The bad news? Well, here are the words of the email flyer I received:
Cindy Sheehan plans to announce her candidacy that day for Congress, challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to represent the 8th District of California. Sheehan's candidacy is motivated by Pelosi's actively blocking the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, but Sheehan won't run if Pelosi endorses impeachment."Actively blocking"? HOW? What blocked Kucinich from offering his articles of impeachment against Cheney? What blocked the others from signing on?
Sheehan is not angry at any actions Pelosi has taken; she is angry because Pelosi will not say the words Sheehan wants her to say.
Mere words. And in my view, Pelosi would be an idiot to mouth them.
I've made the point before and I'll make it again: Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, and thus third in line of succession. The moment Nancy Pelosi says "Impeach Bush!" the national dialog will shift. The topic of the day will no longer be "Dubya: Moron at work" -- it will be "Nancy: Power-hungry bitch."
Do you want impeachment?
Seriously, now. Do you want an actual, real-world transfer of power? Or do you simply want the thrill of forcing a politician to say certain words -- mere fucking words? Do you simply want to fulminate at someone who, for valid tactical reasons, refuses to offer verbal support for your views? Is your poor widdle heart so easily wounded that you pout and stomp your feet at people who won't say what you want them to say?
Or do you actually want to see George W. Bush removed from office?
If you want it -- if you really, really want it -- then scream for it. We must all screech to impeach. Every one of us...
...except Nancy Pelosi.
Hers must be the last and most reluctant voice to enter the chorus. And I mean the very last.
Sheehan has come to exemplify the "progressive purist" principle, which I despise. Fer chrissakes, people -- we have history to make. Would it kill you to think in terms of what Bugs Bunny used to call "stragety"? Or do you care more about emotional validation than about real world results?
18 comments:
I see no reason Pelosi cannot come out in favor of impeachment and at the same time recuse herself from succession of the Presidency. Do you, Joseph? This isn't going to get any easier for her. Even if she continues to refuse to support impeachment, eventually she will either have to go along with it (in which event she will be accused of being power-hungry), or actively work on the side of the faction supporting Bush and Cheney.
good evening, Joseph.
If any dogs deserve impeachment it would be Bush, Cheney and Gonzales (and Rove). Having said that, I will also say "I get it.". What they have done deserving impeachment qualifies in the "high crimes" category. As such, there are potential criminal charges, both domestic and international, that can be brought later, before statutes of limitations run out. I see Paraguay has an extradition treaty with The Netherlands. Good. Oh, and Rove can be included in that too.
June 23rd? I think you mean July 23rd, don't you, Joe?
I get your point but, I get hers too. Watching the daily progression of the unchecked lawlessness of Bush is frustrating. I think that since Nixon many in the country have waited for the Congress that will stand up for the people and oppose a villain like Bush. It seems to me that there is considerable lack of faith in Congress to do any thing because in regard to some issues that they could tackle they don't appear to be moving at all. It also appears to me that many people have had a lack of faith in our unified ability to change things, although that may be shifting? It appears to me that the increasing frequency and unjust defiance of the law, by Bush, are pushing frustrations ever higher. So I get your point and hers too.
I agree that Pelosi would appear power hungry and opportunistic by calling for impeachment of Bush & Cheney and it would afford our FAIR AND BALANCED media a chance to steer the national dialogue away from the administration and onto her ambitions.
As the Constitutionally designated hitter, hers is a tenuous position. However, she is primarily and legally obliged to "Protect & Defend" the Constitution. It would, therefore, not be outside of her purview to call for the rigorous investigation of Bush & Cheney for the unwarranted NSA wire-tapping, firing of the US Attorneys, outing of covert operative CIA agent Vallerie Plame Wilson, etc.
If Bush & Cheney are impeached it will be as a result of these investigations and not the actions of any one individual. Pelosi can and should advocate for a complete and thorough investigation and compliance by the administration with all subpoenas. If challenged by the media she should refer them to the behavior of the Republican Congress and their overzealous pursuit of Bill Clinton including Watergate, Ken Starr, Ms. Flowers, Travelgate, Vince Foster…
The important thing is to continue investigating these crooks for the inevitable hidden skeleton that will put them both in prison where they belong. The successor to the Oval office will be less important to people as more information is uncovered. So, as long as Pelosi is demanding investigations rather than impeachment she is doing her job and can take that stand with anyone challenging her.
Of course, it's quite true that if she wanted, Pelosi can actually block any impeachment, because as Speaker, she enjoys the power of scheduling what comes to the floor for a vote, and when. If she doesn't want something brought forward, it won't be. And before that, control of the rules committee allows her to dictate whatever terms of debate, number of amendments allowed, time of debate, etc. These elements could be used creatively to de facto kill bills as well.
