Why Nancy Pelosi is Pulling Her Punches

There has been much discussion about what is perceived to be the mealy-mouth impotence on the part of House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, regarding the issue of impeachment. If anyone had the opportunity to see Meet the Press this A.M., they would understand her game.

Newt Gingrich never missed a beat referring to her and Howard Dean as leaders of a far-left, out of touch party that is incapable of making a Contract with America. Painting Democrats as kooky liberals is a time-honored traditional Republican ploy. Look for it in an election near you.

Ms. Pelosi made it clear that Democrats would initiate investigations of this administration, and if that leads to impeachment - so be it. Why isn't that enough? Playing down the paranoid incessant questions about impeachment is strategy.

Gingrich launched a series of lies starting with NSA spying without a warrant to immigration, in rapid-fire sequence; this guy is dangerous. The good news is that he has a hard-on for punitive consequences for illegal immigrants. He flat-out lied trying to scare Americans, saying there are 30-50 million illegal immigrants when there are really only 12-13 million.

It is clear what the hard work is going to be for the Democrats. We must get out ahead of the lies. We are against warrantless, illegal wiretapping. We do not support blanket amnesty but rather a compassionate course of citizenship. We need to start speaking the truth, correcting the lies, loudly and often.

And, most of all, we need to stop lying here at DU, or at least stop telling half-truths. While we're slamming Hillary for taking Murdoch's money, let's also tell the truth and that is that Democratic Senators Reid, Schumer, Boxer, and Kennedy and Democratic Representatives Pelosi, Dingell, Nadler, and Rangel also have accepted money from Murdoch. Surely some of those names pass the sniff test with people here.

The Republicans are preying on the anti-Hillary sentiment that burns here at DU. I am ashamed to say that I (thanks to the ever-astute SaveElmer) actually mindlessly parroted a particular tidbit of anti-Hillary rhetoric that I have read over and over again here at DU. I am so ashamed! But that proves to me how insidious the half-truths are.

Those at DU really need to ask themselves if they are prepared to pull up their socks and be honest. We need to reach down and muster the common sense, the reason, the integrity to go forward en masse and kick the shit out of the lying, manipulative, corrupt Republicans.

Rant over. Flame away.

I think some people forget that.

It's always been about pandering to a wealthy elite. The masses are asses.

briefed on NSA wrongdoings and has never objected to them. Then when they hit the press, she holds a press conference that makes all Democrats look like hypocritical morons.

She's not a strong or effective enough leader at a time when we need to be the opposition not just the moderate alternative.

I say boot her and put Conyers in there.

Rp

She did express opposition to the program to them, but was forbidden to speak about it. She has certain obligations as a congresswoman that at least Democrats honor.

She is briefed that the NSA and President is breaking the law and yet she protects the good ol' boy network by upholding a law that holds her to secrecy?

If she was fighting for the American Citizen and not just her Washington Insider buddies she would have come out swinging publically as soon as she was informed on this breach of law.

You don't come out angry that a law was broken when you could have stopped them from getting away with it. They don't care about the law at all.... If playing by their rules halts what they are doing, then it needs to be done.

Rp

... we are truly lost as a party.

from http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan06/declassified.html

October 11, 2001

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF
Director
National Security Agency
Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755
Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

Dear General Hayden:

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush’s directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress “classified or sensitive law enforcement information” it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression, being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis I believe you have a much more difficult case to make Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Ranking Democrat

On edit: Of course I am furious about the law-breaking the Republicans are doing with the warantless wiretapping as should be all Americans. We must make that case. Again, you are perpetrating untruthful allegations to bolster your opinion. You know what the Dems did? They leaked the information to the press.

under a law protecting LEGAL activities that are classified. Anything illegal is off the table for protection under the law in my book.

Rp

or there will be chaos. What you are proposing is tantamount to anarchy.

I for one do not quibble with my representatives obeying the law. To suggest otherwise is, well, I don't have anything nice to say here so I won't.

