Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Are Dems Such Cowards on Impeachment?
I don't get it.The Constitution prescribes a remedy when a President or Vice-President commits "high crimes and misdemeanors."
It is impeachment.
And everyday we learn more about the unconstitutional behavior of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Every poll on the subject indicates strong support in the country for impeaching the Veep (who has a 13% approval rating.)
But Democrats do nothing, thereby themselves thwarting the Constitution and allowing to stand the idea that impeachment is appropriate when a President lies about his sex life but not when a Vice President operates entirely outside of the law.
I know why they are ducking the I word.
The Democrats in Congress are focused on only one thing: holding Congress next year and winning the Presidency.
I'm down with that.
But I have to wonder about a party that, in pursuit of victory, would join Republicans in trampling the Constitution by not applying the prescribed Constitutional remedy for criminal behavior.
I also reject the idea that impeachment would hurt the Democrats. Public approval of the Democratic Congress is in the basement. And that is because Congress appears to be doing nothing about anything.
Of course, the reason Democrats reject impeachment is that they continue their quixotic pursuit of the Republican vote. The DLC types are always pushing Dems to pursue evangelicals, gun owners, tough white males, hawks, people uncomfortable with gays, African-Americans, etc.
The thought of impeachment terrifies those determined to seek votes from people who would never vote Democratic anyway.
Think of it this way. Any voter turned off by impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney is not voting Democratic in 2008.
So why not do the right thing? Read the Constitution and then do what James Madison is telling you to do.
At the very least, the initiation of impeachment proceedings would shut Cheney down for the remainder of the Bush term. Remember what they did to Clinton and how he was forced to devote almost all his time to his own defense?
More likely impeachment would succeed, with Republicans joyfully using it as an opportunity to distance themselves from a failed administration while not directly turning on their President.
Just do it, Dems. You can't be wusses forever!
M.J. Rosenberg works in Washington supporting US efforts to advance an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
© 2007 The TPM Cafe
76 Comments so far
Show AllI found it difficult to vote for John Kerry in the last presidential election because he was like all the other Democrats, middle of the road apathy for anything that might offend anyone, therefore, having no moral stand about anything, BUT, they were in luck, Bush decided to keep everyone on his staff. I wrote a book called, "Armageddon, the anti-Christ, and Bush", available through Trafford Publishing of Canada, because he has done everything the supposed man whose name numbers 666 does in the Book of Revelation, yet nobody seems to care. This man should be impeached before he can take us into Iran, which I predicted last year, and cost the U.S. tremendous new debt much less the fury that will be caused with the rest of the world. We can't control Iraq and he wants our military Reserves and National Guard to attack, invade, and occupy another country when our own National Guard can't protect anyone in this country. I'm sure it is only coincidence that this other country just happens to be one of the richest oil countries in the world? The DNC won't say or do anything against this man. Where is another Ross Perot when we really need him? I could almost vote for Ralph Nader if he ran for president. I'm not religious by any means, but "God help us", because nobody else in our government seems willing.
Pelosi has attempted to rewrite the law to her own political liking, and so is as much a traitor to her country as Bush at this point. (Not Cheney, however, who is in a category of his own.) If Pelosi believes that she can use her position to ignore what is required of her by US law she can also be taken to task by impeachment as she is faced with civil servants in the federal government whose disregard for the rule of law is precisely what the Founders clearly identified as Impeachable and when the majority of the American people call for impeachment or when she is faced with a resolution in the House she has no choice but to honor it if she is to stay within her legal bounds. It is her duty as Speaker to respect the rule of law and her duty as a civil servant to protect and defend the people of the United States of America and our Constitution.
To suggest, as she has repeatedly done, that she has banned impeachment from the House, a constitutional process that is imperative to democracy, as opposed to a dictatorship, is clearly breaking the law.
Bush and Cheney have admitted that they are repeatedly vilating our American laws, and violating the Constitution, as well as many international laws. In fact, they are in our faces about it. It's time.
Many activists are now focusing their attention on Pelosi by hand writing letters to her personally. I see this as the perfect next step – and long overdue. The addresses are on her website. Recent internet information (which turned out to be a rumor, but a good rumor nonetheless) has circulated saying she would move H Res 333 to impeach Cheney forward if she received 10,000 letters. This has drawn attention to the fact that we need to direct our demands to the correct position in the federal government. Pelosi's illegal attempt to thwart the American legal system cannot be ignored. We have not been hard enough on Pelosi; she is dead wrong! It's time we looked to the sources of where this action has been thwarted and addressed them.
Regarding pressure on Pelosi:
A fellow from Brattleboro, VT - John Nirenberg - is walking from Boston to DC along Route 1 beginning December 1 to gather signatures and letters to give to Pelosi on the urgency of impeachment. Please feel free to add your energy to this movement! You can find more info here: www.MarchInMyName.org This is a fantastic way to bring positive attention to this urgent issue.
We The People have taken the lead.
The letters to Pelosi should continue, and there should be no limit to the number.
Simultaneous impeachment/removal of Cheney/Bush would create a sea change similar to the election of FDR in 1932 in which the Dems would control both Houses of Congress and the White House for a generation. The American people would get for the American people what the national polls show they want -- a change in the direction of the country (75%), an end to the Iraq War (65%) and the immediate end to this Administration (a large plurality).
