Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiActing on Impeachment
Most readers of The Washington Post probably missed it. But probably not Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Fifty-six of his law school classmates (Harvard Law School, class of 1982) bought space for an open letter in mid-May that excoriated his "cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again."
It read like an indictment, to wit:
"Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women;
"Witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections;
"Witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration's stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and
"Witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with other more 'loyal' to the President's politics, as merely 'an overblown personal matter.'
"In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize 'disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.'"
By now you're expecting something like a conclusion by his classmates, such as a demand for resignation or a call for Gonzales' impeachment. No such logic.
Instead, these intrepid classmates punted, urging Gonzales and President Bush "to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago."
Just this week, four Democratic Senators called for a special prosecutor to investigate their belief that Gonzales gave false testimony about the regime's warrantless domestic surveillance program. They criticized the Attorney General for possessing an instinct "to dissemble and to deceive."
Four of Gonzales' top aides have already resigned. The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, just testified before Congress and contradicted Gonzales' statements which were made under oath.
It is not often that an Attorney General of the United States is treated with bi-partisan inferences of perjury before a major Senate Committee (the Senate Judiciary Committee). Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the soft-spoken Chairman, said to him: "I just don't trust you."
His counterpart, Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking minority member of the Committee, extended his fellow Senator's remark, adding, "Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."
Why don't these and other Democratic and Republican Senators say plainly what they say privately day after day: that they believe that the Attorney General has lied under oath, and not just once.
Again, they avoid the logical conclusion.
But then the Democrats have been doing this dance of evasion with George W. Bush on a far larger scale for four years. After all, Gonzales' impeachable offenses are his superiors'. Gonzales took the orders; Bush-Cheney gave the orders. The litany of Bush-Cheney impeachable abuses extends far beyond those associated with Gonzales, foremost among them of course Bush plunging the nation into a bloody, costly war-quagmire on a platform of fabrications, deceptions and cover-ups again and again, year after year. And Gonzales took the orders; Bush-Cheney gave the orders-a more serious basis for a Congressional demand for their resignation or the commencing of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives.
Compare the many impeachable offenses of Bush-Cheney with the certain impeachment of President Richard K. Nixon that was rendered moot by his resignation in 1974. Compare the actual impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1998 for lying under oath about sex.
Granted, Nixon became ensnared in the criminal laws and Clinton was caught in the tort laws. But Bush-Cheney's "high crimes and misdemeanors" tower in scope and diversity over those earlier Presidents.
Instead of a burglary and coverup, as with Nixon, it was the horrific ongoing war (longer than either the Civil War and World War II) with hundreds of thousands of lost lives and many more injuries and sicknesses.
Instead of a sex scandal, as with Clinton, there is a serial constitutional scandal oozing ongoing repeated constitutional crimes. For which alas, there is only one constitutional remedy arranged by the framers - impeachment.
And that remedy the Democrats took "off the table" after they won the Congress last November and before they even took office. Just what the White House recidivists needed to know to keep at it. What a lesson for future generations.
Most Americans do not want their members of Congress to practice rushing to judgment. Nor do they want their members to rush away from judgment. The Democrats, with very few exceptions, are very good at escaping from their constitutional responsibilities.
It is time to hold the Bush-Cheney-Administration responsible for their indefensible acts.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
167 Comments so far
Show AllThese whining Democratic Party flacks who are attacking Nader over the 2000 elections should be bitch-slapped. Perhaps if their favorite party had a single, tiny ounce of credibility, people would not feel the need to vote Third Party in the first place.
Nader is taking a firm position on Impeachment.
By contrast, Democratic leaders Pelosi and Conyers are pointedly ignoring not only the will of the voters, but their Oath of Office as well. They should be removed from office alongside Bush and Cheney.
gabi,
Here are some of the substantive arguments that I and others have been making. They are right in front of you so you can't pretend that you didn't read them:
Many Democrats voted in favor of the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, bankruptcy "reform", class action lawsuit "reform", CAFTA, Bush's torture bill, and Lieberman's demagogic resolution about Iran. They didn't filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito. They are blindly pro-Israel. They don't want to try to impeach Bush and Cheney.
These are specific examples of Democrats helping the right wing. They know how bad Bush is and they just do it anyway. Nader disagrees with them all of these things. What are your examples of Nader helping the right while the Democrats oppose them?
The bottom line: Nader favors impeaching Bush and Cheney. Most of the Dems don't. I know who I stand with: The grumpy old man who has given his life to making America a better for us to live in.
In 1996, Clinton beat Dole by 8.5%. In 2000, Gore only beat Bush by 0.5%. Why is that? It wasn't because of Perot, because exit polls showed Perot voters splitting almost evenly between Bush and Clinton in a two-way race. It wasn't because of your one-word answer: NADER, because he only got 2.7% of the vote, and exit polls showed that more than half of his supporters wouldn't have voted in a two-way race or would have voted for Bush. Could it be that Gore ran a poor campaign?
In 2004, the Republicans scheduled their convention for early September in New York City. Hmm...early September...New York City...could it have something to do with exploiting 9/11? The convention was after the filing deadline to be on the ballot in nine states. IN ALL NINE STATES, your buddies the Democrats changed the filing deadline so that their buddy Bush could get on the ballot. They were actively HELPING Bush while they were trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
As for Nader taking Republican money, only 4% of his money was from Republicans. John Kerry got more money from Republicans than Nader did from Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Independents put together.
I expect your reply to be very short on substance if you bother to reply at all. Troll.
Oh wow ... another buzz word "trolling" .. How original.. and lame!
One more nader voter who feels his words have power ... and I'm curious, WHO is the "they" making the "substantive arguments" over and over??
For some reason, most of you ignore his poor showing in 2004 ... especially after taking all that pub money ... Most Greens, etc dropped him like a hot potato after that blatant act of prostitution, but his faithful here at CD keep on floating down de nile ..
Why do you think his words have any more validity then the thousands of others who have been calling for impeachment for the last two years?
gabi July 31st, 2007 4:28 pm
"I just find it interesting that the nader gang just keep using the same buzz words over and over and over …"
I just find it interesting that you ignore the substantive arguments that they make over and over again. You're trolling.
I just find it interesting that the nader gang just keep using the same buzz words over and over and over ...
"enabler", "kool aid", "cookies", "losers", insane etc ... and use the same line every time to convince (probably themselves) that nader's votes did not affect 2000 in any way ...
If nader had not been in the race ... the votes in Florida could not have been used to convince everyone that Gore lost Florida!!
To suggest that Gore would have invaded Iraq is really nuts... The Dems did not have a "plan" to take over and destroy America!!
By the way, I voted for Nader, too, in 2000. I donated funds and canvassed for him in Chicago. I still have his signs and buttons up on my wall. Of all the presidential votes I've cast since 1968, I am most proud of that one.
Nader had nothing at all to do with Bush winning the presidency. Gore lost his bid out of a stupid desperation to be the one. In fact, blame Bill Clinton for the Bush presidency, he who moved the party center and ran off the heart and soul--the too-dumpy progressives, the liberals--and who aped the Republicans as a strategy to win office and went Hollywood at the Democratic conference, running it like an Oscars ceremony.
Without progressives, the Democratic party is nothing and stands for nothing, and, even now, the DLC scurries to recover them from the bastions of the Green Party and independent enclaves.
Note that HIllary called herself a progressive--no, not a progressive but a "modern progressive," whatever that means. I guess it means that she would vote for the war in Iraq again and we would continue our current diplomatic stance of not speaking to hostile sovereigns for fear of being used for propaganda purposes.
Really!
