Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe blogosphere was aquiver with the news that Cindy Sheehan announced she will challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an independent, since Pelosi has refused to renounce her position that impeachment is "off the table." Sheehan promptly got herself arrested in the office of Congressman John Conyers, who heads the House Judiciary Committee.
"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said. She and a group of other pro-impeachment activists were arrested in Conyers's office after a meeting at which Conyers told the activists that he lacked the votes for impeachment. Sheehan's group began a sit-in, demanding that Conyers sign onto Representative Dennis Kucinich's impeachment bill. Conyers eventually called the Capitol Police to arrest the protesters and drag them away.
The group AfterDowningStreet.org and the political newsletter Counterpunch attacked Conyers for hypocrisy. Sheehan expressed disgust and dismay. A fight broke out between supporters of the Democrats and leftwing activists online.
I asked John Nichols, whose book The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism recently hit number 17 on Amazon, what he made of the whole Sheehan/Conyers imbroglio.
The internal strife on the left probably doesn't make much difference to the chances for impeachment, he says. That's because, Nichols explains, no one leader in the House can make impeachment happen.
"John Conyers wants to impeach, there's no question of that. He wrote a book on it last year. He moved the proposal to set up a special committee to do it. But Pelosi has made it clear she doesn't want to do it," Nichols says.
"We're exactly where we've been all along, which is this process is going to have to go member by member, getting them to sign on. John Conyers would be absolutely delighted if he were forced to take up impeachment."
The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. "The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it's supposed to be an organic process--it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up."
To date, some 15 members have signed on to the proposal to impeach Cheney, and 20 have spoken out in favor of impeachment generally. It would take 50 to pose a real threat. But as more and more voters and their representatives take an interest, the chances for impeachment grow.
The day before the Sheehan/Conyers imbroglio, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, renewed his call of a year ago to censure the President. (Only a House member, not a Senator, can begin the impeachment process.) In 2006, Feingold called for censure because of revelations about the Administration's illegal wiretapping program, and the cover-up that ensued. His current pair of resolutions, which he announced on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert on Sunday, would cite the Administration's continuing misleading statements on the Iraq War and what Feingold calls Bush's "attack on the rule of law" and the U.S. Constitution, as well as the use of torture.
A little later, on CBS's Face the Nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he wouldn't be joining the censure drive. Echoing the White House response to the censure effort, Reid cited all the other work the Senate needs to do, adding: "He's the worst President in history. I don't think we need a censure resolution to prove that."
Russert hit on the same theme, suggesting that Feingold's censure resolution is "political" (i.e., a bunch of useless posturing). And even Feingold himself nodded to the "let's-not-waste-time-and-energy" defensive posture struck by the Democrats ever since they won back Congress in the midterm elections. "We don't need to tie up the House and Senate with an impeachment trial" to take the lesser step of censure, he said, though he also didn't rule out impeachment.
On his website, Feingold directs constituents to a blog he wrote on the subject for Daily Kos, in which he explains that he is not convinced impeachment is the way to go, even though "the list of administration wrongdoing, misleading statements, and out and out lies, just keeps getting longer. Congress should censure the President not only for the illegal wiretapping program, but for the administration's phony reasons for going to war in Iraq, for trashing habeas corpus, for giving the green light to torture, and the list goes on and on. I want Congress to condemn what the administration has done, both for the American people, and for history."
He asks for support from the pro-impeachment netroots: "I know some of you may not believe these resolutions are enough, and I understand that. I am as frustrated as you are about this administration's actions and I hope the proposal I made today is something you'll consider helping me with (in addition to other efforts you may support). Together we will hold this administration accountable for its many abuses. The history books will show we were vocal in condemning the President's abuses of power."
While Democrats give voice to public discontent with the Bush administration, the leadership is still operating on the theory that as Bush and the Republicans head off the cliff, the best course of action is to get out of the way. Politically, Nichols concedes, they might be right: "They should just stand up and say if we abdicate our constitutional responsibilities and don't do our job, we'll reap the benefits. It will allow us to do good things. They might be right. Standing by and letting a crash occur might benefit you. That's a credible case."
Of course, the Democrats are saying no such thing. Instead, they talk about getting on with the important business of the Congress, and not wasting time on impeachment. The argument that impeachment would be a time-waster is, according to Nichols, "bullshit." He points out that the same Congress that impeached Richard Nixon accomplished a great deal, in terms of dialing down the Vietnam war, raising the minimum wage, passing environmental legislation, and making other important, progressive gains.
"The idea that taking up impeachment will keep us from acting on health care, gay rights, etc., is ahistoric," Nichols says. "The fact of the matter is that during the impeachment of Nixon back in the 70s, the reason Congress was so effective and got so much done was that Nixon was scared and, in a calculated move, started cooperating with Congress to avoid impeachment. So the right thing to do is move immediately--see what you can get out of Bush."
For that theory to win the day, the pressure on Congress from voters has to continue to grow.
Ruth Conniff covers national politics for The Progressive and is a voice of The Progressive on many TV and radio programs.
© 2007 The Progressive
127 Comments so far
Show AllWe don't need to support the DLC. We DO need to support and vote for Democrats in the primaries, preferably progressives, as well as the general election of 2008. The reason, in 2008, is simple. Without a unified bloc, the crooked RNC election machinations will take advantage of the tight margin and fraudulently shift the votes again as they did in key swing states in 2004. The legislation necessary to secure our votes is not happening yet. From exit polls and statistical studies it was absolutely impossible for George W. Bush to have won in 2004. The statistics tell us Bush lost by over 4 million popular votes. And if millions of minority votes had not been suppressed, it would have been far greater. Note that Rep. Conyers was the man who stood up to the Republicans as the senior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee and held a fact-finding process that all but proven Kerry had won Ohio. He issued an in-depth report that began prosecutions. No, I am not pleased with some of the Democratic leaders at this point. With Democrats in a stronger position in Congress and the White House in 2009, progressives will increase their sphere of influence. I stroongly suspect that Karl Rove is behind this "throw out the Democrats" business. It sounds like him. Do you REALLY want to cooperate with Rove? Do you want to risk keeping Republicans in Congress and another Republican in the White House? Start thinking rationally. Continue pressing Congress for Cheney's impeachment. Impeaching Bush FIRST is NOT an option. I'm with Kucinich.
I recommend the documentary on George McGovren's '72 campaign, "One Bright Shining Moment", which details his own early opposition to the Vietnam War & his subsequent path to the '72 nomination -- and the alarm of the Party establishment, including the last-ditch attempt by Humphrey to destroy him before the '72 convention.
Quite by accident, while reading Richard Reeves' "Richard Nixon: ALone in the White House", I discovered that the founders of the DLC were originally from the '72 group, Democrats for Nixon.
One end impeachment would serve would be to distinguish the the liberals who are wrapped in the flag & drenched in money from war & other forms of profiteers from those who authentically desire a society in which health & the pursuits of peace are insisted on as fundamentals of civil society, and written into law, not written off by PR firms disguished as 'think tanks' and political consulting firms.
