Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEvery Thursday, they gather outside the congressman's office, a sign-waving brigade of activists with one word on their minds -- and their T-shirts:
"IMPEACH."
"It can happen," says John Bradach, one of the organizers of the weekly protest outside U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer's headquarters in Northeast Portland. "And it should, even in the limited time left."
Bradach joined the impeachment cause after losing a nephew in the Iraq war. But passion won't change political reality.
In Washington, D.C., impeachment talk has been quashed by Democratic leaders. They are worried that a Republican backlash would derail upcoming votes on key issues, and that the fallout could hurt Democrats in next year's elections.
Blumenauer, a Democrat who is one of the more liberal members of Congress, says flatly that "impeachment is not going to happen."
In Oregon, however, the movement to bounce President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before their terms end next year continues to pick up steam. Just ask Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who faced hostile questions from pro-impeachment forces at a recent town hall meeting. Blumenauer endured even rougher treatment at his town hall gathering late last week.
Impeachment also has become a hot topic in the early stages of the U.S. Senate race in Oregon, even though no one but the incumbent, Republican Gordon Smith, would have a hand in it. And, if chatter by bloggers and party insiders is any indication, impeachment has begun to rival the Iraq war as a new litmus test for Oregon Democrats.
"This is about more than just the war," says Meredith Wood Smith, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party. "This is really about losing the Constitution of this country."
The party recently adopted a resolution -- written by Bradach -- that calls on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. The resolution cites "high crimes and misdemeanors" stemming from misinformation given about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
The other most common justification for impeachment is the Bush administration's approval of warrantless wiretapping in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Others say failure to take action now against the White House would give future presidents a green light to stretch the constitutional limits of executive power.
Democrats hear criticism
In a larger sense, the discussion about impeachment parallels Democratic infighting over Iraq war policy.
Activist Democrats have been openly critical of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for not launching a more muscular assault on Bush's handling of the war. In blogs and even in TV ads, this faction of the party has mocked the Democratic "leader-sheep."
The depth of the frustration bubbles up during town hall meetings, such as the ones held by Wyden and Blumenauer.
"Some people go home and kick their dog and some go to meetings and kick their congressman," says Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., a liberal who has aggressively opposed the war. "I understand their frustration. I have it in spades. "
As impeachment becomes a rallying cry for some Democrats, the idea continues to unnerve the party's political leadership in Washington. Pelosi has insisted -- emphatically and repeatedly -- that impeachment is not on any agenda.
Aides to Pelosi and other senior Democrats point out that impeachment is a futile quest. There are not enough votes to secure a victory, they say. Moreover, pursuing impeachment would ignite a political firestorm that would end any hope of working with Republicans to pass important legislation on issues such as health care, taxes and even the war.
"There's a cost to do it, and the cost is just too high," Inslee says.
Legally, a tough case
Stephen Kantor, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, says impeachment supporters not only misunderstand the legalities of the process but also misread the politics. Congress had the authority to thoroughly investigate Bush's claims about weapons of mass destruction but instead voted to approve the Iraq invasion.
"By going that route, Congress gave up a lot of its oversight and authority," Kantor said.
Impeachment won't work unless it can be proved the president "flatly made up facts" with the intention to mislead. That's a very high bar, Kantor said.
And if some Democrats think that impeachment proceedings help their cause, they're sorely mistaken, he says.
"From a political point of view, it's foolhardy," Kantor says. The move would scare off moderate Democrats and quickly energize the Republican base, he says. "If there was a serious run at impeaching President Bush, it would dramatically increase the chances" of a Republican presidential victory next year.
Yet, the issue won't go away inside Democratic circles. Instead, it remains a constant, low-level presence on Capitol Hill, a continual hum in the background like the noise of some far-off interstate.
In Oregon, it seems to grow louder by the week.
John Frohnmayer, Independent Party candidate for U.S. Senate, kicked off his campaign by saying Bush "should be impeached." That prompted the two main Democratic contenders, Portland lawyer Steve Novick and Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley to chime in with calls for Congress to investigate and hold hearings on the president's actions.
"I think it's possible," Novick says, "that, ultimately, members of the House will conclude they can't avoid this discussion."
So far, however, calls for impeachment have fallen largely on deaf ears. After facing a barrage of questions about why Congress isn't moving to impeach Bush, Wyden offered an explanation on his Web page:
"I question this impeachment strategy for several reasons, including the obvious lack of votes in the Senate to accomplish the goal, and the obligation of the Congress to stay focused on what the general public wants."
Firm impeachment believers, such as Bradach, use such statements as evidence that any action in Washington will come only after an upwelling of citizen outrage. "That," he says, "is why we have to keep the pressure on."
Harry Esteve: 503-221-8226; harryesteve@news.oregonian.com Charles Pope: 202-383-7819; charlespope@news.oregonian.com
©2007 The Oregonian
67 Comments so far
Show AllSkien Dhiu-- There are at least two camps. The PTB ("Powers That Be") that should not be confused with the will of the people in any way, shape or form are happy to trump up any charge at all to destroy a Democrat, but no crime is too culpable that they won't look the other way if the perp is a Republican.
But, yes, it is too late.
Eisenhower spoke of the MIC - Military Industrial Complex. A speechwriter persuaded him NOT to call it the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" as was Ike's inclination, but Congress is in on it too.
But the big change since Ike, is that now the consolidated corporate media is in on the game as well and so we are left without a corrective mechanism of any kind-- No Congressional oversight, No checks and balances, Rigged elections using touchscam voting machines, No free and independent press-- no fourth estate.
All we have is the internet, and they're working hard to shut down voices of dissent here too.
There's a cost to keeping useless Democrats in office-- and that cost is just too high.