Nader--the voice of reason, the straight-shooter. I'm surprised that the media wasn't all over the Washington Post open letter, given their complaining about the summer slow news cycle.
But I cannot figure out what ails the Democrats, what suppresses their gumption. My goodness, if Clinton could be impeached over his lies about a semen-stained dress, why can't Gonzalez or Bush or cheney suffer impeachment proceedings?
Oh, I know. First they have to deal with the urgent issue of amnesty.
I, for one, apologize. The only reason I keep bringing up Nader, is because he getting brought up by these losers who just can't get their facts straight. The reality is that we would not be having this debate about impeachment if all the votes were counted.
As for impeachment, the more we demand it, the higher the chance it will happen, simple as that. Our own Congressman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, isn't even necessarily in favor of impeachment, but he signed onto HR 333 because he got so many emails and letters from his constituency on the subject. He said the tide of approval for impeachment was so overwhelming that he had to do his duty, which was attend to the demands of his constituency. If enough legislators jumped onto that bill, that bus would be on the road big time!
Well, I see the Nader Gore arguments go on and on and on and on.
This string was about how do we get the prez and his assistent impeached and we have now run out of cookies. I am very surprised at the number of intelligent people here who just don't get it. Are Nader or Gore running for President? Stupid intelligent people, whom I admire when they don't act like spoiled brats. You are getting as bad as Bush.
jstevens: I like a lot of what you said, but you are just dead wrong on your 2000 election statements. Why is it so damn difficult for any of the commenters on this story to just deal with the simple fact that Nader's votes only could steal the election of 2000 because of the plethora of names expunged ILLEGALLY from the voter rolls in several states, especially Florida? People, if we don't wake up to the role that Diebold and a bunch of bought-off legislators played in setting the table for Bush and Co. to steal two elections in a row, we are just wasting our time here! Number do not lie! Read them!
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/061
KEM PATRICK: Well, if everyone who has the ability and means to go occupy conyers' office did so, they would not be able to arrest everyone. And if they did, the cause would only get more publicity. The bottom line, as with most things political and social in nature, is strength in numbers. It takes thousands to affect a dozen die-hard right-wingers or kool-aide drinking Dems. Anyway, point is, if Conyers had a constant stream of people in his office, demanding impeachment, making it nearly impossible for him to have meetings with his constituents and/or lobbyists, he would cave.
Paul Bramscher: I don't think settling for the lesser of two evils implies a departure from logic. I am trying to be realistic. Anyway, I think Al Gore is brilliant, logical and passionate about saving the environment. I can't imagine labeling him 'a lesser evil'. In fact, I think he would be the best President we might have in modern history. Likewise, I can't say that Al Gore or any Presidential candidate is perfect or ever will be. Nader is not perfect either. But the dire situation the world is currently in forces me to be realistic. I don't feel like there is time to spend chasing ideologies. I am really angry with Nader right now, but if the next election comes down to HIllary versus Guilliani, I would vote for Nader, even campaign for him. It wouldn't matter in such an election. If he said the two were identical I would say "Right On!"
I am not a fan of nuclear power, but I much prefer it to coal fired electricity. It would be great to have neither, but I don't think that is a realistic goal at this point, considering the current state of national (un) awareness. Nuclear power is the lesser of two evils.
I can distill the 2000 election down to a few predictions which are not much of a stretch:
--If Nader hadn't run, Al Gore would be the President.
--If Al Gore were the president we would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be in a much better position regarding climate change.
I hate to see discussions turn ugly, and I apologize for my statement about ' the company kept' which was rude. I don't think we are that far apart about the way we would like the world to be, but differ on the pathway. I am really afraid of another 4 or 8 years of war mongering, planet destroying, right wing presidents.
BillB: Look asshole: Read the damn record. Nader didn't steal the election of 2000 or 2004! Diebold in collusion with dozens of highly corrupt and bought-off legislators in at least three states stole the election. The bottom line is the amount of votes that Nader received, even in Florida, is nowhere near high enough to steal the election when you add back in the tens of thousands of names that were expunged from the voter rolls. Deal with it! The election was hijacked! Everyone else should pay attention to this too. And by the way, it will happen again. Count on it!
Bladerunner is right! Great plan! National Red White and Blue Flu days, Sept 10 and 11.
As I read these threads, I see lots of conversation, much of it interesting - to be sure, however conversation is sort of like masturbation, it gives birth to nothing. DO SOMETHING EVERYONE, for a change!
National strike! Sept 10th and 11th!!! Hey, and you can still have conversations on those days!
Well, at least Nader's buddies aren't lobbying to make weapons-grade tritium at civilian TVA nuke plants in their home state.
Just Google "trapasso tva gore"
jstevens: Your logic is astoundingly worrisome. A democracy isn't a lesser of two evils (however you measure that). A democracy is all about picking the candidate that measures your positive political sentiment, not trying to second-guess neighbors comfort level with regard to compromise, and not anti-someone-else.
As someone else pointed out, there's a groupthink, Abilene's Paradox, and bizarre social psychology afoot in this country -- that our European counterparts have managed to weed out to a much higher degree. Too many of us are swindled into voting contary to our own class interests. Why should I vote at all? So far as I'm concerned, I can manage my own affairs quite well -- don't need anyone to call shots for me.
If the Dems are going to lay that crap on progressives again, show us a Kucinich-Feingold ticket or something and perhaps you can argue that they're a slightly more appropriate party. Show us Hillary-Lieberman and best demographic of people you'll have to yell at for not voting DP are Republicans.
Several people are tired of discussing Nader instead of impeachment. Sorry, impeachment is not very controversial (on this page) Nader is.
I find it odd that among the large group of environmentalists I know---people who protest coal plants and wars, ride their bikes to work, and know the phone nuumbers of all their representatives by heart---among this group of say a hundred or more people, no one has anything bad to say about Al Gore.
The people who write the articles for this web site are very pro Al Gore. However, among the posters, there is mainly hatred and vehement criticism. It would be one thing to complain about this or that policy, but there is abject hatred over things such as Gore traveling in an airplane.
I am sure that this smear campaign comes from the many corporations that FEAR Al Gore. They don't fear Nader because he's not going to win. They don't fear Bill and Hillary or Edwards because those three are business as usual. The criticism starts with Exxon Mobil or Monsanto, but it rubs off on people with purer motives.
Nader became an ally for the fossil fuels industry and the Republican Party when he ran against Al Gore. An example of one of many events was when the Republican Party of Oregon extended a lot of help to Nader to get the signatures needed to put him on the Oregon ballot.
Look at the company you keep, Nader supporters.
CRCox, good points. However, Cindy Sheehan gave her signed petitions to Congressman Conyers. Why?
Because,___ Conyers is the only person who is holding up the impeachment process and that is the bottom line. Conyers IS breaking a Constitutional law and no one is doing anything about it. As long as he sits on the HR-300 bill, there will be no impeachment. Few here have addressed that issue. How do we fight Conyers? Cindy was arrested for trying.
We're gonna run out of cookies here pretty soon.
Gore is a much better man then nader any day ... Many Greens, CalPIRGS and ZERO's will tell you the same.
Contrary to popular thought ... nader is a mere cog in the remarkable movement that made this a better country to live in !! He had NOTHING to do with the Civil Right's movement, NOTHING to do with the Women's Rights movement, the Anti-Viet Nam war movement or the Gay Rights movement!!