Impeachment can only be brought about by the will of the People, and all of us working to bring it about would recognize it only as a step. It's very possible that these antique structures won't bend, or are past radical reform, but there are far too many psychos in the country wanting to abolish them in order to establish a Republic of Gilead-style regime.
Impeachment is a necessary but not sufficient step towards social transformation.
Com_n_sense; Thank you for replying. I like the 7 day program, but kidding aside, the general strike does work. It should be peaceful, but as you know, sometimes gets real nasty.
As long as one person agreed with my comment, I'll work with others in the movement to coordinate the plan of action, and will post these in my comments on Common Dreams.
Maybe we are "WAITING FOR GODOT" as in Beckett's play, but too much harm has been done to this country and to other countries by this administration, and WE THE PEOPLE need to get off our behinds and take back our government and military, and start abolishing everything that Bush has signed since the Supreme Court selected him as "chief executive", starting with the "Patriot Act".
Stay tuned, Com_n_sense, and anyone else who really cares.
Some still think that if you Impeach Cheney first that will fix the problem of Cheney becoming prez if we impeach Bush first.
It is a bit more involved than that because just like Nixon and his VP a similar result would happen.
When Cheney either resigns or stays to be tried by the Senate, Bush will appoint a new VP as soon as Cheney is convicted and by the time this is done the new election will be coming up and if the elections happen the new VP will be a fresh Republican candidate.
They are partners in Crime, this "real power behind the throne" is wishing that once Cheney is gone, Bush will have no power and will be no threat to the world.....I don't think that is reality.
Impeach them both as partners that way even if they play the musical chairs game of resignation, Bush will be under pressure to resign even before the House votes to make the Impeachment proceedings officially start so that he will have resigned in time like Nixon so that Bush will be able to get pardoned by what ever President is next.
The bottom line is if we Impeach them together and neither resigns in time before it gets out of the Committee, neither Bush or Cheney will be able to get a pardon from any future President because the Constitution makes it clear that there is the power of Pardon accept in cases of impeachment...If Dennis can explain why this is not better than having Bush appoint a new VP, I will give him more than 50 Bucks.
Love, Jim
Rebel Farmer:
You are correct--I took the bait and ran with it (although I really was interested in reading gabi's response to the facts that contradicted her verbal flatulence). But since little is to be gained by arguing with a stone, I will try to control myself better in the future, and will make an effort to stay on topic.
However, I believe that gabi's kind of hit-and-run misinformation assaults will only intensify--especially after the primary election, when ALL the parties have announced their candidates--so they should not remain unchallenged in forums like this, because the mainstream media (and this includes the Nation and the Progressive, I'm sorry to say) can be expected to defend and perpetuate the status quo and dismiss the progressive opposition as they always do.
The way our political system is designed, a third-party candidate will often produce a spoiler effect, as happened with Nader and Gore in 2000. People who voted for Nader would surely rather have had Gore than Bush. I am in the lesser-of-two-evils camp. We need to change the system before voting for a third-party candidate will be effective at the national level. Eight years of Bush is way too high a price to pay to show Gore he wasn't progressive enough.
From the http://www.fairvote.com/ website:
"Three is a crowd in our current voting system. Plurality voting, where the candidate with the most votes wins, is dysfunctional when more than two candidates run. It promotes zero-sum politics that discourage new candidates, suppress new ideas and encourage negative campaigns rather than inclusive efforts to build consensus.
In contrast, instant runoff voting (IRV) elects candidates who have majority support, accommodates voters having better choices and encourages winning candidates to reach out to more people. Join with us to seek IRV to elect our top local, state and national leaders."
I am a 57 year old life long Democrat from a long line of Democrats and I have finally come to the conclusion that the democrat party no longer represents me or my beliefs. I am ready to do like so many others and drop out.
My only hope now is that I will live long enough to see a viable third party that can seriously take on both the democrats and the republican party and represent the people that elect them. Has anyone started looking at Unity08. I have been researching them a bit and have read both some good and bad. I am considering of committing to them, if I can figure out if they are on the up and up.
peaceman: I have been asking the progressive sites why they haven't co-ordinated General Strikes(GS) for some time.
Just the other day Argentina was brought to a standstill by a GS. Throughout history GS have been proven to be some of the most effective ways to bring powerful forces to their knees.
Gandhi expelled a world super-power without firing a shot by using GS.
I suggest that there be a site that co-ordinates GS among the progressive web-site memberships. We can start with the easiest. Monday everyone stays home from work to protest the Iraq occupation. We might also boycott GE products till we stop the carnage.
Tuesday: we strike for impeachment bush.
Wednesday: we strike for impeach cheney.
Thursday: we strike for impeach gonzales.
Friday: We strike for Universal Health Care.
Saturday: we strike for strikes sake.
Sunday: we take off.
All kidding aside, I have been doing some research on GS and they are both extremely effective and relatively easy to participate in. So why don't some of you savvy ones figure out how we can get this started? It can't be that hard to gather the email membership lists of all the progressive blogs and start some GS that will actually have a direct effect on policy.
RE: FOR ALL ITS CORRUPTION, BIG LABOR WAS A STRONG FORCE IN DEMOCRATIC POLITICS - AND THAT FORCE BARELY EXISTS NOW
Nathaniel Heidenheimer July 26th, 2007 11:49 am
YOUR POST:
"but why hasn't criticism of the big corporate-controlled Union leaders gotten on the air-waves to prevent this corruption?"
RESPONSE:
Because - irregardless of degree of corruption - unions and union leadership are themselves a numerical shadow of their former self (unionized labor was something like half of workers in 1950...now it's, I don't know...10%?)
The right wing George Meaney union leadership supported Vietnam - that was covered not just because it fit in w/a right wing corporate media agenda, but because labor was big and thus had a voice - it represented a major lobby in Washington, and now it does not.
YOUR POST:
"Because no one is allowed on the air- waves to make these criticisms. The issue you raise is important, but is not unconnected to the systematic corruption of union and democratic leadership"
Big labor did not make itself felt mainly through media; it worked through its own membership meetings, links w/local and national leadership, and powerful lobbying.
It is only in the absence of such membership, labor-party links, and lobbying that the electorate becomes ignorant and corporate messages run, so to speak, unupposed. Opposing corporate media messages was never a question of 'equal air time' - it was a question of organizational structures rooted in a collective workplace.
YOUR POST:
"Today the reason there is no resisteance to Bushism IS NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF POPULAR OPPOSITON but it is becasue of a lack of ARTICULATED OPPOSITON."
RESPONSE:
Well on this we miht agree - I argue that, despite the neutering, corruption, and right wing elements of past big labor, they were the large organizations that "articulated" opposition.
baska, I know that, but why hasn't criticism of the big corporate-controlled Union leaders gotten on the air-waves to prevent this corruption?
