• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Time for Pelosi to go?

Should Nancy Pelosi step down (or be removed) as Speaker?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Texan

Well-known member
As one of the most important leaders in Congress, and THE MOST powerful member of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi's latest actions in accusing the CIA of lying to Congress are disgusting. Anyone who saw her press conference could easily tell that she was lying to save her own career. Someone who will lie to save her political hide isn't someone that we need in a leadership position (or any other position).

Clearly, we can't keep her out of office altogether. Because the kooks in her district in San Francisco will probably like her even better for what she's done. But she sure doesn't need to keep her leadership position in the House. If she can't prove her claims that the CIA has lied to Congress, she needs to step down - or be taken out.

These people that control our legislative branch - the Speaker, majority leaders, minority leaders, etc. - have way too much power, anyway. Most of the country would NOT elect Nancy Pelosi as their Congressman, but yet she has the power to control almost everything that goes on in Congress? Isn't there something wrong with that?

It doesn't matter if it's a lying, liberal, Democrat kook like Pelosi - or a sorry, thieving, Republican crook like Hastert - they shouldn't have that much power. And it's certainly way past time for Pelosi to give hers up.

I know that some of you libs have become extremely....reserved(?) about speaking out against any wrongdoing by your 'team.' That's why I'm putting this question in the form of a poll. That way, even those of you who don't feel comfortable speaking out against your 'team' can still vote - anonymously.
 

Texan

Well-known member
In thinking about this a little bit more, maybe this is a silly poll. This is about right/wrong and expecting our leaders to have some integrity - expecting them to be truthful and honest. On a question like this - no matter your political affiliation or who you voted for - I can't even imagine anyone voting, "No."
 

Texan

Well-known member
Good for you, Alice - for not choosing to just be anonymous with your opinion. Hard to believe that some people here call you, "Fluffy." :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Pelosi brings more reasons for the Tea Party type protests.

We should ALL be mad as heck about the lack of openess and honesty in Government.

Even those who condone Pelosi should be given their walking papers.

What happened to outrage? :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I can't vote because:


She prob should go......but she'll end up staying.


Too much $$$$$ behind her and Dem Party!


You don't have a 3rd choice/explanation option there!!
 

VanC

Well-known member
In Wake of Scandal, Pelosi’s Approval Rating Tanks

by Brad Jackson

Nancy Pelosi has had a rough few weeks as Speaker of the House. She doesn’t seem to remember whether or not the CIA told her about enhanced interrogation techniques, and now blames the whole incident on the Bush Administration and a lying staff of CIA officers. The bad press surrounding this scandal hasn’t helped her approval ratings, as only 39% of Americans approve of the job she is doing as Speaker a low that Newt Gingrich experienced himself when he faced some trouble as Speaker in the late 90’s.

Nearly half of all Americans — 48 percent — disapprove of how the California Democrat is handling her job as Speaker of the House in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, while 39 percent approve of her performance.

That rating makes her less popular than other members of her party — congressional Democrats drew a 51 percent approval rating…

Couple this with the news earlier today about Americans now being evenly divided among the parties, and hey, things are looking a little rosier for the GOP these days. With approval numbers this low and a scandal of deepening interest, look for Republicans to use Pelosi as a lightning rod for campaigns across the country in 2010. Democrats used Newt for this purpose, and have been masters at the “Blame Bush” mantra for the last eight years to great effect in the voting booth. Perhaps the GOP can begin returning the favor in 2010.

The speaker is elected by members of the majority party every two years after the new House is sworn in. I don't know if a speaker can be removed from that office before their term is up. Surely there must be a way, but I haven't been able to find it. Either way, Pelosi will be under pressure to resign the speakership as she becomes more of a drag to the party. If she refuses, things could get interesting.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
According to the Constitution (pesky little thing, isn't it?) both the Houses of Congress make their own governing rules. Speaker Pelosi can be removed at ANY time simply by a majority vote of all of the members. Also, if she were to be indicted on an ACTUAL criminal charge ("I don't like you" is not a felony or a misdemeanor) then under the rules she would have to renuonce her leadership position (remember Tom DeLay being indicted for election fraud in Texas?).

As of right now, she is acting within the rules set by the House of Representatives.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
BUT...BUT....what about when Colin Powell was given faulty info which he passed on to the UN.