Let's make this simple ... Jimmy and Sherri run for student body prez ... Sherri looks like a sure winner ... along comes ralphie ... he has his own groupies ... he runs/ takes votes away from Sherri ... and geeeee whiz ... schoolyard bully jimmy wins! Thank you ralphie
I wouldn't put Sheehan on the same line as nader ...I find it hard to believe she would kiss pub butt for money!!
jstevens: I'm still curious what you think about the articles that appear with a googling of "trapasso tva gore". Namely this piece of triangulation:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v14/ai_20391685/pg_3
http://www.fas.org/nwp/pubs/trit_bull.html
It looks to me like lobbyist/friends in the background of Clinton/Gore were pals of the nuke industry. This isn't just about nuclear power, it was to get weapon's grade tritium cranked back up in civilian reactions nonetheless.
Gore's environmentalism is dubious. Anyone can write a book. Does he see the nuclear industry, and some nuclear weapons on the side, as the saving grace for global warming?
why can't nader run as kucinich's veep? or the other way around? mindless dems like to accuse nader of egotism. i think you've got to have some of that to endure all the beltway bullshit. anyway, nader's ego is in the service of a higher good. unlike the corporate "bottom line" that all the other contenders' aspirations are sinking to.
go nader! go kucinich! go sheehan!
some marches and strikes are coming to DC pretty soon!
Ok, I agree, I got off topic here, we should get back to impeachment.
The "Nader lost us the election" thing is getting pretty stale.
In Michael Moore's film on Sept. 11, Moore gets into the statistics on the 2000 election and points out there were many other independent candidates in swing states who had enough votes to "throw" the election also.
I wish sore Democrats would just get a grip, move on, and put their kleenex away. Independent candidates are a normal part of the process, I'm sorry, or what are we living in the "United Soviet States of America"? I'm not on some requisite, state-sponsored, Democratic sports team cheerleading squad, sorry to ruin the game.
Where are our beloved, much beset upon Democrats? Most of them are hiding their heads and covering their asses: They could stop the war. They could have voted against torture. They could start the legal process in order to hold accountable those responsible for lying to us, for breaches of our constitution, national laws and international treaties. But THEY SIMPLY CAN'T AGREE THAT THESE ARE THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO!!!!! Funny thing is, the rest of us can.
Nader was singled out by them because he is the one with thorough ideas and a track record that is actually a threat, and because he is sincere and they are not. In this day and age, sincerity, even though some might balk at my saying it, is also powerful. Especially when it is set right up next to others' lies.
It is because of Nader, and people like him, we are now discussing the same serious concerns he threw in the face of both parties during his campaigns.
As far as I'm concerned he's one of the citizens with real guts left around Washington. No matter what your opinion is about him, you have to admit the man has some guts, and has had them for quite some time.
Why are you Nader critics so sure Gore would have done anything for the environment, or would have not invaded Iraq?
Do you all have amnesia? Or, are you unable to distinguish hindsight from what was known back then?
The facts, as of November, 2000 were:
1. Clinton was prosecuting a low-level, and occasionally not-so low level, air war on Iraq. Like Bush, he was looking for an excuse to escalate. Meanwhile, he also bombed Serbia under pretexts as phoney as Bush's were to be regarding Iraq. Meanwhile Madeline Albright was saying the dead Iraqi Children from sanctions and bombings were "worth it"
2. Gore record for the environment, global warming in partricular, was complete inaction over his eight years in office. He presided over the SUV era when US oil consumption acclerated at an unprecedented rate. His real achievment was the privatization of a lot of inherently governmental functions - handing them to big beltway bandit crony corporations like SAIC.
3. Gore ran a campaign in which he utterly failed to distinguish himself from Bush in any way.
4. Bush, meanwhile very cleverly and successfully portrayed himself as a safe, moderate Republican in the mold of his father. There was no hint the arrogance that would show up later.
5. Yes, that PNAC manifesto was out there, but even if one had heard of it, there was no reason to believe that Clinton/Gore didn't ascribe to nearly all of it as well.
These were the facts as of Novenber 21, 2000. Based on them, I voted for Nader, and I'll never regret it.
Nader got into the race for president because he felt just like most of you do now, that there
wasn't anybody who shared your views and there wasn't much difference between democrats and
republicans, just as most of you now feel, he gave you someone to vote for instead of writing in
"None of the above". Nader is not some Johnny come lately, he has dedicated his whole life to
fighting for the little guy. For the 1000th time, if you get the facts, he did NOT cost Gore
the election.
Look it is really this simple. we have a two party system. Call it plus or neg or what ever but there is a two party thing that will not be broken. A 3rd is not an option, but only takes from one of them. In 2000 was taken from the Dems, that was Nadar's fault and he should admit it. The dems should do a better job of getting the non republicans to join the dems.
IN 2008 the dems have to get it right. If the non-republicans split again, it hands it over to a new bush is all.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and totally regret not voting for him in 2004. I plan to vote for him again, given the opportunity. (However, I think it is very very important we get some more people who are ethical, responsible and progressive into congress.)
Things are looking pretty bad right now. I think we have to just keep trying to find ways to bring it to a boil.
The only way we can begin to try to protect ourselves and others from exploitation is to be informed. In that way, we are way better off today because of Nader man.
gabi July 29th, 2007 5:47 pm
"find it interesting that you are for nader, but against the Dems ..?? Which means you are ignoring the fact that nader has done more repub licking then the majority of the currant Dems !!
The truth is either hurting you … or you are in denial??"
Many Democrats voted in favor of the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, bankruptcy "reform", class action lawsuit "reform", CAFTA, Bush's torture bill, and Lieberman's demagogic resolution about Iran. They are blindly pro-Israel. They don't want to try to impeach Bush and Cheney.
These are specific examples of Democrats helping the right wing. Nader disagrees with them about most or all of these things. What are your examples of Nader helping the right while the Democrats oppose them?
The bottom line: Nader favors impeaching Bush and Cheney. Most of the Dems don't. I know who I stand with: The grumpy old man who has given his life to making America a better for us to live in.
Mary lou, be careful of who you log onto.
I agree Robert.
The unsuitability of this Gonzales for this position was apparent during his confirmation hearings. Despite this, the senate approved his appointment over the objections of many--just as they have for many unsuitable judges. So who is to blame when we have such a compliant congress & apathetic electorate who tolerate such abusive appointments?
We need a constitutional amendment to transfer the authority for selection of judges and key appointments from the president to the congress now.
I agree with Molly Ivins. We are the deciders of all things to do with our laws and our Constitution. That said, where is the obligatory response and action? Is it possible that those who are meant to represent us are derelict in their duty?
If our government no longer is compliant with our wishes when will we replace it with one that is?
For all who can't stand Ralph Nader, why do you even click on and read what he writes?
PJD, was Nader impeached? Or is that a stupid question? We all know you voted for Nader and are proud of it, you have told that so often. So,__ how do we impeach Bush and Cheney?
early in this thread i posted the following comment:
check out this email:
The following recipients have been sent your petition: autodelete@democrats.com
Text:
I support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and I authorize Rep. Dennis Kucinch to enter my name into the Congressional Record.
For his role in violating the United States Constitution
To restore the rule of law to this country
Vice President Dick Cheney must be impeached.
Incredibly sincerely,
Mary Lou
why would activist@democrat.com send petition signatures to autodelete?
what i want to know is if this is somehow a fake site serving the republicans after all. it emails me frequently, and it's called democrats.com. this site solicited my signature on a petition for dennis kucinich's impeachment of dick cheney, but apparently my identity was sent to autodelete. i would like to know if anyone has any comments/experience with this.
Good code name gabi. __ Eat your cookie.
Emma...
I think thou doth protest too much! Up all night gripeng about "kool aid drinking" Dems .. Who's doing the drinking here?? Sounds like it might be you. Throwing around words like enabler ... drinking etc .. Thought this was a CD posting area not an AA meeting.
