Campaign Ad Accuses Pelosi Of Being Soft On Bush

[stimbox]

Source: CBS 5


Campaign Ad Accuses Pelosi Of Being Soft On Bush
Reporting
Joe Vazquez
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ― A new campaign ad running on several Bay Area television stations compare Speaker Nancy Pelosi to a rubber chicken. The ads are for Shirley Golub, a San Francisco real estate agent running against Pelosi in the June primary election.

Golub said Pelosi has been too timid on President Bush, and should lead an impeachment charge. She said an organization called "Act Blue" is funding the ad campaign. As of Wednesday night, Speaker Pelosi has not seen the ad.

Our video report has more.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Read more: http://cbs5.com/local/shirley.golub.ad.2.718669.html

---

Finally some coverage in the local media about Shirley Golub!

Figures that Pelosi's office would give a statement that has nothing to do with the story.

Go Shirley!!!!

[ToughLuck]

1. GOOD!!!!! Pelosi GO HOME YOU FAILURE

I want at the very least to see Pelosi removed as Speaker of the House. When the Dems take back the White House I don't want her or Reid for that matter in there now held positions of power. I want to have a clean slate as much as possible from this gutless leadership.

[acmavm]

2. Fantastic. Grandma Nancy needs to spend some quality time

with the family (and get the fuck out of the country's business).

[DainBramaged]

3. Nancy "Rubber Stamp" Pelosi needs a dose of reality

Go Shirley!

[Freddie Stubbs]

127. Looks like SF Democrats sent Golub a dose of reality:

Shirley Golub 7,210 10.9 %
Nancy Pelosi 58,802 89.1 %

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0859.htm

[Javaman]

4. What kind of conditioner does she use?

:rofl:

[Kolesar]

5. Yawn

[defendandprotect]

6. It will really be a shame to come into 2009 with a new Democratic majority . . ..

and still have Pelosi and Reid in control of the USHR/Senate -- !!!

What a waste that would be --- !!!

[Auggie]

7. Not much political experience on Golub's part

A lot of volunteer work for candidates, but no legislative work. Yawn is right.

Looks like another term for Nancy.

Bio from website: http://www.shirley08.com/bio.php

[roguevalley]

14. she needs to win. Pelosi needs to take a fucking hike. Her losing

would make the rest of the yellow bellies understand who is the ones they need to listen to: us.

[Auggie]

16. Agree. But I don't see enough votes coming from San Francisco.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Perhaps Golub should have run in a more liberal district

[Auggie]

34. HA! More liberal than San Francisco...

I'm dying here

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. So, if she can't win there, she can's win anywhere?

:shrug:

[Auggie]

37. San Franciscans are liberal. They're also smart.

They're not going to vote out someone with the congressional clout of Pelosi in favor of someone without ANY experience.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Are you suggesting that the people who are supporting Golub are not smart?

Or just the people who live in the district who are supporting her?

[stimbox]

41. We are going to vote someone out who is not representing us.

What clout? We haven't seen any clout used on the issues that we contact her about.
Maybe she's hiding the clout with all of that super, extra dry powder.

District 8 wants someone who will represent us, not ignore us.

But alas, you and stubby fred cannot vote in district 8, and I can.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. So, if Pelosi wins, does that mean that the voters think that she is representing them?

:shrug:

[Auggie]

49. Voters know she has greater leverage in getting money to support affordable housing

and mass transit and treat homelessness, something San Francisco really needs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Do you believe that money for mass transit, housing, and the homeless is more important than

impeachment?

[Auggie]

57. That's not the point of my thread.

My point is that Golub is a poor choice to run against Pelosi. Matt Gonzalez would be way better.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Gonzalez seems to be busy tilting at another windmill this year:

http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/

[Auggie]

62. I know -- it doesn't make any sense.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Fringe candidates rarely do make sense

[Mudoria]

121. Sure do..

[Hobarticus]

125. Pretty easy question, when you think about it...

[stimbox]

55. We all know how she would treat the homeless...

"You can just imagine my neighbors' reaction to all this. If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering. But because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment. ... So I'm well aware of the unhappiness of the base." – Nancy Pelosi “has candid talk with reporters” 10-10-07

Affordable housing in District 8? :rofl:

Mass transit? Any Congress member would secure the funding their district needs for mass transit.

