Nancy Pelosi OPPOSES Impeachment

[AndyA]

Nancy Pelosi: "I oppose impeachment. We have to use our energies to end this war. The popular support is not there, there will be no Republican votes to go forward....George Bush is just not worth it."

She listed the Democrats' priorities:

1. Protect our country and constititutional rights.
2. End war in Iraq.
3. Grow our economy
4. Care for our children, aged 0 to 5
5. Preserve our planet
6. Strengthen our democracy through transparency, fiscal accountability, highest ethical standards.

If we get this accomplished in next few months, we will do more for our own re-election and then get a Democrat elected in 2008.

Speaker Pelosi just doesn't seem to get it. None of this will happen, because Bush/Cheney will block the Dems every step of the way. They have done NOTHING to compromise or act in a bipartisan way since the Dems took over. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Please contact Speaker Pelosi and let her know how you feel:

Online form: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

Telephone: [phone]

Remind her she works for US, and that we made our feelings very clear last November. She needs to do what she was put in office to do!

(The quoted information above came from democrats.com.)

[TwilightGardener]

1. "Care for our Children"? Um, I think the vast majority of us DO that--

don't need Congress for that. I need Congress to IMPEACH the most criminal administration in history. THAT we can't do--how 'bout Congress takes care of that, and I'll take care of my kids, Nancy?

[Bandit]

2. The ONLY way for her to accomplish those goals is through Impeachment

For such a smart person it is surprising she is so dumb on thgis issue..

[helderheid]

5. exactly

and I am sickened every time I see that picture in your sig line. :mad:

[EFerrari]

9. No popular support?! Maybe she means some other populace.

:shrug:

[GOTV]

54. Online polls show overwhelming support for impeachment - unfortunately real polls do not n/t

[yodermon]

68. What polls? How many polls? How may polls compared to Clinton in 1998?

"should clinton be impeached" was polled ad naseum during the summer of 1998.

How may "should bush/cheney be impeached" polls have there been, but mainstream polling orgs?

The simple act of polling would actually increase public awareness of the possibility/practicality of impeachment.
The corporate media understands this, therefore they are not conducting polls on this matter.

This is why it's up to the Congress to hold hearings and investigations, providing a platform and context with which to expose this criminal administration. The media will not do so.

[GOTV]

72. What polls? - the non-online polls...

> How may "should bush/cheney be impeached" polls
> have there been, but mainstream polling orgs?

As far as I know there have been very few this year. But for the last couple of years there is usually only minority support for impeachment

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

I have no idea what kinds of private polls the Dems may be getting.

> This is why it's up to the Congress to
> hold hearings and investigations

They are

[yodermon]

84. "As far as I know there have been very few this year. "

.. which was my entire point :)

If every week Gallup would ask "should bush cheney be impeached", and then the talking heads would have to analyze it on TV, then there may be a chance of public opinion trending towards impeachment. At least it would be talked about.

Currently the media treats impeachment in "kook" mode. If the topic could at least be normalized, we'd be in better shape.

I'm sure the Dems' private polls are saying the same thing, which is why Pelosi is so eager to fold up the impeachment table (at least publicly).

And Congressional hearings/investigations are EXACTLY what needs to happen, and continue to happen. It's via hearings that the facts will get wider dissemination, and public opinion will begin to shift & place pressure (organically) on republican senators to support impeachment.

[GOTV]

87. I agree. It's certainly strange that the impeachment polling seems to have stopped...

... and you might be right about the reasons.

I think both parties continue to do private polling and I hope the Dems are still asking about impeachment. However, if they are, I'm sure they don't want that to be well known.

[GOTV]

97. OK, I found a poll from this year....

Unfortunately, it finds that impeachment is NOT growing in popularity

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15689

Would you favour or oppose the impeachment by Congress of U.S. president George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney?

Favour 39%

Oppose 55%

Undecided 6%

Source: InsiderAdvantage
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 621 registered American voters, conducted on Apr. 30 and May 1, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

[GOTV]

53. Not only is impeachment not the "ONLY" way, it's not even one of the ways....

Impeachment doesn't remove a president - only conviction in the Senate does and there's not enough votes for that.

So, for now, if you want to move on the Dem agenda, your way is almost the same as doing nothing.

[Bandit]

144. Impeachment is a trial process that requires two thirds to convict

Normal trials require "unanimous" votes for conviction. Does anyone say the votes aren't there before the evidence is even shown? Such arrogance. You know before anyone has seen any evidence of wrong doing what so ever that the votes are not there. I say bullshit. If Republicans refuse to convict after overwhelming evidence of wrong doping has been presented then I would say the Democrats campaign armories will be filled to capacity. Can you imagine the campaign ads that will be used against those that don't wish to abide by LAW?

[Cosmocat]

102. As many noted ...

1) The votes for the conviction in the senate just are not even CLOSE to being there ... People SERIOUSLY need to get a grip on this ... They MIGHT be able to get enough dems in the house to bring up articles, but that is nothing more than a token gesture for all intents and purposes ... The senate needs 66 votes to actually convict, and that is NOT going to happen ...

2) WHAT will it take IF the House could bring up articles ... A knock down, drag em out serious of investigations that would just totally bog down the House ... As some have already noted, congress ALREADY is gettin bogged down in the dizzying array of investigations due to the acts of this crew over the last six years with the Rs totally covering their butts ...