Why then do the leadership Dems oppose simultaneous impeachment/removal of Cheney/Bush you ask? It's simple. Nancy Pelosi, a clear anti-war Democrat would become the first woman US President in 2007 and when she ends the war by the time of the 2008 election, it would force the corporatist, DLC, Clinton/Emmanuel wing of the Democratic to unite behind her in 2008. Although the Dem leadership has successfully persuaded progressives that impeachment/removal has no chance and is a waste of time, they know that once the simultaneous impeachment/removal of Bush/Cheney starts moving, it will win.
Unfortunately their unwillingness to use simultaneous impeachment/removal of Cheney/Bush puts them in the position of looking like what they are -- weak, impotent and ineffectual -- resorting to meaningless, spectacular, non-binding tactics that accomplish nothing. And everyone knows they don't have to have 60 or 67 Senate votes in order to end the war unless they choose to use those tactics in order to intentionally lose and then point their fingers at the Repubs. So now the Democratic Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush.
Dems are not cowards, they are corrupt. Period. Just read Vidal or Chomsky, end of argument.
Just do it, Dems. You can't be wusses forever!
Oh, yes they can!
Most of the Congress and Senate are worried more about how the press would portray their impeachment proceedings than what their constituents are clamoring for. It's my guess that the corporate media would go into a tail spin and it would be so out there -- meaning out of the realm of the reality that the country is experiencing that they would spin out of control and into oblivion. Of course the Congress could hold townhall meetings and get the truth out -- face-to-face to the people and that, my friends, would be that. This crazy regime would be done with, and the power of Rupert Murdoch and others who don't give a fig about what's good for our country, would evaporate.
Brilliant tactical breakdown. It seems obvious that pursuing impeachment would be wildly popular and would re-energize the whole nation politically.
SO, the real question becomes -- given that it would obviously re-invigorate the nation and re=establish the credibility of the Democratic Party, the Credibility of the US overseas with our allies -- Why don't they do it?
I think there is a deep answer to this question, deeper than "they have no spine," or "they haven't thought it through correctly."
Voters are desperate for any heart beat or bravery from our political leaders. Impeachment is the obvious way to show heart, muscle.
I believe if the Dems did nothing but push through impeachment between now and November 2008, Dems would win the White House decisively. Crucially, then -- why don't they do it? Of course, the stated reasons must almost always be rejected.
Gore Vidal has it correct, and I've written the same before: there is only one party in Congress: the puppets of the elite (i.e. corporations). Democrats won't impeach because that would come back to hurt them someday. They won't commit to campaign finance reform because they feed from the same trough. They certainly won't rock the boat if it harms their corporate or AIPAC benefactors. The Constitution is dead, bought and shredded by corporate money, happily abetted by a venal Congress.
Dave
"I also reject the idea that impeachment would hurt the Democrats. Public approval of the Democratic Congress is in the basement. And that is because Congress appears to be doing nothing about anything."
They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't -- so they might as well do, because they've got nothing to lose!
The democrats are cowards on everything else--why wouldn't they be on impeachment?
All the want is PORK.
Everyone is writing, but no one is actually doing anything. The Democrats are not cowards, they're merely incompetent to do this job. The cowards are ourselves, because we send them to Washington to the job that we should be doing.
The whole word coward is meant to make you think of surrender date with cut and run thrown in. You are being manipulated by propagandists people! Especially you right wingers, because those of us that think for ourselves are not pawn to these people like you are.
Republicans abused the use of impeachment against President Clinton for what turned out to be nothing more than an attempted political coup. Democrats, as a result, have neither the will nor what they feel is the incentive to proceed with impeachment hearings because they fear being accused of doing the same thing to the Republicans that they did to Dems back in '94.
This, however, does not excuse them from their timidity. I, for one, feel that they need to get a big time case of backbone and do what is right for the country. Our nation has never before been in such a period of crisis as it is now. Our rights have been steadily chipped away at for years now under the guise of protecting us from terrorism when in fact this administration, by its reckless, go-at-it-alone pre-emptive war in Iraq, has put us at an even greater risk of terrorist attack than any time since before 9/11.
Therefore I implore the more progressive Democrats in the House and Senate to stand firm and demand impeachment hearings against what is increasingly being revealed to be a criminal administration bent on completely shredding our rights and our Constitution and installing what in effect has become a dictatorship. Fortune, as they say, favors the bold ("Audentes Fortunas Juvat", a quote attributed to the Roman poet Virgil). Timidity never made anyone great. Just ask anyone who ever became a great leader.
Basically, they'd amount to very little when a critical mass of Americans see them as wholly illegitimate and either openly flout various laws and/or refuse to pay taxes.
The fact that we're pushing the Democrats (to no avail), rather than being led by them, speaks for itself.
But I need to reiterate -- I'm awfully annoyed at analyses like Rosenberg's here that paint them as being meek on impeachment because they want to increase their odds at election time. On the contrary, Bush & Co. have extraordinarily low ratings. If they were actually a party in charge of its own destiny, they'd swoop in for a political kill. But they don't. They're the PR wing of the Republican Party, little more.
How lame is the Left?
"You can tell I am a bold Leftist agitator because... I whine about impeachment!"
This isn't a movement, it isn't even a mob. At least a mob could shut down Walmart, Exxon, and Goldman Sachs.
If you want the Democrats to show a little courage, try showing some yourselves.