[stimbox]

52. No, they must not be paying attention.

Most people who vote don't pay attention.

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. They paid enough attention to know that June 3 was primary day

[stlsaxman]

42. not to mention that their representative is Speaker Of The House.

sure- i'd vote against that in a heartbeat!

:crazy: :silly: :freak: :dunce:

[stimbox]

43. Which doesn't do much for us here.

She's too wrapped up being the Squeaker to listen to her constituents.

[natrat]

116. yea its hard to get rid of someone like her but she sucks so bad that maybe it will happen

[Canuckistanian]

44. Oh yeah, Nancy's FAMOUS for her "clout"

I forget now, what has she done with that "clout"?

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. The House raised the minimum wage, passed tax relief for small businesses,

increased pay for our troops, increased spending for veterans, and passed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission:

http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/CaucusHouseAccomplishmentsJune2007.pdf

[leftchick]

53. shmoozes with war criminals

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. There are lots of pictures of Democrats 'schmoozing' with Republicans:

[Truth2Tell]

8. K&R and I'm off to donate to Act Blue. nt

[jberryhill]

9. hehhehhhhehheehhehhehh.....

I hear the polls have been hard on her, though.

Hhehhhdhehhehhehhehhhhh.....

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. You said "polls"

mmm yeah hehheh heh

[Ian David]

11. Let's take Nancy Pelosi OFF THE TABLE!

PALOMINO!

[Dogtown]

12. That's a chain-braided bullwhip she's toting

but the remainder of the braid is too coarse to be Australian 'Roo hide.

Someone blew good money for a worthless prop. Is that a fotoshop?

Pelosi is a traitor to this party and the American people for not pursuing the war criminals.

Hopefully her hypocrisy will cost her career.

[ToughLuck]

13. From your lips to God's ears.

[struggle4progress]

15. Lemme see I got this straight: Golub's campaigning on a promise she'll stand up to *?

That could be good

Let's peek at the calendar

The 111th convenes 3 January, and 44 is inaugurated 20 January

So Golub can show him hell and high water for sixteen or seventeen whole days

I'd guess * just hides and plays videogames the whole time: If anybody calls, tell 'em I'm not here

Some folk meanwhile might like to know what Golub plans for the rest of her two year term

[stimbox]

17. Better than what Pelosi has done since 2006.

Makes kissy faces and gives him whatever he wants.

[struggle4progress]

23. Can you count? There aren't enough D votes in either chamber to override a veto

That fact colors everything

Many people who work on the Hill actually want to do something from time to time, rather than merely posturing

I might have cheered if your photo showed Nancy spitting in *'s eye instead of smiling at him -- but, truth be told, that's really why Nancy's in Congress and I'm not

[cascadiance]

26. But there are enough votes to vote for impeachment...

Or at least there SHOULD be amongst Democrats in the House. If it were done, it would expose the corporate DLC Democrats for what they are and how they don't serve us the people as they should. THAT is why impeachment isn't being done. They don't want to be on the record. And I don't buy the reasoning that they can't convict in the Senate. Not even to hold hearings when there is so much evidence that demand them is a capitulation to power for now and the future when we could have an even worse leader (perish the thought) than Bush in power.

And they could just as easily say to Bush that we won't give you another spending bill to fund the occupation in Iraq. They don't have a lot to lose if the Republicans are already fillibustering just about everything else anyway.

It's time for Pelosi to go! I'm glad to see my $50 I sent to Shirley being spent to help with this effort.

[struggle4progress]

28. Pelosi, third in line for the Presidency, couldn't herself push for impeachment of Bush and Cheney:

the media would have played it as a conflict of interest

So the push had to come from elsewhere

And since there was never adequate constituent pressure on Republican Senators to break with Bush, there wasn't a chance in hell an impeachment would yield a conviction on the Senate side

Bottom line: folks in the House looked at impeachment, decided the country would be treated as empty posturing and a big waste of time, and moved on to trying to do what they could actually do

[cascadiance]

29. We WILL pay for this in the future when this happens again...

... and then people will be crying about WHY they didn't do something about going after these bums now so they (and other "disciples") couldn't wreak worse havoc in the future. We're already paying for some of the "recycled" people from Watergate and Iran Contra days going back through the system again and doing more damage now too.

