If you have "no place to go," come here!

Our Leaders: Pelosi

chicago dyke's picture

I wonder if this:

“I go through airports, and people have buttons as if they knew I was coming,” Pelosi said with a smile, mimicking a protester pointing to an “Impeach” button on their chest.
But the California Democrat said she is sticking to her position that trying to remove Bush or Cheney would be divisive, and she added, most likely unsuccessful.

is at all related to this?

Pelosi, who is married to investor Paul Pelosi, has amassed a large portfolio of jointly owned real estate, including three properties in the Napa Valley. They sold an 8-acre vineyard on Skellenger Lane in Rutherford last year for $1 million to $5 million, according to her disclosure form.

Paul Pelosi's holdings include a four-story commercial building on Belden Place in San Francisco, a retail and office building on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in San Anselmo and an ownership stake in the Auberge du Soleil resort in Napa Valley valued at $1 million to $5 million. He also has millions of dollars of shares in publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon. com and AT&T.
The couple estimated their total assets to be worth $25 million to $102 million last year, with liabilities of $6 million to $31 million. Assets are reported in broad ranges on the disclosure forms, making it difficult to determine a lawmaker's exact net worth.

"Ethics reform" fixed that, right?

Anyway, I've been to SF a bunch, family lives out that way. It's nice. I bet she'd like to spend more time there, don't you? It's Sunday, and we're supposed to be nice to each other on Sundays, kissing and making peace and all that. So I'll be nice and suggest that Nancy deserves a nice, long vacation on one of her many beautiful SF properties, and she should be prompted to do so by her neighbors. In a nice way, of course. Some folks expressed different opinions.

I'll keep all this in mind as leading Democrats propose solutions to the mortgage meltdown "Shitpile" thingee, as well as telco immunity.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on


They are amateurs.

You're a pro.

In all the senses of that word. Honest to God, culture of impunity everywhere. "People have buttons as if they knew I was coming," forsooth.

Leader Nance, teh stupid. In fact, they don't know you're coming, and the fact that you're seeing them everywhere -- and remember, it takes courage to do anything that stands out in an airport these days -- just might tell you something. Eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

God, you're an idiot. If your attitude towards politics is that Nancy fucking Pelosi isn't pure enough, then the only realistic attitude is despair and withdrawal from any kind of political activism.

And what on earth does opposing impeachment have to do with whatever financial transactions Pelosi is involved in? Are you actually suggesting that she is being bribed not to impeach Bush? For fuck's sake.


Anonymous Coward.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

When you're out San Francisco way, holla at your boy (me) eh? We'll go check out Nancy's place in Pac Heights. And many other much more entertaining things.

AC: pointing out that Leader Nance is a gagillionaire means that she might not have the same priorities as those of us who aren't gagillionaires. Why would she want to rock the boat with impeachment when her boat is doing just fine thank you very much?

And as far as the despair and withdrawal... fuck that, my friend. We're smart, we're informed and we're angry. It's all about networking ourselves and channeling our energy into changing our country. We will not be dissuaded by expectations of deference to our Leaders or hopelessness.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on "God, You're An Idiot" supposed to be satire of some kind? it's not really funny, but it feels ironic...

I must be slow, or something.

Submitted by lambert on

Not reasoning just from the courtesy, but "purity test" was a talking point over there in the fever swamps there for awhile.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The notion that Nancy Pelosi is just a rich bitch from the top of the hill who doesn’t care about anyone other than her self and her wealthy buddies would be a compelling story if it were true. It is not. How can it be that the very same people who are rightly skeptical of the MSM and its agenda when discussing the smothering of Edwards or the trashing of Clinton are all too eager to jump on Pelosi over snippets of quotes reported out of context? It simply won’t do as a line of argument to give credence to the MSM only when it is Pelosi they’re after. Instead, ask why. Why are they deriding and mocking her, as they have throughout her entire political career? If she were such a shill for the rich and powerful, wouldn’t they instead praise her and defend her?