Quote:
"and that makes you(and other Dem kool aid drinkers)no better then they are etc ...."
I'm sincerely hoping you realize that your words have NO power ... or did you (and all the other parrots) think the word "kool aid drinkers" actually means something?
I find it interesting that you are for nader, but against the Dems ..?? Which means you are ignoring the fact that nader has done more repub licking then the majority of the currant Dems !!
The truth is either hurting you ... or you are in denial??
I'm glad that all you guys do is play the blame game whenever Nader posts a topic. The past is the past get over it, Bush-Cheney control the white house and no amount of crying can change that. Focus on the task at hand, fix the problems we have, to save the future.
But Yankee your doodle, Bush was elected By God. ___ Onward Christian Soldiers.
You get a cookie too.___ A great big one.
Thedeed, Who is Ralph? Is Ralph being impeached?
Where am I? Is this the right string? What happened to Gore? Was Gore impeached or was it someone else. Who are we supposed to impeach? Is this the string about impeachment? Lets write comments about the weather, it has rained here for several days. Is that because of global warming? Who is Hillary, is she a nice person or am I supposed to hate her too? Is this the subject matter of this string? Where am I?
Hi Vanishing Earth. Thanks for staying on the important subject.___ No cookie for you.
And Paul, good humor there, we can use a little humor. Your comments about electronic balloting on the other string were great.
While we're at it, let's blame everyone who didn't vote for Gore -- anyone who voted for any other third party, anyone who did a write-in, anyone who voted for himself (the only candidate anyone should really vote for), etc. Hell, let's cancel the two-party system and just appoint Hillary?
Oops, there's that darned democracy again: voting for your candidate of choice.
Ralph,
You again state the painfully obvious and fail to take responsibility for bringing this down on the nation. You will be vilified in history as the egotistic enabler of the Bush disaster. Your hands are as bloody as Bush's.
Please go away.
KEM PATRICK
Thanks for counting checking that only 10 or so comments actually addressed the main point of Nader's "Acting on Impeachment" article.
I don't know the specifics myself, but if what you saying is true about John Conyer's disregard for his duty for whatever reasons he may be stating is reprehensible. But as many have pointed out with their continued fervent support of their vote cast for Nader, which I think is a little pointless at this time when we are faced with exponentially accelerating change in a society which can barely keep up with the latest developments concerning Lohan, Richie, Hilton, and Spears, it would be the pot calling the kettle black. Although the Nader vote is moot for me at this point, what he has said and continues to say are of utmost relevance. At this juncture in history, the two parties are really just two branches of the same monolithic political structure bought and paid for by our worship of consumerism.
SiouxRose
I agree completely with your assessment. I have a friend who watches the political developments on all the major networks who is intelligent and doesn't approve for one minute of the current administration and knows there is something foul going on, but doesn't know any of the specifics about AttorneyGate (such as the names of the wrongfully-fired Carol Lam or David Iglesias) other than Gonzales is lying, or the many other scandals popping up faster than Tony Snow can swat them down, because they don't fit into convenient soundbites for the MSM, or they are not government-approved propaganda material suitable for televising to the masses. The dumbing down of our nation continues, witness CNN's tabloid-worthy reporting. I agree we are at a tilting point, and we, the animals with the highest intellect (and the only ones capable of mendacity and manipulation) and what we take for granted as our 'blessed' American Way of Life aka greed, are staging our own last act in this drama. Whether as you said it comes in the form of Mother Earth healing the sores we have wrought upon her in our insatiable need for her resources, the inevitable coming economic collapse (hinted at by the stock market's largest drop in 5 years last week), or the implosion of our two party system of government because a consumerist nation has lost faith in it's ability to represent them with any accountability (because we have sent them to DC to represent our consumerist agenda), doesn't much matter for we will reap what we have sown.
It seems that much of the US public - including many of the people responding to this excellent article - are dazed and confused about the differences and interactions among the law, legalisms and building and using POWER.
Nader, a pretty damned good lawyer and widely-underestimated politician understands. He titles his piece, "ACTING on Impeachment," and concludes it with: "It is time to hold the Bush-Cheney-Administration responsible for their indefensible acts." he is not using his words arbitrarily.
Impeachment and a trial of presidential officers are both legal and political acts.
Clearly the Cheney/Bush gang have violated their oaths of office, the US Constitution, US law and international law many times over. That much is indisputable.
Just as clearly, they use legalisms - like the current dust-up around so-called executive privilege - as a PR tactic to cover the fact that they are using raw power to do what they want to do, where they want to do it, to whom and whenever. And make good money for their corporate sponsors to boot.
They operate above, beyond and outside the law because they - and a whole slew of previous presidents (Democratic and Republican alike) have created an imperial presidency, papered over with the plastic wrappings of words and phrases like, "democracy," "the rule of law," "due process," "representative government," "an independent judiciary," etc.
Of course, none of these words exist in the United States today. The problem, at the center, is that the law has ceased to matter, other than offering language to obfuscate dictatorship.
So what to do, if words and phrases like democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law actually matter to you and your fellow citizens?
You are required to build enough power and use that power to take on the Cheney/Bush imperial dictatorship. That is exactly what Nader is saying.
It's not about assuring that you have enough votes ahead of time to impeach or convict. It's not about having enough time before the next election to actually get these mass murderers out of office and into jail where they should rot for life.
It's first and foremost about BUILDING AND USING POWER.
By calling for impeachment and organizing to move the process forward, we must educate ourselves and our fellow citizens as to what the law is and what it means (in this case it MANDATES impeachment for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors).
We must do the hard work of building a truly political constituency that will force the members of Congress to honor their oaths of office and uphold and protect the US Constitution.
We will then raise a substantive issue that forces substantive discussion and ACTION to begin to tactically understand how to actually affect real changes in power relationships in the US political context.
All of that is positive and absolutely necessary if we are doing anything other than flapping our lips here in between checking ball scores and movie schedules.
And one more positive during an election campaign that is already mired in sound bite "debates" about hair-styles, cleavage, talking to dictators (or not), withdrawals that are re-deployments, "universal" health care that is anything but, ad nauseum... Political debate can actually be returned to some semblance of reality.
Don't know what all of you are so upset about. You had numerous opportunities to vote for a third party candidate over the years and blew it. You got exactly what you've voted for. You are the Booboisie of Mencken Fame and you're getting it good and hard as he predicted. The shame is all yours.
Way to go "mrraven" you just joined what a bunch. You get a cookie.
jstevens if Gore is such a great environmentalist how come the Clinton presidency had one of the worst environmental records of any presidency?
Hint do a search for "toxic waste incinerator" Ohio "broken promise" Clinton, and "salvage logging" if you don't know what I mean but I suspect you do and are just schilling for the Dimocraps.
The title of this article is:
ACTING ON IMPEACHMENT.
Look back and count how may comments here refer to the intent of the article. Of 120 comments, less than ten talk about impeachment and only a few of why the process is being held up by Congressman Conyers.
Why did Cindy Sheehan go to Conyers office with the petitions? Conyers is the problem, we are allowing a single person to have the power to hold us and our Constitution in contempt and hardly any of us progressives here, wishes to address that fact.
What a bunch, hard to believe.
Bush/cheney's recent Executive orders make it plain that their are only two choices.
Impeach as the constitution demands, or be prepared for a ongoing Bush -Cheney dictatorship.
wake up American, it CAN happen to you, the USA is NOT immune to a fascist coup...in fact, your unique military power makes it the fascists prime target...why take over a crappy third world country when you can take over the USA, and with it the rewt of world?
worried social worker (12:31 pm) -- Your remarks are well-intentioned, but contain some important errors. The worst of these is your notion that the impeachment process is "extremely long." That's bunk. The writer Dave Lindorff has explained this many times in articles on CommonDreams, CounterPunch, & elsewhere. He's also written an entire book on impeachment, one of several good ones on this subject.
