posted
John Nichols: For republic's sake, Pelosi must ponder impeachment
By John Nichols
When my friend Salli Martyniak heard that Nancy Pelosi would be featured on the CBS news program "60 Minutes," she got excited. Like a lot of professional women who have been turned into political activists by six years of Bush-Cheney-ism, Martyniak busied herself during the recently completed election campaign doing everything she could to end Republican control of the House. She put the right campaign signs in her yard, she hosted fundraising events, and she knocked on doors and made calls on behalf of the campaign to change the Congress. And she lit up at the prospect of the first female speaker of the House.
But when Pelosi's segment aired on "60 Minutes" three Sundays before the election, Martyniak said, "I was shouting at the television. How could she say that? How could she so miss the point of being an opposition leader?"
What was it that so infuriated my friend and millions of other Americans who want this election to be about holding an out-of-control presidency to account?
Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who surfed a wave of voter resentment against the Bush team into the speaker's office in Tuesday's voting, bluntly declared that it would not be the purpose of a Democratic House to restore the rule of law. She made her comment despite the fact that more than three dozen members of her own caucus - including U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison - have joined U.S. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who will chair the Judiciary Committee in the new Congress, in calling for an inquiry into possibly impeachable offenses by the administration.
"Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi declared, calling it "a waste of time."
A waste of time?
Not in the eyes of the American people. A majority of those surveyed last fall by Ipsos Public Affairs, the firm that measures public opinion on behalf of The Associated Press, agreed with the statement: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
Given what has been learned over the past year about the deceits employed to guide the United States into Iraq and about the quagmire that has ensued, support for impeachment has undoubtedly risen.
So why has Pelosi been so determined to disassociate herself from talk of impeachment?
Is she fearful that challenging a president who is still popular with conservative voters will cause trouble at home? Spare me. Pelosi represents what may well be the most impeachment-friendly district in the country. On Tuesday, San Francisco voters approved a referendum, Proposition J, urging impeachment.
Since it is impossible to imagine that the House Democratic leader honestly disagrees with the merits of calling the president and vice president to account - especially when, if seen through to its conclusion, the successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney could make her president - she must believe that impeachment is bad politics on the national scale.
But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.
Pelosi's problem appears to be that she doesn't want to be accused of repeating the partisan misuse of impeachment that Republicans perpetrated in 1998 and 1999. But the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney are precisely the sort of wrongdoing that impeachment was designed to check and balance.
As a political reporter who has spent a good many years trying to unlock the mysteries of the Democratic Party, I contend that an openness to impeachment is not just good but essential politics for Pelosi and her caucus. The Democratic victory on Tuesday was not secured because the party proposed a bold agenda and won on it. Pelosi shied away from making presidential accountability a central theme of the campaign; arguably, she shied away from central themes in general - except, of course, the promise that Democrats will behave more admirably than Republicans.
To do something that will matter in the long term, something that will give Democrats the moral authority and the political pull that will allow them to correct the country's course, Pelosi and her fellow partisans must abandon the hyperstrategic politics of a contemporary status quo, which prevents surprises for entrenched officials, wealthy campaign contributors and powerful lobbyists. And the first step in that process involves embracing the oath members of the House take - to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
It is impossible to support and defend the Constitution in this era of executive excess while taking impeachment off the table. As long as impeachment is wrongly portrayed as the political third rail by Pelosi, standards of accountability remain low, and prospects for fundamental improvement in the national condition are diminished.
The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.
When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.
When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition.
If Pelosi hopes to build a new and more vital relationship with the American people, she must overcome the irrational fear of presidential accountability in general and impeachment in particular that have so paralyzed Democrats. Tuesday's Democratic win resulted from the recognition by voters across the country that America needs an opposition party, not to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic, but to turn the ship of state in a new direction. Pelosi owes it to Salli Martyniak and all the other activists who poured their hearts and souls into making her the next speaker of the House to put impeachment back on the table. She owes it to her San Francisco constituents, who so clearly favor impeachment. Most importantly, Pelosi owes it to the republic that as speaker she will have it in her power to restore and redeem.
posted
Majority means that all the idiots are on the same side. lol.......Just kidding, I hope the dems. do something positive for the country, but I think the next two years are going to be a dead end. Too much Tug-a-war will be going on. But lets hope not.