Pelosi has ratings of 90-100% from every single progressive/liberal organization there is, and ratings near or at zero from every conservative/neocon group. How does that make her a tool of the rich? Her husband comes from wealth; does marrying into wealth automatically make her a tool of the rich? (Looking back, maybe I would have been wiser to marry into wealth; I didn’t, and in part as a result I’m not living in next door to Nancy in Pacific Heights, but those were my choices. Being poor does not automatically make someone wiser or more capable or more dedicated to the common good, nor does having wealth prevent it.) Her husband is a skillful businessman with a diversified portfolio, and so far as I can tell a decent fellow. How does that necessarily make her a tool of the rich? Is it now an automatic indictment in the eyes of progressives to have achieved financial success? Or is that the Green-Eyed Monster talking?

Pelosi is berated here and elsewhere for not impeaching Bush and Cheney (among other things, yes, FISA FISA FISA, Iraq Iraq Iraq, but I’ll take this one issue on topic here because otherwise a comment turns into a book). She’s been completely straightforward about what she believes can be accomplished and what can not. Personally I prefer that direct approach to, say, Kucinich making bold speeches that are, however pleasing to the ear, in reality unachievable. The harsh truth is that in this Congress there are not enough votes to secure an impeachment. Blame the voters, not Pelosi. Even if she could wrangle the votes in the House, she does not control the Senate and neither does Harry Reid. Again, blame the voters or, if you prefer, the VRWC or Diebold or the Illuminati or whomever; Nancy Pelosi is not responsible for the voting outcomes in every congressional district in the country.

A further inconvenient truth is that a majority of Americans do not favor impeachment; this is just one of several reputable polls showing the same opinions:

USA Today/Gallup Poll July 6-8, 2007. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"

There Is Justification 36%
There Is Not Justification 62%
Unsure 3%

Nancy Pelosi is not responsible for forming those opinions, nor is she single-handedly responsible for changing them. That would be a job for, ah, activists.

Another reality check is that under Pelosi the legislative output of progressive agenda items has been substantial, far more so than what the new 1994 Republican congress was able to achieve with the BS Contract with America. That she does not have the votes to override the maniacal intransigence of Bush and his congressional Republican allies and the willful triangulation of the traitorous BushBitch-BlueDogs is not her fault. Blame the Republicans and Steny Hoyer and the voters for that. If she had pursued impeachment, not only would she have been acting against the majority will of the American people but she would have consumed the Congress to the point that nothing else would have been accomplished – and then she would have failed. Not, to my mind, much of a plan.

Pelosi has made mistakes, including the presumption that at least some congressional Republicans would choose to move away from Bush’s disastrous policies. They have not, but that isn’t her fault; blame the Republicans themselves for their behavior and the voters in their districts for keeping them in office. Pelosi isn’t perfect, so few of us are, but she’s a damn sight better than most. Being an echo chamber for the MSM, joining what is so clearly a deliberate Village campaign to disparage her, makes no sense to me whatsoever. We have real enemies to contend with; Nancy Pelosi is not one of them.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

"more and better" mantra will get you a bunch more like her.

Sure she single handedly derailed impeachment and defending the Constitution, for what? Some political calculus? She is as guilty and complicit as a woman who pretend she has no idea the step-father is raping her daughter. (In this case the US is being raped, see the analogy)

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

friends. not quite at the billionaire level, but some may yet break that mark. in valuable currencies even, like euros.

i don't want to say that there is any one way all rich people think. that's no more true than it is to say the poor are all equally stupid, or populist, or religious, or whatever. but i do know how they think, sometimes, when questions about priorities are raised.

it amuses me that the person of the greatest wealth with whom i can claim friendship, has recently become an Irrational Bush Hater of Shrill levels of Olde. it amuses me that i get MIHOP DVDs from that family, now, where i was exchanging emails with them just some short time ago about why they were wrong, and it isn't "really better for the poor now that republicans are in charge." most of my rich friends have given 000000s to political parties, almost always to republicans. it's what they do!

