Speaker Pelosi calls the president a ‘total failure’

I once saw a funny stand-up comedian who had a great bit about things one can say to soften the blow of insults. A person could say almost anything, just so long as they prefaced it by certain qualifiers. “That guy is blisteringly stupid, bless his heart.” Or maybe, “I can’t believe how ugly that person is, the poor thing.” Or the old standby: “With all due respect, that guy is a pathetic clown.”

Maybe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw the same bit.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “a total failure” on Thursday, among the California Democrat’s harshest assessments to date of the president.

“God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States — a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject,” Pelosi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.

See? It’s not entirely insulting to Bush, because Pelosi prefaced her criticisms by saying, “God bless him, bless his heart.” She’s not attacking the president as a “total failure”; she feels sorry for him because he’s a “total failure.” It’s totally different.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino responded, “What the president said is a fact — this is the longest a Congress has gone in 20 years without passing a single spending bill, so it’s clear that the speaker is feeling some frustration at their inability to do so.”

Well, maybe, but it seems more likely to me that Speaker Pelosi really believes the president is a “total failure.” She may very well be frustrated about the progress on the Hill, but I get the sense that’s a separate issue altogether.

Oddly enough, several conservative blogs were not at all pleased about Pelosi’s comments, and most pointed to Congress’ low approval rating as evidence of … well, I’m not quite sure what they think it’s evidence of. Apparently, Bush’s failures as a president are roughly equivalent to Congress’ weak numbers in the polls. Or something. It’s a little unclear.

As it happens, I’m not entirely sure why Pelosi’s comments would even be especially controversial. Mildly impolite, sure. But I’m hard pressed to imagine anyone seriously examining Bush’s presidency, and considering it a “success” in any way.

On a related note, Pelosi also talked to CNN about energy policy.

In the wide-ranging interview, the entirety of which will air Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” Pelosi also reiterated her longtime opposition to lifting a congressional ban on offshore drilling as well as opening up areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration. Bush and congressional Republicans have pushed for those two policy changes.

Pelosi has long opposed drilling offshore, a popular policy position among Californians, many of whom fear its environmental consequences along the state’s coastline.

But a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban, and the move holds support among many in Pelosi’s own party, whose constituents are growing increasingly angry over rising gas prices.

Pelosi said the oil industry is not aggressively exploring large amounts of federal areas already leased to them and approved for drilling, including 33 million offshore acres and 68 million acres in the lower 48 states. She has sponsored legislation calling on oil companies to increase their production in those areas before they are allowed to go into the offshore areas currently banned.

“Thirty-three million acres offshore are allowed for leasing,” she said. “And we’re saying to them, use it or lose it. You have the opportunity to drill there. When you have exhausted those remedies, then you can talk about something else.”

I haven’t seen or heard the entire interview, so I don’t know what else Pelosi emphasized, but I hope more Democratic leaders make a point of explaining that increased drilling wouldn’t affect gas prices until 2017, at the earliest, and even then, probably not by much.

The polls seem to be pretty one-sided, in large part because consumers, desperate for a break, hope that something, anything, might save them some money at the pump. Opponents of coastal drilling just need to tell them truth: we could start drilling off Miami Beach this morning, but it wouldn’t change a thing.

So what is Pelosi, a near-total failure? The sad thing is that she is so much better than the alternatives like Hoyer or Emmanuel. Democratic leadership in the House sucks.

  • Nancy Pelosi, bless her heart, was a moron for ever saying impeachment is off the table. God Bless Her, if she been a tenth as vigilant in holding the President’s feet to the fire for his criminal incompetence and cruel stupidity as the GOP was for going after Clinton on anything and everything until they caught him lying about a blowjob and impeaching him for it, maybe she could’ve been making her comments in the past tense…in a press conference room in the Hague…AFTER Bush and Cheney had been convicted of war crimes. As a result, she’s just another talking point, and her comments are just another tool the right will use to bash…Obama.
    Someone here said it yesterday and it makes sense the more I think about it. The GOP will invest everything into getting McCain elected President, even if it means shortchanging the campaigns of GOP members of Congress. If there’s a strong Dem majority in both hands of Congress – enjoying record-low levels because they keep taking it up the ass by Bush – but they get McCain in the White House, they’ll blame the Congress for every awful thing that happens in the attempt to bounce back in 2010.

  • The 1st pair of examples in the 1st paragraph are not examples of prefacing; more of suffixing, if I may verb that noun.

  • I double-dog-dare Nancy Pelosi to ask the Democratic voters if SHE isn’t a total failure.

