Nancy Pelosi "Running Scared"

[garybeck]

Email From "The Pen"



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

There is something truly phenomenal going on in San Francisco. A
political novice by the name of Shirley Golub has the Speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi, running scared, afraid that if she agrees to
debate the challenger she will not be able to defend her record of
capitulation, afraid the voters of the 8th congressional district
will no longer make excuses for political cowardice . . . just
afraid.

And that's exactly the way Shirley Golub called it last week, when
she called Nancy Pelosi out for being a political coward, using those
exact words. Listen to the radio ad they are all talking about for
yourself.

Pelosi Afraid Ad: http://www.shirley08.com/donations_radio.php

And then if you are tired of being lied to, of being told our
representatives are doing the best they can, when you know in your
heart they are doing nothing even such as that, please consider
making a donation to Shirley Golub, who has the courage to call it
just the way she sees it.

With the revelations that directives to torture came straight from
the White House, in excruciating detail, from meeting of the
principals at the highest level, it is a national disgrace that
Congress has not already commenced impeachment hearings, of the Vice
President who presided over it all, and the absentee President who
now admits he knew about the whole thing.

What are we to call this but the most abject cowardice? Why would we
believe that anything would change by electing more cowards cut from
the same cloth? If Congress is incapable of standing up for itself
now, why would be believe that under some subsequent administration
they would acquit themselves with any actual valor?

And yet there are now those trying to make a controversy out of
telling the truth, when the real controversy is all the lies. There
are those who would try to make a scandal out of confronting scandal,
when the real scandal is those who are too frightened to expose it.

So listen to Shirley Golub's new radio spot again, and ask yourself
if there is even a single word she speaks that is not the straight
unadulerated truth. And if her words ring true to your own ears, then
please make a contribution so that Shirley can put this ad on every
radio station in her district.

Pelosi Afraid Ad: http://www.shirley08.com/donations_radio.php

How far must we go down the wrong road before we understand that the
only salvation is to turn back, while there is still time? A
compelling majority want immediate impeachment hearings. But still
Congress will not listen. Nancy Pelosi deludes herself, and tries to
delude us, into thinking that elections can be won on a platform of
running away from the biggest issues of our time. She must be removed
now. And we can do it on June 3, by supporting the one candidate with
true courage in the Democratic party primary, Shirley Golub.

Now that we have proof that the bad apples on torture and everything
else were at the very top of the barrel, those apples must be removed
and swiftly. If such crimes were to come to light on the very last
day of a presidential term, it would be the duty of Congress to act
that very day. The integrity of our Democracy demands, our
Constitution demands it, and WE the people demand it.

[mike_c]

1. K&R for Shirley Golub!

Go Shirley! It's time to replace complicit dems in Congress with a real opposition party!

[garybeck]

3. I'd like to move to San Fran, just so I could vote for her!! n/t

[jgraz]

110. Send her some money to help the ad get more play

[Clear Blue Sky]

2. Let them debate.

Shine the light of truth on the hypocrisy and rot...

[garybeck]

4. Yeah, that plastic smile of hers will melt in the heat of the light. n't

[Fireweed247]

5. I love love LOVE Shirley Golub!

:applause:
www.peacecandidates.com

[garybeck]

8. did you see her awesome video too???

gotta see this!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU

[rateyes]

6. Not just running scared...

running away from her responsibilities as Speaker of the House.

[bdamomma]

20. also just running out the clock at our expense.

[madokie]

7. Who would the speaker job likely go to

[garybeck]

10. I don't know but I've always been

suspicious of how she got to be the speaker. I know there was a vote, but it seemed to be a done deal before the vote even happened and there was only one other person running (Murtha I think).

She clearly has some skeletons in her closet and that's the best way the Neocons could protect themselves from impeachment and such - make sure the Dems choose a speaker with skeletons in their closet.

[madokie]

13. If she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet, of which I think she does

then she too is a traitor just like bush/cheney are. Actually I guess the majority of the congress critters could be labeled as such

[warren pease]

35. A possible skeleton...

Remember that Washington Post story about Pelosi back in 2002 getting a "virtual tour" of some of the CIA's offshore black sites, at which time CIA briefers revealed the use of waterboarding as a standard interrogation method? That was a genius move on the part of the Bushies because the second the "tour" was over, they owned her ass for as long as they wanted it. Virtually speaking, of course.

By not immediately going public and condemning the CIA's routine use of torture, she tacitly agreed to ignore gross violations of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, which made her an accessory after the fact to the Bush administration's war crimes.

By her silence, Pelosi's also complicit in BushCo's daily violations of worldwide bans on torture, a breach of Article VI of the Constitution that requires the US to comply with international treaties to which it's a signatory -- another war crime.