The word "impeachment" only refers to the first step of the process -- the part that happens in the House of Representatives. All that's needed is a majority vote, and the Democrats could do this IN ONE DAY if they really wanted to, WITH NO REPUBLICAN VOTES. When Nixon was (nearly) impeached, the House process took only 3 months. When Clinton was impeached, it took 2 months.
After the House process, it goes to the Senate. There, they need 67 votes to "convict" Bush & Cheney. (That word means "remove them from office.") So the Dems would need 12 or so Republican votes, which they may or may not get. But even if they didn't get them, at least they would have tried to defend the Constitution -- which you say is important to you. Defending the Constitution requires removing from office those who have committed high crimes. It's not enough to just shake a finger at them and say, in effect, "Naughty, naughty." These people are dangerous criminals. If they're not removed from office, their successors will be able to do the same thing, & justify it by saying that Bush & Cheney set these precedents, and Congress never acted against it, so it must have been seen as "acceptable."
The real problem with impeachment is that the Democrats are a party of unprincipled gutless worms, at least 95% of whom don't really think defending the Constitution is important (compared to their own calculations based entirely on political advantage in the '08 elections). So Democrats like Pelosi & Reid are basically protecting Bush from impeachment.
As much as impeaching the president and vice-president may put many of our minds to rest, its too late. The impeachment process is extremely long. By the time the process would conclude President Bush and VP Cheney's reign would be almost over. So where would that leave us as a country? Confusion, complete chaos, with no leadership to guide us successfully. President Bush has proven over and over again to be a dangerous man. He has no respect for the Constitution. He has no respect for the seperation of church and state, and he makes decisions for this country based on his own personal values. Thats not how this country originated. Our country won its freedom from England because we believed in the freedom to choose. Our President has used his own personal values to his own personal gain. He lead us into a war in Iraq on false pretences. We will probably be at war soon with Iran for the same selfish reasons while at home we watch daily our country spiral lower and lower into an economic slump. We hear our policians claim over and over that we are not in a recession. Anyone who works in a human service field knows firsthand that this is a lie. As a citizen of the country that I love, I have to challenge others to get their heads out of the sand. As a unified country we could change our current path to chaos. It is up to us to take charge, to work together to make the changes that need to be made to make this country into one that we can again be proud to call our own. As a unified country, instead of impeaching the President, lets stand together as one voice and let him know that "enough is enough". We want our troops home. We want the lies to the American public to stop. We want our country back. And we want our Constitution followed.
I keep looking for concrete things 'to do'.
I will let everyone I know about the Red, White, Blue Strike..but no one will notice if we don't go to work..we are mostly retired..but we can not buy anything at all..gas, food, etc. Let's add that if it is not already there.
I'm still placing my time and energy with Kucinich.
Impeach HR333 It will happen, I have known it all along. I just hope it is before November 2008.
puck twain: Thanks for posting those web sites. I was impressed with the bottom one and the various progressives in that group.
Last November, at a Greenfest in San Francisco, I talked to Tom Hayden about pulling all of our troops out within thirty days rather than a year which Tom suggested in an article he wrote about six months before, reminding him that by 1968, LBJ, the Pentagon, the future president (Nixon), and members of Congress knew we couln't win in South Vietnam, as the Vietnamese people were determined to rid their country of the American invaders, but "stayed the course", and 20,000 more GI's were killed and thousands more maimed, and God knows how many Vietnamese (we don"t count em') were killed needlessly. We withdrew, the planet didn't fall off it's axis, and now we have sweatshops over there so the capitalist class can make even more money.
Mike Gravel was right when he said the troops died in vain! For What?
The country of Iraq is for the Iraqi people, and they will prevail.
Our present day Eugene Debs et. al. are here, but they can't run for President, because their history is such that they probably smoked pot, snorted coke, dropped acid, and marched at pro-immigration protests. Sorry folks, those who are the real speakers of the truth - those unafraid of throwing their bodies upon the cogs of the machine that has ruined our lives - are not going to run for the Presidency in the country. At least not until the whole system comes crashing down around our feet. Only when we are charged with rebuilding everything from the ground up will the truth seekers and soothsayers find acceptance in the political machine of the United States.
sjc_1: You apparently are another one those ditto-heads who believe don't know how to read, for if you did know how to read, or at least how to read critically, you would know, as does anyone who did a few hours of research, that Nader did not in fact give the election to Bush, Bush gave the election to Bush. Wake up! Voting machines, expunging voter rolls, "hanging chads", law-breaking legislators in Florida and Ohio, and on and on, are the ones that gave this election to Bush. Add to that the mindless Supreme Court ruling, and it is an air-tight case. Wake up! Read the evidence.
You people piss me off to no end!
The 2000 & 2004 elections showed that our system is broken.
After every election since JFK (all I can remember) someone says we must fix it, no one ever does. Why? Because it is the system that put them in power. Don't rock the boat mentality. The electoral college needs a overhaul, if not eradication. 48 states have a winner take all policy, this I believe is unconstitutional, but I'm not a lawyer and never get a reponse when i bring this up, I have read the document though and it has guidelines as to what should take place when there are voting irregularities all made moot by the winner take all policy. That same policy leads to redistricting and voting manipulation, third party entries futile,and facism possible.
NotOneMore posted:
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want, and get it." - Eugene Debs
EXACTLY!
Please tell me, where is our present day Eugene Debs? We need you. Please come forward and lead us in our struggle for peace and justice!
Good Morning! Man, reading this thread is like a Woodstock moment: don't you people ever sleep? Your health is more important than Nader, the Dems, the Repubs, koolaid, Fundamentalist whatevers...etc etc etc. That being said, the overnights provided a rare gem and proof to all of us that what ever democracy is, it still exists:
It came from emma at 1:13 this morning, and with the new day it is the reason to have hope: Commondreamers can still agree, still be unafraid to post and discuss as rational human beings, still argue fine points and yet stay united over major goals.
I say, it is Sunday Morning in America, we've discussed this all night, get up, get out of bed, get away from your keyboard, open the door, welcome the day and then, let's meet again l8r, and see if anyone, like commondreamers have anything new to add or are involved in constructive discussion and critical thinking. Live your life, care for yourself and in that way, care for all of us.
Paul Bramscher: I share your opinion about November 1963. The VP was incredibly nervous and distracted that day according to accounts I have read. You raise an interesting point, however, I don't consider Lieberman, for all of his faults, in this category.
Lieberman was a terrible choice for Al Gore, but even if Lieberman became President, he would not be as bad as our current president. Attacking Iran would not even be on the table if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
I imagine a very different world right now if Gore had won in 2000.
The fundamental question for Pelosi: When should we impeach a president? Is it just when you want or when you should but don't.
QUOTE:
lporter July 29th, 2007 3:48 am
I'm not going to bother to argue with the Dems about Nader, for whom I've voted every four years since 1996. The Dems strike me as something like religious fanatics.
END QUOTE
Lynn, interesting you should say that because for sometime I have referred to the party-line Dems as "fundamentalist Democrats" because they remind me of fundamentalist christians. If a candidate has a "D" behind their name, that's good enough for them.
I heard a local "liberal" talk show host rattle off the many problems he has with Hillary. This host is one that I would term a "fundamentalist Democrat." He's always "rah, rah" Dems and rarely has any criticism of the Dems (just like fundamentalist christians feel they can't criticize their church, their preacher or their god). Anyway, the other night this host said he would vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. My question for him is: If Hillary had a "R" behind her name would you still vote for her? (I can guess that the answer to that is "no.")
