Cheney (or Bush) Impeachment -- A Democrat close to Pelosi says forget it

[Auggie]

What follows is an e-mail response from Congressman Mike Thompson, who represents the California 1st Congressional District, north of San Francisco, regarding my letter asking for his support of the Kucinich resolution. The form letter reference to Bush "and or other members" of the administration doesn't acknowledge D.K. or the point of my request.

---------------------------

April 26, 2007

Dear (Winebrat):

Thank you for contacting me regarding impeaching President Bush and or other members of his administration. I am glad you have taken the time to share your concerns with me.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. However, I agree with my colleagues in Congress that efforts to pursue impeachment would - at this time - seriously detract from our ability to lead our country in a new and positive direction.

Fortunately, last November, Americans voted for change. Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate and we are taking large steps toward improving our nation. Our agenda to make healthcare more affordable, expand educational opportunities, promote job growth, tackle global warming and increase our nation's energy independence would all be put on hold to investigate possible impeachable offenses. There would be no chance for Congress to enact the legislation that addresses the urgent needs of the American public because our time would be focused on a lengthy and difficult impeachment process.

While Congress has taken impeachment off the table at this time, we are committed to conducting aggressive oversight hearings of the Bush administration's failed policies, beginning with the Iraq War. I fully support these efforts and look forward to working with my colleagues to provide much-needed oversight, accountability, and transparency to this administration's policies.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Though we may disagree on this issue, I hope that you will continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and to our district.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
http://www.mikethompson.house.gov

---------------------------

Thompson is tight with Nancy Pelosi. Her policy would be his. That means the Kucinich Resolution isn't going anywhere. Sorry to burst any bubbles. I know mine were.

[MADem]

1. Why would you want to unload two caged, ineffectual tigers that everyone HATES?

To be replaced by...whom? Name ANYONE...there'd be buzz, speculation that "this one is DIFFERENT" and "a NEW BROOM in Washington" and the same old shit would continue on.

Those two assholes are right where we want them. They are hobbled and caged. And HATED. That gives us more room to move--what if Cheney got bagged and Bush nominated some Charlie Charm to replace him--it would fuck us up, because HE'D be the big news story.

Until the elections, having those two assholes chained up, pissed off, and again, HATED is working for us.

So Kucinich's idea is just ...well... a nonstarter.

[Hart2008]

6. There is no requirement to replace the VP if impeached!

We can tolerate ties in the Senate. (Lieberman becomes less important without Cheney.) There is no need to vote on a replacement VP, if one is nominated. Pelosi moves from second in line for the Presidency to first. No problem.
:popcorn:
The best thing about an impeachment trial is that "Executive privilege" won't hold up against the right of the Congress to impeach and try. In fact, since Cheney's Constitutional role is to preside over the Senate, the matter becomes more similar to a vote of expulsion from the Senate then removing the head of the Executive branch. CHENEY IS REALLY NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONALLY!

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

11. But you think Bush would not take the opportunity? He'd probably put McCAIN in there.

And then, as VP, McCain would save a FORTUNE in travel costs, because he'd have AIR FORCE TWO and would only have to pay the equivalent of a business class ticket for transport, at BEST. And if he tied his campaign stops with government stops, why, he'd be campaigning on the taxpayer's DIME, with all the pomp and circumstance of office.

He'd BECOME the incumbent...it's a horrible idea to try to dump Cheney, and for PRECISELY the reason I outlined above.

And if you think the Senate would not UNANIMOUSLY confirm McCain as VP, I have a bridge for sale.

They're VERY collegial. They confirmed their former compadre, Ashcroft, after all.

You're just not seeing the BIG picture, I'm afraid.

[Hart2008]

15. 25th Amendment: The House must confirm an appointed VP as Well!!!

"2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am25

Would the House even give him a vote this close to an election?

I think not.

:kick: HART 2008!:kick:

[MADem]

16. And the House would not confirm McCain? Come on, are you smoking crack?

They'd confirm him in a heartbeat. You clearly don't get politics. No representative running for reelection would fail to confirm a senior senator/war hero for that office. He'd be eaten ALIVE, especially in the moderate to conservative districts, for placing politics above the national interest.

It's natural that a Republican would pick a Republican, and as Republicans go, McCain has more fans on the other side of the aisle than most--like it or not.

Geez, the naivete here is astounding.

[Hart2008]

18. McCain? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, McCain?

The majority of Americans are sick of war. McCain comes across as nuts. Even if he could hypothetically win in the House, the House is not required to so much as schedule a vote.

There is historical precedent to leave the office vacant.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

19. Guess what? That's YESTERDAY's news. Reagan is still Saint Ronnie

and he made a joke about "The bombing will be begin in five minutes."

You need to understand that not everyone shares your level of outrage about things, particularly off the cuff, asinine remarks by politicians.

Yes, McCain's remark was idiotic.

But it wouldn't keep him from getting the nod, even though you're outraged about it.

And if you think "historical precedent" trumps political considerations, again, you are smoking crack.

It is in the INTEREST of the GOP to have a viable "incumbent" running. It would make their position STRONGER, not weaker. McCain's many weaknesses would be patched over if he could make three decent, well-publicized speeches followed by administration initiatives on ANY-fucking-thing, leaving the public with the impression that he's a "can-do, straight-talk" guy.

