:25 PM PDT

•  To avoid conflict of interest: Impeach Cheney 1st

  If Congress impeaches Cheney first, then convicts and removes him from office, or forces Cheney to resign, the next step would be to let Bush and the GOP pick a new Vice President.  Because Congress gets to vote to confirm the new Veep, that means that Congress can ensure Bush gets a Boy Scout for a Veep, or at least someone that's mostly harmless, like Gerald Ford.

  Once the new veep is in place, then Bush can be impeached, with no danger of Pelosi becoming President.  That would be the best strategy for Pelosi to use, so she can avoid getting too close to becoming President and making herself look bad.

  by meldroc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:11:01 PM PDT

  •  Exactly right...

    We just need to make sure that VP has no interest in running in 2008. Sitting president, anyone?

    So who might be OK?

    Kay Baily Hutchison?
    Liddy Dole?

    :-)

    by Kelly A H on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:37:54 PM PDT

    •  Bobdole? n/t

      by DanK Is Back on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:50:49 PM PDT

      •  Or John Dean.

        by meldroc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:18:54 PM PDT

•  Okay.

  I accept your assessment that Pelosi can't lead the impeachment fight because she has a conflict of interest being in succession.

  So the quesiton remains, if not her, WHO.

  It is not so difficult to imagine someone stepping forward to lead the fight.  But no one is. Kucinich is stepping forward to impeach Cheney, which is a good if not the best start, but who is gathering around THAT banner in the house?

  It is going to take a movement to further impeachment.  Who is willing to JOIN that movement?  

  And another big question would be is Pelosi actively discouraging such a movement within the caucus?

  by DawnG on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:12:18 PM PDT

  •  I don't know

    who can lead, but somebody must.

    And I do predicate all of this on the assumption that she isn't actively discouraging the caucus from acting separately.  If she is preventing others from following through with impeachment, then she's not just not leading, she's obstructing, and thus becomes complicit.  At that point, that's when I'll get behind dumping her.

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:15:19 PM PDT

  •  The House Judiciary Committee ...

    ...can begin proceedings without the Speaker's OK.

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:08:25 PM PDT

•  Pelosi MUST lead on impeachment.

  Her stated intent is to IMPEDE impeachment.  That's collaboration, cowardice and capitulation.  Not leadership.

  by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:18:00 PM PDT

  •  It's her oath.

    I'm a stickler about oaths.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

    •  She took an oath, I'll give you that

      but so did the other 434 members of Congress, the judges, elected officials, etc.  She had better not impede (and I haven't seen much evidence that she is, considering that members of the caucus have introduced and signed onto impeachment bills) but I don't think she can realistically lead.

      by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:21:14 PM PDT

      •  She not only won't participate,

        she has stated her intent to impede.  Not cool.

        by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:38:06 PM PDT

  •  As Gore said in his 2006 speech...

    PARAPHRASE: if the Congress does not fight the administration's assault on the Constitution, it is complicit in its demise. Bush has dared the American people to do something about it (attack on Constitution) and I hope they will.  

    A new spirit is rising in this country...we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us..  
    END PARAPHRASE

    his speech:
    http://www.indybay.org/...

    Clearly, Peolosi does not agree with Gore's admonishment and warning regarding our rights and our Constitution.  In this, she is indeed complicit in its demise and we can't just write blog entries about her, but we have to act--the way the founders and citizens of our country would have done in the early days (when there were no blogs).

    Only we, out here in the country, can provide the pressure, to get our county back.  Don't think that emailing Pelosi or Reid endlessly is going to work at this point---she's not going to change her mind..so we have to go over her head to eachother ,and to rescue this country---she's not interested.

    by quantumspin on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:38:17 PM PDT

    •  Nancy Pelosi

      an unindicted co conspirator in the Bush Crime Family.  The Fixer.  Behind the scenes.

      by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:53:45 PM PDT

      •  Eh

        Friend, I imagine that comment is going to get troll rated.  Kinda falls under the "Dems suk" clause, no?

