To those of you who continue to attack the Democratic Party to the benefit of one woman:

Pelosi is not worth it.

Vote values. Save the Party.

:)

... then she's obviously worthless, and needs to be kicked to the curb.

:rofl:

Nancy Pelosi has been the Democratic leader since 2002 -- since before the Iraq invasion.

Information is power.

How did you come to conclude otherwise?

How soon they forget.

But, somehow, she owns it.

It was intended as a way to force Hussein into allowing inspections -- and he did.

Bush took it upon himself to order the inspectors out of Iraq and start the war without further approval.

Also, the IWR was passed before 2002 Congressional elections in which Dems already were facing serious losses (given Bush's high popularity following the 9/11 attacks). They knew that the Bush-favored version of an IWR would have allowed Bush to attack anywhere in the Middle East, not just Iraq. So if the Oct. 2002 IWR had failed due to the Democrats, an even worse version would have been approved in January 2003, with the new Republican majority in Congress.

Most Dems who voted for the compromise IWR in 2002 only did so in order to prevent an even worse one from being approved a few months later.

Now she owns a war.

Exactly what she said she would not do.

He put it through the washing machine, then rewrote his own terms.

This is a lie that has been told in hindsight and some have come to believe.

Iraq agreed to the UNCONDITIONAL return of inspectors on September 16, 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

This is nearly 1 month BEFORE the IWR vote on October 11th

Any politician who claims that they voted for the IWR to force inspections is LYING to cover themselves.

This absolute silliness about fearing a worse resolution is just that, silliness, because they still had the power of fillibuster and the dems CONTROLLED the senate at that time thanks to Jeffords.

What if he changed his mind?! Mushroom clouds! Anthrax! He killed his own people!

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, would we all have a happy Hanukkah!

Stretching back for the last two years or so. It wasn't pretty. :(

:popcorn:

I suspect that just about everyone in your group was more than a bit upset with the Democratic Party leadership and its cave-in on the war and its 'impeachment off the table' and its complete lack of progress on bringing this administration to account before Cindy Sheehan suggested that she might challenge Pelosi for her seat.

Which values are we voting for? Be specific.

Most people who use that word (phrase) here don't know what it means, so it gets very confusing.

Ending the war, bringing the administration to account -- those are Democratic Values. But, for some reason, I think you already knew that.

If I voted last november for the values you listed - is that what I got from this Congress?

A straw-man argument is when people try to counter a point that no one's actually made, I've seen tons of people attacking pelosi and the democratic party on this board so there's no way you can cry straw-man

That motive simply is not established, not central to the arguments being made, and is done as a strawman attack to avoid the substantive issues that have been raised here on DU, and by Cindy, against the Democratic leadership both before and after Sheehan announced that she might stand against Pelosi.

Cindy is not even mentioned.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. Plain, simple. We cannot override a veto. It is not Pelosi's fault that we didn't turn enough seats in 2006. If Cindy Sheehan was in her place, the votes still would not be there. I am as frustrated as the next guy but screeching at people to do things that just can't be done makes no sense to me. There are a lot of good reasons not to go down the impeachment road at this time. And if Bush and/or Cheney were impeached, I doubt we could get a conviction. I would rather see these people in DC going after the corruption case by case. I hate to say this but, I think Cindy has gone off the deep end and I don't know who is advising her but, to me, she is beginning to look like a fool.

Pardon me while I don my asbestos vest.

has led people away from voting for Democratic values. That's what she does. She's been doing it since before this Congress was seated.

Don't wait for a 67% majority, go out and get some good Democratic leadership. Talking points kill.

Who exactly did Pelosi "lead away" from voting Democratic values? Did she lead away Heath Shuler? Now you're just spouting nonsense.

Do you think Nancy has led elected Democrats away from impeachment? Or do you think she's an ineffective leader?

Elected Democrats don't want to pursue impeachment. THere is a resolution sitting in the House that any Democratic representative could, if they chose, sign on to. Ten have. Over 200 haven't.

A political leader's principal jobs are to assess what the members of the caucus want, count the votes and make sure that the battles one picks to fight can be won or at least produce a positive if lost. That is why, on the iraq timetable, Pelosi, after successfully getting the caucus to vote for a timetable gave those who needed, for political reasons (the Heath Shuler's for example) something to vote for. And it gave those who needed it (like Pelosi herself) something to vote against.

So, no, I don't think she is an ineffective leader. I think she is doing what a political leaders with a diverse caucus does -- seek out consensus and pick the right battles for the right time.

Here's my question back: who, specifically, are the elected Democrats that would have publicly supported impeachment, but won't because they've been "led" away from it by Pelosi. Specific names of members whose only reason for not signing on the Cheney resolution is Pelosi.

She doesn't like to talk, so it's not clear. A sure sign of a leader, by the way. Not talking.

By the way, where did you get that talking point -- the one about leaders being counters first, leaders if it's convenient? I've noticed that one showing up a lot lately but I don't know how it started.

The best one's are the one's that pick the battles that they can win or at least find a postive in from losing. A great leader isn't one that willy-nilly rushes into battle only to find out out his or her troops aren't behind her.