Look at the rehabilitation of Al Gore. Everyone was pissed at him after the election, now he is a saint again. Look at Newt, the pariah. He's now considered a dark horse candidate.

And here you are, pushing poor old "Monkey Business/Donna Rice" Gary Hart, and refusing to consider that any other politician can reinvent themselves, as so many have done before this?

You just don't get it. You likely never will.

[Hart2008]

20. Gary Hart rocks!

Gary Hart is younger than McCain. He served his country honorably in many ways. He deserves to be judged on the entirety of that record, not one sloppy news story.

I really don't think anyone really cares about a sloppy news story from 20 years ago. The Miami Herald never got the story right and relied on an unknown anonymous source attempting to fence a stolen photo to the National Enquirer. Unlike, St. Bill Clinton here, the man accused of sexual harassment and rape, no woman ever made any such allegations against Hart, who has now been married to his wife for 50 years.

Get a life!

I reaffirm, neither house is required to so much as hold a vote on a Vice-Presidential appointment.

McCain, a glutton for punishment, is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is too late for him to reinvent himself this election.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

21. Yeah, and Katie tells us Navy Seals do, too. He doesn't have a rat's chance in hell.

And I reaffirm, that if Bush wants a new VP, the Congress will expeditiously give him one, because BOTH parties would like their president treated in similar fashion if the same situation arose.

Don't you have the slightest concept of "What goes around, comes around?" I guess not...but the Congress does. They think about their behavior through the lens of history, particularly when issues of Constitutional import come to the fore.

As for your friend Gary, it is unfortunate, but when there are pictures, you're usually fucked. It doesn't matter what the guy "deserves" or not. There are PICTURES. Fuggedaboutit!

[Hart2008]

27. You want to talk about photos!

“…the Congress does. They think about their behavior through the lens of history, particularly when issues of Constitutional import come to the fore.”

Obviously I am dealing with an individual who gets his news from the National Enquirer and seriously thinks that our Congressional representatives truly care about more than raising enough money for the next election.

I must sadly inform you that the National Enquirer didn’t get the story right here. Gary Hart did not ask Donna Rice to marry him. Donna Rice is now married and works protecting children from online pornography. Both Hart and Donna Rice are great people who are entitled to the benefit of any doubts. I am always surprised that people in the party who are the loudest advocates for personal privacy refuse to grant that privacy to a distinguished party leader such is Gary Hart.

But with regard to your statement about photographs, Clinton was videographed on his campaign plane in 1992 with Debra Schiff, nestled together with their elbows interlocked and Clinton’s hand caressing her inner thigh. (Schiff subsequently received a job as a White House receptionist) That photo is far more damning than the National Enquirer photos you republish. There was also the photo of the mulatto boy from Little Rock, Danny Jackson, who bears a strong resemblance to Bill Clinton. I’ve seen that photo too. (Larry Patterson Clinton’s Arkansas State Trooper, alleges Clinton had an affair with the boy’s mother while using drugs.) Clinton sent the boy recycled gifts intended for Chelsea:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/9/16/61902
Despite the fact that the photo exists, as does the boy, I have never heard anyone ask St. Hillary what kind of relationship she has with that boy:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/11/2/52048

http://holtz.org/library/Social%20Science/History/Atomic%20Age/1990s/ClintonScandals/Clintons%20Son.txt

But for some reason, you want to talk about a 20 year photo precluding the election of the greatest thinker in our party in the last 25 years. Why do you want to invade Hart’s personal life but not that of others? You still don’t get it that that STOLEN photo of Hart and Rice and the rumors surrounding it led to the start of the Bush dynasty. If you are still so gullible, maybe you deserve what you got, but don’t prejudice others right to a candidate they deserve.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

33. Thanks for letting us know where you are "coming from" -- NEWSMAX???

Wow, you aren't even trying to be subtle, are you?

Shame on you. What a load of horseshit. Stop relying on rightwing websites for your pathetic misinformation.

Say, ya wanna argue the point? where are the PICTURES you claim are so damning? Come on, I show'd ya mine, you show me yours, whydoncha?

Pictures are worth a thousand words...where are your pictures?

[Hart2008]

36. ABC news owns the copyright to that video.

Sorry, I don’t own the copyrights, and I didn’t start this tangent.

ABC news owns the copyright to that video. I was advised of this by a very active RFK DEMOCRAT. The photo from the video frames was published in 1998. The New York post also ran a story about Debra Schiff here:
http://www.ishipress.com/schiff-g.htm

I saw the photo of Danny Jackson before the story was on the Internet. It was made public by a black business owner in Little Rock, who distributed the boy’s photo and the story in 1992. Even if I had it, I won’t publish it. (But he is now an adult.) You can bet that if the right wing can find a way to use these stories against Hillary they will. (Sorry, but you brought up this topic, not me.)

The point I was trying to make is that allegations of the many women who came out of the woodwork to tell stories of Bill Clinton’s behavior vastly outnumber the allegations against Gary Hart. No such woman ever made any kind of similar claim against Hart. All you have is the National Enquirer and its stolen photo, and the story is now 20 years old.