3) You really would jeopardize a lot of what might get down to try to get a token impeachment of this guy/crew ... And, again, they are NOT ... N O T ... going to be able to get him out of office ...

4) NO ONE here has it on me for how much I hate this guy and crew ... It has helped drive me to run for office myself, at my cost, at a fairly high level ... I hate these people with a burning rage that causes me to lose sleep, and probably taken days off of my life ... In that context, you just have to realize that, as unfair as it is, as mindbending as it is, these guys are going to skate ... They have ZERO respect for the rule of law to hold themselves accountable as they should, and they managed to get into office for the first six years with a republican controlled congress that covered their butts ...

It ain't fair, it ain't right, but it is reality ...

People can whine about, they can eat their own about it, but it won't change a thing ... Bush is going to get on the helicopter sometime in January of 2009 and ride off into the sunset, Cheney will return to his crypt and the next president will be left to clean up the mess ...

[bdamomma]

3. it seems to be getting like us vs them.

[onenote]

4. It seems to me that the list she gave is what she was put in office to do

Virtually no Democrat ran on a campaign that made impeachment an issue, let alone a priority. Under the circumstances, and given that Pelosi is absolutely correct that there aren't repub votes and that a partisan impeachment effort not only is doomed to fail but is likely to make it harder to pursue those issues that go to the heart of the 2006 elections, the suggestion that she isn't doing what she was put in office to do is off the mark.

BTW, if the repubs are going to block the Democrats every step of the way, exactly how do you expect to remove chimpy from office?

[ccpup]

10. you're right

the people weren't voting for Impeachment -- although many could certainly see where it's not only advisable but necessary. they were voting for change and for the congress to actually DO something and not just be a rubber stamp for *. and, like it or not, that's exactly what the Dems in congress have been doing and will continue to do.

on the other hand, with the continuing investigations and uncovering of one crime after another, there may come a point where the Dem leadership in congress feels, "with great sadness", that crimes have been committed that absolutely call for the most serious of measures. hard for the repugs and the MSM to go after the Dems and claim impeachment was their goal all along when Nancy -- and Reid in the Senate -- makes statement after statement professing the opposite.

she's a smart one.

[AndyA]

19. I hope we get to the "with great sadness" part BEFORE we're at war

with Iran, and BEFORE another 3,400+ troops have been killed, and BEFORE another $300 BILLION has been spent on this war.

[ccpup]

23. andy, andy, andy

does one need to put a :sarcasm: after everything? I just assumed most people on DU were smart enough to catch that. Guess I was wrong. Nice sense of outrage, though. Works for you.

[AndyA]

24. I'm nothing if I'm not outrageous!

Outrage comes easy these days, eh? ;)

[ccpup]

40. being outrageous

DOES look good on you! :-)

[EstimatedProphet]

60. That's what I think she's really working towards

She has to say publically that she opposes impeachment, because that is the only way she can claim it isn't being partisan. As investigations proceed, I expect this to change, as you said. The recent revelations from Comey about Gonzales linking Bush to criminal conspiracies might be what tips the scale.

[partylessinOhio]

115. Yes, and the only way Madame Squeaker can show she is against

the Iraq war is to fund it. Yes, that's it.

[EstimatedProphet]

131. And yet, she hasn't funded it

Remember, Bush is the one insisting that everything is done his way, and his way only. The bill that Congress sent forward was done with the knowledge that Bush was going to veto it. It makes him look like an asshole, because he was given every thing he wanted in that bill, except for one thing - a complete blank check. He vetoed it based on the fact that it wasn't a blank check, everyone knows it, and he looks like a child now because of it.

[AndyA]

15. Here's why the Dems MUST impeach:

First of all, it will cripple Bush. He will be busy defending his actions, and there's a LOT to defend. This will prevent him from starting any more wars (Iran), and will allow scrutiny of his every move (signing statements).

It will make coverage in our corporate owned, self-serving media MANDATORY. They will have to cover it. Yes, they will spin it and make it look like the Dems are the bad guys, but as the facts become known, more and more dirty air is laundered in public, anger will grow as will support for impeachment.

(In case you haven't noticed, support for impeachment continues to grow rapidly across the country, despite the Democrats lack of movement on it.)

As we get closer to the 2008 elections, the Republicans will have to stop supporting Bush, as he will be dragging them down at that point. They will have to jump on the impeachment bandwagon to save their own skins.

The Republican support will be there. It isn't now, but it will be. The Dems need to use this to their advantage. If they do not, they will be seen as weak and yet another example of a do-nothing Congress.

Impeachment must be put on the table.

[GOTV]

63. I don't think your reasons are very good

> First of all, it will cripple Bush. He will be busy
> defending his actions, and there's a LOT to defend.

Hardly. He's under no obligation to defend himself. He knows the votes aren't there. This would be a cakewalk for him.

> It will make coverage in our corporate owned,
> self-serving media MANDATORY.

Yeah, they'll cover it. They'll cover it like they cover everything else. It will be the corporate view of the proceedings 24/7. They'll explain over and over again who the Dems are playing politics rather than governing and will be defending Bush left and right. It'll be whose for it and who's against it and which Dem hates America more.