Impeach them all, let God sort them out.
With all that's wrong, your comments give me hope; thank God you're outraged!
As a Canadian watching your country go down the tubes thanks to Bush and co. I am astounded that Bush is still in office, especially when you were willing and eager to give Clinton the boot over a blow job....yet it would appear that it's o.k. to trample your constitution, bill of rights, and break countless international laws, lie to congress and the American pepole and the world, and send thousands of American troops to be murdered, crippled and ruined for life, and responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's, the list of this administration's transgressions is trully breathtaking, but even more astounding is that he is getting away with it,......trully mindbending, seems America is more interested in "reality t.v." than reallity itself..... you guys better wake up down there and get rid of this murderous lying scumbag before it's to late, I fear however it allready is, what a catastropic tragedy. What an insane mess America has become.
KittyladyOregon...I'm also a resident of Lincoln Co. OR that voted more than once for Darlene Hooley. I inform her every week about HR 333, impeachment and get form letters back. She will not get my vote again either!
Does anyone but Kucinich have the courage to do what is right??
Stepford Congress.
There are many urgent reasons for embarking on an impeachment trial of Bush and Cheney, taking the nation to war on the strength of lies and dismantling the constitutional structure of the nation being two sizeable ones.
Another weigthy reason to initiate impeachment as soon as possible is that such a trial would seriously undermine BuschCo's ability to launch an attack against Iran, if not in fact make such a move altogher impossible.
In response to the extraordinary and obviously intentional non-performance of the Democratic Party in either ending the war or impeaching a criminal President, the Pacific Green Party of Oregon has announced its intent to run peace candidates in all 5 Oregon Congressional districts. We see a rare opportunity next year to change political reality. We invite members of the peace movement or impeachment activists to contact us with suggestions of potential candidates, at
http://www.pacificgreens.org/
I absolutely agree with you, Windhorse. The system cannot be repaired. What, with global warming wreaking havoc and peak oil on the horizon (if it hasn't arrived already) there isn't time. Especially because the people remain willfully ignorant and we lack the political will to do something- ANYTHING- meaningful.
Einstein said that a problem cannot be solved from the consciousness that created it. By and large the mindset that says that our political problems can be solved politically still rules, even as there are small pockets of change here and there.
For me (and my evolving soul), it is most important in these "interesting" times to live with a sense of integrity. A wise person has said that the most effective leader is one who is reluctant to lead, yet is popularly recognized as extraordinary. We should probably just install such a person. That is why I will be voting for Bill Moyers.
Hey, never underestimate the power of a few individuals consistently acting from a place of unquestioned integrity.
The "system" is broken beyond repair. I dont even trust the 'so called' polling data showing Clinton as the front runner. What Horseshit! The money is driving the entire circus courtesy of the corporate media with a vested interest in the outcome and who they think can be bought after the election to insure their anti-people agenda is carried out. I will never, ever, vote for Clinton or Obama or Edwards. Unless a truly progressive candidate gets the not, I will be turning to any third party/independent candidate of modicum worth. Hopefully Nader but I would consider Gore or Kucinich as a independent run.
The Democratic party now run the congress but they are spineless. One of my favorite bumper sticker is "Give Impeachment a Chance."
I hold onto a small kernel of hope that "the system can be fixed within", but our system of governance seems so broken that relying on this is both incredibly precarious and foolhardy.
With impeachment seeming less and less likely coupled with ecological breakdown on so many levels (global warming, deforestation, topsoil degradation, diminishing water and food supplies, etc.), i'm filled with furious indignation and mounting frusration particularly when i think about the future of my two daughters. Other options must be pursued.
However, i do hold onto hope for "good People" to slowly but surely take matters into our own hands for the sake of a sustainable future. It won't be easy and there will be many trials and tribulations, but what is the alternative?
Some might accuse me of being "dramatic", but think about how it is now and how it will only be so much worse 5, 10, 20 years out if we do not commence with some seemingly drastic steps in an effort to achieve remedy. Time is a ticking away......
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC
http://www.peoplesproclamation.com/
Straightening out our government is going to take all voters to realize that the Democratic political leaders are no different from the Republican political leaders; they're all bought and paid for by the same power elite. Pelosi never was going to do anything about either impeachment or this war. Our battle to take our government, restore it to a government serving 'We, the People', will take the majority of all voters to study the voting record of their elected Congressmen and VOTE OUT anyone who does not follow the Constitution. We can start this cleaning out process by electing Ron Paul to President. For the love of your country, please register Republican if only for this upcoming primary, and vote for Ron Paul.
Impeach Pelosi...
Vote Sheehan for Congress.
California has had this loud voice for eight months now!! Especially in Pelosi's own backyard... literally!
But few have been listening!
And so again this coming Sunday, Oct. 7th, we will gather, this time at the Berkeley Marina on the grass, for the Beach Impeach Project #4.
This idea was started with the idea to give the impeachment movement a face.
The first one, held on January 6th of this year did just that! Slightly more than 1000 people gathered at Ocean Beach in San Francisco. They laid down inside 100' outlined letters, that spelled it out -- IMPEACH! --
The photos of this event, as well as the other two since, and registration for this Sunday's event can be found at www.beachimpeach.org
Although the photos and story were covered (vaguely) by the local media, as soon as the Associated Press got a hold of the photos, they were quickly buried.
And even more disturbing is the fact that Common Dreams chose to not even run the article. I sent the article to them myself. It was NOT an oversight!!
But you can check it out first hand at www.beachimpeach.org. And if you're gonna be in the area this weekend, join myself, along with (so far) Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Michelle Shocked in Berkeley!