    Bless her heart, she sucks worse than Bush does, because (I assume) she knows better than to do what she’s doing. The only thing worse than having the worst president ever is having the likes of Nancy Pelosi standing around with her thumb in her mouth while he rapes the country.

  • Bush was dazzlingly successful at the actual aims he was aiming for. Stealing elections? Check Enriching his cronies? Check. Destroying the constitution? Check. Evading impeachment? Check. He’s only a failure if you imagine he isn’t a criminally corrupt authoritarian scumbag and profiteer.

  • “…and most pointed to Congress’ low approval rating as evidence of … well, I’m not quite sure what they think it’s evidence of. “

    Really? Steve, you need a vacation.

    As accurate as Pelosi’s comment was (in my mind it was far too kind), the leader of the 110th Congress calling anyone else a failure is hilarious in a “you gotta laugh to keep from crying” kind of way.

  • So an ineffectual prima donna points out that the emperor has no clothes . . . How did this shrill woman ever rise to a leadership position in the House?

  • But a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban

    This is a sad, dangerous development – as Naomi Klein pointed out the other day, there is an unprecedented PR campaign underway on behalf of the Oil & Gas industry (“Give Us the Arctic or Never Drive Again”), and they are getting through.

    (P.S. Nice weatherwane graphic for the “Official John McCain Flip-Flop List” or TOJMFFL. The dark theme goes well too, evoking the seriousness.A jukebox would have been good too, since that’s the title of the actual post.)

  • 6. On July 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am, jimBOB said:
    Bush was dazzlingly successful at the actual aims he was aiming for. Stealing elections? Check Enriching his cronies? Check. Destroying the constitution? Check. Evading impeachment? Check. He’s only a failure if you imagine he isn’t a criminally corrupt authoritarian scumbag and profiteer

    rightee-o, brother… the Chimp was installed to lead the penultimate attack on, to undermine, destroy, subvert, or otherwise undo every and any institution or instrument of popular sovereignty, and to drive the sheeple into the arms of Corporat authoritarianism…they’ve succeeded BRILLIANTLY

  • But a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban.

    that’s why they can be called ‘sheeple’ without any offense to either truth of sensibility…

  • The crucial point is that the oil companies have 100 million acres or more of lands they’re not drilling on. I think the argument that it would take years to develop protected lands is kind of weak – so will alternative energy take years, but that doesn’t mean give up the idea as a long term solution. It just means it’s not a short term fix.

    The oil companies are not exploiting existing lands for business reasons. They should be required to finish what’s on their plate before they get more. Democrats have been hammering away at this all week. The media won’t report it, so the public continues to believe our only option is to open up protected acreage. There is far more oil on the lands and along the coasts that the oil companies are ignoring. This is an outrage, a scandal that is being ignored by the media. But even drilling on these lands won’t produce results for a few years.

    Then there’s the additional oil in Iraq that will be flowing over the next few years. Nobody is talking about that at all, how it factors in to the energy crunch. From what I’ve read, Iraq will be producing an additional 2 million barrels a day by 2013, more than double what we can do domestically and in a much shorter time frame. Why is it that nobody talks about this? Because it implies we went to war with Iraq for the oil, and that’s taboo? But it’s still going to happen, even if we invaded for reasons as pure as the driven snow.

    The whole energy debate seems to be shrouded in lies and secrets.

    Another consideration is that it will take a considerable investment to produce oil on existing lands, whether protected or not. Given that it will take years to produce results, doesn’t it make more sense to encourage the oil companies, through incentives, to invest that money in alternatives? Yes of course it does. But we won’t do that, will we? Why do we keep turning back to oil when we know it’s not just a killer, but a dead end? Why?

  • Bush is a failure. Congress is a failure. Congress for not using their Constitutional equal branch power is checking Bush, but together they are both supreme failures regarding our future. They are all like little children playing with our toys and breaking them. Take the toys away and send them all home.

  • While not as angry at Ms Pelosi as my fellow commenters here, yes, I am disappointed in her.

    I happen to agree 100% with JiMBOB @ #6, but I try to have a firm grip on reality.
    With the Corp Media 99% in the Republican’s pocket, impeachment would have been presented as the false equivalent tit-for-tat for Clinton’s impeachment. Cry and whine all you want, you know that is what would happen. Republicans suck at governing, but they excel at setting traps. Politics (in our current environment) demanded that Democrats not appear to be as petty as the Republicans, giving a temporary pass to the Bush criminals.

    Note I said temporary. Bush will get off, but he won’t be able to pardon the criminals like his daddy did for Iran-Contra.

