Politics 101 - Impeachment in a GOP-dominated congress

[rpgamerd00d]

People keep saying "We can't impeach, the Repubs will never even let the vote get to the floor."

Duh.

If we don't ask for Impeachment, then the Republicans never have to go on record OPPOSING IT.
If we do ask for Impeachment, then the Republicans HAVE TO go on record OPPOSING IT.

Not only that, but we aren't even giving the moderate Repubs a chance to do the right thing. We are simply assuming they will not. By not pushing for impeachment, we'd end up REMOVING THE NEED FOR THEM TO DO THE WRONG THING ON RECORD.

Politics 101.

"Here is my pawn. I take your Rook."

[NanceGreggs]

1. "giving the mod Repubs a chance to do the right thing ...

My thoughts exactly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/12/21_excuses.html

[Tamyrlin79]

14. You know....

If you really want to impeach, this is what HAS to go down:

1. Dems must find at least 17 "moderate Republicans" in the House who are willing to defect and "do the right thing" for the sake of the Republic. (16 gets us a majority coalition, but we'll need 17 because we will lose at least one of these members to the Executive branch after impeachment proceedings successfully occur... Actually, you only need 16 to get the process started, but you need to pick up at least one more supporter before it completes or your one-vote majority will be diminished)

2. Dems must promise two of these people that for their defection, they get to be 1) President and 2) Speaker of the House. Support the idea of a moderate Senator for the new VP slot, to "grease the wheels" of impeachment once it goes to trial in the Senate

3. Dems use this new bipartisan coalition to oust current House Speaker Dennis Hastert and replace him with the agreed upon leader of this 16-member Republican moderate caucus. In return for being made speaker, this person will agree to allow impeachment proceedings and other oversight measures progress in the House. The new speaker must agree to House ethics reforms that will cripple the Radical Right's hold on the Republican party and use his position as speaker to bring about internal reforms in the Repug Party.

4. Impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If tried and found guilty in the Senate, they are removed.

5. Moderate Repub. Speaker of the House Dude ascends to the presidency and picks a new VP, who will be approved by the bipartisan coalition in the House.

6. The bipartisan coalition supports a new, permanent Speaker of the House who will continue with ethics reforms and ongoing investigations.

[hwmnbn]

60. Are there 17 moderate repugs in the whole country?!?...

Thanks for laying out the scenario. I hadn't thought that far ahead ASSUMING the repugs in power are bastards who wouldn't do the right thing.

[MadisonProgressive]

2. ABsoLUTEly!

It certainly can't hurt!

[catnhatnh]

3. BINGO

you hit it exactly and anything I added would be superflous....Kudos

[MrBenchley]

4. Look how well the Murtha resolution worked out....

It's funny to hear somebody claim "Politics 101" who doesn't seem to realize that the Republicans control the floor.

[rpgamerd00d]

5. Wow, did you totally not get it.

Try reading it again.

[MrBenchley]

7. I got it....

I just found it silly...

[rpgamerd00d]

8. Then you didn't get it.

You force a vote.
Yes, we get impeachment.
No, we get Congress in 06.

I beat people like you in strategy games all the time.
:D

[MrBenchley]

9. I got it....

"I beat people like you in strategy games"
Yippee-fucking-do. Do you get a little tinfoil gold star?

You probably still can't figure out why the Murtha resolution was such a loser/

[WilliamPitt]

11. Um...

I think you are playing "Procedure 101."

The OP is playing "Politics 101."

Big difference.

[MrBenchley]

15. So which is likely to happen?

A) The Republicans allow an up or down vote on the resolution just as it is submitted....

B) The Republicans allow an up or down vote on an altered version of the resolution that's so screwed up that even the democrats who submitted the original have to vote against it (Hello, Jack Murtha!) and we have anotehr public relations debacle.

C) The Republicans stuff it where the sun don't shine and there is never a vote.

Anybody who thinks A is going to happen probably should stick to board games and stay away from actual politics.

[Don Claybrook]

20. What's this Murtha resolution you keep referring to?

Murtha didn't have a resolution on the floor of the House, at least not one that had to do with leaving Iraq. You should pay much, much closer attention than you do and quit comforting yourself so much to DLC/Republican talking points.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don Claybrook]

29. There is no Murtha resolution

how long will it take this information to

p
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
e

through what must be a quite impressive skull?