"Why Are Dems Such Cowards on Impeachment?"
As I always say, in regards to the US government:
Right hand, Left hand: Same freakin brain.
STOP depending on the government to get itself under control. The Dumbocrats work for the same lobbyists as the Repukes. Our government is controlled by the companies who own the lobbyists. The lobbyists work for the corporations that own our government.
Taking to the streets is not relevant anymore. We NEED to start building our own communities, our own laws. STOP thinking of yourself as an American, and START thinking of yourself as a Citizen of Earth. Nationalism is for the weak-hearted. Create communities in YOUR image. Create lifestyles in YOUR image. Eventually, these communities will succeed from the United States and become their own entity.
STOP RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO GET ITSELF UNDER CONTROL!
Corporate shills, man. Sometimes I think Democrats are even bigger liars than Republicans (though I can't state that definitively).
RichM
Excellent post! I certainly agree with every word you said. If the public could only understand what you have written, society would change for the better in a short time.
An engineer told me the same thing 30 years ago, and both of you have exposed the myth of the two-party system and the way they deceive the masses.
Again,RichM, your " letter to the editor " on this article, on Common Dreams is the best I have ever read. Thanks!
I think that the insinuation that the democrats are cowards is wrong. I believe that both parties are the two ends playing the middle. With 5 battle groups at the ready to smash Iran it is clear that Iraq is a staging area for action in Iran. Both parties want this since they have no intentions of walking and this is about controlling resources and OPEC's desire to move to the EURO Dollar or a mixed basket. I thing the word chosen "coward" is inaccurate and a better word would be "thespians"!
David Lindorf is, of course, absolutely correct.
The Democrats seem to be taking guidance from Bob Shrum, I might add.
With every thing in their favor, it is likely the Dems will lose in 2008, since the election will now turn on personality issues and the Repubs have two natural advantages: a mainstream media that favors their memes and a voting public that tends to rely on the emotional over the intellectual, having learned in schools dominated by standardized testing that thinking is boring. It's why, when given the choice to go anywhere they want on the net, tens of millions choose ebay and myspace rather than commondreams and dailykos. American voters are consumers rather than citizens and that favors the more interesting brand, bound to almost always be a Republican, since they must be better packagers of the product in order to attract the interest of the voter who actually has little in common with them.
I'm tired of hearing the Democrats described as 'wusses' or 'cowards' or that they somehow listen to stupid strategists.
Face the facts. The Dems are smart, tough politicians who are leaders in their field. They are doing exactly what they set out to do and intend to do. Reid and Pelosi clearly promised that they would not impeach before the 2006 election, and they are keeping their promise.
The role of the Dems in the US system for the last 20 years is to protect the Republicans and the corporate agenda when the Republican party periodically overreaches and collapses. This is the description of the whole Clinton Presidency, which did little or nothing to roll back the Reagan changes, then advanced the Republican agenda in areas like WTO and NAFTA and Welfare Reform.
So its no surprise to see a Dem congress doing the same. Not doing anything to roll back the worst of the Bush years ... tax cuts for the rich, Patriot Act, and generally protecting Bush and Cheney and making sure they stay in office for the rest of their terms.
The Democrats are not a grassroots party. They rarely listen to their base, and they are not really a democracy in how they work internally. They switched their political base to the same big money that funds the Republicans in the late 1980's. So its no surprise that they support the same agenda.
I've been hearing this argument about the dems being cowards or listening to stupid strategists for twenty years now. It doesn't take twenty years to find a new strategist if they want to change. The key bit to realize is that the Dems are doing exactly what they want to do and have no intention of changing.
If you voted Dem in 2006 thinking you'd get impeachment, then you wasted your vote as Reid and Pelosi had clearly said it wasn't happening. In general, if you vote Dem thinking you are voting for change, you are wasting your vote. Please stop!
The last slim Reid that Congress clings to is that it has the power to impeach Bush. The failure to influence Bush so far by any Congressional action is a demonstraion of its' impotence. To asttempt impeachment, and fail, would demolish the remaining illusion of Congressional relevance. It will fail because Bushco is smater, quicker, and more ruthless than an ineffecual debating society. Better to sit idly by, reject any Bill supported by Bush , (the immigration bill) and pretend to posess power.
Thanks, RichM, for your analysis.
It is not often that I get to read something that shines a fresh light on how our system works.
WRITE AND FAX TO PELOSI IMMEDIATELY.
Fax 202-225-8259
With the threat of Sheehan running against her, she may re-think her earlier position that impeachment is off the table.
In Los Angeles, there is an impeachment center just opened to bring together the efforts of the many individual groups. Go to their website bcimpeach.com for more info.
###
Frankly, I don't think the Dems will impeach because if the impeachment process were to be used as spelled out in the Constitution, it would be quick and clean, and could also be used to get rid of at least 90% of those in the House and Senate.
The basic premise of impeachment is to get those guilty of breach of public trust out of office and banned from ever again serving in such a position.
The process should not take long, nor be too expensive. It would be in the nature of a Grand Jury. The evidence is examined and, if it appears to be sufficient, the defendant is remanded for trial. The high official is impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. By the Constitution, there is no pardon upon impeachment. That means that, once impeached by the House, tried and found guilty and removed from office, the miscreant cannot be pardoned, so may stand trial for his/her crimes.