        I am not entirely happy with Speaker Pelosi, but to call her an "unindicted co conspirator" is over the top.

        by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:00:31 PM PDT

        •  Not in my book.

          Impeding impeachment is treason.  In my book.  The truth hurts, sometimes.  And yes, we are friends.

          by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:05:33 PM PDT

          •  No

            Impeding impeachment is not treason.  It may be completely fucking wrong, but it's not treason.

            Understand, but disagree with your position.

            And as far as I'm concerned, those who are pushing heavily for impeachment are definitely my friends, even if I disagree with some of their opinions.

            by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:08:57 PM PDT

            •  I'm going back to that whole

              OATH thing.  Her oath is not to triangulate for electoral advantage.  Her oath is not to pass legislation that will never see a Senate vote.  Her oath is to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Refusal to do her constitutional duty, and impeachment now is her duty, is treason.  In my book.  It is also capitulation to the Greatest Constitutional Criminal Ever.

              As teacherken says, if impeachment is off the table, democracy is off the table.  Pelosi sets the table.

              by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:14:10 PM PDT

              •  Again, though,

                it is not treason.  I believe that is a crime with a very specific definition, and Pelosi's actions (or inaction) do not qualify.  Impeachment is her duty, in your opinion, but it is not everyone's opinion.

                For the record, I agree with teacherken, but until Congress lays out an airtight case, with very specifically enumerated crimes, it will not happen.  

                by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:22:01 PM PDT

                •  Airtight as the Nixon case?

                  Airtight as Bush v. Gore?  Airtight as Brown v. Board of Education?  Airtight as your constitutuional rights?

                  How airtight does it have to be?  Because I feel a very powerful boot on my throat, and I'm getting a little airtight.  And if someone doesn't do something about it ,and very soon, I may expire.

                  by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM PDT

                  •  I think the Nixon analogy

                    is most apt.  Until they have hearings that clearly lay out the crimes we believe have been committed, specifically by Bush and/or Cheney, it will not happen.    And it should not happen until then.

                    All that said, I personally know several R voters, who plan on supporting our nominee, that will jump ship as soon as the media begins the spin about it being tit for tat re: Clinton.  Right or wrong, I ask myself whether impeaching Bush would solve the evil he has created.  I know I'd sleep better at night, but I don't believe that as soon we impeach, all the bad shit that has been foisted on us will go away.

                    We still have a lot of folks to convince that Bush is the criminal that we believe him to be.  I guess that is what I'm trying to say.  I don't think calling Speaker Pelosi a traitor will help that end.

                    /rambling opinion

                    by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:37:17 PM PDT

    •  Just one problem your...

      ...choice of people to quote here: Gore opposes attempts to impeach Bush because of timing and lack of consensus.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:05:14 PM PDT

      •  In GOre's case, it's too simplistic to pose the

        dichotomy of whether he opposes or supports impeachment, because we know that he takes the constitution very seriously, and he has advised the congress to uphold the constitution. I also think that it is important to draw the distinction between static and dynamic versions of moving to impeach, as I allude to in this comment (thoughts not best organized in that comment, must forewarn).

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:30:25 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Her stated intent is to IMPEDE impeachment.

    Cite?

    I know about the whole "off the table" remark, but am unaware of her stating she would impede the efforts of others.

    by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:48:28 PM PDT

    •  The Speaker is the one who gets to

      set the table.  Refuse to put impeachment on the table and it's impeded.  Clear?

      by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:52:43 PM PDT

      •  No, its not clear

        There are plenty of ways to do things without the Speaker's complete agreement, which probably work to our advantage.  The one I can think of off the top of my head, a discharge position, is also the one that rebukes her most strongly.  It would also act as a safety valve, ensuring strong support before it can be voted on.

