Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOffice Arrests: The Shame of John Conyers
If Rosa Parks had lived two years longer, what happened today in the halls of Congress might have killed her. It certainly would have broken her heart.
Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the House Judiciary Committee, a man who worked with Parks in Alabama and then hired her on his staff after he won election to Congress in Detroit, today had 48 impeachment activists, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, Iraq Veteran Against the War activist Lennox Yearwood and Intelligence Veterans for Sanity founder Ray McGovern, arrested for conducting a sit-in in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers' office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them "impeachment isn't going to happen because we don't have the votes." Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on "winning big in 2008."
To a loud and angry chorus of boos and hisses, the three went back inside Conyers' office suite, where they were joined by some 30 other supporters, and all were subsequently arrested, at Conyers' request, by Capitol police, who cuffed them and walked them off for booking. Several of those who sat in refused to walk and were carried or dragged out of the Rayburn Office Building, as the activists in the hall chanted "Shame on Conyers! Shame on Conyers!" and "Arrest Bush, Not the People!"
It was a thoroughly disgraceful scene wholly unworthy of a dean of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Before returning to sit in the Judiciary Chairman's office and await arrest, Sheehan publicly announced her intention to run in 2008 as an independent candidate for Congress against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she called on Americans everywhere to run not just against Republicans in 2008, but against Democrats too.
Yearwood, who is a chaplain in the Air Force, said that Conyers had been a mentor to him, but he declared that he now felt betrayed and that Americans needed to take back their government. As he was led down the hall to his arraignment, the handcuffed Yearwood pointedly sang "We Shall Overcome!"
This reporter subsequently called Conyers' press office for an explanation of Conyers' true position on impeachment. Only a few days earlier the congressman, visiting a San Diego meeting on health care reform, had told members of Progressive Democrats of America that it was time to "take these two guys (Bush and Cheney) out" and had promised that if just "a few more" members of the House signed on to the Kucinich bill (it already has 14 co-sponsors), he would move it forward for consideration in his Judiciary Committee. Asked how that statement squared with what he had told the group of activists in his office, the spokesman said Conyers' "must have been misunderstood" in San Diego. He said that in view of Conyers' statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was "not going to go anywhere."
As impeachment activist David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org has said, there "seems to be two John Conyers," one who, in 2005 and early 2006, while Republicans controlled the House, was systematically making the case for impeaching the president and vice president (he had even submitted a bill, with 39 co-sponsors, which called for creation of a select committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration), and one who, submitting to the wishes of the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was keeping impeachment "off the table."
Occasionally the former Conyers breaks out, saying things such as that the president needs to be "taken out" or, as he put it at an anti-war rally last spring, that "we can fire him!" But then the other Conyers comes to the fore, and stands in the way of impeachment action.
This time, however, it was worse than just doing nothing. The arrest of impeachment activists and their forcible eviction from his office was a betrayal of people who were doing the very kind of thing that had allowed Conyers to make his way into Congress in the first place: sitting in to insist on action on their demands for justice. It was, after all, sit-ins that helped lead to the Voting Rights Act which allowed African American candidates like Conyers to finally win seats in the US Congress.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party-Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus included--has become nothing but a dried out husk, living on old glories and devoid of any principle other than returning its elected officials to their offices and their perks, year after year. As one angry activist in the hallway remarked, "Where is today's (Rep. Allard) Lowenstein or Father Drinan. There is none!"
It's ironic that Rep. Conyers, speaking in 2005 on "Democracy Now!" following Rosa Parks' death at the age of 92, said her passing "is probably the end of an era." Certainly, with his request to have Capitol Police officers enter his office (the very office where Parks once had worked as a staff member!) to cuff and arrest peaceful protesters who were trying to defend the Constitution, he has made that point far more clearly than he could have expressed it in mere words.
But as in the case of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, arrests and fines will not stop the national grassroots drive to impeach this president and vice president. With polls showing that a majority of the country now favors impeachment, and with Conyers, Pelosi, and the Democratic Congress sinking deeper and deeper into disfavor even as the president continues to add to his list of Constitutional crimes, something's gotta give. After all, the Founders, in writing impeachment into the Constitution, did not say the test was whether Congress had the votes to impeach. They wrote that if the president abused his power, or committed other high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery or treasson, Congress "shall" impeach.
The American public has made it clear: we want impeachment and we want the troops home.
If Congress doesn't act on these two key issues, they will not get that "big win" Conyers' called for in 2008.
Some members of the Democratic Caucus may not even be back if they keep this up.
Dave Lindorff's most recent book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
73 Comments so far
Show AllRon, I was totaly ignorant of that and I do thank you for a very good lesson. I'm off to Google land to get smart.
Saginaw Bill: Yes, they've passed statutes to try to shield themselves from prosecution, but the statutes are trumped by the U.S. constitution which makes foreign treaties the supreme law of the land. Our relationship with the UN is a treaty relationship so the UN charter is a part of the supreme law of the land. The UN charter forbids wars of aggression and the federal statutes you cite are therefore unconstitutional. When Bush attacked Afghanistan and later Iraq, in both cases he violated the supreme law of the land. This has been explained very thoroughly by several constitutional scholars. You can Google it and see their papers; Harvard and Yale law professors, that level of quality.
BASKA: Love the way you lay out the case for "imagine."