All the above put her right in the administration's deepest pocket and completely eliminated her as a political threat.

At least that's one way to connect the dots. Something stinks about unilaterally disarming congress by removing the silver bullet of impeachment from the chamber. The fact that she's continuing that idiotic posture despite howls of protest from across the country indicates that she's either a complete political idiot or there are forces more powerful than public pressure running her agenda.

Not that the people ever count for much, but with the election coming right up, the country in a foul mood, congress' approval ratings lower than even Bushie's and serious challenges from pro-impeachment progressives against sitting reps in districts all over the country who buy the Pelosi line and have voted repeatedly to enable the Bushies and stiff their constituents... With this kind of shit storm swirling around her, you'd think that she'd have second thoughts about what's on or off the table.

Instead, she's chosen a position that screams cowardice, complicity, coercion or all of the above. The only things she's not demonstrating are courage and political acumen. She may think she's playing high-stakes political hard ball and that the dumb shits the dems hire as consultants are worth listening to, but she's chosen the path of losers, and even gullible Americans, for all the utter bullshit they'll fall for, will not vote for obvious wimps and candy asses.

So, as nominal leader of the democratic party, she's sold out their history, their constituents, their personal honor and integrity, their country, their consciences, their political roots and, incidentally, the Constitution and the entire body of precedent and case law that has grown up around it. But she doesn't seem to give much of a damn because reelecting democrats is all that matters and if their consultants tell them that cowering in a corner will help make that happen, great.

When you stop searching for logic or intelligence behind Pelosi's behavior and understand that she's just playing her appointed roles as defined by political handlers and election strategists, things make a lot more sense. And a lot more disgusting.

Just my opinion, of course, which can be a little faulty at times.


wp

[truedelphi]

45. I'm enjoying your opinion - faulty or not!

Where did you hear about P. going and visiting the black op sites?

[warren pease]

75. Ooops. I thought I linked to the article. Here's the WaPo story...

This is from December last year and describes a briefing on "enhanced interrogation" methods used by the CIA's taxpayer-funded sadists doing their best Torquemada imitations in the blackest holes of the American gulag.

I don't think she actually had to go anywhere. I assume the briefing was held at Langely, but the article's not clear on that.

The "virtual" part of the briefing apparently consisted of video tape or streaming video. But it may have also included a ppt presentation and/or other audio-visual stuff. The article is very poorly written, imo, and doesn't include any details on where the briefing was held, what media were used and so on.

The briefing took place in 2002 when Pelosi was the top democrat on the House Intel Committee, a post now held by Bushite democrat Jane Harman, sponsor of that hideous piece of Orwellian shit called HR 1955 / S 1959 or, as it's known in our native tongue, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Yippee!

Harman, btw, happens to be the richest member of the House with an estimated net worth of more than half a BILLION dollars. I would imagine most have been converted to Euros by now, Jane being obviously no fool with money.

I have no idea what her fortune means in terms of her personal legislative agenda, if anything, but it's nice to know she's doing OK and won't have to suffer through the oncoming depression, which is going to seriously screw things up for many of her constituents.

Pelosi, the ninth richest, is a peasant by comparison, limping along on a lousy $86.3 million. That's barely enough to keep her in botox.

Anyway, here's one of the more priceless items from the article:

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

So that's what I know. All the rest is conjecture and includes my personal bias that Pelosi is perhaps the worst possible speaker, selected at the worst possible time, presumably expected to combat the worst administration in history, and absolutely unequipped mentally or spiritually to handle the job.

I can't remember a time that called more desperately for courage, strength and the ability to organize democrats from all over the political spectrum into a cohesive bloc with the common purpose of uniting against BushCo.

Instead, we get Ms. Nancy, her empty table, her equally ineffective sidekick Mr. Reid, and the goddamn republicans still run the show, with the enthusiastic help of their blue dog suck-ups.

Given the number of times democrats shoot themselves in the foot, it's amazing the entire party isn't confined to wheelchairs.


wp

[truedelphi]

78. Thanks for the link. I'll install them to my hard drive

Bruce Fein, constitutional scholar, and Republican who badly wants impeachment said this:
(in answer to Bill Moyers of why Impeachment is not moving forward, unlike the heady days of the summer of 1974) "There are no statesmen in the Congeress today. Only politicians."

[warren pease]

85. Which wouldn't be so bad if...

... they were effective politicians. The GOP is a lost cause, so we're stuck with the democrats.