Posts: 1178 | From: Mobile, AL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are predicting the republicans are going to refuse to recognize the will of the people.
Wouldn't surprise me even a tad. That's all they have done for decades. Bytch and complain.....lies and dirt. Then blame it on someone else.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee....Why are you so negative about everything? Have some fun sometime. relax. Smile. Why do read things into everything anyone says? Dude....just chill. Dont hate ALL the time.
Posts: 1178 | From: Mobile, AL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
You need to get over the notion that anyhing not 100% in line with your wild and extreme brand of evangelical right wing backwardness is bad.
Grow up. Education is not your enemy. Declaring it to be so does not make it so.
Stop misinterpreting eveything said to be negative. It isn't. It only seems to you to be so because of your extrem bias and hatred of things.
Relax. Life is good if you will learn to accept that others are not required to accept your religious limitations.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This impeachment is insanity thinking. Do you fools really want Dick "Shotgun" Cheney running your country? And please do not say "he already is." That argument will not work.
Impeachment would simply be replacing one maniac with a bigger maniac who has a job approval rating worse than Bush. You will not get two impeachments out of this deal. You would be lucky to get Bush out but you would be stuck with Buckshot Cheney for 2 years, is that what you really want?
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not 2 years.....takes a while to impeach and convict........maybe 3 months for Chaney.
And if you think about it, those will be in hunting season, so he won't be around.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be surprised if it took 2 years with all of Bush's attrocities. It would seem a rather easy process to complete. The Democrats need to ride this current implosion momentum that is deconstructing the RNC and go for the juguler... it is open season on the GOP. If the Democrats do not take them out, they will shoot each other (i.e. "Buckshot" Cheney)
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that just goes to show that you don't understand how the checks and ballances of a republic work.
It isn't easy to impeach, even for absolutely terrible behavior.
Twist and turns of impeaching and the insueing trial are methods of informing the public about the intricies and actual facts for which the charges are set.
In the end, the publication of those facts are much more important than the impeachment or the resulting trial, as that prevents future similiar acts, even if, in the end, the actual act of impeachment is rejeced.
The purpose isn't to punish the offender, but to ensure continuation of and the foundation of the republic
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't he only impeached by the Congress and not the Senate? If so, that is not a full impeachment, only a partial impeachment.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Impeachment, by definition (see the Constitution) is the bringing of charges by the House of Represenatives. That is the sum and total of impeachment, which has no concern with the trying of the charges.
You need to spend some time learning what the actual processes of our government is if you are going to continue to offer "advice" on how to operate it.
As things stand now, you are a hopeless failure at the mechanics of our government and your "feelings" for its actual and fundamental living being wouldn't grant you admission to the appropriate civics class.
Impeachment is an accusation, not a conclusion, and nothing more.
Most important is not the charges or the trial in the Senate, but the bringing of the facts before the people. Even a consideration of impeachment that, in the end, does not reach to formal charges of impeachment, still may serve that purpose.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nirvana: Wasn't he only impeached by the Congress and not the Senate? If so, that is not a full impeachment, only a partial impeachment.
House impeaches, Senate convicts... jacko.
-------------------- Stick with Repo's plan in '07 - FRPT/DKAM! Posts: 6379 | From: PA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nirvana: Wasn't he only impeached by the Congress and not the Senate? If so, that is not a full impeachment, only a partial impeachment.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, Gordon, ignorance of facts......really dumb assumptions.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reference to impeachment I was clearly talking about removal of office. You two arrogant idiots must not have half a brain cell between you to understand much.
As I said the the SENATE failed impeachment removal of Clinton.
Read this, you retards:
The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public.
The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.
Clearly, there was a trial in the congress and a trial in the senate. The senate failed impeachment removal. End of story. Now shut the hell up.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark'
Infowars.net | November 10, 2006 Steve Watson
The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers , D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."
"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called " The Constitution in Crisis : The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."
For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning ****gers and readers everywhere:
At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers Report, "The Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you have the opportunity to own a part of history and help the Congressman hold the Bush Administration accountable. Your assistance in helping Congressman Conyers become the next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will bring us one step closer to getting the American people the answers from this Administration that they deserve. - www.afterdowningstreet.org
Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still has integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get more MSM coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the Republican and Corporate plans for total control and could expose their nefarious doings. He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in addition to challenging the Bushies. - Huffington Post
In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated :
The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws... The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct... 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.
So Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the table? Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or face the consequences.
Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached , leading Democrats have already ruled this out. The same leading Democrats that voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot Act, for Homeland Security and against a bill that simply condemned torture of prisoners in Iraq.
After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean , Conyers is the latest Democrat to show us their true colours once in power.
Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the theatrical shift of power in Washington to the left. Because as soon as this happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of support from those that believe the job is now done.
Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive feedback from some readers. Evidently those who expected us to be out dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in Washington have been bitterly disappointed.
We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and fascist Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat sideshow leadership, so why is it any surprise that we are continuing on the same course as before?
Comments such as the following emphasize my point:
"You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people. The whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change. Now you have it, but your still complaining."
Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as we have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday "There's no doubt about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting around like John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble pie is a breath of fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to think that the Neo-Con agenda, which took decades to craft, was simply brushed aside by the victory of a party that has supported Bush every step of the way on major issues."
Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great, for about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it and talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd.
Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached? Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or something else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to relentlessly keep fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms?
Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give a damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to the people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt to reign in those who have heinously abused their power.
Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything and yield nothing."
In light of this how can any representative say something like impeachment is 'off the table?'
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah right! this is not even funny any more this is like a WWF match itīs ALL FAKE!!! this left-right-paradigm was always ridiculous and people still donīt get it! you can choose between the gambino family and the genovese family the american people keep voting for change and what do they get? NOTHING NADA your freedom is gone the constitution, the bill of rights....GONE! this is FASCISM !!! and itīs making me SICK! the american people now are no better than the nazi-germans back then... and iīm serious about this! yeah right, rummy is gone and the democrats are back hurray! and now go back to sleep... some of you will wake up in FEMA-camps but thatīs ok i guess... and hey! letīs vote hillary for president! she will take out iran for us for sure then the circle is complete 28 consecutive years of presidency by 2 big crime families wow not even nazi germany was THAT stupid! itīs a shame AMERICA IS GONE ! end of story and now everbody back to sleep! hush hush
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Much of what you say is anger and disgust resulting from the republican party having been taken over by party first facsist.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hell yes iīm angry and disgusted! and things are getting worse and worse... what gives me hope is that people are starting to wake up recent polls show that 82% of the americans realized that 9/11 was an inside job 86% want bush impeached not that anybody in D.C. would care itīs too late the message: your vote is a joke and counts for NOTHING the american people have no say anymore and the system is so incurably corrupted...you just canīt vote that out democrats are not an inch better than republicans it was Bill Clinton who layed the grounds for Bushīs politics these two families ar best friends, dammit!!! it was with the help of democrats that the bill of rights was abolished! and man, they are GONE! a few weeks ago i got beat up by 6(!) cops and arrested for 35 hours just for asking why theyīre wearing black skimasks and no id-tags they even stole the money i had with me!! and the story is not over yet... theyīre charging me for assaulting a police officer! and all that for just asking a simple question! wellcome to the brave new world! we are the terrorists!! thatīs what the "war on terror" is all about!!! dems, reps...we have to takeīem all out! otherwise they will take us out and itīs already happening...every day!! americans getting stripped their citizenship and labeled "unlawful enemy combatant" and you could be next! they are building FEMA-camps all over the country, martial law is right around the corner so you can say time is running out... voting wonīt get you anywhere anymore...it is really time to take some action and to stand up against this tyranny! we donīt need to fight for freedom in irak or iran or any other country we need to fight for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, FOR FREEDOM IN AMERICA!!! for that itīs not too late...just yet
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
America would do well to take a lesson from Europe's acceptance of the Dixie Chicks. They have been given the freedom to share their thoughts and views in Europe and European people have stood by the group.
A very arrogant double standard was brought to light by America's hatred toward the Dixie Chicks upon learning of their commentary at a concert in Europe.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: not everyone ,here, thought that way
Agreed. American friends were also appalled by the redneck overreaction to comments that were not at all unpatriotic or offensive. Celebrities in Hollywood make those types of statements everyday.
The mind of the American redneck is quite scary and perplexing.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mind of every country's (or every regions') "redneck" "...is quite scary and perplexing."
It's based in ignorance, not logic or reason.
And every country or region has a goodly share of them.
Ignorance is the easy path through this world and often displays itself in openly uttered bias.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