DAVE LINDORFF: Appreciate your entering into the forum to make the exchange of ideas all the more lively and "organic."
jonjoe says: "Imagine if Nader hadn't gotten his egotistical paws into the election basket. Bush wouldn't have had the excuse of "winning" by a paltry 300 plus votes (of course, we know it was fixed but had Nader not been in the mix, there would have been hundreds of thousands of votes the crooks would have had to overcome)."
This is pure democratic party BULL SHIT! Nader is the man! Gore was a fucking wimp for not standing up to the election fraud. The DEMOCRATS LOST IN 2000 because they stand for NOTHING! They still stand for nothing. I, for one, am voting third party and anti-incumbent in the primary if they have not supported an end to the Iraq occupation and impeachment. No exceptions! Go back to the DNC and lick some rancid ass. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
>>>
It's funny that the Dems say we should concentrate on getting a Democrat into the White House. It hasn't done us a damn bit of good to give them control of Congress, so what difference would it make to give them the White House? Bunch of Republican lapdogs.
>>>
That pretty much sums up my feelings about the Dems and their priorities. Before the election, everybody was reciting the same mantra: "We need more Democrats in Congress." [as if, by that fact itself, we would be liberated and delivered from our tormentors in Washington--those BAD Republicans!]
Well, it wasn't too long before the 'Hoorahs' were replaced by 'Hems' and 'Haws' from the right wing of the DNC....you know, the people we used to call 'Republicans'. "Change" is the last thing they want...
The voters should have learned, from our interlude with the Clintons, that change of parties doesn't mean conditions will change too much; both parties are pretty much financed by the same "interests". Change is the last thing they want...
Seems to me the only group who do want change, is us poor schmucks who ought to be demanding that elections be opened up...beyond the increasingly narrow confines of our current "2"-party "system". Next time the Dems assure you that 'electing more Democrats' will solve all of this nation's problems, consider whether that party has proved to be a reliable vehicle for getting us anywhere in the past. It's time to end "Lesser Evil-ism". Surely, a nation as large and diverse as America deserves something better than a choice between the clown now occupying the Presidency and the jerk who headed the 2004 Democratic ticket.
RE: ABOVE POST CONT: NOT 'END OF DISCUSSION'
Actually - not end of discussion. If such an Out of Iraq, Impeachment Now' breakaway campaign were effective, that is the moment that legislators would begin to meet and talk with their electorate more seriously, and not react by having them arrrested.
So, after an electorate-backed ultimatum, serious negotiation could begin. But you must have those people - not just the 1 million signatures, great as that is, but an electorate that demands politicians make good on their duties and respond to their electorate, or lose their vote.
RE: LAWSUIT FOR FAILURE TO IMPEACH?
fatfreddyscat July 25th, 2007 10:30 am
"possible to file a law suit against John Conyers et al to force them to fulfill their constitutional duties?"
Who knows. All approaches should be considered.
But in a way it seems too...technical...and to sideline the crucial claims of democracy that are being pressed: from my point of view, the issue is foremost the demand that elected officials be responsive to their electorate.
Thus, I'd prefer something like an 'Out of Iraq, Impeachment Now' Defining Issue campaign - a kind of expansion of Cindy Sheehan's action, where elected officials get this message: 'Defining issue, Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator: We're voting for someone who will take us out now and commence impeachment now. If that's a Democrat, good; if it's not a Democrat, too bad. End of discussion.'
Based on the most recent post from Evelyn Smith I am curious if it would be possible to file a law suit against John Conyers et al to force them to fulfill their constitutional duties?
RE: IMAGINE IF NADER HADN'T...
jonjoe July 24th, 2007 1:09 pm
"Isn't this how Bush got into power in the first place? Imagine if Nader hadn't gotten his egotistical paws into the election basket."
IMAGINE...
...if the right wing DLC-dominated Democrat Party had not taken its left flank for granted, judging 'they have nowhere else to go'...
...if the Democratic Party had not run a 'go for Republican swing voters' campaign that alienated its left flank...
...if the Democrats had not selected one of the most right wing Democrats in the country to tilt Gore's right wing credentials even more to the right...
...if Clinton had not flubbed it for his Party...
...if Gore had broken with his handlers and adapted a platform inclusive of the traditional Democratic electorate...
...if Gore and the Democrats had stood up for the vote recount that would have confirmed a Democratic win...
...if Democrats in 2007 hadn't demolished voter support for them by failing to carry through on Iraq, and, now, impeachment proceedings...
...if, instead of blaming Nader, the DLC-dominated Democratic Party admitted its mistakes, stood for its actual constituency, and didn't promote the most right wing Democrat on the playing field...
...imagine if, instead of learning from their mistakes, the Democrats weren't setting themselves up for a breakaway of voters. Again.
MS.SMITH,there is a doctrine in tort law called "res ipsa loquitur-"the thing speaks for itself".certain events don't usually happen in the absence of negligence on the part of the actor in control of them.the textbook example is the barrel of flour falling off the baker's delivery truck and cracking someone's skull open.in the absence of some other explanation...another classic example is of the famous piano falling out bob's window,and pancaking andy.the thing speaks for itself.the great white hunter cheney knows all about this sort of thing,and he IS a lawyer to boot.
The Republicans didn't have the votes to impeach President Clinton either but the impeachment process went on anyways. The Democrats are flouting the Constitution if they don't impeach Bush and Co.. Whether they have enough votes or not to win is irrelevant. Has Conyers, Pelosi and others in the Democratic party been bought off by Bush's people. I wonder. It seems so. Just remember Mr. Conyers and Ms. Pelosi: What goes around comes around. This will come back to haunt you. I predict both of you will become lobbyists within 5 years or less.
