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.
Oh I get such a warm squishy feeling about Dem chances in November.
The kind a baby gets when it wets its diapers.
Why can’t we ever have any effective Dem leadership. Al you have to do is what the repubs do, turn the conversation back to what you want to talk about.
she is a little unpolished. But the bigger problem is Russert himself. His interview was tough, which is good, but it was also so intellectually dishonest that is was a disgrace.
Russert’s questions had to come right from Karl Rove. It’s telling that his questions to those in power are nowhere near what they were today to Pelosi.
While I don’t think Russert did anything illegal in the Valeria Plame outing incident, I think it is incredibly telling that he was selected by Rove to be one of the trial balloon conduits.
If there was an obsequious contest, it would by a nose, Matthews just edging out Russert.
Russert is a disgrace to journalism. If his questioning had been simply “tough”, that would have been OK, but he was interrupting Pelosi at every turn before she could finish her sentences, virtually sneering at her rhetorically as he overrode her voice so he could appear tough. Can you imagine him using this tactic agains DeLay or Frist or Boehner or Hastert? Not a chance.
I’m no fan of Pelosi, believe me, despite her liberal credentials of yore, but Russert is a disgrace to journalism and an insult to thinking people everywhere.
The Dems have to put out that, should they take the House, they will seriously “investigate whether high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.” This is a) Congress’ job description and b) what a majority of the country wants at this point in a failed administration.
Sure, Pelosi would have members of her caucus who would run away from such a statement. But they’ll get there. The Bushies are a great push factor.
Yup. The proper response is simple: “I don’t know if we’ll impeach President Bush, because we don’t have all the facts. The Republicans have stonewalled any investigation of possible illegal activity by their President. A Democratic congress will investigate and take appropriate action.”
(leaving the impression that Conyers is a radical)
Conyers is a radical, which is a sad thing for our country. Most rational people have been radicalized out of necessity.
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.
Which is why I worry that democracy in the U.S. is doomed regardless of how the elections turn out. I don’t see any hint that we might eventually renounce our growing imperialism, very few elected officials seem to grasp what is at stake.
I don’t mean to be constantly depressing, but even with all of the growing scandals it still looks to me like we are very close to a transition point from democracy to empire.
We are merely “very close to a transition point from democracy to empire.” ?
Count the number of the world’s nations in which the United States have military bases of their own, at which there are regularly stationed forces of the U.S. armed forces.
How many do you come up with?
Now, how many do you need before we have gone past “very close” and are, indeed, a de facto imperial power?
We still elect our President, and he doesn’t have unfettered power, though Bush is trying to change both of those. And we have military in many countries but we don’t actually control any country other than Iraq and even there we don’t have enough troops on the ground to keep order. To truly become the military empire neo-cons dream of, we’re going to need a lot more soldiers.
I don’t think we are to the point of empire yet, but we are far closer than we were half a decade ago and I am as worried as you probably are that we have already passed the point of no return.
“And we have military in many countries but we don’t actually control any country other than Iraq and even there we don’t have enough troops on the ground to keep order.”
Since, at the moment, it is hard to argue that there is anyone “in control” of Iraq, that is not a good example of or a good analogy for what effective imperial influence means as a minimum.
In order for your remark cited just above to be accurate, you’d have to say that we not only exercise “control” over any other country but that we also cannot effectively influence others to do what we insist they should or must. I don’t agree with you. In many instances, I think the U.S. govt has and uses just such effectively controlling influence. It need not be complete, nor perfect nor infallible. It only need work most of the time and nearly always in the most important instances.
By that light, I think that the de facto imperial line has been reached.
On the other hand, I don’t believe the U.S. are yet at some “point of no return” that you refer to. IOW, I don’t believe that, as much as we are effectively an imperial power, that we are incapable of getting ourselves off of that course–provided the public can recognize this and choose against it; that is still possible in my opinion.
Thanks for responding to my post.
P.
corrected as added > words in bold:
” you’d have to say that we not only do not exercise “control” over any other country but that we also cannot effectively influence others to do what we insist …”
I think Pelosi and the dems need to counter stooges like Russert with more force:
Fire Pelosi and Reid (from their “leadership” positions) and then Impeach and convict Bush, Cheney and the rest of that lot!
I regard Pelosi as nothing short of a disaster for the Democrats–whom, for corruption, and all other political offenses which have so harmed the nation, I place right behind the Republicans.
She is also nothing less than a Republican Party dream-come-true as an opposition leader–applying these words to her is a gross insult to the english language. She is neither in any useful sense.
If, through some miracle, the Bush administration were to disappear tomorrow, then Pelosi and Reid should instantly take first place in the ranking of things which pose the greatest harms and dangers to responsible government in the United States.
She’s a disgrace!
A sheer, unmitigated, disgrace.
And if she possessed even a particle of unselfish, decent respect for the American public, she’d have publicly apologized and resigned her Minority leader post long ago.