tokenism sucks. but, it has one, small, insignificant advantage. every once in a while, guilty rich people invite pretty not rich people to adorn their functions and assuage their guilt. and make their boring asses seem hip and interesting, but that's another post. the point is, up close and person, the rich can be amazingly Unified (that shouldn't surprise you) when it comes to why killing (usually brown, poor, etc) children is the only choice when Real Money is on the Line. pelosi is one.

let me ask you, constant goad and friend and fool- if i gave you "between 10 and 75" million dollars today, would you spend it all on yourself? no, likely not. so here's my question for you: how much of it would you spend on things you honestly believed would end the slaughter of children, the torture of innocents, the destruction of democracy? [insert polemical example of your choice here]

if i am said to be judgemental, this is one way that i am. i have learned, and seen up close and for true, how little lasting happiness is to be found in yet another pair of italian shoes, or one more home in exotic location X. i have seen how the more money you have, the less you can trust people. i've seen how walls come up, and shut off your soul from the world, because money must be more important than your desires, your needs. it's sad. not as sad as starving, enslaved poor people, but still, i'm a bleeding heart, i feel for even the judases of the world.

i need to say this more: most rich people are utterly forgotten by history. not those who dabble in such a way as to make sure (insure?) their names 'last forever.' but that's a tiny minority. i suppose our republicans believe this is not a concern for them, but it is. just spent time at the funeral home today, old people and the near dead everywhere (an older relative died, no one I knew well). at the end of your life, you get to look certain things square in the eye. and at that point, no one will step up and share the burden with you. poppy, chimpy, delay, hastert...i know these people are deeply unhappy, despite their wealth and power. even if i may be too, it (perhaps wrongly) comforts me to know that nothing over which i agonize can compare. even sheltered, and pampered people have that Clarity, once in the lives at least.

if there were a Maker, i'm so not worried about standing before it. they can't say the same. bring on the pain! that i survive it, perhaps sometimes even thrive in it, is just that more proof of (forgive me) my superiority over them.

pelosi carries a heavy load, and nothing short of it will satisfy me. she has to think less about her great wealth, comfort, opportunity, advantage, and instead think about the millions and billions upon whose backs unfairly, via blood, sweat and deaths, her wealth was created and is maintained. i do not expect her to live up to the challenge.

Submitted by lambert on

The hamsters will get fed, and we'll tell them to go fuck themselves, which will help with their guilt and reinforce their superiority. I'd call it a win win situation!

Well, no.

Not seriously.

We're living in a William Gibson novel, aren't we?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Now there’s a theme that might be worth developing. With a little work it could even be the basis for a short story though not enough meat, probably, for a novel.

I know rich people too; not so many as others here perhaps, not being pretty or pleasant to be around when my sensitivity to bullshit is tweaked, but enough. Like any group of people organized into a set by arbitrary assignment, the rich are a spectrum. Some are happy, others not; some are kind and generous, others venal and mean. As a matter of principle I dislike generalizations like “all rich” or “all blacks” or “all whites” or “all avocado pickers” since there always seem to be significant exceptions. I especially dislike taking those sorts of generalizations and applying them to an individual member of the set when they so clearly are inaccurate, or at least unsubstantiated by evidence; has a whiff of bigotry about it. I will allow that anyone who votes Republican is a fool, but that’s as far as I will go for group generalizations.

In this case, however, we are not talking about the rich in general but specifically about Nancy Pelosi – who happens to be rich. What evidence can be offered that she has done other than defend and advocate for those less financially well off? Where, exactly, has she acted in ways that are antithetical to progressive/liberal aims? I cannot find more than a few examples. I find instead that with rare exception she has acted in ways that are progressive and arguably against her own personal benefit; certainly against the interests supposedly associated with her "class." What more, really, can be asked? Must she renounce her wealth to live in sackcloth and ashes?

