portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | political theory oregon elections 2006

Pelosi is in for a Surprise in November

Democratic leaders in Congress may be afraid of impeachment, but if Democratic voters oust Republicans in the fall, it will because they want a street fight, not because they want their party to begin compromising with Bush.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and House Minority Leader who would likely replace Rep. Dennis Hastert in November if Democrats succeed in taking over the House of Representatives, made a snarky comment on NBC over the weekend when asked about impeachment and about Rep. John Conyers, who would head the Judiciary Committee in a Democratic House.

Asked by "Meet the Press's" Tim Russert about impeachment talk, Pelosi reportedly said, "Democrats are not about impeachment--Democrats are about bringing the country together."

Reminded that Conyers has all but invited submission of a bill of impeachment on his watch, having already filed his own bill calling for a select committee to investigate possible impeachable acts by the president, Pelosi said the Judiciary Committee is "not where the [impeachment] decision would be made" and added (sounding an awful lot like the Great Decider himself), "I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we're going... I don't see us going to a place of impeachment."

Pelosi is in for a big surprise.

She and the rest of the Democratic leadership (if they can really even be called such), are so scared of their shadows, so scared of challenging Republicans on anything but stem cells and Social Security, that impeachment has them cowering under rocks. The public is way out front on this, however, and if the party, despite its seeming death-wish desire to nominate Hillary Clinton for the presidency, somehow manages to win the House in November, there will be a clamor for Bush's head which will drag them along behind it.

All it takes is one rogue member of the House submitting a bill of impeachment to initiate the process in the Judiciary Committee, and if enough red-blooded Democrats come out and vote to oust Republicans this November, it would be political suicide for Pelosi and her spineless compatriots to try to kill that bill.

Several polls have made it clear that a majority of Americans, and even a fair number of Republicans, think that President Bush should face impeachment if he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq (as he indeed did) or if he broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans (which he admits he did).

Most Democrats, and I dare say most independents, aren't in a mood for conciliation with this president. They certainly aren't going to be electing Democrats in hopes that a new Democratic Congress will start compromising with Bush.

If voters do turn out the Republicans in Congress this fall, it will be because they are in the mood for reversing five years of corruption, war-mongering, nation-wrecking, lying, Constitution trashing, abuse of power and religious posing.

Impeachment will be red meat for these voters; compromise a red flag.

Besides, if Pelosi thinks she and her accommodationist minions--after all the abuse that has been heaped on them by Republicans since 2000--will be able to accomplish anything by cozying up to the president and his party, they are delusional.

The president has made his utter contempt for Congress and the legislative process abundantly clear by issuing an astonishing 750 "signing statements" even as he has signed that many acts of Congress into law, declaring in each case that as "commander in chief" he is not bound to enforce or obey those laws. What this means is that Democrats can pass all the bills they want after they win control of Congress, but unless they remove or neuter this president via impeachment hearings, they're wasting their time.

Pelosi may be uncomfortable with the role of oppositionist, but an increasingly restive electorate looks increasingly likely to force her hand.

For other stories by Lindorff, please go (at no charge) to This Can't Be Happening! .

To find out more about the new book, The Case for Impeachment, click here. For early review quotes, check out the "Impeachment News" box on the top right of the homepage at This Can't Be Happening! .

homepage: homepage: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Pelosi Dems STAND FOR NOTHING "aren't for impeachment or auditable elections." 08.May.2006 16:34

enablers of fascism watch

The Bush Regime has something on Pelosi:


Title: Sen. Boxer's press conference on CSPAN2 censored; Senate live coverage censored on CSPAN2, Pelosi inserted instead quickly to talk about anything except the Electoral College vote and Senator Barbara Boxer's documented press conference challenge.

Author: imcista
Date: 2005.01.06 10:27

CSPAN originally announced that one channel would be covering Senate and one covering the House counting of the Electoral Votes. Fair enough I thought. Next, before that, CSPAN2 actually had half of Sen. Boxer's press conference describing myriad problems with the Ohio voting infrastructure that showed systemic vote fraud. HOWEVER, IT WAS CENSORED. DURING THE BOXER PRESS CONFERENCE, which was framed as a series of questions about all the different levels of fraud, CSPAN TWO CUT AWAY FROM HER, MUTED a Senator's voice to nothingness, and an anonymous voice came on and described "at this time, Senators and Representatives are moving to their respective houses, etc." and we saw several minutes of senators and representatives walking over, without anything actually going on, while someone made a decision to remove Sen. Boxer's statement from the visual live record, and move her to a smaller MUTE screen in the bottom left-hand corner while we saw silent Congress people walking, and walking, and walking. The walking had very important sound coverage. Sen. Boxer did not!

Then CSPAN put up Pelosi and she avoided the whole topic of vote fraud, and CSPAN at present is not covering the counting like the said earlier they would.


