"Pelosi: Impeachment is 'off the table'"

[reichstag911]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ (for those who don't subscribe to Salon, this is the full text of the piece):

Trying to kill off a Republican talking point – and dashing the hopes of a lot of progressives in the process – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is reportedly proclaiming that the Democrats won't try to impeach the president if they gain control of Congress in November.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells the Washington Post that his boss told members of the House Democratic caucus this week that impeachment is "off the table," and that she's "not interested in pursuing it."

---------------------------------------------------------

Not for those of us who plan on voting Dem in November, it isn't, Nancy!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Interesting

The wuss makes an anticipatory move so as to let everyone know - what?

She is such a numbnuts.

[phantom power]

43. More of the same, eternally cowering in fear of GOP talking points.

Could the Dems be any bigger dupes? The Republicans say "you better not campaign on impeachment." And here Pelosi gets down on her knees and rushes to assure everybody. "No sir, mister GOP sir! Nobody's thinking about impeachment, sir!"

God, what I wouldn't give to see the Dems say "The GOP can go pound sand. Elect us in November, and we'll investigate the President and whoever else we damned well please, and impeach whoever deserves it."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. Remember Reid and the "nuclear option"?

That was so shameful, the speed with which Reid dropped to his knees to service that bitch Frist as soon as he uttered those two meaningless words regarding filibuster, and for that we got three antedeluvian jurists who are going to wreak havoc on our civil rights for another generation.

I'm so sick of them.

Your last line says it all. Thank you. I feel less alone.

[phantom power]

93. Being a bully works every time. Until the day the victim says "No more."

Pelosi just said "Thank you sir, may I have another." America hears you loud and clear, Nanci. And the GOP thanks you in advance.

[dailykoff]

160. Yep. Appeasement is a fool's game.

No excuses, not at this late date.

[pnwmom]

197. She didn't say it's off the table FOREVER, did she?

They'll do their investigations after they win . . . and then it will be back on the table.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

118. Dem leadership continues...

...to make one misstep followed by the next. We're a one party fascist state with a token, make pretend opposition party.

[The Backlash Cometh]

152. Obviously, she'll have to be replaced before we impeach him.

Do you have any idea how many times I've heard from white people, "No jury in the country will convict him," when a white person breaks the law for what they believe is a moral purpose?

These people really believe they can destroy this country and all they'll get is a slap on the wrist.

[Boneman]

155. The first thing the Democrats need to do is to get rid of Pelosi. She

is a total embarrassment. If the Democrats are not planning impeachment of Bush, I will NOT vote Democratic, even if it means shooting myself in the foot. And virtually everyone in my neighborhood feels the same way.

[reichstag911]

195. Nah, you HAVE TO vote Dem...

...or else there's no hope whatsoever. But the Dems have to hear from us that their constituency is not going to tolerate their "go along to get along" acquiescence to the subversion of this country's ideals.

[Skip Intro]

2. We should focus on gaining control first...

hopefully she means off the table, for now....

[sabra]

5. I will give her that benefit of the doubt.... for now :-)

[Kikosexy2]

148. Bombard her's and all..

Demmies' offices with calls and emails to retract her statement! We demand action to this corrupt administration and their co-horts now!

[wordpix2]

115. that's the only way I'd think positively about this; otherwise, Nancy is

way off base on this

[Mr_Spock]

132. ding ding ding!!!

You win the prize.

All this hand wringing about what the Dems say they are going to do in the future is a total waste of time.

I guess some here get there jollies bashing Democrats any time they can get away with it...

[Orsino]

185. I'm sick of deferred half-promises...

..of what our so-called leaders are gonna do for us someday. If *'s crimes don't demand impeachment in Pelosi's opinion, that bodes ill for the ethical standards of the next Democratic Administration or majority. Are they just awaiting their turn to receive the lion's share or corporate bribes?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Pelosi's statement could just be a political talking point, and she might be planning to start impeachment proceedings one day. There'll certainly be no dearth of fresh revelations of * corruption, and she'll find a reason if she wants. By saying "off the table" now, though, she is excusing every one of *'s crimes to this point.

Couldn't she have just said "not ruling it out, but no immediate plans"? That would have shown some spine.

[Skip Intro]

196. we could then say, "who could have imagined the depths of their treason?"

I understand the frustration, I've been here on DU since 01, and have bitched about Dems caving as much as anyone, but there are a lot of things going on here:

- We may be on the cusp of taking back one or both Houses - its a percarious situation we've learned can change

- the bush regime is self destructing, this keeps the spotlight on them, not us, which is as it should be

- The best the repukes can come up with as a reason to vote repuke is "they'll impeach lord bush" - she killed that

there's a lot riding on the coming elections, a lot, everything, as I'm sure you know

politicians (traditionaly, evidently, necessarily?) move "to the middle" to appeal to the widest audience to get the most votes. if talking down the possibility of imeachment now means more votes in November, its okay with me. (no, I wouldn't take the same stance with just any issue, I wouldn't betray my/our values, and I don't think that's the same thing as taking impeachment "off the table" (for now).

besides, she/we could always say, as the various investigations mature, "well, we originally said no impeachment, but who could have imagined (he he)the depths of thier treason?"

anyway, just mho

[ckramer]

199. Gaining control first, absolutely correct.

So better leave Nancy alone, people, just don't jinx it.

Controlling Congress is not a sure thing yet.

This made me think about those who talk about how they are going to spend their millions on the eve of the multi-state lottery opening night.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. We can play this game like the Repukes. Say anything, and then do whatever

we want AFTER the elections!!!

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

110. 'zactly!! ... its called stratergery! ;^)

And quite frankly if this ploy was able to get the dems in power, in the house AND maybe even the senate, it might be worth an impeachment sacrifice...

Of course having the house and the senate (and maybe a whole bunch more govenors etc.) might FORCE old Pelosi to say "the people have spoken and (boo hoo hoo) I have to break my promise to NOT impeach" ;) LOL

{B^> FMH

[Critters2]

123. Yeah, behaving honorably is over-rated

:banghead:

[pnwmom]

198. Exactly. And, she also happens to be telling the truth.

Right now, as far as she is concerned, it IS off the table.

But no one can predict what will happen once Democrats are in charge of committees again.

[liberalnurse]

4. This Progressive is not the least bit interested

in Impeachment of *bush. My goals are realistic as I am targeting the Congressional Win of 2006!

[JudyM]

177. Really? Not the least bit interested?

Don't you think his actions warrant impeachment? Or have you just stopped believing in our dem leaders?

[truthisfreedom]

6. we won't need impeachment. we can easily put him in a position of either

doing what we demand, or resigning. he's frightened of giving up power, so he'll buckle. 8^)

[Miss Chybil]

165. F--- impeachment. Send the bastard to jail! nt

[shadowknows69]

7. I think it's what people want

I think they're ready for impeachment on both sides of the aisle. Or is the reluctance because the Dems want as much power as the repubs had with no accountabilty.

[JudyM]

178. My take is that she doesn't want us to wear the mantle of negativity.

The repukes do all the negative campaigning and brainwashing the press and then turn it around on us like we don't appreciate all the good they do. If they go out on the campaign trail fearmongering about the spectre of our taking down the king we may lose a good portion of the votes of moderate voters. But who knows...

[JackBeck]

8. What I find more attractive is how the Democrats will have

subpoena power once they either gain a majority of the House or Senate. And then continue to embarrass the Republican Party as a whole by having hearing after hearing to expose the corruption in the Republican Party.

[reichstag911]

61. No, then we're lowering ourselves...

...to the level of Ken Starr. It's not about embarrassing them, or holding hearings in perpetuity, it's about accountability, and impeachment cannot be "off the table," even rhetorically. If investigations properly lead there (as we know they would), it must be decided then, and not before.

[Dr Fate]

77. yes- how silly we would be to emulate the winners. n/t

n/t

[reichstag911]

88. IIRC,...

...they didn't win anything from the whole Whitewater fiasco. They had to steal the White House in 2000, which put them in a good position to steal the midterms (think Saxby Chambliss over Max Cleland, noted pal of OBL), then a little legerdemain with the Ohio state Bush campaign chairman counting the votes and awarding victory to...Bush! What have they really won? They've stolen whatever Dems didn't hand to 'em on a silver platter.