:eyes:

Rp

I'd roll my eyes, but it is clear we are done here.

If the quote, below, is accurate, I can't agree that her position is "clear that Democrats would initiate investigations of this administration, and if that leads to impeachment - so be it.":



From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

As I've said in similar threads, I don't think we need to flaunt impeachment, but we're making a huge mistake if we let the Repubs frame the issue as overzealous Democrats who need to promise not to impeach, rather than an outlaw Republican government that needs a new sheriff.

Calling for investigations and not being hasty about calling for impeachment is good politics. Acting like we're ashamed of the idea of impeaching this guy, and saying it's off the table is bad politics.


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

"acting like" is a subjective analysis.

If you don't believe there will be investigations, that is the basis for your opinion.

I hope you don't seriously think the investigation of the myriad of crimes perpetrated by this administration will not lead to impeachment. That is the underlying point I'm making. With a plethora of factual evidence, America will demand impeachment.

Strategy.

The quotes you noted in your original post are fine by me.

But she shouldn't say "impeachment is off the table" if she doesn't mean it. And she shouldn't mean it. Maybe it was out of context -- like impeachment as a campaign talking point is off the table, which is reasonable.

But we need to recognize that the Republican media machine is making the rabid, impeachment-crazy Democrat its latest straw man, and if we go around saying things like "impeachment is off the table," they win, because they'll have legitimized this ridiculous meme by having us quake at the charge of "impeachment monger."

No one is so stupid that they want our candidates to wave "Impeachment Now!" banners. But we have no reason to act all skittish when asked about it. Bush is keeping the option of nuking Iran on his table. I think impeachment of a lying and corrupt President is something we should not go on record as ruling out.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

I would say it shuts them the f*** up and closes down the interrogation.

Perhaps I have faith that there will be investigations and that investigations will lead to impeachment. How could they not? I'm sure Ms. Pelosi would be glad to flip-flop on that.

Most of her statements were reasonably politic. They get the job done.

But shutting up the right-wing media by lying, and saying she won't impeach:

1. Makes her a liar, if she ultimately will impeach. Lying = a bad thing
2. Legitimizes the idea that impeaching a lawless president is our shameful whim, so much so that we have to summarily swear off an essential legal option that may well be the right thing once the rubber-stamp Congress is rehabilitated and real investigations can be conducted
3. Creates a valid attacking point should the time come and we're otherwise ready and able to impeach

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

is irritating people like you. Your anger at this administration spills over onto the Democrats (I say you in the collective sense BTW) fueling the expectation that Dems must become flame-throwing hard asses or they are not doing their jobs as our representatives.

not to take "I won't impeach" pledges expecting them to become flame-throwing hard asses?

"People like you," to borrow a phrase, have fallen for aforementioned straw man, that anyone who won't take that pledge is a mad dog radical.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

IMO you are setting up your own with your own loyalty pledges and expectations.

Funny how that works.

Here are some quotes about the same meme that has Ms. Pelosi in a tizzy (and here is my profanity-filled response to same):



This *is* the Republican framing from the Party's chair and its "martyred" spokesman -- that America should be afraid of the evil, impeachment-seeking Democrats. It would be a straw man if I were making it up that this is what they're saying, and what the media is shoving in the Dems' faces (as it did with Pelosi). But it is what they're saying, and clearly the goal is to neuter us by making us either:

1. Stammer when asked about it
2. Help inoculate Bush from being impeached

And so many progressives have bought into it, that they keep mischaracterizing those of us who don't want to take impeachment off the table -- making us sound like we want our candidates to foam at the mouth, and acting like we're disloyal to the party when we want them to be wary of this framing trap.

To be clear, I personally am am foaming at the mouth for impeachment. Of course this guy should be impeached. For the hundredth time, I understand why and accept that impeachment can't be the leading edge of our campaign. But I don't want to be reading this:



___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

I am as outraged as you; trust me, my head is exploding. But the Dems have ZERO power in Congress, no subpoena power. To bring impeachment to fruition, we must re-take the House in November which I believe is more doable than taking back the Senate, although that is a possibility. My point is that it would be helpful to consider strategy in our assessment of how the Dems in Congress are doing. Fire-breathing will be playing into the calculated campaign strategy of the Republicans.

