Impeach Pelosi!
… for not impeaching Bush!
I don’t know, just a thought. Just trying to be helpful.
It’s painful to watch the distress that progressive anti-war American mandate holders are experiencing. For example, just yesterday Pelosi told some frustated Dem bloggers a Bush impeachment isn’t worth it. It would be too much work. It would be different if he was a “new president,” but there are only two years of America’s nightmare left:
Pelosi’s argument against impeachment was, simply, that it wouldn’t be worth expending the political capital and effort to push the process forward. If the situation had been Bush coming in as a new president, she said, things might have been different, but with less than two years left on his watch and his record as a miserable failure etched in stone , the stronger weapon was oversight. Pelosi specifically mentioned the subpoena power that, she said, is making the Dem Congress “Bush’s worst nightmare.”
Well, OK. That’s worked out pretty well for them so far.
But let me get this straight. Bush and his “junta” are a gang of criminals who have hijacked the United States and trampled on the Constitution, sent U.S. soldiers to meaningless deaths in an illegal war, imprisoned innocent militants in the hated Crusader gulag at Guantanamo, caused the world to hate us, thumbed their noses at Congress, subverted the Justice Department, etc. But despite these outrages, it “wouldn’t be worth expending the political capital and effort to push the process forward.”
This is interesting. He has committed all these crimes, but it isn’t worth it. What kind of crimes does he need to commit? Here’s a hint:
… the courts would be particularly unfriendly to Democratic moves for criminal investigations unless they substantially “built the cases” for each move.
Real crimes, apparently. Crimes on which cases must be built. But that’s an awful lot of work. Really hard. Even harder if you don’t have any crimes to start with. OK, moving on:
Essentially, Pelosi argued that we need to push forward and get a Dem in the White House in 2008 to really start enacting serious change, noting that even with majorities in both Houses, the Dems’ power could not overcome the 60 Senate votes needed to beat a Bush veto, and that the courts would be particularly unfriendly to Democratic moves for criminal investigations unless they substantially “built the cases” for each move. “Let the process play out,” she said. “Oversight isn’t political, it’s patriotic.”
Well, that depends how you exercise your oversight. Judging by the last six months of Democratic leadership in Congress, “oversight” is a political process that involves much protestation of patriotism but ultimately means watching as Bush does what he was going to do anyway.
The blogger tries to rationalize Pelosi’s ennui by citing the fundamental political weakness of the Dems … strangely no mention of the mandate of the people … and a “20 percent sexism tax” attached to anything Pelosi does.*
Then he returns to impotent rage:
Bush has almost two years left to do incalculable damage and to continue to sully and stain the future and reputation of our country. At a time when the nation’s mindset is leaning more progressive left than ever, and we have strong enough leaders in Congress and elsewhere to make the change, it’s tough to accept that impeaching Bush (and Cheney) for their flagrant violations of law and ethics can’t be done. Right now, they are in the way of making this country a better place.
Indeed, the biggest obstacles to turning this country around are in the White House right now. And when an obstacle is in your way, you find a way around it, or you go through it. If we can’t get around them, then they need to go.
Our lefty blogger pal is absolutely right. This lack of Democratic leadership is an outrage! It’s time someone stepped forward to do what needs to be done. Impeach Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for gross incompetence for failing to act on the mandate of the people and rid us of this scourge, this frightful junta. Find someone who can righteously lead the Democrats out of this wilderness. I don’t know. Murtha and Obama, maybe. Whoops, Obama’s no good:
“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,” he said.
None of the Bush junta’s “breeches” are grave enough? Impeach Obama! Also, impeach the Associated Press for not knowing the difference between infractions and colonial trousers! Impeach everyone! Now!
There’s just one thing. It has nothing to do with King George’s breeches.
For the past 40 years-odd years the Democrats have been all about surrender. By this standard, not only are Pelosi and Reid exemplary leaders for their party, but the chances of finding anyone in their ranks who wouldn’t consider it too much trouble to unseat them are remote.