[Dr Fate]

89. Yeah-right. Try to get Nancy Pelosi to repeat a single word of that.

And after 4 years of DUers insiting that "we really won"- I'm still wondering when I get to fuck the Prom Queen.

We didnt "win" shit-their strategies WORKED- it made the elections just close enough with REAL votes for them to cheat the rest of it.

[reichstag911]

94. Lifting lines from "The Rock?"

Actually, I'm not really sure what your post about emulating the "winners" meant. Was it meant to express disagreement with my strong pro-impeachment stance?

[Dr Fate]

95. I disagreed with you that trying to embarass your oponents is bad.

And you are right- bad movie, but great line!!!

I agree w/ your other posts.

[reichstag911]

106. I thought so...

...based on reading all of them; that's why I was somewhat surprised by the "emulate the 'winners'" one.

[JackBeck]

150. Conyers & Company have been doing everything in their Constitutional power

by sending letters of inquiry.

Besides shutting down Congress, which would (and was the one time it was executed) be framed as "partisan whining", the Democrats have been exercising everything in their power to try to get to the bottom of all the Repugs lies by sending these letters and putting the Repugs on the record.

I'd love to see this administration impeached. But my feelings of late have been to give the Democrats a majority so they have committee jurisdiction, and embarrass the hell out of the Republicans.

The Democrats would then have the power to open the floodgates. Could impeachment be a result? Absolutely. The power and outrage of the people could not be held back once there is honest to god transparency.

[Caution]

9. It SHOULD be off the table. It does NOTHING for us

If we retake the senate or the house we can put a stop to most abuses and turn him into a true lame duck. If we impeach or try to impeach we run the risk of re-energizing their whackjob freeper fanatics and cutting into the gains we make. Impeachment does nothing to help us pass progressive laws and pursue progressive policies.

[reichstag911]

18. Until when,...

...the next time they capture the executive and legislative branches? When the Dems run another lame Dukakis or Mondale type with zero voter appeal? And it all starts again?

Ford erred in pardoning Nixon; it demonstrated the lack of accountability at the highest level of "our" government. That should not be repeated with Bush and the cabal. Impeach, indict, imprison, then hand over to the Hague for war crimes prosecution.

[KansDem]

45. I'm with you on this...

Impeach, indict, imprison, then hand over to the Hague for war crimes prosecution.

These thugs and cutthroats need to be held accountable. If not, they'll return and do this all over again. Many of those connected with the present Bush administration were around during Iran/Contra. Bush, the Elder pardoned them and they're back.

No more. Convict them and seize their assets. Use that money to compensate their victims.

[Caution]

53. Until such time as the rabid partisanship fades a bit

An impeachment of Bush would divide this country beyond all reason or need. I understand and feel the anger about what he has done and feel impeachment would be getting off light for him, but right now things are seriously fucked up to the point where I honestly think an impeachment proceeding would lead to real violence in the streets.

[reichstag911]

66. We're already there.

Or were you not aware of police/federal conduct at various antiwar/anti-globalization events (NYC, Seattle, somewhere in FL,...)? We are being suppressed, and violence is being done to the Constitution and our rights enumerated thereunder. What is the difference whether they take our rights by actual violence, or by the threat of violence? Our will to resist, that's all. Cross the line, and they will use violence.

[wordpix2]

117. cops just stopped by to see protesters vs local rodeo being held this week

near my town. I was driving home after work and a small group was out there protesting with signs like, "Your ticket buys animal cruelty." It was pouring rain. Just as I passed them a cop car pulled in with another close behind, no doubt to tell them to end the protest. I wonder if anyone will get arrested. :eyes:

[T Wolf]

72. and this would be bad because......

Another semi-Dem speaks from a position of weakness.

Unless we permanently remove the pukes from every position of power in this country, they will come back. The time for taking prisoners is long past.

[President Kerry]

145. Why is it always us leftists that are supposed to make

concessions to keep things stable and everyone happy? Fucking enough! This presidency is a joke.
I'll only stand for impeachment being "off-the-table" if it helps elect right-thinking individuals in office, who could help change things in DC. Enough rubberstamping!

[calimary]

180. The problem is, however, that it we DON'T IMPEACH this fucker

when the Dems get the House back, that WILL send a signal that this MOST horrendous of high crimes - and not misdemeanors. These are NO mere misdemeanors. These are ALL FELONIES - if there is NOT hell to pay for bush for all of this, WHILE WE SAW A MAN IMPEACHED FOR LYING ABOUT CHEATING ON HIS WIFE, what does that say about us as a country? What does that say about the value and legitimacy of the Constitution? Does that mean we ALL treat the Constitution of the United States as "just a goddamned piece of paper," the way bush regards it?

It's a HORRIBLE precedent NOT to IMPEACH this bastard - AND hopefully, REMOVE him from office - for the magnitude of the offenses he's committed against this country and all the people in it.

You'd just let him go with a slap on the wrist? Or decide that, well, let's just let bygones be bycones, move on, it's in the past, let's not get into it?

I think we HAVE to get into it. We HAVE to reestablish accountability from our highest officials. We HAVE to reassert that there is NO ONE ABOVE THE LAW. Otherwise, the law doesn't count for shit. The gravity of what bush has done to this country, its people, and our near-sacred Constitution CANNOT just go sit over there in the corner quietly and be nice, because some people might be offended. And frankly, it's fewer and fewer people I think we'd even have to worry about offending. Frankly, I think they DESERVE to be offended. Because what they've done and countenanced is as offensive as it is imaginable to be.

It has to be framed that way in discussion and debate. But if we DON'T, then any lawbreaker out there, or would-be lawbreaker, will forevermore be able to point to this era and say - SEE? It wasn't that big a deal! Who cared? And the Constitution WASN'T really worth it after all. Who gives a shit? Laws? Fuck the laws. It will set a precedent for complete anarchy, To allow bush get away with no effort to hold him seriously accountable, and effort to force him to deal with consequences for his actions will be tantamount to telling everybody our laws don't mean dick, our Constitution is no better than a roll of toilet paper, and that any future president can just appoint himself dictator and flout the law and the Constitution he/she will have SWORN under oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

If your kid did some serious wrong, what kind of message would he/she learn if you decided that it's better not to punish, it's better not to hold him/her accountable, his friends might really get upset about it and wouldn't speak to you anymore. So just let him off. If some drunk driver mowed your loved ones down, would it be okay to say - aw, it's better not to make him face any consequences because it would just be too upsetting for everybody involved. Can't have that.

NO!!!!

NO!!!!

NO!!!!

NOT to IMPEACH would be, in my mind, as criminally negligent as bush himself has EVER been about ANYTHING.

NOT to IMPEACH after everything we've already seen and discovered (and you know what that means don't you? There's a LOT more where all that came from that we haven't found out yet) and the sheer magnitude of what this jackhass has done - would be an absolute sin. One I myself would rather not have to face St. Peter for.

Besides, if the masses are angry enough to turn the republi-CONS out in numbers great enough for us to win back the House of Reps, the momentum to follow through and force the bastard to face the music will still be there to a large extent. The hyenas on hate radio will be screaming bloody murder. FUCK THEM. Let 'em. WE have better and far more important things to do, for the sake of sending a message across America that crime of this order SHOULD NOT pay and DOES NOT pay. The numbers are ALREADY with us, and will only grow, once it starts to sink in with people how Big Brother really exists and is tapping their phones for no reason and that bush is flat-out LYING about it when he denies this. I say we go with that momentum and make it count for something. The numbers will be on OUR side. America truly does NOT like what is going on now, or the way things are being run, or the policies and CERTAINLY not the results of those policies. The folks out there are starting to get it. I say we grab that and run with it for all it's worth.

bush HAS to be IMPEACHED. There is NO other way. There is NO higher priority. There is NOTHING more important. Besides, there's the blood of about, what? 2400 Americans crying out for justice. I'm NOT okay with letting that blood pour out - unavenged. All those Americans and the innocent Iraqi civilians whose country we've ruined and whose lives we've screwed - or immorally taken - cry out for justice. If we don't see to it that justice is done, and bush is forced to pay for what he's done, they will ALL have died IN VAIN.

[Martin Eden]

192. I agree. The rule of law must prevail.

Isn't that what our supposedly superior system of government is about -- the rule of law?