Also speaking of religious fanatics, not long ago it was Howard Dean and others who were speaking of "welcoming young evangelical christians into the Democratic fold."
DNC chair Dean says party needs to invite young evangelical Christians
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/BAGD4POMP26.DTL
I think Edwards said that too if memory serves correctly.
I swear, these Dems get worse with every passing day.
I'm not going to bother to argue with the Dems about Nader, for whom I've voted every four years since 1996. The Dems strike me as something like religious fanatics.
Here's the deal: I am not a Democrat so I have nothing to say about who Democrats choose as their presidential candidate in 2008. However, I will not vote for for warhawk Hillary in 2008, regardless.
I probably only represent about 5 percent of the voters, but in an era of 50-50 elections the Democrats need our 5 percent to win. So what will it be? If the Dems make the same mistake they made in 2004 -- nominating a warmonger -- they I will sit back and watch them lose. Change or die.
Lynn Porter
Erma.__ That is what a lot of people believe, but the bill is on Conyers desk and Pelosi can't legally prevent him from putting the bill on the floor of congress for a vote. Naturally she has the power to scare him from acting on it. He is breaking the law by sitting on it. But, he will sit on it unless legal action is taken.
But will actionbe taken? Nope
Kem,
To me it was a given before the 2006 "election" that Bush/Cheney would not be impeached and it's a given to me now that they will not be impeached.
To my understanding, Nancy Pelosi has to put "impeachment ON the table" before anything else can go forward. I can't stand Pelosi and I'm in her district. I voted for her opponent Krissy Keefer of the Green Party. Pelosi is not about to put "impeachment ON the table."
Therefore the topic of impeachment is moot. The Bush-Enabler Dems would rather let Bush/Cheney off the hook for all that they have done since 2000 and all the crimes they have committed, in part, because the Dems would be implicated in their crimes as well because they have been complicit with and enablers of Bush/Cheney.
"We" can't get the pair impeached by the very people who are the pair's Enablers. It just isn't going to happen.
As I wrote in another post, Iraq and Afghanistan war-profiteer Feinstein was asked about impeachment recently on one of the talk show and she said impeachment isn't going to happen because (I'm paraphrasing): the Dems would look like nuts if they were to try to impeach Bush/Cheney.
Some things are just not going to happen. Three that come to mind:
1. Impeachment - Won't happen.
2. Getting rid of these easily-hackable electronic voting machines which are all over the nation now. - Won't happen
3. Ending the US Middle East occupation and imperalistic goals of PNAC. - Won't happen until the last drop of oil is extracted from the Middle East.
Dem bashing--Secession--strike--Fakeocrats--sheep and pawns???
What we need maybe, is for almost all to bash our heads on a concrete block until our brains wake up and run out of our ears.
Is this string about how we can impeach Cheney/Bush? Or is this string about the mistakes made by Nader, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Truman, or Mickey Mouse? I got lost here someplace. Of course at my age, I often get lost and sometimes forget when I'm in the bathroom why I went in there.
Never mind, it's late and my head hurts from reading a lot of stupid shit that has nothing to do with the gist and purpose of the article.
"It's all your fault Ralph, it's all your fault Gore, it's all your fault John Kerry, you shouldn't have selected Lieberman and I hate Dems and I hate everything and I think, I think, I think"!!! __Who else fu###ed up.
How can we get the pick a pair impeached is the question??
ERMA: I'd like to talk about the issue of people turning off the FACTS of life. The culture is dominated by a marketplace media that instructs on the RIGHT to have, to purchase, and to purportedly BE happy. MANY studies link stress to illness. A great many people are deflecting the stress that is so much a part of modern life by zoning out as you have stated. I feel saturated in every pore with what's going on, and naturally like to discuss these things with people. Part is the wish to make sure they are IN the know, and part (although it's largely satisfied in this forum) the desire for meaningful, engaging (is anyone alive out there?!) feedback. I, too, have met the responses you describe. A very intelligent woman friend who is well-traveled has asked me NOT to discuss these things in her home. She says "it's just some karma playing out." Her selfish indifference to what our nation is doing to LIVING human beings blows my mind! Another friend, overwhelmed by personal family issues brought on by an irresponsible daughter who's left the parenting to her, asks me "How can you LIVE with what you know?" So these people have adapted their own "ostrich" measures as a means to maintain sanity in a world gone amok. I call it the Jeffrey Dahmer incredulity factor. As I've related before in this forum, when police knocked on the serial killer's door because the stench of rotting HUMAN flesh overwhelmed his neigbhors, Mr. Glib (serial killers as sociopaths are quite good at appearing calm and natural while the rest of us go off on REAL emotions) managed to convince the investigating officer he had merely burned a pot roast.
I don't think people are necessarily equipped to stare at the abyss ahead. It's far easier to eat the junk food, watch some mind DULLING TV show, and pretend your tax dollars will pay "the usual suspects" to fix the matter. This culture of convenience is coming to a halt real soon, whether Mother Nature, our economy, implosion from within (political controls) or without occur. Madness is only tolerated so long by the higher powers that be.
Will you Nader bashers please just get over it already??? What a bunch of crying, whining, buck-passing little children. Just shut up about it. Seriously, blaming Democracy, your blaming the people who actually had an original thought and voted for someone with actual integrity, is getting morbidly tedious. Think for yourselves for a change.
If one was to call me a Dem Party loyalist not having read my blog http://yourland.blogspot.com I'd call them ignorant. I don't mean that pejoratively, I mean it constructively, because they are merely uninformed about the matter. They simply don't know any better.
If they were to still call me a Dem Party loyalist after reading the blog, I'd call them a liar. The posts there stand for themselves, and have been standing there well in advance of this particular thread and all these sophomoric epithets. They're there for all to see and to comment.
Finally, if one simply refuses to educate themselves and continues to perpetuate nonsense out of their own brand of tribal allegiance girded by a resolute ignorance of their own making, I'd call them a Republican, simply because they'd fit the profile to a "T." Indeed, many Republicans were Nader contributors in 2004. Nader likely set a record for contributions received from people who had no intention of voting for him, contributions he scooped up greedily with no compunction about compromising his lofty values. To think the Republican Party, the party of dirty tricks, wouldn't seed this blog with operatives is naive.
One would be a peculiarly belligerent fool to deny that the entire planet would be far better off had Al Gore become President in 2000, no matter how indistinguishable one asserts the parties to have been. With the benefit of hindsight, that assertion now seems preposterous. Our collective experience tells us that, in point of fact, the parties were indeed significantly and meaningfully different. They remain meaningfully different despite all the well-aired deficits of the Democrats, which incidentally I do agree with. This is coming from one who regularly refers to the two parties as two sides of the same tarnished coin.
But people of conscience must recognize that we simply cannot endure four more years of a Republican administration, no matter how much we despise the alternative.
Recognizing that doesn't make a person a loyalist -- it makes them a realist. We all have the benefit of a shared experience -- no, a shared disaster -- and all we need do is learn from it. To do that we must confront the world as it is, not avert our eyes because it disgusts us.
As I stated before, casting a vote to support your values is not an absolute, it is dependent on context. If you are in a swing state and throw away your vote against the Republican candidate, you may just as well join their party, because while you're riding your high horse, they're maintaining control to our collective peril. And like it or not you will be accountable for the consequences, as those 90,000 voters in Florida are directly accountable for the state of affairs we're in today.
It's not Nader's fault: it's our fault.
I've read every blog here twice. Am I incorrect about this?
