Pelosi: "we have taken impeachment off the table."

[Meeker Morgan]

Top Democrats: Won't Try To Impeach Bush If Win Congress

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Democratic lawmakers won't seek to impeach President George W. Bush if they take control of Congress, Democratic leaders said Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said "we have taken impeachment off the table."

Recent polls show Democratic chances for retaking control of either the House of Representatives or Senate are fading, although anything is possible in the six weeks that remain until Nov. 7 federal elections.

--- SNIP ---

Read the whole thing. She gives what could be good reasons.

But isn't it a bit soon to admit complete defeat?

[FSogol]

1. ....until November 8th", right? n/t

[Human Torch]

69. My immediate reaction.

:patriot:

[flaminbats]

100. then after election day...whoops

we didn't win the majority? then I guess voters didn't really want Bush to get special treatment.

Hang in there, some of us want to win for change! ;)

[Irreverend IX]

107. Do you really think impeachment is a good idea?

You shouldn't interrupt your opponent while he's in the process of destroying himself. Many Americans were annoyed at the GOP during the Clinton Cock Hunt, and if we tie up the Senate with impeachment hearings, there's going to be some of the same backlash against us, aided and abetted by the RW shills in the media. And what will we have to show for it if we succeed? President Cheney, which will hardly be a big change from before. Let's let Bush keep his office and get more and more reviled, and when '08 rolls around the reputation of the Repub nominee will be sullied through association with Dubya. If we threaten impeachment, it could foster sympathy for the GOP.

[kurth]

2. WHY THE FUCK NOT?

Why show your cards?

[MrCoffee]

3. When was impeachment on the table?

I must have missed something. When did the dem leadership ever talk about impeachment?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. consider the source WSJ

Of course they will try to promote the idea that dems have no chance - in the faint hopes of swaying the undecided.

[Meeker Morgan]

Considering the source

Either Pelosi and Reid really said those things or not.

Or is there some reason to think they just made it up?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. agreed, and true, BUT

that next paragraph is standard ultra-conservative spin by a news organization that excels at it. Remember, they could easily have pulled the comments out of context, too. Another thing that WSJ has done in an effort to promote their agenda.

[Imagevision]

5. Recent polls show Democratic chances for retaking? where's the LINK?

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Here:

New poll should cheer House GOP
Posted by Frank James AT 10:41 am CDT

A Gallup/USA Today poll out today should give encouragement to House Republicans.

It indicates that when a sample of likely voters were asked their preferences on what’s called a generic congressional ballot, 48 percent said they planned on voting for Republicans with an equal percentage preferring Democrats.

Among registered voters, Democrats still had the advantage over Republicans, 51 percent to 42 percent, an advantage the minority party has held all year.

But the relatively good news for Republicans is captured by this passage from the Gallup report:

“Democrats have held an advantage among registered voters throughout the year and continue to do so, but the likely voter estimates suggest that the Republicans have the potential to offset that advantage with greater turnout.”

more: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/new_poll_should.html

[bullimiami]

6. i dont know if I hate the bastards more or the spineless losers that keep

letting us down.

[beaconess]

60. What good would it do for Dems to talk impeachment right not?

Glad she's keeping her powder dry.

[leesa]

63. Well, it's the law.

[liberal N proud]

7. Recent polls that are being manipulated by KKKarl Rove controls

America can not be as stupid as this to vote for these criminal bastards in another election.
They win this time, you have got to know the fix is in.

[GreenTea]

98. Absolutely & positively....keep it close and it's so fucking easy to steal

any race they choose.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. ?

Recent polls show Democratic chances for retaking control of either the House of Representatives or Senate are fading, although anything is possible in the six weeks that remain until Nov. 7 federal elections.

Except for that we are now leading by double digits in a competitive district in each of two moderate states(Colorado and New Mexico). They must not pay much attention to polls....

[Xipe Totec]

9. If impeachment is off the table,

tell me what my motivation is to go to the polls?