Nancy Pelosi...is going down in a rash of fake nervous smiles, etc.

I want to know what went on behind the cameras at CSPAN this afternoon to put Nancy fake Democrat Pelosi on the screen to hide the challenge to the Senate counting of Electoral Votes. AT this moment, CSPAN2 is denying coverage of the Senate, and only showing the House.

Why in the hell do we want to see the head representative of Democratic complicity of the vote fraud, Pelosi talk about social security at this moment? Well, perhaps I answered my own question there.

However, immediately after her short introtalk about her press conference on social security, one of the many questions to Pelosi started to talk about the Electoral College instead. She was adamant she did not want to talk about it. However, the reporter was insistent she veer away from her spiel on social security at this moment.

Because she is there, does this mean that she is running away from the Electoral College floor at present at well? Sure looks like it. And the press in this moment, is hardly buying Pelosi's scams and are steering her back to the Electoral College issue, which made her look like a deer in the headlights.

Polosi was straightfowardly asked "Do you support Sen. Boxer's challenge of Ohio Electoral College Vote?"

Pelosi refuses to answer the question directly at all. Instead she describes the systemic vote fraud issues, etc., etc., however, she says she will vote to certify. She calls it an "opportunity to talk about making everyone's vote count" or something like that. So, Pelosi after a longwinded discussion of avoiding supporting or denying support to Boxer, was point blank at last asked by the repoter once more

reporter: "So, you support Senator Boxer?

Pelosi [with a fake smile that is about to break and fall on the floor, lots of swallowing and very visible nervousness]: "I didn't say that."


pic from the press conference CSPAN censored! ~~ 06.Jan.2005 18:45
as described above link

United States Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) discuss their filing of their formal objection to the certification of President Bush. (Mannie Garcia - Reuters)


Yeah, why _did_ you vote for Kerry? 08.Jan.2005 19:37
Non voter link

You were told repeatedly and clearly, (especially by one of the few political journals with any balls  http://www.counterpunch.org ) that the choice between Kerry and Bush was a bogus choice and that the Greens under Cobb were a stalking horse for the Democrats. The only possible "protest vote" (if you believe in the sham of representative electoral democracy) were Nader or Badnardik.

Whinging about how you were tricked at this stage of the game is just irritating.


remember whom you are dealing with 08.May.2006 17:31


George Bush the First is connected to many assasinations. Senator Daschle questioned the Patriot Act and got anthrax mailed to him! It will take massive public support for the Dems to go through with impeachment. WE CAN DO IT! We are led by thugs and assasins.

Expose 911 too!


don't want to piss you off but... 08.May.2006 18:21


Most of the Republicans who won't vote Republican in the fall are pissed at the Republicans, but they aren't that crazy about the Democrats either. They may just stay home and not vote.

Most middle of the road voters who have voted Republican in the past will vote Democrat in the fall, but its more of a vote against republicans not a vote for Democrats.

Hard core democrats want Bush Impeached, but most americans only want problems fixed, not endless hearings about what Bush knew and when he knew it. The Democrat leadership knows the country doesn't want two years of that, but have to balance it without pissing off the democrat base for 2008. They will throw the base some red meat, but don't expect to get full.

If it looks like Bush will be Impeached, he will resign and President Cheney will pardon him, you can bet on it, then Cheney may resign as well, giving you President Hasstert, and the democrat leadership wants to run Campaign Against Bush (even if he isn't running again) in 2008, not Hasstert or Condi Rice..

Newt thought that Impeaching Clinton was a good idea and even as late as Election day he expected to pick up as many as 25 seats. As I remember they lost seats in 1998.

Spineless Pelosi 09.May.2006 07:48

Eric Blair

A letter campaign should be started forthwith to Madam Pelosi that if she doesn't start talking the impeachment talk, she just might not get to enjoy becoming House Speaker when the Democrats gain the majority there. Here's her e-mail address. Send her a loud and clear message NOW.


President Pelosi 09.May.2006 10:00


me said
<i>If it looks like Bush will be Impeached, he will resign and President Cheney will pardon him, you can bet on it, then Cheney may resign as well, giving you President Hasstert, and the democrat leadership wants to run Campaign Against Bush (even if he isn't running again) in 2008, not Hasstert or Condi Rice..</i>

If it looks like Bush will be impeached that would mean the dems have control of the house. Pelosi would be speaker not Hastert.

wicked bushites post to divide 09.May.2006 12:51

Witnessed Pumpkin head badger her

Of course you will see attacks on prominent dems from here on out, disguised to be coming from Dems. Jim Hill is being propped up by Gordon Smiths right-wing media firm as an attempt to spoil Kulungoski's chances. The money is coming from the Grand Ronde intersts. They don't want the competition from Warm springs. Stick together: Liberals of all persuasions