WHO gives a flying foot about Steve Kantor, self-appointed know-nothing and global hot air salesman?
The Democrats have been sucessfully portrayed as spineless by the Republicans for DECADES and they still DON'T GET IT.
At first I thought "What a terrible shame, her face was completely disfigured by SAVAK. What terrible beatings they must have administered to her face. You can still see the blackjack marks to the left of her eye where her skull was caved in."
Ascott,
I disagree with your assessment. I think you underestimate the right-wing spin machine far too much and place too much faith in the ability of Americans to sustain attention and critical thought and to care about issues that they cannot see clearly affect their day-to-day lives . Call me a cynic but I have no such faith.
You said "If the truth came out, real Americans of the thinking party would begin to ask their Bush-support representatives some very difficult questions". But the truth *has* come out, largely. We know about the Downing Street Memos about FISA, about extraordinary renditions, about Gitmo and suspension of habeas corpus, the politicization of U.S. Attorneys etc. I'm sure many details remain in each of these scandals, but the basic facts are there for anyone to see. Yes, there may be MANY more scandals and crimes yet to be uncovered but what makes you think these would have any more significant effect on public opinion than the crimes already revealed?
It is true that a large minority of the population supports impeachment proceedings; but how intensely? That's a question that polls never ask. My guess is the common answer would be "Oh well, Bush will leave office soon anyway, so it doesn't matter one way or another". Rallying these people to really press for impeachment is largely impossible. On the other hand, the minority of hardcore Bushies are passionate and full of religious zeal. If the Democrats moved toward impeachment, they would come out blazing in a "crusade" for their "dear leader". A Republican victory in 2008 would be assured.
Don't get me wrong; justice and morality command impeaching and removing Bush. As far as I'm concerned, Bush should be on trial at the Hague for war crimes and likely spend the rest of his life in prison. But, as I've said before, morality is not a priority among most Democratic politicians. Securing and keeping power and serving their corporate masters are their priorities. This is why they will never pursue impeachment.
And therein lies the whole crux of the matter: Democrats DO NOT serve the public interest or the Constitution. They could care less about most progressive values. It's time for the left to bid the Democrats adieu and build our own party.
This Stephen Kantor person does not know what he is talking about. The key charge against Bush-Cheney in regard to the war is that they defrauded congress and the American people.
First of all, the case of Ken Lay (Enron chief) shows that, even by traditional legal standards, you can be found guilty of defrauding people even if it cannot be proved that you deliberately misled them with utterly fabricated statements.
Ken Lay defrauded stock-holders because he told them that Enron was financially sound when a) it was not and b) he should have known it was not. With the pensions of hundreds of thousands of Enron investors at stake, Lay had a responsibility to exercise due diligence before making claims to stock-holders. Pleading stupidity did not get him off the hook. Stupidity, gullibility, lack of curiosity-- these are not excuses for the failure to exercise diligence.
Bush has life and death power over millions of people, so the demand for diligence is MUCH higher. The lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people were taken because Bush asserted something that was untrue. Whether or not he believed it was true is somewhat relevant to determining his guilt or innocence, but this is not the main issue.
Secondly, impeachment is not an ordinary criminal case because of the special language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the constitution, which allows congress some latitude to define grave breaches of the public trust. Yes, of course, if there is some clear violation of "black-letter law", statutory law or the constitution, then he could be impeached on that (for examples, see the Conyers report on impeachment, which this guy Kantor apparently has not read). But Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld (now Rums-fled) also can be impeached for grave violations of the public trust even if they cannot be shown to have violated black-letter law.
Thus it is Kantor who is setting the bar too high. Whether Bush believes his own lies is not the issue. I don't think Bush believes in "truth" as a concept. He believes in saying what needs to be said to accomplish what (he thinks) needs to be done. He will tell you quite earnestly that "we don't do torture" when quite clearly we DO do torture (we have the pictures to prove it). For ordinary people, saying "we don't do torture" would be a LIE. For Bush, whether its a lie or not never enters into consideration, the only consideration is if this "sends the right message". When vilifying foreign leaders and drumming up the case for war "sends the right message", then Bush will do it. It doesn't matter to him if its True or not, because True is not what motivates him.
Nader '08
I think you are way off. Before investigations were initiated, the percentage of the American population that favored impeaching Nixon was nowhere near the percentage that favor impeaching Cheney/Bush. As the facts came out, perceptions shifted.
Clinton? Why shouldn't the press have gone after Clinton? The man had no guts and no scruples: he let Bush I and Reagan off the hook for Iran-Contra - and when the Republicans turned on him, he got what he was asking for. Be careful whose bed you jump into - both literally and figuratively. Now he's hanging around with his real pal, George H. W. Bush.
As for lacking an impartial press, you are right about that. But even the complicit liars of today's mainstream media would have to start telling the story, if investigations were initiated. Not even today's neocon-enabling media could find a way to spin that - or get away with ignoring it.
If the truth came out, real Americans of the thinking party would begin to ask their Bush-supporting representatives some very difficult questions. As for that loyal 30%: they'll simply become less and less relevant, as they ought to be. (Let's marginalize the people who need to be marginalized: those who are in favor of the destruction of the Constitution.)
The Democrats could see a real revival of loyalty among *their* base. (It certainly couldn't get much worse.) Who here would not give them a second look, if they showed some semblence of ethics? Not guts: right now they are voting exactly as they would like - and hiding behind their 'slender majority' and the Republicans.
Okay, a few things:
Like most Naderites, I am beyond exasperated at having to defend Ralph's 2000 campaign against the absurd charge that he "cost" Al Gore the presidency. For a brief debunking of that tired and silly argument, see:
http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
I will not say any more on the matter except to comment that it is ironic that so many Democrats and progressives spew such venom in Ralph's direction which should rightfully be aimed at the five corrupt Supreme Court justices who appointed Bush, particularly Scalia (whose son was one of Bush's lawyers in Bush v. Gore, yet Scalia did not recuse himself).