So, whether Cindy is right depends on what Pelosi meant when she said impeachment was off the table. If she meant she would not actively pursue it herself as a party priority, that's one thing. That might leave open the possibility that she'd allow it to come forward for consideration if support for it came from the bottom up. If she meant instead that she would indeed make sure it didn't get to the floor, because in her judgment it was too divisive and an electoral booby-trap for Dems, then she WOULD be pre-emptively preventing its consideration from the ground floor up, because of her announced intention to block whatever might come up from any given impeachment proposal.
Which of the above positions did Pelosi actually take? I'm not sure myself, nor am I aware of her clarifying those issues.
However, the question of her taking the presidency after Bush/Cheney are removed need not arise. It did not arise when Newt was Speaker, as it was widely assumed that if Clinton were removed, Gore would simply take his place and maintain his policies. This, despite the signalling Newt made directly that he would then seek to impeach Gore as well.
Similarly, Pelosi could support an impeachment of Bush since Cheney is waiting in the wings, or alternatively, an impeachment of Cheney FIRST, a replacement for the vp, and then an impeachment for Bush, thus keeping another person ahead of her in the presidential succession line.
I don't think she could recuse herself from the line of succession to defuse that issue, nor would it work if she could, especially, since the next person in line would be the Democratic President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Byrd again, if I'm not mistaken).
sofla
Apparently you do not get it. I assume you do not have any offspring Joseph..right? If your son was mangled by George Bush's government limo, as he looked the other way to see who else he could mangle..so his "Hellboy" credit card could maximize..and so his daddy and friends could shovel more cash into their coffiins..I mean coffers per day than can be printed on the presses..then you might whistle a different tune from your "non purist" heart(less).
Cindy does not speak with "forked tongue". She speaks from a broken heart, and she speaks for all of us including you..no matter what you "think".
Try walking one block in her moccasins as she walks the many many miles for you and I and the many other mothers and fathers with broken and bleeding hearts.
Oh Jesus, strengthen her now.
Anon, YOU do not get it.
"If your son was mangled by George Bush's government limo, as he looked the other way to see who else he could mangle...."
If I were in Cindy's position, I would be doing everything I could to make sure Bush was impeached.
Cindy actually wants Bush to STAY IN OFFICE.
Why do I say that? Because she is pressuring Nancy Pelosi to take back that "Impeachment is off the table statement."
Mark my words: If Pelosi does as Sheehan demands, Bush's position will be STRENGTHENED, not weakened.
Look, I'll keep saying it and saying it until dummies like you finally get it: Nancy Pelosi is in the line of succession. If she endorses impeachment, everyone stops talking about what a dolt Dubya is and starts talking about her ambition.
Dubya's numbers will rise. Hers will plummet. She'll be the butt of jokes everywhere.
If you want impeachment -- if you want it to happen in the real world -- then, tactically speaking, you want Pelosi to be the last person to endorse the idea. Any such endorsement (from HER) will be an impediment to the cause.
Cindy Sheehan and the progressive purists say they want impeachment, but in reality they just the opposite. They care more about making Nancy Pelosi mouth the "right" words than they care about making the right thing happen.
Always, always, that is the way with the fucking purists. All they care about is the emotional high they get whenever they hear someone say the words they want to hear. They never care about strategy. They never care about actual change in the real world.
My god -- I want Nancy Pelosi to be president. Sheehan wants to run her out of office!
To hell with Cindy Sheehan.
I am now against her. I am sorry for her loss, but right now the main task is impeachment.
Anyone who wants Nancy to say "Impeachment is on the table" is someone who wants impeachment to stay OFF the table. Only by seeming uninterested in the presidency can the Speaker get the job -- a job which (and this is a response to unirealist) I would love to see her get.
By the way, I still want for someone to tell me just what Nancy did that could be construed as "actively blocking" impeachment.
Listen to the words: Pelosi is "actively blocking" impeachment. All she has to do is tell the Democrats in the House that she is no longer going to block efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, but neither is she going to actively support them. She will simply remain neutral. That would be enough.
The members of the House have a sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all domestic enemies and that has to include Cheney or Bush or the words are meaningless. They either do what they swore to do, or they abdicate their responsibility.
Democracy lover, why do you bother to show up at this site if you are not going to read MY words?
You say:
"Listen to the words: Pelosi is "actively blocking" impeachment."
But I have ALREADY ADDRESSED that point. I wrote:
""Actively blocking"? HOW? What blocked Kucinich from offering his articles of impeachment against Cheney? What blocked the others from signing on?"
You have yet to name a single instance of action -- not verbiage: PRACTICAL ACTION -- taken by Nancy Pelosi to block the impeachment of anyone.