Unfortunately, with Pelosi serving as the poster child for ineptitude, complicity and general craven spinelessness, they're certainly not capable of statesmanship either. They're not particularly competent at high-stakes politics, their advisers are so inferior to the GOP's that it's amazing they ever win any office above alderman, the GOP's voting machines -- which have been ruled unmentionable by the same party that gets screwed by them every election cycle -- will take over where their spin meisters leave off and, to top it all off, the dems continue to refuse to do the things that got them elected in 2006 -- cut off Iraq funding and put the Bushies in a cage where they can't do any more harm the rest of their time in office, assuming they consent to leave peacefully next January.

Other than that, things are going just great in congress. Can't wait to watch them roll over again when The Commander Guy wants another $100 billion to destroy someplace else in the Middle East. They'll bitch for the cameras, then give him $120 billion instead, just because he's such a really cool guy.


wp

[Greyhound]

114. Take a look at her role, and that of her husband, in the giveaway of the Presidio.

She's got so many skeletons she had to build a whole separate mausoleum to store the one's that won't fit in the closet.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. She was elected Speaker because Democrats in the House were pleased with her performance as

Minority Leader, leading them from the minority to the majority.

[tavalon]

98. They got the majority because we voted in a lot of new Democrats

because we wanted a new direction. She failed at that.

[TheDebbieDee]

14. That's what I'd like to know, too!

Would Rep. Steny Hoyer become Speaker, or would there be another election for Speaker of the House post?

[Fireweed247]

16. I don't know about "likely" but Kucinich!!

:applause:

[madokie]

19. Yeah, Dennis would be good

Hey at least its a good thought, one like I love to have

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Steny Hoyer or Rahm Emanuel

They are currently Majority Leader and Caucus Chairman, respectively.

[LeftCoast]

9. I'm sorry, for a second I thought you guys were actually believing this spin

:rofl:

[garybeck]

11. huh?

what spin

[LeftCoast]

12. Um...well...you don't actually think Pelosi is scared do you?

I mean, please.

[garybeck]

18. if she won't accept an invitation to debate, what would you call it?

[Mandate My Ass]

21. Pragmatic?

I'm sure that Golub woman is very shrill and will just alienate the swing voters.

[garybeck]

26. Pragmatic = Afraid.

no difference.

[stimbox]

33. Swing voters in SF? Get real.

:rofl:

[Mandate My Ass]

38. I thought the sarcasm was so thick I didn't need the thingy

I guess I did after all so here ya go. :sarcasm:

[stimbox]

39. Cool, thanks.

:toast:

[crikkett]

117. They got the Swing Swangin'

[LeftCoast]

22. You think the only reason she would refuse to debate is because she's scared?

That's the only reason in the whole world you can think of? No other possible reason at all?

I bet you can figure this out if you try.

[garybeck]

25. you reject what people say and ask a lot of questions, but offer no answers

If you know why she won't debate, why don't you stop wasting our time and just tell us?

Or maybe there's something you're afraid of?

[LeftCoast]

31. Allrighty then

She won't debate because that would give credibility to a candidate with absolutely zero chance of winning the primary against her.

[garybeck]

34. pure hogwash

your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

if Golub has zero chance then Pelosi has nothing to lose in a debate. Your argument actually proves the original point - Pelosi is AFRAID of debating because it would legitimize Golub's candidacy, force her to answer questions she doesn't want to answer, and show a sharp contrast between her and another candidate that actually cares about our democracy.

By denying debate, she is denying the people's right to have a choice and pick a candidate based on issues, not incumbancy.

She's afraid of democracy. She's afraid of the truth. She's afraid of impeachment hearings because she has her hands in the cookie jar.

Afraid,
Afraid,
Afraid.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. She is smart enough not to create a situation which would give free publicity to her opponent

Pelosi didn't become Speaker of the House by not knowing basic political strategy.

[hack89]

86. Debate would give Golub credibility and some gravitas.

ignoring her keeps her a non-entity politically.

[Canuckistanian]

100. Right. Pelosi has nothing to worry about.

IF Pelosi has her constituents on her side, then what's the problem?

What is she afraid of?

[stimbox]

37. That's mighty passive aggressive of her.

She's scared to debate Shirley.
Shirley would mop the floor with Pelosi.

[tavalon]

99. She feels she has no need

She feels her position is secure and getting in front of a crowd might force an accountability moment. Therefore she sees no need.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Clinton and Obama never debated Lee Mercer

Were they afraid?

[Stand and Fight]

112. Of course they believe it....

It's DU and Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat after all. ;)

[Winterblues]

15. What about Peloisi makes you the proudest?

Let's hear some real spin...:shrug:

[LeftCoast]

17. Straw man

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. Ending the 12-year Republican majority in the House

[stimbox]

93. She did that single-handedly?

Wow! She sure is great!