I just think we need to know the difference between "not fire breathing" (smart) and "being pushed around" (not-so-smart).

Methinks "framing" is probably our biggest strategic weakness. The GOP and media keep putting issues in contexts that are favorable to the right-wing story. Until we fix that, everything we do goes though a filter that turns our ethical and practical advantages into perceived weaknesses.

My two-cents on this are here. I'm overdue to put in my third cent on it. Coming soon, time permitting.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

I see the Repubs itching for an impeachment battle NOW when we have no subpoena power.

But you are definitely dead-on with regard to the framing issue. The Repubs always forget to mention the NSA wiretapping as being done without a warrant. They frame the argument as being whether or not we should have the wiretapping at all. Dems MUST get ahead of this and keep hammering ILLEGAL, DONE WITHOUT FISA WARRANT, AGAINST THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

The bottom line is that we are impotent until we take a house of Congress. In that vein, I believe the best strategy is not giving the bastards what they want and that is an impeachment discussion NOW. Ms. Pelosi said we would have investigations; I am satisfied FOR NOW with that.

I like the piece you wrote that you linked to. I'm fully into fire-breathing passion as long as it is strategic. The Republicans are slippery bastards and I do so want them to eat shit. Trust me on that.

You must have gone extra-Atomic if you watched Feingold's censure hearings, where GOP "expert witness" Robert Turner (the associate director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia), who presumably must have spent the four minutes it takes to read the FISA statute, Fred Astaired his way around the fact that FISA does NOT require a warrant BEFORE wiretapping is commenced. And did the media care, as he spun his story about how FISA interferes with terrorist surveillance? Not on your life.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.ext

She said that she wasn't interested in pursuing it. Doesn't mean someone else can't or won't pursue it.

Lighten up folks, politics is a game, and right now we need to play along until we can get in a position of power to do something about it. It won't serve any purpose to show our agenda at this time. All these thugs would do is try to turn it against us. All I'm asking for is a little bit of faith in the true patriots that are embedded in the front lines of this "war on our freedoms" that this criminal regime and their illegal occupation of the White House is waging on us American Citizens.

If ya wanna catch fish, ya gotta cut some bait!

and welcome to DU.

I read wayyyyy more than I post. I think I'm addicted to this site! LOL

if the House minority/majority leader has to back off a pledge that "impeachment is off the table".

You really think the public will buy into her supporting someone else to pursue it after a statement like that? Come off it. Talk about semantics. :eyes:

What I see happening is Ms. Pelosi turning it over to a special prosecutor. You may have noticed 50 House Dems have demanded a special prosecutor for the illegal NSA wiretapping. That way the Dems can get on with the people's business and let someone like Patrick Fitzgerald sort out the facts of the crimes, and there have been many.

Do you seriously think America will not want impeachment in light of a pile of evidence of crimes commited by this administration?

"Impeachment is off the table." You seem to be working very hard to parse that sentence to mean something other than what the obvious interpretation would be.

I don't have faith that the public or the GOP will be that forgiving.

such as would be the work product of an investigation by a special prosecutor. I know perfectly well the game the Republicans are playing; they've played it for years. They need to be nailed to the cross for it to stick, sadly. Your expectation sees to be that that's not the case.

You are anxious about impeachment but don't seem to be willing to chart the course to achieving that very thing in a reasonable, well-thought out manner. You seem be railing against the fact that Republicans require an investigative process for the charges to stick, and you are blaming Democrats for that.

the sand in your hair and on your shoulders show where you have been. As far as what the public "buys into" right now, I really couldn't give a sh*t what they "buy into" right now. You, me and probably 99% of this board don't really know what goes on behind the scenes in this big chess match. We can speculate, make assumptions, guesstimate, whatever we do to reach our conclusions. This doesn't mean that your opinion is any more or any less valid than mine.

