Can Pelosi end the War?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I doubt Pelosi would defund the war if she were able to, but I think it's a moot point. She couldn't do it if she tried.

The Speaker of the House does not have absolute control over what makes it to the floor. With enough support, there are methods by which the minority can force a measure to a vote even if it has not been through committee, and even if the speaker opposes it. (Pelosi has explained this at various times, but not very effectively.)

Imagine if Kucinich became Speaker of the House tomorrow...
1) Kucinich decides to not put a defense appropriations bill on the floor.
2) Boenher offers a defense appropriations bill, and gets more than enough signatures to force it to the floor, including a large number of Dem signatories.
3) House approves measure with a decent majority.
4) On to the senate where 10-20 dems vote for cloture. Measure is passed comfortably.

Bottom line: The war cannot be ended procedurally. I can only be ended if there are enough votes to end it affirmatively.

Is this incorrect?

[Skidmore]

1. She could have tied them up with impeachment.

We didn't have to win an impeachment trial but she sure could have put it in the middle of the table and dished it up in large servings. Taking a stand would have gone a long way to restoring honor. I know many Republicks in our area who routinely ask in bewilderment why * has not been impeached yet and who believes he deserves to be.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Impeachment needs 218 votes to get started.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt there are 218 yea votes to be had.

[AuntPatsy]

14. That doesn't mean it should not be tried. there is that "doubt" word again.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Didn't say that at all.

Just doing math here.

:hug:

[Double T]

3. The 'war' continues regardless which 'party' is in 'control'............

$$$$$$$ and the military industrial complex ACTUALLY rule our former 'democracy'.

[Forkboy]

4. Whether she can is irrelevant now because she clearly doesn't want to.

At least until after the election.They know the war hurts Repubs a lot more than us, and it's a calculated move to keep this particular albatross around the Right's neck until the election.

Personally, I find that kind of calculation to be sickening, but what do I know? It's only dead people.

[Demeter]

5. Our Point Is: Pelosi Hasn't Even TRIED!

If a scientist never did an experiment, or an engineer never built and tested a model of a new machine, if a cook never tried to vary a dish, or a tailor never changed the cut of a garment, they wouldn't be much of a value to society, would they?

So where is the value in a politician who won't try to exercise what power she has to accomplish change? Especially when she has a mandate for change, and change is desperately needed, when it's the bottom of the ninth and the bases are loaded....


There is no force of man or nature that is ever going to make it better than it is today. Opportunities are wasting by the hour.

To quote John Adams: "What in hell are they waiting for?"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. The effort might well be worthwhile for its own sake, but

there's not much experimental aspect to it. (If she can't count votes without actually holding the vote then she's the worst speaker ever.)

Splitting the party in half in the House would be worth it to end the war, but I can't see that it would help matters to split the party in half while NOT ending the war.

The result would just be Hoyer taking over as Speaker and a number of blue dogs changing to independents... it would probably proplong the war. (Much as the events of 1968 prolonged Vietnam)

[Demeter]

23. Without the Attempt to Effect Change

there is no education going on.

The voters are not getting an education of seeing the Legislature in action, and who supports what.

The legislators are getting no education by actually having to come out of hiding, and stand up for something--they do not confront their own characters, let alone that of their fellows.(which covers the asses of those afraid to reveal themselves, or afraid to act at all). They avoid thinking altogether, about why they serve, how they serve, and why anyone should ever vote for them again, why history should note their service, why they should even get this month's paycheck. Passing National Pickle Week is not enough!

The Executive Branch gets no education on what is and is not acceptable, which they desperately need.

And the Judiciary gets no guidance as to the state of mind of the Legislature, when it's time to interpret the laws passed (cowering whimpering is not a basis for any useful judicial ruling.)

To not act is the most damaging thing Congress can do. If Nancy isn't up to it, let Hoyer take over. He'll either crash and burn, or maybe he will finally attain something like adulthood. In either event, there is certain to be someone in line to take the next attempt after him.

[Dr.Phool]

6. I think LBJ's old quote about Gerald Ford could apply to all of Congress.

They couldn't find their ass with both hands and a coon hound.