:sarcasm:

[tavalon]

102. She didn't do that

We did it, and then she proved that the Democrats under her majority leadership would act just like they were still the minority. So, I guess we need to kick her out and install We The People as the majority leader.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. Defending complicit democrats is as sickening as people defending pedophiles on this board

Nancy Pelosi is a failure as the Speaker of the House, as a Democrat and as a human being. She has twisted and capitulated to this misadministration just as much as any other complicit repug has...

Don't try to defend the indefensible with excuses, bullshit or anything else.

[LeftCoast]

84. Spare your faux hysteria for someone who cares

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. Save your right wing bullshit for a site with members who will appreciate it

[stimbox]

95. pwned!

:rofl:

[Junkdrawer]

101. Digg it...

:thumbsup:

[MonkeyFunk]

140. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen here today

and you've had some stiff competition.

[philly_bob]

23. I know nothing about Golub but Pelosi - Grrrrrr!

"Off the table," eh Nancy?

How about "out of office"?

First contribution since Edwards and Kucinich were in primary.

[garybeck]

28. watch her video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-oDs3diOKU

[philly_bob]

90. Replying to self. What if she's being blackmailed?

Talked about this issue with marital unit. She assumes that "they have something on her." She thought Pelosi was sincere and righteous starting out, but something stopped her.

Several other posters made similar comments, I believe.

Pelosi, if blackmailed, could gain forgiveness by coming clean -- and pointing finger at who put pressure her. (One of the reasons I wish DU had been a little easier on Spitzer.)

[OwnedByFerrets]

119. Ive said for a VERY long time that....

she is either being blackmailed OR, more likely, she has been threatened with bodily harm on her family by black ops. Besides that, she was aware of the torture and did NOTHING.

[Senator]

24. Great. A Tangible Way To Oppose Torture And DC-Dem Complicity (Yes, With Cash.)

It really takes very little to "be competitive" in a primary -- any primary. Turnout is often tiny and there's always a sizeable "throw the bums out" constituency. With 80% of Dems opposing Capitulosi's surrender-monkeying on impeachment, all Shirley has to do is get over the "oh, someone else is actually running?" recognition hump.

Even a small donation can make a huge difference. And it means you can say/know that you did more than just talk about war crimes.

--

[HCE SuiGeneris]

116. I admire your ability to "cut to the chase".

:thumbsup:

[Subdivisions]

122. delete

[formercia]

27. Nancy is worried about decorum.

I say fuck decorum.

Impeach them all and let God sort it out.

Go get em' Shirley!

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Obama and Clinton never debated Lee Mercer, and I doubt that Pelosi will debate this woman

[garybeck]

44. Golub will get more votes in one city than Mercer got nationwide. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. But the outcome will be the same: failure

[garybeck]

49. I guess we should just end all debates, and elections for that matter

why don't we just make all elected officials a lifetime position

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Because then we wouldn't have been able to get rid of Cynthia McKinney

[stimbox]

54. Why do you hate Democracy? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. I do not hate Democracy. Why do YOU hate Democracy?

:shrug:

[G_j]

83. yes, I believe the first to call for impeachment

and the first to confront Rumsfeld about the missing trillions$$$.

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. She introduced articles of impeachment after the voters threw her out

In fact, she did it on the last day that Congress was in session, guaranteeing that the effort would go nowhere.

[stimbox]

30. VOTE EARLY (May 4th – June 3rd)—VOTE SHIRLEY

10 REASONS WHY: SHIRLEY, not Nancy

1 - Shirley feels strongly it is essential for the current Congress to act now to bring articles of impeachment against both VP Cheney and George W. Bush, so the American public fully understands their illegal acts and puts pressure on our representatives in the House and the Senate to do the right thing to prevent further abuses.

2 - Shirley will vote faithfully in Congress to de-fund the war in Iraq so the troops can come home.

3 - Shirley will co-sponsor single-payer health care for all (H.R. 676).

4 - Shirley will work hard to have more jobs for workers here in the U.S. by canceling N.A.F.T.A. and other so-called free trade agreements, which just put American workers at a disadvantage.

5 - With a Masters degree in Education, Shirley strongly favors federal funding of pre-school thru community college education for all who want it.

6 - Shirley wants to abolish "No Child Left Behind", the educational act that forced teachers to teach to a test, but not necessarily for what their students need.

7 - Shirley supports environmentally friendly "green-collar" jobs for youth and others.

8 - Shirley will work for full inclusivity in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, regardless of race, national origin, age, sexual orientation or identity.