As for rjmart's comment about 2008, as exciting as your scenario sounds, it will not happen next year. No third party or independent (left or right) will have a serious shot at the presidency in 2008. There is whining on amongst the Christian right about Giuliani, but I doubt anything will come of it because: A) I doubt Giuliani will be the nominee and B) Even if he is, again, the GOP base is intensely loyal. As much as they may scorn Giuliani as a babykilling queerloving, gun-banning New Yorker, they'll take his machismo, criminal bashing, war loving, Constitution shredding persona over Hillary any day of the week.
The point of a progressive candidate running for president under a Third Party Label in 2008 is much the same as Ralph's campaign in 2000: to begin to build a national "Second Party". It will be slow and tedious; our goal will be 5% of the vote for federal matching funds. If we get that, I'll be ecstatic. But we're looking at the long-range picture. We begin with a presidential campaign in 2008 so that by 2018 we might elect a few members of Congress and by 2020 our Presidential candidate could have a shot at throwing the election into the House at least.
Now, as to who our presidential candidate should be in 2008; Ralph Nader is the obvious choice. Nobody on the left has taken more abuse, more vitriol and slander than Nader; a weaker human would have long given up and dropped from sight. Yet Ralph plugs on. He has the national stature, dignity, intelligence, eloquence and chutzpah to lead progressive ticket into the building of a progressive party.
Are there alternatives? Quite possibly, but I'd like to know who? Cynthia McKinney was a possibility, but she bowed out. Kucinich would be another possibility if he would sever his ties to the Democratic Party. I don't see that happening; much as I respect Kucinich, he is still a politician at heart. He will not give up his comfortable House seat and DC connections without some sort of safety net. In other words, if progressives start building a viable "Second Party", he'll probably join sooner or later, as will Barbara Lee. But don't expect them (or any member of Congress) to lead in the building.
Other potential candidates that match Ralph's qualities? Name 'em! I'm listening...
We need a KICK THE BUMS OUT CAMPAIGN!!! There are only a few worth keeping..like Dennis Kucinich. Just get behind Dennis. Send him money.
Whenever I get something in the mail from the Democratic party I send back response envelope (with or without a stamp)along with a scathing message.
By the way...The one issue that brings both the left and the right togther is the truth about 9/11. I have been working in the movement. Several of the guys I tabled with last weekend had voted for Bush and used to listen to Rush L....a couple of them voted for Bush twice. One said he was raised by radical right wing parents who started the anti-abortion movement...
What has lead to many of Bu$h the inferior's disastrous policy failures is putting everything in government on a political basis. In other words the ends justify the means.
Now the Democrats have decided that politicizing every aspect of government has worked so well for Bu$h the inferior that they are doing it too. Until the Democrats pursue impeachment for the sake of the Constitution they are playing the ends justify the means game too.
If the Congress impeaches Bu$h the inferior for political reasons, as the Clinton impeachment was, they are still playing games.
We hire these bastards do defend and support the Constitution.
Nader 2008 is not the answer. Nader is an upright individual, but he's a political naif. Whoever gets elected in 2008 is going to have a real shitpile to clean up, and Nader doesn't have the political skill to accomplish that.
At the same time, Nader 2000 was not the problem. Al Gore lost the election all on his own. Not just because he selected Joe Lieberman as a running mate (although that didn't help much), but because he ran the egg-suckingest campaign since Mike Dukakis. He pissed off a good portion of the electorate during the first televised debate, he managed to LOSE at least one of the other debates to a moron named Bush, and he never once managed to give the American public a good reason to vote for him. Against Bush, maybe, but for Gore, not at all.
As much as I would love to see it, impeachment (Cheney first!!) isn't going to happen. The only remedy we're likely to get is the election of 2008, and what follows.
If the election of 2008 is a two-party affair, everyone loses. (See impeachment not happening, above.) Because if it's a two-party affair, the only issue is "I'm not George Bush more than my opponent is not George Bush". Hardly helpful, and not likely to lead to significant plans for turning this sow's ear into a silk purse.
Fox is already running poll results which encourage a third party -- they're obviously paving the way to run a "real Republican" as an independent, if Guliani gets the nod. They figure they can deliver a message to the GOP at no cost, because the Republican nominee has little chance, anyways.
BUT ... if the Republican vote splits, then the Democratic vote can split and still win (given the country's strong lean away from Republicans, at present). All it takes is a plurality. And if the Democrats split, we can run a real liberal (or at least someone smart enough to get us out of Iraq asap) if Hillary gets the nomination.
Do the math -- Guliani and (let's say) Gary Bauer split the 35% of the electorate which would vote Republican in a two-way race. Hillary and (let's say) Kucinich split the remaining 65%. If the war's the #1 issue, and the vast majority of nominal Democrats want us out, Kucinich (or whomever) wins in a 4-way heat.
Even better, this scenario (changing the names, as necessary) breaks the two-party (I know, really one-party!) hold on our political system. Forever more, candidates have to run on their own merits, and not on the basis of painting their sole opponent as the spawn of the Devil. Democracy is restored! All is well! (And the Cubs win the World Series!!!)
Wyden offered an explanation on his Web page:
"I question this impeachment strategy for several reasons, including the obvious lack of votes in the Senate to accomplish the goal, and the obligation of the Congress to stay focused on what the general public wants."