    Are Americans smart enough to know anything about this? I think that poll number at 73% in favor of the Republican propaganda oil-drilling says no.

    So, we should have Obama in the White House next year. Would impeachment have changed that? I don’t know, it may have. We will never know. But Pelosi did not fall for the Social Security privatization trap, did she?

  • I can see this is the liberal watering hole, at least your not in the tank for Pelosi. I thought our elected officials were supposed to do what a majority of their constituents wanted……like drilling. Guess I’ve been wrong all these years. How’d she ever get into the position she’s in…..you guys gotta do something, work around her, get a new speaker, get a new representative from Cali….something!!!! Anyone remember the scandals (his and hers) in the Clinton years…anyone remember the ineptness of Carter’s admin?? I do….if Bush was as good an orator as Clinton or Obama, he would have a HIGH approval rating no matter if he did the same things he’s done already.

  • I thought it was pretty dumb that Pelosi took impeachment “off the table” but now she’s called Shrubwit a failure so it’s all good. Shrubwit will carry the stigma of her scorn with him throughout his days. It will be a burden for him. It will be hard work. Pelosi really knows how to hurt a guy.

    Speak harshly and carry a….what….toothpick?

  • So as our guest RC demonstrates, purity put you on the same side as someone who wants drilling & believes all the Clinton “scandals” were real and important.

    Well, we do vent here, don’t we?

  • God Bless! Wait, he has a heart?!

    /snark

    I hate that “dog bless” shit in any political discourse. Anyway, he’s not a failure. President Bush has run the greatest criminal administration of all time! Nancy Pelosi (and friends) have simply been aiding and abetting all the while. Birds of a feather!

  • “I thought our elected officials were supposed to do what a majority of their constituents wanted” – RC

    Me too, RC, but Bush (who represents all U.S. citizens) still won’t get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan (60+% in favor). He won’t negotiate with Iran (59% in favor)… or wouldn’t, but it looks like we’re finally seeing a change on that; probably the only way he can claim “we tried all we could before dropping the bombs. He won’t prohibit torture, he isn’t doing anything to address the energy crisis, the list goes on.

    I’m going to go ahead and call malarkey on your claim that Bush would have high approval ratings if he was a good speaker. The country would still be in the shit, and he would still be doing nothing to improve it.

  • Pelosi is getting a lot of heat for taking impeachment off the table. For me, Pelosi should have moved on impeachment even though the Congress starts it, but must go to be executed by the Senate.

    Article I section 3. Of the Constitution say’s “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. “

    Of course America can see the favorite Democrats that conspire with the Republicans. Sorry but for me Pelosi is right not to burn foolish time and risk the election from serious mischief by many like Lieberman, or other so called Republicans that are masquerading as Democrats. The FISA bill is an example of a lost effort if tried. It is high time to ferrite out this disturbance in the force. Perhaps this is what is happening in the background, I hope so.

    There is and has been a very startling omission by Mainstream Media and first line journalist obviously all programmed by the leadership of our Media Mongols, to avoid rules in this area. It stood out in the interview by Wolf Blitzer casually mentioning “Yes the Rules”. Remember both Senate and the House has process rules. The Senate has rules from 2007 the House has Rules from 2002, that’s a problem; the Republicans had twelve years to tangle rules and make this mess.

    If one looks closely at the Senate Rules, especially amendments and motions American’s would see very clearly, for me an intuitive thought, the Senate must reduce to writing any changes, amendments, or instructions, by motions offered on the floor. Here America has official documents to prove who is aiding or deliberately blocking legislation. But all we hear is Congress has the lowest rating in the history of any Congress, using rules that could very well inhibit and make dysfunctional operation. Clearly ideals and actions kept away from the public by Bush and Companies Mainstream Media.

    To be honest, for me time is one thing that is premium to devote to civic over sight responsibilities. Yet, here America can see with striking omission our Mainstream Media first line Journalist who do have time to investigate and are paid to do these things for electorate oversight, simply do not do this.

    My curiousity is can these politicals change the rules as fast as the price of gas changes. This is funny, going to a gas station gas was $4.10 then after leaving the bank on the way home the gas price jumped to $4.35 Then went down to 4.19 later on, an increase and decrease very quick the same day. Does anyone else experience this? Sheesh.

  • forget who said it, but doesn’t being a “total failure” imply success in at least one area, i.e., fucking up?

  • The real story of the Blitzer/Pelosi interview is not impeachment and her tactless comments, it is that she refuses to allow debate or a vote on whether or not to allow offshore oil drilling. This essentially is telling the American people, “Drop dead! Get used to high gas prices!”

  • Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that this Democratic Congress couldn’t accomplish much with Republicans filibustering EVERYTHING on principle? They want this Congress to have a low approval rating and have accomplished their goal nicely.

  • “But I’m hard pressed to imagine anyone seriously examining Bush’s presidency, and considering it a “success” in any way.”

    Republicans feel that if you don’t consider Bush a success, then you are not proud of America, in fact that you hate America. There’s no getting around this in the post 911 hysterical America, you can neither question nor criticize the Divine Emperor, to do so is treason. The party of cowardice allows no other opinions.

  • Okay, here we go yet again.

    Impeachment
    would almost certainly have failed in the House
    would certainly have failed in the Senate
    would have been spun (while it was happening) as ‘payback’
    would have energized and unified the splitered and dispirited Republican Party
    would have made a Republican victory likely enough than an electable Republican would have entered the race
    would have ruled out either Clinton or Obama as viable candidates
    would have strengthened the DLC/Triangulator types
    would have increased Bush’s popularity rating by at least 10%

    AND

    would have put the Congress on record as ratifying Bush’s assault on the Constitution.

    But none of this matters. Who cares if we guaranteed 8 more years of a Republican White House? Who cares if the Congress would have stayed evenly divided instead of being a landslide for the Democrats? Who cares if we would have kept the war going for years more, until the Iraqis finally drove us out? Who cares if the Bush tax cuts and economic recession would have continued? Who cares if there would have been a permanent (at least 20 years — given the relative youth of the Conservative 4) Conservative majority on the Supreme Court and we would have turned abortion back to the states, and even re-opened Griswold and gay rights decisions? Who cares if we would have ‘institutionalized’ the idea of ‘signing statements’ and eliminated the Congress as an equal branch of government?

    WE would have had our noble, principled ‘glorious defeat.’ And that’s all that mattered.

    (If I were a Republican strategist, if impeachment had been ‘on the table’ I would have done my absolute best to make sure it came up for a vote, the earlier the better.)

    {I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with creationists, conservative biblical literalists, and even Wahabist Muslims. I expect this sort of reasoning from them, but somehow I thought better of Liberal Democrats– that’s why I am one.}

    Not that this will do any good…

  • I thought our elected officials were supposed to do what a majority of their constituents wanted……like drilling

    Well, you were wrong and no bonus points to your civics teacher. The uSA is (supposedly) a representative democracy — the people don’t make decisions; we choose the people who make decisions. When elected, you don’t owe people your vote. You owe them your conscience. Yes, if you buck the populace too many times (and can’t explain it satisfactorily), they’re probably gonna haul you to the curb. But you still owe them your best judgment.

    Otherwise, why not make all legislation by American Idol esque call-in referendum.

  • If you google the words “idiot,” “fool,” or “moron,” just by themselves, half of the first replies the system will come up with will relate to George W. Bush.

    I think Pelosi was being very generous in her assessment of this worthless piece of shit we have for a President.

  • Prup (#28): trying to argue sense to fundementalists (whatever their variety) is impossible. Their lack of brainpower is why they are fundamentalists. I agree with you that the lefty version is really pathetic and definitely an embarassment.

  • Jim (#28) – Thanks for breaking it down better than I ever could.

    I feel the anger for the injustice that (much like O.J. Simpson) George W. Bush & Dick Cheney will never have to pay for their thieving & murderous crimes.

    But we can still take it to the Republicans. And we need to smash the Corp Media, as well.

  • Always Hopeful is all:

    “ArmandV, have you NOT been reading????? Get used to high gas prices, buddy, because the DRILLING WON’T HELP! Sheesh!!!!”

    Sorry, but you are the one who needs to read (outside of your leftist blogs). The fact is, the more supply of oil is made available on the open market, the lower the prices will go. Bush’s executive order rescinding the “no-drill” order already had an effect on the market. Prices have begun to drop. If the Democrats follow suit, then the prices will drop even further because the market would then know we mean business. Just basic economics, chum!

  • Serious sound bites and sternly worded press releases are no substitutes for leadership. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are classic enablers. They have enabled, supported and encouraged the imperial reign of gwb.

  • STFU Grandma….She waits until the eve of Netroots to come out with her sharpest rebuke of GW Bush ever, all the while letting him get away with murder during her tenure as Speaker…
    Shame on you for this transparent attempt to pander the progressive movement….

