I have a great idea, lets take Nancy Pelosi off the table...

[Pierre.Suave]

WE dont need her, she has done absolutely nothing but appease the Bush admin and is now just as culpable in their crimes as they are.

it is time WE took Her off the table...

:mad:

[begin_within]

1. Seconded

[kentauros]

2. I agree

We need the VP from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" in her place :)

[Pierre.Suave]

3. How about we put Dennis Kucinich in her place...

How do you think that would go...

:evilgrin:

[kentauros]

4. Unfortunately

I'd be in more fear of his life than I am now.

[Pierre.Suave]

7. That may be true

unfortunately.

I will volunteer to be his bodyguard.

[kentauros]

9. I think I would to, now that I think about it.

Just give me the Secret Service training and I'd be there :)
(I would even without it, but that would be a nice plus.)

[Pierre.Suave]

13. I dont think I need any SS training

I was trained by the USMC. I think that will do.

[cliffordu]

209. I'm right there, too, I'll sign up to bodyguard Dennis.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Very poorly

he's not a very effective legislator at all, despite what you think of his positions. He's not a leader.

[Pierre.Suave]

6. And you think Pelosi is?

I think you are grossly underestimating him.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. What leadership positions has he held?

How successful has he been as a legislator?

[Pierre.Suave]

11. nancys only "success"

it to appease and justify the atrocities of the bush regime...

Do you want to call that a success?

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. She successfully led House Democrats from the minority to the majority

[cliffordu]

210. LOL

[The Doctor.]

19. He's leading on Impeachment.

[onenote]

139. and how far has that gotten?

[defendandprotect]

111. Kucinich has been successful at offering moral leadership to the party . . . justice . .

[Truth2Tell]

189. Success as a legislator can be measured

in many ways. If you'd like to use measures like Bills out of committee or Bills passed... well, Dennis has Nancy beat. If you'd like to simply use pork for the home district as a measure... well, Dennis has Nancy there too. But frankly those are shallow and petty measures of leadership, so I won't hold it against Nancy that Dennis is more effective in that regard. But I will hold others measures against her...

For example, one of the most important roles of a legislator, and especially of a "leader," is to give public voice to people who would otherwise be voiceless. In that regard Dennis has Nancy beat times 10. Another role of a leader is to get out in front of public opinion on issues of importance - to shape opinion rather than be pulled along by it. Another win for Dennis over Nancy times 20.

Yes, Nancy has held more so-called "leadership positions" in the House. And yes, she has certainly been much more effective in pushing the agenda of her large corporate donors. I suppose by those measures she is more effective. Is that what you're talking about Mr. Funk? Must be.

[Pierre.Suave]

195. HOLY SHIT

You just put the SMACKDOWN on Monkeyfunk...

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

204. You have very low standards

for what constitutes a "smackdown".

[Pierre.Suave]

206. Admit it

that was a smackdown...

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

207. No, it wasn't

but I'm not surprised you think it was.

[cliffordu]

211. Aw, wassa matta, Goat gone??

[TZ]

10. My uncle is a congressional scholar

and trust me when I say..NOTHING would work if he was the Speaker..as MonkeyFunk says he's NOT an effective legislator not even particularly liked within the party itself..If you cannot get the other people in the party to go along with you..you will not and should not be a head of the party...They do power rankings of members of congress..Kucinich regularly falls about the 200+ range..whereas my rep..Chris Van Hollen is ranked in the top 10 and he's been in congress a lot shorter time.

[Pierre.Suave]

12. Honestly

I dont really think most of the other reps deserve to be there either.

he might be ineffective because the other legislators do not like him upsetting their happy little applecart and drown him out and make him insignificant even though he speaks for US, unlike many, many others.

The way I see it, they ALL should sound more like DENNIS, because he sounds like US.

[TZ]

17. But "us" is a SMALL minority of people in this country

Even in a very liberal county where I live, Kucinich's views AREN'T particularly well received.
Self identified liberals are something like 17% of this country. So actually most Congressional Reps DO a good job of representing the majority of the folks in my district..
I personally think my rep is a good one..He's liberal BUT he knows how to work with others well..and is effective. And for all the bashing Steny Hoyer gets on this site, he actually does a pretty good job representing his district.
If you think Nancy Pelosi can, as Speaker of the House represent ONLY the SF POV (which much like DU is faaar from mainstream values) and actually work with other reps, then you are blind to political reality.
Most people in this country WANT BOTH PARTIES to work together..and yet, here thats treated like teh evul..Sorry, but I do understand how this game works..I also understand that my opinions are in the minority in this country and that to accomplish ANYTHING of substance it is necessary to compromise and work well with others..Something I think Pelosi has TRIED to do, unsuccessfully in many ways.
Think about Newt Gingrich and what he did..he ended up really damaging his party quite a bit and having to leave congress because he was so unwilling to compromise.(and because he was a corrupt hypocritical bastard)

[Pierre.Suave]

21. I am sorry

but I disagree with you 1,000,000 Brazilian %

Nancy is a republican shill and I do NOT want my rep to even attempt to "work with" the republican criminals. They do not represent me, or anything good for America. The repuglicons do NOT compromise, they only get their way. I am sick of having this fake compromise shoved down my throat, when it isn't even a compromise, it is the democrats caving in to whatever the repuglicons want.