[MADem]

38. Ahhh, and they're "hiding" the damning evidence? Gimme a break.

If they've shown it, it would turn up on the web. Someone would have tossed a copy up there.

No "RFK Democrats" read NEWSMAX, and the ones who actually knew RFK aren't spring chickens. The poor man has been dead for a few decades now.

Do you have a clue who owns the New York POST? It's owned by a company called NEWS CORPORATION. And who owns that? Why, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Faux Snooze himself! You're not helping yourself with these rightwing citations.

Where's "Danny's" DNA comparison? How you can shop this nonsense with a straight face is beyond me--and claiming to be a Hart supporter while you're doing it, too--that's especially rich.

Here's the problem--the Donna Rice story, that she fooled around with Gary Hart (marriage proposal or not) is TRUE. You're trying to counter the truth of a dalliance with lies about Bill Clinton, as if that somehow makes everything "even." As if two wrongs, even if one were not a load of crap, made a right. As if a binary "Your guy is worse than MY guy" argument makes any sense.

That said, your story is just a load of rightwing shit. And your horrible "sources" prove it. That's the point that I am trying to make.

Next thing we know, we'll be hearing a "sources say" quote from Rita Cosby!

[Hart2008]

41. No woman ever complained about Gary Hart. That is the point. Not a single one.

The MSM wanted to destroy Hart any way they could, so they decided to try to "out" women they suspected of being involved with him. EVEN RICHARD NIXON SAID THAT WAS WRONG. Other than yourself, I don't think people really care about A 20 year old storY that you just "know" was true. Look at the character of the two people involved and stop gossiping. You are playing into the right wing's hand when you do.

I never said the RFK Democrat read Newsmax, but that is where I found the story on the web AFTER I was informed about it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Try asking ABC news for the video. It was never aired. I am sure the right wing can put it on the Internet after the convention.

How could anyone possibly get DNA results without a court order? There is a right to privacy, or don't you recognize that? You don't make any sense.

END OF DISCUSSION

[MADem]

56. Sorry, no, it's NOT "end of discussion"

The "no woman complained, so it's all right?" excuse? That defies BELIEF. It's not a terribly "progressive" argument, either. You should know that. Funny that you don't.

But in any event, you're wrong--one woman complained, his WIFE. To say nothing of the vast number of female supporters who deserted him in droves after they found out not only about Ms. Rice, but another dalliance as well.

Here's a more important point--why do you care about an aged former Senator with absolutely no money, no backers, no presence in the Democratic race, and no press conference throwing his hat in the ring? And who is a bit inaccurate, shall we say, in his foreign policy predictions? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-october-surprise_b_30086.html And who is over the hill and making much of his money from writing thrillers under a pseudonym nowadays?

If the video you allege is a smoking gun never aired, how do you know it existed, save your reliance on a far right smear site that we don't cite here? Let me give you the answer to that--you don't. And let me give you another answer--the video doesn't exist. If it did, they'd have paid millions for it. You just perpetuated a rightwing smear job, on a left wing site.

And you CAN get DNA results without a court order. The cops do it all the time to establish probable cause. Everyone knows Bill's profile; thanks to Monica's dress. It's a simple matter to swab an old coke can that the so-called progeny used. You think the National Enquirer wouldn't have done that if it were actually true?

I've figured out exactly what you are. You're not very good at it, either. End of discussion, indeed!
:rofl:

[Hart2008]

60. Lee Hart, now married for 50 years, always stood by her man!

Sorry, Lee Hart never complained. In fact she took much of the blame for problems in their marriage herself:
“Lee Hart, a warm and feisty woman, defends her husband. She says the rumors are ''not worth dealing with'' and that reports about the difficulties in their marriage tend to place too much blame on her husband. There were, she says, ''things I would initially want to blame on Gary, but ultimately would have to realize that I was the one.''
May 3, 1987
GARY HART THE ELUSIVE FRONT-RUNNER
By E.J. DIONNE JR.; CHIEF NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE New York TIMES.

LEE HART HAS NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT GARY! NEVER!
YOU HAVE NOW MADE A BALD FACE LIE. SUPPORT IT OR DELETE IT!

When Bill Clinton was investigated for impeachment, the issue of his illegitimate son was discussed. It was determined not to be grounds for impeachment, not false. In the impeachment investigation and sexual harassment lawsuits other materials were gathered, including some material never published, but the photo from the video was published in 1998. There is no sense arguing with someone who believes only what she/he wants to believe, and makes up “facts” to support his/her primary news source, the National Enquirer.

I really didn’t want to discuss this. We were talking about impeachment. This thread is way off topic now, but the attacks on a prominent Democrat required me to put the issue in proper perspective.