        Don't think that the caucus can't twist her arm to force her to allow a vote on it, even if she does want to "impede" it.

        by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:56:49 PM PDT

      •  No

        You said that her stated intent is to impede.  I disagree with her stated opinion on impeachment, but I've yet to see anything that quotes her as intending to impede any efforts toward that end.

        Is there a direct quote you are referring to?

        by Marcus Tullius on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          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...

          I think it's fairly clear that she is discouraging any movement for impeachment.

          by Simplify on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:07:13 PM PDT

•  What I want to ask Pelosi

  What exactly would need to be different about Bush in order to make him worth impeaching?

  by Zackpunk on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:23:20 PM PDT

•  impeachment has to be on the table

  it's in the constitution. one can argue its imminence or expedience right now, but to say, "it can't happen" is wrong.

  by rasbobbo on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:29:29 PM PDT

•  Impeachment talk will not die, nor will it go

  away.

  The crimes of this administration are so profound, and the consequences so serious to big business interests, that the media won't even do an impeachment poll. Since '05, a majority of Americans have wanted Bush impeached when polled.

  To date, only the blogs are maintaining a serious dialogue on impeachment.

  The debate must continue. The Impeachment Resource Center at www.afterdowingstreet.org is continuing to link resources and keep the dialogue going.

  by 4Freedom on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Agreed nt

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:34:37 PM PDT

•  Depends on the meaning of "it"

  I think part of the controversy surrounding Pelosi's statement depends on how the reader parses the sentence. Here's the original quote:

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

  What does "it" refer to here? there's a big diference between

  The Constitution is worth [defending] if you succeed.

  and

  The Constitution is worth [anything, including the risk and cost of impeachment] if you succeed [but I don't think it will].

  I don't believe she meant the first reading, that you should only attempt to defend the Constitution if you are sure of success. If she did, she may deserve the condemnation she is getting.

  I think she meant to say the second, but expressed herself in a way that's open to misinterpretation. I think she meant to say that a failed impeachment isn't worthwhile. I strongly doubt she meant to say that the Constitution isn't worthwhile.

  I disagree with her opinion; I think the issue is important enough to attempt impeachment regardless of the risks, but her position is not nearly as despicable as some are taking it.

  by MyBrainWorks on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:34:39 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    The statement was ambiguous, even more so because of this line she has to walk.

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:39:23 PM PDT

•  Then she should recuse... not obstruct.

  Taking the issue "off the table" is still exercising control over an issue in which, by your argument, she has a substantial conflict of interest.  She is not, as you suggest, maintaining an appropriate neutrality, she has been an active participant in the opposition.

  by jgilhousen on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:45:32 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely!

    Excellent point.

    by feline on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:24:18 PM PDT

•  Ok when impeachment doesn't happen...

  because it will not, will this site still be calling for impeachment in july of 2008 with the nominees have been selected and Bush is permanently removed from any national debate?

  Or will people still try to call for impeachment in December of 2008 during the transition?

  There is a point where impeachment becomes useless when a president is months from being out of office...

  by michael1104 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:50:53 PM PDT

•  mistersite has his finger on

  the pulse of the vast majority of voters in this country.. if the dems move to impeach, GOP will win the white house.. and pack the supreme court all the more while continuing the occupation unchanged in Iraq for another eight years.

  Once the dems controll congress and white house , if obama or edwards are in place, then they can make sure these wiretapps ect are stopped permanantly..

  bottom line is that the country is in a mood to clean house in DC right now.. the trick is to not change that mood by appearing too vindictive. sorry, it is not right but it is the way it is.

  by Hawkjt on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:51:15 PM PDT

  •  Do you have anything

    to back that up at all?  I have yet to see anything indicating that impeachment is as scary to the public as so many around here say it is.

    And as I've said before, changing policies is irrelevant if the power of the President isn't limited.  If let the President remain an elected dictator, then sure, Obama, Edwards, whoever can come in and set things right, and then eventually, when a Republican is elected again, they can go right back to the way Bush has things now.