  • I wish I could say that Speaker Pelosi has been a complete failure, but she has a good deal of success as she has worked so hard to meet many of my demands and help me cover up my crimes that I can’t help but have affection for her. The lady worked her ass off on the Military Commissions Act to give me immunity for torture and other war crimes. And more recently her efforts on the FISA legislation were much appreciated. Don’t listen to that Dana Perino-she just has that job because she promised to never write a book.

  • You tell ’em ArmandV. My energy experts tell me that allowing the oil companies to drill anywhere and everywhere they want to will result in a reduction of gas prices by 4 cents a gallon in 2017.

    Reduced energy costs are also why I am encouraging America to turn to New-Q-lar power
    in the near future.

  • Brent-you are right of course. At the white house I often tell Barney that the Democrats are Amebabas. Get it? No spine. LOL

  • Ahhhh Prup. Remember in 2000 when, based on a Fox News report, Gore called me to concede. What a great chuckle my staff had. How easy it is to roll over these Democrats we said in wonder. And then of course we kicked Democrat ass in the “recounr.” Did the Democrats have the balls to bus a bunch of staffers to Florida to “riot” and stop the recount? Of course not. But we now just consider riolling over to be the normal. Push a little and the Democrats will always come up with a reason not to fight.

    We especially love the argument that not fighting and rolling over and giving us Republicans what we want will prevent us from doing more of what we want to do in the future. LOL

  • “But none of this matters. Who cares if we guaranteed 8 more years of a Republican White House? Who cares if the Congress would have stayed evenly divided instead of being a landslide for the Democrats? Who cares if we would have kept the war going for years more, until the Iraqis finally drove us out? Who cares if the Bush tax cuts and economic recession would have continued? Who cares if there would have been a permanent (at least 20 years — given the relative youth of the Conservative 4) Conservative majority on the Supreme Court and we would have turned abortion back to the states, and even re-opened Griswold and gay rights decisions? Who cares if we would have ‘institutionalized’ the idea of ’signing statements’ and eliminated the Congress as an equal branch of government?”

    That’s right Prup-DON’T FIGHT! It will only make thing worse!
    Lol,Lol, Lol, LOl, LOL,lol,lol,lol,LOL,Lol,LOL,lol,lol,LOL,

    Uhhhh Signing statements have been institutionalized.
    Congress has given up power to the President and the next President will not begiving it back. The war will be going for many more years. Alito and Roberts and Mucaksy were approved by a Democrat controlled Senate. And so was Clarence Thomas.

  • You dare argue with your President ArmandV.? What kind of Republican are you? You don’t have any phony numbers of your own to give us?

  • You think having Obama as President and the Democrats in control of congress will do great things for the Progressive agenda. When corporate pigs grow wings and fly. The biggest change to come out of a Democratic takeover of government will be the recipient of corporate checks and marching orders.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton) said:

    Okay, here we go yet again.[deletia]

    Not that this will do any good…

    Gosh Preacher Prup, you’re so insufferable. Opinions aren’t facts. You don’t know these things, you believe these things.

  • Okay, here we go yet again…Not that this will do any good

    And you really can’t understand why you come off as patronizing, Prup? Really?

  • Thank you, Tom C (I might argue about your method of expression, but rarely about your sentiments) and BuzzMon for understanding my point.

    And thank you too, “King George” since you make a point I should have said explicitly — that the Impeachment Insisters are using perfectly Bushian logic.

    (Bush) Terrorists are bad people and therefore we have to fight them in any way and anywhere (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia) that I think makes our point that they are bad people whatever it does to our country, our economy, our Constitution. So what if we lose? We are still proving we hate terrorists. That’s what matters. What do you mean the real battle should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists actually are and where we can beat them?

    (Impeachers) Republicans are bad people and therefore we have to fight them where we can make the point that they are whatever it does to our country, our economy, our Constitution. So what if we lose? We are still proving that we hate Republicans. That’s what matters. What do you mean we should fight them in the Presidential race and in the Congressional races, where we will actually beat them?

    I will, as i have said repeatedly, stop making these points as soon as any one person produces a list of seventeen Republicans who can — with a straight face — be looked on as conceivable votes for conviction under any circumstances.

    This, of course, assumes that all the Democrats would vote in favor, including the following list of Democrats who, by voting for the “Protect America Act” can be said to have ratified Bush’s assaults on the Consitution (and I again call on those who condemned Obama’s FISA vote to come down twice as hard on these people:

    Bayh
    Carper
    Casey
    Conrad
    Feinstein
    Inouye
    Klobuchar
    Landrieu
    Lincoln
    McCaskill
    Mikulski
    Nelson of Fla
    Nelson of Nebr
    Salazar
    Webb.
    (Oh, and I’ve NEVER argued against impeaching cabinet members — in fact the Belknap Precedent would make it possible to impeach those who have already resigned.)