[struggle4progress]

32. If you are trying to say that, regardless of the November outcome, we have been royally shafted

by the political establishment and that the struggle to regain lost ground will be long and bitter, with no guarantee of a favorable outcome, then of course I completely agree

[ToughLuck]

33. Politics over the good for the PEOPLE who she is suppose to SERVE

Fuck her, she is a failure and will remembered as Bush's enabler.

[struggle4progress]

35. Yawn

[ToughLuck]

58. Yawn away..just like Pelosi has since she became speaker.

[struggle4progress]

70. Pelosi measure presses for timetable on Iraq withdrawal (2005)

Proposed rider to military spending bill seeks Bush's 'strategy for success'
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

(06-15) 04:00 PDT Washington -- San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House's minority Democrats, raised the stakes on the debate over the war in Iraq on Tuesday by introducing a resolution that if enacted would set the stage for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq ... The House has already voted down resolutions offered by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, and others that would direct Bush to start planning the withdrawal of the approximately 140,000 U.S. forces in Iraq. But Pelosi's proposal represents an intermediate step and by virtue of her leadership role raises the issue's profile in Washington ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/15/MNGCJD8J6P1.DTL

[ToughLuck]

86. This has nothing to do with Pelosi taking impeachment off the table..her words, not mine

[struggle4progress]

94. 1. You say Pelosi has done nothing but yawn: in fact she worked hard for troop withdrawal but

couldn't put together the votes

[struggle4progress]

95. 2. Pelosi couldn't keep impeachment on or off the table, as you know perfectly well

[ToughLuck]

100. Pelosi took it off the table, you going rewrite history now???

You sound silly at this point.

[struggle4progress]

71. Hill Democrats Unite to Urge Bush to Begin Iraq Pullout (2006)

By Charles Babington and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A01

After months of struggling to forge a unified stance on the Iraq war, top congressional Democrats joined voices yesterday to call on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year and to "transition to a more limited mission" in the war-torn nation ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100743.html

[ToughLuck]

87. Again, nothing to do with impeachment she chose to take off the table..her choice, not the people

[struggle4progress]

96. Did YOUR representative introduce an impeachment bill? If not, why not?

[ToughLuck]

101. You are avoiding Pelosi's position as speaker and you know it..stop defending her

[struggle4progress]

72. Pelosi's trip: She believes more strongly that withdrawal will help region (Jan 2007)

Says troops deserve better policies than president's
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Monday, January 29, 2007

... Pelosi was accompanied by six House members, including the chairman of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months -- that there must be political and diplomatic initiatives to match the military effort, and there are disappointingly few signs of such successes ...

By bringing an array of committee chairs and a Republican -- five of the seven lawmakers voted in favor of authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2002 -- Pelosi said she intended to deliver the message to al-Maliki that "this is not about the politics of America, it's about the policy (in Iraq) that the American people are objecting to.''

Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have sent Bush several public letters urging a new Iraq policy that would redeploy troops and shift the emphasis from combat to training and reconstruction ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/29/MNGP0NQQOK1.DTL

[ToughLuck]

88. Nothing you have posted about Pelosi excuses her taking impeachment off the table.

[struggle4progress]

97. What investigations did YOU encourage YOUR representative to support?

[ToughLuck]

102. What do you think? Impeachment, which she TOOK OFF the table

[struggle4progress]

106. What INVESTIGATIONS did you encourage your representative to support?

... Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to" ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

[struggle4progress]

74. Pelosi: Passing Anti-Escalation Resolution Will Set Stage For Congressional Action On Iraq (Feb 07)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has just spoken on the floor about the anti-escalation resolution that is being debated and passed this week. She vowed that passing this resolution will set the stage for Congressional action on Iraq -- words that are likely designed to win over those worried that the non-binding measure doesn't amount to actual action to rein in the President. She said:

In a few days, with fewer than 100 words, we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor. Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people: No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq ... http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/02/pelosi_passing_antiescalation.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/02/pelosi_passing_antiescalation.php

[struggle4progress]

76. Showdown over Iraq war begins (Mar 2007)

Bush vows veto of spending bill,
accuses Democrats of politics

By Aamer Madhani and Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
March 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- By a narrow margin reflecting deep divisions over the Iraq war, the House voted Friday to set a September 2008 deadline for withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, confronting President Bush with his most serious challenge over the conflict and setting the president and Democratic leadership on a collision course over war powers.

