"The public is not galvanized on impeachment b/c the House speaker does not WANT the public ..."

[sharedvalues]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

This guy is an ex Senate aide. He knows what’s up.

Link to tweet

[TheSocialDem]

1. Nancy is really disappointing..

So very disappointed in her handling of this. We need to impeach now.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Sad to say, but unless she pulls a rabbit out of a hat, when her four years are up,

no one will care.

[standingtall]

2. Besides the corrupt

The public is not galvanized on impeachment, because they have been conditioned to not be galvanized on impeachment. Not only by republicans and the press, but also by some members of our own party.

The majority people may currently oppose impeachment, but at the same time most of them believe Trump committed crimes. How do you explain that if it's not conditioning? Democrats can start to undo that conditioning with a unified aggressive message of why Trump needs to be impeached.

[sharedvalues]

3. Exactly

[Baitball Blogger]

10. The press that I have seen are very much in favor of impeachment.

They just get exasperated because the House members are not hitting home runs like Barry Burke. Would definitely be easier to pull the public in, if they had someone in charge that could cut through the Republican's stonewalling. If they could only put together their own Greek Chorus, that would be a great way of keeping hope alive, or the appearance of forward movement.

[pangaia]

26. "....unified aggressive message...."

Surely you jest....

[Delmette2.0]

37. I agree.

And these committees need to educate the country and all of Congress to the obstruction and crimes committed.

Even Mueller pointed out the lack of cooperation and deleted messages to prove his investigation.

[TwilightZone]

4. lol, no

You think the public en masse hangs on every word Nancy Pelosi says? The whole country is just desperately waiting for her to talk about impeachment so they can make up their minds?

This is seriously getting laughable. The percentage of undecideds regarding impeachment is in the single digits. Nearly everyone made up their minds long before now. They're certainly not waiting for Nancy to say the magic words before they form an opinion.

[sharedvalues]

5. Dems need to lead

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

8. IKR?

Ridiculous

[mcar]

24. I'd wager many don't even know who she is

ins

[Skittles]

6. CORRECT

it is a DISGRACE

[StarfishSaver]

7. So the only way the public can be galvanized is for Nancy Pelosi to do it?

Wow.

[JHB]

13. No, it doesn't need to be Pelosi. But where is the effort to drive opinion?

Where is the effort to persuade people? Or is this a "leaderless resistance" thing, with no overall plan or coordination? Does no one in the leadership of the Democratic party (of which, Nancy Pelosi is currently the most prominent and the one with the greatest ability to take action, so yeah, she gets the most flak) feel they have an obligation to work to bring people on board?

It doesn't need to be Nancy, but who's the proxy out banging the drums to prepare the way?

[StarfishSaver]

14. The Democrats are all over the airwaves talking about this.

Or do you think there's some other venue they should be using that will "galvanize" the public?

[standingtall]

17. And without an explicit endorsement of impeaching Trump

by the speaker of the house and the gaffes of the speaker and the number 2 Democrat in the house their message is being stepped on.

[StarfishSaver]

19. BS

Nobody in the real world outside of DU, etc., and media pundits gives two hoots what Nancy Pelosi calls this. And if she came out tomorrow and said just what they're demanding she say just as they demand she say it, they'll find something else to bitch at her about - just like they did when they demanded the Judiciary Committee open an inquiry and start hearings only to whine about semantics now they have.

Fortunately, Nancy Pelosi is too smart and experienced to allow herself to be whipsawed by ratings-seeking tv personalities and keyboard quarterbacks.

[standingtall]

20. No it's reality

If Pelosi organized a vote for a formal impeachment inquiry. There would be no doubt by anyone including the press where she stands, because every Democrat including Pelosi would be on record with their vote.

[mcar]

25. +1!

[JHB]

33. Fine. Point me to 5 video or audio clips from the last week of prominent Democrats...

...going on at length about the need to impeach Trump. From "all over the airwaves". Surely over the course of a week you can direct me to an hour's worth of air time. You know, about one-third of Rush Limbaugh's daily air time.

Drum-thumping. Point me to it. And will it be there next week? And the week after? And will it be stronger as time goes on?