I read the article and every blog___ twice.
There are many excellent blogs here in my humble opoinion. The one argument that hit me the hardest was that of ___Dave Lindorff___ 4;41 pm. The number of votes needed to impeach is not the question. If the impeachment process is initiated by Rep John Conyers, there would be hearings and witnesses called to testify. The tight ball of corrupt twine would begin to unravel.
The problem is, when it gets down to where a single individual can hold up a bill in congress, the system is prone for corruption. It is in a way, similar to an important basketball game, which can be decided by a single referee.__ The referee can be bought.
When ONE single person can decide if a President or the V/P can be impeached, or not be impeached, when the law says he shall be impeached and a congressman refuses to do his elected legal duty, it could damage that persons reputation if we the people thought he MAY be dishonest. Was Conyers bought off?__ Probably not, but the inference he was, or may have been, will always be there__ for perhaps many of we the people.
Another point Dave made, is our constitution states, that if our President has committed impeachable acts, congress SHALL impeach,__ not MAY,___SHALL! The words SHALL and MUST have the same meaning. Therefore, someone in congress SHOULD charge Rep Conyers for contempt of congress. They SHOULD, but I am not sure if they legally CAN.
I also am not sure if any un-elected of we the people, can initiate legal proceeding and charge a congressman with contempt of congress and contempt of our Constitution and of we the people. We the people are supposed to be__ we the people, as our Constitution states in the very first words. Congress works for we the people, and we the people should be able to hold them in contempt, if they have broken any documentary laws of our Constitution.
By ignoring the written law__ and if our treasured Constitution is not a firm set of laws, then there is no law in America.
The Constitution states congress SHALL impeach the President,__ if he has commited impeachable offenses. If any in congress who has the power to enforce that law and refuses to do so, then they are guilty of a most serious crime, against not only we the people but to our form of government itself.
Isn't Ralph Nader a lawyer? Might he stand up for we the people on this most serious request? To sue, one must have a legal theory in order to proceed. The theory in this instance, should be, and it is a legal theory that is undeniable, it is this. (The crime speaks for itself.)
I apologize for my failing memory, I do not remember the Latin term for that legal theory. Well, guess I'll shut it off.
Nite,___Kem Patrick
"It's moments like this that I almost prefer to vote for moderate Republicans.
Yep. You can dislike Bush & Cheney all you want, but by god, when they say they're going to do something, they DO IT, even if it's completely retarded, founded in lies, and will result in the deaths of tens of thousands…it gets done."
This is not a joke. Once you get cynical, they (the Repugs) have won. I think many people who nowadays vote for Republicans, are people who have completely given up on politics, say well let us just 'follow the leader' and take care that at least that our own children have enough to eat.
You can give up on John Conyers and other pathetic democrats, but never give up on your belief that things will change and that justice will happen.
This is all beginning to have the nightmarish feel if a B 50's sci-fi movie. Has anyone checked for pods? Why is our government acting so weird? We have a majority Dem congress that somehow doesn't want to do anything. They give vacous unwillful and confused reasons when questioned. H.P. Lovecraft couldn't write a better plot. Or perhaps this is the Stepford congress.
"Win big in 2008"
"Win big in 2008"
"Win big in 2008"
Creepy. Has anyone tested the water?
How can we beat Karl Rove at his own game?
Thank you, thank You and thank you once again for this article but please dig a little deeper into the meetings between Pelosi's staffers and Conyers staff people and the shift in fortunes of his campaign fund raising issues.
Not just the recent ones alone but way back.
Why was he put into the chair that he holds and why do the GOP not fear him at all and look at him with contempt.
Too bad Conyers doesn`t have the vision that GWB has. John can`t start impeachment proceedings because winning is not guaranteed. Bush thinks he can rule the entire planet whether anyone likes it or not.
Yesterday's exercise had some considerable value, in that it should put an end to Conyers' ability to work both sides of the street. By going out of his way to cause the arrest of impeachment advocates, Conyers defines himself as a Bush Administration supporter and the enemy of any effort to call that administration to account.
Put another way, the Democrats simply want the Bush presidency for THEMSELVES. They have not the slightest interest in keeping government within constitutional boundaries. As old Senator Aldrich of Rhode Island once put it, any professed motive but power and self-enrichment is simply "sentimental rot." A pity this confrontation didn't happen in early January instead of late July!
From other articles on the same subject, it would appear Conyers' tactic is a classic example of bait-and-switch. Last Fall, and to select audiences as late as this Spring; Conyers has PROMISED impeachment. He will do so no more!
Lacking constitutional provision for recall of the president, vice president and members of Congress; the only course for the antiwar, impeachment crowd would appear to be this: refusing to engage in or with this premature campaign for president--no money, no work, no attendance at meetings or rallies--UNTIL impeachment and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are satisfactorily addressed.
This premature presidential campaign was always a diversion from war and accountability of present office holders--and it will be "off to the races" again with whomever is elected president. I've read of HRC telling her military briefers she expects US troops to still be in Iraq at the end of her administration (20 January 2009 through 20 January 2017)!
"John you got a lot splaining to do!!!"
