Bush??
2006-11-13 10:26:10 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, you know, he is so irresistable.
2006-11-13 10:29:18 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nancy Pelosi said that before the election ever took place and she continues to say it. She's right too. Why tie up Congress with impeachment hearings now? GW only has two more years, and the Democrats have now forced him into a position in which he can no longer rule. Now he'll be forced to act like someone in his office should instead of pretending he's a dictator and we're his loyal subjects. The woman makes a lot of sense. No wonder she's been the lynchpin to getting the Democrats to speak and vote with one voice after all these years. She has to settle down the hotheads who are drooling to impeach by reminding them there's more important work to be done. Every time I hear her speak I gain more respect for her.
2006-11-13 11:13:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
probably because of the fact she realised that with their narrow majority in the two properties, they could have adequate to pass the articles of impeachment, yet not adequate to shelter a conviction in the Senate. In different words she realised that it can be a meaningless gesture to question at this element. truthfully, extreme crimes and misdemeanors, can advise something that the homestead of Representatives needs it to point. they might, in the event that they have been silly adequate to objective, impeach the president because of the fact they do in contrast to his ties. for the reason that's an argument of public checklist, they could probably in basic terms impeach in the event that they believed the president truthfully committed a actual crime, because of the fact only making up costs won't be able to win them from now on seats.
2016-10-22 01:01:44 · answer #3 · answered by lorentz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Nancy Pelosi wants to focus on lining up her own agenda and get past all the silly fighting. Democrats aren't so bad.
2006-11-13 10:37:59 · answer #4 · answered by Action 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it's because in reality, they know perfectly well there's no grounds for impeachment and no proof or evidence of anything. When it was all just talk when they had no power, they didn't need proof of anything. Just big talk to spread hate, but now they have power, they don't want to start impeachment hearings, because that would mean they'd actually have to PROVE what they're saying.
2006-11-13 10:43:28 · answer #5 · answered by bennyjoe81 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, it just means she could care less. He has only two years left, we can grin and bear it. And now that he has to work with a blue Congress, it's not like he can step out of line, like when he had the yes men in Congress.
2006-11-13 10:50:08 · answer #6 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it means that you can't impeach a President who has done nothing WRONG.
2006-11-13 10:44:48 · answer #7 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Did you see them in their Press Conference after the Thursday lunch? Monica Lewinski isn't the only one handing out sexual favors in the oval office!
2006-11-13 10:27:46 · answer #8 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, just that W. is now a lame duck President, and he'll just be ignored, just like that weird Uncle everyone has.
2006-11-13 10:29:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. She has the hots for Laura.
2006-11-13 10:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have the hots for Dr Feelgood myself :-)
2006-11-13 10:30:24 · answer #11 · answered by FeelgoodII 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