Because no one is allowed on the air- waves to make these criticisms. The issue you raise is important, but is not unconnected to the systematic corruption of union and democratic leadership
Words are important.
Today everyone is justly cynical about how the two corporate parties are really the same. But go back to 1968. Compare what RFK, MLK were saying ( and also what JFK was saying in 1963). Today the reason there is no resisteance to Bushism IS NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF POPULAR OPPOSITON but it is becasue of a lack of ARTICULATED OPPOSITON. Its like a french horn without a mouthpiece. The problems you point out are real, but they are related to the dems not focusing, articulating, and unifying the working class message. They are getting very good money not to do this. Oppositon is hence broken intoa million different opposition groups with thirteen people each.
Its just like Madison said in Federalist 10: they may be the majority, but with no leadership uniting them "they will not realize thier own stregnth" Thank you Corporate Democrats.
RE: HOW EXPLAIN LONG TERM RIGHTWARD MOVEMENT OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Nathaniel Heidenheimer July 26th, 2007 11:12 am
"dems are just window dressing to fool the base…. How else to explain forty years of UNOPOSED rightward movement"
1) Decline of big industry/big labor, atomization and political ignorance/passivity of post-industrial labor, and consequential decline of traditionally Democratic electorate and lobbyists - for one.
(Yes, yes, obviously big labor was 'neutered' of its left from the post-WWII get-go, and large segments - though not all - were right wing on Vietnam; but it was still an active, reliable base for many typically New Deal issues.)
It's not all just increased corporate power or the DLC or the 'rise of right' - but a decline of organized 'countervailing forces.'
2) The shift has not been "unopposed" - opposition has increasingly weakened.
This shows that the "progressive" (what does this word mean anymore?) dems are just window dressing to fool the base, while the real power is with Hillary Rodham Bush wing of the party. OF COURSE THEY WILL DISGUISE THEIR VOTES to create a "we tried" delusion! How else to keep the delusion of choice in our Corporate Elections?
But when push comes to shove, if they need eleven dem votes to go with 100% of the republicans to make the Corporations happy, then they will get 11 votes.
Its time we get past the Feingold-Conyers scam. That's all it is: raw scam. We have 2 corporate Republican parties. How else to explain forty years of UNOPOSED rightward movement, even on issues where 75% are against the bipartisan corporate rape of America?
The Democrats can go to hell. A bunch of weak livered, lying bastards! Can they not read the polls? Get ready for eight more years of Republicans, you idiots. You had your chance and did NOTHING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
a troll is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET groups in order to bait users into responding.[1] They may also plant images and data on networks that others may find disturbing in order to cause confrontation.
There is nothing in that definition that requires the troll to be "a right winger" even in the context of trolling on a site like Commondreams. I think many of us are guilty of trolling including me.
In regards to the article in question. I take issue with the title "The Impeachment Imbroglio: Sheehan, Conyers, Pelosi, and Feingold". I think that putting Cindy Sheehan in the limelight marginalizes the rest of the movement, as if there would be no drive to impeach without her, as if it were her idea. It also provide opponents and critics with ammunition to discredit the concept because it has her name all over it. As this article shows,and as demonstrated by the likes of Bill Moyers, there are many credible people calling for impeachment.
RE: TROLLS ON WEBSITE; ACCUSING POSTERS OF BEING TROLLS
Rebel Farmer July 25th, 2007 11:11 pm
"never had a sense that we had trolls on this sight, but I think they are here now....gabi - are you a troll?....way to control the situation is to ignore [them]"
I have accused other of being trolls, and been accused of it myself. I have come to think that the accusation is counterproductive.
1) I'd guess gabi is not a "troll" - a right winger masquerading as a progressive - simply because lots of people who support left-liberal/progressive positions are, at the same time, 'lesser-of-two-evil-ists' and attack 'third-party-ists.'
2) I believe progressives should be able to reject such arguments, forcefully and credibly, without falling back on a lazy powerplay of debunking the argument by crying 'troll.' Such tactics may work on commondreams, but - in my view - we have to imagine our arguments as geared towards persuading the ignorant or undecided - and sliming people who disagree w/you (even when, like gabi, they practice sleazy straw-man, hit-and-run tactics themselves), won't do that.
3) Despite abovementioned sleazy tactics, I got something out of reading others' replies to gabi, and being driven to respond myself.
Now - having said that, I think there are more important tasks than spending ALL our time responding to that kind of post; although the organizing a 'Defining Issue' campaign of the Sheehan type I posted you about earlier is, actually, likely to involve the 'third party' argument triggered by gabi.
RE: CAN THIRD PARTIES FORCE DEMOCRATS AWAY FROM RIGHT WING BY THREAT OF LOST VOTES?
Paul Bramscher July 25th, 2007 8:04 pm
"That assumes that party loyalty trumps ideology with the DLC. I don't think it does. They won't be scared by the threat of Third Parties. On the contrary, they may benefit from the split (taking their marching orders from corporate America like the Rethugs)."
1) The enormous Democratic Party capital expended on demonizing Ralph Nader is evidence that Democrats are scared by Third Parties. Many commondreams articles have detailed this.
2) Note that the underlying split on this website's threads concerns the third party question: not whether to vote third party (a majority will), but the purpose of a third party vote: a) as an alternative to a hopelessly corrupt and unchangeable Democratic Party, with the goal of a new progressive majority; versus b) as a way of articulating the views of a sizable minority with the goal of halting the rightward trajectory of the Democrats and forcing their platforms left.
In other words - both groups agree on breaking w/Democrats, withholding votes, and going 3rd party, but for quite different reasons.
If the Democrats consider it a "waste of time" to do their Constitutional duty, then they should resign en masse. The fact is, their actions are turning away many would-be supporters who were enthusiastic in November 2006, but have since become cynical. I'll only vote 3rd party now, for life.
THE MOST AMBIVILANT WISHY WASHY UNFOCUSED ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ BY ANYONE ASSERTING ANY CLAIM TO BEING A "PROGRESSIVE".
Do you know that her life is threatened everywhere she goes?
Do you know that there was a poor turnout in Philadelphia to show support but there was a large contingent of reactionary thugs who tried to drown her out with bullhorns and required a police presence?
You could sense the volatility in the air.
Where were you?
Publications like "The Nation" ask where the anti-war movement is. The Nation has nerve considering they jumped on the Michael Lerner bandwagon to sabotage ANSWER--casting them as antisemitic. ANSWER was organizing massive protests prior to the Invasion, but publications like "The Nation" were responsible for marginalizing the movement.
They are all corporate whores. I don't see any possible way of a real progressive society without publicly funded elections. Impeachment just paves the road for the next whore to take the throne. Reform the system, before it's too late.
Political and Musical expression of this idea:
www.myspace.com/scienceforchildren
A majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney, and yet only 15 members of Congress support this. It speaks volumes about "US democracy".
abbeybwood...
