I am ashamed of the Democratic Party..............
Are the Democrats only slightly better than the Republicans? If not, why are we not impeaching these Executive branch criminals? What does this say to the world? Even Dennis Kucinich isn't for impeachment unless they bomb Iran!!!!!! I have reached a point of dispair about our country. It is run by madmen, who are enabled by short-sighted cowards. Excuse my pessimism, and thanks for being out there, DU.
23. Why can't the DEMS spin "unsupporative of the troops" to
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 12:04 PM by snappyturtle
the notion that cutting funding IS supporting the troops? In other words, we support our troops so much that we are going to end this war through the means available to us. Cut the funding! I would love to see just one of the Democratic Presidentials hopefuls say exactly that. Then I think we would see the nation rally behind that brave soul.
37. Wrote about this same thing yesterday. Don't call it war
call it an invasion. Don't call it cutting funds - call it reallocation of funds from combat to redeployment. And don't let them say we failed and quit - because we did remove Saddam and we did get them a government and a vote - we should brag about that part. Hell, we probably could have given them oil production and electricity if 8 (count em) billion hadn't freakin disappeared !
And don't give a shit about what the words sound like. You are hurting yourself more than helping - people will stand with you. 65% want us out. H-E-L-L-O
3. If we don't impeach, then everything anyone ever said about Dems lacking spine is true
Why am I not surprised they won't do what they're obligated to do. Shit, they don't even have the guts to vote down the funding for Bush's surge for fear they'll be perceived as "unsupportive of the troops.", let alone impeach him. WTF was the sense in winning over the House if we're not going to use it to advantage. It only takes a one vote majority to impeach the fucker.
10. I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time I voted.............
Thanks to you all for being out there.........I know it's not so simple, but sometimes I think the Democrats drink the same Koolaid as the Republicans, just watered down. So much so that they don't feel enough outrage about what is being done in our names. There are exceptions, of course.
However, the only answer is, in the long run, ELECT Democratic Challengers who genuinely wish to serve their constituents before their careers. If they don't, vote them out in the next Democratic Primary and select another Democratic Candidate ... FOR ALL REPRESENTATIVES.
Also, term limits and punishment for CRONYISM. If he's indicted, all on the leadership caucus who voted for Jefferson to the Homeland Security Committee, should be OUSTED in their next Democratic Primary.
Don't give up! Let's truly vote the bums out if they don't serve us!?! We have the power to do this and can make it happen.
Do NOT forget: We can DEMAND (through voting) that our Democratic Representatives SERVE US before their Corporate Contributers.
Wrong is wrong. The Dems are going to lose what they gained in '06 if they don't get their sh!t together. It's embarrassing. We endured years of abuse under the GOP, only to discover that the reason the GOP got away with what it did is because the Dems don't have a spine.
Or a sense or right and wrong.
If they do, how can they possibly justify "impeachment is off the table" before they know all the facts? Do they know the facts, and are willing to look the other way? And if so, why?
To ignore the issues of the Bush Administration is criminal, and puts the Dems in the same class as the GOP: CROOKS.
I really do think we're going to have to clean house completely and get an entirely new Congress that doesn't have its hands in everybody's pocket - including ours!
12. The problems are "careerism" and "cronyism" ... we must set term limits.
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 11:23 AM by ShortnFiery
And they don't have to be austere BUT not serve as an entire career for these men and women. The idea of electing Congressional Representatives was to glean regular people out of the populace to represent US, not form underhanded relationships with each other and lobbyists.
Say, two 6 year terms in the Senate, and six 2 year terms in the House, i.e., with or without serving concurrently.
Truly clean OUT the crooks on K Street and public-ally finance elections would make it POSSIBLE to run "REAL people" (non millionaires or less than used car salesmen type personas) to represent us in Congress.
27. We have term limits already. 2 years for a congressperson, six for a senator.
It's right there in the constitution.
Oh, you mean amend the constitution so if we have a great legislator, who does right by the people, then we can't have them represent us because...because...because Ross Perot and Newt Gingrich way back in 1992 said that was a good idea? (Newt's party had been out of power for a long time then)
No thanks. I'm for more democracy, not less democracy.
There are much better ways to fight corruption than to limit democracy. I know that many people who haven't really invested the time seem to think so-called "term limits" are a panacea. All one has to do is look at state legislatures where the anti-democratic forces pulled this off, and it's easy to see that it didn't work to get money out of the system, to stop corruption, or to do anything except limit our choices as to who we can vote for.