You have a wonderful, centerist day. (that is, if focus groups agree that it's ok to have a wonderful, centerist day)

(spelling edit)

[MrBenchley]

31. The view must be magnificent that far from reality

What is HJ Res 73?

[onenote]

35. centrist Democrats had little to do with what happened to the Murtha res

Even if the Dems had been united behind the Murtha resolution (as proposed by Murtha), it wouldn't have made it to the floor. Nothing would have changed. The repub leadership would never let it get to the floor. The repubs would've introduced their version and Dems, both centrist and not, would vote against it just as happened before. Again, its simple Politics 101. The repubs control the House. So they control what bills get out of committee, and when, and in what form. You can chain every Democratic member of Congress together so that when one votes they all vote the same way, and nothing much would change. Until we get a majority back in the House.

onenote

[MrBenchley]

37. Remember, that would be the same Murtha resolution

that doesn't exist (snicker)....

[Don Claybrook]

39. still addled?

I can't really say that I'm surprised. But I count it all to the good. It's been very instructive to get an introduction to you and what you're about. As Emille Faber famously said, knowledge is good.

[MrBenchley]

40. Yup, you seem to be still addled....

What is HJ Res 73?

[Don Claybrook]

41. hey, scooter, watch this trick

I WAS WRONG.

I did exactly as you requested and looked up the joint resolution. Sure enough, you're right and I'm wrong. This is not the resolution that came to the floor for a vote, and that's what I was getting at, but you already knew this. And yes, it feels bad to be wrong about this when it came to such a public head; it burns a little bit, and I hope you can find some joy in that.

The fact remains that the GOP pulled a stunt and brought an entirely different resolution to the floor for a vote.

The fact also remains that you wish to surrender to Republicans because you fancy yourself a chess player and believe that you can gain some advantage by bending over for them and hoping to recoup your losses after the last of your dignity has been taken from you. I suppose I'm just a little too simple for that and I'd prefer to destroy them in straighforward fashion.

But again, it's important for me to admit it when I find out I'm dead wrong on an assertion, and in this instance, I was. Savor the moment, pragmatist.

[MrBenchley]

43. I find no joy in that.....

"The fact remains that the GOP pulled a stunt and brought an entirely different resolution to the floor for a vote."
Now, do you think that wouldn't happen with an impeachment resolution as well?

"I suppose I'm just a little too simple for that and I'd prefer to destroy them in straighforward fashion."
Yeah, but all you'd end up doing is making a public ass of yourself.

[bettyellen]

62. i'm thinking that since Katrina and *'s admission of criminal acts

the tenor of the debate, and the press coverage has changed greatly.
why do you think raising the issue is a bad idea? is it pointless to you unless we can win?

[MrBenchley]

63. An ineffectual gesture is worse than none at all

since it has the potential to backfire (as the Murtha amendment did)....

[bettyellen]

68. i can see how easy it was to get confused about Murtha's aim

as the whole withdrawl/ timetable thing and the machinations of rewriting his legislation, etc., is plenty complicated, and i don't think the press really had any desire to clarify things. I dunno if the whole thing got enough press to matter one way or another.
But how would impeachment be twisted up or misunderstood? I don't see they have a lot of wiggle room to paint it as anything else than what it is.
In what way do you anticipate it backfiring, and creating any problems for anyone but the chimp?

[MrBenchley]

69. Never underestimate what malice can achieve....

[bettyellen]

70. well the malice is and has been there since day 1...

so i'm not getting the point. seriously, is it to do nothing until you are assured success?
i appreciate your patience, mr b. just trying to wrap my head around this whole mess.

[MrBenchley]

71. Again, if futile gestures likely to backfire seem to you a good idea

then I don't know what to say.

There's no chance that any resolution such as described here would go for an honest up or down vote while the Republicans control Congress as is. As I see it, there's a good chance that anything put forward would be distorted as badly as the Murtha Resolution was, and we'd have another public relations debacle.

[bettyellen]

74. well, i think the dems are getting smarter handling the press

who have themselves been chasened a bit after their unquestioning support of the admin. it seems the winds have changed greatly after Katrina, and if we go about things in a smart way, they can change even more. i think it's more about further weakening bush, more than getting the impeachment.
i think it's great harry reid is using his month off so productively.
there's going to be a lot of bullshit coming about a forthcoming "victory" declared in iraq and we're going to have to deal with that as well. it seems no matter if we do something or not, their spin machine is going 24/7. doesn't seem to be a reason to sit things out, so to speak.
and i think the press focusing on the criminal acts of * is a good thing no matter what, it'll hurt him more than us.

