Remove Nancy Pelosi

Great Debates
1

Am I wrong, or is the chief impediment to impeachment Nancy Pelosi?

The Bush administration as such has repeatedly misinterpreted the law & been called on it. “High crimes & misdemeanors” can reasonably refer to cirimes of the administration rather than proven felonies of the POTUS himself, & there’s been an awful lot of bad acting, from the denial of habeus to the nose-thumbing at FISA. And of course, there’s the lack of legal support for a program using poorly trained US troops to run unauthorized & unsupervised prisons, culminating in the deaths of apparent innocents mistakenly in US custody in Afghanistan. And then there’s extraordinary rendition.

I don’t quite think Bush need technically be impeached over invading Iraq, even though that’s the emotional motivation for many. However bad an idea that was, Congress was also complicit in that, & authorized it.

But the rest of this? Seems like the SCOTUS has said, “You lot broke the law,” & Congress has said, “But we like what he’s doing, so it’s OK.”

Well, I voted Democrat in 2006 partly to see committees & investigations & Watergate-style drive to impeachment & if necessary removal. And what have we got? A fat lot of nothing, & a Speaker of the House who’d rather be known as a do-nothing apparently, & is explicitly against impeachment, at all, period.

So what do those of us who wanted the Dems to hold Bush accountable do?

I think it’s time to force Pelosi out. She’s an enabler of a scofflaw President.

Maybe that won’t happen. But as someone who supported Democrats because I wanted a legally accountable administration; I know there are others who made the same choice I did, with less sympathy for the Democratic platform in general. Failing to investigate Bush, to even explore the need for impeachment, is not endearing the party to me. It only pushes me toward a radicalized opposition to two-party politics. If the Democrats want a real shot at a majority, shouldn’t they be looking to replace a leader that supports the guy they were elected to remove?

2

Democrats actually may have a chance to help rebuild the country. How about we focus on that instead of destroying each other?

Beginning impeachment proceedings against a president while the clock is running out on his second-term and a general election is underway would be a disaster for the party and the nation.

3

How about you focus on disenabling Democratic leaders who are impeding the rebuilding of the country. Pelosi is Bush’s blow-up doll. He wants war funds, she gives him war funds. He wants to eavesdrop, she lets him eavesdrop. Her Congress has an approval rating lower than he has, and bears the nickname “The Do-Nothing Congress”. Yeah, I know… minimum wage and blot blot rot rot. Maybe impeachment is out of reach or ill-advised, but the fucking LEAST she could do is oppose him.

4

I’d say it’s the obvious lack of votes to convict.

I agree about the eavesdropping for starters, but I’d like to inject a quick history question: what issue was planned as the centerpiece of Bush’s second term?

5

The war?

6

Sensible guess, but no. Just to be clear, I’m talking about what Bush and his people were planning on making the big issue.

7

I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m just trying to make the point that while Congress hasn’t done a lot, Bush also hasn’t done a lot of what he was planning, like Social Security Reform, which, back in ancient history, was supposed to be his big priority between 2005 and 2009.

8

Social Security

9

I’m pissed about that too. But she made it quite clear where she stood back before the 2006 elections; there’s been no bait-and-switch here.

Thing is, if Pelosi weren’t Speaker, who would be? That’s right - Steny Hoyer, Mr. K-Street Democrat himself, the guy who seems to have almost singlehandedly forced the FISA ‘compromise’ to a vote. (And my Congresscritter, unfortunately.) Pelosi has her ups and her downs, but she’s a hell of a lot better than Hoyer would be. If you don’t want to trust me on this, you might read the Washington Monthly’s profile of Hoyer for a bit of background.

10

Maybe this would be the niche for Ron Paul. Yeah, I know he doesn’t stand a chance. But he definitely would have butt-fucked Bush every step of the way.

11

And I can see the point, as disappointing as I find it. An impeachement would suck up all the oxygen in the room, the Pubbies would be screaming their heads off and chewing the rug every step of the way.

(I lived through the Nixon impeachment hearings, I saw most of them (worked in a TV store - don’t ask…) and the agony of the pace, Lord a mercy, the agony! The Pubbies would insist on a diversion that could not possibly effect the outcome, but would drag out the proceedings. For. Weeks.)

This would divert attention and energy from what appears to be an excellent opportunity. I must admit, it is more important to gain the future than to clarify the responsibility for the past. Yuck-o-rama!

Plus, God Forbid, but there is also the possibility that such a thing could actually foster sympathy for the nasty little cocksucker! Americans are amongst the most sentimental people in the world, and they can pivot on a dime. Think of “Checkers” and recoil in horror. Be nauseous, and afraid. Very.

No, goddamit, they’re right. Shit. Fuck. Piss. I wish I didn’t love democracy so much so’s I could just go ahead and hate it.

(I said exactly the same thing in another thread. Is that rude, or something?..)

12

There’s that old saying in politics: “When your opponent is busy committing suicide, don’t distract him.”

George Bush is a deadweight around the Republicans. If the Democrats were to start impeachment proceedings, it would provide the incentive needed to revitalize Republican supporters and bring them to the polls in November.

The long-term goal for the Democrats is to re-take the White House, because in their view, that is the best way to stop all of Bush’s policies.

When the electorate is as finely balanced as it currently is, the Democrats have to take the long-term view - better to win the general election than to start impeachment proceedings which may galvanize Republican supporters.

Plus, there’s the point that Marley23 makes: the Democrats only have 49 Senators, plus two independents who caucus with them. They need 66 to convict in the Senate. Where are those 15 votes going to come from? which Republicans do you see as likely to switch sides and vote to remove a Republican President?

Plus, do you really think that President Cheney would be any better? Or are you thinking of the “twofer impeachment”, which would make Pelosi President?

Finally, there’s the fact that no President has ever been convicted and removed. The drafters created a system that in practise, makes it nearly impossible to remove a sitting President. What realistic chance is there that it could be invoked this time?

13

I see that Elucidator has made many of the same points I made, in his usual calm and dispassionate fashion. :wink:

14

No ruder than asking if you got to install microwave ovens, custom kitchen deliveries, you got move those refrigerators, you got to move those color TV’s …

15

Perfectly capable of being calm and dispassionate. About bowling, for instance. And Yahtzee. Stuff like that.

16

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve never thought of any other kind. Hell, I invented the word ‘simulpeachment’ back in 2005 just for this. :slight_smile:

17

Right, they can’t convict. If the Dem’s “Impeach” GWB, after the GoP “impeached” Clinton, every administration that doesn’t have a majority in the House for the entirety of it’s term will be “impeached”.

Most people now sneer or laugh at the GoP’s “impeachment” of Clinton, it actually made him more popular. Do we really want to do that to GWB?

18

Are there crimes he could be charged with after the election?

19

Not after he pardons himself.

BTW, “convict” is an inappropriate term for the result of an impeachment trial. That can only be to remove the officeholder from office and/or disqualify him from future office. The process’ borrowing of terms from the legal system has been a source of considerable confusion, unfortunately, but the Constitution itself is clear enough.

20

She might lose her seat in the next election, but then it will be too late to impeach Bush anyway. Before that, only the House Democratic Caucus can remove her as Speaker. What are the odds?