Speaker Pelosi - it's NOT if you have enough votes to Impeach

It's if you have the balls to call for the Vote.

Really.  That's what all of us want.  We understand that you may be spinning in the wind on this one.  We know it, truely we do.  What we want is for you to try.

You know.  Like they always told us in grade school. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  That was a life lesson those elementary teachers were trying to impart to our hard little heads. A quite important one, as it turns out.  It teaches children that sometimes it is better to try and fail, than not to try at all.

More below the fold.

Did you learn that elementary lesson, Speaker Pelosi?  If so, then may I ask, "what the hell are you waiting for?"

Enough is enough.  

Dirty politics (phone-jamming phone banks prior to the election in New Hampshire)

Secretive, Sneaky, Executive Branch Officials (Dick Cheney, hey, do I really need to list the thousand links on this one for ya?)

Outing an Undercover CIA operative during a time of War (whose field was Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East)

Commuting the sentence of the only person convicted of any crime related to the outing of an undercover CIA operative during a time of war (Doh, even Homer Simpson would have passed on this one!)

How is this not enough for you, our duly elected Representatives in Congress, to get off of your weasely asses and Do Something.  To be quite specific, when I say Do Something, I mean do what the Constitution sets out as the Congressional fallback position to reign in an Executive Branch run amok - Impeachment.  I know that you know this one by heart, but just in case, here it is for you:

Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section Four

I'll accept it if you fail.  But if you don't even try, then heaven help the democratic party come november of 2008 - because you may find that the citizens of this nation will be telling YOU that enough is enough, and we may find ourselves with the first independent candidate elected to the White House in over 150 years.

Seriously.

•  Hit the nail on the head, Angie in WA State!

  Nice work.

  (please put out a tip jar!)

  by kidneystones on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:51:16 PM PDT

•  Tips, flames, etc

  n/t

  by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:53:12 PM PDT

  •  You tell her! You're right There are more reasons

    Using federal prosecutors, directed by Karl Rove to gin up cases against Democrats in Wisconsin and Alabama is an egregious abuse of power that demands impeachment.

    And take a look at my diary which goes hand in hand with yours.

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:12:10 PM PDT

•  If they don't do anything about Bush

  I'm not voting for any incumbents in 2008. I won't vote GOP, but if there are no Democratic challengers I'll just stay home because obviously they don't want or need my vote.

  by Cali Techie on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:01:16 PM PDT

•  .

  Office of the Speaker
  H-232, US Capitol
  Washington, DC 20515
  202-225-0100
  FAX [phone]

  E-mail and comments

  Contact your Congressmember

  FAIR media contact list

   

  by buhdydharma on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:33 PM PDT

  •  I sent her an email just prior to posting this

    but, thanks for the reminder!

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:06:32 PM PDT

•  So, let's Pelosi moves for a vote

  for impeachment.  Let's say the House approves it.  

  It goes to the Senate for trial, where after trial 67 votes are required.  Cheney, by the way, would preside over that trial.  

  Are you still going to blame Pelosi?  Why would the citizens of this country be enraged in November, 2008 by what they are NOT enraged about now?

  Are they just waiting on the next election to give voice to their outrage?  

  Ultimately, the American public is fine with Bush.  Pelosi can only do what she can do in the House.  Reid has an insurmountable challenge in the Senate.  Why?  Because the American people don't care.  They don't like Iraq, but only 40% of Americans are demanding that we get out now link.  Sure 77% think Iraq is "going badly", but 37% won't demand we do a thing about it.

  The problem is the people.

  by 2lucky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:08:53 PM PDT

  •  Because they'll hear about it for the first time.

    The American public already isn't "fine" with Bush.  And they aren't political junkies.  And the MSM isn't getting the word out, so they have no clue what is going on.

    by zephron on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:14:52 PM PDT

    •  No, they've heard about the illegal wiretapping.

      They've heard about DOJ.  They've heard about Hallibuton, the war profiteering, the refusal to arm our troops, the conditions at Walter Reed, the lies about Iraq, the failing occupation in Iraq.

      They're also living the economy, which for folks who work for a living, isn't working.  

      The reason Rs in Congress continue to support Bush on Iraq is because the American people aren't kicking their asses on it.  Only immigration has been a pain-in-the-ass for them.  

      As I said, even if Pelosi leans on the house to vote for impeachment, that's not near the end of the story.  If the public isn't on the House's ass on anything but immigration, what's that say about the American public will to change things?  Just vote every couple of years and it's all done?

      by 2lucky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:34:30 PM PDT

      •  I think you over estimate what they've "heard".

        Just because it got on the news for a breif moment doesn't mean they saw it or understood it.  Impeachment hearings would bring a whole different set of eyes to it.

        And yeah, the economy isn't working for most of us.  Many are working like dogs just to tread water.  Those people normally don't have time to keep their head up and pay attention.  Again, impeachment hearings will change that.  They'd even prempt American Idol!  Okay, maybe I'm getting carried away ...

        by zephron on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:49:40 PM PDT

        •  LOL.