[EFerrari]

7. Isn't that what fillibusters are for or am I wrong?

My head is spinning from all this cr@P! and it's only Monday. :(

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. The problem is that more than 10 senate dems would vote to end a filibuster

There are not enough votes to end the war. There are enough Democrats on paper, but many Dems would not support a dramatic war-ending measure.

When we see all those 56 vote cloture votes in the senate, it's important to recognize that a number of Dems in that 56 votes don't actually want to reach 60. Similar to when congress passes things knowing it will be vetoed or struck down by the courts, so it's a free shot... no consequences.

Some moderate/conservative dems don't want these filibusters to end because then they would have to vote FOR REAL on some tough issues.

It's like the Clinton impeachment (the trial) in the Senate. All Republicans wanted to be on TV voting to convict, but they didn't want Clinton to actually be removed. (Would have been a disaster for their party) So everyone swapped votes around to make sure it would just barely fail.

[OHdem10]

10. In the end , Pelosi would still have to have support of the

Senate to end the war.

On Impeachment, Bill Clinton was Impeached in House, but
the Senate saved him.

[ljm2002]

11. You're right...

...obviously there is nothing we can do so we should just not put up a fight. It's so indelicate to bring up topics that the minority party does not like. They might call us names or something. And we wouldn't want that.

There is absolutely nothing that the majority party can do in the face of the minority party's procedural maneuvers. We learned that in the last session of Congress, when the minority party... er, wait. Scratch that.

Does that about cover it?

[BlooInBloo]

12. What a worthless strawman question setup...

... If the Speaker lacked as much support as you're envisaging THEY WOULDN'T BE SPEAKER.

[AuntPatsy]

15. hear hear

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. That's absurd. Pelosi can have overwhelming support in the caucus and it has nothing to do with

the question. You realize that the speaker is elected by the majority party, not by the whole house, right?

10% of the democratic caucus plus the republicans is a majority. That's the frickin' point... EVEN 90% OF HOUSE DEMS IS NOT ENOUGH. Even if the democratic caucus supported such a move overwhelmingly (90% is pretty strong, right?) it is still not enough.

Democrats hold 233 seats to the Republicans’ 202. Even 16 votes swings the majority.

[AuntPatsy]

13. Key word "doubt", its inhuman to ignore the suffering, we owe them to try

[mmonk]

16. The democrats could. They have the numbers in the House

to NOT send a war funding bill. They have the numbers to impeach also. bush/Cheney has support from House democrats or at least not enough courage going against them from House democrats.

[bemildred]

17. Can Pelosi get re-elected if she doesn't? That is the question. nt

[Mike03]

22. You are one of the most intelligent posters here

I wish you would answer the question instead of posting it, for those of us who are confounded by whether or not the Democrats have the power to end this war or not.

Do they or don't they?

I want to be able to argue either way on this issue, but people I deeply respect disagree on whether Pelosi can or cannot do anything at this point. I don't know who is right.

[Mike03]

18. Not by herself, I don't think.

Doesn't the majority of Dems to Reps need to be veto proof?

[mmonk]

20. Not if you don't send a bill through.

Not to issue articles of impeachment.

[Mike03]

21. But then we would have Cheney

Wouldn't that be worse?

I admit that I don't understand the dynamics here, of how much Pelosi can do versus the reality of the situation.

[mmonk]

24. What we need is exposure of the truth.

Without an impeachment inquiry, this nation won't get exposure for these crimes against the constitution. In my opinion, to not defend the constitution is tantamount to a crime against it anyway. So there's blame to go around.

[Mike03]

19. IMHO, it's not Pelosi who has betrayed us,

but the Republicans who refuse to accept the reality of this Bush failure in Iraq.

I can't for the life of me understand why any Republican could support Bush or his disastrous failure war at this point.

[Demeter]

25. A Combination of the Authoritarian Sheep Personality and a Lack of Imagination

The GOP doesn't produce leaders, it produces goon squads who need, nay crave, firm direction.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are simply too nice to confront anyone about anything.