[MrBenchley]

75. But there's a big difference between that

and maneuvers on the Congressional floor....

[bettyellen]

76. can you elaborate?

i know that until the midterm elections we are bascially fucked. But in the meantime, do you see any problems with slowly trying this in the court of public opion, so to speak? I think if handled well, it can only help us do better in November, no. the only card i can see them playing right now is terra terra and more terra, and if we can force an examination of what's really gone on in iraq, as well as the conntinuing lapses in national security and the lack of any inroads against terrorists (as well as setbacks caused by) despite the spy program. well, you know, i think they have to be fought on a lot of fronts. i believe they are trying to claim a mandate of absolute power in the executive branch that does not exist, * absoltely does not have the confidence of most americans these days. he's never been weaker, so the timing seems good now.
but if not now, when? what conditions do you believe we would we have to have for us to push the impeachment issue?

[MrBenchley]

77. Really, what more do you need?

"o you see any problems with slowly trying this in the court of public opion, so to speak? "
No...but that's not what the thread is about.

"what conditions do you believe we would we have to have for us to push the impeachment issue? "
Control of the House would be nice...but I don't see that happening unless the Delay/Abramoff thing REALLY blows up.

[bettyellen]

78. i actually thought the thread was about trying to force the issue

and get our representatives in govt to do the right thing, or go on record as supporting extended powers for the executive branch, etc, which would be doing the wrong thing, on record. and by forcing the issue and on the record, i did take it to mean, the public record- the media, which they would do by refusing to bring this to the floor.
i can't see why this is a bad time to keep the issue alive in every way possible. but i think we read the OP differently, i didn't see in it the thought that impeachment was conceivable at this point in time.

[MrBenchley]

85. It's about having a resolution in Congress

and clearly says so...

[Don Claybrook]

38. yes, I understand that, and I agree with you

This would've been an on-the-record statement of who stands where, not a definitive lever to get troops out of Iraq. But it sure could've been the beginning of the end. I think you're right; they never could've gotten anything to the floor, at least not in the form they wanted it, but they could've made lots more noise than they did.

Thanks.

[Stand and Fight]

54. kgfnally is right.

I've monitored the poster in question and he seems to thoroughly enjoy arguing for no reason whatsoever. I've come upon thread-after-thread in which this MrBenchley is rude to other DUers. You'd do better to not take his curt responses with a grain of salt. Just my humble opinion.

[tavalon]

47. Do you think what the OP is talking about

is something that will happen in Congress? No, it will happen in the court of public opinion.

I suppose you think Cindy Sheehan demanding that Bush talk to her is silly because he's never going to talk to her (and if you do, let me just say that you have no idea who Cindy Sheehan is actually talking to).

[MrBenchley]

65. Hahahaha...so even you think it's a silly comment

"I suppose you think Cindy Sheehan demanding that Bush talk to her is silly because he's never going to talk to her"
Again, Cindy Sheehan isn't in Congress. But hey, let's pull absurd non sequitours out of thin air and pretend they make sense.(snicker)

[tavalon]

83. You sure aren't the brightest bulb in the box

are you? That was a very pertinent example, directly applicable.

[MrBenchley]

86. In other words....

Even you think it's silly...

[Fovea]

53. You see the Murtha debacle as a negative for the Dems?

That's curious. I and most of my friends saw it for what it was, a really cheap proceedural gaming of Congress wherein the Republicans showed that they have for the most part abandoned ethical behavior to save their president. I suspect that 80% of those paying attention on both sides of the aisle would agree under pentathal.

Of course, now that shrub is an admitted felon, and 06 bears down on the Republican majorities, I think we have a different ballgame.

[MrBenchley]

66. It sure as shit was....

as was Dean's idiotic "we can't win" remark....

"I think we have a different ballgame."
And if we play in a really stupid manner, we've only ourselves to blame.

[Occulus]

13. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=2667&mesg_id=2680

[MrBenchley]

16. Wow, nally....don't you ever get tired of showing

what lame wankers the videots are?

[Occulus]

21. It isn't about that at all n/t

[MrBenchley]

23. Sure isn't about anything else....

But it does give me a big laugh at how pathetic the videots are....