If they want to start representing what mainstream America wants, then we need a better educated and informed mainstream America. I think if mainstream America understood what was going on, how many of their constitutional rights have been taken away, how their votes have not been counted, and how we have basically had a bloodless coup in this country, they would revolt. There is a reason the politicians want us ALL to be fat, happy, and stupid. It makes it a LOT easier for them to get away with everything.

leadership means standing up for what is right, because it is right, not popular. When a leader appeases people, they are doing something wrong. NONE of the other reps are "leaders" because none of them are out in front, leading for what is right, and what HAS to be done for our survival as a country of laws and freedoms. They are taking the safe, easy, and guaranteed to not upset the power system way instead. Thats not leadership, it is cowardice.

and I refuse to follow a coward.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

58. I agree with you

1,000,000 brazilian %

[Pierre.Suave]

67. LOL

thanks.

[defendandprotect]

117. You're misinformed . . . this is a liberal nation . . .

and as Noam Chomsky points out, the proof is the very fact that they have to

control the "free press" . . .

they have to control radio, TV, magazines, newspapers . . .

they are endangered if any real truth gets out --

They also have to try to limit voter turnouts which they've been doing for decades ---

and other means of steals --

and heavy propaganda, of course, to misinform and distort information the public hears.


Chomsky says they're always taking readings of just how liberal/progressive

the population is and that when asked about Mexican immigrants, etc. the public

will readily point to the fact that they used to live here!





Another stark bit of reality is the neo-con PNAC call for another "Pearl Harbor"

as a way for them to attack Iraq BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD that the public wouldn't

support the idea otherwise!


You like Steny Hoyer . . . !!???


And you may think that SF "values" are far from mainstream . . but perhaps you

want to run those "values" and yours by us so we can judge what you're talking about?

And NO -- I certainly don't want Democrats and the corporate party "working together" . . !!

And maybe when we stop playing the patriarchal "games" . . . we can get back to peace

and trust in our socieities --- and end violence and war?

While I am not in favor of "compromise"-- and you can look at our Constitution and its

compromise with slavers for one example of that which led to the Civil War which still

divides our nation -- Pelosi is more than compromising . . . she is abetting the GOP

agenda -- abetting Bush's wars instead of opposing them.


Re Newt Gingrich . . . I don't see that he had any problems but getting caught in theft

and an affair . . . and it was the hyprocrisy there which did him in.

He still lurks, however . . . and is an accomplished neo-con propagandist --

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. yeah and we are not a very big number. i find it amusing that we really really wanted a moderate

president but hate the moderate pelosi.

what gives?

[Pierre.Suave]

71. I dont think she is very moderate

I think she is very very corrupt, and bad for the US as a whole.

She is a republican. She enables the bushies, and has chosen, and said publically, that she will NOT hold them accountable for their crimes. Crimes against the US, against the constitution, and against citizens of the world, who matter just as much as you and I do here in the US.

[PeaceNikki]

72. She is a Democrat despite your ignorance.

[Pierre.Suave]

76. She is a

DINO.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. how so?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. what proof do you have of this? besides the fact that she doesnt want impeachment?

[Pierre.Suave]

Her own words

The very act of refusing to hold them accountable for their crimes, makes her just as guilty.

She had, and still has I guess, the HISTORIC opportunity to stand up and say, ENOUGH. This has gone on for too long and today, it stops. Today we will hold everyone accountable. Today, the Bush administration has to answer to us, and the world for their actions. Today, we begin the impeachment.

But sadly, she refuses to do so...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. so the fact that she refuses to impeach is the ONLY reason you call her a DINO?

[Pierre.Suave]

85. That and her complacency with the agenda of the Bush admin

seriously, has she done anything to stop them or stand in their way at all?

[PeaceNikki]

90. It's all the rage.

Fauxtrage.

[Pierre.Suave]

99. yeah

everyone should be outraged at her behavior and that of many many other elected officials.

but no, this is not rage, this is common sense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. no its not. common sense would be trying to understand why your leaders may not want to get

into a HUGE controversial and mainly fruitless battle when their a looming presidency that we have a shot in hell of winning.

that would be common sense.

[defendandprotect]

124. You have won the past elections . . . they were stolen from you . . .

And why oppose these neo-cons . . . for the sake of principle -- for the sake of our

Constitution ---

[La Lioness Priyanka]

134. we keep saying this but we didnt win last time. gore's election was way too close

[defendandprotect]

154. Gore won by more than a half million votes --- probably more . . .

last I heard it was more than 750,000 -- and figure out that was probably a figure

depressed by the GOP --

Bush supposedly "won" by 527 votes in Florida . . .

however, 300,000 "DEMOCRATS" voted for Bush ---
Buchanan took 3,000 plus of the "butterfly ballots" designed by Democrats --
Libertarians and Socialists took more than 6,000 votes --

The GOP fascist rally outside Miami-Dade Election HQ's stopped the vote count illegally --
no police response!

The Supreme Court -- by one right-wing vote -- put Bush in the Oval Office . . .

AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE LOST THE 2000 ELECTION????

*************************************************

Same with Kerry --- Ohio was stolen . . .

Meanwhile, try to understand that these STEALS didn't begin in 2000 --
they began right after the coup on JFK and our government ---
If you were around anytime after that you probably recall that the
large computers came in and were used to tally votes across the nation.
Media's "results" came from those machines --

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[defendandprotect]

123. Pelosi has supported Bush and his agenda from day one . . .

Pelosi has supported Bush's wars for two years -- refunding them ---

WHY . . . ???? WHY . . . ??? WHY . . . . ????

Pelosi announced immediately that there would be no impeachment ---

why the immediate assurance to Bush/Cheney . . . ?


Pelosi just delivered a retroactive immunity to the telecoms and Bush/Cheney re FISA . . .

WHY . . . ??? None of that had to be done.


Pelosi also took a "warning" re attacking Iran out of funding legislation . . .

WHY . . . ???


Then ran a vote to SUPPORT Bush should he decide to attack Iran . . .

WHY . . . ???