Yes, it has to be ORANGE. Got my T today at a thrift for 1.27.
Goddess, help us.
It takes a lot of nerve and dishonesty to suggest a Cindy run in the Democratic primary against Neocon Pelosi, instead of an independent run. Sheehan has principals, she wouldn't join the criminal enterprise that not only gave Bush the war powers that killed her son but also gave him even more money than he had asked for to continue the butchering, incineration and rape of innocent men, women and toddlers in the Middle East, and that right after an election in which the people of the US said ENOUGH!
Get a fu*king grip. The Democratic Party has got to go, let this be the beginning of REAL change in America. Wipe DemocRATS off the electoral map.
Ahhh Aymon you madman, I salute you. I know this is way far down on the post so I doubt you'll read it but I enjoy your words.
"....Nichols telling the rest of the world that your "democracy" is built on such a foundation of sand, that you are seeing it crumble before your very eyes and your "Congress of the People" can't do anything?"
YEEESSSSSS says the Parcel Tongue, "Little Pendejo is the hand-puppet and Valdemorte, king of the Death Eaters, holds the whip that makes him cum. Valdemorte hypnotized all his political enemies into doing circular pointless things calling them "Opposition" while he, Lord of Death rides the Nightmare of State around the globe raising the Holocaust. So great is Valdemorte's power after 35 years of Imperial Presidency, anyone who would counsel effective Opposition is rendered invisible. This is America's puurrrrfect storm."
Our political system devolves into Chaos. Our 'leaders' are fully vested in and corrupted by the status quo. They are UNABLE To Take Any Effective ACTION TO STOP IT.
In the same way, our economic system devolves into Chaos. Our 'leaders' are fully vested in and corrupted by the status quo - They are UNABLE To Take Any Effective ACTION TO STOP IT.
In the same way, the entire fabric of American society devolves into Chaos. Our 'leaders' are fully vested in the status quo - They are UNABLE To Take Any Effective ACTION TO STOP IT.
It is the Great Shattering and you have a ringside seat. Three of the Great Rings of Life, shattered. With Despair, the fourth Ring shatters. Some will call it Justice.
And yes, the serious richfilth have already begun migrating $$$ into Euro$ & Yen in the vain hopes of staving off the coming global tidal wave. Small hint: Go live a thousand miles from any shoreline and grow your own food, the push-back will be legendary. When the oceans rise, the Nation State system becomes crudely written symbols in sand, the marks of brutal pre-humans pissing to their mark territory. Do you ever think about the numbers of "countries" that came to have 'their borders' after we conquered them, the resulting contours based totally upon our convenience? How long will that last when the MOnster is gone.
With a bit of luck humanity might do better next time, if they get a second chance. Past a certain point, populations don't come back. Not enough live births. Depleted uranium can do that to a human, or a people, or a nation. And yes, we shall use it on each other. We shall do to each other what we have inflicted on humans here and around the globe since my Aryan ancestors and cousins came to conquer these lands called America. America gets to bring Abu Ghraib back home to America - and we'll use it because dehumanized degraded humans in pain gets us off. LOOK AT WHAT WE DO. WHAT WE REALLY DO. Not how we run our collective mouth or re-write our history with lies and fantasies.
Ever tell someone that Xrstianity is the single most genocidal religion in the history of the species and they jump up and explain, "But they're not the real Xrstians. The REAL Xrstians are A, B, & C, not to mention D, E, F." And you believe their sincerity. So you say yes, "But you and yours have never run that organization nor have you run any of the most virulent dissident Xrstian Churches. You are in fact a tiny minority which while laudable, never stopped a single act of butchery."
That's your Liberal American. Sorry. We killed the ones who had any teeth. We've been doing it for 100 years and more.
Like Kosh said very early in Babylon 5: "The Avalanche has begun. Too late for the pebbles to vote."
Piece.
After reading all of these laments, solutions, diatribes, excuses, and anything else not mentioned on this article as well as on the other Common Dreams stories, and submitting my own two cents on these issues, it appears for certain all of you care about this country AND the rest of the world. But one factor is certain: too much quarreling among ourselves on how to solve the problem/s.
The ruling class stays united in spite of petty differences, which gives them the winning advantage. We progressives ( and I'm just as guilty ) feel like "our" method is the proper way to fix the system and make it better, and "yours" isn't as good. We go back and forth, displaying our ego in speech and the written word. Every victory won by the working class was the result of group unity and standing firm against superior forces. Many sacrifices were made, but in the end, we prevailed because of the common interest and vision toward achieving the goal. How many of you know that advocating an "8 HOUR WORKDAY" in the 1880's was considered treason?
My conclusion is this: if you really want to change the system for the better, start coordinating the General Strike Plan in the United States. All working people, union ( what's left of us ) as well as non-union working people and as we saw last year, the immigrants and "illegals" to stop working, too. The wealthy can't function without us. When John and Joan Q. Public "REALIZE" this, WE THE PEOPLE, win! It takes a strong concerted effort but it is possible.
Otherwise we vent our anger and frustration to each other and as we all can see, the situation worsens. John Stewart on Comedy Central tonight showed a bit of the hearings with Alberto "Torquemada" Gonzales and the sheepish senators questioning him. Funny, but sickening.
Peace on Earth and in the rest of the Universe.
It feel good to have politicians to blame. It's harder to attack the ones who put them there because we all drive the cars they make, we need the gas they sell us, we like to watch the Simpsons on their station, we smoke their cigs, drink their booze, buy our food from them, we have our money in their banks, we buy their mortgages, we buy stock in their companies, in short, we totally depend on the people who put Bush there. So we can vent our anger on their puppets without really changing our cherished way of life by boycotting those responsible.
This just in:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Bush-Fein.mov
grandma: Thanks! I think some of the major, established impeachment sites like afterdowningstreet.org might be a place to get this organized
never watch politicians before you eat. it will ruin your apetite. never watch politicians after you eat. it will ruin your digestion. in fact, never watch them if you can help it, and listen only if you must. Their words transcribed to text are toxic enough without having to see their faces while they do it.
Peace.
By the way folks. I've never had a sense that we had trolls on this sight, but I think they are here now.
gabi - are you a troll?
If any of the other posters here agree with me, the only way to control the situation is to ignore the trolls and don't argue with them.
bildad: you fed the troll big time!
Hi gang - There's a grassroots groundswell out there and we're ignoring it. Try googling for "impeachment, cities, towns" and you'll find it. Now we need to make sure our reps and senators know this and also, we need to get all these folks together and get things done.
Barack doesn't want to impeach Bush or Cheney. There isn't "enough evidence." That killed him with me and I hope a few million others. The guy sounds good, but he lets his ass overload his mouth.
Wanta win next time? Draft Feingold or support Kucinich. The only chances we have for sanity and honesty in office.
"Play your cards right and we will have 25 years of Dem control."