Obviously, since you only read the National Enquirer you missed Hart’s predictions of a terrorist attack on the U.S. published September 6, 2001, or his work as Co-Chair of the Hart-Rudman commission which had predicted the same. Your ignorance and gullibility are now very readily apparent. What the National Enquirer reports or doesn’t report is not the issue. When national news media invade people’s privacy to make allegations about a candidate’s personal life and no one complained, and private citizens are smeared, it is offensive and a distraction from the real issues of the day. The real scandal of 1987 and the 1988 campaign was the Iran-contra affair. Because of the National Enquirer and Miami Herald, Bush became President instead of going to jail.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

61. Why do you persist in shopping around an inactive website of an old man in his 70s?

Lee Hart never complained, like Eleanor Roosevelt never complained. But hey, whatever. We'll pretend that election never happened, that the guy was not intemperate and hubris laden, because, you, for some reason, want to tout this impossible candidacy of an OLD man (born: 1936) who HAS NOT declared, and has NO organizational infrastructure, for reasons that I believe are disingenuous.

You throw out rightwing sources, and put up websites that haven't worked in some time, for what purpose, well...we'll see, I suppose, eventually.

Say, so long as I brought it up....why doesn't your second link work, there? Eh????? You're so eager to tout this guy, you'd think you'd be using up-to-date "RUN GARY RUN!!!" websites to tout your "favorite fellow."

Run Gary Hart, yeah, sure. Don't think so. The guy is close on to needing a walker.

And stop shopping lies about Clinton.

It's sure interesting how you tout an OLD MAN who isn't running on the one hand, and trash the husband of a candidate on the other. That little tactic isn't "unnoticed" and it has all the delicacy of doing crewel work with sledgehammers.

Show me where "the issue" was "discussed" in some other forum than a flaky rightwing site. You can't, because it wasn't.

[Hart2008]

66. Why do you persist in attacking a man who has honorably served his country?

With a 20 year old National Enquirer story none-the-less! Obviously, YOU harbor deep seeded animus towards the man over something that you allege happened 20 years ago. You falsely asserted that his wife had complained that he was a womanizer when she never said any such thing. For the younger crowd that has come around in the last 20 years and endured the Clinton scandals, they won’t understand what you are so hot and bothered about. It is more than fair to put your National Enquirer story, which you brought up, into its proper perspective. Name one woman who claimed to have sex with Gary Hart while he was married?

NO WOMAN EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT GARY HART.

You refuse to give the man any credit for his work on the terrorist threat to this country, predicting it, or accurately opposing the Iraq War Resolution. Then you wish to imply that I am some kind of Republican plant here? YOU ARE THE ONE OPPOSED TO IMPEACHMENT. (But you have an “impeach Bush” sign on your postings.

Gary Hart is in the same category as Gore and Clark. He hasn’t declared an intention either way, but he is speaking out on the issues on HuffingtonPost. YOU hate that. YOU HATE that people respond favorably to the man’s ideas. It really bothers YOU, doesn’t it? No one else here minds.

The “RunGaryHart.com” should be online by the end of the month. The other site is due for an upgrade, but still contains Hart’s opposition to the Iraq War, published in London on the first anniversary of 9-11, after the US MSM refused to publish it:
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/columns/columns/columns_09_11_2002.php
Why don’t you try engaging in a constructive criticism of the man’s ideas? Try reading Hart latest book, "The Shield and the Cloak". You can’t discus the man’s ideas. You are jealous. All you can do is engage in ad hominem personal attacks against the man. You are a Hart Hater. Admit it: YOU HATE THE MAN.

You have also demonstrated yourself to be an ageist. You invite people to discriminate against the man because of his age. Gary Hart is younger than both John McCain and Mike Gravel. Do you oppose Mike Gravel because he is older than Hart?
Hart’s latest post on HuffingtonPost shows he is still capable of clearly and succinctly blasting a leading Republican out of the water on election day with an authority as Co-Chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century no other candidate in this field can match. That really bothers you, doesn’t it? Hart was born in the depression and lived through the scarcity of the war. We can use that perspective now. No one from his generation, the Silent Generation, has ever captured the presidency. With the current mess in Washington, we need an elder statesman like Hart to restore the Republic itself from the imperialists and the corruption.

You “noticed” that when you attacked Gary Hart that I defended him? Good, you can get used to it. Talk about the issues and leave out the ad hominem attacks and we won’t have a problem. I was posting here about impeachment before you attempted to hijack the thread attacking Hart.

Since you are from Massachusetts, I suspect you are someone from the pathetically inept Dukakis campaign and are still trying to justify yourself by putting down Gary Hart. Hart saw what would happen in the general election in ’88 and he tried to save the party. 20 years later we can see how big the stakes were in 1988, with the birth of the Bush dynasty. (Many Hartistas might also say the Dukakis campaign was “intemperate and hubris laden” as well, but I digress…) Considering the lie of the political landscape, the failure of the Dukakis campaign was predictable. Hart’s return to save the party from disaster was noble indeed. You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to attack the man about that, now knowing the result. When you complain about the Bush dynasty, you should really look to yourself.

If you want further discussion on Clinton’s many problems try Googling the names previously mentioned. The London papers had a field day with the stories about Danny Williams and the libel laws are much stricter there. Funny but after New York civil rights attorney Ron Kuby agreed to give the boy’s family a free consultation on a radio show the boy and his mother disappeared from a Little Rock ghetto, moved to Australia and attended a private school. How strange for the son of a drug addicted prostitute.
:popcorn:

Life, what a beautiful choice.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[MADem]

67. That story defines him, he isn't announcing, he's old, and in my opinion

Gary Hart is NOT your real agenda.