Intranets, what exactly would be wrong with more like Pelosi, who has always been ranked in the top 10% by nearly every liberal/progressive interest group? How would progressives/liberals/leftists/Correntians be harmed by “a bunch more” people who agree with Pelosi:

ACLU – 100% for 2005–2006 (lifetime rating 93%)
Population Connection – 100% for 2006
Campaign for America's Future – 100% for 2005-2006
Children's Defense Fund – 100% for 2006
Drug Policy Alliance – 100% for 2006
Drum Major Institute – 100% for 2005
League of Conservation Voters – 100% for 2006
NARAL Pro-Choice America – 100% for 2006
National Education Association – 100% for 2005-2006
National Organization for Women – 95% for 2005-2006
Americans for Democratic Action – 95% for 2006
AFL-CIO – 93% in 2006
National Journal – 92.3% composite 2006 liberal score
Secular Coalition for America – 80% on 2006 scorecard
Humane Society – 56% for 2005-06 (OK, needs work)
United States Chamber of Commerce – 40% for 2006
National Association of Wheat Growers – 28% for 2005
NORML – 20% for 2006 (OK, OK, less than perfect)
Republican Liberty Caucus – 15% for 2005
National Federation of Independent Business – 14% 2005-06
National Taxpayers Union – 11% for 2006
American Land Rights Association – 9% for 2006
John Birch Society conservative index – 0% Fall 2004
Americans for Tax Reform – 0% for 2006
Family Research Council – 0% for 2006
FreedomWorks – 0% for 2006
Gun Owners of America – 0% for 2006
National Right to Life Committee – 0% for 2005-2006
National Rifle Association – F for 2006

Tell me, Intranets, how would 534 more just like her be bad for you and me and all of America?

And Intranets, please provide evidence to support your statement that Pelosi “single handedly derailed impeachment”. As I discussed above, neither the majority of American people, nor a majority of the Democratic caucus much less a majority of Congress, are in favor of impeachment. How is it then solely, “single-handedly,” Pelosi’s responsibility? Please explain.

CD, no need to apologize for what is so manifestly obvious, “proof of (forgive me) my superiority.” I only associate with superior people; the inferior ones hold no interest. :-)

All seriousness, certainly reasons can be found with which to fault Pelosi and some are of substance; impeaching Bush is not one of them. Why continue to recite a criticism which is baseless? It does nothing to advance any other argument or validate any other critique; in fact, a false assertion undermines them. If there is any evidence that Nancy Pelosi is in fact responsible for not impeaching George Bush, please bring it forward. Otherwise, it would be better to stick with making accusations that are supportable; the better to distinguish the responsible, progressive left from the irresponsible, irrational rabble on the right.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

today, in this country, if you are very rich, and you didn't earn it with your own hands, and i do mean "with your hands," the money you control is covered in blood. is that clear enough?

now, most americans have blood-stained hands, it's very hard not to consume something that isn't made via oppression and horror. a friend of mine really took it to me once, and the climax of that lecture was "you wouldn't last five minutes in india," meaning that i'm such a spoiled, soft, stupid american that the sight of the poverty there would blister my eyes and cause me to vomit uncontrollably. it's a weakness i think i share with most americans- i have no idea, nor the moral courage, to contemplate seriously from whence my wealth and privs come. i'd rather blather pretentiously on the internet with other self concerned friends. ;-)

now, you ask: isn't this about pelosi, and not "all rich people?" sure it is. let's start with "she's one of them." it's important.

you list a very impressive recitation of her credentials. but you know, i spent a little time in places where people toss around which group is associated with them, and why. eventually, i want to know the answer to, "yes, but what have you accomplished?" what can these groups point to, and how has Nancy worked with them or for them, and brought about actual change?

let me just deliver the killing blow: if NORML gives her 20%, that means to me that she only cares about black and brown men 20% of the time. the drug war is racist, unconstitutional, racist, murderous, corrupting our law enforcement community, racist, and eating up a growing portion of our shrinking budgets. it's stupid, wasteful and criminal, and fails on every level, spectacularly. it slaughters the innocent.

i just can't be OK with people who are like, "yeah, dood, but right now i've got to meet with a lobbyist and give a speech about how much i don't like dirty fucking hippies on my block. and fuck you Move On." esp while people are dying. for no reason but the greed of the already wealthy and powerful.