Not these Dems. Unless they fear being tossed out, we'll have no leverage whatsoever to keep them from obeying only their corporate masters.
A majority of people want Cheney impeached. Let's start there. It's not an option and it's not a matter of opinion and it's not a matter of scheduling inconvenience -- as has been said, it is an affirmative requirement: the very core, the essence of the sworn obligation all who serve in Congress take.
I really don't give a rat's ass if another Democrat ever wins an election as a consequence, but my hunch that it's just the opposite: they'll never win if they don't impeach.
If we accept some hack-analysts' mantras about the Dims being too concerned about "getting elected in '08" or that it would "be a distraction" to embark on impeachment, then let's have this instead:
* The Dem-lead Congress should bills criminalizing extraordinary rendition
* banning torture (in crystal-clear terms).
* clearly defining what a mercenary is, and reaffirming their illegality.
* restore habeas corpus
The Dims present bills like this to the King. If they pass, we're all better for it. If they're veto'd, they gain increasingly more political ammunition.
But they don't seem too eager to win, do they? To pin it on Bush, to make it stick. It's "teflon factor" all over again, because the Dems either don't have their fingers on the pulse of the electorate, or they've been co-opted. I think they're not as naive as they've appeared, so I'll grant them the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.
They are counting on us (no pun intended) to put our faith in "elections".
DO NOT.....I repeat....DO NOT put your faith in computerized voting machines!
Remember. If you must vote, VOTE ABSENTEE AND XEROX YOUR BALLOT!
Then count your ballots in each precinct with coffee and donuts. Expect Bolton to come ramming through the door saying, "I'm with the Bush/Cheney team and I'm here TO STOP THE COUNT!"
Stalin: "It's those who COUNT the votes who decide the elections."
The views expressed on these discussion boards are a distinct minority.
The fact is that most Americans don't care one way or the other, be it about impeachment, imperial wars, a degraded style of life, or a falling empire.
What most Americans care about are money, sex, food, and trashy entertainment. They look at politics on the tube every couple of years, glance at Hillary Clinton's phony smile, and say, "Hey, she looks good, I think I'll vote for her!"
REPUBLICAN sympathizer, Nancy "Periosi" must be removed from her perch against the greater majority, and Cindy Sheehan is the person that can do it. Cindy Sheehan would not turn against the people of the greater majority as soon as she got in office,like Nancy "Periosi" has. When removing the DLC periosi from the House, along with Nancy, Steny Hoyer must go and all the DLC that represent the "wanta be" Elite, instead of the greater majority population of the United States, the General Population. Let's finish cleaning House and Senate in the upcoming PRIMARY ELECTIONS of as many DLC traitors as possible.
Why is impeachment of Bush and Cheney so important? The question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. Whoever is president next will have to operate under fear of being impeached next. That is the point of impeachment. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do serious damage as Bush and Cheney have proven. As the past has shown, impeachment takes only three or four months--it is time to begin the process.
I agree that this Congress will not impeach George Bush. While the House will impeach him, the Senate will not convict him because it takes three-quarters of the Senate for conviction and there are at least 26 Senators that will not convict. Having said that, moving legislation for impeachment and daring Republicans to take the heat for refusing to convict would enable the Democrats to position themselves as the party of law, order, justice, and protectors of the Constitution.
The House hearings into impeachment will expose for the nation to see in detail that Bush deliberately lied to the American people; that he deliberately engaged in a war that was illegal because it violated the Geneva Conventions, violated the U. S. Constitution, and violated the principles of the United Nations; that he received equivocal intelligence from the classified National Intelligence Estimate but deliberately changed that intelligence to positive assertions when he passed it on to the Senate Intelligence Committee; that he violated the Constitution by depriving Americans of their civil and constitutional rights; that he filled the pockets of US corporations by deliberately giving them no-bid and no oversight contracts for Iraq; that he deliberately hired incompetents for sensitive government positions; that he caused suffering and death by his insensitive negligence of the Katrina tragedy; and so many more sins against the US citizens and other human beings.
When the citizens discover these colossal sins in detail, Congressional Republicans will face two choices: Do they stick with a known violator of all that this country represents or do they try to reposition themselves in the run-up to 2008? Impeachment is worth a try to prove that we are nation of laws and that not even the president should escape deserved justice.
Is it possible that Bush has not knowingly violated the law? That is, has Bush authorized spying programs not knowing they violated the law and the Bill of Rights? He's on videotape lying about it for years. He's on videotape confessing to it. A federal court has already ruled what he's done is a felony, finding in NSA vs. ACLU that the NSA program of broad data-mining and warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens is illegal and unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment. Yet, he continues.
Have Bush and Cheney threatened an aggressive war on Iran? They're both on
videotape doing so. A pre-emptive strike on Iran, as on Iraq, would be a violation of international law, against the principles of the United Nations and a violation of Article VI of the US. Constitution.
Was Bush criminally negligent during Hurricane Katrina? He's on videotape
being warned of the danger. He's on videotape claiming he was never warned.
This is only a small part of the evidence for impeachment. The US House of Representatives needs only the will to begin.
Letting the REpublicans destroy themselves is not as effective as impeachment in winning elections.
We would be wise to recognize that impeachment is the best guarantee of electoral success for Democrats and Republicans alike. Voters appreciate efforts to push for a cause. When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to nvestigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or
improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort
by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a
different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
The Democrats would be wise to begin impeachment proceeding to be certain of winning the next election.
I fail to see how the communists of the 60s and 70s caused trouble...they were the ones trying to get us out of Vietnam, trying to give women more rights, more rights to minorities, to workers, to homosexuals, the poor...you get the picture? I guess us "agitators" need to go back where we came from, leave you to your peaceful little white suburbs with your big businesses ruining our planet and keeping a permanent underclass of the uneducated to do your bidding?
Vote Communist Party USA. Stop imperialism/capitalism/fascism (three different words for the same thing).
Ya'll better stop talking bad about the Shrub before he freezes your assets..
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=267361
Why is this story not being covered by any of MSM? Does anyone really believe he'll leave office willingly?
Hey Gabi,
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post on a previous thread. You wrote a bunch of crap about Ralph Nader and us Greens and then disappeared when faced with the facts. If you'd still like to defend your indefensible slander, I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
1) "Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000.
2) 94,000 faux felons–most of whom were people of color (54% were African American), Democrats or BOTH–were fraudulently purged from the Florida voting lists by Katherine Harris on Jeb Bush's command. ("The scrub list was four-to-one Democrats. And that's how Bush "won" Florida in 2000."– Greg Palast, "Armed Madhouse," page 240.)
You have obviously forgotten that Abe Lincoln was the candidate of a THIRD PARTY only a few years old at the time—and HE won the presidency! So don't say it can't happen, because it already has happened.
By the way, you say we should ask some old Greens about Nader. Well, many of the posters here ARE old Greens (I was a member of the Greens/GPUSA before the unification that created the Green Party of the United States), and people who have met or worked with Nader over the years—and we certainly don't share your antipathy for him.