That was why Nixon cut his deal. "I'll resign, you pardon me and we'll all go our merry way." Had he been impeached, he would have had to stand trial, he could not be pardoned. Then, perhaps, the world at large and our political crooks would have received the message that the office of President was indeed a sacred trust, to be violated at the risk of terrible penalties. Instead, they got the message that any two-bit crook could steal the nation blind and get away with it. Look what has happened since.
How many of our alleged representatives can you name that have not been guilty of hundreds of counts of breach of public trust, through sweetheart bills, pork barrel giveaways, appointments to offices, not through proven ability, but through cronyism and many more issues?
They don't want to start the snowball down the hill because they fear it might get big enough to swallow all of them.
Frankly, I wish it would. It is time to start over. Diogenes, light your lamp!
to robert zimmerman: what do you mean by use of word "E"?
you don't agree michael bloomberg could end this disastrous war?
It appears that to be seriously taken as a politician one must have some blemishes in ones past that are documented, secret, and revealable by any number of methods at any time the "powers that be" want to do so.
Once that choker leash is firmly installed around their necks politicians know it's just a matter of time before they will be "outed" and ruined if tehy do not do as they are told.
This is how J. Edgar Hoover built and maintained funding for the FBI and how the military-industrial-intel-think tank complex maintains it's power. It will probably take violent executions to break the hold of such a group of despots.
they may not have the votes to convict, but i think the constitution pretty much requires the democrats to impeach both bush and cheney. all their crimes call for cessation and punishment.
if all those flag waving republicans really did love their country, they would be leading the charge to impeachment.
Lots of interesting comments to read --
the majority seem to think it is cowardice.
And many of us are confused about it and what to do from here.
I was shocked when Pelosi made her "off the table" comment about impeachment. Why would she do that except to give aid and comfort to Bush?
So, to me, that's more than cowardice; that's helping the guy -- extending more than a friendly hand. It was a worrisome gesture to me suggesting a "don't worry," we can get along kind of signal.
Reid seemed to have some opening fight in him and then a big reversal. Now when he says they haven't "done enough," he seems to be sweating; worried, but not about those pressuring him to deauthorize Iraq, stop funding Iraq and to impeach Bush. His worries seem to come from another direction.
Meanwhile, as the public continues to bombard Congress with pleas to impeach both Bush and Cheney and to get our troosp out of Iraq NOW, more and more Republicans seem to be fading from Bush's side and more Democrats are calling for impeachment. But not Pelosi or Reid?
While I think it should be clear from our founders own words that impeachment is not about "revenge" but rather about correcting government wrongs/evils, the impeachment of a penis is a tough act to follow.
Perhaps in understanding the role that the "swiftboating" press played in impeaching a penis is a KEY to understanding why Democrats are reluctant to try to impeach Bush/Cheney for their evils?
Obviously, the press should be having a free for all with Cheney and Bush at such low numbers. But we can see that NOTHING is happening which would suggest the fascist house of cards tumbling down.
Yes -- we do have Keith Olberman/MSNBC with "The White House in Crisis" and his calling for resignations of Cheney and Bush.
Yes -- we did have FRONTLINE last night with Bill Moyers/Nichols/Fein calling for the impeachment of BOTH Cheney and Bush.
Yes -- there is also the Daily Show, now on vacation, but I don't think that even they have been able to keep up with the delusions and insanities of Bush/Cheney.
I noticed on Frontline that the "guys" seemed to agree that the real turning point in impeachment was the Libby "pardon" which serves as a kind of smoking gun signal of guilt and fear linking back to their lies about Iraq 9/11 and WMD. [And, in fact, imo, about 9/11, itself!!!]
To their credit, the "guys" all noted that Bush and Cheney were impeachable on many other really worse offenses.
Maybe not the worst offense . . .
but for me, my SHOCK METER hit its highest point about ten days ago when first Cheney claimed to be NOT a part of the Executive Branch and then Bush followed him into the dark abyss where no laws can reach them and surely no representative of our "people's government" can demand documents from them.
Granted TORTURE of prisoners, Rumsfeld's setting the dogs upon them ....these are the nightmares of anyone familiar with Hitler's rise.
Perhaps Pelosi and Reid recognize that the American people have no power; that it has long ago been transferred into other hands?
Our newly fascist Supreme Court also seems to be sending us that message; the 2000 election being one of the most arrogant and alarming of decisions and yet no one rose up to say it was wrong. Not even Al Gore.
AND . . .
Re this . . .
QUOTE: nodupe July 14th, 2007 8:39 pm
We are allowed to assume that some democrats may have participated in 9/11 massacre of American citizens. They are perfectly aware that with impeachment process in progress the crime of 9/11 would be laid bare and criminals within both parties would be exposed.That would put an end to this crimininal organization called Democratic Party. That explains lots of things.
UNQUOTE
I'm certainly open to considering that some Democrats may have been involved in 9/11 and if you have any information in that regard, I think you should share it.
I see no other reality than that Cheney was in charge of the 9/11 attack; arranged confusions re other training programs running; and ordered NORAD to "stand down."
"mayor bloomberg is the only potential candidate whith the courage and talent to
bring peace to the Middle East."
We appreciate that the use of "E" causes feelings like these. Thanks for sharing them with us.
mayor bloomberg is the only potential candidate whith the courage and talent to
bring peace to the Middle East.