hey, what about iraq? i think something's going on over there too, i guess nancy has been all over that since foolish people sustained a tiny iota of hope for a nanosecond and believed that maybe she would try to set a timetable, or something.

blah blah, work within the system blah, the process of justice is slow, all things must end, blah. yes, i know why i shouldn't be in charge of "policy" and "strategy" and "anything." just don't expect me to be happy with "no results i can in any way perceive personally."

short version- rule #1, for any rich and ruling class, must be: don't let chatty poor people stay pissed off for too long. esp those with nothing to lose.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on


Yes we need lots more Pelosi's. We need Hundreds of mothers and fathers will to let strangers have sex with and explore all their fantasies with their own children.

You may not see how the complicit, do-nothing, investigate nothing, approve all war funding, etc. Congress is looking the other way while certain people are busy raping and molesting America.

These Democrats were elected to end the abuse. To take the children out of an abusive home. To stop the raping for fucks sake.

Instead they still play the game of pretending not to hear anything. Leaving the kids with the creepy uncle babysitter because they have rich parties to go to.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table and said it publicly to make sure the rapists and molester knew they wouldn't be stopped.

Submitted by lambert on

... I knew Pelosi was for shit. There was a chance to do justice and blow the Republican brand sky-high -- same thing, really -- and when she was still in the minority, she diverted it to the Ethics committee, and then when in the majority she buried it. No doubt in favor of the same Unity bullshit Obama is preaching.

So enabling child molesters isn't that far off.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

CD's original post was about Pelosi and impeachment, about how it is all her fault that George Bush is still in office. It won’t do to keep sliding off into other arguments while not addressing the challenge I’ve tendered – Where is the evidence to support the claim that Pelosi single-handedly blocked impeachment?

Intranets repeats the assertion: “Pelosi took impeachment off the table” as though it were true. Where is the evidence to support that claim? Here are quotes from which that canard has arisen, in context:

WaPo on Friday, May 12, 2006:

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.


In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said…impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."


He [Daly] said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.

From a UPI report on Oct. 22, 2006 about her appearance on Meet the Press:

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time,"

And from the NYT on November 8, 2007:

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

In all of these, the quotes are selections out of much larger discussions about what Pelosi felt could or could not be accomplished in the 110th Congress. They were excerpted by the press specifically because they would stir up controversy, the underlying tactic being a challenge to the Left to attack Pelosi – “let’s you and her fight” so we can report on it – and the Left bought that framing and waded right in. What Pelosi did was state a fact: impeachment was and is off the table because the majority of American people have not favored impeachment, the majority in Congress – both the House and the Senate – do not favor impeachment, and by far the greatest likelihood is that any attempt at impeachment would fail. Pelosi did not take impeachment off the table because it was never on the table to begin with.

The responsibility for driving impeachment does not rest with the Speaker of the House, if for no other reason than that as a close successor she has a direct conflict of interest. I for one would have been delighted to see Pelosi in the Oval Office while Bush and Cheney shared a small cell in Leavenworth, but leading that effort is not a proper role for her to have played.

If there had been broader support among American citizens or broader support among the Democratic caucus, Pelosi would have adjusted her priorities – she would have had to. Look to that absence of support as the cause for impeachment not being pursued. If activists had done a better job of convincing their elected representatives to sign on as co-sponsors of any of the several bills calling for impeachment proceedings, they would have gotten their wish; that did not happen, but it is not Pelosi’s fault. It is unfair to blame one person for decisions made by others; it is unfair and immoral to blame someone for something over which they have no control. If you must issue “blame” because Bush and Cheney have not been impeached, at least place the blame where it belongs – on the majority of the American people.

Pelosi had something else to say, which was not as widely reported or remarked upon:

"But I will say this -- elections have ramifications. If they don't like the policies of our country, I encourage everyone to mobilize to change who is in power in Washington, D.C."