So let me get this straight. You think that it is OK to disenfranchise anyone you don't agree with politically, don't you? You think that Jim Crow tactics are OK as long as your beloved Donkey Party is the one doing the intimidating and the (metaphorical, at least right now) lynching? You sound like a STALINIST to me.
And for the record, in response to your ridiculous accusation, would you please list the causes Nader championed over the last 40 years that benefited HIM more than US, starting with auto safety and seat belts?
I'm STILL waiting...
gabi, politics without any connection to the ideas that supposedly make politics meaningful is an empty gesture.
Yes, over 40 years ago the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. That does not rehabilitate their abandonment of responsibility. Sentimentality doesn't cut it anymore. Neither does Republicanism with a capital D.
This isn't a goddamn football game. Ideas are meaningful here. See you in Guantanamo.
That assumes that party loyalty trumps ideology with the DLC. I don't think it does. They won't be scared by the threat of Third Parties. On the contrary, they may benefit from the split (taking their marching orders from corporate America like the Rethugs).
Remember, it was the Dems that got us into Vietnam. And it was a Dem who could have genuinely investigated the JFK assassination. And a Dem who criticized King George I for giving China most-favored nation status -- then do so himself. And a Dem who ignored genocide in Rwanda and kept the holding pattern alive in Iraq between King George I and II. That party has been subverted since at least JFK, if not well before. Go back much further and then it's a thoroughly racist party (before the split of the Dixiecrats).
It's a modern day mistake, and after-effect from a few decades of smoke & rhetoric, that it's even become to be associated as a "liberal" let alone progressive party.
I couldn't care less about any party. I want to see some action on common sense, ethics, renewable energy, peace, health care, reigning in out of control lenders and polluters, etc. Does it matter which party does it? I've begun to hope for a post-partisan world. Shame every last one of them into doing what's right. No hiding behind party loyalties as an excuse otherwise.
The DLC Democratic Party has never given a damn about its "progressive" wing. It's never made a single concession, so to expect it "to learn from the error of its ways" is stupid.
The Democrats do as they do because they only give a damn about themselves, which means staying in office forever, which means voting as business wants them to vote, which means collecting all that PAC/lobbyist money so they can pay for TV ads to slander their opponent in the next primary and election.
There's no therapy or hope to be had by staying with the Democrats. Some of us understood this years ago.
What's the old line? "What the wise man learns at once, the fool will learn eventually."
RE: WILL VOTING FOR THIRD PARTIES HELP ELECT DEMOCRATS?
gabi July 25th, 2007 6:45 pm
"More bashing of Dems then pubs, threats of "not voting Dem" … 'don't vote Dem' blah blah blah … Yeah, that will really help won't it."
Yea, if you believe Democrats repeatedly lose elections by ignoring their base - causing voters to stay home or vote third party - that will help.
And what will help, then, is if the DLC-dominated Democrat Party recognizes the error of their ways: the failure of angling for swing Republicans; and the failure of taking a large part of its electorate for granted or threatening or scorning them.
(Oh, by the way, by "scorn," I mean the "blah blah blah" kind of lazy, condescending dismissal - the kind that fails to acknowledge or even show any comprehension of their grievances.)
Instead, a reformed Democratic Party can learn from their mistakes, kick the Hillary Clinton-type DLC scum out of the control booth, and begin advancing traditionally Democratic liberal platforms.
gabi: Whether or not you believe that our current government is legitimate (i.e. the ballots weren't stuffed), a vote is a nod of approval. By the millions, they become mandates and embolden leaders to do things in accordance to what they campaigned on.
Is single-payer health care, withdrawal from Iraq, Range/IRV, real campaign finance reform, shutting down nukes, etc. on the Democratic Party platform? If one is a deeply committed pacifist, deep ecologist, ethicist, or expect some coherence out of a leader, why should they vote for one of the corporate parties?
Let's run a couple scenarios.
* If every American would wake up and smell the coffee, and vote according to his/her genuine interests, we might have about a dozen parties. The Rethugs would split into Big Money, Big Bibles, Big Energy, Big Guns, and the Mafia. The Dims would split into Big Money, Big Energy, Big Guns, and Progressives. And there would be the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Populists, etc. already out there. Depending on how the distributions worked out, someone might need only like 10% to win. And we'd have departed from the mentality that one must second-guess how his neighbors are voting, and adjust his/her own ethics accordingly. That's not how democracy works. Even a perfectly functioning democracy would be wrecked by that mode of thinking.
On the other hand, there's a time to compromise also. So the other way it would work out is that Progressives work within both the Republican and Democratic primaries, re-introduce common sense, compassion, ethics, etc. and try to juggle the most progressive members of the corporate parties to the primaries and party endorsement.
But, in the end, if the resulting candidate presents a show-stopper or deal-breaker to one's sense of ethics, why would you ask them to vote contrary?
The biggest argument for impeachment if it isn't punitive (Pelosi says she doesn't have time for such nonsense) for crimes already committed is that it might, JUST MIGHT, prevent Bush from attacking other countries, jailing US citizens who call him a motherf....ing liar and pushing the whole world into his apocalyptic fantasy. If the Dems do nothing on this issue, they will be just as culpable of any more crimes these a-holes commit.
RE: GABI, YOUR POINT IS...WHAT?
gabi July 25th, 2007 6:24 pm
"'Awaken' [who posted that - contra Nichols - Clinton was impeached w/o grassroots support]...perhaps you forget that....the Dems do not have the majority today that the pubs had when Clinton was impeached."
That is one factor. Evidently, you think it is determinative.
But Clinton's public approval ratings were higher and remained higher - even during proceedings - than the historically low numbers of the current occupant; recent polls indicate that half of the electorate - more for Cheney - support impeachment - and this with virtually no support in Congress and little discussion in the mainstream press; Clinton was not pressing an extremely unpopular war that is increasingly perceived as illegitimate; and it is arguable that, for many, the anger felt towards the continued Iraq invasion is connected to anger towards the criminal who lied them into the invasion.
So what is your point? That progressives should not organize or press legislators to impeach because Democrats do not have the majority required to succeed? That you know all Republicans will stick by their (so to speak) man? That a drive to impeach that does not succeed can serve no purpose?
Stop comparing these jerks to Nixon. Tricky Dick was a crook and tried to screw the people of the US. BUT, he cared about public opinion of him. Bush does not. He only cares about a small group of elitists who are as arrogant as he is. Bush/Cheney arrogance goes beyond anything Nixon/Kissinger could imagine. Get rid of these hyenas now, or the international reputation of the US and its citizens is smeared forever, and so is our reverance for the Constitution and the flag it represents. Bush is more "anti-American" than any Communist or alQaeda member, because he is pathologically without feeling or compassion.