[paulk]

28. this article, from a right wing news source, is aimed squarely at

voters like you, in a transparent attempt to discourage you from voting.

Are you going to let this tactic work?

[Xipe Totec]

67. I don't drink anybody's Kool-Aid n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

81. Least of all the Wall Street Journal's, I should hope

Do you really think a RW rag like that is telling you the whole story?

[MrModerate]

30. Ummm . . . improving the governance of our country?

For a start.

[Xipe Totec]

61. Improving governance starts with doing what's right

not what's expedient.

If we cannot confront evil when it stares us in the face, then we are no better.

Impeachment must remain on the table. If Pelosi is not willing, we need better leadership for the Democratic party.

[onenote]

74. actually, improving governance starts with getting elected

otherwise you can't improve squat.

[Xipe Totec]

108. By that definition, Repugs are pretty good governance

Care to reconsider?

[magnolia]

106. You sound like the...

..."there's no difference between Bush and Gore" people in 2000. We found out that there was a difference. Too bad we didn't just take a chance with Gore. The right succeeded in stealing the election with the assistance of the liberal doubters...who need a guarantee before making the huge effort of hauling themselves to the polls to vote!!!!! Or...they thought that voting Nader would be making a statement. What was that statement anyway...I didn't catch it?

[enough already]

47. Outstanding question n/t

[magnolia]

105. Unlike republicans....

...democrats change their minds.

Your motivation for going to the polls is to take the power away from the republicans. You already know what you'll get from them.

[IChing]

10. "We have to first drain the swamp" (read the bottom of the article)

Reid and Pelosi said they will make oversight of the administration one of their first priorities.
"We have to first drain the swamp," Pelosi said.


( this means investigations, committees with subpoena power that has the power to put officals under oath, which they never had the power to do)

[filer]

11. What will put it back on the table?

An unprovoked and illegal nuclear attack on Iran?

[Imagevision]

12. Recent polls show? - Why are no "POLLS" links provided, there are none, it

is a Rove-type story, a fairy tale dream repugs wish could have validity...

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Actually, there was at least one poll:

New poll should cheer House GOP
Posted by Frank James AT 10:41 am CDT

A Gallup/USA Today poll out today should give encouragement to House Republicans.

It indicates that when a sample of likely voters were asked their preferences on what’s called a generic congressional ballot, 48 percent said they planned on voting for Republicans with an equal percentage preferring Democrats.

Among registered voters, Democrats still had the advantage over Republicans, 51 percent to 42 percent, an advantage the minority party has held all year.

But the relatively good news for Republicans is captured by this passage from the Gallup report:

“Democrats have held an advantage among registered voters throughout the year and continue to do so, but the likely voter estimates suggest that the Republicans have the potential to offset that advantage with greater turnout.”

more: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/new_poll_should.html

[wakeme2008]

13. I think this is a GOOD thing

One less Rove talking point to throw at the sheep. Doesn't mean they will not be calling hearing with ppl under oath.

[MrCoffee]

17. Of course its a good thing. What the hell are these people talking about?

Who in here really wants impeachment proceedings brought? You really want President Dick? You really want to hand dozens of Dem seats in Congress to the pukes?

It's time to separate the fantasy from the reality.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Woooooo doogie!!

:popcorn:

It's gonna be a Nancy bashin' PAR-TAY!!

[rumpel]

15. Argument does not fly with me

We have to impeach bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice and certain others.

The "swamp", if she means members of Congress, has to be dealt with in Congress as well as in the traditional courts

This leadership just does not have the guts to seek truth for the people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. It Takes a 2/3 Majority Vote to Convict in an Impeachment Trial

Why impeach when we can't convict? How would that make us look? Like rethuglicans maybe? I think a failed impeachment would be a stain on Dems for too long to make it worthwhile.

Hammering home our message 24/7 would be much more effective imho.

[MrCoffee]

45. Spot on! A failed impeachment (which it most certainly would be)

would translate into "another" Dem failure.