I read a hemingway novel back in college english in which a character who had been fabulously wealthy at the beginning of the story,turns up as a pauper towards the end.i think the shocked protagonist asked him how he had managed to lose all of that massive fortune.the pauper replied sadly,"a little at a time,then all at once." am i being melodramatic when i suggest it is the same with our limited democratic forms? i remember watergate. the mainstream institutions realized that the best interests of the nation were at stake-nixon had to be removed-gently as you go-sweet sam dash,dem counsel to the house judiciary comm. did not ask hard questions,and we still don't actually now why the break-in took place,or much about the corporate shenanigans,and illegal activities of the nixonites-but the president had obstructed justice,and that was enough.this country does not belong to conyers/pelosi any more than it does to bush/cheney.if doing the "right thing" were easy,we would not be in this situation.who needs to be reminded of a certain supreme court decision which placed bush's interests ahead of those of a whole state's voters,and that state's constitution,and voting laws? but i'm rambling,and you guys know all this ,and more.im not asking conyers to do anything which conceivably threatens the damned class structure of the country,or to challenge the basically corrupt institutions of this government-just move the impeachment bill along,stop sitting on the evidence,and hold the public hearings.limiting the proceedings to safe,softball questions,the public would learn enough to demand this chapter of the imperial presidency end-other wise we lose our democracy "a little at a time,then all at once."
Sheehan and Code Pink did more to help the Democrats gain control of Congress than Raum Emanuel and DLC.
It is typical and cynical that Conyers, Pelosi and the DLC should shun Sheehan and Code Pink.
"Until democracy in effective enthusiastic action fills the vacuum created by the power of modern inventions, we may expect the fascists to increase in power after the war both in the United States and in the world." - Henry A. Wallace
Impeach Congress. Overthrow authority and replace it with morally legitimate institutions, none of which are in evidence in Washington. Dream about it, for we'll never do it, expecting Congress to police itself. Impeachment's a pipe dream and always has been, since the mythic 9/11 that "changed everything." Except American gullibility and passivity. So practice guerilla gardening armed with eco-platitudes and wishful thinking. It's all we have.
Congress knows they have given away so much power to the Executive that they realize [OR SHOULD] they HAVE NO EFFECT against the current occupant's signing statements. Whatever GWB INC. wants, he creates it through his own silent [under reported] Executive Orders or even less reported signing statements. Congress essentially has NO POWER!
THE ONLY thing our 'representatives' can effectively do is subpoena, hold in contempt, impeach, convict and hope the current occupant does not create or 'allow' another 9/11 to change the apathy in the citizens of this 'great nation' into fear once AGAIN.
WE MUST keep the pressure on for them to ALL they CAN and ALL they SHOULD and ALL THEY MUST DO to relieve this nation of the criminals in the Executive offices.
As a wise man once said: 'Better to be a live dog than a dead lion. Better yet be a live lion.'
Bushco EXPECT armed resistance from the US populace. Thats why he signed a new law that will strip you of your home, bank accounts and other property if your try to stand up to them.
Go to ground. Live low tech, off the grid. Practice guerilla gardening. Soon all of these verminous parasites will wither as the bloated oil age comes to and end, and they starve in their own bunkers, afraid to face the remaining populace.
Walk in peace.
People, people, people.
You still don't get it!
DEMOCRACY IS DEAD! THERE WILL BE NO ELECTIONS!
Your 'Democratic' party can whine until it drops dead from apoplexy before they realise that YOUR goverment is now and forever in the hands of the corporate elite. These are the kind of... scum... that supported and financed the Nazis. They will do anything to remain in power. Lie. Rape Murder. Fabricate evidence. Rig elections. ANYTHING!
Investigate why the Blackwater company was put in charge of security in New Orleans, instead of the US National Guard. Ask WHY the wreckage of the Twin Towers was cut up and shipped to China for recyling before the bodies of the few fallen that were found were cold in their graves?
COME ON PEOPLE! Your government is no longer yours! Hell, right now you can be 'disappeared' in your own country as easily as it happened in Nicaragua or San Salvador. The ages old rule of law handed down from the Magna Carta and Haebeus Corpus are GONE! The only thing that MIGHT restore what you once had is armed protest... and if you think this gang of monsters is going to let you do that, think again. They have proven time and again that human life has no value. That the rule of law is for the lower classes to obey.
You have , basicly, only one option. Civil disobedience. Refuse to work. Refuse to vote. Refuse to pay taxes. Refuse to pay on toll roads. Refuse to submit to a national ID card. Walk away from your mortgages. Abandon your cars and SUVs in the middle of the road. Evict your 'representatives' from the offices they occupy. They supposedly belong to the people, not their tenants. If you have access, turn of the power, gas and water to these buildings. Disconnect the phones. Block the parking lots with abandoned vehicles. Stop shopping at the malls and Wal-marts. Buy organic foods, denying the agri-corporations their bloated poisonous profits.
Walk in peace.
don't you love morons like jonjoe still blaming Nader for DemocRATS' cowardliness, corruption and moral bankruptcy?
If GORE hadn't run in 2000, perhaps we'd have a real leader as president today, Nader. DemocRATS have never been an opposition party, let alone a party for the little guy. They're are as bad corporate whores as Republicans are and, most of the times, worse.
Richard: Why done you give him a call and tell Conyers what you just said here? It's a very compelling statemet.
