She was particularly adamant about this - referring of course to Bush, and maybe Cheney as well - but I never saw the reason(s) she gave for her position.
Most likely there’s a factual answer to this question, and that’s why I posted here.
I think I found the answer at
http://www.democrats.com/pelosis-nutty-argument-against-impeachment
It goes like so:
“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. End war in Iraq.
2. how we grow our economy
3. care for our children, aged 0 to 5
4. preserve our planet
5. 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.
Hard to believe, IMHO.
At the risk of turning this into a GD thread, how is this a “priority” for the Democratic Congress currently? Haven’t they passed just about every war funding bill that’s come to them (actual question, not sounding sarcastic)? And why does protecting constitutional rights not extend to stopping Bush from getting rid of the 4th Amendment? My apologies if I’m making this thread non-GQish.
No apologies needed.
Looks to me that she’s 0 for 6 in her priorities. (Note: There are 2 priorities in #1,)
In fact, I’d like to see this thread go to GD to get arguments pro (if any) and con about her argument.
Here it is:
First, the United States Constitution, Article I, s. 3 :
And, the current party standings in the Senate in the Senate:
Democratic Party 49
Republican Party 49
Independent 2
One of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who supports Bush and the war, so the Dems have, at most, 50 votes in the Senate.
50 != 2/3 * 100
You don’t get to be Speaker of the House without having the ability to count votes, and acquiring the wisdom to avoid losing battles.
Pelosi doesn’t need a stated reason except maybe “Because at this late date, it would be stupid”.
He’s gone in less than 6 months anyway, and I have a hard time believing they could even get preliminary hearings scheduled in that amount of time, if at all.
“Not worth it” is right for a number of reasons, number one being that voters would see this as a huge waste of time and money just in time to go into the voting booth and throw them all out on their asses.
She could have said this forthrightly, but I guess you don’t get to be Speaker of the House by talking honestly.
On the first question, yes, the Congress has passed each of the war funding bills, but only because of Republican support. In fact, in May, the House of Representatives failed to pass an amendment to fund the war because Republicans voted “present” instead of voting for it. The Democratic vote was split mostly against funding the war and the amendment failed.
Democratic leaders have consistently said that they do not believe the right way to end the war is by cutting off funding. Instead they have tried to pass legislation to require phased withdrawals. Those efforts have not been successful.
As for “getting rid of the 4th Amendment,” that’s a loaded question that can’t be addressed in a factual manner.
Well, you said she stated:
“The popular support is not there, there will be no Republican votes to go forward”. Isn’t that pretty much similar to what Northern Piper said?
But doesn’t the “not worth it” reasoning really let Bush off the hook, and send a signal to future leaders that Congress will readily back down to virtually anything if they don’t have enough votes? To me, it seems like refusing to touch anything named “impeachment” is a cowardly tactic just to avoid dialogue and disagreement (which is what the government needs, in my opinion, to keep itself in check).
But if the impeachment takes the rest of the summer and fall, then even if it’s succeeded, all that changes is that Bush will be leaving office in November-December instead of January. Is it really worth spending all that money for that outcome?
And this is different from historical precedent in what way?
Well, impeachment only removes the president from office. Prosecuting him for war crimes (or any of a number of things) is separate. What I am not sure of and have never had answered here is if impeachment would be a prerequisite to prosecuting him for what he did while in office. One of Bush’s main defenses against any prosecution is that you cannot prosecute a president for performing his job (even if you think he overstepped his authority in doing that job). I would guess (not sure) impeachment may strip him of that defense if he was impeached for the same thing he’d be prosecuted for later.
Impeachment would also stop him from pardoning anyone although I suspect Cheney would pardon Bush so then you’d have to impeach Cheney as well to stop that. IIRC the pardon only extends to Federal crimes. He cannot pardon anyone for a state crime and some suggest he violated laws sufficient for a prosecution at the state level as well.
Some here seem to think the president can pardon himself. I am not sure that is so and scary if any president could (why wouldn’t Nixon not have just pardoned himself?).
Yes, she did. My error. Sorry.
That’s a little uncharitable: you don’t get to succeed in politics without some political skills. If Pelosi said “We’d impeach him if we had the votes,” she would alienate basically everyone: Republicans, by saying they’d like to impeach him; Democrats, by saying they won’t impeach him; and independents by showing they want to do it but don’t have the guts. Instead, she took the option off the table early and offered a more judiciously-phrased reason, and basically just people on the far left have been upset about it.
Shocking!
A politician acting in a politically expedient manner!
Oh, the shame of it all…
No it doesn’t. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted in the Senate. The Senate must convict and then decide if removal from office is appropriate.
Again, no. See above.
I don’t want to see the Bush administration let off the hook, either, but the impeachment mechanism a) won’t pass and b) will likely cause blowback that will cost the Democrats seats. Congress’ approval rating is about as low as Bush’s; they really don’t need to spend time on this when it’s incredibly improbable that it will succeed. I don’t think that the desire to spank Bush should override the desire to make sure his admin’s ruinous pursuits last any longer. It’s simply the wrong tool for the job at this point.
At the risk of straying into debate territory… I believe that is incorrect. The House can pass articles of impeachment with a simple majority, and the Dems have a majority in that Chamber.
Do you honestly think that there’s any slim chance a United States president would be prosecuted?