13. Do you want impeachment, or impeachment and conviction?
There's no point in impeaching them if they won't be removed from office. There is no way in hell you're going to get Lieberman plus 15 Republics to vote to convict in the Senate. If one or more of the many investigations now gearing up in the congress can generate a compelling case of the iron-clad, immense public outcry, outrage in the media, leaves Republic senators no choice variety, then you've got something to run with in the impeachment process. Investigate, prove your case in the media, and when a big majority of the public DEMAND impeachment, then you move.
conservative Republicans would be the last to get on board, obviously--the delusional 30% that still think Bush is doing a heckuva job. But if the various Bushco outrages are revealed in a way that rankles the majority of semi-oblivious political "independents" (those who are generally too apathetic to have an opinion), then I think you'll see movement toward impeachment--especially as the executive/legislative power-play starts to unfold, with Bush desperately trying to run out the clock.
There is nothing to "investigate," as the regime admits and "defends" their acts.
The majority already wants impeachment. And that's in the face of active suppression by the "leadership" and euphemedia.
And yes, I suppose it's possible that over 30 sitting US Senators would stand to approve and defend war crimes. But it's not the certainty that you fearfully imagine. Several GOP leaders (McCain, Warner, Graham) have already refused to rubber-stamp those acts when they changed the "War Criminals Protection Act."
Impeachment/Accusation by the House, even without removal, would at least redeem the American People -- in the eyes of the world, our ancestors and founders, our children, and for posterity.
36. Impeachment without conviction is yet another empty gesture, IMO,
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 01:47 PM by smoogatz
on the order of a non-binding resolution disapproving of this or that that Bushco has done/plans to do. That seems obvious to me. And how you get fifteen Republic senators out of the three you mentioned is a truly staggering feat of mathematical legerdemain. You really think McCain is going to vote to impeach Bush? McCain? Who's done everything in his power to cozy up to Bush and the war in Iraq? McCain who is right at this very moment avidly tonguing the rustic bungholes of the fundie nutball 30% crowd? Right. Here are the Republic senators who might, maybe, if slightly tipsy, vote to convict Bush if the vote came up tomorrow, which it theoretically could:
Some list, huh? So, should we impeach him now when there's no freaking chance in hell of convicting him? Or maybe wait a bit for a few of the more interesting investigations to take hold, which just might present us with the opportunity to remove both Bush and Cheney from office, and drive a stake through the fat, greasy heart of American conservatism for the next generation or so? Hm. That's a tough one, all righty.
38. Opinions aside, Impeachment is Anything But Empty
It is undeniably an historic act. And incidently the only substantive action available to the Dem "non-veto-proof majority." Everything else is just blather and election strategery. It's way beyond "gesture." Why else would even the word itself be so radioactive among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy?
And yes, McCain could vote to remove bushcheney on a charge of ongoing war crimes/torture. As I said, he and others have already drawn that line in the sand. And as he, Warner, and Graham (former JAG) are leaders in the Senate on military matters, other GOP Senators could well follow their lead. They just need to be put on the spot. (Realistically, the chances of successive resignations would be much higher than it coming to an actual Senate vote.)
But even if there were "no freaking chance in hell of convicting him," it would still be the duty of those who took the oath to defend the Constitution to act on Impeachment. Because that's what the "contract" demands. The House had the responsibility to charge, the Senate the responsibility to convict/remove or acquit. Considering the ultimate outcome is simply "above a Reps Constitutional pay grade." The moral demand, to at least stand to object in the name of the American People, is much deeper.
Even the "nutball 30% crowd" might surprise you. Many of them fancy themselves civil libertarians and are terrified at the thought of Urinary Authoritarian Executive** power falling into the hands of a say, "Queen Hillary." Just ask Bob Barr. Not to mention the number of them who'll jump onto any "get him! get him!" bandwagon they can find.
If you really want to "drive a stake through the fat, greasy heart of American conservatism for the next generation or so," try showing the electorate a Democratic Party willing to stand on principle -- to act in defense of our American values and our (tattered) prestige in the world. The Dems could garner 5-7% of the white male vote overnight just by exorcising the "wimp factor."
Heck, we might even take the chuckle out of the oldest GOP joke in DC:
"Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."
----- **Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak)
n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.