And it gives me a bigger laugh that you keep dredging it up in such a clueless manner.

[Occulus]

26. You are the only one laughing. n/t

[tavalon]

46. You find it silly

to force the Republicans to show their true colors?

Interesting.

[MrBenchley]

64. I find it silly to the point of idiocy

to think this addle-pated strategy would work.

[ThomWV]

72. Amen Brother!

These folks don't seem to understand that the Democrats don't get the opportunity to ask the question in the first place.

Conyers in a basement don't count.

[MrBenchley]

73. I find it appalling

that so many seem to have no idea of what we used to call in my day "civics"...

[tavalon]

45. Did you read the OP?

Why doncha go back and read it again, eh?

[MrBenchley]

67. It hasn't improved with age....

and even YOU said it won't work in Congress.....

[tavalon]

84. Neither has your reading comprehension

Howzabout you read it again?

[A Simple Game]

6. We know how the Republicans love up or down votes.

They would allow an up or down vote for impeachment, wouldn't they?

[0rganism]

10. You may be overestimating the popularity of impeachment

Remember, the bush propaganda machine has not even begun to fight this battle. The first thing we will hear about is how much damage Clinton's impeachment did to the national dialog, and how Americans are all so tired of impeachment circuses. Then we will be treated to a detailed review of everything Lewinsky.

By the time such an article reaches the floor, assuming the speaker even allows it on the schedule for a floor vote, a "No" may be considered a political asset.

Politics 101: propaganda works.

[BushOut06]

12. Impeach on the illegal wiretaps - much easier that way

You could probably get an impeachment going based on the illegal wiretapping even without a majority Democrat Congress. Many GOPers are pretty pissed about this. It would be much easier than impeaching over the Iraq War, because you'll pretty much split along party lines on that one.

[librechik]

17. Some of the "terrorists" we're prosecuting are filing suit against ShrubCo

I guess they think some of the evidence against them must have been obtained illegally!

Dragged out in the courts indeed--in the good sense!

Methinks the times will ripen. As with Nixon, even the Pukkkes will be forced ultimately to move to impeach. Not to mention all the Abramoff stuff about to end the careers of BUNCHES of Republicans, (NO DEMS, HAHAHA)That could change the balance of Congress on its own.

I'm being optimistic here, but I think there's a chance it could happen, even with Repukkkes in charge.

[BushOut06]

19. Remember - Nixon wasn't impeached because of the actual crime

The break-in, that is. He was impeached (or would have been, that is) because of the coverup. Bush is busy creating such a web of deceit right now, it should be rather easy to bring him down.

[Gregorian]

18. Yes. 1/6th of the republicans is all it takes.

It'll happen. It's already happening.

Now I find myself scribbling on a piece of paper, to figure out how many republicans must vote in favor, in order to make two-thirds. Hmmm, two-thirds minus one-half equals one-sixth.

One sixth of the republicans have to have what it takes.

edit- In a perfect world. And that kind of fucks up my optimism...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

27. If enough people contacted their Rep. congressmen - it'd have an effect.

n/t

[PuppyBismark]

30. Not to mention that the law requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict

So, after the house votes to impeach, we need how many Senators??????????

[onenote]

32. Politics 101 -- in the real world, not fantasy land

The OP's theory is that "If we do ask for Impeachment, then the Republicans HAVE TO go on record OPPOSING IT." And the answer is:

NO THEY DON'T.

Just because a resolution gets introduced doesn't mean a vote gets taken or that there is anything that can be done by the minority party to force a vote. It might come as a bit of a surprise to many here, but two resolutions seeking impeachment of Bush I were introduced in 1991. A resolution seeking impeachment of Rumsfeld was introduced in 2004. And Conyers has introduced his resolution relating to impeachment this year. And you know what happens? They get referred to a committee (typically either rules or judiciary) and then maybe to a subcommittee. And then they disappear from view for ever and ever. There is nothing that the minority can do to force even a hearing on these resolutions.

You know how many bills and resolutions get introduced every Congress? You know how many actually ever are the subject of a vote "on the record" even at the Committee level? The graveyard of bills and resolutions that never see the light of day is enormous.

So all that's left would be for Mr. Conyers and other Democrats to stand up every day and say, we want a hearing or a vote on our resolution. And every day James Sensenbrenner or David Dreir can say, "thank you" for your views and move on to whatever they want to move on to. No hearings. No votes. No one going on the record. Nothing.