[LynneSin]

85. You're right - we do

But it's not happening before 2006 and even the thought of impeachment could send the media into a frenzy and could backfire on the average everyday voter.

Nancy is just keeping this election focused and the media from going ape-shit. You even hint at impeachment right now and every talking screed who is given 5min of airtime, radiotime, presstime, microphone time will start screaming how this is nothing more than a revenge plan for the 1998 and probably remind taxpayers how much money was spent for that.

We don't need that before the election

[MissMarple]

16. She can't speak for the next Congress...and she knows that.

It is off the table for this currently elected set of representatives.

[midnight]

18. Let's hope you are right.

[Tom Joad]

19. So Bush, you can do anything you want. Pelosi promised.

[MrCoffee]

20. As long as pukes control Congress, he can. Running on this platform

guarantees that they will control Congress.

[Imagevision]

21. Non-exixting polls show?? Democratic chances for retaking control

what a croc, aliens are invading Secaucus new Jersey,,,Google it!

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Perhaps it was this poll:

New poll should cheer House GOP
Posted by Frank James AT 10:41 am CDT

A Gallup/USA Today poll out today should give encouragement to House Republicans.

It indicates that when a sample of likely voters were asked their preferences on what’s called a generic congressional ballot, 48 percent said they planned on voting for Republicans with an equal percentage preferring Democrats.

Among registered voters, Democrats still had the advantage over Republicans, 51 percent to 42 percent, an advantage the minority party has held all year.

But the relatively good news for Republicans is captured by this passage from the Gallup report:

“Democrats have held an advantage among registered voters throughout the year and continue to do so, but the likely voter estimates suggest that the Republicans have the potential to offset that advantage with greater turnout.”

more: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/new_poll_should.html

[MissMarple]

40. Around here there are Republicans outwardly supporting Gop candidates,

but a lot of Republican money is supporting our Democratic candidate for governor and the Dem running for CD 5. Among friends and in social situations quite a few of the Repubs are talking the GOP talk, but in the voting booth...that may be an entirely other matter.

Edited to fix the spelling. argh...

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. I really think that the House could go either way as things stand now

Had the election been held a month ago, Republicans would certainly have lost the House. A lot can change in a month and a half.

[MissMarple]

58. True, a lot can happen before the election. It did in our GOP primary.

The GOP Club for Growth, Focus on the Family anointed guy running now for the CD5 seat was doing really well until close to the primary, then his campaign took a bad turn and was label as sleazy. It stuck. Joel Hefley(R) who is retiring from the seat said as much. But the absentee ballots had already gone out and Hefley's golden boy who was running lost. Sleazy guy won because of Focus on the Family and Christian Coalition backing. The Republicans here are beside themselves and Hefley won't endorse sleazy guy. It has to be painful for them, but it is hilarious to watch.

What is interesting is that instead of no primary opponent as has been the case for twenty years, there were six Republicans running in the primary. The El Paso County GOP is in a state of total confusion. There is way too much religious pandering going on for the business guys, and way too little of God's laws being enacted for the wing nuts. Being Focus country we do have quite a few wing nut religious business guys. And only one of the guys running, the ex sheriff who is actually pretty sensible, did not seek approval by God's surrogate, James Dobson.

[paulk]

94. the CO 05 race is going to be interesting...

There's been a developing split in the Republican party for several years now between the business Republicans and the fundy whackjobs... It's even more interesting that it's come to a head in Colorado Springs, the fundy heartland.


I can see a lot of Republicans and Independents voting Democrat for just this one election. I mean, Doug "wash me in the blood of the" Lamborn makes Tom Tancredo look sane.

[dback]

22. Impeachment is a non-starter with voters. Sucks, but this is smart.

The Dems can call hearings and splatter everything the administration's been up to for the past 6 years, and Chimpy's numbers are going to rival Nixon's by the time they're done. They can either censure him then, or let him slink out of office on a trail of slime. Either way, they've taken the "high road" by not sinking to tit-for-tat with the Republicans.