Didn't catch that story in the Washington Post, but this incredible!! confession by Bush on the front page of The New York Times really surprised me:
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home."
Get it??? Who were those "folks", folks???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2tITrgyfEs
Because the Democrats want the same power that the Republicans now wield.
Think of our disgust that we will have when Democrats start behaving like former PM Blair.
Hey, did all of you see the advertisement placed in the Washington Post by the White House yesterday?
It said:
WANTED: PLAYPAL FOR THE PRESIDENT
Apparently the story goes as follows:
Yesterday afternoon, the President was swinging from a treebranch by his tail, playing with his buddy. Someone failed to alert the White House security staff that "Deadeye" Dick Cheney was on the grounds hunting treesquirrels for dinner. Well, as Curious George's ill-fortune would have it, "Deadeye" Dick mistook George's buddy for a treesquirrel and fired. After thirty minutes, the White House medical staff was unable to resuscitate him, and now George is looking for a new playpal (preferably one who likes to play "war".) So, if you have any suggestions, you are encouraged to contact the White House.
Personally, I have no use for either Republicans or Democrats, it is one group of rich men vs another only marginally different as far as I can see. When we finally start electing real Americans to office and totally eliminate the corporate bribery we call campaign contributions, perhaps we will get our democracy back.
As many have said, the democratic party is part of the problem not the solution. For all the "progressive" democratics in the party, get out and help build a party that represents the independent interest of the majority of people in this country.
Please check out the US Social Forum held a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta. People are building an organizaiton out of which could be the beginning of what we are looking for.
Please, the democratic party is dead. It is just that they keep pretenting to be alive.
JH,
What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans can't admit it either. Neither party can! It goes against conventional belief, or Party Politics 101.
Dave Lindorf (second from the top) refers to that thing Republicans so love - the "war". Again I ask WHAT WAR? If you refer to the illegal U.S. military occupation of Iraq, use the word OCCUPATION. True, Republicans don't like either that word or the word "Resistants" instead of "insurgents" but let us not allow the Republicans to dictate our langauge.
We can only have a "war president" (if you insist on calling that moron a president) if there were a "war". "Occupation President" just doesn't have that ring.
Oh, one final comment: When a president signs a bill into law, it immediately becomes a law which he is duty bound to obey and enforce. Whatever he may like to doodle in the margins doesn't have one damned bit of effect on the Congressionally passed bill he just signed into law. If he violates it, he should be apprehended and taken into custody just anybody else. Being elected president (remember when we used to ELECT our presidents?) doesn't elevate a person to either sainthood or being a member of royalty.
So, again, it ain't a freakin' WAR. It is a freakin OCCUPATION.
"Why Are Dems Such Cowards on Impeachment?" They are not cowards, my friends. They are doing their job - to clean elephantine mess after the dumbest elephant. And they say "Everyone for oneself". Baloney, they are always cooperating. Donkey did heluva mess slavery and Elephant helped to clean it up at the cost of 600,000 lives. Then Elephant messes with our pockets all Roaring Twenties and who you would think came to rescue him? You're right, Big Donkey Franklin.
Now we have yet another mess of shrinking our government by selling it to the highest bidder. Great job, soon we will pledge our allegiance to one Big Pocket under Wall Street, wave Dollar Bill as Flag in exchange for life long employment, that is until death on the killing fields.
Meanwhile we will keep asking rhetorical questions and plutocracy will go on, and on, and on.
Why are the Dems such cowards?
STOP there, no need to go any further. Fail to impeach is one of many, many cowardly traits of the Dems.
The article asks why Democrats are such cowards on impeachment (and, by implication, other things).
The answer is simple: one must go with one's strengths.
The best thing that could happen to this country in 2008 and that the American voter is left with only the "choice" between the corporate Dem and the corporate Repug, period. That's what they want anyway. They control debate at state levels on changing archaic ballot access laws to fair and equitable. And they have their own corporation running the national debates!
What this country needs is a good "sitting this one out" campiagn for 2008. Let 30% of eligible but misinformed and naive voters vote in their American idol corporate winner. We'll end up with one anyway. Let's face it. The masses have been programmed to feel uneasy and suspicious of third parties and scoff at independents as "spoilers". And with unfair ballot access laws and closed debates we will never see true democratic electyions in this country.
I'm just about ready to pack up and leave this madhouse. We'll grow cobwebs waiting for impeachment.
It could be that they just do not have the votes. Why waste time on an impeachment that is going to go no where?
Henry Hyde and his Republican minions had no such thoughts when I came to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. They went ahead and wasted the people's time on an impeachment about trivialities that was never going to go anywhere.
Were they thinking about the well being of the country? I do not think so. Illegal wiretaps violating the FISA laws thousands of times is a HUGE violation of the law and most definitely cause for impeachment.
However, until the people elect 60 Senators, there is not a snow balls chance in you know where of having justice prevail.
One more illustration about the Democrats being such "cowards". From today's WSWS:
US Senate unanimously passes threatening measure against Iran
By Peter Symonds
14 July 2007
(Link to full article:)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/iran-j14_prn.shtml
"A little publicised amendment to the defence spending bill denouncing Iran for the "murder" of US soldiers in Iraq was proposed by Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman and passed unanimously in the US Senate on Wednesday. ..."
This is to Mr. Brown,
I have a question for you, why did Mr. Kucinich withdraw from the last presidential democratic primary in 2004, a day before the convention started?