Because my point is that this needs to be in the faces of the general public every single day. It has to penetrate into the people who don't normally pay much attention to politics, especially when conservative media will do everything to do everything they can to counter it, and "objective" mainstream outlets all to often retreat into Republican framing to avoid the appearance of "liberal media bias".

And while you're at it, please point to where in my post the word "galvanized" was used.

Don't tell me "do the work." The general public won't do that work, and they're the ones who need to be brought on board. This is about persuading people.

[StarfishSaver]

45. What a ridiculous request

The Democrats have been all over television discussing this but you know as well as I do that NO ONE is on television discussing anything "at length."

Perhaps you can point to a venue the Democrats can use to talk about impeachment for extended periods of time that the general public will actually watch and be influenced by.

[sharedvalues]

66. Yes, exactly, thank you. Dems are not "on the airwaves".

[StarfishSaver]

74. They're not?

Then who are all those people with "D's" after their names I see and hear on the airwaves every day? Whigs?

[sprinkleeninow]

79. "...in the faces of the general public..."

IOW, 'in your face'!

To me it's been ambiguous, confusing, wishy washy, however it can be described. They got the House bc of us Dems busting our chops. Has gone on far too long. They are in office. Not the general public. The general public needs leading. In your face leading. I fear for our future daily, nay hourly.

Sheesh already.

Do what's appropriate morally at the very least.

[JHB]

81. The message is actually pretty simple. Just take advantage of the background radiation...

...conservatives have poisoned our politics with.

Every horseshit "scandal" Republicans have railed about Democrats for the last quarter century -- even if they were just as bad as Republicans' fevered imaginations wanted them to be -- are tiddly winks compared to what Trump had done, right out in the open.

What were we supposed to be locking Hillary up over? Because she supposedly couldn't be trusted to keep national security secrets? Trump beats that every single day before breakfast. Just read his tweets, the ones he sends from an unsecured phone. Plus revealing imaging capabilities simply because he wants to taunt someone. Plus blabbing secrets that make it pretty easy for the bad guys to figure out who the leak was, and take care of them. Republicans used to hate that. Some of the same people who'd get puce-faced angry at guys like Phillip Agee spend their time these days with Cheeto-colored lips, and it's not from salty snacks. Trump's a national security disaster the size of the hole that sank the Titanic, and the Republican party's position is " Stay calm. All is well. Nothing to see here."

Then there's your hard-earned taxpayer dollars he pours into his pockets every time he goes golfing, which Mr. "Too busy to go golfing" does with record-breaking frequency. Everybody in his security detail, all staff with him, the whole entourage, what they eat, what they drink, the room they stay in, the golf carts they have to use to follow him around the links, everything gets charged, and the taxpayers pay to Trump's business. And now we find he's been rerouting Air Force planes so that they land at the rinky-dink failing airport his Scotland resort depends on just to subsidize it -- and subsidize him, since USAF personnel have to stay at his property and get charged for it.

The only reason there are any "Democrats in Disarray" stories is because the Republicans in congress have completely and absolutely abdicated their constitutional responsibilities. Some occasionally mumble complaints or sigh about being "very concerned", but they all knuckle under and support him with a unity that would make the Soviet Politburo green with envy.

we Democrats may have to deal with blue- or some other colored dogs in our ranks, but the Republicans have shown their true colors. They're the Yellow Elephants.

[sprinkleeninow]

82. It's mid September. Nearly the fall equinox.

I have growing trepidation for us all.

[Bettie]

23. She is certainly pouring cold water over it at every turn

it is more that she shows her disdain for the idea of actually holding anyone accountable at every turn.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Doesn't look like she's pouring water on anything.

If she wanted to quash it, she'd have quashed it.

I'm endlessly fascinated watching people argue that Pelosi is both so uber powerful that she can force 100+ Members to vote for impeachment against their wishes and make impeachment happen just by uttering the word, but is powerless to stop the Judiciary Committee from opening an impeachment inquiry (and calling it that), holding hearings, going to court to obtain grand jury materials, etc. and to force the pro-impeachment Members to STFU.

[not_the_one]

57. I think it is accepted that Nancy Pelosi is the consummate politician. Warning... another rant...

She is in control of the democratic party, and nothing gets done without her approval or buy-in.