Stay focused on what the public wants!!! Last time I looked there was a 12% favorable rating for congress among the public, so Wyden needs an eye exam. And nearly half of the public would support impeachment, and that is without any encouragement in the mainstream media or in the congress. If Bush can keep nuclear weapons on the table, why can't Pelosi at least keep impeachment on the table? Her position could have been: "At this moment impeachment does not have strong support in the congress, but if public demand rises the congress will most likely have to consider responding to it."
what are you going to do ? its the wimpy dems and the bloody repubs and they are the house bands.i am rather fond of dennis kucinich,but electronically speaking,i doubt that my vote will even count....those postmasonic muthafukers own all the bases covered.george and nancy,sittin in a tree-p.i.s.s.i.n.g
I am so sick of the impotency of the democratic party. There needs to be a viable alternative.
Oh yeah, Wikipedia is a great souce of information!
I don't blame Nader one wit for what happened in 2000.
There's only one person to blame, and that's Al Gore. Why? For choosing whiner AIPAC "Independent"/Democrat Joe Lieberman as Vice.
I am a hard core Democrat and I voted for Nader because of my love for the fact he had the guts to speak out against the international corporatists and because of my disdain for Joe Lieberman. He is an insulting Israeli apologist and because Al Gore didn't have the intelligence or the (forgive me) CHUTZSPA!! to choose a running mate who would appeal to the average American as Vice, I decided to vote for the person who best represented my interests. Nader.
If we do finally take the giant leap of creating a Progressive "third" Party in this country I hope to God we'll have the brains to choose a Southerner as a Presidential candidate!! Hello!!?
Let's put the emotionality to the side and start doing some serious strategizing.
Perhaps studying the win of Jesse Ventura for Governor of Minnesota would be a good start. He ran as an Independent, pulled just enough voters from the Democrat and Republican parties and squeaked through. There's no reason we can't do this on a national level WITH A GOOD SOLID SOUTHERN PROGRESSIVE WHO CAN SAY "THAT DOG WON'T HUNT!" believably! And with a Vice who isn't a whiner/AIPACer like Lieberman! Of course we'd need to deep-six the computerized voting machines and create a national campaign for paper and ink ballots with Americans in every precinct on Election Night to count the ballots AND VIDEO TAPE THE PROCEEDINGS!!!
I go to bed every night feeling so beaten up by the bad news.
But, somehow, when the morning comes, I go outside and pick up The New York Times hoping there'll be some wonderful news on the front page. "INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL BID LAUNCHED BY JOE BLOW!!!! (TRUE AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE!) "Promises an end to illegal U.S. Military Occupations world-wide, Medicare for every American (with "prevention" as the cornerstone), Presidential Directives that would out all the truth of every scandal in American History!!!", and on and on and on.
I'm just a hopeless American Patriot hoping against hope that my American dream isn't going to become my permanent American nightmare.
Back in 1991 I was at a demonstration in Los Angeles against the 1st Persian Gulf War. I ran into a reporter from the Los Angeles Times and we started chatting about the media covering demonstrations etc. He said, "If you don't like the news, go out and MAKE some news for us to cover. We'll cover it."
Let's get off these pages and go out and make some news for them to cover. We need to be as brave as the monks of Burma. Are we still...."Land of the Free....home of the BRAVE."?
Thom Hartmann loves to assert that elected officials are "Representatives." If that were so, the scum would be following the lead of the people who cleary want the topic on the table instead of off the table. The best way I can think of to get their elitist attention is first to donate funds to the campaign of Cindy Sheehan and help her unseat Pelosi for starters. Then take out the rest of the TRASH!
AMEN bikerdude
Jmorg606: I agree the republicans stop everything the Democrat's try to do so what have the Democrats got to lose?--nothing but the Nation would be behind them if they start impeachment against Bush/Cheney Why are the Democrat's so afraid of a moron president with a poll rating in the 20s?I truely believe that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are in the pockets of the republican's. what a shame to have such weak leaders when you have people like Russ Feingold and Jim Webb sitting on the side line.Of course spineless people like Harry Reid are afraid of brilliant people like Feingold and Webb. I can't understand how Reid was elected majority Leader that should tell us something about the Democrat's.
Too costly to push for impeachment? How much is the integrity of the United States worth? The lives of our children? The enormous treasure we have wasted on this winless ego trip??? I will not vote for any incumbent who isn't daily and loudly condemning this administration and calling for impeachment. Bush is an arrogant, incompetent, self-serving politician who deserves to be tried for war crimes. The honor and integrity of the United States is at stake here folks.
To Nader08:
YIKES! NOT NADER AGAIN!
Nader is the reason Bush 'elected' in the first place. Have you forgotten that in the 2000 Presidential election it was because of the few votes that Nader got is the reason Al Gore wasn't elected and Bush was.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
to refresh your memory.
Anyone who has read my past comments knows that I am far from an apologist for the Democratic "Party" (actually a faction of the Corporate Party). I would be truly gleeful if the Democrats completely imploded, providing an impetus for progressives to form a true "Second Party" built upon progressive values, lead by progressives and advancing (not merely paying lip service to) a pro-worker, pro-peace, anti-neo-liberalism, anti-imperialist agenda.
Nonetheless, I think it's important to dispute some of the claims made here and show why Democrats will never pursue impeachment of George W. Bush nor is it in *their* interest to do so (again note: the Democrats' interest is emphatically NOT the public's interest, democracy's interest or the Constitution's interest).
To begin with, Pelosi and her minions are completely correct in claiming that pushing impeachment would be devestating for the Democrats electorally. It would indeed fracture the Democrats between progressives and blue dogs, between the handful of idealists in Congress and the majority of calculating hacks who care only about furthering their own power. And if you think that the hacks wouldn't be willing to stab the progressives in the back for personal gain, you are very naive. Furthermore, impeachment would galvanize the GOP, which is currently fairly moribund.