Pelosi was speaking in terms of the election, but note the use of the word “mobilize.” From Merriam-Webster’s online:

transitive verb 1a: to put into movement or circulation (mobilize financial assets) b: to release (something stored in the organism) for bodily use 2a: to assemble and make ready for war duty b: to marshal (as resources) for action (mobilize support for a proposal)

Nancy is a very intelligent person, and she chooses her words carefully. The invitation was not to just vote, or write letters, or complain. Mobilize is an activity, from the root mobile; bitching about how the system is rigged and the rich have too much of everything is fine and necessary but it will only get a movement so far, and generally not far enough. For citizens to change anything significantly in our society requires large numbers of them to get off their asses and grab a picket sign and take to the streets, it always has; nothing meaningful has ever been achieved without large numbers of people willing to literally demonstrate their unhappiness.

If the people want an immediate change in governance they need to mobilize and fill the streets, fill the halls of Congress, surround the White House and sit down. Nothing more, but nothing less; sit down and stay there, until change occurs. Nancy Pelosi called for action and not enough materialized; if there is need to look for someone to blame for not doing enough to drive impeachment, I suggest that there are mirrors aplenty in which to peer and yes, I’m looking at myself as well.

Now for some the myriad attempted segues away from impeachment in comments above. Most of them I will not address here; this thread is about Nancy Pelosi and impeachment. I understand that dislike for Pelosi runs deep and wide, but attempting to use one source of unhappiness to bolster another argument is acceptable only if they are directly associated. “I hate Nancy” is not an argument; if that’s all there is to support the accusation that she is the sole obstruction to impeachment, well, so be it, but let’s be plainspoken about it.

Intranets. You know I care about you, like a distant, somewhat argumentative cousin, and I don’t want to be harsh but this promiscuous use of sexually charged metaphors for abuse has just got to stop. “These Democrats were elected to end the abuse. To take the children out of an abusive home. To stop the raping for fucks sake. Instead they still play the game of pretending not to hear anything. Leaving the kids with the creepy uncle babysitter because they have rich parties to go to.” After all of your D/s allusions in the tasering debate, people are starting to wonder.

I’m all for hyperbole and admire a well-constructed exaggeration as much as anyone here, but this is over the top and too badly mixed to be of any utility. Lambert’s well-played attempt at assistance with the Foley matter notwithstanding, I don’t think rape and molestation are either appropriate or fitting in this circumstance. In particular, I do not see a connection to the on-topic argument here that Pelosi is the principal roadblock to impeachment. As to your structuring the Democratic politicians as being the “parents” and the rest of us as their “children” well, that is in and of itself pretty creepy. I don’t need any more parents, and I’m pretty sure Nancy doesn’t want you as her child. This whole analogy is just nasty; I need a shower.

CD. ”yes, i know why i shouldn’t be in charge of ‘policy’ and ‘strategy’ and ‘anything.’” When I’m King you can be Mistress of Justice and clear out all the bad people. You’ll do fine.

I do so admire your unwavering optimism: ” let me just deliver the killing blow”. Seriously, now; I am a roach, not a violet; it will take a great deal more in the way of stomping to do away with me. You go on to write

“if NORML gives her 20%, that means to me that she only cares about black and brown men 20% of the time”

and just above you also write

”you list a very impressive recitation of her credentials. but you know, i spent a little time in places where people toss around which group is associated with them, and why. eventually, i want to know the answer to, ‘yes, but what have you accomplished?’ what can these groups point to, and how has Nancy worked with them or for them, and brought about actual change?”

Well, let’s just do that. [Note: This is the only one of the ratings I will analyze; there are limits to how much linky step-and-fetch I’ll go to, even for you.]

NORML’s mission is to repeal prohibition of cannabis use by adults; they have no interest in regards to other drugs. Concurrently, NORML also lobbies for a medicinal use exemption to existing laws and does not distinguish between these efforts. Pelosi has long supported restructuring of drug use laws, including co-sponsorship with Barney Frank of his Medical Use of Marijuana Act, open, on the record support in 2004 for a bill to prohibit use of federal funds for drug enforcement contrary to state laws, and she quietly slipped a last-minute provision into last December’s budget bill that ended federal prohibition of local needle exchange and medical marijuana laws in DC. Additionally, Pelosi has been openly supportive of California’s decision some years ago to treat possession of less than an o-z of pot as a misdemeanor ($100 fine and you lose the dope, bummer, but it is a step forward) and of refocusing illegal drug possession to treatment rather than imprisonment.