The American people deserve no less than truth and accountability in their government. This is what the Democratic Party needs to stand for. Instead we have Nancy Pelosi with her tail between her legs over an issue that not only should be a big plus for the Democratic Party -- but a matter of duty for our elected representatives.

[serryjw]

27. I have agreed with this for some time

I do NOT want pResident Cheney and I want this mess straightened out and make him a lame duck....which in my estimation is more important.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

128. We've had President Cheney...

...since 2000, or do you believe Chimpy is running things behind the scenes? For the much hated Cheney to actually have to assume the title would only strengthen our hand. Imagine where he'd be polling. Further, we'd then have a President with an indictment related to the Plame outing hanging over his head.

All that aside, complicating this with strategic considerations is wrong. If impeachment is warranted, and we all know that it is, it should be pursued.

[serryjw]

133. I'm not giving that SOB

Constitutional powers. It's bad enough he takes them when he is LEGALLY Prez.

[madame defarge]

60. Agreed...

Regain control of Congress is THE goal right now, with eyes on the big prize for '08. Impeachment, much as this president deserves it, will only put other idiots in power, like Cheney (if he survives) or Hastert. If we have 2 years of stopping all the crap this regime is doing, we're making progress.

[knight_of_the_star]

109. Question

What good would progressive laws and policies be if the chimp vetoes them whenever they hit his desk?

[Mr_Spock]

134. You're planning long term! Stop that!!

We're supposed to get all crazy about comments she makes today that we will forget about tomorrow, don't you know.

I agree on your point as well - impeachment get's rid of the best thing that's happened for the Dems in a while. People who can't see this are not thinking straight.

[lakercub]

143. Bush has to be impeached

It has nothing to do with what it can do for us. It has to do with the law. An example must be made of Bush. This isn't even partisan. If you betray your Oath of Office and violate the Constitution, you need to be impeached...democrat or republican. This is about principle...not politics.

[mmonk]

174. Doing nothing is an effective end to my country.

It means they are ABOVE the law which means WE ARE NOT FREE. Screw not being free. Live free or die. Dictatorships suck and I will not live under a dictatorship. My father fought against one in Europe. Today's politicians are pissing on his grave.

[biglake]

189. Democrats- Should be ON THE TABLE!

There is an obligation to be leaders as Democrats... to show that foul actions have foul consequences and we Democrats follow the law ...PROMOTE consequences and live by them within our constitution. We don't just throw the poor to punishment and jail...we are righteous about evil in the hearts of men, committed on the people of America.

There is an obligation to ALL the WORLD. The harm that this administration has gone needs to be reviewed for the World if we ever want to take back true USA leadership. The eyes of the world will be on the Democrats to do the right thing...not the easy thing. There are public hearings for a reason. To assuage the harm to the victims and to give opportunity to those who must of conscience speak on it. Truth ot Consequences.

Any Democrat who is afraid of this should not be in office. Any Democrat who is hiding anything needs to get out of governmment now too.

[acmavm]

10. Nancy needs to understand that once we take over, we

investigate first, and then we either impeach or if we're damn lucky we prosecute. Or send them off to the Hague.

[shadowknows69]

20. Why can't anyone just say that

They've got the "we're going to do investigations" out there but until they promise it will be backed up with action if something is found it's all BS politics in my opinion. They can't afford to let these criminals stay in office for the rest of their term. If they do they're enablers and just as guilty.

[TankLV]

11. I guess the rule of law is a little to "quaint" for these dems.

As long as they say anything to get elected - MAYBE I'll support this.

But they better not mean it!

WE will be watching CLOSELY.

If the dems, once they get in, DON'T persue this, I'm officially leaving the party - it will no longer have ANY relevance for me. I will work to defeat and replace it with a party I can be proud of.

This is MY warning shot across the bow.

And I am hardly alone.

[5X]

15. You are not alone. n/t

[kstewart33]

12. She's right.

Impeachment is a waste of time. We've got too many more important problems to work on than to spend 1-2 years trying to depose Bush. If the Dems show they can solve problems, our lead in the House will increase in 2008 along with our chances of winning the White House.

[Tom Joad]

13. She is in for a big surprise. and maybe serious opposition in 2008

[OKNancy]

14. Washington Post Link

for those who don't have Salon or don't want to watch the ad

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

[keithjx]

16. Irresponsible cmt by Pelosi.

How can she, up front, simply say it's off the table? What if the investigation uncovers undeniable evidence of egregious high crimes and misdemeanors? To unknowingly throw this out there is ignorant and irresponsible. Oh, wait, I'm talking about a politician, aren't I? My bad....

:eyes:
KJ

[wtmusic]

31. Exactly

Screw that. How/why should it EVER be off the table? What a disappointment she's turning out to be. Another placator.

[stillcool]

39. Maybe because Republicans control the House...

the Senate, the Judiciary, and the Executive? Who you gonna call?...

Thu May 11th 2006, 04:13 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory ...
Security Issue Kills Domestic Spying Inquiry: NSA Wouldn't Give Justice Dept. Clearance
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON May 10, 2006 (AP)— The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.
"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett
and here it gets even better.....
Separately, the Justice Department sought last month to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the telephone company AT&T of colluding with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
The lawsuit, brought by an Internet privacy group, does not name the government as a defendant, but the Department of Justice has sought to quash the lawsuit, saying it threatens to expose government and military secrets.
On the Net:
Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/index.html
National Security Agency: http://www.nsa.gov/home html.cfm
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[President Kerry]

146. The intent has got to be to take away RW ammo..

They already started their squealing about the "impeachment agenda" no sooner Feingold came out with a censure proposal.

[opihimoimoi]

17. Perhaps she is waiting for the PUBs to do it? They put him there

they are the ones who should remove him.

Its a weird world but I back up Nancy....she is not a dummy, she is looking at the big picture..a higher Level.

[MallRat]

19. You can't impeach until you investigate.

...and you can't investigate until you win back control of Congress.

Blowing the horn for impeachment right now serves only one purpose: energizing Bush's demoralized base. I agree with Pelosi on this... and I don't very often.

[shadowknows69]

22. Fuk em

energize the 30% who still believe in this idiot. If the election fix is in that 30% is going to end up being 52% anyway so what do we have to lose?

[reichstag911]

24. But saying that impeachment is "off the table"...

...threatens to backfire ("flip-floppers," "liars") when investigations reveal/corroborate the extent of the subversion of the Constitution by this band of criminals.

[MallRat]

76. This is politics.

June 12, 2007

"Oh my. When we began this investigation back in February 2007, we had no idea that we'd learn that _____________________. In light of the gravity of these findings, and the gross violations of Constitutional law which they represent, we find it necessary to begin drawing up Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush, President of the United States."

You can always change your mind. It's not flip-flopping... it's called "acting on new information."

[reichstag911]

86. Tell it to Rove and Kerry.

It may well be a political ploy, but the bottom line, as I stated elsewhere here, is that it serves to demoralize the ardently anti-Bush people -- not privy to her grand strategy -- who want to see him held accountable. By pandering to the backwash, she demoralizes many of her own base. Is that not clear? She's responding to a Repub talking point, rather than getting out front of what many people want to hear -- maybe not pressing impeachment, but certainly not (rhetorically) foreclosing the option.

[struggle4progress]

159. Bingo!

[rodeodance]

32. nicely said.

[bullimiami]

21. pelosi is off the table. we dont need any more stinking appeasers.

[quiet.american]

23. Upon reflection, seems like a good chess move to me.

We've been hearing for weeks how Rove has nothing left to whip up the base with other than putting the fear of God into them that their fake messiah will be impeached.

With Pelosi on the record saying impeachment is off the table, it makes it more difficult for the GOP to pursue this campaign tactic.

[Dr Fate]

29. YES- "Chess!" Dont forget "Rope a dope" and "dry powder" too!

I believe we are also "using Judo" and "giving them more rope to hang themsleves" as well.

I KNOW- Perhaps Bush will "fall on his sword!"

Say what you want about Democrats- no one can say we dont have comforting talking points for not fighting Bush.