That's Politics 101.

onenote

[MrBenchley]

33. Amazing. isn't it?

Some people seem to have no clue as to how politics works.....

[walldude]

34. Well in the "real world' Bush has broken the law and subverted

the U.S. Constitution. In the "real world" we are going to keep hammering those statements that the Neo-Con leaders made about the "rule of law" when they impeached Clinton up their asses until something gets done. While some people sit around DU pissing and moaning about how it'll never happen, the rest of us aren't going to just throw in the towel. I'd rather go down knowing I did as much as possible, that I signed as many petitions, that I wrote as many letters, and that I made as many phone calls as I could trying to get something done rather than get on DU and shit on anyone who is actually doing something besides whining.

[onenote]

36. No one is stopping anyone from trying anything.

But if someone makes an argument that the benefit of pushing the impeachment issue is that it will force the repubs to take a position on on the record, that person is making a poor argument because it will do no such thing. And I'd rather the poor arguments get vetted here before folks start believing them and make fools of themselves.

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

48. And in the real world, the Dems make an issue about that

stonewalling in the media. And every day, the media reports "Impeachment stonewalled again in committee". Over and over. And we take the house and senate in 06.

Sheesh, do I have to actually spell out the details of the plan?

[onenote]

49. in the real world the media will get bored with that story in two days

bet on it. Or even worse, the media will depict the Democrats as tilting at windmills, spending their time in a fruitless pursuit of an impeachment strategy that lacks sufficient public support to cow the repubs into doing anything other than thank their lucky stars that the Dems aren't focusing on the things the voters actually care about.

onenote

[bettyellen]

61. that's so Pre- Katrina. It's a new world, and the Spygate has been in the

news for two weeks, Cheney is going to be indicted, polls DO show support for impeachment. :shrug:

[Stand and Fight]

58. Nope...

For the past five years Democrats HAVE been pointing out a lot of the shit the Republicans have been doing, and they have gone unreported or wholly ignored by the media. It may be that our perceptions of the media is different, but the media is neither fair nor liberal. It is very much skewed in favor of the Conservatives and Republicans.

[Stand and Fight]

57. I agree.

I believe the best way is to try to whip up public support for a resolution of inquiry into the actions of the Bush administration. Mentioning the word impeachment is kind of jumping the gun when one should first identify their target and get it in the sights of their weapon. Suggesting impeachment before laying that foundation is a little backwards, but who knows? Maybe it can work, but I would suggest a better thought out plan.

And if we want to get ugly about the truth, here it is... Democrats would do better to focus their energies on winning back the House and Senate, because Republicans are not going to do the right thing. Moderate Republicans can only be induced to act if they feel the threat of losing the support of their constituents. I don't think they're worried about that currently.

Democrats winning back the House -- at least -- is the only way I can see anything coming to the floor. They'd have to be the majority first.

[Dinger]

42. Ooooh, Good One K & R (nt)

[tavalon]

44. Exactly!!

I've been yelling this at my computer for the last couple of weeks. My computer thinks I'm nuts. It may be right.

[Cleita]

50. Oh, I agree. Our elected representatives should be

demanding that the Republicans start an investigation. We don't have to sit around with our tails between our legs waiting for a change in Congress.

[Silverhair]

51. You are assuming that the general public actually wants impeachment.

Remember that the country is about evenly divided and strongly polarized. The vote split close to evenly (within a few points difference)in both elections. Outside of the angry left I do not think there is a demand for his impeachment.

[Stand and Fight]

59. I see it differently in my neck of the woods, and it is most unusual.

In the past two weeks there have been a total of five LTTEs calling for Bush's impeachment in the local paper. I live in an overwhelming Republican area of Oklahoma. Thus far there have been ZERO rebuttal responses to the LTTEs that called for the president to be impeached. Furthermore, there are a number of people who were quite rabid Republicans as long as I have known them and several have changed their party affiliation or renounced this president. That speaks volumes to me.

[understandinglife]

52. Dear Gov. Dean -- GOPers either Impeach Bush or Lose in 2006 …

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5703874&mesg_id=5706912


Peace.

[existentialist]

55. I agree, we push for impeachment

If we get impeachment, good

If not, we get an issue.