Thanks
As a former CORE member in the early 60's, it is sickening to witness John Conyers justifying his inaction on impeachment because of long odds against success. If we had used that calculus during the Mississipi Summer of 1963, the Congress (without the presence of Representative Conyers) would likely still be debating whether to abolish legal segregation in the South -- and guess where Trent Lott would be standing on that issue? In case you have forgotten, John, sometimes you simply do what is right.
I am truly saddened.
Cindy Right about something? Damn straight she is! "Represent our wishes or be replaced by someone willing to!"
Talk about impeachment with someone who is not willing to talk about impeachment, is completely blarney. Yes? Yes. Pelosi is a bigger impediment to Bush's impeachement than the Republicans are, when viewed a certain way, isn't she?
Bush CAN be impeached. They HAVE the votes. What they don't have is the votes to CONVICT him, just like the Republicans didn't have enough to convict Clinton. NOTICE THAT DID NOT STOP THEM, and they made excellent political points & PR against Clinton.
So, yes. We've done an "ok" job of voting out all the nutjobs. Next stop, voting out all the spineless career bureaucrats. Pelosi, Reid, Conyers , and Steny Hoyer all count.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hoyers-campaign-to-under_b_11848.html
To Bill of Saginaw....
Yours is the most lucid, realistic and do-able of all the comments so far. It might be difficult to do,but with increasing disillusion among the GOP, it might just work. Many thanks!. Dan S
I don't know if Cindy is doing the right thing or the wrong thing. All I know is that she is doing SOMETHING! If you go on over to Daily Kos and lurk on their comments, it's a whole different world than it is here. It's very strange.
I agree that their is no difference between the two parties. The vast majority in both parties have been bought and sold. But I also believe that there are some truely good people from both sides in both parties. All you have to do, as a progressive, is look at the names of the folks that have signed on to HR333. I would postulate that there are a lot of old time Repubs that believe in fiscal responsibility that are none too happy with their party either.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water in '08. The test is going to be which congress critters vote for ending the occupation of Iraq, not invading Iran or Pakistan, and who supports impeachment. You all need to let your reps know that this is a test and that you are watching them every step of the way.If you already know that they aren't worth a vote, mobilize in your State or district to find someone to run against them that is.
Cindy might be on to something. Here in Oregon, Gordon Smith HAS to be unseated. All of the good guys have other things to do. But we're working on it.
Thanks for listening
A strong third party that truely represents the people that put them is office would be ideal. Being fairly realistic, however, I don't think that is a winning strategy for '08. I think that Cindy's approach of challenging Pelosi in the Dem primary is a good strategy. It would be an excellent strategy against ANY incumbant Dem that has proven that they don't represent us, the people. If Cindy and others win in the primaries, what is the DLC going to do? Not support them? That would be pretty stupid. If Cindy and the others don't win the Dem nomination, then they can go and run as independents. In districts where the Dems are pretty strong, I would bet that Repug support would come out of the woodwork. Just like it did in Conn. for that traitor Joe.
Why was Sheehan arrested but not Bush and Cheney?
It's moments like this that I almost prefer to vote for moderate Republicans. At least with them, what you see is what you get...as opposed to Democrats, who seem to be universally full of shit lately.
Yep. You can dislike Bush & Cheney all you want, but by god, when they say they're going to do something, they DO IT, even if it's completely retarded, founded in lies, and will result in the deaths of tens of thousands...it gets done.
Mr. Conyers and Ms. Pelosi,
Are you oblivious to the fact that Bush and Cheney have prepared the way to declare martial law, cancel the 2008 election and assume dictatorial powers for life?
For god's sake open your friggin' eyes and do your duty.
SAVE OUR COUNTRY BY IMPEACHING THESE FASCIST BASTARDS!
Cross posting here:
You can call your members of Congress now toll free at 866-338-1015, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803. Phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to support HR 333 and to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment.
As Frederick Douglass said, "Agitate, agitate, agitate
To think I sent this clown $20, a year or so back, when the Repubs were running the show, just because he said he was going to start impeachment hearings on the shooter VP.
Mr. Conyers I want you to return my donation. You are, apparently, just another do-nothing democrat.
.
What could have made Conyers do a 180? Maybe the fact that when he tried to bring impeachment to the table, he was relegated to the basement and whether the Repugs planned it that way or not, he had no discernible progressive support for his initiative. He may have concluded that if you can't lick 'em, join 'em.
John Conyers has disgraced his office. Talk about showing your true colors. I am ashamed to be a Democrat any longer. At least the Republicans, despicable good ole' boys and girls that they are, have the courage of their convictions. They are the 'actors' in this new world where we are an empire and thereby create our own reality as said by Karl Rove. The Democrats have shown they are the passive audience, the viewers, the enablers, unable to uphold their oath to the Constitution that usurpations of the Rule of Law do not go unheeded and punished. Pathetic. Thrown the whole lot of them out.
What Cindy is doing is actually re-creating the true Democratic Party. The so-called democratic party has melted and become ONE with the republican party; therefore, the US does NOT have a 2-party system right now. It is ONE party with the illusion of being 2 parties. ONE PARTY. Now it is evident the democratic party had been kicked out long ago without us noticing. Until all this. People say running as an independent will only hurt the democrats but, in truth, there are few real democrats in out government. These "third party" candidates ARE the Democrats. And we will rise like the Phoenix to take back our party AND our country.