[quiet.american]

58. Lol. Reserving judgment until I see how this starts to play out. n/t

[reichstag911]

33. So Pelosi demoralizes...

...a significant chunk of the Dem base because she's concerned about Rove re-energizing the backwash? How very Machiavellian, but there's one problem: since the Dem base is not privy to her true thinking, we're just left demoralized, and Rove's gonna use the impeachment meme, anyways! What, you think they'll believe Pelosi?

[Dr Fate]

51. DEMs care about EVERYONE more than their own DEM base.

They care about what "swingvoters" and 29% of voters think than their base.

See: Iraq War, Alito Filibuster, impeachment, etc, etc.

[quiet.american]

75. Here's my thoughts.

I'll just say this, I would love to see Bush impeached. In fact, I think impeachment is too benign and just a slap on the hand for this monster. But, I'm also not a professional politician. And somewhere in the middle of my clenching my teeth and shaking my fists about "the spineless Dems," I stopped for a moment and did some more reflection.

National polls indicate a true majority of voters trust the Democratic Party on more issues than they trust the GOP. We're hearing stories of more and more dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who are willing to vote Democrat this fall. Somehow, somewhere, Dem leaders have done at least some things right in this game, if only by default.

It doesn't matter at all whether the GOP "listens" to Pelosi. She is not letting the Rove fear-mongering tactic go unaddressed. She is on the record as saying there are no plans for impeachment. This is a talking point Dem talking heads can now take to their appearances, in the same way that Howard Dean was able to unequivocally say about the Abramoff scandal that "This is not a bi-partisan scandal, this is a Republican scandal."

When some media hack now tries to focus the interview on whether Dems plan to impeach Bush, therefore framing the mid-term campaigns using the GOP fear-mongering talking point, Dems can answer, "no," and move on to frame the message in Democratic terms of what the party DOES plan to do once it's back in power.

[Dr Fate]

25. Dear cowards- please ask someone else for money. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[truthisfreedom]

26. she's sending this message: "Cheney is unacceptable."

it's pretty simple, really.

[dweller]

78. and I agree! He's unacceptable ...

so his nuts are on the impeachment block too!

Impeach the whole lot of 'em.


NGU

dp

[leesa]

28. So right and wrong means nothing to this woman. Great. Why don't they

just dissolve Congress, they have no function.

[longship]

30. I hate to say this, but this has to happen.

Dems *must* take the "I" word off the table. If Repugs are able to make the 2006 midterm election about "Impeachment", the Dems lose. That's why Repugs are using it as a talking point and that's precisely why Dem candidates have to turn it around on the Repugs by saying, "This election is about restoring checks and balances to a system which, for five years, has been nothing but a rubberstamp for a failed President's policies."

[anotherdrew]

34. god damn it he SHOULD be impeached, convicted and jailed for LIFE!

I don't know what the hell the point is IF we can't win on what should happen in a decent moral sane world. If bush can't be impeached and we can win saying we will impeach him, I don't know what the hell the point is. Fuck it! fuck it all, if he's going to be let walk away from this scott free I don't give a damn anymore.

[longship]

Because we *cannot* win on that issue.

The Repugs are already beginning to trumpet "impeachment" as the Dem plank. They know that if they can make 2006 elections about impeachment, they win. That's precisely why Pelosi is saying that it is "off the table".

And nobody wants impeachment more than me. But we have to do it as it comes. We cannot impeach, let alone convict in the Senate, unless we have support from a lot of Republicans. It is way, way premature to talk about impeachment, which is precisely why Pelosi is exactly correct in saying what she said.

[Dr Fate]

44. Do we really think her comments will "fool" any Republicans?

The KNOW that impeachement is a possibility no matter how wimpy Pelosi acts.

Refusing to be blunt about Bush will not keep Repubs away from the polls- it will keep Liberals who are tired of spineless DEMs away.

[longship]

52. That's not a very good argument.

Who cares who it fools? The Repugs can think what they want. It's what the electorate thinks that's important. If a enough voters think that Dems just want to impeach, they will not vote our way. It's that simple. The Repug strategists *know* this which is precisely why they are saying what they are saying.

[Dr Fate]

57. What electorate? Mostly only the hard-core shows up for midterms.

And besides- what data are you looking at that shows moderates and swingvoters dont think Bush's actions are impeachable?

[longship]

71. The election *cannot* be about impeachment.

There are more important issues. The war in Iraq, the price of gasoline, the huge debt accrued in the last five years that benefits only the rich, the erosion of civil rights, etc. Dems should focus on issues, *not* impeachment.

I'm not saying that nobody wants to impeach Bush. I'm saying that campaigning on a plank of impeachment is a losing strategy. People want more than that.

Why in the Sam Hell do you think that the Repugs are trumpeting it now?

Why in the Sam Hell would you want Dems to play directly into the very strategy that the Repugs know can win it for them?

[Dr Fate]

73. Give me an example of "let this one slide" approach working for DEMs.

WMDs? We let it slide. How did that help us?

Election fraud in 2000- we let it slide. How did that help us?

Swiftboat Vets- let it slide.

Etc, etc.

Perhaps YOU are the one playing into their hands- The last thing Republicans want to do is to have to go on TV and explain to America why what Bush did is not impeachable.

It's not so much that we trumpet inevitable impeachment- my strategy would be be to put the GOP on the defensive and force them to explain why he should NOT be impeached. Oh well. More wimpy ass wishy washy UNinspiring BULLSHIT.

Sighh- I guess I'll watch the Colbert clip again or read some old Harry Truman speeches or something.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

147. All those issues track back to a single person and his irresponsible

incompetent and corrupt administration of his administration. He deserves to be fired.

[phantom power]

47. It's a bluff. And, as usual, the Dems are getting suckered by it.

[longship]

64. That's not the way it works.

Perceptions in politics are *everything*. If the voters perceive that the Dems just want to impeach, many will not vote for Dems. Reality sucks, my friend.

We have to play our own game here and not play into the Repug game. We need to focus on issues in this campaign, not impeachment. That's the winning strategy. Let the Repugs flap about impeachment. Dem response must be fast and sure. "We need to elect a Dem Congress to restore checks and balances to a Congress which has, for five years, done nothing but rubberstamp the policies of a failed President."

Saying the impeachment is "off the table" is part of the process of denying Repugs oxygen on the topic. Nobody is better positioned to do that than Nancy Pelosi, the likely Speaker-of-the-House in the next Congress.

[phantom power]

67. I'll agree to disagree.

I think it would be a galvanizing issue, not a losing issue. 2/3 of America disapproves of Bush and the GOP. Why? Because they know they're corrupt and incompetent. A promise to hold the corrupt accountable is a winning campaign plank, if you ask me.

And clearly, the GOP thinks so too, because why else would they be so "helpfully" warning us to avoid it?

[longship]

91. Your presumption, however heartfelt, is wrong.

Let me explain it this way.

People remember the very political impeachment of Pres. Clinton. They didn't like it very much, which is precisely why Clinton soared in popularity after Repug efforts died in the Senate. That's the only way you can interpret things.

Now, the Repugs are going to say that the Dems only want impeachment. Some will say that it's to pay Repugs back for Clinton's impeachment. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. But by making the midterms about impeachment, the Repugs know that they can tap into the feeling that such an impeachment just might be political. After all, the Clinton impeachment was clearly political and everybody knows it. The Repugs think that this is a winning strategy for them.

The problem is this. Those who want impeachment are not the ones Dems need to win the election. They are already going to vote Dem. However, we need cross-overs and independants. Those are precisely the people who the Repugs are talking to when they say, "Dems only want to impeach."

The electorate has a funny way of getting pissed-off when their representatives do things they don't wish. So, by saying that we should impeach Bush, we'll be pissing off the very people who can win the election for us. That's not very smart. It's precisely why the Repugs are using this particular strategy now.

If the vast majority of people were pissed-off enough things might change. But after a very political impeachment of Clinton, the Repugs have kind of taken impeachment off the table for us. That's just the way things are right now. That may change.

Hell, I'm for impeachment. But, only a fool would campaign on it.

[phantom power]

97. Maybe the problem is getting too hung up on the word "campaign"

I don't actually think that every Democrat should put up on their web-site that "Impeaching Bush is an official Democratic campaign plank."

However, when the GOP tries to make accusations that the Dems want to impeach Bush, the proper response is NOT "No worries, Sir! Impeachment is off the table!"