She has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that she thinks impeachment is a bad move, and is not having it. She under cuts Nadler at every opportunity. They argue about starting a consideration of a possible inquiry into.... bullshit.

She doesn't want it, and it will not happen. Somehow she thinks doing what is RIGHT is worse than doing nothing. We may not win, but we would at least be seen as TRYING to do what is right.

If they put out a coherent list of all the reasons for impeachment, with the instances of the turd's actual actions (everything, all inclusive, which could then be used as talking points and bullets for others to point to), and stated in no uncertain terms that this needed to happen for the democrats to actually get the supporting documentation to PROVE it, I think people would start seeing the big picture. If the people saw the big picture, the outrage would be apparent.

Why have no court cases settled these subpoena issues? Why has no court weighed in on the turd's position that he, or anything he does CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED OR INVESTIGATED? Why aren't all these cases on a fast track.

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!

Her unwillingness to take the lead is the EXACT same way Mueller turned his 2 year report into a joke. He refused to do anything other than say "read it for yourselves". He let Barr hold the report up to a mirror and said it reported EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the report actually said, and it hung out there for weeks, until it was too late to try to effectively correct the narrative. All while Mueller stalled. He was a coward. (Oh, right, there was a STERNLY WORDED LETTER...)

The average American citizen can't (or won't) read the report for themselves. Hell, many of the house members and senators couldn't even manage to read more than bits and pieces.

Yeah, yeah, it was a blue print of what Congress should do, yet Congress couldn't DO anything because no one would talk, every subpoena was ignored... In order for everything to come into focus for we mere citizens, Mueller needed to make the argument, and he refused. After all, he IS a republican.

If we impeach, the republican senators will stop it, so it doesn't get done.

If we don't impeach, democrats are looked at as weak and ineffective, and who the fuck would want THEM running all three branches.

They (democrats) are too busy fighting amongst themselves, racing to the center that is two steps away from the right, who support David Duke, Roy Moore and white militiamen, because we sure wouldn't want to insult anyone in the fucking fly-over states, who think that THEY are the true America, and all us coastal elites can just shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.

AND we are expected to enthusiastically support Joe Biden, who thinks he can work with the republicans, doing all sorts of "across the aisle" shit.

J.F.C... Was he NOT paying attention at any point during the last ten years while the republicans publicly stated they would do NOTHING to help Obama. They actually stated that they would do EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY COULD to fight EVERYTHING he would try to do.

There is no "across the aisle" that is going to happen. Turdface has turned the republican party into a friggin' CULT.

Playing safe, or playing nice, will get nothing done, and the democrats will do once again what they are famous for, pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.

At this point I would take the squad any day, over Pelosi.

Don't Get Me Started.......

[StarfishSaver]

58. If " nothing gets done without her approval or buy-in," how is the Judiciary Committee

managing to hold an impeachment inquiry without her support.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand insist that Pelosi is so all powerful that nothing happens on her watch without her say so and then claim that an impeachment inquiry is being conducted over her objections.

[tirebiter]

39. 2020 will give us our turn

To throw Trump out.

[Bettie]

46. Do you believe that the election will be free and fair?

Because I don't.

There will be suppression on a level never seen before. There will be "problems" that cause certain areas to not be able to vote (machines malfunctioning, not enough ballots, last-minute changes in polling places, lost poll books/files).

But hey, if you still believe in the system, more power to ya. I don't, because it only works when both sides agree that there are rules and norms. Our side is still playing based on rules that have been blown to pieces.

[emmaverybo]

51. Do you believe that if the house impeached Trump, the senate would convict and he would be

ousted?

[Bettie]

55. No, but I do believe that

it would show his corruption to the nation and could move some people to stay home or vote for someone other than him.

But, I guess it is best to be civil and keep the full range of his corruption under wraps so as not to upset people.

[emmaverybo]

59. Not what I am saying. You gave a good reason for impeachment, regardless. For me, the

Mueller report shows ample corruption to vote hm out. Trump demonstrates his unfitness himself
every day.

I remain skeptical that those not yet convinced of his criminality, unfitness, and dangerous betrayal of our country can be persuaded or honestly care. Still, I have hopes that enough do.