[Mike03]

29. If you are right

Then I am 100% with you.

But it's so hard to accept what you are saying because there are people I trust who say nothing more can possibly be done that is being done by the Dems. I mean, I hear this every single day, hours a day, on the talk programs I listen to. It would be an incredible betrayal to accept that they are lying and that the Democrats can stop this war but have not done it. Frankly, I would give up entirely on politics if I knew that was true.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. The wrinkle is the phrase "the democrats"

They are not a monolith. There are 231 democrats in the house, but there are not 231 votes for defunding the war.

Blaming "the democrats" is a bum rap because that's 231 different people from different districts.

And there is no way Pelosi can force pro-war Dems to vote to defund the military. if we ran the conservative democrats out of the party we wouldn't have a majority. And so on.

It's frustrating, but our majority is really quite slim.

The Vietnam War was ended at a time Dems had something like a 100 vote margin in the house.

[Andromeda]

37. Thank you for posting this...

You have explained the Democrat's predicament well but some here want to blame Democrats for everything, so you're no fun at all for bursting their little bubbles by exposing a new reality.

I think early childhood learning has something to do with their poor reading comprehension skills.

[Demeter]

26. I'm Recommending this thread because it is soul-searching

and if there ever was a party in search of its soul, it's our party!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Thank you for understanding that noting a problem is not an endorsment of the problem.

Pelosi pointed out that she doesn't have the power to keep a defense funding bill off the floor, and I see it as a practical question. Is she correct in that analysis?

It as nothing to do with what should be. It's just a question about what is.

[Cleetus]

30. Pelosi gave up.

She has given * everything he has asked for, and more. Putting her political career ahead of the lives of young Americans is despicable.

[budibudinski]

32. Don't know but gee she sure has a purdy smile..

Pelosi didn't even try.
Her wordes have consistantly been.."Impeachment is OFF the table".

Doesn't sound much like 'trying' to me.

I admit I had much higher expectations for Pelosi than what she's provin to be.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Speaker Doesnt Mean Dictator

How soon we forget about Gym Teach Denny...the most inept speaker of all time. He had less of a spine than Pelosi as he couldn't go to the bathroom without asking DeLay's permission. I rarely saw him show up on the House floor unless there was some dirty work to do...Speaker Pelosi is there almost every day.

The House has passed resolutions to cut the funding but it's not gonna beat the GOOP filibuster in the Senate. And do we want a "lock-step" one-note party? While I have issues with specific Congresscritters, I appreciate the diversity.

BTW...I'm just wondering...has Kucinich ever had a proposal offered on the floor for a full vote? Has it passed? I can't think of any. And where's those impeachment resolutions? I thought that was supposed to be offered. It's easy to talk, it's a lot different to get 219 pepole to work with you.

[Mike03]

34. Isn't it rather horrifying to think

that they COULD end it but won't?

Maybe the generation before us felt the same thing with Viet Nam, but I'm burning out because this war is a true horror, and there is no end in sight, and no one can seem to stop it.

[deacon]

36. Her problem is she folded. She doesn't have the backbone for the job

and she lied...she has done nothing she promised she would.

[LWolf]

38. The only way to answer your question

is for her to fight to do so. Then we can say if she CAN or CANNOT succeed.

As long as action is "off the table," then NO. She can't help end the war.

Or, more accurately, she WON'T help end the war.

If Dennis Kucinich became speaker of the house tomorrow, Democrats would have the security of KNOWING that he would keep the crucial key issues of our day ON the table, and ON THE FLOOR, for as long as it took to move them.

The first success would be in keeping the conversation focused on those issues.

[Ino]

39. It doesn't matter if she can or can't.

But it sure as hell matters to me if she TRIES and KEEPS trying, going to the mat, bending the rules as much as she can, flexing the muscle of her position. One little token attempt "in a spirit of bipartisanship" ain't nearly enough. Acting like she's gained a great victory afterwards because "now it's Bush's war and the Republicans' war" doesn't mean a thing.

Same thing goes for impeachment.