There's nothing magical that happens during impeachment that cleans up our media.

> In case you haven't noticed, support for
> impeachment continues to grow rapidly across
> the country, despite the Democrats lack of
> movement on it.

I haven't noticed that actually. Can you point to a non-online poll taken this year?

> As we get closer to the 2008 elections, the
> Republicans will have to stop supporting Bush,

And, therefore, as we get closer to 2008, our chances for a successful impeachment may improve.

[bdamomma]

21. maybe the repigs will put a fork in him, this is all about them trying

to get elected again, they are looking out for their own interests before ours. not enough votes on a government level, but how about support on a state level, couldn't our states put this forward impeachment?

[MadHound]

65. Well, that and ending the war too. In fact that was the number one priority of the voters last fall

But given that Pelosi doesn't seem to want to exercise the only option that will end the war, ie defunding the war via holding those supplemental spending bills in committee, it seems that Pelosi doesn't wish to follow that popular mandate either.

[onenote]

117. the popular "mandate" is of two minds

A solid majority favors setting a timeline for getting out of Iraq, which is why chimpy's veto, and the repub votes to sustain the veto, may yet come back to bite them. On the other hand, a majority of the public does not support cutting off funding immediately. So if the Democrats went that route, it would be their asses that might get bit.

[MadHound]

125. The overwhelming majority of Americans,

A number that is hovering around seventy percent right now, want us out of Iraq ASAP, timeline, no timeline, just get the hell out of there. A large minority, according to a Wa Post poll back in march, are in favor of defunding the war in the manner that I've stated, if I remember right, that number is 48%. Thus, with a little use of the bully pulpit, I think that we could get the majority of Americans behind this.

But polls and public opinion aside, there comes a point in a nation's history that you stop fiddle fart fucking around and do the right thing, like ending the war. Playing politics with people's lives is an abomidable position, one that, sadly, the Dems are taking right now. Meanwhile we're closing in on 4000 dead soldiers, tens of thousands injured, almost 700,000 dead Iraqis and untold devestation to their country. Our economy is in the sewer thanks to this war, and will take at least a generation to recover, if it will.

It is past time to stop playing politics with the lives of innocents and bring this war to an end. The Dems have the ability to do that, it is within their power. Now all they need is a spine.

[onenote]

130. feel free to back up your claims with a link

Yes a large majority opposes the war. That does not mean a large majority wants us out of iraq asap. If you have a poll that says otherwise, please produce it.


CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

5/4-6/07
Favor Oppose Unsure
34 65 1




"As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have provided additional funds for the war in Iraq and would have set a specific date for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country. Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to veto that bill?"



Approve Disapprove Unsure

44 54 2


"One proposal would provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to start withdrawing all its troops from Iraq by a specific date. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"

Favor Oppose Unsure

57 41 2


"Some proposals would provide additional funds for troops in Iraq and set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to show that progress is being made in Iraq, but would not set a date for troop withdrawal. Would you favor or oppose this bill?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
61 36 3


"One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?"

Favor Oppose Unsure

39 60 2

[MadHound]

135. Well, couldn't find the Wa Post poll

Though it is out there. However I did run across a Fox poll that says virtually the same thing.

If you were a member of Congress, would you vote for continued funding of the Iraq war or would you vote against funding the war altogether to try to force a withdrawal? For Against (Don’t know) 27-28 Feb 07
45% 46 9
Democrats 19% 72 9
Republicans 82% 15 3
Independents 44% 40 16 16-17
You can go to the link here<http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/01/poll_more_favor_congressional_defunding_of_war_than_oppose_it>

Now first of all, this is a poll from a corporation with a known conservative bias. Yet even they are showing that there are more people in favor of defunding the war than those who oppose it.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Yes, and they're really using their energies to end the war--it takes

a lot of energy to fold like a card table the minute King Chimpy says "no".

[lazer47]

7. If she opposes Impeachment, then she supports the criminal

element that has taken over the Governmant, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo,. If you support a lie it make you a liar.

[ccpup]

12. that's almost as black & white

as *'s "you're either with us or against us"! he'd be proud.

[goclark]

8. Done, please kick and call

Very nice lady answered the phone.

I want to believe that Nancy is waiting for a ground swell of people to beg for Impeachment.

Our votes in the last election should have indicated how much this administration should GO!

However, it was not the main issue.
She is right, the main issue was the WAR.

That said,I don't believe these idiots will stop until they are faced with the Strong indication that they will be impeached.

I believe she is right, as of now, the votes are not there.

What can we do to "get the votes there?"

Call!

[aquart]

11. She's saying WE AIN'T GOT THE VOTES.

If you can show her the votes, she'll do it. So? People are telling me it ain't the problem. Where are the votes for impeachment? In the House? How many do we need? Who will vote for it? Come on, you got 'em, turn 'em over.

[bdamomma]

17. how about going through our state legislatures to implement this

first. Just a thought.

[onenote]

118. because the votes aren't there either

[EFerrari]

28. The Thuggery is desperate for a way to cut Bush loose.

WJ is going to have to hire a clown because the callers are so mad no Congress critters are going to want to go on the show.

[ecstatic]

32. Why put words in her mouth?

She clearly said she opposes impeachment. She didn't mention anything about votes. She could have easily said, "I personally support impeachment; however, we don't have the votes."