[Bettie]

68. I'm in a better mood this morning

but it is frustrating to see our committee chairs utterly disrespected and marginalized when we've seen that their side will do literally anything to get their way.

To bolster our numbers, all of this information NEEDS to come out, the corruption laid out in stark detail so that only the most morally bankrupt can even imagine voting for him again. To win, we need a blowout, because if there is one thing 2016 taught us it is that there are a staggering number of stupid/gullible people out there.

Hopefully, that is a smaller group than I fear it is.

[emmaverybo]

70. Definitely agree a landslide needed--for one, to wash out the "stupid/gullible" and malignant, and

two, to offset rampant election fraud, cheating, voter suppression. Impeachment? We might be there with this latest development.

[Bettie]

71. What is so freaking maddening about it

is that if a Democrat owned 1/100th of a hot dog cart anywhere in the US, he or she would have been impeached over emoluments in the first year.

The double standard is frustrating beyond my capacity for reason.

[emmaverybo]

72. True!

[LenaBaby61]

77. "2020 will give us our turn."

IF we had fair elections, that bum would be gone--voted out of office in a landslide IMHO.

But, we will NOT be having fair elections. That's a given thanks to tRumpthuglicans doing their part as per to gerrymander, cross-check, only allow gun owners with hunting licenses to vote and not students with ID cards. They'll voter-purge again and make sure voting apparatus in AA/minority/Dem areas either does not exist or they'll be closing them down completely making sure AA/minorities, young, elderly cannot vote, and also try and various other "new and improved" ways to stop Dem voters from voting. MoscowMitch will not bring a bill to the floor to be voted on to protect the 2020 GE from outside interference. He, like most of tRumpthuglicans are guilty of TREASON. they HATE America.

And, even if Dems turn out in MASS, we know that tRump has once again, proudly and in a very PUBLIC way (And in private most likely too) this time called out for his buddy Vlad/the bots et al to try something different and much more POWERFUL than that 50 state, bot and more strategy that they used last time to suppress votes from 2016's GE. Who knows what they'll do for an encore? Hell there are is still credible evidence coming out now in 2019 about how the ruskies affected our elections from 2016.

As for Nancy goes, I very rarely make comments about her. But my doubts about her judgment here concerning Impeachment etc., continue to grow more in a not so positive way daily. I am grateful to her for the way she took the lead on the ACA, and for other very meaningful things she's done for us a US citizens/her constituency. Always will be. However, I am also still remembering--and it sticks in my craw--how she said in 2006 that Impeachment was off the table as far as Bush/Cheney were concerned because it would be bad for our country thuglicans have NO remorse for how they're fucking up this country by caping for Individual #1/the big, fat ruskie asset. MoscowMitch STOLE Supreme Court appointments from Pres. Obama. Dems far too often come to a knife fight with marshmallows and not with something that could do thuglicans like MoscowMitch IN. Somebody as brilliant mentally as Nancy is I'm sure KNOWS that we don't have fair elections--not even close to that--and if by chance she's thinking that we can just vote IT out of office in 2020 is at the very least ridiculous thinking. The USA's collective hair and ass is on fire as we look less and less like a 'sovereign nation.' We're slowly turning into a that lawless, hideous Banana Republic that fat, racist, sexually-assaulting, orange, treasonous Individual #1 wants it to be because he's putin's bitch, and putin wants to destroy our country--have it looking like everything outside of St. Petersburg and Moscow.

thuglicans investigated Hillary Clinton up and down the wazoo about Benghazi and found NOTHING. In fact, many KNEW and said bold-faced that they wouldn't find anything--they just wanted to smear the hell out of her more going into the 2016 elections.

[sprinkleeninow]

80. LenaBaby, ALL of what you wrote! 👍 eom

[Bettie]

85. Yes

Everything you said.

It just feels good to see someone else say it too.

[FBaggins]

28. Who knew she was so powerful?

She should run for President since she has so much sway with the public.

[betsuni]

32. I don't even know what happened, what Pelosi said or did, what this OP is about.

If she were to furiously galvanize the public, I'm pretty sure I would not notice and remain sadly ungalvanized.

