Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Impeachment Imbroglio: Sheehan, Conyers, Pelosi, and Feingold
The 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.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
127 Comments so far
Show AllEVENING LAND: Excellent and informative post!
Chartreuse Muse (love the name!) I agree with you AND Kivals, as you both raise excellent points (albeit opposed ones!)
CANUCK CHUCK: If Bush's "skinny ass" is before an impeachment panel, let us hope he has no cue cards, microphone, or script before him. The "man" cannot think or speak on his own, whether he's been kept on maintenance drugs or is medically/psychologically deteriorating, I don't know, but another poster pointed out that in his early presidential days there was more spunk and ready verbiage. Now he's quite zombie like... besides his politics, something ain't right.
"…it (impeachment) comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up."
Bullshit. Who are they trying to fool by nonsensical statements such as the above? It's a good thing that Clinton's impeachment is recent history and we all remember it. Did the impeachment at that time come from people slowly convincing congress members to impeach? The answer is a resounding NO. The Republicans were looking for an excuse to kick Clinton's ass, and they thought that was a good opportunity.
This article is an attempted PR for a crook who ordered the arrest of Cindy and her companions.
Oh, ya, I saw hundreds of people with a million signatures came to the Congress and said impeach Clinton because someone sucked his dk. Is this the way this guy is trying to say impeachment is supposed to happen?
RE: SHEEHAN CAMPAIGN AS MODEL FOR 'DEFINING ISSUE' PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS NATIONALLY
Rebel Farmer July 25th, 2007 1:57 pm
Rebel Farmer July 25th, 2007 3:49 pm
Earthian July 25th, 2007 2:42 pm
RESPONSE TO REBEL FARMER AND EARTHIAN:
Both your posts key - pointing to progressive strategies for pressuring Democrats to act on Iraq and impeachment. The idea of working through the Greens and/or looking to Sheehan's run as a model to be used in other states seems viable.
ALONG THESE LINES, I PROPOSED ON ANOTHER THREAD EARLIER:
baska July 25th, 2007 10:53 am
[Lawsuits suggested by some are too technical.] 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.'
baska July 25th, 2007 11:03 am
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.
What Conyers really said was give money to the democratic party and campaign to put a democrat in the whitehouse. That is what the democrats are interested in. They don't give a damn thing about anything else. Feingold points out "even though "the list of administration wrongdoing, misleading statements, and out and out lies, just keeps getting longer"...ummmm well duhhh. You clowns are nothing but doormats for the GOP leadership. What is the number one reason to at least try for impeachment? It is to apply some pressure to the Bush administration so it has to finally start paying some attention to the rule of law!!!! That is your job as a congressman. To provide some minimum standard of oversight to the executive branch. My Freaking God!!! Liberals are so weak spined it is frightening.
The next time ANYONE says there's more important things to be doing than impeachment, tell them the Dems are fully capable of "walking and chwing gum at the same time!" There's "proof in the pudding" that Congress can pass the legislation they want AND HAVE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AT THE SAME TIME!
Wikipedia has it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation#93rd_United_States_Congress
Go use it to your advantage!!!!!
Doesn't everyone who maligned Ralph Nader in the 2000 and 2004 elections owe Nader and his followers an apology?
Wasn't he dead right when he said there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties?
What excuse will the Democratic Party apologists seize upon in the next election? Will they still mouth the same old stupid line, "There's much too much at stake in this election to vote for Nader..."?
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 please?
I have a sneaking hunch that there are many reading these words who could compile the research needed to make the next move. We also need a top media person to take on the daunting task of launching a National Impeachment Campaign that is smart, cutting edge, speedy and very, very EFFECTIVE!!!!
We've come to a rock in the stream folks. The United States House of Representatives. We must go around the rock and keep on going......until they realize they are nothing but pebbles. OUR pebbles.
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.
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,
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 !!
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.
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.
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!!
I only have three words to say to brucetylerwick: Woah, heavy Dude.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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...
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
grandma: Thanks! I think some of the major, established impeachment sites like afterdowningstreet.org might be a place to get this organized