JonJoe and other Nader-haters who insist that Nader spoiled the 2000 election. I hate to bore you with the facts, but here they are. Gore "lost" Florida by 537 votes. The Federal Election Commission figures showed that 250,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 and only 97,488 voted for Nader. Why did all those Dems vote for Bush instead of Gore? And why did Al Gore lose his own home state of Tennessee by over 1 million votes (Nader only collected 20,000)? Those 11 electoral votes would have won him the election regardless of what happened in Florida. Maybe Al Gore spoiled his own campaign by having nothing to offer voters aside from the fact that he is not George Bush. Clearly, that is not enough.
The two-party system has been reduced to ONE. Time for another party--of the people, for the people, by the people!
Let's at least parse Rep. Conyers' excuses for not allowing impeachment to go forward, as offered to Sheehan, Yearwood and McGovern before he had their asses hauled off the premises:
1. "We don't have the votes. You need 218 votes in order to impeach."
It makes no sense to decide whether to begin impeachment hearings on the basis of "counting the votes," unless the implication is that the hearings are a mere formality, and everyone is going to vote according to party or pre-established positions. The whole point of hearings on impeachment is that the Judiciary Committee can get documents and call witnesses, compelling them to testify. Conyers clearly knows that those hearings swung a majority of the impeachment committee in 1974 to vote for articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, and that those same hearings clearly had convinced so many House members to vote for impeachment that Nixon gave up, cut a deal, and resigned.
2. The best thing Democrats can do is focus on winning big in 2008
Democrats cannot win big in 2008 if they spend their two years in control of Congress ducking the big issues of ending the war and defending the Constitution. People voted them into power because they were promising to act on these things. Now they are proving themselves to be moral cowards. The independents and Republicans (yes, Republicans!) who crossed over and gave them their critical margin of victory in many close races won't be there in '08 given the performance they've offered thus far.
3. Fox News will rip him if he supports impeachment
This argument is beneath contempt! John Conyers is afraid of Fox News? Do people in his district even watch Fox? And is that how we're going to run the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic Party henceforth? The Fox News litmus test?
4. So now he's supposed to listen to Cindy Sheehan and "that CIA guy" (Tay McGovern).
Well, yes. They are citizens, and informed ones at that, representing a huge activist following (they delivered a million signatures to Conyers, all calling for impeachment). In fact, 54 percent of Americans in the latest scientific poll, favor the impeachment of Cheney, and Conyers should be listening to them.
5. Impeachment will get in the way of Congress's "important business" such as ending the war.
Oh really? Well, Congress has not been doing impeachment for the past seven months, and they don't seem to have done anything of consequence. Nor are they likely to do anything over the next year and a haf[.
Come on John, these aren't reasons, they are just excuses.
Get moving on impeachment. Stand up and start the hearings. You know you have nothing to fear from Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
July 24
There's no point in impeaching bush if he would beat the rap in a Senate trial.
His exoneration would be spun as proof he did nothing wrong and that the whole thing was about payback.
America will begin to heal only when bush and cheney are impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Since the votes to do that are not there, let's focus on energizing the people.
Yes, it's tragic that America has been wounded by the depravity of bush and cheney.
And it's tragic that the American people and media have been apathetic about creeping fascism.
But it is what it is.
Only if we succeed in rescuing America from tyranny can we say we did our duty to history and to humanity.
We can then continue toward an America that truly lives up to its ideals.
Too many of our countrymen (and women) are lazy, ignorant, and afraid of the wrong things, but they are not fascists.
And too many people who see the dangers are content with venting their rage.
Only through a mass movement can we get rid of bush/cheney, turn away from war, oppression, exploitation and empire, and create a society based on justice and decency.
Talk is cheap.
It would be interesting, perhaps inspiring, to know what concrete actions we in the common dreams crowd are taking to reclaim the true America.
We talk about holding bush accountable for his crimes.
What about holding ourselves accountable in this time of peril?
If not now, when?
If not us, who?
This man is going to lose his current job over this incident. And he certainly deserves it. He strikes me as about as out of touch as Bush is -- an impressive accomplishment.
That he had these people arrested is quite extraordinary. If he were smart, he'd have greeted them like heroes, taken them to the Capitol Club for a feast.
This man has shown himself to be a coward, and a little man when we need real men in office. There is no question this incident is political suicide for him. RIP. I wonder who's next.
Break up the duopoly! Vote for independents! Get rid off incumbents!
Someone should start a campaign to join the World Court so that Bush, Cheney, and others can be held accountable after leaving the White House.
Regarding repealing "prior authorization of these
crimes", I doubt that can be done. While it only
took a simple majority to pass the law, it will take
67% to override a sure veto if they try to repeal the
laws.
We need an alternative party. Maybe this would be a
good time for Kucinich to declare himself Independent
in disgust. Maybe enough of America would take
notice and support him.
I apologize for being off-topic, since the topic is CONYERS, not Nader. But, thank you, PeaceWarrior, Stilba and Shark!
I try to be patient with folks who hold views that differ from my own. But I'm sick and tired of trying to re-educate ignoramuses like Johnjoe and Clyde with facts and rational argument. It's a wasted effort. These people have swallowed the whole wad of slimy DLC propaganda, and instead of doing their own homework and finding out the truth for themselves, they regurgitate it every time the name Nader comes up. They are just stubbornly, willfully ignorant and don't have the capacity to overcome their irrational prejudices. They are political bigots and enemies of (lowercase "d") democracy!