But hey, whatever. I'll keep my eye on you.

[Zodiak]

35. so is the arrognace n/t

[Hart2008]

37. What is "arrognace"? I don't understand. n/t

[Zodiak]

65. arrogance.

Apparently bad typing is just as rampant.

[Auggie]

12. No one is above the law. Not even for political reasons.

These two must be held accountable for their lies.

[MADem]

14. They will be, by history if nothing else.

But trying to unload Cheney is a nonstarter--see my post above on the subject.

Unless, of course, you like the idea of President McCain. I sure don't.

And I wouldn't impeach Bush until Nov 08.

[Auggie]

25. MADem, it take several months for impeachment proceedings

to get off the ground, at which point the election will be in full swing. McCain's numbers aren't going to go up by then. Even if they did, he's still hawkish on a war nobody wants. McCain hasn't a chance -- and neither does any other war monger.

Cheney (and Bush) literally get away with murder otherwise. I want justice.

[MADem]

34. Proceed in November, Impeach in December, or even January.

I would like them to do it AFTER the elections. I'd like it not to be an issue during the contests.

WE own the Congress, we can speed things along if we need to. After all, we're working a FULL workweek now--we can get a lot done, faster. And if we keep the charges simple, the hearings will be brief. Damning evidence, if we can get it, doesn't need weeks or months of research.

I want the guy on the carpet, too. But keeping him in the box, defanged, for now, is a workable strategy in the interim. I'd like to deny him the pleasure of an inaugural ceremony and a dramatic farewell flight to Crawford, too, frankly.

That may sound mean, but he's not the only one who can have a mean bone in their body--when it comes to him, I'm mean.

And as for McCain's numbers? Just putting him in office could turn him around quicker than you realize. All he has to do is get out there and OWN the media--and how hard do you think that will be? The prowar corporations own all of the television outlets, they'll give him all the positive press he needs (see the recent Bill Moyers program for more on that unfortunate relationship). He'd get EVERY talking head show he wanted, from Meet the Press to Late Edition. He could cajole, persuade, be given opportunities to be a "good guy"--you underestimate the power of the corporate media at your peril. They can turn him from an ass to a saint with simple, repeated, exposure and a few manufactured issues that paint him in a good light. The people are easily led, unfortunately.

[frogcycle]

43. delete- mispost

[frogcycle]

44. the key is to assure the "caged" part

the pressure must be relentless

we need to chip away on all fronts, stopping appointments, forcing resignations, getting injunctions against environmental assaults, etc., etc.

they can do a LOT more damage in 18 months - not just the two, but the entire administration

they can still whisk people off for torture, can still ruin lives


and of course, the really big one - they still send kids into the meat grinder.
as long as bush is CinC with cheney backing him, that will be a stalemate. Sure, while we can't override a veto of an assertive, positive step to stop it, we can just flat fail to re-pass the supplemental after the veto. That will create havoc - they'll need to find a way to withdraw with the available funds.

Perhaps a new supplemental "earmarked" for withdrawal activities only? AFTER he vetoes this one, is empty-handed with no funding past July, give him a "monthly allowance" that is earmarked. He can use it to get them out, or he can veto and leave them there unfunded. THAT would be a constitutional crisis of the first order, and in all liklihood a twofer-impeachment putting Nancy in charge would fly through.

[MADem]

63. Absolutely. I agree on that completely. That IS how you keep the baastids in a box.

By continually pounding them and keeping them on the defensive.

The monthly allowance idea isn't a bad one, at all. It keeps the argument alive, and forces even the corporate media to cover the story every month!

[mikelgb]

51. Because you care about more than politics

you care about doing what is right and just

It is so sad to see everybody shun impeachment because they think the same thing will happen to them that happened to the republicans when they "tried it"

we have righteousness on our side, Bush and Cheney Have truly violated the constitution of the United States of America. Members of Congress are sworn to uphold the constitution not to uphold the status quo or the president or the villainous vice president.

I wish on this one issue Democrats could be as lock-step as Republicans were when they crafted their impeachment tactic.

[MADem]

62. Well, honestly, I don't want to exchange bad for worse. That's certainly "political" but what would

the alternative accomplish? Seriously--you start impeaching Cheney, he resigns. The Senate and House confirm McCain as the replacement. And they would, even though there are those who insist otherwise. He'd be, to quote a disgraced intelligence official, a "slam dunk."

And then, the corporate media would swing into what they do best--touting, softening, molding opinion. Puff pieces galore, they'd be cannonizing the man--he is a healer, a uniter, a straight talker...anyone doesn't have to think too hard to imagine the coverage. Faux, CNN, GE-NBC (We Bring Good Wars to Life) would all pile on with soft-soap stories.

Anyone who pointed out the simple truth about the man would be accused of WANTING to keep America divided, of REOPENING wounds, of all sorts of manufactured evils. We've seen how they work--it would be a Swiftboat times ten.

There'd be triangulating by McCain in order to appear even more reasonable and saintly, maybe on an issue or three that are near and dear to key voting segments which cross party lines, like HEALTH care or elderly services, or meaningful education reform--and McCain would be front and center, and flying all over hell on OUR dime, campaigning, boosting, touting.