Do you take into account that threats are a very real part of this scenario? People's lives are in danger here. Do you think it would benefit our cause to have some of our allies in the trenches "suicided" or killed in a small plane crash or single car accident on a lonely stretch of road somewhere?

Our freedoms, and life as we know it, are very much at stake. Make no mistake about it, we are at war here. It is a war on our liberty and freedom and our very way of life by the uber rich fascists occupying our Nation's Capitol. We are fighting a very dangerous enemy, and the enemy is within our own system.

come off it, indeeed.....

Which has been a big part of the Democratic Party's problems for a long long time. We can't trust our own people because they're all running around with their own agendas looking at 2008.

Did she say that impeachment as a campaign issue is off the table? Did she say impeachment is off the table in that particular meeting? Or did she say she'll never support impeachment under any circumstance?

In any event, if we don't win it don't matter. We win by convincing our friends and neighbors that Democrats do have answers, and we do.

Who knew? :shrug:

What's their agenda? Why that line being pushed and not these?

"You never know where it leads to."

"We want oversight and checks and balances."

Impeachment isn't her primary interest, it doesn't mean she doesn't intend to hold this administration accountable which she has also stated.

So why do we jump on the wrong end of the story, every single time.

Personal agendas.

That is just plain irresponsible.

Q: If impeachment ever does become a serious issue--where will Republicans go for ammunition to strike it down?

A: Right to that statement.

:eyes:

I hate her make-up. I hate her hair. I hate the way she looks.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

AK, I gave this a nom because I agree completely with your basic premise and the follow-on detailed points.

I've said the very same thing with repsect to her *stated stance* on impeachment.

Sadly, for some, if they don't hear their own orthodoxy parroted endlessly and indentically, they see no value in anyone.

And I say this as an IMPEACHMNET HAWK.

I just visualize Russert tearing her a new one and then coddling Gingrich, and it allows me the luxury of supporting her as a fellow Democrat.

IF Dems take the House in the fall and Bush-Cheney are forced to resign or are impeached without Bush appointing a successor confirmed by Congress, Nancy Pelosi would be President Pelosi.

She could be ripped apart now for promising impeachment, considering her potential place in succession. I can hear it now. She would be absolutely shredded by the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Some of us are just saying don't promise that it's "off the table."

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

or risk becoming the very caricature the Republicans are painting them as. They must resist falling into that trap.

Flame-throwing must come from people once removed. And I fully support that.

and since neither of them have pulled their punches on the crisis the Republic faces, your argument holds no water.

And Kerry withheld strong commentary until things turned to shit and the polls made it safe. Feingold is the exception. And so is Al Gore. (For Kerry fans, please note I have remained consistent in my pledge not to vote for anyone in a primary that voted yes on the IWR; I will, however, vote for the Democrat in the general election. )

You have spliced together two entirely different points.

You may have read, perhaps not, that I'm talking about Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, who would initiate such investigations.

And money from Murdoch means that even Rupert sees what a disaster is looming in November for the GOP and he's trying to protect his ass.

contribute to both parties thinking they are hedging their bets. Nothing new here, and slamming one Democrat for it selectively is unfair and unreasonable.

Meanwhile voters are much more interested in hearing solutions to real problems than any sort of "gotcha back" games...which is why the GOP wants to focus on impeachment NOW.

By the way, I wonder if Chimpy continues to sink, whether the GOP Congress will try to rush through his impeachment themselves as a sort of October surprise....

Even as strategy, I don't see the Republicans ever choosing to do the right thing. Their strength is sticking together, and their wall of lies is the glue.

It's more like the evil Russian nobleman in a bad novel tossing the women and children off the back of the troika to slow down the pursuing wolves....

>>Newt Gingrich never missed a beat referring to her and Howard Dean as leaders of a far-left, out of touch party that is incapable of making a Contract with America. Painting Democrats as kooky liberals is a time-honored traditional Republican ploy.<<

Of course we can expect this time-honored strategy to continue. It has been highly successful!