          Preempt American Idol?:)  Now THAT would be a feat.

          I think there's a lot of generalized dissatisfaction with Bushco in the general public.  But, think about this (in the poll linked above): 77% people think we're screwed in Iraq; only 40% want to get our asses out.  People like to stew in their disappointments, but won't necessarily do anything about it.  Including picking up their phones.

          As for an impeachment trial: are they going to include Gitmo, torture, DOJ firings, war profiteering, lying about the Iraq intelligence, failures in prosecuting the war, etc.  A trial to include all those things would take 50 years.  The Senate would have to choose one issue (abuse of power, say) and hammer it home.  But I don't see the public being moved enough to call R Senators.  It's sad, but I don't see it.  

          by 2lucky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:56:13 PM PDT

          •  I can only hope you're wrong.

            Otherwise we've already lost.  And that I cannot accept.

            by zephron on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:59:59 PM PDT

            •  Sadly, I think we're losing.

              It wasn't bad enough that the SC interfered on Bush's behalf.  We had four solid years of a Republican Congressional majority that not only refused to carry out oversight, but attacked and threatened the judiciary at every turn.  Not to mention the corruption at every turn.  Not to mention the artful destruction of the DOJ and other federal agencies. Oh, and a couple of failing wars were commenced.

              What did America do in 04?  Relected the same clowns, with a popular majority to boot.  It took two more years for Americans to get pissed off.  Even now, Americans think the war in Iraq is a disaster, but aren't demanding withdrawal.

              Doesn't look promising to me.

              by 2lucky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:12:37 AM PDT

  •  I don't buy your premise

    that a failure to affirm Impeachment in the Senate would somehow offer Bush cover.

    There are no legal or historical or Constitutional basis (unless you are thinking of the double jepardy clause, which only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not at all to the Executive Branch and Impeachment).

    On the contrary, at the very least, an attempt to Impeach will at least leave the history books with some concrete evidence that the entire US government, including the Congress, wasn't up to their necks in secretive, suspect activities.  That at least some of those in the halls of power were still concerned with the concept of equal justice and that no man, and especially not the president, is above the law.

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:29:47 PM PDT

    •  The American people want

      this Legislature to get them improved healthcare, do something to resolve Iraq short of an immediate pullout, get the minimum wage act fully passed, etc. All the things we promised during the election in 2006.

      If this Congress and Senate get bogged down in Impeachment and no promised legislation gets passed, the Dems would be kickout rather than stengthening their positions.

      Remember, they   would have to impeach both Bush and Chaney. Would the public stand for the instablility of having both the Pres and VP expelled at the same time with 2 unelected people replacing them?

      BTW, why are isn't the leadership as well as every Dem member charging the Repubs with obstructionism the way they do when we're in the minority. They should do it every time they get in front of a mike!

      by auapplemac on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:44:58 PM PDT

      •  Have you been watching Washington DC news since

        the 110th Congress took up the gavel and started "The People's business" of 2007?

        What legislation that the Democrats have offered up has been signed into law by President Bush?

        Do we have Universal Healthcare, or just better than 2006 healthcare?  Did the Iraqi Occupation end, and I just missed the news report?

        There is no 'getting bogged down with Impeachment', this Democratic Majority is a majority of one, and Cheney decided all tie votes.  The 110th Congress has not had a hope in hell of accomplishing ANYTHING since they took office.  The Speaker, and anyone who can count to 100 have known this since January 1 of this year.

        Not to mention that even when they pass legislation in the House and Senate, they need Bush to sign it, and I believe that the single bill that was passed, he vetoed.

        Now, please tell me again how impeachment would stop this congress from doing the work of the people?

        by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:52:24 PM PDT

        •  That's why it's important to

          let the public know loudly and often that they need to vote in more D's in order to do the people's business.

          I watch a great deal of TV news and commentary, but have never heard one Dem say the the R's are preventing the passage of important legislation. If the Pres vetos that at least makes headlines, but if the R's prevent the bills from passing, it hardly makes a ripple.

          Can't depend on the media, must keep pounding away at that message. Need more Dems, need more Dems. Give us an veto proof majority!

          by auapplemac on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:27:21 AM PDT

    •  I hear you.

      Yes, if Pelosi strong-armed the House, there would be an official record.  There would also be an official Senate record of failure to convict.  Largely because the American public is so f***ing stupid that they think less of this Dem Congress than they do of Bush.  Or Cheney.    

      I abhor this administration. I frankly would like to see Pelosi do the impeachment drill for the emotional satisfaction.  But after that?  Then what? The thrill of failure in the Senate?

      The history books have, and will have, a world of misdeeds upon which to judge this administration.  

      by 2lucky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:49:46 PM PDT

  •  No, John Roberts would preside

    Remember 1999?

    by daveweigel on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:03:10 AM PDT

•  some times it is better to try and fail

  But not all the time, and not this time.