Soon after the bill passed 218-212, Bush reiterated his threat to veto the legislation, which is tied to a $124 billion spending bill that includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush accused the Democrats of jeopardizing American troops in the field in an attempt "to score political points" against the administration.

If a new spending bill, without conditions, is not approved and signed into law before April 15, the president warned, it would put troops and their families in danger as current funding of the war is set to dry up in a matter of weeks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that a holdup in funding would force the Army to delay training of units and halt repair of vital equipment ...

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said Pelosi (D-Calif.). "The American people see the reality of the war. The president does not" ... http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/03/showdown_over_iraq_war_begins.html

[ToughLuck]

89. No reason here for Pelosi to take impeachment off the table..but I am sure you will keep trying.

[struggle4progress]

77. Iraq Withdrawal Debate, Part II: The Veto (April 2007)

President George W. Bush will be offering up his second veto ever in less than a month, if the Democratic Congress sends him an Iraq spending bill containing a deadline for troop withdrawal ...

If there was any doubt about Bush's expected plans, he tried once again to clear them up yesterday. "If either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from the strong support for this position in both houses that the veto would be sustained," Bush said in a Rose Garden press conference ...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/04/iraq_withdrawal_debate_part_ii.html

[struggle4progress]

78. McNerney breaks from Bay Area pack on Iraq vote (May 2007)

By Josh Richman
Friday, May 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am

When legislation requiring withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within nine months was defeated in the House yesterday on a 255-171 vote, all but one Bay Area House member supported the bill. Somewhat surprisingly, the local loner was freshman Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton ... http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2007/05/11/mcnerney-breaks-from-bay-area-pack-on-iraq-vote/

[ToughLuck]

92. More excuses for her taking impeachment off the table...nothing more

[struggle4progress]

79. Pelosi lines up Iraq votes (July 2007)

By Mike Soraghan and Jackie Kucinich
Posted: 07/10/07 07:57 PM

House Democrats are planning a series of votes this month on Iraq that they hope will ratchet up pressure on the White House and congressional Republicans to change course on the unpopular war or suffer political consequences ...

The first votes in what Pelosi’s office termed “a month of action in Congress to end the war” could start as early as this week. Likely topics include legislation banning permanent bases in Iraq and cracking down on what Democrats call “war profiteering.” In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last month announced withdrawal legislation to “redeploy” troops by next spring ...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-lines-up-iraq-votes-2007-07-10.html

[struggle4progress]

80. Pelosi: Ready for another vote to bring troops home (November 2007)

Posted November 8, 2007 11:49 AM
The Swamp
by Mark Silva and Matthew Hay Brown, updated

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that the House will vote as soon as Friday on a $50-billion war-spending bill that requires President Bush start bringing troops home.

The bill offers only a small share of the $196 billion that Bush is seeking for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the 2008 budget year and would underwrite about four months of war.

"This is not a blank check for the president," Pelosi said at a news conference today. "This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.'

The legislation requires the administration to start withdrawing troops immediately, with a target for ending combat deployments in Iraq by December 2008. It allows some to remain for counterterrorism missions, Iraqi-troop training and protection of U.S. interests ...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/pelosi_ready_for_another_vote.html

[ToughLuck]

93. You post this as if it some heroic measure on Pelosi's part..sad.

[struggle4progress]

98. Pelosi worked her head off in 2007 trying to craft a compromise for Iraq withdrawal

[ToughLuck]

103. Gee struggle4, maybe if she did not willingly take impeachment off the table

the country would be better served now.

[struggle4progress]

81. Why the antiwar surge failed in Congress.

By Walter Shapiro

Sept. 26, 2007 | It is time to face the blunt truth: This Congress, despite its nominal Democratic majorities, is not going to hasten the end of the Iraq war .... this inescapable conclusion is based on the coin of the realm on Capitol Hill -- the stark arithmetic of head counts.