  • @33 Buzzmon

    “I feel the anger for the injustice that (much like O.J. Simpson) George W. Bush & Dick Cheney will never have to pay for their thieving & murderous crimes.

    But we can still take it to the Republicans. And we need to smash the Corp Media, as well.”

    WE? You mean like the very angry you and the brave Democrats will take it to the Republicans. You brave Democrats who will fight until the very last drop of your blood has spilled onto the ground. We know this because you guys been such brave and angry fighters over the past seven years. Right? Correct?

    You are right that if the Bushies are ever held accountable for their crimes it will not be by spineless Democrats. The best we can hope for is that perhaps one day Bush will be having tea with Blair and be arrested by some cops sent by the Hague.

  • Dale:
    Give me your list of Republicans who will vote to convict.

    Show me how the Republicans won’t use this as a rallying cry — as Democrats did with Clinton, and Republicans did with Nixon until it was too obvious he had committed violations of existing laws (he was acquitted on the charges based on his actions in the ‘Secret War’ and impeachment would not have succeeded without the Butterfield testimony on the taping system and “Rose Mary’s 18-minute gap.” Without those, nobody thought it would succeed).

    And he had ‘party elders’ — Goldwater, Dirksen, Scott — who he was deferential to and who were able to convince him to resign. Can you suggest three similar Republican ‘Party Elders’ he’d listen to? (I don’t think he’d even listen to Daddy on this.)

  • @48 Prup-You are insufferable! let me make myself clear.

    In not holding the Bushies and Republicans accountable for their many crimes the Democrats have betrayed the constitution, their country and every American citizen. They (and you) have placed the political interests of their party above the interests of their country.

    The Democrats are spineless wimps who deserve the contempt of every American patriot.

    Now you can go on and on about how much things could be worse if the Democrats had fought back against Republican tyranny, but it doesn’t change the fact that every bad thing that the Busies have done has been either actively supported by Democrats, or enabled through spineless acquiescence.

  • @50 translated.

    If you do that the Republicans will fight back. It’s better to just roll over.

  • I may be ‘insufferable’ but I have NEVER argued that the Democrats should not have ‘fought back.’ I have said that they are doing a damn good job of fighting back in the election. I have said they shouldn’t have fought back in a way that made the enemy stronger — sorta like fighting the terrorists in Iraq instead of in Afghanistan.

  • Again, as I have done with everyone, I give you the same challenge. Give me the list of the 17 Republican votes to convict that would be necessary to win. (I’ll even give you Specter, Snowe, Lugar, Hagel, even Grassley. Twelve more. Now that shouldn’t be so hard should it?)

    It’s not a question of surrendering because they are ‘fighting back’ it’s a case of not fighting a battle that there is no way you can win.

    And, of course, this is assuming that Pelosi could get all the Democrats to vote for Impeachment, including the 41 who voted for the Protect America Act (only two Republicans opposed it, btw, Walter Jones of NC and “Johnson of Ill.” I know Jones, but does anyone know about Johnson?)

  • Impeachment was taken off the table publicly because any investigation of Bush would have implicated members of the Democratic leadership who out of fear and/or political calculation went along with much of his lawlessness.

  • Purp…comment 28…you ignore totally that your premise is based only on what is known BEFORE impeachnebt hearings began. The same was said before hearings began on Nixon. Hearings would have
    removed the cover of executive privilege
    removed the hiding of emails by the administration and the RNC
    prevented Bush from continuing his corrupt policies
    demonstrated that the duty to uphold the constitution is more important than politics.
    It would have NOT done any of the things on your list…that is your opinion only
    We already know enough to put these people in jail and you are screaming…but it would be politically incorrect. Just as there was no downside to opposing FISA there would have been no downside to impeachment. It is cowardly of our congress to ignore the constitution and our democracy in favor of chancing their political careers.

    We’ll be 50 yrs getting rid of all that this administration has done only because our leaders didn’t impeach. History will be at a loss to understand why we allowed this administration not to be impeached because there has never been more justification for impeachment than Bush/Cheney etc.

  • Did the Republicans have the assurance of enough Democratic votes to impeach when they went after Clinton? How badly did it hurt the Republicans to impeach Clinton?

    Republicans fight and never give up. Democrats are wimps.

    Very few people will be voting for Democrats this fall. Most people will be voting against the Republicans this fall. That is faint praise for the job that the democrats have done over the past seven years.