You then go after Bush with an impeachment effort, and, if he can't stall the proceedings until very late in his term, he resigns and right after the election, President elect McCain pardons him.

What do we get for our principle? Four more years of this same shit. And maybe, horror of horrors, Vice Fucking President Romney...now THAT's SCARY.

I really DO think that the Senate Majority Leader and Madame Speaker would stick it to the BushCo baaastids if they could do it successfully. They don't do it, because they know they can't get both chambers to back this effort. And even in the House, you've got a D majority, but count those Blue Dogs--they're not hundred percenters, they need to be cajoled and wooed. And they aren't feeling enough love yet, they just aren't. The votes just are NOT there....

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Pelosi's constituents voted 60% in November for impeachment. Maybe they

will let her know that they mean it.

[calimary]

40. And the rest of us should, also.

BTW - to Winebrat - I just looked up the stats on this guy, Mike Thompson. LORD, he's got some nice turf in his district! I fell in love in Little River, California (just outside Fort Bragg) once. I fell in love WITH Little River, California, more precisely.

[babylonsister]

3. Pelosi's said it, doesn't make it right. nt

[AndyA]

4. What he doesn't say is what will happen if wrongdoing is uncovered.

While Congress has taken impeachment off the table at this time, we are committed to conducting aggressive oversight hearings of the Bush administration's failed policies, beginning with the Iraq War. I fully support these efforts and look forward to working with my colleagues to provide much-needed oversight, accountability, and transparency to this administration's policies.

So, how about it, Mike? What are you going to do if/when you discover evidence that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by Bush and Cheney? Are you going to just ignore them? If you do, you are as bad as they are.

The Dems are stupid if they think they can just let this go without punishment. That's an insult to the American people!

I seriously believe we must replace ALL OF THEM. We need people in office who will do WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO, not what they "think" we want!

[ccpup]

8. and replace them with WHO?

look around America (or even around DU) and tell me who you would want to be making HUGE decisions? I take a look around my community, my State, my Country and don't see anyone above being corrupted, above being a complete idiot and making decisions based on what's whispered in his or her ear and not what's good for EVERYONE. We always talk about kicking EVERYONE out of DC, but we never discuss who -- amongst the undereducated, misinformed, craven, American Idol-watching masses -- would take their place! None of us are above being corrupt and even here on DU I see petty fights break out over someone's candidate and "that" MSM sponsored lie being okay 'cause it's against someone I don't like/support, but "THAT" lie against MY candidate is horrible, monstrous, we live in Russie now, etc and so on (fill in the blank) rant rant rant. Do I want someone like THAT making HUGE decisions which affect everyone?

I sometimes think it's better to have someone in DC who knows the Game, can play the Game and actually get things done because they've been there for years than a whole new crop of brand new people who may not have a clue or get a clue for years. And what happens 'till they get that clue? We, the American People, continue to suffer.

Sorry for the rant (it's not personally directed at you), but I've always wondered this and decided today would be the day to ask the Big Question.

[AndyA]

10. You don't believe there are any honest people who could do these jobs?

You may not know about them because they aren't able to raise $30 million just so they can run. Which is why we must take ALL PRIVATE MONEY out of the campaign process. It must be publicly funded, so all candidates have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to get their message out.

Do you honestly believe the lot we currently have are the best people for those jobs? In some cases, they may be. Russ Feingold. Henry Waxman. But what about George Bush? Is he the best person, most qualified to be President? Not on your life.

We don't want people who can "play the game" because the game always short changes the American citizen. Lobbyists have the money to push things through, like the wonderful new bankruptcy law that has been so helpful to consumers. And the laws that allow 20% plus interest rates on credit cards, and if you pay one card a day late, all the others can raise their rates too.

I don't want people who are familiar with "the game." I want people who have high values, and will challenge the current system to make it better. I want people who will say, "We aren't going to give ourselves a raise. No one else does. We want our constituents to vote on whether we get a raise or not, based on our job performance."

I want people who will say, "Why should we have such great retirement benefits, when the people we work for don't? Let's bring everyone to the same level."

Out with the old, in with the new! A lot of the people in office have been there for years, and all of these same problems still exist. I want new people who will challenge the status quo, question everything, and have a sincere desire to fix the problems, without pressure from older members to "go with the flow."

This might seem impossible, but it will never happen if we don't want it to happen.

[ccpup]

13. First of all,

I never said the people in office are the best. And bush will, without doubt, go into the history books as the worst pResident we've ever had and, like Nixon, live the rest of his days with his infamy hanging over him like a putrid, rotting cloud.

But, like it or not, some of these people who can "play the game" do very well for their Constituents. They have the contacts and the know-how to address Constituent concerns, contacts and know-how which might take a Regular Joe who's intelligent but brand new to legislating and the workings of Congress/Senate years to develop. There is more the a Congressperson's or Senator's job than making the Impeachment-hungry (and rightly so, I might add) blog-o-sphere happy. I suspect if the Senator or Congressperson were ignoring their Constituents, they wouldn't have their jobs.