9 - Shirley supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (H.R. 1246), and passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act (S. 1105 and H.R. 1592).

10 - Shirley supports the International Violence Against Women Act (S. 2279), which would centralize U.S Policy into a new office to strengthen the protection of women and girls where we can have global influence.

VOTE EARLY (May 4th – June 3rd)—VOTE SHIRLEY

[dkofos]

36. If she had done her JOB, she wouldn't have anything to worry about.

But she decided to play politics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. If she is reelected, is it an affirmation that her constituents believe that she is doing her job?

[garybeck]

48. not at all.... the contrary...

with a majority of San Franciscans favoring impeachment, it would show the power of corporate influence and money on elections.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Or perhaps that while a majority of SF'ers may favor impeachment, it is far from their top priority

[stimbox]

53. Gee Freddie, why don't you tell us what our top priority is?

Since you seem to know so much about what voters in District 8 want.

[Dr Fate]

56. In 2006- "corruption" was a top concern to voters nationwide. n/t

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Corruption in Congress, or in the Executive branch?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

64. Do you have info that voters percieved the executive branch as non-corrupt?

I'm pretty sure that the answers to the polls generally refered to politicians in power.

Either way, getting the people to support some sort of punishment for Bush would not be as difficult as the hand-wringers tell us.

Bush and Pelosi won- there will be no impeachment- I dont find solace in that by imagining that voters chose DEMS based on the idea that DEMS would give the "corrupt" Bush a free pass.

I cant believe that voters chose DEMS b/c they promised to protect Bush.

[stimbox]

60. I think we favored it quite heavily, 58.53%, in the 2006 election.

Proposition J
Adopting a Policy Calling for the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
City of San Francisco
Majority Approval Required

Pass: 133,042 / 58.53% Yes votes ...... 94,282 / 41.47% No votes

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sf/meas/J/

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. But is it the top, or even one of the top priorities, of most voters in the district?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

69. "Corruption" was the top issue. Are we to assume that voters did not want accountability for that?

So far, they have not gotten it- no impeachment, no censure, no calls for resignation.

The Bush corruption still runs as rampant as ever- little or nothing was done about the top issue in relation to Bush.

After winning in 2006, DEMS could have easily convinced the public that Bush's corruption warranted some kind of punishment...

But like I said, we are just arguing hypotheticals- Bush & his anti-impeachment defenders won the day- all that is left to do is make excuses for why.

[stimbox]

92. 58% favor it, so yes it is. n/t

[tavalon]

104. Are you playing devil's advocate

or are you just being an ass? Inquiring minds want to know.

[tavalon]

103. Or, not paying attention

much like the voters in Connecticut.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Boy, how the mighty have fallen

She was used quite frequently by the likes of Sean Hannity et. al as the poster gal for "San Franciso liberalism" to attempt to scare voters away from giving Democrats the majority in Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections but, for whatever reason, her becoming Speaker seems to have actually turned out to be GOOD overall for the GOP since both she (and her Senate counterpart Reid) have ended up capitulating and ultimately giving Bush just about everything he has wanted from Congress and/or they have simply given up on trying to fight Bush/GOP for our principles and priorities (i.e. Iraq). Oh, and she (and other Democrats in the leadership) unilaterally took the possibility of impeaching Bush, Cheney, et. al "off the table" right from the beginning so as to ensure that our representatives will never be able to hold Bush, Cheney, et. al accountable for their well-documented and, in some cases, self-admitted high crimes, misdemeanors, and other wrongdoing during their time in office. Maybe she has internalized GOP attacks and is just going out of her way to prove to Bush/GOP that she is "bipartisan" and will not "ruffle feathers" but IMHO her leadership and the accompanying capitulation makes quite a mockery out of the fact that we actually won a majority of seats in Congress in the 2006 elections. If she wins re-election and we retain the majority in both chambers after this election (which seems likely), I believe that we need to insist on some new and more aggressive leadership in both chambers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. She did not 'unilaterally' take impeachment off of the table

The voters helped her. They elected a Democratic majority AFTER she promised that there would be no impeachment.

[Dr Fate]

55. "Corruption" was the top issue- it is arguable they still voted DEM in spite of "off the table"

They voted DEM in spite of the fact that DEMS were opposed to punishing corruption, that is.

I doubt that voters flocked to the polls b/c she promised not to impeach corrupt politicians- but maybe we can agree that voters saw DEMS as less corrupt despite this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. But did voters demand impeachment as a remedy of that corruption?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

68. I think it would have been easy to convince voters that corrupt Politicians should face punishment.

At the least, I think that once DEMS won they could have convinced voters that censuring him or calling for him to resign for lying would be appropriate.