The proper response is something like what I posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2280329&mesg_id=2280480

Or, here's another variation: "The GOP doesn't speak for us. We'll hold investigations if we find it necessary, and impeach whoever deserves it."

And, if you're feeling extra saucy, you might add this: "And why is the GOP so preoccupied with impeachment? Do they have a guilty conscience?"

You can say all that, whenever the GOP is dumb enough to bring up the topic, without "campaigning" on it. Right?

And another thing, I absolutely think that it IS a good official plank to say "Dems are committed to investigate GOP incopetence and corruption." I would put that on ever Dem web-site, and mention it in every speech.

[longship]

102. You're basically on the target

I'm just not too worried about Pelosi's "off the table" remark. I think that your snarky remark about guilty conscience would have been much, much better response.

However, both responses have the effect of defusing the issue.

Consider this. Pelosi says it's off the table, but she never implied that it would remain in that status.

She's smart. If an investigation is held and there are sufficient votes for articles of impeachment, she can simply say, "Yes, it was off the table in May. But much has happened since then, including an investigation which has revealed putative high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration. If we were to ignore these things we would not be doing our job."

[phantom power]

107. True, but there is no "theater" in that approach!

As you mentioned, politics is perception. And a large part of that is theater. Grabbing the news. Getting people's attention. Outraging your opponents, and making your supporters cheer!

I guess what I'm saying is, all the Dems ever do is "defuse" things. The GOP knows you have to go beyond that. You have to not only defuse an attack, but turn it right around and clobber your attacker on the head with it. And do it with so much panache that even our ADD news media will want to cover it.

And, incidentally, strike a little secret fear in the hearts of our opponents. Let them know we're not afraid anymore, and we're coming for them.

If we just "defuse," we're left with nothing. The party just becomes a big black hole, emitting no light.

[longship]

119. That's also correct.

That's why my original post contained a suggested response.

This is precisely what Carvell and Company did for Clinton and precisely what neither Gore nor Kerry did.

If I were advising a campaign this cycle I would be highly tempted to ridicule the Repug impeachment screeching. Something like this:

Republicans talk about impeachment because for five years they have had no ideas other than to rubberstamp a failed President's policies.

...then move foreward with a framing of a Dem issue.

When the Repugs say Dems have no plan:

For five years the Republican's sole plan seems to have been, "Ignore the people and rubberstamp the failed policies of the President."

etc.

The framing here is crucial. We connect "rubberstamp Congress" with Chimp's "failures" and the fact that the congressional Repugs have ignored the public's wishes. I know that these are negative but in response to Repug attacks, that's okay.

The people *are* very pissed off at ChimpCo and Congress. Dems need to do two things. First, tap into the pissed feelings. Second, present a very positive image of how Democrats will do the people's business (in contrast the the Repug rubberstamping). There's no room for talk of impeachment there.

[phantom power]

113. I would also add...

that although both approaches technically leave investigation and impeachment open in the future, just saying "impeachment is off the table" comes off as appeasing her opponents. It's weak. It accomplishes nothing except to reinforce the "democrats are weak" stereotype.

That's certainly my reaction to what she said, and I'm a Democrat. Imagine how independents might see it.

By contrast, saying "the GOP doesn't tell us what to do." also leaves investigation and impeachment open in the future, but also conveys that the Democrats aren't taking orders from anybody, particularly their opponents. It demonstrates strength, and does not sacrifice any flexibility. It makes it clear that the Democrats may or may not investigate anybody, or impeach anybody, but whatever they do, they do at their own discretion, not their opponents.

[longship]

121. I agree.

She could have phrased it better. Somebody gave her bad advice.

[Dr Fate]

108. Your appraoch is Karl Rove's nightmare. Nancy's is his DREAM.

n/t

[Dr Fate]

70. Denying Repugs oxygen? HA!!!!

Is that like playing rope a dope or letting them fall on their own sword?

The media and the GOP will have plenty of oxygen to say WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want whether true or not.

I suppose your logic is what allowed the SBVs to get traction. We seem to be thinking that just because WE say something, that means the GOP/media cannot say something. Please.

Can you give me an example of how denial of an issue or accusation has kept the GOP/media from expoiting it anyway?

[longship]

98. There's some wisdom in your post.

However, it is not that the Repugs can screech all they want now.

The Repugs are very much in big, big trouble for November. It may already be a lost cause for them. But impeachment is clearly not a winning issue for Dems in November. *Nobody* who is in tune to the electorate thinks otherwise. Public opinion for another impeachment just isn't there. Not yet.

Let the Repugs screech all they want. The Dem response has got to be fast and based on issues, issues, issues and restoring checks and balances to a rubberstamp Congress.

I'll ask again. Why in the Sam Hell would you want to play into the Repug strategy?

[Dr Fate]

104. I might ask you the same question, after 3 losing election cycles.

Can you give an example of the "let it slide" strategy working for DEMs?

What makes you so sure that YOU are not the one playing into Rove's strategy?

The last thing he wants is for Republicans to have to go on TV and explain how Bush's actions do not warrant impeachment.

As it is, since Rove knows DEMS are too frightened to talk about it, he can frame it anyway he wants. The bluff worked.

Rove will see to it that many voters will assume that Bush "must not have done anything wrong- since no one is talking about impeaching him..."

The LAST thing Rove wants GOP congressmen talking about is impeachment-he should be mush abliged to Pelosi.

You'll see- the dissenting progressives will be right about this too- just like we right about opposing the war.

[Oak2004]

111. So instead the perception should be

that the Democrats are too weak to stand up for Americans?

That's the prevailing image out there right now. And if you think impeachment scares off voters, try looking at what the real prevailing image does with voters.

When, pray tell, is the Democratic leadership going to put something --ANYTHING-- on the table?

[reichstag911]

74. "It is way, way premature...

...to talk about impeachment, which is precisely why Pelosi is exactly correct in saying what she said." What she said about impeachment, about which "it is way, way premature to talk?" :eyes:

[cassiepriam]

35. Score another point for Rove.

As usual the repugs call the shots.

[thereismore]

36. until after the election, hehehe. It's a strategy. nt

[BuyingThyme]

37. The one thing she stands up for, and it's Bush!

Nancy, you're a nice gal, but you're too stupid to be in a leadership role.

Please step down.

[movonne]

38. Maybe her tune will change when we get the house back..you think?

[Dr Fate]

42. Do we think RWers are stupid enough not to know that as well?

The knowledge of possible impeachment is a given.

The RW/media is going to SAY that is what we are doing no matter what we say.

If we are going have a competitive race b/c of the impeachment possibility no matter how wimpy DEMs act.

The Repub base will be there they ALWAYS show up- but failing to show spine means some of the DEM base will NOT show up or work on campaigns.

Pelosi is making a mistake. The "lets pretend to be nice to Republicans" Strategy failed us in the last 3 elections- it will fail this time too.

It think showing spine is a better ticket than blowing smoke up everyone's butt.

[The Stranger]

40. The Dems won't talk about wiretapping, won't talk about graft, Abramoff,

the lying war for terror, impeachment, immediate withdrawal . . .

WTF will they talk about? WTF is on the table?

More of the same?

[Dr Fate]

46. meme: telling the truth about Bush makes us "look weak on defense"

n/t

[JoFerret]

41. I like this approach

...keeps the topic on the front burner while holding the high ground of forgiveness/ redemption/ magnaminity. After all - the weight of the evidence and the need of the people for justice could always change minds...

[Dr Fate]

49. But it wont fool anyone in the RW base.

They know impeachment is a possibility no matter how wishy-washy we act aout it.

My guess is the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections dreamed up this approach.

[Trillo]

48. This reminds of the old undercover investigator's hoax

Perp: "Are you a cop?"
Cop: "Absolutely not."

[walldude]

50. Good plan... let the lying, murdering, cheating

stealing bastards off the hook :eyes: Impeach both Bush and Cheney. If these guys were third world dictators Americans would be screaming for their heads because of what they've done. The only reason these guys haven't been tried and hung is because they are American. Might makes right. Funny, that the people who founded this country thought the exact opposite.

[Dr Fate]

54. But- but -giving Bush what he wants always leads us to victory!

We have hundreds of examples- like when we went along with the Iraq war- that worked, right?