[Captain Hilts]

39. THANK YOU for understanding how government works. nt

[Moochy]

79. or rather how it works

for them (war-enabling corporate hawks)

[Bandit]

47. Impeachment is a Trial with a Jury (Senate)

Do you ask a jury before a trial if there are votes enough to convict and if not then not even bother with a trial? If, when shown the evidence of clear criminal activity and actual Laws being broken, the Republicans still refuse to convict then the Democrats will have their campaign armories filled to capacity. To me it is a win win situation

[GOTV]

52. We don't have the votes in the Senate. If we get them, you'll see a lot of changes in attitude ...

... in the house.

Right now though, it's just a fact that impeachment cannot get us nearer our goals becaase impeachment cannot remove the president, only conviction in the Senate can.

For now we can only work with, or around, the president.

[yodermon]

70. so she needs to work on GETTING the votes.

"oh woe is me, we can't get 17 repuke senators to vote for conviction."

Well fucking GET them then.
Hold hearings.
Conduct investigations (although most of the facts are already in the public record.)
Make plain on Live TV those very issues that we on DU have been hammering for 6 years.

Then, the public opinion on impeachment will increase dramatically, and pressure on those 17 Senators will increase in tandem.

"We don't have the votes" oh fucking waah waah waah.
DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND YOU'LL GET THE VOTES

[onenote]

119. aren't investigations and hearings being held?

They don't have to be explicitly about "impeachment". In fact, making them about impeachment probably makes them less effective. Even in Watergate, things got rolling with a Senate Select Committee to investigate, and only later moved to the impeachment stage.

[yodermon]

127. Agreed.

Just investigate what there naturally is to investigate (which is plenty), and as the dirt gets uncovered, impeachment calls will grow organically.

[Hobarticus]

134. One would think that Nancy knows what she speaks of...

You know, actually WORKING there, and all.

But apparently we know more than she does.

[Philosoraptor]

13. That's NOT what we want to hear Madame Speaker.

[ThomWV]

14. Date of Quote Please ....

People change their minds over time ...

[AndyA]

33. Link to story:

http://www.democrats.com/pelosis-nutty-argument-against-impeachment (April 27, 2007 - less than a month ago)

[nini]

71. The story is from a month ago..

WHEN were her remarks made? That sounds like what she said right after they were elected and before they took office.

[AndyA]

77. Did you READ the story?

The first sentence said: "...on Wednesday..." which to me means Wednesday, April 25, 2007.

[nini]

128. I skimmed it and missed that

sorry to give you a stroke.

[opihimoimoi]

16. Impeachment needs a 2/3 Congress...Nancy doesn't have the votes

I believe she is saying it would be a waste of time....

[Hubert Flottz]

26. She's staying her course!

We've had enough of that bushit!

She'll never have the votes if she never tries!

[opihimoimoi]

75. I suggest the NO CONDIDENCE route.. a simple majority would work.

[Hubert Flottz]

91. The United States Of America

Stick a fork in it's ass!

[opihimoimoi]

139. Bush seen to it for the past years...we gatta do somethin bout it soon

The fork is one thing...the friggen RUST IS ANOTHER...LOL

[Individualist]

27. You're confusing impeachment with conviction.

[ccpup]

38. you're right

but the sense of outrage on DU needs it's taste of bloody, raw meat to be satiated. Not having the votes isn't a good enough excuse for those who are ANGRY and PISSED OFF and DEMAND something be done NOW or they'll grab their PITCHFORKS and do something REALLY, REALLY MEAN!!!!!!!!!

Nancy, on the other hand, knows what she's doing and knows the reality of not only her Party and where they collectively stand on this, but the other Party and where THEY stand on this. If you ain't got the votes, no matter how right impeachment is, it really is just Political Theater when so much else needs to be done.

(I'm in my Gonna Get Flamed Position now)

[opihimoimoi]

74. If they got the votes for NO CONFIDENCE...might that work as an OPTION?

[yodermon]

73. and she has no idea how to GET the votes either.

It is a predetermined fact that the 17 repuke senators needed to secure a conviction will never EVER EVER cross over and vote thusly.

Won't
ever
happen.

Doesn't matter if you hold hearings, doesn't matter if the full crimes of this maladministration are fully exposed to the public via congressional investigations.

Doesn't matter if bush/cheney become such political kryptonite that NOT supporting impeachment becomes political suicide.

Doesn't matter that Waxman's & Conyer's investigatory authority is vast and has the inherent power to expose these truths in a way that the corporate media cartel has not done (and will not do).

Nope, doesn't matter a whit. All the members of Congress who've expressed loyalty to the president have no weak points to attack, no constituencies to influence, no chance of EVER EVER losing their seats.

So, you see, when she says "we don't have the votes" it's only because she's very wise and very right, and she understands that actually attacking the opposition party on this issue would be unseemly and impolite.

Good for her.

[opihimoimoi]

140. Flummoxed now doesn't mean stymied forever...Nancy and Dem Gang will soon solve this matter

[mmonk]

101. No, impeachment requires a simple majority of the House

and last time I checked, she is Speaker. The day that the constitution and the rights enumerated to its citizens is a waste of time is the time when we are in a dictatorship. By the way, they're your rights. Throw them away if you like but I'm not about to let anyone throw away mine without a fight. I suck at being a "good German".