I think that even though Kucinich is generally thoughtful and sincere (I actually supported him throughout that primary), he put party loyalty ahead of core principles. And while I can't speak ill of him, I find that I can't support him for president.
The country needs someone who puts the public trust, honesty, and justice first and foremost, not second to party loyalty.
I have never heard Mr. Kucinich adequately address why he dropped out or the race.
By dropping out, Mr. Kucinich let down a lot of supporters who worked hard to get his message out. More importantly, Kucinich allowed the anti-war, pro-peace message to be silenced since he was the messenger and it wasn't addressed during the democratic party convention. The democratic party leadership took the pro-peace platform off the table, like they are taking impeachment off the table now. (Yes, I know that Mr. Kucinich has an impeachment bill pending).
Sometimes you get to do a do-over, sometimes you don't. That is why when you have a chance, you better do the right thing.
peace, justice, and human rights for all
www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace
Impeachment, though it might satisfy our craving for some visible form of revenge for the outrages wrought by the president and his gang, would, unfortunately, probably not succeed in bringing about the essential to the restoration of our constitution. It might even delay other actions of substance. My fear is that such delays would be counterproductive. We took a major step last November, though we are obviously icreasingly impatient and worried that the changes we seek won't happen while we watch those to whom we entrusted our vote flounder in trivial games. We must make a major effort to take full control of both houses of the Congress. Unless we can do that, all else is futile.
Maybe they know that if they did start the process, they would get some mail laced with Anthrax. What happened to the nice man from Dakota who was a dem leader in Congress. Just who were the targets of the anthrax mailings. NEWSMEDIA and DEMOCRATIC LEADERS in Congress. And who has been investigating, Gonzo and his boys at the Justice Dept. Every Dictator should have a bunch of thugs called THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Check out Crossing the Rubicon at Amazon.com. This would be a good time to do so, See if it rings true for you. Mike Ruppert is the author. I can't vouch for the accuracty of the info, but there are 1,000 footnotes.
Impeachment? Why bother to impeach in the House if there is absolutely no chance to convict in the Senate?
You need 67 votes, including 16 Republican Senators to convict in the Senate.
You couldn't get 16 Republican Senators to convict Bush if he painted a swastika on his ass and ran around the Capitol naked for the next 6 years!
Not One More...
"I will pick an independent who had the integrity and awareness to realize that the war is wrong when they first realized it, as opposed to those who use it for their opportunistic purposes."
You have just described Dennis Kucinich in the above! So why won't you vote for him? Were not people so programmed about "party", then Mr. Kucinich would win the primary by a landslide! It is my hope that the "open mike" incident will be enough incentive to make him see the light and leave the the Dem party and go Indie. I believe his poll numbers would triple overnight!
Yes, this is, basically, a "one-party" corporate system. The good news is that that gets us one step closer to a "NO PARTY" system, making ALL Indies and issues more important than bucks and rhetorical bullshit.
http//:www.kucinich.us
Rudyjo-
Exactly.
The democratic party leadership has already lost me and will not regain me in time for the next presidential election. The time to talk about the war was 3 years ago, and thousands of lives ago. Now it is too late.
I will pick an independent who had the integrity and awareness to realize that the war is wrong when they first realized it, as opposed to those who use it for their opportunistic purposes.
Hillary was for the war when she thought that it worked to her advantage (getting votes, money etc), and now she thinks that being opposed to the war works more in her favor (getting votes and money). Sorry. Using her own words, "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." ~ Hillary Clinton February 2007
Stand up for peace - www.NotOneMore.US
There is an Indian fable about several blind men who were asked to describe the elephant after using the sense of touch to examine the elephant. As each touched a different part of the elephant, they each came up with a different description of the elephant. One felt the leg and declared the elephant was like a large tree. Another felt the tail and declared the elephant was like a snake. etc.
Progressives, seeking to change problem(s) in society, are like these blind men. They are blind in that they think that changing a single individual (Anyone but Bush), or impeachment, or putting the Democratic Party condidates (who often support the same perspective as Republicans), will magically save the country or fix global warming. Merely fixing the technology of voting will not fix the destruction of democractic processes.
The many and specific problems that are revealed on Common Dreams or radio programs such as Democracy Now!, keep us forever like the "blind men" in the Indian fable. The "progressive" world-view is incapable of "connecting the dots". The Progressive world-view refuses to examine the root cause of the global crisis of survival facing humanity today.
Both Democratic and Republican parties, and all of their individual candidates, are merely the representatives of the ruling elite or class. They are a "class" because of their massive wealth derived from their ownership of the means of generating wealth.
The war in Iraq, global warming, the increasing impoverishment and death of humanity, ultimately is linked to the global capitalism that is destroying us all.
The capitalist system (massive exploitation and destruction of the many to the profit of a few) must be ended if humanity is to survive.
Check out Monthly Review magazine:
http://www.monthlyreview.org
and daily World Socialist Web Site:
http://www.wsws.org
Letter after Letter saying the democrats are no better than the repubicans, Ralph Nader has
been saying this for the last 25 years and the same people who are saying these things are
also saying "Please Ralph, go away!" Nader did not cost Gore the election, if Gore had carried
his own home state, he would have been elected. I for one hopes Nader runs again.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."—Voltaire
The author's conclusions don't follow the premises. Given:
(a) Extremely low ratings of Bush and Cheney.