    Remember that we gave the Democrats power in 2006 to stop the war and we now have more money and troops invested in that war. You think Obama will be better than McCain on the war? If he follows traditional Democratic political strategy he will roll over and do whatever is deemed politically expedient as soon as the Republicans go on the attack-which they being the party of fighters surely will do.

  • I’ll make it even easier. Here’s the list of Republican Senators. All we need is 17:
    Allard (R-CO)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Bond (R-MO)
    Brownback (R-KS)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Coleman (R-MN)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Craig (R-ID)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Dole (R-NC)
    Domenici (R-NM)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hagel (R-NE)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Martinez (R-FL)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Smith (R-OR)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Stevens (R-AK)
    Sununu (R-NH)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Voinovich (R-OH)
    Warner (R-VA)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Bunning (R-KY)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Wicker (R-MS)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    McCain (R-AZ)

    I’m waiting, as ‘insufferable’ as ever, for the list of “Aye” votes

  • btw…without the cover of executive privilege Comey’s testimony would have been effective in bringing about impeachment. Comey and Ashcroft tried but learned quickly that congress would not protect them or use what they told them for anything other than dramatic effect. Where is Comey now…Ashcroft was replaced by Gonzo and now Mukasey while a complicit congress immunizes Bush’s criminal behavior. Impeachment represents the people not congress.

    When is the right thing to do more important than what is politically correct? When what is politically correct is also the right thing to do. Impeachment was both.

    Your fears are simply excuses to justify incompetence…Purp.

  • joey: your list, please, whatever was discovered. Senators who would actually vote to convict — as I said, if there were a video of Bush in the same stall with Larry Craig and ‘my pet goat.’ (During the Nixon impeachment there were still a lot of (truly) moderate Republicans, and others who, while Conservative, still were honorable. There are still a few, but not enough.)

    And arguing that we should be ‘just like the Republicans with Clinton’ is part of my point — we’re Democrats, not ‘Republicans on the right side’ — and if you don’t think impeachment hurt the Republicans, look again.

  • beep52 said:
    Impeachment was taken off the table publicly because any investigation of Bush would have implicated members of the Democratic leadership who out of fear and/or political calculation went along with much of his lawlessness.

    Good point. There’s a glimpse behind the curtain of conventional wisdom. When a person like Prup gets too enamoured of his opinions and starts thinking they’re facts a little extra information indicates he should think and think again.

  • Hey Prup, I didn’t necessarily say you were wrong. Just insufferable. Do you talk to your cats like that?

  • …a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than 73 percent of Americans polled approved of lifting the 1981 ban…

    In other words, more than 73 percent of Americans support allowing big oil to control our entire supply to, maybe, save a nickel in ten years at the expense of our our oceans, our food chain and our water supply.

    Progressives have had the advantage for the last year or so, but it’s been less about our policies and more about the degradation of the Republican brand. The fickle middle swings back and forth as easily as the weathervane representing McCain’s flip-flops, and in the long-run, we don’t have a prayer as long as most Americans rely on the corporate media as their primary source of information.

    Watching the corporate media’s behavior to date has been utterly depressing, and I’m really starting to get the feeling that we are fucked.

  • Purp…take a look:
    from Bugliosi’s book the “Prosecution of GW for Murder”:
    “..Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

    In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.(snip)
    “…Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one….”snip-
    “…ussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War

    When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign — to get Hussein to disarm — was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before — that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict — the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line — because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?…”

    I don’t want to quote the whole book but it “Proves” conclusively high crimes and misdemeanors and this is just what is already known.

    With impeachment hearings more whistleblowers would have come forward., more evidence would have surfaced on torture and spying (because of all the illegal spying that began BEFORE 9/11) and with what was already known it would have been far more than enough to convince senators to convict. For instance how could senators support Bush if it came out Rove told him of his plan to prevent prosecutions of republs and republican donors or that USAs were bribed or fired, or that Cheney’s secret energy meetings were merely a division of the world’s oil reserves and how to get the American public to sit still for world domination plans by these industries… what countries would need to be invaded or destroyed and what packs could be made with the other countries corporations.

    You will say, “But we don’t know that for sure” which is exactly the point. We would know if hearings were begun before this administration began covering all its trcks and with all the overwhelming evidence we already know why would you not believe we just were barely scratching the surface of this administration’s corrupt activities which includes a highly successful “Operation Mockingbird” media propaganda campaign which the CIA director bragged about in ’05. Everything they have touched has turned into a disaster and is buried in secrecy…because secrecy is what allows corruption to flow unhampered and which impeachment would have exposed. “If they have nothing to hide then why are they hiding everything?”