Very simple answer to Timshit’s question about impeaching the prez:
“If Bush has done nothing wrong…..he’s got nuthin to worry about.”
I didn’t see the show, but the description is all too graphic. I just don’t get what’s wrong with these so-called professional politicians. Did Pelosi (and anybody on her staff) really not think the impeachment question would come up, when everybody is aware that it’s become a primary scarecrow the GOP is using? If she was aware of the probablility, why in hell didn’t she have a good answer ready? I’m really sick to death of this endless incompetence. If Pelosi’s office prevents her from speaking forcefully, Democrats should refuse to let her be interviewed and substitute somebody who can.
What in hell is so hard about saying, “Well, as you know, we’ve had nonstop causes for concern over lawbreaking in the Bush administration and Republican leadership. There seem to be new criminal investigations and indictments coming down every day. Trillions of dollars have disappeared in Iraq without a trace, yet our troops still lack adequate equipment and support. Republican officials have been busted for out-and-out bribery. The president himself openly admitted that he violated the law by ordering government agencies to spy on American citizens. SOMEBODY lied about our reasons for invading Iraq — we need a real answer about who that was. So far the Republican Congress has placed party above country and pretended there is nothing the matter nothing to see. Even as two-thirds of Americans say this country is headed in the wrong direction.
So the answer to your question is, a Democratic-controlled Congress will do its duty to get the information we need for our democracy to function. I can promise you that we will not prejudge until the facts are in, but we will be unyielding in ferreting out those facts. I will be the first to celebrate if the administration comes up clean as a whistle. On the other hand, if we do find crimes, we will respond according to the Constitution, as duty demands. Bottom line, if President Bush has done nothing wrong he has nothing to fear.”
I’d highly recommend Paul Krugman’s The Great Unraveling; Losing Our Way in the New Century
He specifically discussed the extent of our permanent bases overseas, and their influence on local/country governments.
More about it, at Powell’s here
I am sick to death of how they fucking stutter. Between Pelosi and Dean, jsut those two (and no doubt I ahve blissfully missed other exemplars), they ahve been all over the landscape on that question.
Dean gave a flat “No” this week. But Pelosi had given a much more conditonal answer earlier this week… obviously there is no script or or.. whatever usually happens with the Democrats: NO PREPARATION… sorta like Alito hearings.
This is one question the Dems needed a proper response to from the so called Leaders.
Gah. [Screaming in San Francisco]
We listened to this mess on CSPAN radio yesterday, and it was just maddening…by both Pelosi and Timmy.
If you want to know why I hate Timmy so much, his performance yesterday is exhibit A-Z. Of course, he’s Timmy the Timid when it’s a rethug…can’t show any of that liberal bias! Friggin hack.
There is NO way she should have gotten so bogged down on the impeachment question. No way. What’s been said up-thread is so true…any of those “questions” could have been swatted down. More to the point, as the rethug lap dog, she should have expected the “bait” nature of the “questions.”
I actually felt sorry for her, though, on the “so you will repeal the tax cut” line of “questions.” Again, she should have expected it but still–there’s tough questioning and then there’s “republi-bait.” I know a set-up when I hear one, and his hackery was so transparent until I asked the husband if the RNC was paying him by the minute. Did he take all his “questions” from RNC/WH/Hastert talking points e-mailed to him when they learned she’d be his guest?
I thought Dean rocked it this week on George Stayontopofthis. I give Dean more slack because I know just how much shit he has to shovel…from other Democrats. He was clear and convincing and much better than DiFi. Why on earth did she let that draft-dodging Saxby Shameless get away with saying that Goss restored confidence in the intelligence agencies and other assorted fantasies? She was asleep at the switch, and the Georgie…well, he damn sure wasn’t going to stop him.
Finally, (back to MTP) are you sure the impersonator guy wasn’t black? Because I swear to you, I was really uncomfortable listening to Timmy and the rest and their “Can you do Clinton? Can you do McCain? C’mon boy, entertain us!” segment. If this was some lame attempt at levity it did not wash.
It seems that Timmy’s underwear is still in a bunch, demonstrating–yet again–how spot-on Colbert was.
she’d have said that Bush shouldn’t be as concerned about impeachment as he should about a future trial at The Hague.
She was lame and seemed distracted. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen her fare so badly. Of course Timmeh’s full of it, what a farce. She set us back yesterday, like we’re friggin’ clueless. Pelosi came across weak, indecisive and ill informed. Damn. Now Katrina v w/Stephanopolous on the other hand – damn that gal is good!!
Katrina van den Heuvel was a delight! If they’re going to have that common thief, Duplicitous George, on every week (and surprise, no one DARES to ask why this wingnut gets to appear every week without a liberal/progressive voice) can I please, purty please, look forward to Katrina?
Wow, was she ever on point. It’ll be a while before she’s asked back on…