AND
(b) Desire to advance their party in the next round of elections.
THEN
Like any other political force, they'll hit their opponent when he's down (always the best time to hit), capitalize on public dislike of him, and push their agenda forward, reaping all kinds of political perks and bennies.
BUT WAIT -- they don't. What's wrong with the analysis here?
The better conclusions:
(1) The Dems were put into power by many of the same corporate interests and lobbyists (AIPAC, etc.) that put the Rethugs into power. (2) Many/most of them are just DINO's anyway (Democrats in Name Only), with voting records -- and lack thereof on badly-needed legislation that they refuse to write -- that little differentiate them from the Rethugs.
The left hand isn't capable of cutting off the right -- the same brain runs both.
I understand the logic behind the democrats allowing the republicans to implode in order to achieve their ends.
Also, there is a mode of behavior where one would try to act better than the other party - as a kind of moral high ground type of thing. Particularly after Clinton you can see why there would be this kind of thought process.
Referring to Gore Vidal here again, I took his suggestion and read Charles Beard's "The Rise of American Civilization." It would be difficult to find the actual reference, but he writes about the ruling parties acting in a certain way in order to preserve the ruling party - themselves. Saving their own collective ass so to speak.
I really think that this also applies here because what you have with Bush and Cheney is a complete mockery of American/human values. What I mean is that if you have to impeach these s.o.b.'s you call into question on some level the American political system itself - is it at this point a joke? who or what exactly is it for? It certainly has the appearance, what with Clinton and Bush, that the system is falling apart.
Here you have a group of criminals, whether they have come to grips with this in their own psyche or not, who have taken over the joint and kind of exposed, without even caring that they did so, it's murky underworld side. Speak of transparency, we certainly all know a lot more now about the brutality of big business and it's alliance with the government.
The problem with all of this for the democrats is that if they can't stop Bush, and if their concern is for the sanctity of their party, or for the office of president, they are putting all of us at tremendous risk at the hand of individuals who would have no compunction, ie, of escalating these wars, on others, on us, on the globe, out of all control. Then there had better be a god, and hopefully not Bush's.
Seriously everyone, does the title of this article really need an answer when it is so painfully obvious why??
http://speaker.gov/contact/
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
TO: Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Why do you enable Criminals?! The President and Vice President are war Criminals. When the International Criminal Court in The Hague convenes a hearing on the U.S. war of aggression in IRAQ your INACTION on IMPEACHMENT will mark you as COMPLICIT.
I think people underestimate the population's desire to conform.
Anyway, a democratic politician's desire not to take down the federal government seems self serving. Long after Nixon, Democrats have made an effort not to destroy the presidency. I tend to wonder if DC beltway politicians are afraid their hat will be handed to them too. I think of how the Democrats have handle some of the largest scandals over the years (see Hamilton), and how complicit the party comes off. I liked to nominate the image of the spineless Democrat be challenged with the image of a complicit team player, waiting for their chance to serve the ball.
What would happen if a group came along and stopped the game? In the US you need representatives to champion the cause-- be it impeachment or what have you. Yet the majority of the Democrats voted in these days are either Blue Dogs or DLC. Not exactly the types one goes to when looking to challenge the system.
Bush is not alone in all this terrible mess.
He had the unequivocal support of Senator Liebermann, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schummer etc.
Are these senators representing the US or the expansionist interests of Israel?
The Democrats are counting on us being so fed up with Republican politics that the Dems get the votes in 2008. What they're not counting on is that we'll also be so fed up with spineless Democrats that many will vote 3rd party.
Why not? I don't think they want to. They just can't admit it like the Republicans can.
It takes a Democrat to lose even when the prize has been handed to them. They're more concerned about being nice to their friends across the aisle, the Republicans.
Aren't you glad we only have two parties? (Or, as Gore Vidal says correctly, one party with two right wings?)
As long as that's true, get used to the Dems prevaricating, and posturing, and triangulating, and generally disgusting. Their so-called strategy is based on "just like the Republicans, only not quite as bad" -- hardly a platform to inspire.
We need a real third party. I don't care if it's Green, or Socialist, or John Birchist. The mere existence of a viable third party will change the dynamics in DC. And if those dynamics don't change, nothing will save us.
Stockholm Syndrome Sufferers on the moderate left are confused about the Democratic Party. They see it as an end in itself instead of a (possible) means toward an end. Many of the more popular blogs advocate this squeamish "don't rock the boat so we can win in '08" philosophy.
Actually this is a moment to forget partisanship and do the right thing for the country. Perhaps, as you argue, this will not have a negative impact on Dem chances in '08. But this constitutional crisis we face right now is more important than either party. It cuts to the heart of what our democracy is about.
I love this country--and by that I mean the people of this country and the institution of democracy--far more than I love the Democratic Party. Outcomes be damned--THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT TO PRESS AHEAD WITH IMPEACHMENT.
Once again an article about Impeachment that does not mention Dennis Kucinich's HR 333, which has been around since last April. Are all of these writers so ignorant or ??????? What is it about Dennis Kucinich that evokes such fear that journalists (see Moyers show last night on Impeachment on PBS for example)won't mention him, Sen Clinton and John Edwards want to exclude him from the debates and even Michael Moore hesitates to ever mention him even though he endorses the Conyers-Kucinich bill HR 676 for Universal, not for profit healthcare. Why is it now with the clear majority against the war that Kucinich's HR 1234 to end the war never gets mentioned? Why is he not more popular when he is the only candidate who has been against the war and voted against it and all funding for it from day 1? Is it because he has 'no strings' to corporations, that he is that an oxymoron of an honest politician, that with Kucinich in the White House it would be GAME OVER?