This is Pelosi aiding and abetting Republicans .... and their warmongering . .and their wars!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

127. has pelosi done this by herself? or did her other dem colleagues do the same?

[PeaceNikki]

128. As a woman she holds far more culpability for bad stuff

and far less credit for good.

Duh. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. i know. thats my point.

:)

[Pierre.Suave]

135. You are so ridiculous

her being a woman has absolutely nothing to do with it and that is simply an attempt to inject divisiveness where none exists.



:eyes:

She IS the speaker of the house, and should act as such.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

138. she is actiing us such. you want her to sacrifice her career for you.

which is not something you expect from obama.

[Pierre.Suave]

146. Obama is a senator

he can not begin impeachment proceedings.

Pelosi IS the speaker of the house. If she was the great leader you all say she is, why can she not get all the dems to support it? Because she does not want to.

There is no other reason. There is also no excuse to not do what is right, and what needs to be done.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. and if she had the backing of important leaders like obama she would

she knows its a losing battle.

[Pierre.Suave]

159. I would be willing to bet

she does not want her own skeletons to come out of the closet.

[PeaceNikki]

162. Oooh, pretending is fun.

You're pretty good at it, too!

[Pierre.Suave]

163. Apparently

you are unaware of the idea of a theory.

if you have a theory of your own, I would be glad to hear it.

[Pierre.Suave]

164. Actually, I expect her to sacrifice it

for US, for you, for me, for everyone in the US in the name of doing what is right.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

169. then expect all of them to make career suicides and lose the elections

and gain nothing in return

[Pierre.Suave]

185. That is your assumption

I think they would gain everything.

The truth shall set us free. we have lied long enough in this country, maybe it is time for some truth.

[onenote]

140. you obviously have a mistaken notion of what the speaker's role is

The speaker isn't a dictator. The speaker, in effect, is a consensus builder. THe speaker's role is to figure out what parts of the Democratic agenda can be achieved and to set about achieiving them. But the Democratic caucus -- and if this obviously comes as no surprise to you -- is not uniformly or even overwhelmingly progressive. It has moderate and even conservative elements in it. It has members that are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. And it has members that are not even that liberal on some social issues. In order to move legislation, Pelosi and the rest of caucus leadership has to cobble together a majority. That requires compromise. And Pelosi has successfully achieved that compromise a number of times. Other times, she cannot and legislation either is enacted, is enacted and vetoed and the veto is overriden, or no legislation is even attempted.

You seeme to think that Pelosi can snap her fingers and get all of the Democrats -- including several dozen blue dogs like Heath Shuler -- to adhere to an agenda set by the most progressive elements of the party. Well, in your dreams that might happen. But in the real world it doesn't.

[Zuiderelle]

170. GREAT POST. Too bad it will be ignored.

One of Pelosi's greatest accomplishments, in my opinion, is that she came from a VERY progressive record and managed to do her job with absolute integrity and conviction, representing the HOUSE and not just her own progressive ideals.

I made my user name shortly after she was elected speaker, because I was thrilled that she was elected, because she was SUCH A PROGRESSIVE. And now she is being slammed for not doing her job, when she is doing exactly what she was elected to do.

Idealists are sometimes nice, but they are never very realistic.

[warren pease]

179. And yet, she's got one power that she uses in the most ass-backwards ways...

She can unilaterally decide which bills come to the floor for a vote and which ones go into the shredder. So far, she's made certain that any move to bring the hammer down on the Bushies is suppressed. And this latest transparent move to try and placate the impeachment crowd while making sure it remains off her fucking table is exactly what you'd expect from her.

But she's pretty loose with other peoples' money when it comes to supporting The Commander Guy and his lust for wholesale slaughter in the Middle East. She's always on the job when he needs the US treasury to borrow or print another few hundred billion in monopoly money.

She could have just told him to take it out of Blackwater's budget, but that's wouldn't have been polite. You never embarrass members of your own social class in public.

She could have just stuck any of these appropriations bills in the same drawer where Kucinich's articles of impeachment go to gather dust. But that wouldn't be nice, and Nancy does so want to be nice -- at least to those who have the goods on her as an accessory after the fact to war crimes.

So one passes with a timeline for withdrawal and Bushie says he's not having any of that crap. Instead of reintroducing the exact same bill and telling him to sign it or figure out some other source of funding, she dutifully removes all constraints, gets that one through the house, the senate of course loves it, and then she blathers on incoherently about how the dems just scored a huge victory.

Back in January 2007, CBS reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.

"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an exclusive interview on Face The Nation.

"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.

"But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions."

And then she started cutting those blank checks and hasn't stopped since. Plus, she's developed a real fondness for screwing the American people, too -- just like The Decider.

There's her abysmal performance on FISA and immunity, more money for the NSA and none for schools or infrastructure retrofitting, more money for the DHS and none for social programs, more money just to pay the interest to China and India and none for national health care (despite the fact that she and every one of her collaborators in Congress, and their extended families, have their own Cadillac single-payer system but which we apparently don't deserve).

Yeah, she's a fucking jewel alright. We could have done better by tossing a dart at a giant map of Enid, Oklahoma and drafting Elmer Crabtree as speaker when the dart landed on his roof.

All of the above applies to Reid, btw, but space and my boredom level don't permit another recitation of collaborating, conniving, enabling and generally making sure that no foul deed by any of the Bushies is ever punished.


wp

[Pierre.Suave]

182. Now this is a GREAT post.

very nice sir/madam whichever the case may be.

[onenote]

199. she can move bills, but why would she move a bill the caucus doesn't want moved?

Yes she has power. But she also has the sense to know that forcing votes that don't have enough support to pass and will divide the caucus don't accomplish anything positive.