*The “20 percent sexism tax” is an interesting idea. I’ve seen people react against her because, for example, her choice of Murtha for No. 2 alarmed and offended many in her own party. Then there was the push to undercut U.S. troops in the field, when she didn’t have either the votes to pull it off in the first place or anything remotely resembling an alternative plan to address critical U.S. interests. Also, the freelance treating with foreign dictators and acting, poorly, as a go-between for third parties. There are some other losses and exceedingly bad ideas in there. Sorry, I’m starting to lose track. But in those matters she has established herself as a poor politician on her own merits, quite apart from any issue of gender. Unless this guy is trying to suggest that being politically clueless is an inherently female trait. That aside, in the House as a whole, 20 percent is 87 votes. Among the Democrats, its 46 votes. She’s lost some Dems due to poor politics, and probably failed to convince some fringe Republicans for the same reason, but its hard to find a 20 percent “sexism tax” in there. Anyway, is this guy suggesting that one in five of America’s progressive, forward-thinking Dems is a male chauvinist pig, or that 20 percent of Republicans would flock to her if only she had the right plumbing?
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:14 am Comments (21) on Friday, June 29, 2007
21 Responses to “Impeach Pelosi!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I am not too hot on the constitution but can’t Pelosi be impeached or something?
June 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
[...] Jules Crittenden has the post of the day after Pelosi’s announcement to a group of hungry liberal bloggers that the President is not [...]
June 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Goddam Democrats, soft on crime as usual.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Pelosi’s argument against impeachment was, simply, that it wouldn’t be worth expending the political capital and effort to push the process forward.
Besides, if a Republican wins the White House in ‘08, Pelosi’s Posse needs to start working on that impeachment.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
The Constitution provides for the impeachment of elected officials for malfeasance while in office. Malfeasance does not have to be a crime. It can be as simple as overstepping the job definition for instance.
Incompetence, however, is not grounds for considering malfeasance per se. The mechanism to remove incompetents from office is elections. You could stretch it to fit I suppose if the level of incompetence meant that the elected official were overstepping the bounds of his or her office, which might fit Pelosi depending on what your measure of competence is, but it would be a hard if not impossible sell. It would also be a hard sell because though her efforts to make the powers of the executive office subject to legislative primogeniture is an assault on the separation of powers, it is a matter of calculation, not incompetence . She’s careful about staying in a teasing mode rather than step completely over the line..
So nothing Pelosi has overtly done would give cause for impeachment. Just as nothing Bush has overtly done gives cause for impeachment. Pelosi knows this, but isn’t about to confront the rabid wing of her party by coming out and saying so. It’s easier and far more politic to paint it as a distracting to her work on their behalf when the benefit would be only pushing Bush out a year ahead of time (considering time for the process in the equation).
I find this part interesting, ‘…If the situation had been Bush coming in as a new president, she said, things might have been different…’
The implication is that she would entertain, (at least for the idealogical consumption of that particular audience), the idea of impeaching a new president just coming into office. Since the a new president just coming into office wouldn’t have given grounds for impeachment based on malfeasance, she basically saying that she would entertain overturning elections through impeachment.
I find this ‘…his record as a miserable failure etched in stone…’, also interesting,. First, that’s an opinion held by a very small number of people who don’t represent themselves well in the eyes of the general public. Second, it’s dripping with irony given Pelosi’s track record since she’s been speaker and whatever one thinks of the guy’s decisions or agenda as a whole, Pelosi isn’t in his league as far as success in achieving his/her agenda. Third, though this statement is intended as power play posturing to the captive audience of the rabid left, it also paints Pelosi as the willing sycophant of that audience.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“For example, just yesterday Pelosi told some frustated Dem bloggers a Bush impeachment isn’t worth it.”
There isn’t going to be any impeachment of President Bush, because there is no case for impeachment and the Democratic leadership knows there is no case.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
‘There isn’t going to be any impeachment of President Bush, because there is no case for impeachment and the Democratic leadership knows there is no case.’
And if they were leaders, or even statesmen, they’d tell the BDS clown college exactly that instead of pandering to it with the implied promise of impeachment as a substitute for the polllng booth in the future.
Leadership in either major party is pretty thin on the ground these days
June 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
And has anyone considered that they are killing the means (impeachment) by which we might rid ourselves of the truly venal or incompetent?
June 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I don’t think that would matter whether they agreed with that as a probable outcome or not in the case of Bush. There’s a great deal of angst over Clinton’s impeachment. An awful lot of people whose idea of functional government is it that it provide and promote a feel good lifestyle without the burden of consequences loved Clinton. It shook their world to the core when the man’s core venality couldn’t be papered over any longer. It was bad enough that the electorate rejected them in 2000, close or not, and when the consequences of ‘I feel your pain’ came to roost on 9/11, someone, anyone, had to be responsible except themselves.
If they could rehabilitate Clinton and place him in stark contrast to Bush, then that responsibility can be laid at Bush’s feet and catharsis achieved. But they can’t rehabilitate Clinton. Nobody will buy it. His venality and incompetence is a matter of record and they can never raise the man back up. Next best thing is to bring Bush down far enough that Clinton’s relative if not absolute stature looks good in comparison.