Most Democratic voters have a naive & mythical conception of the real role their party plays in the political system. The party is not "the lesser evil," nor the party of the common man.
The ruling stratum of US society has learned that the most effective way to administer the political system is to give it two faces. This permits the political cycle to proceed in two phases. The Republican phase is characterized by unrestrained plundering & brutalizing of the population. After some years of this, the population begins to get surly & resentful -- and, if not given a relative rest, they might cause problems for the rulers. Therefore it has been seen to be useful to permit a small recovery period for the populace. This recovery period does not of course allow any reversals of Republican looting & plundering, but the pace of the most rapacious & vicious activity is slowed somewhat, until the anger of the populace begins to dissipate. This period is the "Democratic phase" of the cycle.
It was never intended by our rulers that the resting phase would in any way result in actual gains for the population. It was intended only that the pace of vicious unrestrained rape should slow somewhat, to let the broad anger subside. This is permitted not out of mercy or sympathy -- but only as an expedient, to make longterm ruling class control more secure.
Once this is understood, one will not raise silly questions about why the Democrats do not take positions motivated by considerations of decency or principle. The answer is simply that that is not what they are about, and never has been. The ruling class allows "Democrats" to exist only because it secures their position. The party exists not to challenge the rulers, but to assist them.
it will be very hard not to vote for the democrats in 2008. but their refusal to take their oath to uphold and defend the constitution and impeach cheney is as serious a breach of the law as cheney's long list of crimes. this is as clear of an indication as i have seen that we, the people, must do something to throw them all out. i have no idea how this might be done except through a nation-wide refusal to send them our money. our votes are all bought by corporate ads (we don't have great choices in the first place). we'll never do it in the voting booth. the laws are rigged to keep them in. and the media is in cahoots with them anyway to keep the status quo. even though the dems are less loony than the neocons, 'less loony' is not a great slogan to win on. i protest the war and wave signs on the street to impeach these guys every week. our group is not growing but the honks are increasing every week. it's hard to get people to march these days but it wouldn't be hard to get them to send their taxes somewhere else if something could be organized. and it wouldn't even have to happen. just the threat would create such panic in them, they might start to do what the PEOPLE WANT, not their 'corporate paymasters' (Michael Moore's word).
Dems and repubs are just two wings of the same party...the war and business party. There needs to be a third party that represents the people only, and not the corporations and warmongers.
Generalization is dangerous. Don't forget H.R. 333, Dennis Kucinich's courage, and the other 13 or so who have since signed on.
Dave Lindorff, Brown is right. You over-generalize. So does the article author Rosenberg. It would be more accurate to substitute "corporate Democrats" where you say "Democrats." We have some progressive Democrats who are not woosing out, who are not cowards, and who are not merely worshiping at the alter of power. Kucinich, Lee, Lewis, McDermott, Woolsey, Watson and several others are true progressives. Several have sponsored H. Res. 333 for example. It is better to distinguish between those politicians who support the status quo of the corporate regime (corporate Democrats) and those who seek a new progressive regime (progressive Democrats) than to put all Democrats in one category. Let's not condemn or ignore our own progressive allies in Congress.
The Democratic "Leadership" doesn't care two figs about the voters. They are motivated by service to their corporate masters, and pursue policies accordingly. The battle between Democrats and Republicans is a dog-and-pony show, put on for the benefit of a credulous public. The the real policy decisions remain insulated from any popular considerations.
Dave, I can't agree with you, the Democrats are cowards. They are taking the fear route, avoiding "risky" actions. They don't see the world in terms of doing the right thing, but what they - erroneously -perceive to be to their benefit. I'm baffled that they can't see how disgusted the public is with them. The DLC is killing what's left of this party.
The Democrats in Congress are not cowards. They are Machivellian's without principle. They have concluded (obviously on no evidence and wrong-headedly as usual) that the Republican Party is self-destructing, and that they can win in '08 by standing to the side and letting it happen. They see cutting off funding for the war, and impeaching the president and/or vice president as risky actions that could possibly hurt their chances, so rather than do the right thing, they will do nothing.
Of course, they are wrong on both counts. Standing up and doing the right thing to defend the constitution and to end the war would cause a wave of support for democrats. Meanwhile, as the polls are showing--with support for the democratic Congress down at 23 percent, even below bush's 27 percent rating, and with Pelosi's support in her home state of California at just 39 percent--it is clear that Democrats are killing their chances in '08 with this do-nothing strategy.
But that's what Democrats have been doing for several decades now--listening to idiot strategists who have been handing election after election to the Republicans, who are clearly the minority party.
We're headed for another disaster, I'm afraid, with Congress in the hands of the most pathetic leaders in a generation or more.
DAve LIndorff
author: The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now in paperback)
www.thiscantbehappening.net
How about unlawful surveillance of senators and congressman? Would not be the first time.
The republicans were already found snooping on democratic presidential campaign computers.
see J. Edgar Hoover, illegal wiretapping, and influencing elected officials.