The GOP base is intensely loyal; consider the fact that Bush STILL maintains around 30% approval ratings. That cracks are showing in this base is only due to the fact that the Bush administration has proven to be an unmitigated and obvious disaster. Only the truly brainwashed can continue to deny this. Yet, the loyalty remains. An open challenge to Bush would, at long last, give the GOP SOMETHING to rally around, something to go on an aggressive offense against. Meanwhile, Democrats would be irrepairably split, fighting amongst themselves more than even now (if that's possible), and going into a presidential election year bitterly divided. Republicans would almost certainly win the White House and control of both branches of Congress.
Comparisons to past impeachments (1974 and 1998) are ill informed and inappropriate. The circumstances in both those instances differ starkly from today. In 1974, the United States still had a somewhat concientious, objective media, dedicated to reporting and deciphering real news. Where is that today? In 1998, a Republican Congress was going after a Democratic President. No, they didn't suffer; why should they? Their intensely loyal base was behind them and the vaunted "independent voters" lost interest quite quickly. There was no similar Democratic base to galvanize; such a base did not exist (and for good reason: the Democrats, Clinton specifically, did nothing to develop such a base in the 1990's and have made only minimal efforts since then).
If the Democrats pursued impeachment, a small group of progressives (many who post on this site) would be ecstatic and vote and contribute accordingly. However, the Democrats would be crucified in the MSM, by the all powerful punditocracy and, most importantly, offend their corporate masters. In addition, they would energize the GOP. Impeachment is thus completely against the party's political interests.
But what about the moral interest? The Constitutional interest? Who are we kidding? It amazes me that some of you seem so genuinely shocked that Democratic politicians don't seem to have any moral fiber or any interest in protecting the Constitution. Let me state it bluntly: DEMOCRATS CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN POWER AND SERVING THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS. First, last and always. Sometimes doing so overlaps with serving the public and defending the Constitution. But when the two conflict, guess which one must yield?
If you find this upsetting, good. You should. But the answer is not to try to lobby the Democrats to do the right thing. The answer does not lie in signing petitions, calling your Congressman/woman, attending "listening sessions", staging sit-ins, etc. The answer lies in all progressive people, all who are concerned about defending the Constitution, advancing human rights, peace and social democracy, SEVERING ALL TIES with the Democratic Party permanently and without exception. Only then can we begin to build a real "Second Party". It will take time, it will grow slowly and incrementally, and it may or may not be sucessful in the long run (I'm no pollyanna). But it is our only hope.
As I have said before, if what I have just said makes sense to you, please go to this site: www.draftnader.com and sign the petition. This is a tiny first step; but we have to start somewhere.
Oh yeah and it IS on the agenda for americans...according to Zogby, 53% of us favor impeachment if bush is illegally spying on us. that's just ONE reason we should impeach him and cheney though!:-) love yall for caring!
We HAVE to impeach and it certainly CAN happen!! Like it said, if we don't then the whole world, our children, and future leaders will see this fascist precedent and it won't be a big deal when someone take its further.
The way to impeach, as my girlfriend and I gather is to CALL or CONTACT CONGRESS, YOUR congressperson, and ask them to IMPEACH! They are UOR REPRESENTATIVES and they will generally do what we say if we repeatedly ask them politely but persistently, and the more people that do it the better! VERY FEW people call congress or even know that they can, but that's how IMPEACHMENT will happen.
This is about so much...WE, THE PEOPLE, YOU READING THIS, have to TAKE BACK the TERMS of DEBATE, to demand justice and accountability and human rights, including our own!!! There is a plethera of legal reasons why, not just lying about the war, and POLITICS SHOULD NOT DETERMINE OUR POLICIES!!!! Why are we saying it WON'T happen instead of MAKING it happen because we know it HAS to happen???
Let's impeach Cheney FIRST, and make sure no more war mongers like Hilary, Obama and Edwards, are allowed in office, and that our votes are COUTED LEGITIMATELY!!!
please contact me if u want any information, cuz i got lots:o) myspace.com/stopthesuffering
geo.bush and nancy pelosi are a tandem team of criminals.the poser,the mole nancy pelosi,as her first official act took impeachment off the table,leaving america with no recourse and no way out...she also thru the doors wide open and has allowed bush carte blanche to as much money as he wants to missappropriate from the coffers of the american people.as speaker of the house,nancy could have put the brakes on this tadgedy at any time,she also could have demanded an investigation into the billions and billions of dollars,missing and unaccounted for.everytime bush wants more money,he says that"its money for support of the troops" A WHOPPING BIG LIE..IT IS BULLSHIT,and nancy pelosi knows it..it is doubtful that even 10 percent of trillions of dollars,ever makes it to our troops.the tandem team of george and nancy,should share a cell or a firing squad or a noose for two.......
when someone commits a crime, he or she should feel the full weight of the law, in this case regardless of political consequences. when the legal system fails, other measures take their place. that is why lynchings and vigilante justice have, alas, become regular occurences in guatemala today. the US is closest to becoming a banana republic than ever before. let us know in case you guys need any training; in harvesting bananas, that is.
As a democrat, I am pissed at how spineless this party has become. They are more interested in getting elected than upholding the Constitution.
It is time, and I am serious about this, that if your elected official doesn't step up and vote to impeech, then we, as responsible Americans, must vote the bastards out! I don't care who they are, if they won't uphold the Constitution, vote them out!
Impeachment did not hurt the Democrats in 1974--in fact, they increased their majority in both houses. The Republican's did not do as well as they would have liked in 1998 and 2000, but they held their own.