What's essential is that Pelosi and co. emphasize that there is more than enough material here that they COULD impeach Bush--but for the sake of the country and our troops in harm's way, we won't. (If she wanted to be really canny, they can impeach Cheney--can one impeach the VP?)

The country sees that the Dems have the moral leadership and integrity to lead the country. Blowout for the Democratic candidate in 2008. Everyone happy, we go eat pie. Republicans eat crow.

[alternativethot]

25. Agreed...try to get control first

then start talking about legal options. It may be more advantageous

[MrModerate]

27. Absolutely. Let's win a little election first . . .

And then inventory what's on the table.

[AX10]

24. The people don't want to go through an impeachment trial.

She was right to say this. It will only motivate the GOP base. Instead we should be attacking the GOP 24/7 and offering our own plans.

[leesa]

65. They don't have a choice. Bush has committed impeachable offenses

Their job is to impeach him.

Why are you and our "democratic leadership" pretending this is optional????

[onenote]

75. maybe because they are heeding the words of Feingold and Wellstone

Notwithstanding the sentiment expressed by some here at DU, the public in general isn't clamoring for impeachment. Starting to talk about what would be depicted as a PARTISAN impeachment effort now would blow up badly in the Democrats faces. Here are just two quotes you would see plastered all over the newspapers and airwaves in ads run by the repubs against any Democrat advocating impeachment:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999

AND...

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

[MrModerate]

26. Frakkin' Dow Jones/WSJ says "chances are fading" . . .

They wish! They're trying to manufacture consensus reality again.

While I'll listen to a reasonable argument for not impeaching Schimpanski, the "hopes fading" crap isn't worth spreading on my lawn.

Only two things will prevent significant change -- up to and including control of the House and/or Senate -- from coming out of November's elections: 1) Less-than-expected turnout by Dems, progressives, angry independents, and newly dewooled Republicans, and 2) Diebold, et al.

Let's not lose our nerve here.

[mac56]

29. This is smart.

Very canny on Pelosi's part.

[dubyaD40web]

31. She's right.

Only 2 years left with Bush. Right now, he's already a lame duck with Republican's in office. If we re-take Congress, we can pass what we want regardless if he veto's.

[patrioticliberal]

32. Fucking bitch

[LynneSin]

52. Clearly you have no sense of strategy and a closed mind

This isn't about what we'll do if we get the majority. There is no way we can impeach Bush before the 2006 election - why give fodder for the Fox News & related screeds to use against us before the election. The success for us to win 2006 is going to be with voters who are not as politically savvy as you and I. If they watch the news - it's what is on TV and probably don't have a clue how lopsided it can be. Knowing the negativity that impeachment had in 1998 (and for a lameass cause) and the fact that repukes lost major ground in the 98 midterms, why shoot yourself in the foot?

This is nothing more that strategy to appeal to those voters who are undecided or getting disillusioned with the republican party. And this could make the difference for us picking up some of those congressional seats in tight races that we currently have in historically republican districts.

She's a woman and if she's like everyone other woman out there including myself - minds do get changed!

[onenote]

76. exactly: impeachment takes us off message

The message is that chimpy and his gang are incompetent and that the repub congress have been passive enablers. That is the message that is resonating with the public. If we start talking about impeachment, we get off message,which is the worst thing that can happen to a political campaign (if you don't believe me, just ask George Allen!)

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Well. Another reason why I don't have to donate to the Democratic

Party.

[onenote]

77. Then exactly why are you here at DEMOCRATIC Underground

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. Why, to push for democratic ideals, of course.

Which is the purpose of this message board. Sometimes those ideals go hand in hand with what the Democratic party is doing, sometimes not. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for them, I said I wouldn't donate. There are a lot of good causes out there that can use my money. Food for the hungry, the fight for the protection of our wetlands, etc. etc.