[world wide wally]

11. The most distasteful drinks are not served hot or cold, but like warm.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I'm going to clutch my pearls, get my smelling salts, and take a nitro tablet

over this deeply offensive post.

[Bettie]

69. Every time I see your name

it makes me smile!

[StarfishSaver]

15. Hey here's an idea

Maybe, instead of using his moneybto rufor president and bashinf Democrats for not impeaching fast enough, Tom Steyer can invest in a public relations campaign that will "galvanize" the public into supporting impeachment.

[standingtall]

18. Who actually has the power to impeach Trump? Tom Steyer?

Or is it the house of representatives?

"Steyer can invest in a public relations campaign that will "galvanize" the public into supporting impeachment."

So what do you call his adds calling for Trumps impeachment?

The public doesn't need to be galvanized for the house to impeach him anyway. The house has the authority to impeach a corrupt President regardless of public sentiment.

[StarfishSaver]

21. So which is it? Are you complaining that Pelosi hasn't galvanized public support for impeachment

or that she's not forcing impeachment despite the lack of public support for it?

It's hard to tell since you're all over the place on this.

[standingtall]

22. When people do the right thing regardless of public sentiment

that galvanizes people around issues. Sticking your finger in the wind doesn't. We can galvanize the public on impeaching Trump by actually impeaching him.

[JI7]

31. lol, that has never been the case in this country.

[standingtall]

34. Really? I could've of swore that not to long ago most people were against

the Affordable Care Act. We passed it anyway and now most people are against letting republicans take it away.

[JI7]

36. that's becsuse they actually got it and experienced the benefits of it

and saw what Republicans said about it was lies.

but it hurt Democrats in the elections right after.

[standingtall]

38. It hurt Democrats in 2010 becauase it didn't go into effect until 2014

that's why republicans could get away with lying about it.

[JI7]

42. yes, that's my point, they fell for the lies from the republicans which the

media is always happy to push.

[StarfishSaver]

35. So why all the complaining that Pelosi hasn't single-handedly galvanized the publix

since such galvanizing isn't even necessary?

Y'all need to get your stories straight.

[standingtall]

44. Where did ever Pelosi can single handily do anything?

I didn't but she does share responsibility in the botching of this.

"Y'all need to get your stories straight."

My story has been consistent from the very start.

Your the one straddling the fence on impeachment not me. You notice how whenever your in one of the threads most of the people who are agreeing with you are against impeaching Trump?


"since such galvanizing isn't even necessary?"

What I said here is factually correct. Democrat don't need voters to be galvanized to impeach Trump, but that doesn't mean they can't do anything to galvanize voters.

[ecstatic]

16. The more trump gets away with his crimes, the less likely we'll have a fair/free election

next year. That's the bottom line. It's all connected. Maybe Congress will finally understand when trump's goons start slapping the cuffs on. Of course, by then it'll be too late to do anything about it.

[leftstreet]

40. +1

[triron]

56. +1000

[sheshe2]

27. Chris Hayes?

[StarfishSaver]

41. Chris Hayes actually said to Jamie Raskin tonight:

"Everyone knows that if Nancy wants something to happen, it happens and nothing happens unless she wants it to and it's clear as day she doesn't want impeachment to happen."

Hunh? If nothing happens unless she wants it to happen and she doesn't want impeachment to happen, why is impeachment happening?

[JI7]

43. the same media was trashing the hearing yesterday as a disaster for Democrats

[sheshe2]

47. Chris Hayes is an idiot.

Impeachment is happening with the proceedings. Dumber than a post.

He has Pelosi and Democratic derangement syndrome. Never met a Democrat that he refused to trash.

[sharedvalues]

63. How about Adam Jentleson, Ex-Senate aide?

And Brian Fallon, Ex-Senate aide?

Fallon worked for Schumer. And his wife is deeply connected in Dem politics.

Link to tweet

There’s few people willing to go on the record, but it is widely known that Pelosi does NOT want the House using hearings to try to get to impeachment. Even though she thinks it is xeserved.

[JI7]

30. lol, the areas of the country that like Pelosi already have reps that support impeachment

it's the other areas where people were reluctant or did not support Pelosi which is the problem.

people in those districts did not run on impeachment. they even said they may or would not support Pelosi for speaker.