But impeachment is above politics. The Founders knew that the only way to keep the President from amassing power was to provide Congress with impeachment power.
I keep pushing for impeachment because it is the right thing to do--the President and Vice President have to be held to account for their many illegal actions that have violated the Constitution--and have laid waste to the basic rights that we the people are supposed to have.
Impeachment is necessary to restore the Constitution.
Folks, if the Constitution is not restored, we are no longer a representative democracy--we will be living in the kind of dictatorships we ween the world, where there is the appearance of elections but we the people have been silenced by a permanent fixed majority. Maybe 200+ years is a good run for something as fragile as our form of government--but it makes me angry to realize that democracy is being disappeared on my watch.
Personally I don't feel that its a matter of political positioning at all, I feel its needed for restitution.
There are families out there that are less by a member because their kid signed up to fight for our country under legitimate and honorable circumstances. instead they have been sacrificed by the BUSH CRIME FAMILY for profit.
The BUSH CRIME FAMILY belong in jail. The crimes of this entire family date back to the early 1900's to current day. They have blood on their hands of nearly every significant political assasignation in the 20th century.
Where is justice? That is why impeachment and incarceration are imperative. Restitution and justice for America. Not a question of political positioning as I see it at all......
At our Congresswoman's latest town hall meeting in Salem, OR, Darlene Hooley - D. OR just poo-pood the majority of the people who were attending when we en masse called for impeachment. We tried to get her to endorse Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney first(HR333).
She seems to be a real politician - only wants to be re-elected in '08. She even signed on to the censure of Move-On. I have called her office and suggested to her staff that since she took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution that she read it.
I further informed them that, even though I worked on her last two campaigns, I would be unable to work for someone who refused to uphold the Constitution of the US by trying to destroy the First Amenddment and refusing to do the DUTY of Congress, which is to begin Impeachment hearings NOW.
I'm also not going to vote for her. As far as I am concerned she does not deserve my vote, and I will not vote for any damn pol who's main goal in life is to remain in office and not the people's business.
Last April the Vermont state Senate passed a resolution to impeach Bush, anything change?. As noble as these efforts seem, the usurpation of the federal government, with the complicity of Congress, now appears to be complete.
Spike says "Work to eliminate the ignorance of the regular citizen. Teach them about what has happened."
Again a noble idea but the reality is, despite crumblings and professed dissatisfaction, most people are not motivated to act. The few of us posting comments are in relative agreement as to how bad things are getting but MOST people either don't care or, if they do, are still not doing anything. Despite the storm clouds appearing at the horizon which most of us here see, the general population is either deliberately ignoring them, don't care, or are just confused as to what to do about it. Unfortunately motivation may well come to the rest of us when things have gotten so bad as to severely impact our daily lives. Until then, it's shopping as usual.
So Bush can claim the information he got was incorrect. After he found out it was incorrect, he should have admitted it and brought the troops home.
That's what the impeachment should be about.
This was the poster I saw a woman carrying at a recent demonstration:
"Would someone please give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him!"
In light of what has transpired as to "criminality" since the election of 2000, I find this to be a sorry state of affairs. No pun intended.
In fact, "hells-bells" as my mother sometimes said.
I just registered "peoplesproclamation.com" (for $35 and 1-year), and i'm going give it a shot. If anyone cares to check it out or contribute somehow (not with money but with ideas), feel free because it ought to be crafted by many......i recognize the site could easily be subsumed, ah well, such is life...i'm going to try regardless....
I screamed my head off here about impeachment several months ago for months on end and many others have been doing likewise literally for years...it has been a real learning process for me, but it seems abundandly evident now that other options need to be considered.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Congress is afraid of antrax and other made up 'threats' that give them the justification to vote for everything Bush. In reality, they are wimps; they do not want to stand for what is right, be radical, and perhaps lose the nsxt elections...everyone wants to be a 'winner'.
The only way to change things is to do what is going on in Myanmar/Burma. The majority of people who disapprove has to show their disapproval at the same time in the streets. Stopping work for a week and spending time in DC should do the trick. But where are they???
You cannot ask the same people (both repugs and dems) to change their ways when they are the ones who set us on this course.
A voting process that is usurped has the same result as no voting process.
Work to eliminate the ignorance of the regular citizen. Teach them aboutwhat has happened.
An illegal government must be disobeyed.
Did impeaching Clinton hurt Republicans?
Isn't there some "executive order" supposedly giving the president authority to call off elections and implement all sorts of other dastardly machinations. I mean i'm not going to vote for evil regardless (be it is "lesser" or not), but don't you think People will be pissed if they are not allowed to vote at all?????
Maybe there ought to be a "People's Proclamation". A Proclamation of Independence from federalism and maybe much more and perhaps even a statement of conditions for improvement. It would need to be something upon which many could agree all across the "old country".
You think this is "pie in the sky" well better "pie in the sky" then blindly going over the cliff......
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Maybe we should impeach Congress as well
These politicians who try to resist impeachment are getting lots of scratched from the claws of the vicious rabble.
Aides to Pelosi and other senior Democrats point out that impeachment is a futile quest. There are not enough votes to secure a victory, they say.
The Oregonian is oppressing populist sensibilities with such a statement. To "point out" an opinion is an attempt to label it a fact.
But the opinion that "impeachment is a futile quest" is also extremely bogus if one values the US Constitution, and the Enlightenment ideas it represents.
"There are not enough votes" begs the public to ignore hard-earned life lessons on probabilities in group dynamics and instead "come to daddy" for some good advice.
The Demoks are failing to yield to the authority of the people. Progressives are voting third party candidates if the Demoks fail to impeach the criminals and end the occupation of Iraq by election day 2008.