You write:
"All she has to do is tell the Democrats in the House that she is no longer going to block efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, but neither is she going to actively support them. She will simply remain neutral. That would be enough."
Damn right it would be enough.
It would be enough to signal that Pelosi wants the Oval Office. It would be enough to cause Leno to stop making jokes about Dubya and cause him to make jokes about Nancy the California coup-plotter. It would be enough to change the subject of the national dialog from Bush's criminality to Nancy's mad ambition.
You write:
"The members of the House have a sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all domestic enemies and that has to include Cheney or Bush or the words are meaningless. They either do what they swore to do, or they abdicate their responsibility."
That is true. That is precisely why we should do whatever we can to cajole other congressional representatives into supporting impeachment. And that is why Nancy Pelosi must NOT voice support for that cause until the last possible second.
Looks like I will have to say it YET AGAIN for all the low-IQ types out there:
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
There. I said it three times. In capital letters.
Maybe now the message will sink in.
DO YOU PROGRSSIVE PURIST IDIOTS FINALLY GET IT?
No. Probably not.
I've been watching the purists since the 70s. I know the breed well.
These jerks never care about tactics. They never care about accomplishing real world results. All they care about is making sure everyone uses the right WORDS -- and to hell with what actually HAPPENS.
I like this blog the best out of many many blogs out there for one very big reason. I like the readers of this blog and I enjoy their comments, the level of discussion on this blog far exceeds most other blogs.
This brings me to the subject at hand, the big "I" word and Pelosi. In a perfect democracy the elected representatives are bound to follow the demands of their constituents. In an imperfect democracy elected officials (who owe their elections to their corporate donors) need to be shouted at in order to follow the will of the people. It seems to me that most Americans have had it with the Bush cabal, but have not yet shouted loud enough for their removal. There will not be any impeachment unless the rumble of the people is heard in DC.
When Cindy Sheehan started her sit in in front of Bush's ranch, she demanded a face to face with Bush to ask him for what noble cause her son had died. She started a movement by this action. She didn't literally want an answer from the president, but to draw attention to the cause.
Similarly, I don't think she really wants to run for senate against Pelosi, but draw attention to the impeachment cause.
If she starts a movement that gathers enough momentum for impeachment, Pelosi and most others will give in to the pressure, as happened with Nixon. But until then, Joseph is right about Pelosi not getting involved right now.
As I said, it is the readers as well as the blogger that rises to the task that makes this a good blog. It will be the American people along with some worthy officials who will push for justice.
I agree completely, Joseph. I'll just add that as one of Pelosi's constituents, the last thing we need is some damn suburban carpetbagger from Vacaville (that's butchered Spanish for 'cow town') who doesn't know the first thing about our district.
now i remember why i stopped frequenting this site: cannonfire shot from the lip isn't very accurate...
1. it is NOT pelosi's perogative to 'take impeachment off the table'... (tell me, is it okay that conyers was all but blackmailed to say the same in order to get his chairmanship ?)
2. DEMOCRACY -NOT the dem'rat party- demands these criminals against the constitution and rapists of the american ideal be impeached, tried, convicted, and taken out behind the barn...
OTHERWISE, 'our' (sic) democracy is broken, perhaps irretrievably...
3. 'practical' 'pwogwessives' who condemn ms sheehan for stating the obvious that too many spineless kongresskritters (and mainstream mediawhores) refuse to address because of their own COWARDICE, are shooting their own for the sake of buying into FALSE MEMEs...
4. 'compromise' in its many guises of cowardice, is how we have ended up with a unitary executive, trashed bill of rights, and cowed citizenry afraid to take back their gummint...
5. cannon's neverous nelly-ism is EXACTLY how 'we' ended up in this pickle; break the cycle, stand on your hind legs, and yell "i'm mad as hell, and i'm NOT playing THEIR game anymore !!!"
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Joe,
I always find your blog interesting, even if I don't always agree with your positions (e.g. on 9/11). However. on Pelosi and impeachment you've got it EXACTLY right. Coincidently, just before I saw your post, I was searching the net for reactions to Pelosi re impeachment, and it's really quite amazing to see how unfavorably she is viewed by the "netroots" in general. I have been generally positive towards her, but you explain why she deserves it a lot better than I could.