[LynneSin]

34. I'm not sure if that's what they are doing

Let's not use the impeachment as a campaign ploy before the election, hear me out.

There are several districts out there where we have extremely tight races in districts that have republican leanings. Impeachment still has a bad taste to many Americans because of that joke from 1998. Take the impeachment off the table but you know - stuff happens AND minds are changed

[NeedleCast]

35. Yes, Exactly!

Many moderates would see impeachment as nothing more than Democrats pulling the same stunt that Republicans did against Clinton.

[LynneSin]

46. But that's not me saying we should completely eliminated it

Just pull it off the table pre-election. I think it might help out in many of those tight races

[NeedleCast]

50. Either way

I don't think attemtping to empeach Bush has any long term benefits unless he can be taken out of office. It was ineffetive when the Repulicans did it to Clinton in everything but name.

[LynneSin]

53. Yes but the reasons behind the Clinton impeachment were the lamest ever

We have serious issues here that need to be addressed if not by our congress then by Geneva.

Anyhow if we impeach Bush we're gonna have to go after Cheney first. I mean seriously do we want that asshole as our president?

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:

[NeedleCast]

56. Thanks

Hehe, I'd rather have Cheney honestly. He's another corporate authoritarian, but at least he's not a mouth-drooling idiot.

What I do want to avoid is a tit-for-tat situation where both sides start looking to impeach the other parties' guy as soon as he gets into office. I still, yanno, pine for the days when Republicans and Democrats could disagree without having to hate each other.

I think a lot of people who hang in the balance would view this as "well, you did it to our guy so we're going to do it to your guy" pettyness.

Thanks for the welcome!

[MrCoffee]

39. Frickin' A right.

It would be monumentally stupid to rant and rave about impeachment right now.

[powergirl]

41. THIS IS HOW THE DEMS SNATCH VICTORY FROM THE JAWS OF DEFEAT

Regardless of whether it is a good strategy to pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush, it is premature to "take the option off the table." Bush and all of his fellow morans (sic) need to live in fear that this is something that can be pursued. Also, what votes will Democrats get by making statements like this? Is some "independent" voter going to say, "Oh no, I really like Bush and usually vote Republican so he won't get impeached but since the Dems won't impeach him, I'll vote Dem." That is STUPID!!!!!!!!!! We need to quit being such wusses and win this election instead of hoping not to lose. :argh:

[Q]

49. I have to agree...

...why even MENTION impeachment at all?

To me...this sounds like they're letting Bush know he can continue his imperial presidency and not worry about a thing. In other words...they're practically giving him immunity. This is an insult to America, the people and their Constitution. War crimes? Torture? Lying to provoke wars? The slaughter of thousands of innocents? Bush can sleep soundly now that he knows that he truly IS a dictator.

I'll be voting independent in the next election cycle. I'll vote for those who represent the people and aren't afraid to speak the truth.

[LynneSin]

54. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

The largest sector of votes out there we are courting is NOT hard-core progressive liberals who post regularly in internet forums and blogs.

There is a large community out there much greater than us - it's a combination of the undecided voter AND the disillusioned republicans (my family is all that).

If we even HINT at an impeachment, perhaps we might lose a few hard-core progressive liberals but that number would be underwhelming compared to the damage it could do with both undecided voters and disillusioned republican voters.

You claim right now, 2 months before the election that there is a HINT of an impeachment, the media would go NUTS over it and probably not very much in our favor either. These undecided and disillusioned voters - they aren't online keeping up with the political scene. Hell their computers are probably use for gaming, sports scores, kid's myspace account and downloading porn. But they do watch the News and perhaps the evening news to see that perky Katie Couric. We do not need a media onslaught of the news people going after the dems right now. And they would - the trend is obvious. You get the hard-core, crazed rightwingers like Limbaugh or Savage harping on it, then it's picked up by Hannity and O'Reilly, CNN would soon be next because they have to keep up with Fox, MSNBC would be split because at least Olbermann would have common sense about it but finally you'll have Katie Couric being all perky about the horrors of a democratic impeaching Bush. Right now there is nothing we can do about an impeachment so why shoot ourselves in the foot with it?