[StarfishSaver]

53. But if Nancy just took over their teevees and talked to them

she could galvanize them into supporting impeachment ...

[sharedvalues]

61. If the Dems did, yes.

Just as they did during watergate.

[Bradical79]

48. At least partly true

I wouldn't say she is the main problem, but her messaging on impeachment has been a huge roadblock in trying to sway the public. The other part is our voting population.

You have roughly 40% that have been looking at this unprecedented blatant corruption and think "This is fine!", or they've just been tuned out.

There's also a lot of Chuck Todds out there who will always find a way to put equal blame on Democrats no matter how much the Republican party lowers itself. "Both sides are the same!"

Then there's Nancy Pelosi and a minority of Democrats that want the wider public to be all for impeachment before trying to lay out the case before the public. It's overstrategizing, or outsmarting yourself. There's a reason some of her statements on the matter have been borderline nonsensical.

[Nevermypresident]

54. +1000

House Democrat messaging has been a disaster.

[sharedvalues]

62. Tuned out, yes

And bothsidesist for-profit media is a problem.

[brooklynite]

49. I'm sure the blogosphere and the twitterverse now best...

[Volaris]

50. 'White house aides say...'

I wonder if this is bait, or if they actually believe themselves lucky.

Hard to tell for me.

[qazplm135]

52. wow

"The reason that the House Democrats' efforts have failed to galvanize the public is because the Speaker of the House very clearly does not WANT the public galvanized on impeachment. End of story."

So Nancy Pelosi has the power to galvanize the public to be for impeachment? As well as the power to keep the public ho hum about impeachment (which is where they currently are)?

Who knew she had such power?!

[emmaverybo]

60. Nancy Pelosi holds that much sway over the public? Amazing. I don't think the public thinks about

the Speaker of the House.

[Kentonio]

64. To all the people sarcastically saying 'gosh, who knew she had so much power'..

Of course she has that much power!

She's the speaker of the house, and has a huge amount of control over her own parties congress members. If she wanted to mobilize in favour of impeachment, she could have most of those 235 congress members out hitting the airwaves both nationally and back in their states beating the drum for impeachment, and laying out the case for it.

She is deliberately subduing impeachment talk because she thinks its a better political move to do so. In the meantime the administration continues to break the law with impunity. Pelosi is dead wrong this time.

[sharedvalues]

67. Sadly yes.

I love Pelosi. I wanted her as speaker. But I think she’s wrong on the politics here.

[StarfishSaver]

75. If she were deliberately subduing impeachment talk and she were all powerful, why is there still

so much impeachment talk happening?

[Kentonio]

83. I didn't say she is 'all powerful' and obviously nothing is going to stop impeachment talk happening

But there's a huge difference between uncoordinated talk, and a coordinated public campaign. She can make that campaign happen if she chooses and she has not done that.

[StarfishSaver]

84. And there's a huge difference between "deliberately subduing impeachment talk"

and not orchestrating a "coordinated public campaign" to convince the public to support impeachment.

Not only is the latter not the job or responsibility of the Speaker of the House, claiming the Speaker is "deliberately subduing impeachment talk" because she hasn't launched a major PR campaign defies both logic and fact given the amount of "impeachment talk" that's been occurring notwithstanding Pelosi's supposed squelching of it.

[Kentonio]

86. If you agree with her position, why not just say so.

It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, even if I personally think its wrong.

All this pretending that she doesn't have power, and quibbling over semantics is pointless and boring.

[StarfishSaver]

87. This has nothing to do with her position or whether I agree with it

But if you're going to take issue with how she's doing her job, you need to do better than the conflicting arguments you're making. We're not "quibbling over semantics" since semantics aren't the reason your argument is completely illogical.

[Kentonio]

88. My argument is perfectly logical

You just seem determined to misunderstand something quite simple. Anyway as I said, this is boring and I have no interest in going round in circles with you.

[lindysalsagal]

65. Chris is right. Needed to be said.

[ehrnst]

73. Oh right - that's the Speaker's job now that a woman has the job.

Chris Hayes especially isn't known for his feminism...

[StarfishSaver]

76. IKR?

New Rules ...