[walldude]

69. Yeah! Any day now the price of gas will drop and I'll

be able to afford health care again. Screw the Iraqi's and the soldiers, I got mine, let them figure out how to get theirs, if they live long enough :sarcasm:

[still_one]

55. I am not a fan of Pelosi, but I will not fault her for this

no use telling them what we are going to do, that is if they plan on doing it

[Tiggeroshii]

56. It really doesn't matter.

Wait till we have the house to consider any of this. Nobody should get at all upset until after the Dems have the hosue and don't do anything. Because for now, we can't do anything...

[phantom power]

63. It's not about what they "can" do, it's about what they WILL do.

"Give Dems control of the house and senate, and we will restore oversight to our corrupt government. And impeach each and every corrupt GOP politician who deserves it, right on up to the President."

Americans are ready to hear that, if the Dems dare to win.

[Dr Fate]

65. Or, we can wait and get upset after we LOSE the house AGAIN.

Why do we think its a given that we will win, especially if we are still using the old wishy-washy, "lets not take a stand" appraoch that lost us the last 3 election cycles?

Pelosi and others think the DEM base will show up no matter what- I think they have it backwards. The DEM base is waiting to be inspired- so far all we have is a comedian and a few low-level congressmen in the CBC.

The RW base WILL INDEED show up, as sure as they show up for church every Sunday & Wedenesday night- no matter how wimpy we act on the impeachment issue.

[VegasWolf]

96. That is EXACTLY my feeling! Nice to see another free thinking, outside

the box intelligence at work here.

[fujiyama]

59. Who cares what SHE's interested in pursuing

What's in her best interest isn't in that of the nation.

She should have made it clear: Dems will hold investigations on various scandals throughout the administration and go where the evidence leads them. If that leads to impeachment so be it.

Nothing should be taken off the table and by dismissing the idea outright, she really makes it difficult to pursue any allegations of wrongdoing thoroughly. I'm disgusted with this. If Dems do vigerously do anything, now repukes will bring up these statements by her and say "see, Dems are just lying opportunists".

[yojon]

62. We cant prejudge the investigation now.. can we??? :-)

I agree with MallRat. It may be that after a proper investigation, solid data will acccumulate that causes her to change her mind.

If she advocated impeachment now, she would be igniting a viscious hoard or wingnuts. Since Congress is in control of Repugs, nothing could be done about it. This is a downside with no up side.

If she waits, the Dems may get control of Congress and could actually do something...

[chelsea0011]

68. I'm sure this is nothing more than an election 2006 tactic..

I think the Dems know the public in general want a change of guard and I think Pelosi doesn't want that public to look back on the silly waste of time the Clinton impeachment caused. Everything came to a stand still and I'm sure the Dems know the public may not want this again. But Pelosi is very clear that investigations of the administration will go forward. She is just being coy about not wanting to go straight to an impeachment. But it still could happen if the investigations show illegal activity(and they will, for sure).

[Dr Fate]

79. Sure- probably dreamed up by someone who worked on the last election

And the one before that, and the one before that.

The strategists who lost the last 3 elections are going to get it right this time- 4 is the charm.

[JudyM]

179. "off the table' is pretty definitive. She's risking her reputation down

the road if she ends up 'flip-flopping.' Seems like she could've just said there's not enough evidence to make it part of our platform and we're more concerned with getting helpful legislation drafted and passed. Jeez, November can't get here soon enough...

[leftchick]

81. That is an absurd thing for her to say

I swear to God I think she has her head in her ass! How the hell can she say that? She does not know what will happen in the future! What evil will be uncovered. Hell they may even find a blue dress somewhere! :grr:

[regnaD kciN]

82. It SHOULD be off the table right now...

Face facts: to impeach and convict, you need 67 "guilty" votes in the Senate. Even if the Democrats were to sweep the Senate races this November, they wouldn't be close to that number. So, as of the moment, impeachment would be an empty exercise in political theatre. (Besides, all it would do is give Cheney the title of President as well as the authority he's had for so long.)

Of course, things can change. If enough damning information becomes public, you might even get Republican senators deciding to remove Bush (and your little Cheney, too!) from office. That information can only become public through investigations. So, yes to investigations, but no to impeachment...for the time being.

Now, what we need to do is start honing a positive message of what we will do to start turning America around once we take back Congress. That will serve us better than impeachment talk when there will be no chance for the latter, no matter what happens, the morning after next election day.

[AndyTiedye]

83. It Shouldn't Be "On the Table". It Should be "On The Floor" Being Debated

IMPEACH THEM NOW!

[longship]

129. Wish it could happen.

1. The Dems have no power in the House Judiciary committee and precious little power in the House chamber as a whole. There can be no investigations until Dems have a majority. Without investigation hearings, there can be no impeachment.

2. Regrettably, the public is not for impeachment at this point. There are many of us who are, but we are not in the majority. Sure, a majority of people are pissed at ChimpCo, but many are not yet ready to call for impeachment. This is especially true since there have been zero hearings. This is precisely why it is wrong for Democrats to campaign on impeachment. People wouldn't like it.

So, it's nice to scream, "Impeach NOW!" but there's no way that can happen.
Too bad.

[AndyTiedye]

137. They Have Not Run Any Polls on Impeachment Lately

[longship]

139. Maybe that should be item #3 on my list.

:-)

[lancdem]

84. No problem

We can put it back on the table after winning Congress. :evilgrin:

[phantom power]

87. Except that we won't win. We'll lose, again.

And we'll lose, because every American can smell the fear on Dems like Pelosi. They can sense that they won't ever stand up to the GOP.

Stand up first, then win. It won't ever happen the other way around.

[Dr Fate]

90. BINGO-Americans dont want Mr. Rogers- they want Clint Eastwood.

While Pelosi is busy begging Bush to "please be my neighbor," Americans are STILL waiting for someone to say "Go ahead punk, MAKE MY DAY."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. The other day CNN ran a long story on tanning.

It was how tanning was bad for you and it was addictive (just like crack) and how Nancy Pelosi was going to do something about it.

Thanks, Nancy.

[ShortnFiery]

92. Nancy needs to AVOID the issue ... stick to INVESTIGATIONS ...

and we'll see where they lead us.

Don't let the Corporate Media lie you into believing that the American People don't want an Impeachment. Hell, WE MUST HAVE AN INVESTIGATION & that WILL lead to Impeachment.

Dammit, why can't she just STFU on this topic? :shrug:

[VegasWolf]

99. Democrats, the few ,the proud, the tough -- err wait! nt

[Veronica.Franco]

100. Wonder what the NSA has on NANCY? ...

They're wielding their mined data like J. Edgar Hoover, wouldn't the old queen be proud? ...

[reichstag911]

101. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Veronica.Franco]

103. Thank you ...

A toast it is ...

[VegasWolf]

105. Good work Nancy!! I'm sure that at least 3 voters don't think you are a

complete liar and buy your story absolutely. The fundies are such nutjobs that they could never see through your little trickery.

:sarcasm:

[RobertSeattle]

112. Whatever - its just like Bush didn't have Iraq War Plans "on his desk"

[neuvocat]

114. That makes it difficult to vote for a democrat.

She seriously needs to reconsider what she's saying. What's the point of protecting a man with a 29% approval rating? He's only got 29% because everyone knows he has to go to jail.

[Dr Fate]

116. NOOO- your vote is "a given" it's EVERYONE ELSE that counts.

It's "a given" that you will send money, volunteer and vote DEM. You are "all fired up about hating Bush", arent you?

You MUST do this- no ifs, ands or buts. It's the swingvoters, and now, apparently 29% of Republicans who we need to cater to- not those "crazy Micheal Moore people."

Got it? Now, about that check....

[Stinky The Clown]

120. Okay, this has become a 'piling on' thread ......

.... and my initial reaction to the headline was to join the scrum ........

.... but then I read the story and the quote.

I'll sit on the sidelines for now.

I'm a Bush Impeachment Hawk and I want AT LEAST impeachment just to fuck with him. Then I want him in Den Haag.

I actually want him de ....... ooops ... Hey Agent Mike :) How ya doin' bud?

Do with her words as we do with so many Repub quotes. Parse 'em on out there .....

'Impeachment is off the table'

Okay ... what does that mean? Forever? Maybe. As a fait accompli goal?