You seem to think that the Speaker's job is to tilt at windmills on behalf of one part of the Democratic caucus -- the DK wing, such as it is. Its an interesting concept, but completely wrong.

[warren pease]

203. Tilting at windmills...

That would require a leader with vision, and she's O for 2 by that standard.

But OK. Let's grant her a moment's slack regarding not forcing votes that won't pass. I disagree with the "won't pass" part because I think that if chapter and verse of the Bushies' unrelenting criminality hits US mass media -- which is unlikely unless the dems learn how to manipulate media as well as the GOP does -- voting against impeachment in the house and not guilty in the senate might end some political careers.

Anyway, so she's not bringing "losers" up for a floor vote. But that says nothing about the bills she IS bringing to the floor. A partial list is in my previous post, and you probably know this stuff by heart anyway, but the single point worth stressing is that, whenever a piece of legislation comes from the Bushies, it gets top priority, it gets its floor vote and it's the house leadership that allows all this to happen.

And if there's something in it the Bushies don't like, Nancy and friends politely remove it.

If they took a hint from the GOP, they'd simply take Bushie's latest panhandling effort and bury the sucker under a couple yards of dirt. And then they'd run to the press and yammer nonstop about how this would have done more to "harm our troops" than anything Bushie has done to date.

They might even bring up some embarrassing things: like the fact that Walter Reed, now maintained by private contractors, is a third world shit hole where the rats and roaches come out to play after dark, the sheets are only changed once a week, putrid smells dominate the entire complex and the floors aren't even clean.

If the troops the Bushies claim to support are wounded, they're just trading nightmares. If they make it out of Walter Reed without serious secondary infections, they'll be able to find a nice spot under the bridge where they and tens of thousands like them can discuss patriotism and sacrifice and an AWOL chickenhawk of a fraudulent president. And then there's the suicide rate...

There's all kinds of ways to talk about how supporting the troops is a lot more difficult than just sticking a flag pin on your lapel. So far, the dems haven't learned any of them.


wp

[Pierre.Suave]

181. She has not even tried

how can we know what she can and cant do?

She flat out denies any desire to do her damn job. Is she aware of the reason we have 3 co-equal branches of government? Or is she happy to surrender to the repuglicons?

[onenote]

198. she knows quite well what members of the caucus will and won't support

If you don't realize that, you are sadly misinformed about how COngress operates.

So when she doesn't 'try' something, it generally means that she knows that the result will be failure and minimizing failure is a politically astute move most of the time. Sometimes, she tries something knowing it will fail because the members of the caucus have told her that its okay to try -- that those voting for a losing bill will gain from having done so and that those voting against will not be harmed or will gain among their particular constituents. Moreover, repubs may lose for winning, as is the case with SCHIP,which will be hung on a lot of repubs necks in the coming campaign.

[defendandprotect]

148. Pelosi is leadership and can control what comes to the floor . . .

Consider that when the GOP is in majority they block everything --

and when they're in minority they block everything --

but strangely, we can't block anything?

[Pierre.Suave]

160. or do anything...

it is really sad.

[defendandprotect]

119. One good thing about this latest move, Pelosi must be under intense pressure ---

for impeachment from the public and some of the party.

Otherwise they wouldn't have even let Kucinich do any of this . . .

But, Pelosi still delivered the final PS on it . . . no vote!

I think she is feeling some pressure --- but she's too right-wing for me --- !!!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

166. Pelosi

is about as "moderate" as Joe Lieberman.

[onenote]

172. kudos on the silliest post in a thread full of silliest posts.

[PeaceNikki]

173. On what issue(s)? Qualify your assertion, please.

[defendandprotect]

112. . . . but what you're describing is our problems with the rest of the Congress . . . not Kucinich--!

We need more legislators like Kucinich --

and less like those who are creating problems for us.

[Lorien]

126. The people in his district sure as hell don't think so

I know two Republicans in Cleveland who are in his district. They have ALWAYS voted for him because, they say "despite his politics, he's a great leader who does right by the people".

[onenote]

143. actually, his support in his district has been slipping

He originally won election in his district with less than 50 percent of the vote. Thanks in large part to the power of incumbency and a series of mediocre challengers, he soon was winning reelection with close to 75 percent of the vote. But in 2004 he slipped back to 60 percent and while he recovered to around 66 percent (still nearly 10 points off his peak) in 2006, he barely got fifty percent of the vote in this year's Democratic primary -- a big drop off from the 75 percent he has typically gotten when faced with a primary challenge. He should and will win re-election, but his support in his own district is not what it once was.

[defendandprotect]

150. Haven't there been reports of a lot of right-wing money coming in to defeat Kucinich?

[Pierre.Suave]

161. Yes

I wonder what they might be afraid of...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. only if we really want to lose congress again.

[Connonym]

14. if we take her off the table can we throw her under the bus?

:shrug:

[KitchenWitch]

15. Can we make her jump the shark?

[Pierre.Suave]

16. Why not

she did it to us...

:mad:

[crim son]

18. In love with that idea.

Let's take her off and put her under.

[Pierre.Suave]

22. Hey there Crim son

the most beautiful and wonderful woman on DU. How are you today?

Thank you for agreeing with me, but I knew you would because you are so very intelligent.

[crim son]

24. Flattery will get you everywhere!

I'm doing very well. We have a house showing in a few hours so I'm going to finish up around here, working until noon or so and then I'm taking the rest of the day OFF! I hope you're well, jasonc! *hugs* Lisa :loveya:

[Pierre.Suave]

25. Ohhh, good luck with the showing

I hope it ends well with a sale...

Enjoy the day off after that!

I am very well, thanks.

:hug: back.

[Orsino]

20. I'm not seeing real leadership from her...

...much less any attempt to craft the legislation we need. I'm having trouble remembering what we thought was so great about her, besides her being the first female Speaker.