But having read your point (several times over, since you had to repeat it), let me try to paraphrase. Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach Bush -- and Cheney and Gonzales -- just as much as anybody. But she cannot admit that, because just by saying those words she would open a new front for the Republicans. Instead she's been using a "stealth" approach -- and this was already in the cards even BEFORE the 2006 elections (her first "impeachment is off the table" came months before the election). The stealth approach is that, by encouraging investigations in the House, (and of course coordinating with Reid in the Senate), they are gradually bringing the Republicans down, educating the public, and gathering records (or trying to). That has by no means been the only factor, but she knows these vampires cannot stand sunlight. The investigations are building up a mountain of facts and a paper trail of evasions, denials, and lies. Bush/Cheney are being pushed into a corner where all they can do is lie, stall, and spin -- and none of that stuff is working any more. Although tactically they can game the system and make up new "powers" to preserve their asses for a while, they've lost the public forever. The clamor for impeachment is growing day by day -- and it must take great self-control on Pelosi's part to keep her mouth shut, especially when so many Democrats wrongly see her as the symbol of appeasement. But it's like shaking a bottle of seltzer with a cork in it, and Nancy's sitting on the cork. Only when that cork blows, only when the pressure for impeachment is literally irresistible, will she allow it, because only then will it actually succeed and only then will the Republicans be unable to make her the issue rather than themselves. I believe, especially since Bush's commutation of Libby, that we are moving toward that day at a fairly good clip. Meanwhile, short of that, Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, Schumer et al. are doing a pretty good job.
The Dems came in in November 2006 with a playable, but not great, hand of cards, and I think they are playing those cards well. It's too bad it's not "playing" too well with the general public, but in fact the last six months has seen tremendous erosion of Bush/Cheney's power, and the Republican party as a whole is starting to cave -- The skilful leadership of the Democrats in Congress has played a large part in that.
Ann, or art, or whatever...why do you ever come to this blog if you are not going to read what I say?
You responded to what you THINK I said, not to what I actually said.
"1. it is NOT pelosi's perogative to 'take impeachment off the table'..."
PRECISELY MY DAMNED POINT!
Anyone can submit an impeachment resolution. If enough people support it, it will have to come to a vote.
Pelosi's sin, in your eyes, is not any actual action she took. She simply refuses to say certain WORDS that you want her to say.
You fuicking progressive purists care more about the words than about making impeachment real!
I'm a nervous Nellie? How? What statement did I make that justifies that accusation?
People like you are the ones who do NOT want impeachment. You care more about purity than about getting the thing DONE.
Look, I'll say it AGAIN...
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
NANCY PELOSI IS IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION. IF SHE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT, SHE WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING POWER-HUNGRY. THE CAUSE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE *IMPEDED* IF SHE VOICES SUPPORT FOR IT.
Do you finally GET it? There's nothing "nervous" about that. What got the Republicans ahead in the game for so many years is 1. They have lots of cash, and 2. They were both bold yet tactical.
If we want the Iraq people to see one of the great advantages of democracy impeach a leader who is acting like a dictator. I can not believe that we can use one of our greatest governmental tools on a president for a personal indiscretion, but we can't even decide to use it on a president who has lied to the American people, destroyed a middle east country, and lost hundreds of thousands of lives. Our inability to act gives the impression that the American people are power hungry, over consuming tyrants, who will roll over the world without batting an implanted eyelash. The world needs to know that there is more to the American people than the image that we currently possess as the worlds bully. It is time that we step up to the plate and own our mistake and do the right thing even though it will be difficult. Every day that we wait we are loosing one more person one more hope and most of all our last shreds of respectability among the rest of the world, and what is anyone without respect.
from..http://www.greensingles.com/site/ramblings
Ah..Oh
I just had a Joseph moment...(turning red, throwing a book at the wall and shouting something like...for the love God....READ)
Anon9:51
The Iraqi people do not need us to impeach our president to fall in love with democracy. They are fighting to keep us from stealing the rights to their oil wealth by forcing their US backed government to sign the legislation that would do just that and privatizing everything else so that US corporations can do their brand of business there.
To be sure there are historical, ethnic and sectarian struggles in Iraq, but the real problem isn't Iraqi's lack of embrace for democracy. In a country without so much as employment, clean water, electricity, safe roads, democracy is like a picture of a plate full of food to a starving person.
As for losing the respect of the world, we have always had the world's respect for being a bully and plundering the wealth of other nations and making a pretty good life for ourselves here (although lately we aren't doing as good of job as before). So if that's the respect you want us to earn back, keep this president where he is.
We, the people of the US should impeach our president so that we can have respect for ourselves as a free and democratic nation (and start undoing the damage that has been done to our constitution).
Once we pull our forces out of Iraq, Iraqi's will figure things out for themselves without our help (the kind we gave Iran back in 1953....that put the Shah in power...that gave rise to Khomeini...).
Trust me, no one in the world really believes that the US GOVERNMENT is fond of democratically elected governments anywhere in the world and even in the US itself.
A "Joseph moment". I like the sound of that.
You know, it's little responses like that that keep me doing this job.
But I do not throw books at the wall. It frightens the dog.
Oh, sure, in my day, I've been known to hit PEOPLE with books. But you don't want to know about my sex life...
Post a Comment