  A failed impeachment gives Bush historical cover to prop up his collapsed legacy, and will almost certainly preclude future criminal prosecution.

  How about censure? We don't need as many votes for that, and trying and failing carries none of the risks.

  by Goldfish on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:20:56 PM PDT

  •  I don't buy your premise

    that a failure to affirm Impeachment in the Senate would somehow offer Bush cover.

    There are no legal or historical or Constitutional basis (unless you are thinking of the double jepardy clause, which only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not at all to the Executive Branch and Impeachment).

    On the contrary, at the very least, an attempt to Impeach will at least leave the history books with some concrete evidence that the entire US government, including the Congress, wasn't up to their necks in secretive, suspect activities.  That at least some of those in the halls of power were still concerned with the concept of equal justice and that no man, and especially not the president, is above the law.

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:29:09 PM PDT

    •  My premise is based

      On how past impeachments have come to be viewed. Just as with Nixon, there will be a substantial movement by those with vested ideological investment in Bush's presidency to save his legacy. A failure to convict with be talking point number one. Why? Because the opposite of conviction by the Senate is aqquital. Bush being acquitted won't leave the history books showing that Congress did try to stop him. It will show that the House tried to stop him, but the Senate (and here comes the key phrase) determined that he did nothing illegal.

      As for my second point, double jeopardy was not what I was basing it on. Though since you bring up double jeopardy you should keep in mind that the concept is so immersed in the American consciouses that even many people who strongly disapprove of Bush now and who would be supportive of impeachment would feel ill at ease taking any action after the Senate has found that (wait for it) Bush did nothing illegal. However, that's not even my main concern.

      The main concern behind my comment is that impeachment could end up being Bush's get out of jail free card, regardless of its outcome. The concern is that impeachment herrings would ruin any chance to uphold a criminal conviction, the same way they did for Oliver North.

      Since I see criminal action as a much better move on many levels, this is a major problem for me.

      Censure has none of the above problems. Again, why can't we use it instead?

      by Goldfish on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:55:05 PM PDT

      •  Impeachment

        is a political trial, not a criminal one.  There is no downside to Republicans voting not to convict him.  You hang the vote for a criminal around their necks at election time.

        Oliver North's conviction was overturned because he was given immunity during the investigation of Iran-Contra.  I doubt Bush or Cheney will be given immunity of any sort that might scuttle prosecution after they are removed from office.

        by Grannus on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:37:11 AM PDT

        •  You misunderstand the issue

          Involved with North. The issue arose because he was granted immunity, but still could arise with out it.

          An impeachment is basically a trial, and in it all the evidence of Bush's misconduct will be on display in a three wing media circus. In all likely hood, that will have the same impact on Bush's right to a fare trial (I really love applying criminal justice terms to Bush) would be smiler to him testifying himself.

          A stretch maybe, but what do you want to bet this particular Supreme Court in that particular case would agree with me?

          by Goldfish on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:59:59 AM PDT

  •  Please ignore the previous comment

    it was meant for the previous poster.  Apologies.

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:30:14 PM PDT

    •  what? really?

      It looked like it was intended for my comment. It was addressing the points I made. Or did the person above me make the same points?

      I'd like to respond because you made points I'd like to address.

      by Goldfish on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:45:21 PM PDT

  •  Censure is when

    he gets on live TV and waves his dick at us.  Impeachment is when he lies us into war, wiretaps us without warrants, outs covert CIA operations for political purposes, and subverts the Constitution.

    by Grannus on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:51:07 AM PDT

•  I'm fortunate to have Jim McDermott

  as my Rep. He's out there before I even know what's going on.

  We need to install some backbone parts into our two ladies of the senate: Patty Won't and Maria Can't.

  by bleeding blue on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:31:47 PM PDT

  •  I've written Rep Brian Baird's office, tomorrow

    I'll be on the phone to him, and both Senators.

    Enough is enough.

    I just can't quit saying it.

    I wish Speaker Pelosi would start.

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:38:55 PM PDT

    •  OK, I'll do it too

      You're making me get off my ass. Damn you :-)

      by bleeding blue on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:44:57 PM PDT

      •  I've contacted Jay Inslee

        We'll see if he is still the waterboy for Pelosi.  When he and Murray interfered in a state matter about a Washington State call for impeachment, they raised my ire considerably.

        by Grannus on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:39:42 AM PDT

•  If I understand, Congress or Fitzgerald could:

  Immunize Libby, then under oath ask him to spill the goods to a grand jury.  Immunization means he could not claim the 5th.

  Will Pelosi do this?

  Will Fitz?

  My bet is on Fitz.  

  Pelosi is a lost cause and if there were a way to remove her, it should be done.    

  by quantumspin on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:46:29 AM PDT

•  The Democratic Party, like all other organisms...

  Must either adapt or face extinction. Which is where we are now.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:52:36 AM PDT