BDS has it’s roots in the 90’s and took hold in people who want ‘party on Garth’ back no matter what the consequences If the means to that end is hobbling the executive office for terms to come, well…no matter what the consequences.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Just curious, but if Bush is guilty for getting us into an “illegal war” in Iraq, what is the plea of those in Congress who voted for that war? Does “I changed my mind” change the fact that they voted for it in the first place, or remove their responsibility?
I’m afraid changing Pelosi’s gender wouldn’t make much difference. Reid is the designated gender and he is just as incompetent. Perhaps it is that metro-sexual thing that has feminized males to the point of political incompetence.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Got some high grade pharmaceutical grade crazy there. Truly outstanding stuff.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“Just curious, but if Bush is guilty for getting us into an “illegal war” in Iraq…”
If they try and impeach on that basis then the GOP will march into the hearings with a list of the hundreds of bombing raids conducted by the Clinton administration against Iraq, raids that continued right up until the day Clinton left office, raids that were supported by all the leaders of the Democrat Party.
Ain’t going to happen.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Pelosi won’t be impeached, alas. Her constituents love her too much. Which says very little of positive value of that part of the United States.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
“Which says very little of positive value of that part of the United States.”
She represents the People’s Republic of San Francisco.
And, she’s the ideal choice.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Uhmm, secession? Do you think that we could convince them to do it? All of California wouldn’t have to do it but…..
June 30th, 2007 at 2:53 am
“Uhmm, secession? Do you think that we could convince them to do it? ”
Personally, I’d opt for a low yield nuclear weapon.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am
“The Constitution provides for the impeachment of elected officials for malfeasance while in office. Malfeasance does not have to be a crime. It can be as simple as overstepping the job definition for instance.”
I don’t believe the Constitution mentions “malfeasance” in the context of grounds for impeachment. The phrase in the document is “high crimes and misdemeanors”
Nothing this President has done (right or wrong) rises (or descends) to that standard.
It’s gratuitous for Nancy Pelosi to acknowledge that.
Last week, Barack Obama emitted some blah, blah blah along the same lines, him being quoted by USA Today that Bush’s “breeches” (that would be Bush’s short pants) don’t rise to the level for impeachment.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“I don’t believe the Constitution mentions “malfeasance” in the context of grounds for impeachment. The phrase in the document is “high crimes and misdemeanors””
True, it doesn’t, but it’s a good example of why we look to the Supreme Court for rulings on whether laws and their application are consistent with the Constitution. Law is not codified in the Constitution.. Malfeasance is the benchmark in both state and federal code used to distinguish misdemeanors that would constitute grounds for impeachment from those that aren’t. The legal term malfeasance is considered to be misconduct in office and/or failure to discharge public obligations related to the office. For example, jaywalking is a misdemeanor. That wouldn’t count. Not because it’s not a crime – it is – but because it does not meet the test of malfeasance. High crimes always (almost) count as malfeasance by inclusion as misconduct in office.
Misdemeanors that would count as those that aren’t considered high crimes (felonies), but those that are related to the office in question. Corruption of purpose (going outside the bounds of the office) is one that I recall from looking at the issue a few weeks back. Another is incompetence. Both of these misdemeanors could be subjectively interpreted one way or the other as grounds for impeachment even when proven because they would have to meet the test for malfeasance. High crimes if proven, are relatively objective on that score.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“Malfeasance is the benchmark in both state and federal code used to distinguish misdemeanors that would constitute grounds for impeachment from those that aren’t. The legal term malfeasance is considered to be misconduct in office and/or failure to discharge public obligations related to the office.”
Malfeasance is just doing something illegal.
It assumes willful intent on the part of the wrongdoer.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/E7EAA402-5E12-4C29-B6A862D491BB6A95/alpha/M/
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Malfeasance is the benchmark in both state and federal code used to distinguish misdemeanors that would constitute grounds for impeachment from those that aren’t.”
This is correct. It folds back way up thread into the concept of malfeasance in office and it’s relationship to grounds for impeachment. Might take a bit more than searching out a single definition to discover this.
Your own link supports it.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:23 am
A Poll That Oversamples Democrats Favors Disregarding The Constitution
Apparently, she understands that, per the Constitution, “real crimes” need to be committed in order to impeach, whilst on the other hand, manufactured, contrived and imagined crimes will suffice for the majority of those who suffer from BDS. Here’s…