Deny the children of this country adequate health care; deny women a right to choose and force them to have unwanted children, at the same time ? What kind of monster is this in OUR White House ? A People's Party is needed to replace the ones we have now. Don't vote for anyone who will not change our leadership now.
In fact, it was Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards who VOTED for the Iraq war! Nobody put a gun to their head and made them cast that vote. They did it entirely for self-serving reasons.
To date, the Democrats have done nothing to stop the war. They, too, are complicit in the bloodshed. They do not deserve our vote. What they deserve is to have someone like Ralph Nader or Cindy Sheehan run against them the next time around.
Actually, Aymon is right. Our society is totally hopeless.
How many election cycles does it take before people realize that electoral politics is a rigged game?
Unfortunately, a lot of people will follow the blind path of Gabi above and pull the lever for the Democrats in 08, demanding no accountability whatsoever.
Sorry aymon - "we" did not start the war ... "we" did not butcher people ... a man not elected by the majority of Americans started that war, and butchered those people.
The royal "We" doesn't work here!
I only have three words to say to brucetylerwick: Woah, heavy Dude.
Oh right ... throw away your vote on some party that doesn't have a chance in H of getting in, why not just vote republican...geesh!!
I should vote for a party (communists/socialists/marxists) that caused NOTHING but problems/ division in the sixties, seventies and eighties ?? Get real!!
You Americans have become a legendary joke that will be told by all the peoples of the world for the next 2000 years - - that a graet country claimed it was a "democracy" but had no representatives of the people at the crucial time when a dictator was brazenly taking over.
Please explain to the part of the world that is GENUINELY democratic, how can there be three "co-equal" branches of government?
When Solon wrote the first constitution of a functioning democracy - - Athens in Greece in about 500 BC, having learnt the basics of it from the Egyptian priests at Sais - - the first and foremost cardinal principle of democracy was established for all time as follows:
THE ULTIMATE AND HIGHEST POWER AND AUTHORITY IN A DEMOCRACY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AS WHOLE.
In a small state, the people may exercise direct democracy. But in a large nation, the people first give their ULTIMATE power to the body that is most representive of them, namely the Parliament or Congress of Representatives. When the Congress issues an order by majority vote for any member of the government, whether President, Supreme Court Judge or whoever, it means that the "Congress of the People as Whole" has issued that order.
Refusal to comply with an order from the people as whole is definitely a "high crime and misdemeanour" in every sense of that phrase.
I believe your founding fathers were not stupid; they were very educated people, steeped in Hellenism (that is why you have so much Egypto-Greek symbolism in Washington DC and on your currency and so forth). Are you folks and are your "scholars" such as Nichols telling the rest of the world that your "democracy" is built on such a foundation of sand, that you are seeing it crumble before your very eyes and your "Congress of the People" can't do anything?
And you invaded Iraq, butchered millions there to teach them your "democracy"?
You are hopeless.
The reason we're not saying "don't vote Republican" is because that goes without saying. Anybody who votes Republican, even for a "moderate" Republican, is throwing their vote away and giving more power to big business, fewer workers' rights, fewer minority and women's rights, and increased imperialism/capitalism. So naturally, the viable alternative used to be Democrat. Now that we've seen how well THAT works, that the Democrats really are just an extension of the Republican Party and a fake opposition, it's time to vote for the parties that will actually represent what we want.
I would say vote Green Party, but their commitment to minimizing the federal govt kind of scares me. A little too libertarian for my taste.
So vote Communist Party USA. Or any socialist/communist/marxist-leninist party. THAT's how we spread revolution.
abbybwood .. words without action are only words.
Many of the people on these comment lines are full of words, but have actually done little or nothing to affect change!!
Progs, historically have done little to affect change..in the sixties, seventies and eighties the progs were the Socialist Workers Party - creating more "divide and conquer" problems then the pubs ... also caused more stress within the different activist groups then harmony and help!
I see the same thing reflected here! More bashing of Dems then pubs, threats of "not voting Dem" ... "don't vote Dem" blah blah blah ... Yeah, that will really help won't it.
If you are familiar with history, you will note that the programs in America that help all Americans (not just rich Americans) ..came about because of the Democrats in office ... and the active liberal / moderate Dems marching in the streets !!
In an empire, there are only two political questions of much importance: (1) who NOW wears the purple; and (2) who WILL wear the purple in future.
Americans are being quickly acclimated to these truths by (1) the VERY premature campaign for president, presently in progress (for the full four-year term, beginning 20 January 2009); and (2) Congress and the judiciary disqualifying themselves from participation in the government, by carefully AVOIDING confrontations with the president. [How can one claim to be a fighter (contestant), without climbing into the ring occasionally?]
There is historical precedent. On the single occasion Elizabeth I sought her parliament's advice on a matter of foreign policy; parliament protested their incompetence to advise her! Foreign affairs, they argued, were the province of "statesmen."
Two rigged presidential elections, in 2000 and 2004, have persuaded many Americans their emperors are no longer elected--certainly not by them. Yet, the lack of significant, or indeed of any protest, to the ending of elections, must mean the country by and large PREFERS Diebold's wizardry to the power struggles and frequent violence, which so often accompanied the imperial succession in other realms.
So, without a bang or a whimper, we go placidly into that good night.
"Awaken" ...perhaps you forget that the pubs ran the place when Clinton was impeached. I wish some of you would get your "facts" straight ...
We have supposed "progs" posting here... constantly ragging on the Dems. Ready to verbalize at any minute why they apparently want a republican in office to continue the status quo. I'm beginning to think we have wayyyy toooo many pubs (in disguise) visiting this site.
Given the facts, Ron and Jaded go merrily on their way with the same ole line - Maybe they didn't really READ the article ??
This article explains it better then anything else I have read anywhere, why we have this log jam in D.C. And for those who don't remember their history, the Dems do not have the majority today that the pubs had when Clinton was impeached.
The distraction is simply this "faux campaign". Why now? Only to distract the voters from what is happening and what needs to be done. The other purpose is to allow time for smearing the campaigners. 18 months should be adequate for all to be blackened with some smear of sorts. Unless your Republican. Impeachment and trial should be shorter than a vote on legislation.
Think about it. Develop a project schedule. 30 days max start to finish. Show the world democracy works.
I'm heartened by many of the excellent comments here, if only because they resonate with my impressions.
Nichols is annoyingly ambivalent, and in my view gets sucked into the trap of realpolitik, in the basic sense of the term. I think it's fair to assume that the Founders plainly expected persons in high office to act with high principle to resolve political crises. But the present devolved, fallen, "pragmatic" political universe is an unapologetic quest for power with an altruistic veneer. We're Through the Looking Glass, hoping to form a more perfect Union by employing mendacity, hypocrisy, and subterfuge.
I don't accept Nichols' assertion that Conyers would love to impeach. Conyers has made a few mildly cryptic public pronouncements about getting rid of the Resident. I conclude that this is another tease to encourage non-partisan progressives and justice-seekers to Vote Democratic in 2008-- then we'll make the world right again without that nasty, contentious impeachment business!