Anyway, it's over-Pelosi and the passionate anti-impeachment, anti-accountablity crowd won this one for Bush- and Bush appreciates it very much.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Pelosi should have tried to convince voters to support something which she promised she wouldn't do?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

76. Why not? Politicans change their positions as more facts come out all the time.

Are you saying that Pelosi has never once revised or adjusted her postions on an issue? I imagine that would be a first in the history of politics.

If that is not the case, then it's interesting that the helping Bush is the one issue where she chooses not to budge or rethink...

Your arguments assume that voters would have voted for Republicans in 2006 unless they were positive that DEMS would protect Republicans & Bush from investigations- considering that GOP corruption was a top issue, that makes no sense at all.

Anyway, Bush, Pelosi and their anti-impeachment excuse makers won- so I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep on coming up with excuses- they should just be happy that they won.

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. You are assuming that an impeachment attempt would hurt Bush

If unsuccessful, it may only embolden him.

[Dr Fate]

133. Which means you assume that Bush wants everyone talking about whether he is impeachable or not? LOL!

Whether Bush lied or committed impeachable offences is the LAST thing Bush or the GOP wants to have a national conversation about.

Fortunately for him, folks like you and Pelosi have got his back.

The idea that impeachment proceedings would have helped the GOP is silly- if that was the case, there would have been wall to wall GOP talking points fanning "go- ahead make my day" flames everytime DK or some other DEM brought it up. In reality, any movement towards impeachment was always ignored and recieved the minimum of coverage & GOP responses- in otherwords, they disagree with the talking point that it would help the GOP.

No need to hand-wring over a difficult fight with Bush at this point though- he won, with a little help from his friends.

[Freddie Stubbs]

134. Then why were House Republican supporting Kucinich's effort bring about a vote on impeachment?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

135. They werent. Why didnt we see them all over TV and in Op-Eds for weeks drumming up the issue?

Why no wall to wall coverage- why no MSM talkingheads interviewing these pro-impeachment voters 24/7?

Why? Because whether or not Bush is a criminal and a liar or impeachable is the last thing GOP/media wanted to have a national conversation about.

If it is true that certain Repubs feigned support for any impeachment effort, it was done with the knowledge that DLC/Pelosi would fight it harder than they ever DREAMED of fighting Bush- causing more friction b/t the Pro-Constitution base and the anti-impeachment/Pro-war DEMS.

In other words- some in the GOP may have tried to use the DLC's position of protecting Bush to divide the party. If the DLC/Bluedog types were not for protecting Bush, the GOP wouldnt have attempted feigned support.

The GOPers were not supporting impeachment- they were using their common ground on impeachment with Pelosi/DLC to piss off the anti-Bush DEMS- and you know that as well as I do.

Okay- now what is the next excuse for protecting Bush?

Could you offer up at least one WAY to hold Bush accountable for every 5 excuses you have for protecting him?

[Freddie Stubbs]

137. 165 Republicans voted with Kucinich to stop tabling the impeachment motion

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml

[Dr Fate]

138. I know. Now answer my points in post 135. Those Repubs. knew the DLC types would have their backs.

You also failed to address why these Republicans failed to make this a 24/7 issue on TV- If impeachment talk really hurts DEMS-why didnt they? Think about it.

Those Republicans pretended to support a move towards impeachment because they knew the DLC/Pelosi/Bluedog types would have their backs- they knew the DLC types would fight pro-constituion DEMS harder than they ever DREAMED of fighting Bush.

It certainly wasnt b/c Repubs knew they could win an argument over whether Bush was a liar or not. Unless you dont think Bush was a liar.

They pretended to support impeachment as a stunt to get the pro-contitution DEMS even more pissed at the Bush-defending DEMS. What they didnt dare do is make an effort to get people talking DK's actual charges against Bush in the echo chamber...

Now- after your 12 or so excuses for protecting Bush- cant you offer up even ONE way to hold him accountable for his impeachable offenses? Or perhaps you agree with Bush & Rush, etc- that there are no impeachable offenses?

Anyway- why are you still arguing?- why not just pop the champagne corks and celebrate yours and Bush's victory over pro-impeachment DEMS?

[Kolesar]

141. How did that Plame case against Rove go?

It all sounds like a "slam dunk" until the execution phase.

[Senator]

139. K&R&ImpeachOrLoseToMcCain

[Senator]

129. Funny, That's Exactly How Madame Squeaker Herself Put It

When asked about impeachment:

"If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress, I would probably be advocating for impeachment."

This is a person in dire need of cranial-rectoscopy.