If Kantor's hypothesis that "Democratic Party members gave up oversight and authority by voting to invade Iraq" is correct, the only way to untangle the Democratic Party is to get rid of ALL of the damaged goods (those who voted to invade Iraq) PRONTO !!!
Of the three 2008 Demo presidential front-runners, Clinton and Edwards are damaged goods, so the Democratic Party is digging itself deeper into the hole it created, rather than trying to get out of the hole.
Not enough votes?
Count the votes after the impeachment investigations have displayed the evidence to the United States citizens.
The evidence will undoubtedly bust through the continuing Al Qaeda lie and the continuing Iraqi Freedom lie, as well as consolidate before the American public all the other lies along with the unmitigated arrogant contempt for basic human dignity.
As Bradach said, "We have to keep the pressure on."
ONE MIND, ONE HEART, ONE VOICE: IMPEACH!
The primary problem democrats face in upcoming elections is the perception that they are befuddled and spineless. A strong move to impeach would erase that. Plus it would be an education for the American public who may not be aware of the extent of the current administration's assault on the law and democracy. In addition, impeachment is their constitutional duty. It might even distract Bush and Cheney from invading Iran. We need some bulldog democrats who push truth ahead of triangulation. Yes, indeed, what we have now are leadersheep.
Right on, Oregon. As a former member of your state, I can say I'm proud of what you are trying to do. However, I take the stand that impeachment is not enough. I want to see these brigands that rule the White House tried and convicted for treason!
"There's a cost to do it, and the cost is just too high," Inslee says.
Higher than the cost of NOT doing it? Hundreds of thousands of people dead, the USA reviled throughout the world, an economy in ruins, a polluted planet, possible nuclear war(Iran), the death of democracy, a facist state, and no forgetting toilet paper from a constitution.
Some people need a reality check!!
Jeez, can you imagine what would happen if lawmakers only tried to pass laws that they knew would garner 100% approval? Unbelievable. I say impeach the whole lot of 'em! "Bring 'em all home!" and I mean the whole Congress, in addition to our troops!!!!!!
It is not accurate to say that the Democrats do not have enough votes to impeach President Bush and/or VP Cheney. Impeachment is akin to an indictment, that is, there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. Thus to impeach a President takes a simple majority of the House. After that it moves to the Senate for trial where a 2/3s majority is needed for conviction and removal from office.
This first part of the process the Democrats have more than enough votes for; it is the second part which would be problematic. But consider, even if Bush were not convicted and removed he would be only the third President in our history to be impeached (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton), and this in and of itself might be useful to remind future Presidents that the Congress is an equal branch of government and in the end has the final say. And of course once there is a trial with discovery and testimony- well, who knows?
Of course Pelosi and other Democratic leaders know this, but they are focusing on '08- they have made the calculation that the politics of the here and now trump the longer term benefit of such a forceful message.
Regarding impeachment, there is a constant focus by the media and the Democratic Party leadership about what can't be done--we don't have the votes, it would galvanize Republican opposition, etc. etc.
These professed 'keepers of the sacred Democratic flame' never examine what the costs are of not starting full Congressional investigations in support of impeachment. The dry rot in American government is extensive, and ignoring it, placating it even, is done at great peril.
If the Dems think starting impeachment proceedings against obvious criminal activity by the
Bush/Cheney administration is inconvenient, wait until they experience a truly repressive fascist dictatorship--talk about inconvenient!
Or perhaps they believe they'll be the party of dictatorship; in that case, they can live with it.
I've got one word for the Democratic leadership: Burma.
It's amazing: Bush says he doesn't give a rat's ass for his party or those running for office and republicans don't call for his (and Cheney's) impeachment; they don't even appear to be outraged! Amazing: our beloved America is being run by lunatics whose actions have caused the deaths of over a million, and now they threaten to invade another country . . .
Citizens beg what remains of good democrats, republicans, and independents to stop the lunacy, remove the rot NOW, and begin restoring order and peace.
At the moment there doesn't appear to be a future for us or our children.
Stephen Kantor, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, says impeachment supporters not only misunderstand the legalities of the process but also misread the politics. Congress had the authority to thoroughly investigate Bush's claims about weapons of mass destruction but instead voted to approve the Iraq invasion.
This is MISINFORMATION! Congress voted to give power to pursue all avenues, they never literally approved teh invasion, that was one option that supposedly was the last option..
But for these wimps to say that the cost of impeachment is too high, they are willing to sell our democracy downt he drain to a bunch of fascists so they can get reelected. The Canadians know that our democracy is dead at the federal level. Congress pretends it is not. Anyone who doubts should buy a copy of the Bill Moyers Journal that covered the impeachment issue with John Nichols. The cost to the democrats that say this shit is they are going to be working in the private sector in January 2009 (assuming there's an election in 2008).
we need more than impeachment. what happens *after* impeachment? President Pelosi? the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of the corporations as the Republicans and both parties agree the US has a right to use its military and economic power to dominate the globe.
The republicans have no intentions of working with the democrats on anything, so I don't see what they're waiting for. The shrub has been pissing on the american people and the constitution for six years now and quite frankly I'm sick of the spineless dems letting him get away with it.
Gore 08'
Yeah, impeachment will hurt the party that puts it on the table, much like it did after Watergate and Monicagate! Bullsh*&t!
Impeachment is not about what's good or bad for democrats. It's about the nature and future of the country. Anyone who puts thier career above that should not be holding public office.
Being a former Oregonian, I'm proud of these people's efforts to fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way!
Very Cool. Now if the damned politicians would only do what their people ask, we might get somewhere, but then I guess "CONgress" is the opposite of "PROgress"...