Members of congress are not answerable to Pelosi. They are answerable to their constituents. And there are plenty of House Democrats who feel that they would not be serving their constituents if they supported a partisan impeachment effort.

Sorry the world isn't the way you want it to be. But acknowleging the fact that is a certain way doesn't make it a talknig point.

Stop it.

As for the constituents, they're for impeachment, and they sure as hell weren't for a blank check for Chimpy.

Is that one of the times she led people away from voting for Dem values?

Go to www.vote-smart.org and see how often she's voted against liberal, Democratic values

disqualified the all Democratic Representatives from using the Constitution to protect the Constitution.

It still seems like you were painting her with a broad brush.

I don't know exactly how to explain it, but it's like democracy.

political affiliation. That is up to me. I do know that Cindy's methods are not ones I approve of. I have a great deal of respect for Pelosi, and I also think blackmailing her is foolish. Sounds like a big temper tantrum. I am starting to resent this type of behavior, and fail to see what it does to help fix the problems in this country. The bottom line is as you stated it. We will not be able to impeach either one of them. It will take too much time and too many votes we don't have. The only thing being accomplished is providing fodder for the right wingers.

to that opinion.

with you, I glad to come across someone here who gets it! :thumbsup:

Did Gingrich have it when he rammed legislation by under Clinton's presidency.
If Bush wants to veto our bills, make him do it again, and again, and again, and again... Let him run out of money if he won't accept democratic terms. This should not be Burger King, the Democrats should not make it his way.
Now we see that the Democratic leadership is almost as bad at being in the majority as it was at being in the minority.

but didn't you mean Cindy is not worth it. I think Cindy did a good job getting people's attention on the war and all the dying. She got the movement going, however at times she has crossed the line at what I would want an elected official to do. Nancy is good at her job she knows what's going on in the world and the country. The wars are very important but not the only problems.

Cindy stands for Democratic values; Nancy stands firmly against them.

Cindy speaks truth to the people, using every tool available; Nancy refuses to speak on the floor of our House.

Cindy lost her son for oil; Nancy trades lives for wages.

Nancy has been working for democratic values for years. I don't dislike Cindy but I do not admire her like I once did. I do admire Nancy and think she could even make a good President.

Is that the kind of Democrat who forbids elected representatives from defending the Constitution?

A resolution has been introduced to impeach cheney. She didn't (and couldn't) forbid that.
Ten representatives have publicly put their neames on the resolution. She didn't (and couldn't forbid that).
Over 200 other Democrats have stayed silent. But like the ten who have signed on to the cheney resolution, every one of them could, if they wanted to, sign on. And Pelosi wouldn't and couldn't stop them.

My bad.

Lots of rumors going around.

The answer to your question, not that it should be necessary to state the obvious, is that it was "off the table" when Pelosi made that statement because there isn't enough support for it within the Democratic caucus. She counts votes. She listens to members. To the extent it remains off the table, it is for the same reason. I guarantee that if 100 member stood up tomorrow and said that they were co-sponsoring the resolution, the issue would be back on the table. But that isn't going to happen because the vast majority of the Democratic caucus doesn't want to vote for an impeachment resolution unless, consistent with the two most recent impeachment resolutions to come before the House, there is at least a modicum of bi-partisan support for starting the process.

Its not that difficult to understand. If you want to understand.

led Democrats away from supporting impeachment? I don't believe you.

You believe that a good political leader ignores the political needs and wishes of those that she leads.

I think that's about the stupidest thing I can think of.

And I'm still waiting for you to name someone who has been "led" away from impeachment by Pelosi and how she managed to lead them, but not the ten members who signed onto the cheney impeachment resolution. (And how did she get Kucinich only to introduce a resolution aimed at cheney and not at chimpy. By your way of thinking, she must have enormous leadership skills to persuade Kucinich not to go after chimpy).

But I do know that she's led Conyers away from impeachment. Having control over committee chairmanships, debates, and rules will do that.

As for the words you put in my mouth about ignoring whatever, I think I understand why you felt compelled to do that. But it's you who seem to be supporting the off-the-table crap.

I'd love to see the basis for that statement. Did she (a) lead him away with persuasive arguments that it wasn't a good idea at this time because it might fail? (b) lead him away with threats of taking away his chairmanship? (c) lead him away with stupid arguments that he fell for because he's really not too bright?

Or maybe he led himself away because, like Pelosi, he can count.

He had "hearings" and everything, complete with Constitutional scholars and other witnesses.

I'm a bit of a detective, you know.

Regarding his 2005 report that found that charges discussed therein rose to the level of impeachable conduct:

"The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.

In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. In Watergate, for example, the Congress did not begin matters as an impeachment inquiry, but investigated matters ? through the Ervin Committee ? and referred impeachable evidence to the Judiciary Committee."


Now, I don't know why Conyers hasn't pursued the select committee idea again. And I think its a mistake. But I also don't see any sign that Pelosi persuaded Conyers to do anything other than what he wanted to do (or not do).

He pointed out that the best strategy was to start with investigations that didn't talk about impeachment. And he made that statement in 2005, long before the "off the table" statement. So I don't see a lot of inconsistency there.