But she is the poster-gal for something much larger than herself. And while her impeachophobia is enough to require removal, it is simply the most obvious symptom of a much more pervasive disease.

--

[stimbox]

94. Her constituents did. Many, many times.

And she ignores us. I guess she forgot who sent her to DC.

This election is going to be a reminder for her.

[tavalon]

105. Make it so, please

Unfortunately, One of the Senators from Connecticut has given her a blueprint for what to do if she loses the primary - run as an independent. She can call her campaign San Francisco for Pelosi! Bleech.

[stimbox]

109. We're trying.

Hopefully Pelosi will lose gracefully and not pull a LIEberman on us.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. True. I don't know if voters necessarily gave her a "mandate" to take it off the table though

I actually do remember her saying that before the election but I honestly didn't take it that seriously. I thought it was just some political posturing so as to avoid scaring off Democratic-leaning moderate Republicans and independents. At any rate, I think it was (and is still) wrong for one person (even IF they are the Speaker of the House) to be able to circumvent the democratic process and essentially dictate to other members of the House representing the rest of the country whether or not impeachment may be brought up for consideration. Now, I've personally wavered back and forth about whether we should invest the time and energy to attempt to impeach Bush, Cheney, et. al and there has probably been a lot of debate among others in the party about whether or not to proceed with such an effort but I don't believe that it ever should have been simply "taken off the table" like it was, particularly when I'm not even sure that Pelosi even HAS the power to do that. On a larger point, I just don't understand why Pelosi and some of the other Democrats in the leadership have been so leery about even considering impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et. al in light of all of the wrongdoing and misconduct that has been uncovered and/or admitted to (i.e. Gitmo, Iraq, NSA, Abu Gharib) during their time in office. The Republicans certainly did not approach the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal with such high-mindedness and the only thing that Clinton was reasonably accused of was lying under oath (about a subject he should have never been forced to testify about in the first place). Like with all GOP endeavors, THEY never seem concerned about hyping (and harping about) ANY kind of real or imagined wrongdoing by Democrats nor the blatant hypocrisy they demonstrate by failing to address the clear and unambiguous misdeeds of one of their own.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. So, you are mad at Pelosi for keeping a campaign promise?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

74. Yes. Politicians break promises all the time. She could have easily explained a change of position.

I'll bet we could find one or two instances were Pelosi had to change her position on a given issue as facts became more apparent to the public.

Convincing people that Bush's corruption warrranted an investigation & punishment would have been easy.

The argument that the people would turn against DEMS and stick up for Bush if they investigated his crimes or tried to hold him accountable is not reflected in his current polling or popularity- nor does it jibe with the fact that Bush's "corruption" was a top issue.

It's likely that anti-impeachment talk was to keep the RW media & the GOP at bay, not voters who view Bush as corrupt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. You talk about investigation

Isn't that what Congress is doing right now? Yet there is no groundswell support for impeachment.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

79. What I (think) I'm trying to say is that that promise wasn't HERS to keep (or disregard)

Did all Democrats running for Congress in 2006 sign on to this agreement? Did all voters sign on to this? Did every Democrat in the country get to vote for who was going to be Speaker of the House? Like I said before, I honestly thought that Pelosi's statement was a political move to help Democrats be elected but I doubt it would've hurt her (or the party) if she let discussion of impeachment proceed once in office. However, it appears that she was quite serious about what she said.

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. Then those members of Congress who support impeachment should move forward

Didn't they already have a vote on this?

[Dr Fate]

81. It's too late- Bush/Pelosi and their anti-impeachment defenders won this one.

And no, they didnt have a vote on this AFTER a proper investigation- but we both know that a proper investigation was never to be- and certainly wont happen now- the time to strike that iron was 2 years ago.

You know that a a real vote on impeachment needed to come AFTER a a few weeks of hearings and investigations on Bush's lies and crimes. These could have been held at night after congress did it's usual work. (I know, too much work-not gonna happen)

But Bush/Pelosi and their anti-impeachment defenders can breath a sigh of relief on that one. Bush is safe & sound and I'm sure he appreciates it.

It's over-Bush/Pelosi and their passionate excuse makers defeated the "raving" pro-impeachment, pro-constitution "crazies."

It's over- Bush won. Pelosi won. Corruption won. You won-or at least your passionate arguments & defenses did. Victory is yours, not mine.

Just know that "off the table" has erroded a lot of support and respect for Pelosi- which is the point of this thread.

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. Proper investigation? Does that mean that there is not yet enough evidence for impeachment?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

132. No- it means you have to lay out all the facts on prime-time TV.

And have "under oath" testimony on prime time TV- and have every conversation in America revolving around the investigations.