[Pierre.Suave]

23. There is nothing good about her

not a thing, unless you are a repuglicon and enjoy having your freedoms taken away.

[Zuiderelle]

29. She voted against the FISA bill

....unlike our presidential candidate. x(

[Pierre.Suave]

30. That is similar to

using your finger to plug the dam.

totally useless and pointless.

[PeaceNikki]

26. What specifically are your issues with her?

Other than the fact that she doesn't want to proceed with impeachment hearings? (and, BTW, she's FAR from alone on that)

[Pierre.Suave]

28. Other than refusing to hold impeachment hearings

There is the appeasement of the repuglicons, her complacency in the crimes of the Bush admin, her participation in them and unwillingness to stop and take a stand against the atrocities committed by the bush admin. By letting them break the law, she is an accomplice, and is just as guilty in the end as bush, cheney, rumsfeld, etc...

As are many other reps of course.

[Zuiderelle]

40. "appeasement" and "complacency" aren't exactly quantifiable things.

The entire House and Senate are just as complicit, by that line of logic. Let's just do away with the entire government.

[Pierre.Suave]

41. NO

how about we do away with all that are guilty of it.

yes, that includes most of congress.

Damn, it would be a shame if we had to elect non-criminals to governmental office...

[Zuiderelle]

42. And how do you suggest we elect people who you don't consider to be criminals?

And how do we just "do away" with most of congress. Where's your plan? Or is just pie in the sky?

[Pierre.Suave]

45. Doing away with congress is easy

it involves voting for new people.

I thought you knew that? or were you hoping I was advocating for the overthrow of the government?

[Zuiderelle]

46. Oh, thanks. I didn't know it was so easy to do away with Congress.

Just voting, great, I'll vote them all out myself in November. Oh wait, other people vote too? Hmm... what to do in all those red states and republican and libertarian voters. It's a quandary.

[PeaceNikki]

51. Don't forget the people who are actually in Pelosi's CD

who *GASP* like her! :o

[Pierre.Suave]

53. They should feel guilty

for actually voting for her, and ashamed of themselves for not actively working to get someone to run against her.

Or, maybe they agree with the repuglicons...

[Richardo]

62. Yes, San Francisco is a hotbed of GOP sympathizers

They secretly agree with the repigliconmen.

[Pierre.Suave]

65. if they dont vote her out

they are voting for a repuglicon shill.

What do you propose I conclude from that?

[PeaceNikki]

69. That they are happy with the many things she's accomplished.

And don't give a *FUCK* what jasonc thinks.

Conclude that.

[Pierre.Suave]

75. her accomplishments?

She has successfully accomplished letting the Bush admin destroy the constitution.

She has allowed everything wrong that the bush admin has done, and will do in their remaining time by refusing to hold them accountable.

What more could we ask from her...:eyes:

[Zuiderelle]

78. Jasonc has allowed everything wrong that the bush admin has done.

Makes about as much sense.

Do you even know Pelosi's record? Do you even understand all that she's done? It doesn't sound like you do with all the talking points about destroying this and destroying that and "repuglicons" etc. It sounds like a joke actually.

[Pierre.Suave]

80. Coming from you

I will take that as a compliment...

I don't care what she has done, I care what she does NOW, because NOW is when it MATTERS.

No criminal can get out of the crime by claiming they did good things in the past, everyone has to be held accountable for their actions, it is time for her to step up and do that, or get the fuck out of the way, or she should be held just as accountable.

[Zuiderelle]

91. You're full of pejoratives and lame talking points.

That's all I see. Criminals OUT of Congress RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Let's vote EVERY ONE of them out of congress! Every one that doesn't vote to IMPEACH is a CRIMINAL. Get the FUCK out of the way! Step up to the PLATE! SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Pierre.Suave]

95. the 6 smilies

dont help you any.

And Pelosi has that choice everyday, to step up and do the right thing, she actively chooses not to.

if I had that choice it would take me about .0000000000000000000000000000000001 microseconds to say YES lets get the investigations going.

infact, I would have never let it get this bad without fighting tooth and nail to preserve our rights, and our freedoms, and the truth.

She does nothing...

Explain to me why?

[Zuiderelle]

98. Here...

I'll add another

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Pierre.Suave]

100. SO you dont really have an answer?

thats what I thought, I must have misunderestimated you...

[Zuiderelle]

103. I don't have answers to people who have no real questions, no.

Perhaps you've misunderestimated yourself with this thread.

[onenote]

147. I'll offer an answer:

YOu said: "if I had that choice it would take me about .0000000000000000000000000000000001 microseconds to say YES lets get the investigations going."

But the thing is, you don't have that choice and there is a reason -- you could never become speaker taking such a position because in the end, the speaker's job is not to dictate and tilt at windmills, it is to build a consensus and get things done that are doable. And looking at the range of views that constitute the Democratic caucus, there is a definite limit to what is doable. I know it pains you that not every one is progressive, but its a fact and one that cannot simply be wished away.

[PeaceNikki]

88. Yes. Her many accomplishments.

Google them. There are many.

[Pierre.Suave]

93. yes I know

I am reminded of them every time I go put gas in my car, or see a news report of the Iraq war, and the soldiers dying over there so the bushies can get rich. Every time I hear about the US torturing someone, I am reminder of her many accomplishments, or how the US is trying to deny someone their constitutional protections, or wiretapping us all without a warrant.

I am reminded of her many accomplishments...

[PeaceNikki]

97. HA! Yes, *SHE* is responsible for all of that.

Of course!! Now it all makes sense.

Who are your Congressional Representatives, Jason?