We're more on the same page than you might think. I just believe throwing everyone out all at once so we can get new blood in there (all at once) could, in the very and unnecessarily painful beginning, be more counter-productive to our shared goals than we realize or could expect. In the end, the changing of our Government is inevitable, but we should make the changes "smartly" and not "rashly".

[AndyA]

17. I don't think it would be possible or wise to throw everyone out at one time.

But it can be done in large enough chunks that the status quo is disrupted. And I think this disruption would be a good thing, given the bull that goes on in Washington these days.

Regarding impeachment, it is an OBLIGATION, not an option to impeach if high crimes and misdemeanors are uncovered. Pelosi cannot just say "it's off the table" because the Constitution commands that Congress SHALL IMPEACH. It does not offer them the option of not doing it.

With a higher turn over rate, in a decade of so we'd have plenty of new blood to do the people's work. Reform is going to have to come from new members, the old ones aren't going to want to give up what they already have.

I'd like to be able to just give myself a raise, too. Regardless of how my business is operating, regardless of my performance. But in the real world that doesn't happen, just in Congress. And they will vote themselves a raise, while ignoring the fact the minimum wage hasn't been adjusted in recent history. If they need more money, why don't the people they work for need more as well?

It's a double standard, and the only way I see of changing it is to get rid of the old standard. Yes, it should be done in an organized fashion, we would never be able to achieve a 100% turn rate in two election cycles, but if the rate of new blood increased dramatically for a few cycles, it would send a powerful message to the rest of them.

I'm just tired of all the crap.

[gratuitous]

5. Dear Mr. Thompson

You know, we fell down on the job back in the 1970s, and we didn't clean out that nest of vipers that was the corrupt Nixon administration. Thirty years later, several of those vipers (Rumsfeld, and Cheney) and their unholy spawn (Negroponte, Abrams, Feith( slithered back into power in Washington, squandered $9 trillion dollars, killed hundreds of thousands through their murderous negligence and willful criminality, and came within an ace of destroying our American system.

What will our children be facing in 2028 if these criminals aren't run to ground and made to answer for their sins? This isn't a problem we can just kick down the road. History has taught us, if we have eyes to see it, that this cancer must be wholly excised from our body politic. And if you won't do it, perhaps we'll need to find someone else who can. You're on the wrong side of this story right now, Mr. Thompson. There's still time to get on the right side. You have the evidence. You have the proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. Your duty is clear and unmistakable. Do your job.

[Hart2008]

7. They would rather play politics than defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.

"Your duty is clear and unmistakable. Do your job."

I fear they are more interested in passing legislation that makes lobbyists happy than to tie up the Congress with impeachment proceedings. I think politically they would be better forcing the Repubs to vote against impeachment and then have another issue to hammer them with in November 2008.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

29. I'd like to see Republicans have to vote on impeachment, too. Then go to the polls

in 2008.

[leftofthedial]

9. "lead our country in a new and positive direction"

really means "lead our country in exactly the same direction, but with a slightly different style.

[mnhtnbb]

23. Bingo. They are still afraid of Bushco and still beholden to money.

Serving the citizens of this country, or upholding the Constitution is the farthest thing from their minds.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Concise and spot on!

:thumbsup:

"Bingo. They are still afraid of Bushco and still beholden to money. Serving the citizens of this country, or upholding the Constitution is the farthest thing from their minds."

[mmonk]

22. My bubble hasn't burst. I gave up on my country alot already back in 2004.

I know those of us who want the constitution defended have no chance. Just like those of us that didn't want the courts of this country to fall to people who don't believe in equal protection under the law. Just like those of us that didn't want the United States to launch a war and invasion of the country of Iraq. Just like us that would like to see access to healthcare for all Americans. Just like us who would like to see media consolidation reversed. I know that the kind of country I want for my children (one of them 22 years old) isn't gong to be there for them like I hoped. I've accepted fate. My political advocacy will now switch from the politics of the ballot box to organizations such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, The Autism Society and the United Nations Association of America. Voting for real preservation of rights or for change and progression of civil society has proven itself futile in this slow rightward march. It now has to be approached differently.

[sandnsea]

24. "at this time"

Doesn't say it wouldn't change in the future. People should keep pushing. Between the Moyers program and Tenet's book - we might just get to a place where people see the war lies were intentional. I don't think people have fully grasped what this administration did, along with everything else they've done.

[Dr Fate]

26. Good to know that our leaders agree with Bush and the media so much. n/t

n/t

[guidod]

28. It's to late

to impeach. We don't need that going on during an election, IMO, we would be shooting ourselves in t he foot.

[mtnsnake]

31. Too late?? All the naysayers have been claiming it's too early

It'll only be too late if we wait much longer. Here we've finally got control of the House, a member of it who's got the guts to hold the administration responsible for its crimes, and people are sitting around twiddling their thumbs worrying about political ramifications of impeachment. Unbelievable.

[guidod]

32. We have control

of the Congress by a very small thread. Get real.

[mtnsnake]

42. I thank my lucky stars every night

that I don't have a loser mentality like you do. Never did and never will.

You get real.

[mtnsnake]

30. The biggest case for impeachment in history sits before us, & we're squandering it away

Great.

[calimary]

39. I think the key words here are "at this time." So, okay, maybe they

aren't into pursuing this "at this time."