When the Dems took the House, NORML headquarters thought they’d won the jackpot and expected immediate hearings and bills to legalize pot. When they learned that the caucus had other items on the short list, they retaliated by giving the Speaker a poor rating. Politics, dontchaknow? Most of the state NORML offices remain strongly supportive of Pelosi, like this one in Oregon.

In contrast to NORML, Pelosi received a 100% rating in 2006 from the Drug Policy Forum of California and from the nation-wide Drug Policy Alliance, both of which have a broad-based focus of decriminalizing street drug use in general. From the DPA:

Our work spans issues from medical marijuana to youth drug education. We work to ensure that our nation’s drug policies no longer arrest, incarcerate, disenfranchise and otherwise harm millions of nonviolent people, especially people of color.[emphasis mine]

So by your reckoning, when considering all forms of street drug law we see that Pelosi “cares about black and brown men” 100% of the time which for a middle-aged white woman seems a bit freaky but who am I to judge. Happy to discuss drugs and jobs and education and lead paint and prenatal care and all the oppressed masses topics and what to do about it, but what has it got to do with impeachment? And are you really serious that a pissy discounted rating by NORML erases the value of all those 90%-100% ratings on the top and the zeros on the bottom? That does seem a stretch.

As to all rich people having blood on their hands, no more so here and now than any other time; the poor of India were no worse after imposition of the Raj than for centuries before. If you have a plan for constructing an economic system that works better, and by that I mean more equitably, than constrained capitalism (which I concede will always depend on the sweat of some people’s brow) please lay it out. Otherwise the blood-stained-hands accusation cuts in all directions and can be applied to almost everyone. I actually don’t find it helpful to approach individuals as though they are always representative of the perceived attributes of their class. You seem to want it both ways, as in ”you ask: isn’t this about pelosi, and not ‘all rich people?’sure it is. let’s start with ‘she’s one of them.’” in which you agree with me before you disagree with me, rather Kerry-like. Tell me, what does being rich have to do specifically with the question of whether or not Pelosi is solely responsible for failure to impeach Bush and/or Cheney?

Or are you arguing that no one rich can be a decent human being? There certainly have been people who came to wealth by happenstance and were able to manage the stress and retain their humanity – Sargent Shriver is one – and some who were born to privilege and only found humility and humaneness later in their adult life, like Robert Kennedy. There is more than a little blood on the wealth of the Kennedys, and still some of them were able to rise above and do great and good things. We’ll all get to see how Pelosi turns out, she isn’t going anywhere but where she is, but I am persuaded that she is in essence a decent person and given the opportunity under a Democratic presidency she will do great things.

And then: ”hey, what about iraq?” Well, what about it? Start up a different thread on Iraq, or better Iraq and Afghanistan together because they are now inseparable, and we’ll chew on it including Pelosi’s role/inability/helplessness whatever, OK? You may see it as simple, I think it’s horrendously complex; a discussion would be interesting. I’ve been working on a post for a while, not easy to lay out all the ramifications, so don’t wait if you have an approach you prefer.

Intranets, by all means come back at me with any argument or evidence you may have to persuade that Nancy Pelosi has done anything on the matter of impeachment other than respect the will of the majority of the American people and the majority of their elected representatives. I understand you wanted Bush and Cheney to be impeached; I would have also been pleased. But the majority of Americans disagree with us, and Pelosi as Speaker has chosen to listen to that national majority and the opinion of the majority of her caucus rather the wishes of her own District or yours and mine. If you have any evidence to show that she made her decision on any other basis, bring it forward. Please, however, I’m begging you, no more sexual deviancy, perversion and abuse as allegory; you’re giving me the willies.