If fifty million people marched on DC and peacefully, but firmly and loudly, demanded Bush and Cheney both be impeached, if Congressman Conyers refused to enact the bill,___ what difference would it make?
Isn't Conyers the only man who is preventing the impeachment process to continue? Please someone___tell me if that is correct.
BTW, I like Nader too. I like Gore too. I like Kerry too. I like Mr. K also. I like Edwards too.___ So what? How do we impeach Bush and Gore if Conyers sits on the bill?
To all of the Fakeocrats who continue to go after Ralph Nader with the same hatred and lack of intelligence the Republicans went after Clinton with
You're the same sheep you damn the Republicans for being
You've been corporate played, corporate laid and politically slayed
You've allowed yourselves to become corporate pawns...and you hate us for not selling out the truth...like you did/do
Nader 2008
serious professor ...
gee, you sound just like little bully boy bush when he's challenged by the truth!
Sputter sputter sputter ...
It's sad to see Common Dreams turning into a Dem bashing pub site.... but don't worry, if it is becoming a pub site nader will still be here writing articles. Many of you seem to forget his many "dances" with pub politicos. Not only at the time of Clinton's impeachment, but also in 2000 and 2004.
That would be Richard M. (as in Milhouse, like Bart Simpson's friend) Nixon, not Richard K. A little thing, perhaps, but little things will be used against us on the road to impeaching these thugs.
Go, Ralphie, go! Well said, and much needed.
And for those who continue to blame Ralph Nader's campaign for the Bush-Cheney regime, blame instead all those who did not vote at all, since they far outnumber those who cast a forlorn vote for Ralph, and since there is no evidence that those who voted third party would have cast votes at all were Ralph Nader not in the race. Blame instead, those who systematically shut out a large number of voters in 2000 in Florida and other places by illegally removing them from the voter rolls, by making unduly cumbersome and confusing ballots, by inadequate numbers of voting machines in high-minority, poorer areas, and by the refusal to allow a full recount to ever be completed before an out of control Supreme Court ruled to subvert the discovery of the will of the people.
Blame instead the factors that render our Constitution a puny and ineffective wisp of paper pitted against a government run of, by and for the Corporations.
jstevens: The VP has quite a bit of power -- able to cast a tie-breaking vote in the senate, and Cheney has pushed the office into its own 4th branch of government. But most importantly, the VP is next in line. It's clear that LBJ was a man of extraordinary power, and would have had the opportunity -- and no motive not to -- to fully investigate the Kennedy assassination. No reason not to, that is, unless he had something to do with it.
I'd have been scared witless to have Lieberman as a VP running mate, listening to the guy advocating a new war. Killing thousands of people, spending millions of dollars, etc. All preemptively, against a country which poses NO THREAT to the USA. It's a form of psychosis. If I were Gore, I'd have to have a special Secret Service detail to watch my back whenever a VP like that was around... BTW: This theory isn't mine, someone else here posted it in relation to another article, and I think it is something to ponder very carefully. The VP isn't a powerless position. It's potentially massively pivotal. Gore's choice as Lieberman was off-base. I'd have been willing to take a chance and vote for a Gore-Wellstone or Gore-Kucinich ticket, but no overtures were made. And, hence, perhaps Gore deserved some of the orthodox Jewish community's vote for his pick of Lieberman. But for progressive secular humanists, it was a clear message to go away. And, hence, it would have been arguably irrational to vote for Gore despite this.
Siouxrose,
I understand all that you said. I live in San Francisco but have relatives who live in the Bay Area suburbs as well as out in "the sticks" of Virginia.
My experience is that people are tuning-out politics. Since 2000 after Bush was selected, I have tried to gently inform people in conversation of what's going on and their responses to me have been:
"Oh that can't be true...I haven't heard that. Where do you get your information?....Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?" and other patronising crap. They do their very best to pooh-pooh what I say and to make me look like I'm a nut. And if I try to explain anything in detail well then I get glazed eyes and yawns and then comes the question: Erma, do you ever have any fun in your life? No ULR link is ever sufficient (unless it comes from Faux News). And by the way the person who asked me if I ever have any fun in my life has never heard of John Bolton or Cindy Sheehan. My definition of "fun" and that other person's definition of "fun" are two different definitions. So you're right, most of this nation is in a deep fog due to the Bush State Media (a.k.a. corporate media). The people I'm talking about even go so far as to make the Internet appear to be only about "pornography" and "lurking child predators."
Sigh.
There is either little interest in politics or there is flat-out denial and it doesn't matter (from my experience) whether the person lives in the City or out in the sticks. The reaction is the same, unfortunately.
So when I hear some so-called "liberal" talk show host say, "people are waking up" I have to ask: Where? To me, I see the opposite happening. More tuning out.
I voted for Nader when he ran.
It will take alot more than just impeachment. Nixon and Clinton still have presidential libraries built in thier names. How about that for salt in the American taxpayers wound? Any the irony of a Bush library? What will be in it, a portrait and marble statue of him and NO books?
If he wants to visit a library, perhaps it should be the one at Leavenworth. Maybe they have graphic novels he can look at.
Well Erma, I fully understand your comments.
Buttt__ officially, the Constitution IS still the SUPREME law of the land.
And officially, Conyers is the only person who is stopping the legal process. He is guilty of a crime and should be arrested and charged with the crime.
RUDYJO: I agree with your point about the election being fixed with plan A, B, and C. Nader was the obvious fall guy.
FBELCAST: The issue you raise as per media is a decisive one. ERMA with all due respect, there are 2 points I'd like to make with respect to the onus being placed on all citizens to educate themselves. First, some people work 2 or more jobs, have young children, bad marriages, etc. Their lives are SHEER chaos, and not indirectly because of policies being enacted by corporations to make their lives (on the verge of poverty) miserable. Second, this forum probably attracts a "better class of intellect" than most; and with that being said, it's somewhat elitist for us to presume that average Americans even REALIZE the degree to which they are being lied to. I have friends who think I am just being contrary when I tell them CNN is nothing more than (as Bill C Davis once put it) the equivalent of "Generals, on stage!" It might as well be choreographed BY the military industrial complex.
I highly recommend "Conservatives without Conscience" by John Dean because it identifies a sizable segment of the US population that has been trained not unlike Pavlov's dogs to follow rules. This type of mindset is insidious and grows in the fertile soil of fundamentally religious Bible belt sectors. If you live in a city with a university then you have a limited idea what these types of communities are like. I have lived in many places and one cannot diminish the role community plays in the cues, beliefs and contradictions that normalize many lives.
QUOTE:
KEM PATRICK July 28th, 2007 9:20 pm
Our Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That statement is unarguable.
If our Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, then there is no law in America.
END QUOTE
Well Kem, the US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land but the reality is that there is little US Constitution remaining because the Bush-Enabling Dems (including Boxer, Kerry, Feinstein, Biden, Hillary) voted "Yes" for the USAPATRIOT ACT. The USAPATRIOT ACT shreds the US Constitution. That's why I refer to anyone who voted "YES" for this as a Traitor to the US Constitution.
There is apparently no law in the States now which applies to George W Bush and Dick Cheney, in part, because Sam "I believe in the concept of the Unitary Executive" Alito was put on the Supreme Court by the Dems voting "Yes" for him. George W Bush, in recent speeches referred to "MY government."
This is part of the reason why I say we are just an inch away from a full-blown dictatorship because Bush/Cheney think they are above the law. They ignore congress without any consequences, ignore subpoenaes without any consequences and have essentially dissolved congress, though not officially so.
Information re: impeachment.
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and don't regret it at all, not for one second. If Ralph runs next year, my vote goes to him again. As an ex-Democrat, there are Democrats in some districts worth voting for, but by and large, they are joined at the hip with the Republicans.