Any ambiguity was put to rest last week by a series of Senate votes on the Pentagon spending bill that demonstrated that the Republican Party remains immune to any surge in antiwar sentiment. Six GOP votes were the high-water mark; they were cast in favor of a ballyhooed amendment (sponsored by Virginia freshman Democrat Jim Webb) to prompt a back-door drawdown in troops by limiting the duration of deployments to Iraq. But not a single Republican supported legislation advanced by Reid and Wisconsin's Russ Feingold to mandate a funding cutoff for most U.S. troops in Iraq by next summer. Reid-Feingold -- the most explicit expression of antiwar sentiment -- lost by a lopsided vote of 70-28, virtually the same margin as back in May ... http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/26/congress_v_iraq/

[struggle4progress]

82. 'Blue Dog' Democrats Join GOP in Opposing War Bill (May 2008)

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A08

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday postponed consideration of a bill that would continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a bloc of conservative Democrats balked ...

The bill has been divided into three pieces. The first is the war funding, which is expected to pass, largely with Republican votes. The second is a set of policy limitations on the war, including a goal of withdrawing all combat troops by December 2009. The third contains the proposed domestic spending, including the veterans' education program and an $11 billion extension of unemployment benefits ...

Either way, the Senate is expected to strip the provision calling for troop withdrawal and, if Democrats can round up the 60 votes needed to fight off GOP objections, send a bill with war funds and domestic spending back to the House ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802858.html

[electropop]

48. I see, so Gingrich, as 3rd in line, was powerless to impeach Clinton?

:wtf:

[struggle4progress]

63. I am sorry you dislike my realism. My effort to clearly see facts is not a statement I am happy

with the situation. But every successful political calculation involves an analysis of current powers. The ridiculous and hypocritical impeachment of Clinton occurred in a context different than we face today: then the media attacked Clinton constantly, while for the last six years the media have largely given Bush a free ride; then the Senate was not as closely divided as it is now; and so on

When I assert that the media would have attacked Pelosi for leading an impeachment charge, I am not asserting that impeachment would have been inappropriate; rather, I am commenting on current media behavior: the overall effect, of the continuing consolidation of media and the resulting loss of multiple competing independent voices, has been substantial. No matter who is elected, this situation will not change on 20 Nov 09: it will not begin to change until we wage and win some substantial battle regarding media control and media responsibility

[electropop]

68. I don't dislike your realism; I just don't think Pelosi's succession rank is

the biggest problem. I agree, the media are a problem for impeachment and every other imaginable issue.

[struggle4progress]

84. In either case, we didn't produce enough votes for our side. That's our fault, not Pelosi's

[ToughLuck]

105. So at least you are admiting the only reason she took impeachment off the table

is because she was not willing to take on the political heat from the media...wow, what an ethical woman she is!

[struggle4progress]

108. Accusations. Attacks against Democrats. No links. Good bye.

[ToughLuck]

109. Accusations, you can't defend Pelosi because there is no defense

You are in the minority here struggle4, you just have to ask yourself why.

[ToughLuck]

60. Talk about spin, you related to Pelosi struggle4 ?

[struggle4progress]

64. That's just asinine. Are you related to Golub? And why are you so eager to attack a top Democrat?

[ToughLuck]

67. Eager to attack a Democrat? I attack whoever does not do the job they are suppose to do.

Pelosi is not suppose to take impeachment off the table. NO president is given that, and there is NO excuse for it. You spin away excuse after excuse for her. Do you really believe it is ever easy for a party to go forward with impeachment?...give me a break here. Pelosi is a failure to the people she serves, the consequences of which the American public will inherit for years to come.
Pelosi needs to be removed, the sooner the better, she has proven she cannot deal with the challenges of our time.

[struggle4progress]

83. After #66-69-75, I'll interpret that to mean you can't find or won't read the House rules

[EFerrari]

22. A progressive agenda?

[struggle4progress]

24. Then why isn't she running ads on that? Bush is gone in 2009, no matter who wins Pelosi's seat

[EFerrari]

25. It's always surprising to me that when someone is willing to stand up

to the status quo, they get slammed. Maybe that's why we have a higher return rate in Congress than the Politburo did.

If this was important to you, you'd be helping out with ideas. Maybe it isn't that important.

[struggle4progress]

30. The high rate of return to Congress results from Americans' political naivety,

a tendency to confuse opinion with politics, the absence of effective enduring opposition organizations, corporate control of the media, gerrymandered districts, and a number of like factors

[ToughLuck]

90. The only one here confused is you...for the good of the country she

should never ever said impeachment is off the table.

[cascadiance]

27. Paul Craig Roberts speculates that might not be the case...

Though arguably, it might be also hard to even have an election to replace Pelosi anyway then too.