All I can say for sure from this is that a 'formal, stated, official, policy to work to impeach the President and to, in fact, run on that as a platform plank' is not part of the plan.

However, no change in her call for investigations. And if we get to go down that path, well, who knows where that leads .....

I'll wait for now.

Cuz yanno .... we activitists ... we want clarity and we want it now. But maybe that ain't so good. I'll make an assumption of intended ambiguity and deflection ...... for now.

[phantom power]

124. "Off the table" sounds like "forever," doesn't it to you?

Subtle logical parsings are politically irrelevant. It's the first, gut-level reaction that matters. No potential voter is going to sit around saying "Well, in a strict logical sense, she never said it would be off the table forever!"

The first, gut-level impression is "She caved to the GOP. She's weak." That's the beginning and end of it. She just made herself, and by association the Democratic party, look weak.

It's the same losing game the Dems have been playing for years, and if some of us are piling on, it's because we can see that they still, still, still haven't learned anything, and they're setting themselves up for another loss in November.

Meanwhile, our soldiers are dying in Iraq, the climate is going haywire, our debt is spiralling out of control, and our civil liberties are being shat upon. And after November, the Dems will be powerless to stop it for another long, two years.

So anyway, that's why I'm freaking out.

[VegasWolf]

173. Very well said! I agree 100%! nt

[Walt Disney]

122. I plan on voting and I agree. Let us remove this impeachment nonsense

from the table now!

Clinton lied and the genpub didn't care and after 6-8 months of an impeachment proceeding, the they will not care that Bush lied either. Moreover, they will become disgusted to the point that they will take it out on Dems in ’08.

It's beginning to look as though the Dems will be shrewd enough to not sink to the level of the GOP; for if they do, they will surely suffer the consequences.

[Dr Fate]

125. Except the Republicans WON 3 election cycles after impeachment.

Your analysis did not include that teeny detail.

Clinton lied about sex- of course most the public thought his impeachment was stupid- yet there was enough "Clinton fatigue" to cost Gore the election.

Clinton did not have a failed war or Katrina or spy scandals- just sex.

Suffer consequences? What crap. We suffered consequences during the last 3 election cycles when we listened to the "let it slide-dont make waves" crowd.

[Walt Disney]

181. Three cycles...? The GOP got killed in '98 mid-terms and Clinton

left Gore a perfect set up for 2000. Unfortunately, Gore never recovered from his juvenile behavior during the first debate. The GOP had a slight edge in '02, so I will give you two cycles. Still, the GOP's gains were hardly overwhelming.

You also excluded some details regarding Clinton: Whitewater, travelgate, FBI files, pardons, etc. So, the genpub had to disregard more than just a BJ.

However, the point I was trying to make is that the GOP suffered the consequences for impeaching Clinton. Democrats should avoid making the same blunder.

[Dr Fate]

210. GOP suffered zero consequnces- they won the last 3 election cycles.

2000, 2002 & 2004.

With the continuing "let it slide-dont make waves" strategy you are chanpioning, we can add '08 soon enough.

[reichstag911]

127. "Sink to the level of the GOP?"

So lying the country into war, launching (and admitting to) a warrantless, unaccountable spying program, stealing two elections via his state campaign chairs, scandals and incompetence in virtually every Cabinet department under his watch, etc., are comparable to Clinton's blowjob? Bush has done a little more than lie, and his lies have been far more damaging to the country. We haven't even scratched the surface -- OK, maybe we have -- of the corruption/incompetence/theft of this administration.

[Walt Disney]

183. Yes, sink. Because that is exactly what impeachment proceedings

would do to Democrats.



Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken

[orleans]

126. GROW A SPINE

your base is demanding it!



didn't we have this crap a couple years ago? if i remember right--WE DIDN'T GET IN THE CONGRESS OR WHITE HOUSE!!!

shame on her! in her quest to soothe and assure the fuckin republicans she's assuring her base that the dems will LET BUSH GET AWAY WITH ALL OF THESE CRIMES!!!

[Dr Fate]

130. I know- no one can give an example of "let it slide" working for us.

Not one, single , solitary example on this thread of how letting Bush get away with consequences has ever been a winning strategy.

Not one.

[orleans]

170. because every time we let him/them get away with shit

we screw ourselves more and more.

[MisterP]

142. like the "secret plan" everyone was so SURE Congress had

after they voted away their Constitutional declaration of war to the Führer Chimp.
It isn't "giving someone more rope" when you wrap it around your own neck too.

[hootinholler]

131. Could it be because impeachment

IS THE FUCKING TABLE?

-Hoot

[HannibalBarca]

135. Well..

...perhaps a tactic to nullify a GOP talking point, gain control and impeach anyway?

[Dr Fate]

140. How does one nullify a GOP talking point?

Rove will use possible impeachemnt to stir up the GOP base no matter how wimpy we act.

Are you suggesting that if we ignore an issue, the GOP will be forced to shut up about it? Ask John Kery how that worked for him concerning SBVs.

It took us 4 years of practice- but DEMs NEVER nullify GOP talking points- what we do is allow the GOP to frame the issue- as Nancy is doing now.

[gulliver]

136. "I have no impeachment plans on my desk," said Ms.

Pelosi when asked to elaborate. ;-)

[Canuckistanian]

144. Hahaha, exactly

Time for a bait-and-switch move?

After all, it worked for the "popular president".

[Dr Fate]

154. If it didnt fool you, it wont fool Rightwingers.

For there to be a bait & switch, you first have to fool someone.

[Canuckistanian]

156. But Shrub didn't fool us

We knew what he was up to.

But, I suppose this is a good strategy, either way. Not talking about impeachment takes away the RWer's only cause in this election.

Pitiful, ain't it?

[Dr Fate]

209. Since when does DEMS ignoring an issue mean the GOP/media has to?

See Swiftboat Vets

[sellitman]

138. If Dim son resigns she is right

Otherwise she is nuts.

[Martin Eden]

141. RULE OF LAW must prevail

If Bush/Cheney committed impeachable crimes they must be held accountable through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW, which in their case would be impeachment.

FAILURE to hold them accountable would be a FAILURE of Congress to restore the necessary checks and balances.

It would cement the precedent that the president is above the law.

IMPEACHMENT should NOT be the plank in our platform.

Restoring CHECKS AND BALANCES and a Congress that does its DUTY should be the platform.

An INVESTIGATION to determine THE TRUTH should be the platform.

If the REPUKES suggest that will lead to impeachment, then THEY ADMIT that the truth will CONVICT this president.

Turn their defense of illegal wiretapping against them -- if Bush has done nothing wrong, there's no need to worry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mmonk]

149. Impeachment is reserved for elected officials

that lie about sex, not crimes against the constitution. Afterall, its a polling issue. Real impeachments are reserved for REAL democracies, not bogus ones like ours.

[Maddy McCall]

151. She's right. It's off the table. First comes the investigation...

then when all is revealed and Americans are horrified by this administration, they will beg Democrats to put it back on the table.

But tell me this--are we assured that Pelosi will retain her position with the new Congress?

[Dr Fate]

153. Who says the election is still in the bag w/ all this wishy washiness?

After seeing this, I'm not so convinced its in the bag anymore- we seem to be falling back into the "lets let Bush slide" strategy that cost us the last 3 elections.

[Robbie Michaels]

157. That's why I'm no longer a Democrat

Spineless

[dailykoff]

158. What table?

The one Junior scared her off from with his big bad 9/11 woof?

What a wet noodle!

[Jack Rabbit]

161. What would it take to change her mind?

How many more revelations of impeachable offenses do we need?

Of course, Ms. Pelosi, I can understand why you don't want to discuss it. I really do, Mme. President.

[jerry611]

176. Pelosi doesn't want to make enemies

First off, Democrats havn't won anything yet.

Second, Americans don't want to spend an entire year on impeachment investigations. They want the war to be won and over. They want progress on healthcare and education. And they want lower gas prices. If Democrats get control and just spend the next two years on impeachment while the country is still burning, it will be viewed as a witch-hunt, and the GOP will win 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

162. Even Joe Scarborough said that Pelosi was wrong to make such a promise

Scarborough said that if there is an investigation, one must follow the evidence to where it leads, and if impeachable offenses were committed, it is not up to Pelosi to decide whether to impeach Bush or not.