[onenote]

120. and assuming the votes are there in the House is just that -- an assumption

All it takes is 16 Democratic members of the House to jump ship and there isn't even a majority to start an impeachment inquiry let alone adopt articles of impeachment. Count the number of "blue dog" and moderate/conservative Democrats; consider that many of these members were elected in districts that lean red more than blue, and that supported chimpy in 2000 and/or 2004. These members (like virtually every other member) ran for election less than a year ago and did not make impeachment a part of their campaign. They are going to be reluctant to put themselves in the position of being on the defensive in their own districts, having to respond to claims of "bait and switch" from the repubs, undoubtedly picked up on by the media.

What Pelosi gets, but many do not, is that pushing a partisan impeachment process will give a demoralzied and divided repub party a common rallying point -- a way to energize their base. The proper route is the one taken during watergate -- investigations independent of any stated goal of impeachment, ultimately leading to bi-partisan support for impeachment. Nothing else will work.

[onenote]

121. and assuming the votes are there in the House is just that -- an assumption

All it takes is 16 Democratic members of the House to jump ship and there isn't even a majority to start an impeachment inquiry let alone adopt articles of impeachment. Count the number of "blue dog" and moderate/conservative Democrats; consider that many of these members were elected in districts that lean red more than blue, and that supported chimpy in 2000 and/or 2004. These members (like virtually every other member) ran for election less than a year ago and did not make impeachment a part of their campaign. They are going to be reluctant to put themselves in the position of being on the defensive in their own districts, having to respond to claims of "bait and switch" from the repubs, undoubtedly picked up on by the media.

What Pelosi gets, but many do not, is that pushing a partisan impeachment process will give a demoralzied and divided repub party a common rallying point -- a way to energize their base. The proper route is the one taken during watergate -- investigations independent of any stated goal of impeachment, ultimately leading to bi-partisan support for impeachment. Nothing else will work.

[mmonk]

126. That's the problem. The executive branch has democratic

party member protection. Our job is to tell them to no longer protect them. That should be the duty of the Speaker as well. Any other time in history, the people usually don't have to beg members of the opposition party to impeach violators of the constitution when they are the majority.

[onenote]

132. we have Democrats in Congress who were elected only because of repub votes

Threaten to take away Democratic votes, they lose and we could end up with a repub Congress ( or a smaller Dem majority). If they lose repub votes, same result.

Should Democratic members of Congress follow the dictates of the party or of their constituents?

[mmonk]

136. Depends on what side of the constitution

the party stands, for it or ignore it. The constitution is the standard.

[pat_k]

18. Each excuse is the opposite of reality.

. . .anything short of impeachment is impotent gesture. She can't advance her priorities under rule by signing statement. Nothing short of impeachment can make Bush "change course."

If "George Bush is just not worth it," perhaps she would consider the lives of the Americans serving in Iraq to be "worth it." At the current casualty rates, 1800 members of our armed services will be killed and 12,000 will be injured in the 88 weeks between now and January 20th, 2009.

They may fight and fail (something that is far from assured), but impeachment is the ONLY fight capable restoring sanity and saving those lives.

Popular support may not be evident at beltway cocktail parties, but it sure is evident "out here."

Despite the establishment's relentless efforts to suppress the public's will to impeach, Newsweek's October 26, 2006 Poll found that 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">link}

As I read you some things the Democrats might do over the next two years if they take control of Congress, please tell me if you think each should be one of their TOP priorities, a lower priority, or should not be done at all. . .

Impeaching George W. Bush

51% "a priority (top+lower**)
44% "should not be done"
5% "Don't know"

** When impeachment becomes a reality, the distinction between top and low becomes meaningless. They are all people who support impeachment.

Newsweek's January 27, 2007 poll found that 58% want GWB's presidency to be over. (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">link)

"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

58% Yes, wish it was over
37% No, do not
5% Don't know/refused

Note: The question, "do you personally want it over" strips out all the impeachophobic rationalizations, and thus captures the actual level of support for impeachment.

The breakdown by Party found that 21% of Republicans, which constitutes 7% of all Americans "wish it was over"

Tragically, 12% of Democrats, which constitutes 4% of all Americans (see chart below) "do not" want it over. I suspect that these are people who would jump on the impeachment bus if the Dems get serious about it. While they would like to see Bush impeached, they buy the mistaken belief that leaving Bush in the WH improves chances of Democratic victory in '08.

Presumably, as Bush's numbers have plummeted, an increasing number of American's want it to be over. But questions that get at the public's support for impeachment aren't repeated. The results are apparently too scary to the establishment.

In addition to the above, polling contradicts two key excuses for refusing to impeach. Their claims that they were elected "on the issues" and to "get things done" and their claims that the public wants them to engage the corrupt and rejected Republicans in "bipartisan" efforts.

In addition, the election "all about doing something about Iraq" as the establishment is constantly telling us. Americans are understandably ambivalent about what to do about the occupation . It was disapproval of Bush and the Republicans that drove Democrats to victory. In other words, they were elected to oppose Bush.