This way the majority of voters who voted DEM due to their opposition to corruption could SEE the DEMS doing something about their issue.

LOL- if you guys could have came up with as many ways to fight Bush as you come up with excuses for protecting him- we might have gotten somewhere.

Are you really saying that Bush is innocent and is not a prime suspect for impeachment proceedings? Is that really what you believe?

I'd say 900 plus lies are enough evidence to begin impeachment investigations- but then again, I'm not on the side that wanted to protect Bush from accountability.

At the least, censure or calls for resignation would have been in order.

[DainBramaged]

61. Nancy Pelosi, Booshe enabler, time to go home

I have not hidden by dislike of her since she became a rug as Speaker of the House, so it's time for her to go.

[knight_of_the_star]

66. So anyone got any pollling data?

That would substantiate a claim like that?

[yodermon]

71. Is there any actually polling in this district? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. I hear that they're going to get John Zogby to conduct a poll...

...as he has proven so adept at polling in Democratic primaries in California.

:rofl:

[balantz]

77. Squash the puppet, Shirley!

YOU GO GIRL!!!

[orleans]

82. pelosi is an asshole (imo) for what she refuses to do in order to

make this administration accountable--and that fuckhead in the white house accountable.

as tim robbins said, (in effect) in his speech the other night
talking about bill clinton--how the media and the congress and american people kept after the story about monica, saw that he lied, held his feet to the fire, made him accountable, and even impeached him. (robbins went on to say--in essence) can you imagine how horrible it would be if we did not investigate a president when we suspect a crime was committed, to not hold him accountable, to say that impeachment was off the table? how terrible would that be?

fuck nancy pelosi. i think she is a piece of shit.

hey pelosi--how does it feel? even the dems can't fucking stand you!

[Dr Fate]

87. kick

n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

91. LOL

I'm sure she's not very scared. Pelosi will win handily.

[Dr Fate]

125. I'm glad that the Bush's victory over the Pro-Constitution crowd makes you chuckle.

Laugh it up- Bush, Pelosi and the anti-impeachment DUers won- the "crazy" pro-constitution voices lost- victory is yours- so laugh it up.

Bush, Pelosi and the anti-impeachment crowd accomplished what they set out to do- to make sure Bush is not investigated for impeachable offenses or otherwise held accountable.

I'm glad you can be happy about the fact that Bush is laughing along with you.

Thanks to you guys, he will live a long, happy life- here's to your well earned victory- and here's to the happy laughter you all must be sharing!!!

[EFerrari]

96. GO, SHIRLEY!

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[T Monk]

97. look at her giving comfort/support/succor to the nazi-in-chief, she's gotta go

[Echo In Light]

106. K&R

[indepat]

107. If ever a Speaker of the House deserved to be defeated, Madame Pelosi

would get my vote for taking impeachment off the table.

[sfnative]

108. Yea, Shirley!

Pelosi is too busy kowtowing to Bush to bother listening to us. The hell with Pelosi. Go Shirley!

[jgraz]

111. Please, please, please send Shirley a donation!

I just sent her $100. Besides the presidential primary (which is over, IMHO), this is the most important race we have this year.

[ToeBot]

113. Look at the DLC fan club defending Nancy!

That should tell you all you need to know.

[Dr Fate]

126. Reads like a "Lets Protect Bush at all costs" fan club.

AKA the DLC.

They come up with more EXCUSES for protecting Bush than they come up with WAYS to hold him accountable.

[CreekDog]

115. I heard Shirley Golub's ad on the radio this morning

she plays with Pelosi's words and runs a quote of her saying, "I'm afraid" over and over again.

it's kind of amateurish and stupid.

also, Pelosi is not scared or she would be here campaigning to keep her job, she isn't.

there is no groundswell for Golub here, certainly not enough to even alarm Pelosi. Pelosi isn't even running ads here and she certainly has the money to do so.

[LWolf]

118. Golub has my support.

I wish I could vote for her.

[stimbox]

120. Bounce!

:bounce:

[Kolesar]

121. "cowards cut from the same cloth" ... true rhetorical genius

[Subdivisions]

123. I can't believe some of the shit I'm reading in this thread.

Preserve democracy! Vote Shirley Golub!

[Kolesar]

136. Profane Democrat-bashing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3170771#3176080

[stimbox]

124. Beach Impeach #5 is coming up on April 26th.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3175963&mesg_id=3175963

A good chance to show Nancy that her constituents still want impeachment.

http://www.shirley08.com

[natrat]

127. thats my district ....yee haw!!! i will vote and donate to shirley---fuck that pelosi scumbag