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:45 PM PDT

•  Supporting and defending the Constitution

  is a conflict of interest?

  It is the media that is the problem, not the fact that the Speaker of the House determines the agenda and is also 2nd in line to succession.

  by Halcyon on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:57:49 PM PDT

  •  She could be defending

    the Constitution, or she could be grabbing power.  Both sides (or more accurately, only the latter side) will be portrayed by the media, so she has to be inoculated against it.

    Simply put, if she's involved, it can and will be spun as partisan hackery rather than a defense.

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:02:04 PM PDT

    •  That's what I said.

      But it's not impossible for Democrats to get on message with their own frame. Just because the media is biased rightward doesn't mean the Democrats have no voice. Impeachment would force the media to give the Democrats more air time. If the Dems did a better job of crafting their message, creating the narrative, injecting the proper emotion into their air time, then the pseple would probably have more confidence, and see them as the underdogs just trying to do their job for the people. But caving will get the Dems nowhere, and fails to uphold their oaths of office. They can easily message that they are doing what is best for the country without concern for the political fallout. This would only serve to endear them to the voters.

      by Halcyon on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:11:21 PM PDT

      •  agreed nt

        by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:16:05 PM PDT

    •  She is involved

      She's taken a position against it.  I think her position and power should demand her recusal.

      by feline on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:35:03 PM PDT

•  Recd

  because there are still three diaries on the recommended list that aren't about impeachment.

  Also, well put.

  by jxg on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:06:59 PM PDT

  •  Best reason ever, thx nt

    by Builderman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:09:19 PM PDT

•  She can work behind the scenes for

  impeachment.  I'd like to think that she already is but she's probably too busy with investigations (that will go on ad-infinitum if impeachment is not pursued). She is respected and we need her leadership.

  by Bikemom on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:06:47 PM PDT

•  Conflict of interest should go both ways

  If her position requires her to be impartial, then she shouldn't have taken impeachment "off the table" months ago; she shouldn't have taken a position on the issue at all.  Instead she chose to influence Congress and the people on the issue, which I also see as a conflict of interest.

  It's not her place as Speaker of the House to speak for the American people and members of Congress on this issue.  It's her place to listen, and reflect the opinions of others, in my opinion.  She isn't even listening to her own constituents.

  I think she should retract her "off the table" statement, and admit that her position requires that she be impartial, that this issue is up to the American people and Congress to decide - not her!

  by feline on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:15:22 PM PDT

•  Isn't it always true she is #3 in line?

  Being such was not intended as an impediment to carry our her duties and responsibilities, including impeachment.

  Being #2 certainly hasn't hampered Cheney.

  Being #4 hasn't hampered Byrd or anyone else down the line.

  The only thing I haven't seen Madame Speaker note is that these actions by Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are criminal. In the interview with Mike, she walked a long mile around the criminality - and obvious criminality in some cases - by Bushco. And the hard truth about criminality is that it is active and on-going. She could even have stated her concerns in diplomatic terms, but "bad" is a moral term and not close enough to "criminal."

  I think her and all the Congressional members' responsibility to the Oath is the same as a soldiers - their life is on the line in the face of the performance of their duties. Period.

  When Cheney pulled the NSA shit on the Intelligence Committee, someone, Rockefeller, et. al., should have gone on the floor of the Senate and exposed it, provoking a Constitutional crisis at that moment: to arrest Rockefeller for the OVP rule or to sanctify his ability to say that on the floor, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

  Very few are standing up, no one in key leadership positions, much less putting their lives on the line. That's what this takes in the face of such a threat. They simply do not feel the gravity and long-term consequences of their acquiescence. Good people are dying as we speak and no one is doing a damn thing about it that promises any real and consequential end to this madness.

  by walkshills on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:43:17 PM PDT