[ToughLuck]

59. Because Pelosi does not deserve a PASS on her decision to NOT impeach

If Bush will be remembered as King, Pelosi will be remembered as his Queen.

[struggle4progress]

66. House rules don't give Speaker authority to decide if President is impeached. It's a safe bet that

you have zilch idea about how the House actually works

[ToughLuck]

69. YOU have no idea what you are talking about, but keep making excuses for her.

[struggle4progress]

75. Find the House rules, then exhibit a rule handing to the Speaker the decision to pursue impeachment

Good luck!

[ToughLuck]

91. I am fully aware of the house rules. What I see being posted by you

are excuses and nothing more. Do you really believe that you are more aware of the rules than the ACLU? Try and keep in mind her actions after the 2006 election instead of your excuses and apologies you hand out to her. Pelosi managed to keep small-minded earmarks so she could attract political contributions..or maybe you don't read much about what she actually does in DC. Summer of 07, polls indicated voters 45 to 54% in favor of impeachment..that is what you call the voice of the people...she ignored it. Pelosi also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath to decide it would be more expedient to "just vote Democratic party" in November.

You also left out a critical fact, it was Pelosi who threatened the removal of Rep.Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeacment inquiry were even opened..this from credible congressional individuals. Instead of embracing Conyers experience with such matters, which she is a NOVICE, Pelosi instead gives cover for Bush.

Look at her reasons why she took impeachment off the table struggle4, they are the reasons only a spineless politician would use, kinda like the guy we have for president right now.

[struggle4progress]

99. That's a cop-out answer, garnished by accusations without evidence

[ToughLuck]

104. You wouldn't know evidence struggle4 if it hit you in the face..you read much?

[struggle4progress]

107. OK. March off into the swamps. Good luck!

[ToughLuck]

110. Its Pelosi who will need luck struggle4, not me..you fail to recognize

her actions will be remembered in history. You seem to think impeachment would only be about the war in Iraq. Do you actually keep abreast of the war crimes by this administration. The 1100 signing statements. The case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the SCOTUS ruled against Bush and his illegal denial of the Geneva Convention...why do you think he scrambled to put together the Military Commission Act 2006 just before the November elections??? You are deeply misinformed, and taking impeachment off the table is a reality Pelosi will carry with her always, despite apologists like you.

[ToughLuck]

111. You deny she said Impeachment is off the table?

[struggle4progress]

112. Oh, she said that. It was a statement reflecting bean-counter reality. She also said that

she'd support investigations and that there was no telling where the investigations would lead. The corporate media largely didn't cover the investigations, which actually shouldn't have surprised us -- and we failed to build an effective grassroots organization to mobilize the public.

[Senator]

114. "where the investigations would lead" ?!?

There reason there was "no telling" is because this is nothing that needs to be "found out." There really is nothing to "investigate" when it comes to Geneva violations and illegal spying. The regime admits and "defends" these clearly impeachable offenses -- in direct contradiction to rulings by the USSC and the FISA court. They proudly proclaim their monarchical, "unitary" theory of power and dismiss their torture as "dunking." An emperor doesn't get more naked than this.

This is just another DC-Dem rationalization for inaction. The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters -- that may or may not lead to impeachment charges; based on things we already know about, and would only be.. ZZZzzz...(small wonder the euphemedia ignores what little of that there is).

Doing the former would demand attention, unify the party around principle and patriotism, and perhaps even bring some Republicans back into the reality-based community, where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul (only a few are needed for the label "bipartisan").

Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face. That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it. If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention or moral support for the activity. And you lose the next election to the "strong but wrong" McCain-puppet.

And the public/electorate is not the easy scapegoat here either. The public has been away ahead of the LieberDems on this for years:


Only 44% opposed and 1/4 of that "opposition" are Dems following their craven "leadership." The public already knows that the never-elected, never-legitimate regime is the biggest obstacle to improvement in any situation, foreign or domestic. Even the active impeachophobic campaigning of DC Dems was only able to make a small dent in impeachment support in more recent polls.

Even Madame Squeaker Herself says the buck stops in DC. Judging by this statement she may well be whispering "Go Shirley!" to herself.