We have too much to lose in the 2006 mid-term elections. Unless Pelosi & Reid signed some sort of blood-oath that would instantaneously kill them should they change their minds after the elections then trust me - nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to politics

[enough already]

43. I don't have to read any more

There are no good reasons not to impeach the fucking Chimp. What great f'ing "leadership".

[LynneSin]

48. Who says it's forever removed?

I'm thinking it's a smart move for right before the election. It's going to be the moderates, the undecideds and the average joes who if they bother to watch the news it's whatever is on TV.

There will always be reasons to impeach Bush and if we regain the house, perhaps it'll be something 'new' that will tip the impeachment pendulum back our way.

It's a smart strategy. We have too many tight races in districts that historically been repuke-leaning. Knowing that there is no way the guy is getting impeached before 2007, why make it fodder for Fox News and the rest of the TV screeds who would clearly spin it against us?

[MrCoffee]

51. Here's a good reason...it would not pass in a vote. it's doomed to fail.

Why do you want Congressional Dems to fail?

[LynneSin]

55. It would fail now - who knows what would happen after the election

:shrug:

It just serves no purpose to give fodder for the screeds on Cable News

[Q]

57. The question isn't whether impeachment would be successful...

...it wasn't necessary to even bring up the topic. This simply sends Bush a signal that his crimes won't be punished...or that in the Dem leadership's opinion he hasn't committed any crimes worthy of impeachment.

This subject was brought up for a reason. For some odd reason...the Dem leadership wants Bush to know that he has immunity.

[MrCoffee]

59. What the...it sends a signal to the voters that the Dems are serious

about doing the job Congress is supposed to do. This is electioneering, and its finally some smart electioneering by the minority leadership.

[enough already]

87. Impeachment IS part of Congress' job

I'm tired of spineless wimps not willing to stand up this prick.

[onenote]

78. no it send the message that the repubs can't rally their base

with impeachment scare talk.

[leesa]

62. It's their damned JOB to impeach him for his crimes.

[LynneSin]

90. If they get the democratic majority - I'm sure they will

Pelosi has nothing to do with the impeachment, that's John Conyers.

[Pale Blue Dot]

64. The time to dicuss this is after the election. Period.

nt

[LynneSin]

72. Absol-fucking-lutely

btw, youre team is going down this week!

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

71. I don't think it's off the table

I just don't think it will help in November if we have the Cable News Screeds screaming about impeachment and claiming it's payback for what happened in 1998.

I'm thinking it's just put away for now until the election is overwith and if we get the majority it'll come up again.

[zulchzulu]

68. It's off the table and stored away in the fridge for later consumption

You can bet Nancy wants to impeach the Chimp. This is just election year shuffling...

[AtomicKitten]

70. mmmmmm

later consumption - yummy

[flaminbats]

73. maybe I should take voting off the table!

what else will these cowards say.."Bush is a national hero, national healthcare must be stopped, crime is ok for those in power"?

Pelosi has almost convinced me not to vote. I will now only vote under one condition...if the Democrat running for Congress in my district promises to never support Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Then I know my vote will not be leaving such a loser in a position to give Republicans even more power. Otherwise I will stay home this November!

[LynneSin]

88. Can you email your address to Karl Rove please

He thanks you for being one of the stupid democrats who is buying into this shit!

Nancy is a great tactician. This is not a talking point we want the media to go apeshit over for the next 2 months. And btw, John Conyers has NEVER been one to do what Nancy tells him to do - and he's the one building the impeachment

[flaminbats]

91. I hope you're correct..

but I certainly don't agree with Nancy's tactics. I remember Republicans never stopped beating the impeachment war drum against Clinton to win control of Congress. So why the hell should we?

thanks for calling me stupid, Nancy better remember that if we win a majority..it will not happen by being sweet to Bush!

