Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

JohnnyRingo

(20,863 posts)

9. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table because...

Reply to aggiesal (Reply #7)

Thu May 15, 2014, 01:47 AM

May 2014

...when a Republican is driving his entire party off the cliff, you don't jump in and grab the wheel. The payoff over the next two election cycles, in 2008 and 2010, are testimony to the strategy. Few things happen by accident in politics, and this is straight out of the DNC playbook.

It certainly wasn't in the best interests of the country to step aside and allow Bush & Cheney to soil their republican brand by trashing the economy, but it won elections for years yet to come.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

First... Interesting That Almost Nobody Here Discussed Last Night's 'Frontline'... [View all] WillyT May 2014 OP

heh grasswire May 2014 #1

Probably afraid of getting slammed by 'company men' Warpy May 2014 #2

Probably because Cheney has the goods on everyone ... aggiesal May 2014 #7

Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table because... JohnnyRingo May 2014 #9

Instead of grabbing the wheel ... aggiesal May 2014 #11

Dems lost 2010. nt RandiFan1290 May 2014 #16

Yeah, 2010 was a big-time disaster Art_from_Ark May 2014 #17

You're right... I was thinking of '06 and '08 JohnnyRingo May 2014 #18

Cheney, Addison and Gonzales grasswire May 2014 #10

I remember having Ashcroft shoot up above them in my estimation Warpy May 2014 #21

Empty Suit is selected to be an Empty Suit struggle4progress May 2014 #14

Longish thread here: The Velveteen Ocelot May 2014 #3

Thank You... Searched... But Did Not Find... WillyT May 2014 #4

Thanks. nt bananas May 2014 #5

Well maybe too much for some to revisit- watching all those faces that make me sick upon sight again lunasun May 2014 #6

that was terrific grasswire May 2014 #8

Missed it because I had to work neverforget May 2014 #12

There were at least three threads devoted to it: struggle4progress May 2014 #13

The topic is suddenly not very contentious. ronnie624 May 2014 #19

I don't remember ever seeing many "defenders of the national security/surveillance state" here struggle4progress May 2014 #20

Snowden/Greenwald are the surrogates, in my opinion, ronnie624 May 2014 #22

Frontline has done stories on such matters, before Snowden, such as struggle4progress May 2014 #23

Snowden and Greenwald have ignited a prominent global debate on the issue. ronnie624 May 2014 #25

The fallacy being there are no "defenders of the surveillance state" that BushCo set up. tridim May 2014 #26

The national security state is a constant. ronnie624 May 2014 #29

Devastating For Both Bush And Obama cantbeserious May 2014 #15

because no one wanted to admit that Obama is just as in on it TorchTheWitch May 2014 #24

Will be interesting to see what "Part 2" reveals next week. KoKo May 2014 #27

I wouldn't have cared if it was four hours TorchTheWitch May 2014 #28