People are angry at Bush about the War -- disapproval of his handling of it was cited as a
major reason for Democratic success by 85%. Far fewer ranked Democratic ideas on Iraq
as a major reason (only 61%). In fact, dissatisfaction Bush (71%), dissatisfaction with
Republican spending (67%), and overall dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress
(63%) ranked higher as major reasons than Democratic ideas on Iraq. (Since there is no
good way out of a quagmire, one would expect many who are angry at Bush's War to be a
somewhat ambivalent about what to do now, so these numbers should not be surprising.)

In comparison, "Pro-Democratic" reasons for the Democrats' success were "major reasons"
for less than 50% (with "better candidates" at 27%, ideas on environment and energy at
35%, ideas on the economy, jobs and healthcare at 47%, and dissatisfaction with
Republican partisanship at 48%).

Discussion of the "Reasons for the Democrats' success" poll http://january6th.org/reason">here

Her other excuses (e.g., don't have the votes) are covered in this
post:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=932483

[asjr]

20. Nancy's No. 6 reason should be

interpreted as Impeachment. "Ethical standards" cries out for it!

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Does she care about our children in Iraq?

Does she give a damn about our childrens future?

Bush is shitting all over the Constitution and has been since day one!

Nancy needs to stop staying the Impeachment is off the table course, and fire the liar.

[Bluerthanblue]

93. i believe we are supposed to support them till they are age 5

according to the op list:shrug:

don't know what the hey that is all about???

my kids have taken much more effort since they got to puberty:crazy:

[opihimoimoi]

141. You are Correct....Does she give a DAMN??? If she does, then she would find the ways

to fire the dude...and if she cannot find the way...at least keep trying till success is acheived...Failure is NOT AN OPTION

This Bush guy is really getting on everyones nerves...he is creating chaos in our America...

Come, we go look at the possum in the tree...give Willy a meaty bone

[Skidmore]

25. * is worth it. If the biggest criminals to sit at the top of our government in its history

go unpunished, if the bar is set so low, a dangerous precedent is set. Will it take a president or vice president committing murder on primetime teevee, to impeach in the future? What bigger crime is there than usurping power in this manner and using it to loot the treasury and treasonously hand us over to an enemy his actions have turned into a monster?

Impeach the bastard already!

[rudy23]

62. Hear, hear nt

[ecstatic]

29. Her plan to end the war is working out beautifully

:eyes:

[babylonsister]

30. Thanks. Rec'd; e-mail sent. nt

[mike_c]

31. done, K&R....

Thanks for posting the link!

[guitar man]

34. goddamit, it's not about Bu$h

or Cheney, or Pelosi, or Republicans, Democrats or popular friggin' support!

It's about the rule of law in this country. It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that this misadministration has repeatedly broke the law, high crimes and misdemeanors. If this goes unanswered and unpunished, the next pres, be it a Repig, Dem or otherwise, will have carte blanche to do whatever the hell pleases them with no fear of reprisals.

Impeachement isn't about doing what's popular, its about doing what's right. :grr:

[PuppyBismark]

35. Please Read the Constitution - The Votes are not there

It takes 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict on an bill of impeachment. It is not clear we would even get all the Dems to vote for it, (Lie-bermann??) It would serve no purpose other than to further divide the country.

We are much better off to do what can be done given the reality of the votes in the Senate. As we have been seeing the Repubs know how to block Senate legislation unlike the Dems did prior to 2007. The Constitution also requires a 2/3 majority to over ride a veto.

At this point we have seen very little substantial legislation from Congress, how could they ever satisfactorily complete the impeachment process? This Congress is starting to lose the confidence of the people too given their slow progress.

[sheerjoy]

36. True, BUT.....

they need to go forward with it anyway... just as they have with the funding (until they surrendered!)... it at least puts IMPEACHMENT on the table for real...

DO IT!

[AndyA]

37. Impeachment will air all the dirty laundry.

The Republicans in Congress will bail from the Bush Destroyer like it was the Titanic with only one lifeboat left. They will cover their own asses. They know to continue to support Bush/Cheney, who are not running for office again is career suicide.

The Republicans will support impeachment when it comes time. They will have to, or they will go down with Bush/Cheney, and none of them are that devoted to those two at this point.

You have to stop thinking NOW, and think AHEAD.

We still have:

Monica Goodling testimony
Abramoff information
Lots of investigations digging up dirty deeds

And who knows what else? The votes will be there, the Dems just need to get geared up for it. Bush is a sinking ship - it's every Republican for him/herself!

[EFerrari]

41. What about Wall Street? The Democrats want to raise money

for 2008. (See secret trade deal.) Maybe that's the real hold up here. :shrug:

[AndyA]

43. I'm sure there's more to it than we know.

Sneaky deals seem to be everywhere. It's at the Dems peril if they don't come clean and straighten this mess up!

[GOTV]

49. The dirty laundry has been aired already - the people are generally unmoved n/t

[EFerrari]

50. Have you listened to Washington Journal lately?

This morning those callers were RABID. They could barely get words out, they were so mad. On both sides. It was almost frightening.

[GOTV]

56. So? The callers to the washington journal may want it - Why do you think that's representative...

... of the population as a whole. Do you really confuse a call in show with the general population?

[EFerrari]

100. Of course not. But the tone has changed, definitely, even in that venue.

[GOTV]

104. Ok, the tone has changed at the Wash Journ, still the tone seems more relaxed in the general pop.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15689

[EFerrari]

105. Two in five. I wonder if that's more or less than at a similar moment

during Watergate.