[Pierre.Suave]

102. Betty McCollum is my congressional rep

and my senators are Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

none of them are the speaker of the house.

[PeaceNikki]

110. What's Betty's stance on impeachment? She has a vote...

[Pierre.Suave]

137. Betty McCollum is not the speaker o0f the house

and if Nancy was truly a Leader, Betty's vote would not be in question.

[PeaceNikki]

66. Totally!! You guys are total right-wing nutbags out there!!

[terrya]

70. Not a well known fact...

All the gays in San Francisco? Log Cabin Republicans. Each and every one of them. :-(

[Zuiderelle]

73. Perhaps we could introduce a proposal for secession of the district.

[PeaceNikki]

92. I second this motion.

Oh wait, no, I don't.

[PeaceNikki]

44. Huh, that's not real specific.

I know it's fun to jump on the bandwagon of hating her and starting real heated political discussions in the Lounge, I, however, choose to know why specifcally I support or don't support a representative. That's just me, though.

[Richardo]

27. That's pretty much up to the voters in the 8th District of California

"We" who don't live there have very little, if any, say in the matter.

[Pierre.Suave]

31. SO you think I should just not care

what the speaker of the house has to say about stuff?

[Richardo]

34. Uh, no.

I'm just saying that it's not a nationwide office that non-residents can do anything about - directly.

I suppose everyone could contact their own representative and suggest that he or she not vote to re-elect Pelosi as Speaker in the next Congress, but the rules, traditions and dynamics of House Seniority/Leadership are arcane at best and intra-party insurrections are usually ill-fated.

Not that you shouldn't express your displeasure, it's just unlikely to produce the results you're looking for.

[terrya]

32. Absolutely right.

For instance, *I* would be a bit incensed if someone were to tell me, someone who lived outside of my district, that my representative, Jan Schakowsky, needed "to go". Because, well, that is up to me and the other folks in Illinois' 9th Congressional district.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. And it really becomes absurd when people talk about voting her out of the Speaker position

as I have seen argued several times.

[terrya]

48. Well, if I was an elected member of the House of Representatives

then I could have a say in who would be the Speaker of the House.

But I'm not. Nor is anyone on DU.

[Pierre.Suave]

50. So youre saying that we cant vote?

anymore? That votes no longer count as to who gets elected to congress?

Thanks for clearing that up...

[terrya]

57. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The 435 elected members of the House of Representatives vote as to who will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I don't get a vote...since I'm not a member of the House of Representatives.

And...you're welcome.

[Pierre.Suave]

81. You're also a fucking idiot

because any 5th grader could read what I said and would KNOW that I never said we need to vote her out as speaker only, but instead vote her out of congress...

[terrya]

84. Why don't you fly out to San Francisco and talk to everyone in her district?

Since, you know, THEY decide who THEIR representative shall be?

[Pierre.Suave]

86. Yeah

I should do that.

personally.

[PeaceNikki]

101. Hey now, young man... don't call him a "fucking idiot". That is a personal attack.

[Zuiderelle]

122. More insults. No solutions. Are we allowed to call people idiots here now?

Then you are a fucking idiot, jasonc.

[PeaceNikki]

125. Yay, we MUST be allowed! Hey, Jason. YOU are a fucking idiot

[Pierre.Suave]

49. Yes, by you...

cause you are the only one I have ever seen mention it...

You are aware that if she is voted out of congress, she is no longer the speaker, right?

[PeaceNikki]

52. You are aware that you have to be IN her congressional district to vote for or against her, right?

And that she's represented her district for over 20 years, right?

And that since her initial victory in 1987, she has been re-elected 10 times, receiving at least 75% of the vote, right?

[Pierre.Suave]

54. Who says we cant change that?

I think if there was an investigation into the misdeed of the Bushies, we may just find that there were some misdeeds by the speaker, and some complacency in the taking of constitutional rights, among many other things.

So, tell me again why do you think she has taken impeachment off the table?

Give me on good reason...

I will wait...

I can also financially support a challenger. or I can move to her district, support a challenger, expose all her misdeeds, and vote against her...

[PeaceNikki]

55. Because it is an exercise in futility.

Like trying to explain her position (as well as Russ Feingold's) to you.

[Pierre.Suave]

82. Yeah, shame on me

for wanting there to be consequences for the actions of elected official...

:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

94. No, shame on you for your ignorance.

And spewing of talking points. And for trying to rally people to oust a Dem in favor of a non-Dem.

[Pierre.Suave]

96. A non dem?

again with the making shit up.

or are you unaware that more than 1 dem can run?

[PeaceNikki]

107. um, Pelosi won the primary.

So, yeah...

[PeaceNikki]

132. See that down thread, J-man? 89% of the Democratic primary votes wanted to keep Pelosi

I didn't "make shit up", you're an ignorant fool who knows nothing of which he speaks.

She won the primary with 89%. You do understand what that means, don't you?

See, look:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0859.htm

U.S. Congress - District 8

100.% ( 473 of 473 ) precincts reporting as of Jun. 25, 2008, at 10:09 a.m. Previous District Select District Next District

U.S. Congress District 8 DemocraticDemocratic 100.% ( 473 of 473 ) precincts reporting as of Jun. 25, 2008, at 10:09 a.m.

Candidate Votes Percent
Shirley Golub 10,107 10.7 %
Nancy Pelosi 83,517 89.3 %

[PeaceNikki]

63. Her challenger is not a Dem and doing so on DU is breaking rules.

Let's not advocate that, ok?

[Pierre.Suave]

83. LOLZORZ

nice try, but I never said we should support a repuglicon. infact, I think anyone reading this thread without the blind hate and rage some of you have for me, would be able to figure that out pretty damn easily...