[Stand and Fight]

56. I think you've posted an interesting thread.

However, I must say that I disagree with you. Firstly, I agree that engaging in the plan you've laid out could be termed "playing politics," it seems a devilishly risky game to me. On the one hand, while I agree that it could set a trap for the Republicans, it could also set a trap for our boys in Congress as well. It would be one game that we would have to play with great attention and be sure to hold our cards ever close to us. It is on this matter that my views diverge from your own ,rpgamer, -- I happen to love RPGs myself! -- and it is a minute difference at that. I would suggest that the language be very fine-tuned because as presented I don't currently see any gain for the Democrats if the Republicans are trapped on this issue -- impeachment, that is. However, if we can trap them -- as they tried to do us -- on hot button issues like the war, rising gas prices, a sinking economy, Bush's illegal wiretaps... Well, you get the point. We've got to get them on something concrete and then we can begin an impeachment trap, but even that will be a slow and concerted effort.

Secondly, I also agree with you that we should not allow ourselves to be impeded in pursuing impeachment because the "all mighty" Republicans will never let the vote get to the floor. I believe the way to handle that is to drum up public support for such a resolution, rather an inquiry geared toward impeachment. We would begin to drum up this support after we've trapped the Republicans on several key issues, such as the ones I mentioned above or others... Democrats should consider sending out a mailings to their constituents informing them about the acts of the Bush administration and asking them for their opinions for once rather than for their hard-earned money. Another prong of that attack would be to organize Democratic state party organizations to orchestrate a massive national LTTE campaign calling for impeachment.

Thirdly, I would not hold my breathe waiting for the so called moderate Republicans to act. They've chose to do nothing on issue-after-issue for the past five years. For some reason they seem to lack even more spin that the majority of the opposition party. However, they more be more vulnerable to pressure coming from their constituents if Democrats could cause an insurrection among them. Such an insurrection could climax with a massive LTTE campaign from the moderate Republicans of the nation calling on the moderate Republicans in Congress to wake the hell up and take a stand against the insanity going on in Washington.

However, beyond all of that... I would suggest that we win back the House and Senate in 2006 before we get ahead of ourselves. Some of the best advice I've ever heard is to never count your eggs before they hatch.

Well, that's my two cents... I wanted to try to leave you with something constructive -- IMHO -- rather than simply being a naysayer. I do believe you're on to something though. Thanks for posting! :hugs:

[wiggs]

79. Another in long line of missed opportunities. No surprise. nt

[wiggs]

80. Related info from Huffingtonpost

Republicans are stealing the country, robbing the national coffers, and letting people continue to die in a false war. Meanwhile the "opposition's" leaders are equivocating, dancing around the subject, and busying themselves with flag-burning amendments and criticism of video games. When they're not doing that, they're whining about what was "stolen" without thinking clearly about how to get it back. We're trapped in a drama that has an antagonist but no protagonist.

No matter how many times I repeat the incantation, "Republicans are evil," John McCain and others are not going to agree with me. They should, but they won't. My training tells me to concentrate on what I can do differently, since I can't change the other guy. What I, and others like me, can do differently is to demand that the Democratic Party stand for something meaningful - and that it do a much better job as the party of opposition. Failing that, I can do something else: I can try to force a change in that party's leadership, or take my support elsewhere.

Needless to say, I'm just one voice, but I plan to keep using it (at least part of the time) on what I think Democrats should do better or differently. I'll continue to slam them when I think they're betraying their own core values, for their distorted ideas about what's expedient. Will it help? I don't know. But I'm going to keep doing it.



more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/thanks-jane-but-im-sta_b_13032.html

[BamaBecky]

81. EggZactly!

[Disturbed]

82. Impeach

Impeach

“This could scarcely be clearer. Either the president of the United States is going to have to understand and admit he has done something very wrong, or he will have to be impeached. The first time this happened, the institutional response was magnificent. The courts, the press, the Congress all functioned superbly. Anyone think we're up to that again? Then whom do we blame when we lose the republic? “
Molly Ivins

Since Prez Bush has said that he has done nothing wrong in spying without warrents and will keep doing so, the only recourse is Impeachment!

Attacking a DU poster for an idea is not the best thing to do. Even if one does not agree with the idea, a civil debate is the only proper way to go forth.

I am hoping that the Neo Fascists will bring themselves down. It seems that they are on that course.

[Avalux]

87. Locking.

This thread has degenerated into quite a few personal attacks. Please keep civility in mind. Thanks.