[LynneSin]

93. If there is one thing for sure I know about democrats and that is this...

...I have no fucking clue what they'll do next and I'm guessing I'll still see plenty of heartache in the future.

I'm also guarentee that we'll bitch about it adhoc here at DU and other progressive blog sites too.

But damnit, this election there is no third party out there that I can vote for and know that I'm not enabling a republican. Our system sucks, you know it, I know it - it's just sad. But at least if I have democrats running things, then perhaps, not on floor votes, but in Committees we might have a fricking chance to start making the changes we want to see.

Something has got to give!

[onenote]

95. your memory is quite faulty

The repubs won control of Congress (both the House and Senate) in 1994 -- Monica Lewinsky didn't even work at the WH at that time. The Lewinsky story broke in January 1998 and the impeachment process started prior to the 1998 elections. The repubs beat the war drum and it didn't exactly pay off...the Senate alignment stayed unchanged and they lost 5 seats in the House. They lost two more HOuse seats and four Senate seats in 2000, when impeachment was still a relatively fresh issue. We can't afford to lose even a single seat, so I think treating impeachment as a political third rail is exactly the right strategy for 2006.

[flaminbats]

96. Whitewater was a fresh story in 1994

Republicans made effective use of that story to gain control of both Houses of Congress. Lewinsky didn't break until 1998, but Republicans in Congress were holding hearings on Clinton everyday he was in power!

I was defending Clinton from those rabid Republicans everyday he was in office. Sorry, but I will never forget those times!

[onenote]

99. impeachment wasn't an issue in 1994

If you are saying that the repubs were beating the drums for impeachment prior to 1998, you're simply wrong. Indeed, the first time a resolution relating to the impeachment of Clinton was introduced was November 1997, by Bob Barr. That resolution was vague and non-specific, although it no doubt related in part to Whitewater. But it was a stealth resolution: Barr didn't even make a statement for inclusion in teh COngressional Record when he introduced it and it simply went to the rules committee where it disappeared. Hardly "beating the war drum." Whitewater may have helped the repubs win the House in 1994, but not because the repubs made it an impeachment issue. Rather they made it a corruption issue and a competency issue without the distraction of raising impeachment. It was not until after the Lewinsky scandal broke that impeachment became a public issue. And as the record shows, the repubs did a hell of a lot better attacking Clinton without talking about impeachment than they did after they turned the issue into one of impeachment.

[flaminbats]

101. I first heard impeachment mentioned the day after Clinton won!

I still remember when Clinton won that election, the world was turned upside down. I remember going to work that day, then a Republican told me.."slick willie's going to be impeached, you know that right?"

I said, "why, he hasn't even taken office yet?"

he said.."just wait, the Republicans will take over Congress..then he'll get what he deserves!" :crazy:

what people need to remember, Republicans made effective use of the grassroots, conservative resentment of Clinton to win control of Congress in 1994. Please don't misunderstand me, impeaching Bush shouldn't be the issue..but holding members of this administration accountable for its crimes and recklessness must be. That is why impeachment must never be taken off the table, even when a Democrat is President!

[onenote]

103. agreed

Our message absolutely should be to point a finger directly at this administration and at its repub enablers in the House and Senate and to make the case for electing Democrats based on the failures of the administation. But I do think its important that we stay on that message and not be sidetracked by talk of impeachment prior to the 2006 elections.

[ProudDad]

79. Conyers

will put it right back on in January...


Listen, until the dems control the House they can't do sh*t. No matter what happens in Nov, there will not be enough votes to convict in the Senate but the Conyers investigation (with subpoena power) must be done. There weren't enough votes in the Senate to convict Clinton either but that didn't stop the pukes from impeaching him. bush has committed REAL high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached for them.