--

[struggle4progress]

117. You don't need to convince me: I've had an "Impeach" sticker on my car for years

And I agree with you on general policy grounds

But (like it or not) politics is not policy: it involves putting together winning coalitions, which is actually hard work -- and winning coalitions are not defined by the numbers of people who simply say they support a certain course of action, but rather by the numbers of people highly motivated to push for a certain course of action

For that reason, a poll indicating that 51% of the population thinks impeachment is either "a top priority" or "a lower priority" will not suggest to a practical politician that the public "wants impeachment" -- rather, it will suggest that when the chips are down, the pro-impeachment crowd might lose the fight for public opinion by a 40%-55% split

An impeachment effort would certainly have produced outcries of "unfair partisanship" from the Republicans: and these cries would have been echoed endlessly by the corporate media, unless there was not only enough useful investigatory material to swing the public firmly and irrevocably into the pro-impeachment camp but also enough public outrage to terrify the Republican side of the aisle

The split on the Iraq war was even clearer than the split on impeachment (fully two-thirds of the public wants prompt withdrawal) -- and yet even this decisive split did not produce enough pressure on Republicans to allow Congress to force an end to the war

In both cases, the failure of our side to win these fights is associated with the (typically American) delusion that political pressure is produced when people state opinions: in fact, however, political pressure is generated when people form effective grassroots organizations that repeatedly mobilize citizens for local involvement, including continuing commitments of time and energy and cash to exert constant pressure on public opinion and elected officials, through media outreach and door-to-door work and phonebanking and all of the other standard tactics of grassroots mobilization

In a nutshell, we failed to exert enough pressure against the war and for impeachment

That's it. That's all. Either we learn the lessons from it (so we don't make the same mistake next time) -- or we don't learn the lessons and continue marching into the swamps

[ToughLuck]

118. Pelosi FAILED at exerting any pressure when she took impeachment off the table..you refuse to

accept that.

Practical politician?...she is an unethical politician, and history will remember her as such.

[struggle4progress]

120. spam spam spam

[ToughLuck]

122. Talk about a cop out answer, you still have nothing but excuses for her, spam away struggle4

[Senator]

123. There is no convincing. Simply confronting

And if having an impeachment sticker on your car is the most you can do to stop torturers then that's fine. Everyone does what they can. Nothing more can be expected.

But rationalizing and excuse-making for those who failed to live up to their oaths of office is something that simply needs to be confronted because it is so damaging in the long run, and is the reason we are in such danger in the first place.

Impeachment is not a "policy." And standing on principle is not a "coalition building" activity. You either do it or you don't. And when you don't, people are free to conclude that you have no principles.

[pokercat999]

113. How about the arrest and prosecution of these war criminals

for a start.

[sfnative]

18. Shirley supports the issues Nancy is too chicken...

to address: impeachment, repealing NAFTA, single-payer healthcare, and no more funding for the war. These are all things that are important to me and since Nancy has turned a deaf ear to her constituents, she needs to go!

[Vidar]

19. Finally--a campaiogn ad I agree with.

[EFerrari]

20. Go, Shirley!

:kick:

[Anexio]

21. I fail to see any controversy here

The ad looks to be right on the money. No lies, funny, and to the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXxXkpe5Paw

[Zachstar]

39. Good!

[Olddoggy]

40. It's hard to be tough on republicans

When republican senators and House members are doing all it takes to block good measures. They even filibuster if they have to.

[electropop]

47. Right on!

I hope Golub wins.

[ckramer]

51. Send Pelosi home!

She is too nice to Bush to be a democrat leader.

[stimbox]

54. Wish she'd go back to Baltimore rather than come back here. n/t

[Senator]

56. K&R & Impeach Or Lose To McCain (cheneybushism)

[fascisthunter]

65. Buh Bye Nancy... you Had Your chance

good bye

[natrat]

115. screww youi pelosi you paid off scumbag

[thunderdog]

119. Shiley who...?

No matter, she will be forgotten soon enough.

[New Dawn]

124. Excellent. We need more Democrats like that.

And less of the type that snuggle up to Bush.

[Freddie Stubbs]

126. Democratic voters in San Francisco just overwhelmingly rejected Golub's negative campaign:

Shirley Golub 7,210 10.9 %
Nancy Pelosi 58,802 89.1 %

[WhiteTara]

129. maybe we should all send Nancy

the rubber chickens. Then she won't need to see the ad. It will be up close and personal. She is a disappointment to say the least.