What about Bush who misled us all to think there was WMD's when there wasn't and they were not NOT to exist?????


She's ain't the first....but it does bring about some questions of what info is allowed to whom?
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
What about Bush who misled us all to think there was WMD's when there wasn't and they were not NOT to exist?????
You liberals believe what you want to believe, which is not necessarily the truth. :roll:


“Non existant” Yellowcake Uranium Moved From Iraq to CanadaPosted on July 6th, 2008 by Nancy Reyes in 2008 Election Coverage, All News, Breaking News,

It’s official. There were WMD’s in Iraq. Not fully developed WMD’s, but the infrastructure, scientists, and supplies available waiting for sanctions to be lifted and voila, Saddam back to normal.

The LATimes reports:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached this Canadian port Saturday, completing a secret U.S. operation that included an airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans.

The removal of about 550 tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein’s nuclear legacy.


The Newsweek story has even more details.

It seems the presence of the yellow cake, which was not concentrated enough to make a bomb but could be used to make a “dirty bomb” was known to the US government and US Army and even the UN, but it’s presence was not publicized for fear that it would be looted. And there was quite a bit of the stuff lying around: 550 metric tons of it. It is now in Canada, sold to a company that will concentrate it for use in civilian nuclear reactors.

There will have to be a huge environmental cleanup of the storage area, as mentioned in the Newsweek AP story.

But in a year when politics rules, it is interesting to note that the Bush administration kept the presence of this site secret from the general public while taking hysterical criticism from the same far left groups who birthed the Obama campaign.

So the irony is that, to keep the presence secret from local thugs associated with terrorists until the huge amount of partially enriched uranium could be removed, the anti war left was allowed to repeat it’s lies that it didn’t exist at all.

And yes, the Newsweek/AP story does admit:

The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

Plame, was supposed to be an expert in nuclear proliferation, undoubtably knew that the uranium was there, yet allowed her husband to undermine the Bush administration case that Iraq was buying “yellow cake”, as if it didn’t exist. Now it turns out that maybe the Niger connection was untrue, but the Wilson editorial suggesting that no enriched uranium was available to Saddam was also untrue to the point of 550 tons. Did Ms. Plame know about these weapons when her husband insisted that they didn’t exist?

Perhaps someone in the press corps will now ask Ms. Plame and spouse some embarassing questions if the CIA was clueless, or if either she or the CIA was meddling in politics.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
When do you believe him :???:

In other areas, Mr. Bush was conciliatory to his critics. He termed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq "a huge disappointment," while the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "a significant disappointment" given intelligence assessments. He repeated his admission that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on a U.S. aircraft carrier "sent the wrong message."

"I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way," he said.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123176998860973411.html
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
When do you believe him :???:
In other areas, Mr. Bush was conciliatory to his critics. He termed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq "a huge disappointment," while the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "a significant disappointment" given intelligence assessments. He repeated his admission that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on a U.S. aircraft carrier "sent the wrong message."

"I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way," he said.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123176998860973411.html

Any time you try to discredit him is a great time to BELIEVE EH oldtimer!
 

Mike

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
When do you believe him :???:
In other areas, Mr. Bush was conciliatory to his critics. He termed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq "a huge disappointment," while the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "a significant disappointment" given intelligence assessments. He repeated his admission that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on a U.S. aircraft carrier "sent the wrong message."

"I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way," he said.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123176998860973411.html

Any time you try to discredit him is a great time to BELIEVE EH oldtimer!

I'm just sitting here scratching my head as to how OT could possibly question ANYONE ELSE'S HONESTY. Honestly. :wink:
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I can't vote because:


She prob should go......but she'll end up staying.


Too much $$$$$ behind her and Dem Party!


You don't have a 3rd choice/explanation option there!!
The question was, "should she...." Not, "will she....." I would also be skeptical of her stepping down voluntarily.

It's a pretty simple question of principle. There really wasn't any need for a third choice. I believe you answered it when you said. "She prob should go...."

It's kinda mind-boggling that three people have actually voted no. Either they're more interested in standing up for their 'team' or there's something else I'm missing.

Are there any of you three that want to tell us your reason for voting the way you did?
 
Top