[PeaceNikki]

109. Pssst. Your ignorance is showing.

:blush:

[EstimatedProphet]

213. So because the great jasonc hasn't seen it, it never happened.

How do you fit all that ego into one body?

[Pierre.Suave]

64. Newsflash

what these reps do, affects us all.

[BeachBaby]

33. Sounds like a plan, jason.

:hi:

I'm right on board with you, buddy; especially when I see pictures like these:





There is nothing in that eye contact and body language that shows an ounce of contempt coming from Pelosi. Jesus, she looks like a dang cheerleader! :mad:

But there is one thing that sits in the back of my mind....do you think there's any possibility at all that the reason impeachment is "off the table" right now is because Bush has pardoning power until January? In other words, what's the point in coming after people now who will just get pardoned in a few months? Any chance they're just sitting back until he loses pardoning privileges?

[Richardo]

35. Not sure I see a 'plan' in the OP

:shrug:

[Pierre.Suave]

37. lol

this made me laugh...

[Pierre.Suave]

36. Those pics make me MAD!

and I dont think that he can pardon people if he is impeached at the same time as Dick Cheney, etc...

I think the reason has more to do with her complicity in the crimes, as well as other dems. They do not want that to come out in the investigations.

[Richardo]

38. jasonc, he can perform *all* of his Presidential duties if impeached, including pardons.

He has to be convicted by 67 Senators to be removed from office. If that doesn't happen, he skates.

[Pierre.Suave]

39. Well then

it sounds like Nancy better suck it up and take her blows for the good of the country and make sure that those senators know that when the shit hits the fan, all their secrets will be let out of the bag too...

or they can vote to remove him from office.

Of course she will never do that...She is too cowardly.

[DS1]

43. I wouldn't put her on a table in the first place

oh, that

:yoiks:

[meegbear]

56. She shouldn't be on the table in the first place!

Bad Nancy! Bad! Bad!

[terrya]

60. I've told her not to drink tequila!

But does she listen? No, she does not. :-(

[BridgeTheGap]

68. So, who here has "had Nancy" on the table!?! n.t

[democracyindanger]

87. Let's start by not doing GD posts in the Lounge.

:shrug:

[Pierre.Suave]

89. How about

this thread was never meant to go down this route...

[Zuiderelle]

104. You talk about getting rid of Pelosi and somehow expect lounge unicorns and rainbows?

:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. female politicians have to follow our liberal ideology 100%, otherwise they are traitors

men however... not so much.

[Zuiderelle]

118. With support of FISA and the death penalty and opposition to gun control from our nominee

it would appear that you are, regrettably, correct in your assessment. Obama would not support impeachment at this stage of the game, any more than Pelosi. And it would be stupid to do so.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

121. and favoring faith based initiatives and having nunn in his inner circle

yet, clearly its pelosi who is too right wing.

i am glad she is pragmatic enough to know this is a bad bad time to start an impeachment hearing

bah.

[Pierre.Suave]

194. When is it a good time

to do the right thing?

When is it convenient?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

208. when its likely to work out.

[democracyindanger]

113. no worries

Some topics are just destined for a flamewar. :)

[PeaceNikki]

114. Yay!! Cuz everyone in the Lounge likes when you spew out talking points you know nothing about

And then call OTHER people "fucking idiots".

You're a real peach!

[Pierre.Suave]

136. I call it like I see it

deal with it.

[PeaceNikki]

142. You are an ignorant fool.

[Pierre.Suave]

165. HAHAHA

sure...

[PeaceNikki]

167. You don't even know about what you are speaking.

See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3634387&mesg_id=3634954

[Pierre.Suave]

176. it means we need a stronger dem to challenge her

that changes nothing with the regard for her need to go.

not a thing.

in fact, it is not even relevant to the conversation.

[PeaceNikki]

178. Challenge her WHEN? The primary is OVER.

Duh.

YOU are the one that brought up supporting a challenger in this thread. This election cycle, that would mean supporting a non-Dem.

[Pierre.Suave]

183. Why?

do you know for a fact that there will NEVER be an election after the next one?

maybe you should share that secret knowledge with the rest of us, maybe the FBI, etc...

[KitchenWitch]

105. jasonc - you got MOVED!

:wow:

[LWolf]

106. I wish her constituents had done so in the primary.

They had a great replacement in Golub. :(

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. 89% of the Democratic primary votes wanted to keep Pelosi

[LWolf]

131. I've wondered if they were voting to keep Pelosi, or

if their motivation was keeping the Speaker. If they'd replaced her, the Speaker would probably not have come from their district.

I understand that, but I disagree. If that was the reasoning, punishing the entire nation in order to hold on to some local power that's been, imo, misused anyway, is unethical.

Or it could just be that 89% of her district agrees with her record as Speaker. If so, I find that appalling.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

133. clearly disagreement with you is either unethical or appalling.

never say practical or pragmatic

[LWolf]

152. Not at all.

I know that you are an intelligent person; if you see something that doesn't exist "clearly," then I have to assume that your remarks are disingenuous. That disappoints me.

I disagree with many people, on many subjects, on a daily basis. I don't find disagreement to be unethical or appalling.

I do find leaving a rep in office as a local power play, when that rep has proven herself to be working against the best interest of the nation and the party, to be both unethical and appalling.

You can disagree with my reading of that situation; I won't attack you for your disagreement.

Do you, though, disagree with my point? That leaving a corrupt rep in office as a local power play, against the best interest of the nation and the party, is unethical and appalling?

I see it as mirroring, on a national scale, the corrupt good 'ol boy & girl network that leaves a local mayor, school board member, etc. in office when they know he or she is corrupt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

141. So, you think that perhaps the people who know her best want to keep her as Speaker?

:shrug:

[LWolf]

144. I would't word it that way.

The Speaker, while elected by a local district, is one of the most visual and INFLUENTIAL members of Congress. She's only elected by her district, but she influences all of us.