What I see as a weakness on Conyers part is not more aggressively pushing for the investigations he talked about in 2005. Now, he is pushing some things, as are others, and they could lead the way back to impeachment. But he made it clear even in 2005 that he was looking for a bi-partisan process.

Not any more.

And that a non-impeachment oriented investigation -- modeled on the Watergate process -- should be started first.

As I've said, I think he should've continued to push for that sort of inquiry, but I have no reason to think that Pelosi has stopped him. The inquiries and investigations that are ongoing -- including the investigations relating the FISA -- havent' been stopped and they could be as much a steop on the road as the Select Committee could've been.

I think you know that. I think we all know that. Don't we?

This is not to say that all of the shit we've learned since them can't be used to impeach, but that language is clearly off the table now.

But you have nothing. He has said that isn't the case. His own words from 2005 suggest he wasn't prepared to push impeachment without first pursuing a bi-partisan investigation.

And what's next?

that is why the IRAN Attack language was pulled from the war funding bill. Pressure from AIPAC has much more sway with her than anti-war pressure.

:popcorn:

I am on my second bucket! And....

:yourock:

I don't know any of them and would be interested to see what they are.
I'm concerned that she's a one trick pony.

I'm sure she'll let you know. For now, I think you can rest assured that she's big on what we call San Francisco values. She's truly an amazing woman.

Sorry.

And I don't see how anyone can already be backing her against Pelosi when they don't even know her stances on most subjects. Now that is truly blindly following someone, and I won't do that.

That she's a public speaker who's spoken eloquently on the record about many extremely important issues?

And as for not blindly following someone, it's too late, isn't it? Or did you want to take the Constitution off the table before handing the Chimp a blank check?

You know that, you were just trying to get me to respond so it would kick your thread. But I'm not going to fall for that old trick.

As for Pelosi, there's no more resting assured, is there?

Your ridiculous assertions about Nancy are disgraceful. It's a shame to see so much of this absurdity on the boards today.

My god some people need to get a fucking grip.

Are you referring to impeachment? To putting a stigma on all Democratic Representatives? To trading wages for war? Which facts bother you the most?

She is the "one woman" in charge.

And the fact that this thread is about Pelosi is the punch-line.

Misdirection...a good tool to get people to click.

I'm impressed.

I have no idea if it's all sarcasm or not.

:crazy:

Honestly the OP doesn't make sense to me. I just finished my tea so maybe I'll reread it all when the caffeine kicks in.

Especially when you add in the fact that I have taken the Pepsi challenge and Coke won by a landslide! I won't even get a cola at a restaurant if it's Pepsi. And to top it all off I use only real sugar.

Oh well, we'll never come to terms then.

:P

:yoiks:

I was a Diet Coke kid, and would probably go back. No sugar for me.

Poor Spongebob Thyme person has been thinking I don't support Cindy when I actually do support Cindy. S/he thought this because I quoted the rules and the rules here do state you cannot support a third party if they are running against a Democrat. I merely point out rules because I, too, am a board runner and I know that without rules, a board can sink fast. HOWEVER, THAT SAID, I WISH SKINNER WOULD TWEAK THAT RULE. I think it would be nice if he made it where we can support third parties in situations where they are LEAGUES more progressive than the Democrat.

I am a Texan. I think because of that I see more of the whole picture of the parties than some people where it's always been...Republican=Conservative and Democrat=Liberal. Texas is now a Republican state but I remember when a Republican could not get elected for dog catcher in Texas. Not because we used to be progressive but because the Democrats in Texas were bigoted, racist, conservative, DIXIECRATS. "Democrat" by itself means little. There have been horrid Democrats. There have been racist Democrats thus the nickname "Dixiecrats" and the party itself used to list racial purity as one of it's goals. OUR party. ("Dixiecrat" was an actual entity itself but slangwise it means a conservative, racist Democrat from the South.)

Being a Democrat HAS to mean something for me to support it. Otherwise it's just a word. I don't like "Lite" anything. If I was a conservative I would just go vote for a Republican. I won't support a conservative Democrat. Period. I won't support any conservative.

I don't usually support third party voting for the president because I know that the person in that office actually can affect the standard of life for many people, the poor, the homeless, the uninsured, the ill, the disenfranchised, etc. So I am one of the rare far leftists who will not support a third party for president...usually. Too many people suffer under a Republican in the highest office. It's just armchair politicking when some principle becomes more important than Real Lives of Real People. I have been homeless and I am needy of medical care. I know what most Republicans do to social programs. ..but all that changes when the Democrat is REALLY A CONSERVATIVE or really useless and worthless. What's the point if the Democrat is no better than any other Right Winger? (...and I will never forgive Clinton for what he did to Food Stamps and AFDC, just btw.)

I mean really, someone tell me the point of supporting conservative Democrats. I guess I'm not really a Democrat, though I am registered that way. I am progressive. WHEN the Democrat is the progressive on the ticket, they will get my vote. When someone else is more progressive, they will get my vote.
Lee

...to not be technically breaking any rules. :rofl:

Lee