So I'm with you PW, "There are plenty of blogs for unintelligent frightened people. Go there creep[s]!
That's what Cindy gets for trusting the Democrats. Again.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that the two parties are twin wings of the same bird of prey? The Democrats are not real liberals; the Republicans are not real conservatives. Both parties are lackeys of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex.
I just hope that in the next election the American people would throw out of office as many Democraps and Repugnants as possible, and that they vote to put an independent in the White House. BUT
I have lost my confidence in the people who mostly think about SPORTS, SEX, and STOMACH, and who happen to comprise the majority.
I fully support impeachment proceedings against Cheney & Bush & Gonzales, based upon their unlawful acts regarding torture, warrantless NSA spying on American citizens, and waging war upon false pretenses (as shown in the Downing Street documents).
However, if you're serious about impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors, the first order of business is for the Congress to repeal their prior authorization of these crimes. Specifically, Congress must first repeal the immunity provisions protecting torturers granted in the Military Commissions Act and repeal the 2002 AUMF resolution.
It would be really awkward for Senators to sit in judgment of criminal wrongdoing that a majority of the Senate voted to authorize.
Bill from Saginaw
Stilba,
The question then becomes, "Why do the (so-called) representatives of the liberal-left time and time again denounce Nader and support the Democrat?"
And here is where cynicism itself is vindicated: they denounce Nader because he cannot do anything for their career. You can't be an ardent supporter of Nader and third parties and still hope to enjoy your stint on cable TV, still hope to be considered "respectable" within the official thought market.
I lost some respect for Chomsky in '04 when he peddled that "safe state" nonsense.
Not a dime in donations to politicians who failed to lead on impeachment! Not an hour of volunteer service for a party that refuses its Constitutional obligation to check the lawlessness of an imperial executive! The Democrats are failing, as usual, to make the good arguments that they clearly could make, while pursuing a bad, "safe" strategy that appeals to ....who exactly? This is the party that looked all the world for embracing gay rights during last night's debate, but need I remind people that it's also the party that gave us the Defense of Marriage Act (it passed the Senate by 85-14 in 1996) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The Democrats talk a good game, but lack the courage to take it to the floors of the House and Senate. This is just another failure to put in the ever growing Democratic Hall of Shame.
Uncle Conyers
Shame on You
Clyde
"JonJoe do you think Nader was part of the fix? I have thought so every election he stick's his wortless ass in."
Hey Clyde,
There are plenty of blogs for unintelligent frightened people. Go there creep
Cindy is gonna burn out again. Or just be burned. At the stake for being a heretic to the ideals of the the theo-cons who run the US.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
The time is over to just passively sit on your butts and whine about what coulda been in 2000. The last even remotely democratic election in the US was in '96. American democracy is as dead as SUV roadkill. Your economy is about to enter a terminal dive, and you have no infrastructure in place to cushion you. Cimate change is ravaging the globe, oil production has peaked, and you are deep in the grip of an emerging fascist police state that is going to make Hitler look like a welcome diversion!
And to those inevitable naysayers who will try to refute the evidence of climate change by blaming it on natural factors like the sun - check the BBC archives from two weeks ago. Solar output is DOWN. the same goes for peak oil. The oil companies have known about peak oil for forty years. Why do you think no new refineries are being built? Why do you think New Orleans has been left in ruins? Theres no reason to rebuild the oil terminals in a city that is soon going to be UNDERWATER!
JonJoe do you think Nader was part of the fix? I have thought so every election he stick's his wortless ass in.
Shark007: And yet, once again, the Nader thesis is supremely vindicated by the arrest of the peace activists yesterday. But, lo and behold, that won't stop the same people from barking the same old tedious, stupid refrain in 2008: "there is much too much at stake in this election to waste your vote voting for Nader…"
Right you are. How irrational it is think of voting for a figurehead candidate who has his/her soul in a box in some corporate office. Even if they win, we don't win. I'd almost rather vote for Ghouliani than a ghost.
Jonjoe: "Isn't this how Bush got into power in the first place? Imagine if Nader hadn't gotten his egotistical paws into the election basket."
No friend, you have it backwards. Al Gore took all of Ralph Nader's votes and gave the election to Bush. We should have had a Green president. Nader would never have caved-in the way Gore and Kerry both did before all the votes were counted and we found that, indeed, Mr. Bush did not quite win. Nader had the better platform, better ideas, and a much better track record than born-again Mr. Gore. I am so proud to have casted my vote for Nader and won't flinch doing it again, so don't tell me 3rd party candidates are the reason for your crappy candidate's failure. If the Dems are true to the wishes of the people, they have nothing to fear from any 3rd party.
As for the weaknesses of the left, we're a little more agreed. The right is never ashamed of their principles, even when they're totally crazy. The American left could learn from that.
The Democrats are like a crowd of Tony Blairs in their relation to Bush. Always trying to make themselves seem different to the "Chief" but ending up saying "Uncle". They all belive that the US has to always fight wars to control the oil flow from the Persian Gulf states. This belical consensus has to be broken: it is unsustainable, as people like Cindy and Kucinich clearly understand. Maybe if Cindy beat Pelosi and Kucinich made a very good run it would mark a "tipping point" in the US's relation to the world and to its own people.