[LynneSin]

89. Someone show me where Conyers either agrees or disagrees with Nancy

He is the heart of the impeachment, he is the one gathering evidence and he is the one that is getting the support he needs from the other democrats. And if we get the majority, he is the one sitting in the committee chair in the designatated committee room, with the committee republicans in attendance handing out the subpeona for the folks we really need for the investigation.

Conyers has not agreed with Pelosi - which means the impeachment is still brewing

AND

Conyers has not disagreed with Pelosi - which means to keep working on this like he is but don't take this to the media

[Citizen Kang]

80. thats quite a difference..

between registered and likely voters in this poll.

my first thought upon reading this is "likely voters = diebolds results"

[Vidar]

82. When Karl speaks, Pelosi jumps.

[LynneSin]

84. He's doing a good job of duping the hell out of you too

If you think that's the true intentions of Nancy Pelosi then you clearly have absolutely no clue about political strategy and fall into the "Keep em dumb" strategy of Karl Rove.

Nancy is a smart woman and she knows the media way too well. Give the media even the slightest hint that there could be an impeachment in 2007, the media will work overtime to scare the living bejesus out of anyone and everyone who still think that the News they see on TV is somewhat accurate - and trust me, that's the absolutely largest group of voters out there. You think everyone who is planning on voting is a regular member at some politcal forum discussing strategy on an almost daily basis? If you do - I've got a bridge for sale for you too!

Nancy has not one backed down on holding any hearings, investigations or holding people accountable. Even if they don't get the majority, that will continue.

But thanks to the republicans in 1998, impeachment has a major negative tone for the American Voter and could shoot us in the foot if we get the media harping on it for the next two months. The number of us online that believe what Nancy Pelosi said and will now not vote democrat are extremely far outweighed by the everyday voter who has the political savvy of a walnut but will still vote this November.

BTW, I would also suggest you not have a career as an football coach, you'd probably be handing the opposition your entire game plan before the opening kickoff.

Cheers to Nancy Pelosi for great strategizing. Remind people that investigations will continue with the democratic majority and in 2007 when you get the majority and the dirt (which is pretty much everywhere) THEN roll out the impeachment

[LynneSin]

86. Some of you would make the SHITTIEST football coaches (or chess player)

I could see you before the game, you'll walk over to the opposition and say "Hey, here's my gameplan for the game. I thought you might want to have a copy so you can play your strategy even better".

Hell I could see you in the beginning game of Chess - "First I'm going to move my pawns out and them I'm going to bring my bishops to the edge of the board but I'll probably save the Queen until later in the game and oh, I'm going to castle the king on <<<< that side of the board)"

You want Nancy Pelosi to do that?

You want every network, TV, Magazine, radio, newspaper, blogger screen out there going apeshit the last 2 months of the elections claiming that impeachment is nothing more than a waste of taxpayers money and the dems wanting revenge for 1998. These people would be relentless to the point. Who cares it was the republicans that started that joke back in 1998, they'll STILL use it to their advantage when pointing out the waste of tax dollars and the fact that the public was extremely turned off on it.

Hell Pelosi hasn't even been the one speaking out about the impeachment - that's John Conyers. And so far I have heard nothing from that that says Ms. Pelosi is absolutely correct or dead wrong.

Please stop thinking that we need to give out our entire strategy or else you're not voting for them. The one thing that Ms. Pelosi had said is they will continue to investigate the war and all the scandals surrounding it but this time they'll have control of the committees, use of the committee rooms, requirement that republicans attend and the power of subpeona. And I can almost guarentee Conyers will start the impeachment

[rinsd]

92. Checkers players in a chess world. Good post. (nt)

[WCGreen]

97. Here Here.....

[ShortnFiery]

102. It will be put back ON when the NEW majority leader of The House is in

charge. Go back to fundraising Nancy, that's exactly where you belong. :thumbsdown:

[onenote]

104. I wouldn't hold your breath.

I suspect that, like it or not, Pelosi represents the views of the majority of House Democrats.