How did this woman ever got to a leadership position? Was she an ass-kisser or did she make a good pot of coffee?

[Cocoa]

168. Joe Scarborough

you kill me, IG.

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

187. It was on the Tweety show--Scarborough thinks Bush went too far

and he cautions his conservative friends about a President Hillary with the powers that Bush has taken to himself.

This is a constitutional reckoning--are we to permit a President to ignore the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress? Partisanship is wrong at a time like this! We have a republic to save or else, we must be prepared to live under a dictatorship for generations to come.

The United States Constitution is based on the principle that no one, and no institution of government, should have the powers of a sovereign. The Framers split the powers of a King into three co-equal branches of government. For example, one cannot have the power to declare a person a criminal, to put in prison, and to impose a death penalty in one person. Bush has done that when he declared that he can say that anyone he chooses is an enemy combatant, detain that person indefinitely, and summarily execute him. Congress has not challenged Bush on this extraordinary claim even when it extended to American citizens arrested on US soil.

Bush and Cheney must be impeached and they should be tried for their crimes in a court of law. If Democrats don't stand for the Constitution, then they stand for nothing, and become as culpable as the Republicans!

On edit:

The greatest Scarborough quote was on his own show, the day before his appearance on the Tweety show:

"This is an imperial Presidency and it is dangerous!"

[mmonk]

163. High crimes on a platter and no takers?

can you spell coward?

[IndianaGreen]

164. Democrats lose everytime they give a pass to Republicans

Why Clinton did not pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as Reagan sending Rumsfeld to provide support to Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran, and the arms for hostage deals of Iran-Contra? Here is Robert Parry's take on this:

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry

Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[maryallen]

166. Take Pelosi "off the table" for:

Majority Leader and, definitely, do not consider her for Speaker.
She lacks courage, initiative, and persistence.
To hell with her ... and every other Dem with such limited vision.

If these thugs are not punished, they will return in 4 years in another re-incarnation, as they did after Watergate and later, after Iran-Contra.

Impeach George W. and send Nancy home ... along with DiFi.

[bunny planet]

167. Could she possibly be telling a lie like the Republicans do every time

their mouthes move. Of course Nancy Pelosi is not going to admit that Impeachment is on the table even if it is. We'd have to win back the house in any case, then she can scream it from the rooftops.

[Rex]

169. Dumb move

It is like a poker game and the Dems are showing all their cards! Stop! I like Pelosi, but she needs to let the Repuke guess if she is bluffing or not.

[Pale Blue Dot]

171. This is stupid on MANY, MANY levels,

but most importantly because I believe that the majority of AMERICANS, not just Democrats, support and even desire impeachment.

Something is either rotten here or Pelosi is simply a moron.

[onehandle]

172. She's playing politics. 2007 is a Different Year.

With a Democratic Congress there WILL be investigations next year.

Which may LEAD to impeachment.

Any Democrat who PUSHES impeachment before next January is wasting their time and our political capitol.

Calm down and THINK.

[VegasWolf]

175. When I mentioned Pelosi's statement to my wife, a life-long Democrat,

she exploded and is going to change her voter registration tomorrow to Independent. We are both strong liberals but can't stand what the Democratic party has become.

[0007]

182. What a dumb thing to say! There should be no doubt what the

game plan should be.

[patricia92243]

184. Can she change her mind after the Democrats win? n/t

[onehandle]

188. Yes. She's shutting down a talking point. That's all.

After a Democratic Congress investigates next year (which the Party has repeatedly promised) we all know it will lead to impeachment.

[nolabels]

191. If she don't want to talk she should shut the hell up

I say give it a few more weeks, the way things are going now she will soon be singing like a canary

On edit: You know sometimes you just get like angry that it makes it kind of hard to think :mad:

[VegasWolf]

194. Exactly! and the voters will believe her because they are so stupid! nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

186. Look at the OP -"REPORTEDLY claiming" and quoting a second party

I mean, it's not like she said it on Meet the Press or anything. Her "spokesman" should just say, like they always do, that he was mis-informed or that the statement as reported is not accurate or that it was taken out of context (which is probably was). She was probably telling the members of the Democratic caucus not to make impeachment the sole issue, but to be issues oriented. I'll bet she said "not interested in pursuing it . . . AT THIS TIME. I realize this is all conjecture on my part, but I'm willing to believe that she is smarter and more connected to reality than this thread would have one believe.

[Strathos]

190. Might be a good strategery

Get the repubs to believe this, gain control and then impeach, or better indict!

[madrchsod]

193. why would anyone tip their hand

one way or the other? makes no sense at all. no one brought up the issue so why go public with a statement like that. so she is saying even if Fitzgerald's investigation goes right to the president the democrats are not going to impeach? jesus there`s alot of criminals that would like to have her as a prosecutor.

[ckramer]

200. Nancy voted against the Iraq war

How many of you/your congressmen did?

[nolabels]

201. No one voted for any war

They gave * authorization to follow a course of action of which he did not follow. I would be the last person to protect the voting record of any in congress but at least you could get your facts straight and stop using right wing talking points. The executive implements the plans of government, the legislature provides the plans for the process to take place

[reichstag911]

202. That's certainly a plus,...

...but as a Dem Congressional leader, she shouldn't go around saying things that will demoralize the Dem base, and I think this does that. We all want that chimp fuck impeached and more, don't we?

[donco6]

203. Does this mean no Impeach Bush! sticker on my car?

Sorry, Nancy, I'm not taking it off.

[spanone]

204. When we win the House, Nancy can step down then we impeach.

Tell them anything....

[Cookie wookie]

205. I got an email from Democrats.com asking us to

write her about this. Here's what I wrote:

"Dear Senator Pelosi,

To come out before the mid-term elections broadcasting that the Democrats will not impeach Bush and Cheney, if they win a majority in Congress, is comparable to saying that Democrats are fine with crime and don't think criminals in high power in the government should be caught, tried, and punished. Polls are showing that the American people have little more faith in Democrats to solve the country's problems than that do of Republicans. This kind of action on the part of the Democratic leadership is why. It makes Democrats look weak, spineless and what's more, it makes you all appear corrupt too. Notice how well that myth of being a strong leader works for bush? The American masses don't respect weak appearing leaders.

Yes, you all are afraid of the corporate media. That's evident. However, the media is not going to be your friend no matter what kind of compromise you ("you" meaning those Democratic leaders who get media coverage) make, unless it's to be corrupt too.

It's a useless exercise to write this as the Democratic leadership does not listen to or care what their base thinks, that's been more than evident as we've spent the past several years begging and pleading for all manner of ethical and right actions to be taken against this criminal regime in Washington to no avail.

Take courageous action and resign. It's not too late. Tell the Democratic leadership to fill your job with someone who will get the party on the course of standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights and let's not forget, the Rule of Law.

Sincerely,"



Here's another link referring to what she supposedly said: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/pelosi

"Pelosi, who Republicans have charged intends to lead an impeachment effort, dismissed the idea when she spoke Wednesday morning at a closed-door caucus of the House's 201 Democrats. Pelosi also restated her opposition to the idea of censuring Bush over his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

"We want oversight and checks and balances,'' Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she told the caucus. "That certainly isn't being done in this Congress (under Republican control). Impeachment was never her interest.''

[many a good man]

206. She sounds like Bush in 2003

"There are no war plans on my desk."

[zann725]

207. Thought ??? I just got email from her asking me to email my reps about

how I feel on impeachment. Thought she wanted similar feedback too, which she urged me to send her?

What's up? Is there some "sign language" here I'm misinterpreting?

[bearfan454]

208. Bullshit

Impeachment IS on the table.

[chookie]

211. We'll have to wait for Republicans to initiate it

Bush long ago crossed the line of limits to power, and law -- traditional conservatives (who are not wackos) are rejecting him with a fervor not unlike many of us at the grassroot Dems have felt for years.

Impeachment is not off the table with every one. Sadly, proceedings appear to be more likely initiated by someone like Arlen Spector or Chuck Hagel, than Nancy Pelosi or (FIll-in-the Blank). Dems think it wouldn't be nice to impeach Bush. The blood pressure of current Dem leaders plummets precipitously when they consider taking a stand.