LABROOKS112: And the tragedy is that this is the moment that SO much is at stake, from the viability of Iran's future, to climate change, to the falling US dollar, to the fate of US citizens caught in the fiscal downturn. I believe each soul must answer for how they used the resources available to them. In that sense, there is a judgment day. I would not want to be in the shoes of any who hold positions of power who have elected to cower to the interests of the dark side to save their asses when so much depends on their taking the brave stance of justice, decency and moral rectitude. None of us has held such a position, but I know that when I even flirt with doing something that I know to be wrong, I can't continue and would not sleep at night if I did. Maybe this is why sleep medication is now a top selling item? With big pharma acting to chemically co-opt the human conscience, the actions of the amoral progress all the faster.
"..living on old glories and devoid of any principle other than returning its elected officials to their offices and their perks..."
"the Founders, in writing impeachment into the Constitution, did not say the test was whether Congress had the votes to impeach."
Well said!
What I want to know is where all the Nader haters and bad-mouthers are.
Nader has said, time and again, that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, and as I recall, three years ago numerous members of the "liberal-left" community -- among them, Jeff Cohen, Eric Alterman, the editors of The Nation, even that radical par excellence, Noam Chomsky -- did not support the Nader candidacy.
And yet, once again, the Nader thesis is supremely vindicated by the arrest of the peace activists yesterday. But, lo and behold, that won't stop the same people from barking the same old tedious, stupid refrain in 2008: "there is much too much at stake in this election to waste your vote voting for Nader..."
I have never been more disappointed in a political person than I am right now in John Conyers. Everyday we see weak and cowardly democrats kowtowing to the Republicans with their collective tail between their legs. Before today, you could always say, at least we have John Conyers we can count on him to do the right thing, didn't he say he would call for impeachment? Yes, he did say that but apparently he is too afraid of Fox News making fun of him. Do we ever get out of grade school? Can this be right? John Conyers would rather have the respect of Fox News than that of the American people. Doesn't he know his supporters don't watch Fox News? I'm sorry, did I say John Conyers supporters, I think after today they will be former supporters.
This two party system is no longer working. It is time to get rid of it. We need a regime change at home that includes no only the Executive Branch but the Congress and Senate too. Now, is the time for revolution, before it's too late.
"It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party-Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus included–has become nothing but a dried out husk, living on old glories and devoid of any principle other than returning its elected officials to their offices and their perks, year after year." Dave Lindorff
Boy, I couldn't say it any better. They have turned their crusty backs on their base, now it's time to do the same to them!
Dear Rep. John Conyers,
You're fired for failing to do what WE THE PEOPLE, also know as YOUR BOSS, have demanded. Pack up your s**t and go the hell home.
Sincerely,
The Majority of Americans
Who would have guessed that all their talk before the election was just hype and drop in the bucket raise in the minnimum wage is not a fair exchange for dying Americans and Iraqis and the Constitution going into the trashheap of history. Tony
wow..Conyers is now Officially White..."git them niggas outta ma office"
Isn't this how Bush got into power in the first place? Imagine if Nader hadn't gotten his egotistical paws into the election basket. Bush wouldn't have had the excuse of "winning" by a paltry 300 plus votes (of course, we know it was fixed but had Nader not been in the mix, there would have been hundreds of thousands of votes the crooks would have had to overcome).
It just goes to show that the Left is not as disciplined, united, organized and determined as the Right. Our first priority would be to get rid of as many Republicans as possible and keep them in a PERMANENT ultra minority status, then we can focus on cleaning our own house. Instead, we are fighting over a small piece of bone while the GOP sits on the dog house looking down at us self-destructing and waiting for their chance to come down again.
Until we know what our priorities are, I'm afraid, we'll keep allowing the Right to outflank and outsmart us again and again. Oy vey!
Impeach Conyers, Peloski and Reid along with the other thugs,cheats liars and corrupt nothings
We cannot give up.
Call them all again.
HR 333
Impeach Cheney
Then Bush
etc. etc. etc.
I am astonished, deeply disappointed and depressed by Conyers' behavior yesterday.
I just got off the phone to his DC office where I told whomever was on the other end of the line just that.
I had believed Conyers these past couple of years when he said he would take serious action.
Either he is a complete liar or he is scared of something.
Regardless the whole affair says something very disturbing about our government.
Until yesterday I thought I could not be more fearful for the future of this Nation than I already was.
I was wrong.
Congress keeps on whining that the impeachment process would take too long. Are they referring to the horrendous on-going impeachment proceedings that the GOP drug out for months over a dirty dress? The evidence for impeachment this time is overwhelming and should be a 'slam dunk.' Clinton lied and hurt his own reputation. Bush lied and an untold number of people have died or been severly maimed. This is not comparing apples to apples. This is about adhering to the Constitution and doing what is right. No votes my foot. If Congress doesn't stop playing parlor games and get serious there are going to be many, many new faces after the next election, provided we even have one.
That's why Republicans are so powerful. They put their principles on equal footing with strategy. Democrats, on the other hand, focus on safe strategy over principles and sometimes manage to scrape into a victory when their opponent is vile enough. Always with the Dems it's play it safe. No impeachment, we've got an electon in 18 months! That didn't stop the GOP from impeaching Clinton, and wouldn't stop them doing it again. When the GOP sees its chance to ruin the Dems, it takes it. Now, at a point when the Dems could disrupt the GOP for an entire generation, impeachement's off the table, and everybody wants to work together (on the Republicans' terms). Play it safe and scrape by with 51% of the votes. I'm almost laughing with Karl Rove on this one. What leadership.