43. You say impeachment without hope of conviction is "way beyond gesture,"
but you don't really say how--except maybe in the minds of the "DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy," whoever they are. And you don't say how you "exorcise the wimp factor" by going through the motions of impeachment when it's obvious to everyone on the planet that it's just for show--no way Bush is removed from office, no way anything happens other than a lot of grandiose speach-making and arm-waving on the House floor. End of story, Bush finishes out his term unperturbed, issues the requisite pardons, and retires to his pig farm in Texas to write his memoir: "How I Fucked the American People Out of $10 Trillion and Blamed It On Saddam." Perhpas you have a keener appreciation of political theater than I do, but to me it sounds like the most asinine sort of posturing imaginable--a bit of meaningless chest-thumping, then everybody goes back to work on the highway bill. You and I and everyone who was paying the least bit of attention would know it was a fraud--a false show of outrage by a bunch of cynical, grasping politicians with nothing better to do. Like when they impeached Clinton--remember?
14. I think it's possible if independent lawyers prepare the case or
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 11:37 AM by higher class
if it can be done through States. I place hope on independent lawyers.
I tend to be very practical about HOW something is accomplished. If Congress had started something, it would have only been the Dems, as we know. I say let Constitutional lawyers put the case together and hand it to Congress in a package. It's the only way. It's a legal specialty issue.
There is just too much crime, neglect, and crime against the citizens to handle it all. They must choose wisely and make a fool proof case with all due consideration to the right wing dominated Supreme Court who we have found does not give a darn about the citizens if there is a choice between their friends or us (one exception?).
They've been in the Majority for barely two months. The Cons left things as unfinished and 'fubar' as possible and are salivating at each opportunity to blame the Dems and transfer responsibility for the mess they made. It sickens me to hear commentators and pundits who will go on about "I blame both parties" and moreso for those who will say "I blame the Democrats for not speaking up."
Fact is, Democrats were speaking up and having their microphones cut off on them in mid-sentence. Democrats were speaking up about being shut out of conferences changing bills in the middle of the night to be voted on the next day. etc, etc, etc.
Is the Leadership weak? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But the Leadership also knows the political realities. They're fully aware of what's to come and what's been said/done behind closed doors that we're not privy to.
What I'm most disappointed in the Democrats for is their continued pussy-footing around Joe Lieberman. IMO, they could/should show they stand for something by refusing to let him dictate things and throwing out the "I'm getting uncomfortable" threats. Lieberman has not shown any sign of working with DEMOCRATS and being willing to support them without attaching strings based solely on his comfort level. They need to stand firm and call his bluff. If Joe goes, that's his choice. It would free the Democrats to go full throttle regardless of how it might change the Majority/Minority. And Joe would quickly find he's marginalized for the other 90% of things he claims he's firmly "Democratic" about.
26. Right now - we're not talking Senate. Yes, they must vote in the
end - but that's a long way off. Leiberman has constituents as does Reid. It's too early to talk about them in relation to a decision to impeach and how to get it done (starting in the House as we know).
Nobody is willing to actually do anything drastic. We are paralyzed with the idea that, if a policy does any harm to anybody within the power stucture....any major corporation...it is out of the question. We are paralyzed with the idea that *what is* is *inevitable*.
25. either they're in denial about just how bad things really are, or . . .
they don't have the brains and/or balls to break out of the rut of conformity . . .
for as long as most can remember, the by-words on Capitol Hill have been things like "go along to get along," "don't make waves," and "protect and defend the status quo" . . . to break out of the "business as usual" mode will take both vision and courage, and very few of our representatives and senators are ready, willing and/or able to exhibit either . . . (there are, thankfully, a few exceptions who history will record as heroes) . . .
for real change to happen, things probably have to get SO bad that Congress has no choice but to act decisively . . . most of us, of course, understand that things already ARE that bad -- and then some . . .
but hey, what do we know? . . . we're only the peons . . .
35. Why is it that the people can see things from the sidelines that
the "insiders" ie congressmen can't. When the Senate was getting ready to give war authority to the Chimperor, I attended a public meeting at which every citizen present- hundreds, were against the authorization, the war, all of it. Our senator, Chuck Shumer treated us like idiots, and I have never again seen him in the same light. And he was WRONG. And when Colin Powell trotted out the "proof", my husband and I knew in our guts that it was a pack of lies. Yet our representatives were without suspicion. What is up with that?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.