[GOTV]

111. Interesting question....

... Nixon and Bush were both very unpopular, but I don't know if the public was for or against impeachment at that time.

[onenote]

122. why is impeachment necessary to air that "dirty laundry"

Hearings and investigations can be held without an impeachment proceeding. Look at Watergate.

[yodermon]

81. Hold hearings.

Hold investigations.
Conduct oversight in a manner in which Congress was designed to do.

(This is already happening, and Gonzo is on his last legs. See how that works?)

You don't have to say "ok, we're impeaching now". You just investigate each crime and expose it, methodically & dispassionately.
Then, (since the corp. media has not been doing this), the public will begin to demand accountability, and even impeachment.

Thus, there will be natural, organic pressure on the repukes & lieberman to impeach, or else their re-elections will be in jeopardy.

We can work towards this without screaming "we must impeach NOW". Screaming like that will NEVER get repuke+liebreman senators on our side.
FACTS WILL.

[paparush]

108. Then She needs to Twist some fucking arms and GET THE GODDAMN VOTES!!

[Forkboy]

137. Well playing it down like it doesn't matter won't help her get any.

They're terrified to even speak out forcefully about it.You don't get the votes by throwing in the towel.You apply both public and private pressure.She's obviously unwilling to do the public part,so I have zero belief she's showing any more courage behind the scenes.

We have to be in one the most inept,cowardly parties to ever come down the pike.

[firefox_fan]

42. Keep sending those letters

[partylessinOhio]

44. Electing Pelosi with the smiling face enamored with Bush was a

mistake!

* has emasculated her and Reid. We are lacking STRONG Democratic leaders.

If we don't clean house and force these squeakers out of these positions we will have a Repug in the White House in 2008.

We must impeach to save America. We must end the Iraq war to save America, Americans and our face.

The choice is ours. We must clean out Congress completely and elect people who will do the work to restore America to the greatness that Bush destroyed.

IMPEACH!

[Captain Hilts]

112. How sexist. "Emasculated?" Pelosi "emasculated?" nt

[teriyaki jones]

45. Interesting analysis of why no impeachment on Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/

Salon is a subscription-based site, but I'm pretty sure you can still read the article.

tj

[montanacowboy]

46. Thanks for the Link

I just gave her a blistering epistle

Sick and tired and disgusted with these prima donna congress people; sick and tired of the Democratic Party

[KingFlorez]

48. Why waste time on something that isn't going to work?

Impeachment without the votes for conviction is pointless. Some people have made themselves think that there are the votes to pull this off, when it's obvious that there are not enough votes. It simply will not work.

[WI_DEM]

51. She's probably right, but I sure wish they would give it a try.

[King Coal]

55. I called the number and did my best to encourage her to change her mind.

I told her that according to the recent MSNBC poll we do have the numbers, and that we owe it not only to the country but to the rest of the world. Please, do you part and call her too. Thanks.

[leftchick]

57. yea nanc, how is that ending the war thingy going?

after the dems folded AGAIN yesterday. :puke:

[druidqueen]

58. Impeachment

I just e-mailed Speaker Pelosi and told her to put the
impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice & Gonzales right back on
the middle of the table where it belongs.

We must get rid of these thugs!!

[A wise Man]

59. Maybe we were wrong

to give too much cudos to Nancy. It seems that our dem representatives are just a bunch of scared "whimps".

[rudy23]

61. All threats are empty with impeachment "off the table". Protecting the Constitution not as

important as political perception, for the Democrats. Protecting our rights, and our way of life is not as imporant as making sure the Republicans don't call us names and accuse us of looking for revenge for Clinton.

Could you see Pelosi negotiating on the world stage with this kind of logic?

[Gregorian]

64. BUSH WILL CONTINUE DAMAGING AMERICA UNTIL HE IS REMOVED.

Her phone line was swamped. I left a message. I just hope they listen to us.


Ok, I'll admit that I may be wrong about impeachment. I do not know the in's and out's of Washington. And perhaps there is a very good reason they've left it off the table. I cannot imagine what it would be, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. More like a crack in the door.

[L. Coyote]

66. Obviously, she is going to be a GREAT President!! Pelosi 2007

Like it or not! When the bell rings. When the ball drops. When the shoe fits..... tea time for Cinderella at 1600 and 16:00.

[yodermon]

67. Is there No Evidence that may come to light that will make it MANDATORY

for the Repug senators to vote for an impeachment conviction?

I think there is enough evidence already in the public domain, but not in the public consciousness, that would mandate Guilty votes from the repukes in order to have any chance of being re-elected.

If the media were to actually give fair airtime to the actual crimes of this administration, we'd have a massive public outcry for his (& Cheney's) resignation. We know the corporate media cartel will never do this.

So, this is why Congress needs to hold INVESTIGATIONS, and HEARINGS on these matters (e.g. Sibel Edmonds, Mr Waxman?) and QUICKLY.. because the bulk of the investigation & fact gathering has been DONE already. You just have to collate it and report it (since the media won't) under the auspices of formal congressional hearings.

If the many crimes of this administration were to come to Actual Light, there would be a popular surge in support of impeachment. Congress has the power to expose these crimes, but they must do so Quickly. What is so difficult about this.