I propose, however, that it would not be so devastatingly effective if Democrats would just fight these mischaracterisations. However, they seem to think that it is not nice to fight back, and that people will perceive the truth on their own.

I could beat up Mike Tyson if he wouldn't fight back....

Nancy Pelosi intends to go down in history as a nice lady, not a "Thatcher".

No one in the Democratic Party has figured out how to stop the radical Republican juggernaut. They are clueless. We have been outmaneuvered for many years now. I'm getting tired of keeping the faith that they have some secret strategy for success, while we lose election after election.

That will be the real indicator of whether she is a nice lady or a Thatcher.

Yes, the GOP Wrecking Machine has been as successful as they are formidable. Much of the disagreement here at DU is on strategy, not ideology. That difference of opinion has been the basis of many flame wars, but it's stupid really. We can give up and flame-throw the Dems, or not.

I don't see a major Democratic takeover in November as inevitable. Conditions exist in which this scenario is more possible than in recent years, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk. It's ours to lose. Unless our leadership figures out a way to inoculate themselves against the radical Republican character assassination machine, develop a winning strategy, and get up the courage to stand for things that are urgent, people who are fleeing the Republicans will not flee energetically in the direction of the Democratic Party.

Rick Santorum -- "my" Senator -- is the most hated Pennsylvanian in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and he is a national laughing stock. You would think he wouldn't have a chance to win re-election after all the bad calls he has made, and for 6 years with his lips on George W's butt. I dread to think that he well may run the more effective campaign, as he has done twice now.

And that is mind-boggling. The Republicans are BRILLIANT at campaigns, bastards that they are, and the Dems have to be smarter, more effective. This is go time and we have other issues such as black box voting to deal with as well. I would think that bigger picture would be more obvious to some.

My sympathies for having Santorum as your Senator. Ugh.

You could beat up Mike Tyson especially well if 90% of his punches landed on himself.

If we're really honest with ourselves, we play a tacit part in Gingrich's dance. Bush is very close to being the least favorably-viewed president in the last century. On behalf of his corporate benefactors, Bush has proposed an immigration policy that is widely derided as amnesty. This position is a big part of the reason that his support is collapsing. The unpopularity of this position is abundantly apparent to rest of his party, so they've adopted scarily racist rationales for "getting tough" on illegal immigrants.

Since anything that most Republicans support we are involuntarily compelled to oppose, we seem poised to leap into the firefight on George Bush's side, against the wishes of the electorate, on behalf of those who can't vote. For what? So that working class americans can continue to compete with an artificially large pool of workers for a decreasingly small supply of jobs.

Let's bite off republican ears for a change. Compassion is great, maybe we might try bestowing some of it on working class americans.

What guarantee does anyone have that Democrats will win back the House?

Who can say who will be elected speaker?

It's possible that Pelosi is turning off Representatives as well as Democrat constituents.

That's not the point of my OP.

You, of course, are welcome to support whomever you wish. I'm hanging with the Dems.

Thanks for the conversation today, DU'ers.

Here's to success in November. Cheers.

And Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there. :)

Hillary and some of the other corporate whore-mongering Democratic whore to task for their bad behavior. How about you?

In the primaries, I will not vote for anyone that voted yes on the IWR, however, will vote for the Democrat in the general election. You see, you that assign yourself the separate but in your minds not equal (reads better than the rest of us) moniker of "progressives" are not the only ones that have standards.

What I won't do is triangulate a tag-team gratuitous bashing of my fellow Democrats based on half-truths and unfair rationalizations. I already know that others have no problem doing that.

I think we all better get used to loving her because she's likely the candidate we'll get unless we like Newt and the same old usual suspects running the military machine. I could support Hillary a bit better if she'd speak out more against the war. I fear she'll feed wars not end them.

You have to look at all sides of an issue before you can speak with authority.
Many are emotional about things but they ar not helping the Dems. I will say
better to do it here than in front of the right.