But Henry Waxman is still investigating. And he's turned up an AWFUL LOT in just a few short months.

This letter didn't say we will FLAT-OUT ABSOLUTELY NEVER consider it. It said no - "AT THIS TIME." Sounds to me as though the door is no longer slammed shut - OR locked.

If we keep pushing, and encouraging others to keep pushing, that condition will continue to evolve. Check this out:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070427_progress_towards_imp.htm

[frogcycle]

45. push them until their response is so atrocious

that the public demands their removal in overwhelming numbers


of course we want our elected "leaders" to lead, but in this climate we need to make absolutely sure they have solid, overwhelming, bipartisan backing, so it defangs the rw extremists

we CANNOT risk a backlash that puts more of the same in 18 months from now.

the coup would be solidified and we could kiss the former United States of America goodbye.

[rhett o rick]

46. Bottom line is that loved ones are dieing while these tyrants are in power.

Nothing is as important as legally getting them out of office.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. Someone needs to pull a Norma Rae and jump on Pelosi's table

and hold up a sign: "IMPEACH the sumbitch NOW!"

[rodeodance]

53. would be a lovely sight to see.

[Beam Me Up]

48. Expose the truth --

or even the many unanswered questions -- regarding 9/11, and impeachment will not only be guaranteed, it will be the least of it:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17422.htm

[Triana]

49. How is impeaching the sewer rats in the White House SEPERATE...

...from "leading our country in a new and positive direction"?

THEY ARE NOT TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THINGS! They are part of the SAME PROCESS. DOH!

Gaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwddddddd! The utter stupidity!

So what they're saying is that NO MATTER WHAT THE BU$H ADMIN DOES IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE.

Folks, that is NOT.

I repeat: NOT

how you "lead our country in a new and positive direction" - by IGNORING and REFUSING to DO ANYTHING about the blatantly hideous and WHOLLY ILLEGAL crimes being committed against it and against people all over the world. You "lead our country in a new and positive direction" by IGNORING THE LAW and REFUSING to enforce it?¿¿¿! :spray:

Helloooooooooooooooooo? Hyea.

Nobody home back there, is there?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

SO...they're DOING the very SAME thing bu$hit is doing: Violating the constitution and refusing to uphold the checks and balances our forefathers put in place - and violating the very essence of their positions as public servants - and enabling bu$hit in the whole process - to continue violating the LAW. They're essentially REFUSING TO DO THEIR JOBS. Notice the term is PUBLIC **SERVANTS**.

NOT ***SELF-SERVANTS***

We don't pay their overbloated salaries so they can sit up there and serve THEMSELVES. But that's what they're doing. To Hell with the Country and The People - they're just up there to serve...who's left?

~~~~~~~THEMSELVES~~~~~~~

[yojon]

50. Now it is possible that these

"aggressive oversight hearings of the Bush administration's failed policies" may continue to come up with horrors so aggregious that even the most reptilian of congress critters will have no choice but to support impeachment. This is what happened to Nixon.

Malloy once said something about even if * was caught sitting on the White House lawn nibbling the heads off white babies, robots like Mitch McConnell would still defend him. Maybe he has to get caught nibbling the heads off white babies from Mitch McConnells home district...

[rodeodance]

52. A month or so ago--Tony Snow had a good laugh when a Press core reporter

brought this issue up------laughingly saying-Pelosi said it is off the table. the WH was/is eating this up.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Once again the American people will have to force Democrats to do what they don't want to do

Democrats didn't want to put troop withdrawal timetables on Bush's supplemental budget request, but public demand and the November elections forced them to do what they didn't want to do. A majority of Americans will support the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Looks like once again, the public will have to force Democrats to do what they don't want to do.

[ShortnFiery]

59. JUST LIKE we had to go out into the streets to force our illustrious Congress ...

to get us out of the Vietnam Conflict. Deja Vu MFs! :grr:

Well, there's tons of money being raised and kickbacks galore as long as that "War Machine" stays on full tilt. Heaven forbid we stop throwing our beloved sons and daughters into "the intake." :grr:

Did I mention that there's BILLIONS to be made that benefit many of our democratic representatives financially? ... We have a real problem here, i.e., those representatives who are personally invested up to their eyeballs in the corporations who support The Military Industrial Complex.

It's back to the figurative "base ball bat" approach.

Dumb A** legislators never learn. :(

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Thompson is also my congressman; I've written him a couple of times about this

I get very much the same answer.

However, "no impeachment" is always qualified with "at this time" or "would be devisive right now". He doesn't say "not now, not ever." That is encouraging.

I plan to write him again when events warrant. That may be next week.

[CitizenPhotographer]

57. DC impeachment pics. Get them while they are hot.

http://www.elementope.com/html_css/index.php

and

http://iamareporter.smugmug.com/gallery/2630150#147567813

[Cha]

64. "Moving forward" is all fine and good..

but when ya got cheney and bush thumbing their snouts at the country with a .."I double dare ya to Impeach us..watch this!!"

Then they might just have to rethink.. :think: ya think?

[Vinca]

68. I'm starting to think we'd make more progress if we petitioned

other countries to indict them as war criminals.