[KansDem]

69. But, Nancy, here are the reasons we MUST impeach...

1. Protect our country and constitutional rights.
2. End war in Iraq.
3. Grow our economy
4. Care for our children, aged 0 to 5
5. Preserve our planet
6. Strengthen our democracy through transparency, fiscal accountability, highest ethical standards.

Got it?

[GOTV]

76. Explain how impeachment will accomplish any of that without Senate support . Get it? n/t

[mmonk]

80. Well to accomplish number 1.

only impeachment will work.

[GOTV]

86. How? nt

[mmonk]

96. It's real easy. Democrats are the majority in the House.

Impeachment only requires a simple majority of the House. No impeachment, no national discussion and no consequences.

[GOTV]

98. Oh I see. You think impeachment alone removes the president. It doesn't....

... an impeached president has all the powers of an non-impeached president and therefore an impeachment doesn't further our goals.

I'm glad I could clear that up.

[mmonk]

106. Cute. Let the Senate betray the people if they want

but let the crimes come before the American people and put the pressure on the Senate. Even if the senate goes on record as letting the administration pass, it will be in the record. That's a sight better than doing ZERO. Doing zero in my book is complicity. I don't trust politicians who can't do the minimal requirement of the oath of office. That clear up anything?

[GOTV]

110. No, let's take effective, not symbolic actions. You want impeachment? Talk to a Senator. n/t

[mmonk]

124. Senators can't impeach.

All they are doing is symbolism. Impeachment is constitutional action. Would someone please tell me what real change is taking place? This is a case of pure and simple violations of office by the executive branch and dereliction of duty by the legislative branch. The rest is bullshit (pardon my French).

[GOTV]

146. Then don't ask them to impeach. Ask them to support removal. Or isn't that what you want? n/t

[mmonk]

78. Number 1 is impossible without impeachment

and is the reason I oppose Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I'm not ashamed to say so nor consider myself disloyal. Those are my rights and the rights of my children that are being run over and ignored.

[LeftyFingerPop]

82. Impeachment?!! HA!! Let's try arrest and criminal conviction instead

Quite simply, this administration has put their hands into your pocket and my pocket and the pockets of future generations for a lie.

If I stole from my employer, I would be prosecuted.

So should this administration.

PS - by "putting their hands into our pockets for a lie", I am not just talking about money. I am also talking about the lives they stole.

[Joe Fields]

83. My reply to Pelosi: Fuck Ewe!

[partylessinOhio]

114. My thoughts too. Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the bums must be

keeping some serious secrets but the shadow (Bush) knows!

:scared:

[Atman]

85. The NSA Domestic Spying Program -- The gift that just keeps on giving.

Must have some GREAT stuff on Pelosi.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. And the rest of the leaders

that is my thogght as well

[Xenotime]

89. This is very sad.

[BuyingThyme]

90. How can we support something that you have prevented from existing?

Dim bulb.

[bunkerbuster1]

92. I totally [heart] Nancy and her San Francisco values

"George Bush is just not worth it." Absolutely.

So what's stopping you from impeaching Abu Gonzo? Baby steps, baby!

[earth mom]

94. Nancy is getting NOTHING done. And she won't without Impeachment.

Some around here say she's playing politics. I say she's playing with fire. Enough of this B.S!

IMPEACH!!! :grr:

[Individualist]

116. ...and the wornout excuse of can't win, won't fight is disgusting!

:puke:

[dogday]

95. Nancy look at this poll, the people want this

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 463679 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
88%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.3%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
5.8%

I don't know.
1.8%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

[GOTV]

99. I'm sure Nancy is smart enough to ignore an online poll. On the other hand, look at these polls....

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

and

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15689

[EFerrari]

103. I hope she's too smart to ignore her own district.

Btw, I saw a poll that showed most people didn't favor impeachment but, at the same time, most people wished Bush's term was over. Maybe it's bookmarked -- I'll see if I can find it. It might have been a USA Today poll but I can't swear to it.

[paparush]

107. Impeachment = Litmus Test = Pelosi MUST GO!!

C'mon California 8th...shake her tree!!

[L. Coyote]

109. K&R to keep the truth out front

[L. Coyote]

113. kick

[Disturbed]

123. 2. End war in Iraq.

The majority of Dems have no intention of ending the Iraq Occupation. They talk about it yet offer nothing to get it done. They damn well know that while Busholini is in power and has support for long term Occupation of Iraq from Rethug and Dem Senators that Iraq will remain occupied for years to come. This is 100% pure Farce.

[Jed Dilligan]

129. Why should 0-5 year olds merit more care than the rest of us? nt

[Initech]

133. Ok, so how the fuck far does it have to go before impeachment takes place?

Even the Dems in 1976 were looking to nail Nixon for everything they could... why aren't they doing the same with Bush?

[deacon]

138. k + r

[Hailtothechimp]

142. She has no spine. It's just that simple.

The fear of FOX and Rove and Tony Snow have got her and Harry Reid tied up in knots. Bush is at 28 percent, and he's handing them their asses. It defies comprehension.

[mzmolly]

143. "The popular support is not there" if that's so, her job IS to serve the people.

But, I'm not sure I buy that statement?

[NotGivingUp]

145. fuck you too, nancy.