Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press this morning and she gave a very uneven performance. Tim Russert gave her a very tough interview. I’ll have more to say about Pelosi’s policy proposals when I have a chance to review the transcript, but I do have a few observations to offer right now.
First, Russert spent considerable time trying to taint the Democrats as just as corrupt and compromised as the Republicans. He portrayed Harry Reid as being compromised in the Abramoff scandal, mentioned the recent difficulties of Patrick Kennedy, and brought up allegations of corruption in two Democratic congressmen: Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV.).
Pelosi’s response to this was strong and coherent. She pointed out that there is a vast difference between the personal difficulties of someone like Patrick Kennedy and a criminal enterprise being run out of Tom DeLay’s office. And she noted that she has called for an investigation of Representative Jefferson, something Republicans have failed to do time after time when confronted with allegations of corruption from their own members.
Russert went on to suggest that the Democrats will move to impeach the President if they win the House this year. Here, Pelosi became flustered. She had her talking points (she intends to provide oversight and she intends to investigate energy prices and Cheney’s 2001 task force, but she is not moving to impeach the President), but Russert cut right through them. He showed Rep. John Conyers’ web site, which has the following message:
|
CONYERS RELEASES REPORT ON MISCONDUCT OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONCERNING IRAQ WAR H. Res. 635, H. Res 636, H. Res 637 |
Russert correctly pointed out that John Conyers would become the head of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats take the House, and that his website strongly suggests that he will move to initiate impeachment proceedings. Pelosi did not want to diss John Conyers but she also wanted to shoot down the idea that a Democratic win in November equates to another impeachment imbroglio. Her wavering response was unconvincing. She asserted that John Conyers will not be the person to decide about impeachment (he will follow her orders) and that once we begin the job of oversight we will let the facts lead us.
Pelosi was correct both in her facts and in her political calculations, but her performance was embarrassing. She did not effectively counter Russert’s accusations, nor did she defend impeachment as a reasonable and mainstream idea. What we were left with was Pelosi running away from impeachment (leaving the impression that Conyers is a radical), and another example of a politician transparantly obfuscating on national television. It wasn’t pretty.
When we consider the politics of impeachment, we have to keep a few things firmly in mind. First, we have a set of facts before us already that warrants impeachment, but these facts barely scratch the surface. All we have is what the press has been able to dig up and what an increasing amount of whistleblowers have disclosed. When we call for impeachment, we are placing faith in the power of congressional hearings to unearth much more damning information than is currently known. We are placing faith in information coming to light that all but the most hard-line Bushista would be unwilling to defend.
And if we keep this in mind, we should be able to agree that the Dems need not, and should not, run on a platform of impeachment. They should not take it off the table and should even nurture discussion of impeachment as a way to drive home the point that there is something seriously wrong with this administration. But, what we want to run on is sunshine, accountability, and oversight. Let the facts come to us. We do not want to impeach this President only to have him exonerated in the Senate. We don’t want to merely put a asterick on his Presidency, we want him out of office. To do that we must build a case that Republicans cannot dispute and they cannot defend.
So, Pelosi had her talking points correct. What she didn’t have was the ability to convince anyone of her sincerity in not intending to impeach the President. Personally, I am not all that upset about this. I count it as a virtue that Pelosi is less than an effective liar and I am comforted that her threats to “control” Conyers were transparently phony.
Pelosi also discussed withdrawal from Iraq. Her approach to Iraq was as wobbly as her approach to impeachment. She wants to rely on a strained construction, something like: “2006 needs to be a year of serious transition”. This is code for: “the Iraqis need to take control over their own security”. It’s pretty pathetic. The lack of a coherent, bold, and confident message on withdrawal is going to be a drag on the Democratic ticket. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she doesn’t have a consensus in her caucus for her own position. And that position is that we never should have gone in, that we should leave, and that we should prosecute the people that manipulated us into this mess. Pelosi can’t push those ideas because her job doesn’t allow it. But, we can be fairly confident that she will push those ideas in 2007, if she is Speaker of the House.