    You want a conviction before having a trial. It all begins and ends with impeachment. Our first step in combating this all encompassing corruption at the highest levels of Government. By not standing up now, our leaders have covered up and pushed aside what is sure to continue…the destruction and privatization of our democracy.

    I know you support the ideals of impeachment but feel it is politically incorrect to pursue it and justify that opinion by claiming it would be ineffective. Sorry, but that can of worms needs to be opened if we are ever to rid ourselves of the shame this administration brought on America and the world. It would make sure no repub supporting this Bush regime ever held office again…it is the first and most important step in cleansing America democracy and its supporters would be seen as real American heroes.

  • “I’m not entirely sure why Pelosi’s comments would even be especially controversial”

    they’re controversial, imo, because she has already given the bush administration a free pass.

    why does she even bother? does she think this makes her look like anything other than a complete idiot, as others have noted here?

    i called her office and told her to stop making an ass of herself (more politely).

  • btw Purp…One can still support and vote for Obama and criticize him when he makes a horrendous decision. You act like it’s one or the other. We will still work to get him elected but will not blindly support bad decisions.

    On your list of Senators McCaskill D-MOhas removed her email/contact site in response to being called out for voting just like Kit Bond R-MO on all the major issues despite the fact she ran as a progressive. We are looking for another real progressive to challenge her in the primaries. People are sick of denying their principles for party politics. People stand for the constitution in our democracy above Parties. Challenging your own candidate does not translate to supporting the other party it translates into supporting your own principles and pressuring your candidate to stand up for them. Refusing to support Obama on FISA and calling him out for it is exactly what Obama claims he would want you to do. Principles before personality is the way it must be and fear mongering that it would lead to our destruction is just false. If we were meant to just blindly trust our founders would not have a system of checks and balances in place. We must hold our representatives to the constitution…all of them.

    Polls be damned this race isn’t even close. Jackass vs human more aptly describes it.

  • “Obama’s a socialist!”
    “Bush is a total failure!”

    At what point are you feeding the media beast that considers this sandbox crap NEWS, Mr. Benen?

    Maybe you need to notice fewer vacuous empty epithets.
    The blog gets boring.

  • joey, I’ve never said anything of the sort. I oppose Obama on the death penalty — and his extension of it beyond murder is absurd. I am going to look very closely at his faith-based initiative — Rick warren scares me a lot more than Jeremiah Wright does. I am for a single-payer health system, and while his system is an improvement over what we have, it isn’t what I want. I opposed his taking marijuana legalization off the table.

    However, on FISA, I am becoming more and more convinced that he made the right decision. Yes, it would have been a better bill without ‘telecom immunity’ — but that is, I remind you, not because the telecoms would have been punished. They already had immunity — in the law before FISA — IF the Bush Administration would testify in open court exactly what they asked the telecoms to do. That was the real crux of the matter, forcing the Bush Administration to submit to the discovery process so the telecoms could claim the immunity the law already gave them. The ‘retroactive immunity’ that the bill conveyed gave them the immunity without the testimony, that’s why Obama tried to strike it from the bill, and why some Democrats voted against it.

    But as for the bill itself, isn’t it a ‘Chamber of Horrors?’ destroying the 4th Amendment? Well, no. I will gladly have someone send me a link to the actual text of the bill, and show me the provisions they are objecting to in the bill’s own language.

    But until then, all I have seen in the discussion, including Obama’s own speeches, se4ems to back up the following quote from Amy Zegart — who has been an advisor on National Security to both parties, is a Professor at UCLA, has recently written SPYING BLIND — and who also is a co-blogger with Mark Kleiman at the RBC:

    But I also suspect most of those who howled in protest never actually read the bill. If they had, they would have seen, as Obama himself did, that the FISA legislation also included substantial improvements over W’s Wild West wiretapping era. It strengthened Congressional oversight, streamlined procedures to make the whole process more workable (and circumventing it less likely), increased the role of the courts rather than leaving some decisions to the Attorney General, and enhanced independent oversight by inspectors general.

    Now perhaps she is wrong about the bill, which is why I would like a link to the actual text — I know I could find it, but I am both busy and lazy — or quotes from the language of the Bill that make it the horror some people here claim it is. (If I see them, then I’ll join with you in cursing him out, but having watched the way some of us do our best to imitate our right-wing cousins in hysteria, I’m going to hold back. And until I do see them, I’m going to trust Obama’s judgment — based on his track record not just during the campaign but during his legislative career.)

  • Comments are closed.