I don't think you have to be from her district to be aware of her record; to "know" her.

I think her district wants to keep the extra power that the Speaker wields in the district.

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

145. I would imagine the Democrats in the House know her pretty well

Who did they choose as Speaker?

[LWolf]

158. I can tell you my guess, but that's all it is.

I freely and openly acknowledge being quite cynical.

I'd guess they chose her because she would give the party a surface joy that a supposed "liberal" would be speaker, knowing that they could count on her to support complicity.

True or not, if that's the impression that some Democrats have, based on her performance, it's counter productive.

IMO, of course.

[Overseas]

151. Motivation was keeping Speaker from our district.

I finally voted against her because of impeachment issue and was surprised so few of us dared to vote for the geeky Shirley Golub.

[LWolf]

153. That's what I thought. n/t

[Individualist]

120. Excellent idea.

Pelosi is a classic example of the fact that one need not be a card carrying DLC member to be a tool for that subversive organization.

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich

[bdamomma]

149. she is detached to the peoples needs

and she is not listening period.

[book_worm]

155. Isn't she being challenged by Mrs. Shaheen?

[onenote]

174. yes, and for those who want to support her opponent, we have lovely tombstones ready

Not saying that's what you're suggesting, however.

[PeaceNikki]

175. The OP has stated a few times in this thread that we should support a challenger

But then again, he foolishly and ignorantly believes there is a Democratic challenger. :crazy:

[Pierre.Suave]

184. God you are dumb

Unless you have full knowledge that this upcoming election is the FINAL one, then why dont you just shut the fuck up?

There is always another election...

[PeaceNikki]

186. Ah ha! ha!! ha!

:rofl:

You're ignorance is epic.

Here's an artist's rendering of your thread:

[Zuiderelle]

188. Or this...

[PeaceNikki]

190. Or this

[Pierre.Suave]

192. Why?

does everyone but me know that there will be no elections after this one?

[PeaceNikki]

196. Right, CLEARLY you meant in FUTURE elections.

[Pierre.Suave]

202. Yes clearly

I did not think I would need to specify that for someone as intelligent as you...

:eyes:

[bdamomma]

157. maybe she should spend more time with her grandchildren.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

168. You and what electorate?

The group you refer to as "we" doesn't have enough votes to remove Pelosi, thankfully.

Pelosi deserves a lot of credit for standing up to the impassioned cries for electoral suicide from Kucinich and his ilk, at considerable cost to her own reputation (albeit less cost than giving in to him would have).

[PeaceNikki]

171. Great post

:applause:

[Pierre.Suave]

180. So, you would give up the country

and all your civil liberties and rights previously guaranteed by the constitution, just to give her her reputation?

Which, lets face it, her rep aint all that good. Her rep is as the bush admins complacent lapdog democratic speaker...

is that what you want to sell out our country for?

Damn, you come cheap.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

187. I'm sorry, I think you're confused.

I'm praising Pelosi for *not* "giving up the country", and taking the course most likely to result in the removal of the Republicans from government, *even though* it has resulted her aquiring a (largely unjust) reputation as "the bush admins complacent lapdog democratic speaker".

If anything, Kucinich is the one advocating selling out the country, and letting the Republicans stay in power, for the sake of a warm fuzzy self-righteous feeling, which is the only thing his inevitably-doomed impeachment procedings would achieve.

[Pierre.Suave]

193. That and saving

everything else....

When did we decide it was ok to lie cheat and steal, as long as you are republican, or are doing it for the good of the country, and damn the constitution to hell anyway, it is quaint...

Right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

197. We didn't.

What I, at least, have decided (I can't speak for "we") is that just because something isn't OK doesn't mean that any measure whose stated goal is to oppose it is desirable.

No prosecutor will or should go ahead with a case unless they have at least some chance of conviction.

The only difference between supporting impeachment procedings and praying to Zeus to have Bush struck by lightning is that the latter won't do any harm.

[PeaceNikki]

201. I'll be borrowing that last sentence on occasion.

:patriot:

[DailyGrind51]

177. Cindy Sheehan for SOTH!

[fla nocount]

191. Shades of IndianaGreen......it's a conglomerate

The DLC,Dems Leaning Centrist, professional paid posters are all over the boards today. Some have handles as ludicrous and out-dated as mine.

Lots of inflammatory opinions flying about but one fact remains, every time Nance plants her wrinkled prune ass in Sam Rayburn's chair the soul of the nation shudders. Sam was central to legislation that made the Speakers Chair central to what made it to the floor, but Sam was a Populist with a vision for the people. He saw the power he gave to the chair as benign and accumulated that power in response to the Coolidge/Hoover era of citizens as chattel. Sam was a simple man, he gave no thought to the notion that the Coolidge/Hoover's might have children named Pelosi.

[JustAnotherGen]

200. I suggested that

A couple of months ago and received some feeback along the lines of "I'm not willing to suggest ousting any Democrat."

:rofl: It was my first original post too! :rofl: Oh well - all we can do is hope that with a Democrat in the White House she'll pull out those tenacious ovaries we all used to love her for.

[lonestarnot]

205. An ass never belongs on a table anyway!

[Danascot]

212. I believe Cindy Sheehan is opposing Pelosi as an Independent

I doubt she'll do well in the election though, so it looks like we'll be stuck with Pelosi. I think we'd be better off focusing our efforts lobbying House dems to vote someone else as Speaker after the elections. We're stuck with Nancy for now.

www.cindyforcongress.org

[EstimatedProphet]

214. Yeah. Maybe we'll get Steny Hoyer.