The polls say 65-70% of America wants the illegal occupation of Iraq to end and bring ALL U.S. troops home, then why not the same percentage of voters casting their ballot next year for the Green Party candidate or if Ralph runs as an independent voting for him? If the majority of the public really wants to end this never ending act of legalized murder, aka war, then vote to reject the two-party duopoly. Not only the Iraq debacle, but every detrimental bill the Congress passed for their secret buddy, Bush/Cheney, (they have to be linked together-Bush and his brain ) has to be repealed, for starters.
Special thanks for comments by SoundChaser,SeriousProfessor, RichM, PaulBramscher,common_sense,Dr. Zimmerman Roberts, bladerunner,BaneRichter,rocky,JacobFreeze,erma,malestrom, and siouxrose.
SoundChaser hit the bullseye when he correctly stated what most or all of us have done these past few years and the situation is actually worse. Why? Even massive rallys when we march in unison for several hours is a constructive form of street theater, and the war-mongers watch us on C-SPAN and joke with each other about our inability to effect change. Why? Because they havn't been inconvenienced.
Can you IMAGINE the POWER that WE THE PEOPLE, citizens of this/our country have if we first VISUALIZE, then take ACTION by coordinating a GENERAL STRIKE by working people. And I mean everybody, not just trade unionists (which I am), but even non-union workers, professional white-collar types, farm workers, et cetera. We will lose money, but that is a small price to pay for restoring the democracy being eliminated by the Bush Crime Family (republican) with the help of the Democrats . Unless we take immediate ACTION, things will deteriorate and you'll be posting additional comments such as the ones above.
TAKE TO THE STREETS, WITHHOLD OUR LABOR, until we correct what is wrong in this country.
If,___ Mr. Ralph Nader, being a respected lawyer, would answer the above argument and argue the legalities I will listen. Should Ralph Nader disagree and explain why I am wrong, I will lift the curse of any who may have been cursed__ and curse myself.
This is the argument.
Both President Bush and V/P Cheney are highly suspect of committing impeachable crimes. To date, only one, Dennis K, has initiated the impeachment process. Congressman Conyers refuses to act upon that bill. One man is holding up the legal process for impeachment.
Why? Bought off, ignorant, afraid, disagreees, has been asked ot sit on it by someone inpower?___ We don't know why!
Our Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That statement is unarguable.
If our Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, then there is no law in America.
Our Constitution clearly states: If the president-vice president, violate the law, they SHALL be impeached. It does not read they may be, or might be, or could be. It states__ they SHALL be.
As of right now, along with President Bush, Vice President Cheney to name two, Congressman Conyers is also guilty of breaking the supreme law of the land, by his refusal to begin the impeachment process.
Conyers states, there are not enough votes.
It matters not if he thinks that, he will not know unlesss he enacts the bill and puts it up for vote. The hearings will begin, witnesses will be supeoned to testify, under oath, before congress. The national press will have to cover the proceedings and the public, the congress, the whole world, will learn the truth.
Therefore, with one individual playing god and refusing to obey the SUPREME law of the land, we the people, suffer the consequences.
There is no reason why one of the members of congress, cannot rightfully and legally, force the issue with Conyers and have him arrested for breaking the law. One should go to a federal judge and ask to have the required legal papers drawn up to have Conyers charged and arrested, if he refuses to comply with the long established supreme laws of our treasured Constitution.
That is the end of the argument. Well, my argument. I submit the written Constitution of The United States of America, as a legal reference to support my case and argument.
If anyone disagrees, they SHALL be cursed.
QUOTE:
fbelcast July 28th, 2007 8:58 pm
Let's not criticize the US citizens. They don't have the information.
END QUOTE
I will never condone or excuse ignorance as you are doing. If people don't have "the information" it's because they don't want it and what kind of pathetic example of a citizen is that? The "information" is there and available if one truly wants it. Having little or no interest in politics to begin with has been my experience with most people I've tried to talk with about politics.
Sometime before the 2006 "election" Pelosi made it clear that "impeachment was off the table."
Well, the Dem koolaid drinkers didn't want to believe that. They said she was just saying that to "play the game" to fool/dupe the Repugs. Yeah, uh huh.
I swear, the Bush-Enabling Dems really have some wishful-thinking, delusional people supporting them....still.
I (and a few others) told the Dem koolaid drinkers before the "election" that Pelosi was absolutely serious. She was NOT just saying that.
So the Dem koolaid drinkers began to call me every now under the sun including the most common term used on the Internet, "troll."
It looks like Erma was correct, as well as a few other realists who were saying the exact same thing I was saying. All it takes is to look at things realistically rather than what you WISH would be the case.
I've noticed in other threads on here that the wishful-thinking Dem koolaid drinkers can't stand to hear the words of a realists because we "rain on their impotent parade." They prefer to live in their wishful-thinking world so they call us realists such terms as "defeatists" and "bitter, isolated and impotent triumphalism" and other such hot air nonsense. Fine.
At least we realists are not disappointed time and time again like you wishful-thinking Dem koolaid drinkers who have these "high hopes" and expections for this dead-ass Dem party of yours which is not going to do anything but to continue enabling Bush. Period. I expect nothing positive from the Dems whatsoever---based on their miserable performance since 2000---so I'm never disappointed, in that sense.
One wonders how much longer you thick-headed, delusional people will continue drinking your Dem koolaid?
How is that koolaid serving you at this point?...since impeachment ain't about to happen. Your beloved Dems are not about to impeach the very people they have been enabling/helping since 2000. They are not going to impeach one of their own. Get a clue.
Chimpeach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's not criticize the US citizens. They don't have the information. Seven corporations own the mainstream media and theirs is an act of omission by not letting the information out the Iraqi war and the criminal offenses of the Bush administration.Thus, there is no counter to Limbaugh and FOX network. The real order of business is to pass a law breaking the monopoly of the seven corporations so that competition can bring the news to the Amerian people. Our blogs are a voice in the wilderness.
Right on!
Trippen; We may disagree on some things, but one of the things Gore tries to drill home is that if there
is going to be democracy in this country, the most important thing that is going to insure it
is what we are doing right now, using the internet to spred ideas, we have no control over what
"News" we get from corporate owned TV, radio, and newspapers, but as long as us regular people
can use the internet, there is still hope.
Yes, Rudyjo, maybe that would have happened. And indeed, had we seen the Al Gore we see today back then, things would have been different.
But as I say, all we can control is what we can control. My observation that Gore would have been President with those Nader votes is based on the outcome we know, that's true. Of course, we can hypothesize all sorts of possibilities, but at some point we have to look at real consequences for real voting decisions as well. Ninety thousand more votes are incrementally harder to steal once you've already stolen so many.
More importantly, in the next election, it would be a true tragedy if we threw up our hands, said the Republican candidate is a criminal anyhow so they're going to steal the election, so might as well hand it over to them in the interest of sending somebody a message they aren't going to hear anyhow. I don't think the planet can take another four years of these policies, and that's precisely what will result. This distresses me greatly.
The time to get candidates to reflect our values is now -- during the primaries. Once the die is cast and a candidate is chosen, states that are safe are fine to cast protest votes. But if swing state voters choose third parties out of a sense of purity of ideology instead of common sense, we're done for.
I don't like it one bit either, but that's what we're facing. If I were in charge there would be no electoral college, and financing of elections would be public. The equation of money and speech erroneously made by our Supreme Court would be rescinded.
Alas, we have to play the cards we're dealt as best we can. The consequences of not doing so are obvious with each passing day. We shouldn't be giving ourselves a pass for past failings, we should correct them. The entire world is depending on us.