And the briefly-bold Feingold's fervent tapdancing is a disappointment-- another "Maverick" returns to toe the party line. Methinks he doth protest too much. It seems plain at this point that the Democratic leadership, unable or unwilling to act with the high principle commensurate with the situation, intend to just string desperate citizens along to score a political knockout in 2008. The pragmatists don't mind; the end justifies the means.
As an attorney, I do not care much for Ms. Sheehan because I do not believe it should be necessary to resort to civil disobedience in order to force our elected officials to obey the Constitution and honor their oaths of office. But, I do understand her disgust and am starting to care even less for those presently in charge of the Democratic Party.
Representative Pelosi and those in her "command group" need to publicaly announce impeachment is back "on the table" so that we need not fear the possibility of mob rule by frustrated enraged voters completely losing confidence in Congress as it already has with the Executive Branch. Keep in mind, the impeachment option was included by our Founding Fathers as a "safety valve," among other things, to prevent the public from taking matters in their own hands. It was to help maintain the Rule of Law so vital to our national stability.
Consequently, it was tactically short sighted, juvenile sounding, potentially dangerous, perhaps even boneheaded stupid for the ranking Democrats to flatly declare in advance that one of the most important options to protect our freedoms will not even be considered.
They need to invoke the Constitutional endorsed law of impeachment to lawfully remove the lawless from their positions of power. They need to at least try it to protect its future utility value for if what has been going on is not grounds for impeachment, then nothing is. Moreover, if the present leading Democrats cannot or will not protect the Constitution by reign in or removing self proclaimed wannabe monarchs like Bush, Cheney and Gonzales, then they leave us utterly no choice except to remove the present Democrat leadership.
Calculated inaction by the Democrats is irresponsible. It is a betrayal of the people, of the Constitution, and of simple morality.
Given the number of blank checks they've issued to this criminal administration, they have almost as much to atone for as the ruthless and amoral monsters that they've enabled.
Impeachment would be a beginning. They don't necessarily have to drop white phosphorus on Republicans or detain them indefinitely without charge, "rendering" some of them to secret locations for torture. They don't have to confiscate all of the property of Republicans pursuant to Constitution-shredding executive orders. They don't even have to get a leg up on their bipartisan buddies through electoral fraud.
All they have to do is their Constitutional duty and not scream and cry that it's asking too much.
Simultaneous impeachment/removal of Cheney/Bush is the only way Congress will be able to do anything of importance. Otherwise any significant legislation they pass will be vetoed and they will have a much harder time getting the 60 or 67 votes necessary to override veto after veto than they will to get the 67 votes necessary for removal. The incumbents running for the 22 Senate seats the Republicans have up in 2008 will have a choice of voting to remove Cheney/Bush or being removed by the voting of their constituencies if they vote against removal, once the American people hear the whole sordid tale of the Unamerican high crimes and misdemeanors of Cheney and Bush, which they will hear uninterrupted during the impeachment and then trial of Cheney/Bush. That's where the rest of the 67 votes come from.
"...they talk about getting on with the important business of the Congress, and not wasting time on impeachment ..."
What "important business" could possibly be more important than salvaging what's left of our Rights and what's left of the Constitution?
Oh, oh, I get it, it's the "business" that's important to Congress. That explains a lot. Business first, that thing the Law, you know those simple things like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, where ALL men are created equal, well, that's getting in the way of "business' so we'll get to that later, much later.
So, bush shows absolutely NO signs of being a "lame-duck" or slowing down his task of tearing this country to shreds, and this Congress thinks they're going to get other business done? How? bush will veto whatever they send. He already has. So, please explain why this Congress thinks he's suddenly going to co-operate now and quit tearing this country apart?
This is just total bullshit. We should all just go out and rob a bank tomorrow and claim "executive privilege", or plead the 5th, or simply refuse to show-up to court if caught. Better yet just tell them we have other "important business".
"Every decent man should be ashamed of the government that governs him." H. L. Mencken. Never more true then today.
The Democrats who aver that impeachment would prevent the Congress from more practical accomplishment are talking nonsense: they really are afraid of being criticized as "political". Impeachment proceedings would presumably add`evidence to what most Americans are now convinced of - - lies and fixed dice to get us into the Iraq war; gross incompetence there and at home; egregious accretion of powers to deprive Americans of civil liberties; advancing corporate interests over those of the American people; and raw politics in running the government. Bush and Cheney and company are bad guys, and the process of impeachment should fill in all the blanks,
Excellent list, EveningLand. It prompted the notion that at the very least Pelosi et al are guilty of obstructing justice by blocking the pursuit of what ultimately is a capital crime. Thus, Pelosi et al are felons (at least) twice over--first, for lying when taking their oath of office; second, for obstructing justice in a capital case. So there's yet another campaign point ot use against Pelosi et al.
Reminds me of my Sociology class in college. The first day the professor came in and asked about 500 students, "If you consider yourself a follower, raise your hand." A sea of hands went up instantly.
Then he said, "Okay. If you consider yourself a leader, raise your hand." Maybe 20 or so out of the sea of people raised their hands, including yours truly.
The point of this is: We, on these pages, are the leaders of the change we dream of. As to the whole impeachment discussion, Nancy Pelosi must understand that it may or MAY NOT BE her decision whether or not impeachment will be "on the table or off the table". It is up to US to lobby her and John Conyers and other House members to get it ON the table.
As much as I can't stand any Democrats, perhaps it would behoove us to get savvy about how to get impeachment ON the table. It wouldn't be that difficult to figure out which districts in the House are vulnerable, get the locals there educated and up to speed on the critical impeachment issues and get THEM to put that particular Congressperson's feet to the fire.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We seem to be caught in a "Catch 22" scenario with the House of Representatives. They claim there aren't the votes and until the investigation is started on CSPAN (we ALL missed work during the Watergate hearings!!!), the average Joe and Jane America won't bother to let their representative know which way they want him/her to vote on impeachment!
Because dare I say, 99% of us believe that if impeachment proceedings were to be started, that would be the beginning of the end of Bush & Co. With subpeonas the truth will out. The minute the American people see that Bush will be evading the subpeonas, the minute a new 9/11 happens (God and "we the people" forbid!!) to distract us from the real "show", then, and only then, will the People (who are currently engrossed in ESPN Sportscenter and "American Idol"), be "newly" educated and a tipping point will be reached.
It is going to take hard investigative research to figure out the most vulnerable House members who are literally on the EDGE right now, so we can organize in that district and assist their constituents in pushing them over into signing on for impeachment.
A few well-placed ads in local papers and some credible Progressives who "get it" and are "well-spoken" can go on the local talk radio shows to accomplish this in due haste.
We need to take the leap beyond hand-ringing, "thinking" (and yes, crying!!) and go into the "action" mode.
All we need is "leadership" we can trust to get the job done. A show of hands