Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"I Can Promise You This: The Democrats Will Never..Pursue the President Even Once He's Out of Office

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:27 AM
Original message
"I Can Promise You This: The Democrats Will Never..Pursue the President Even Once He's Out of Office
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 02:29 AM by orleans
Wednesday November 28th (interview begins 35 minutes into the show, transcript begins 42 minutes into show)



Randi: you made the greatest point last night about why it is that the republicans and the democrats sort of looked at each other and they made a pact: we will not impeach this president and we will spend our whole time doing it--we wont be able to do anything else--it will distract apparently from elections or whatever. And so they dont WANT to have these hearings because why? What would they find?

Turley: thats the problem with the fix being in. the democrats want to keep the controversy alive but they want to stop--not all democrats but some of the democratic leadership--want to stop just short of any event that would confirm the illegality of the domestic surveillance law or the president ordering torture because those two facts--if it was ever confirmed by a court--would virtually trigger an impeachment inquiry. And they have already promised the white house--Im talking about the democrats--that they will not have any impeachment inquiry for the rest of his term.

And so, one of the reasons you dont see the democrats tackling these issues and the reason theyre thinking about immunity for telecoms is that they cant afford to have a court actually render a verdict. Because if they do then there is going to be very difficult questions: if the president did order illegal acts--acts that are defined as federal crimes--what are you gonna do about it? And the fact is that they dont want to do anything.


Randi: that was the piece of the puzzle that was not making any sense to me. I understood they were asking for immunity--retroactive immunity for telecoms--and while the house has passed their version of that and it does not include immunity for telecoms, the senate is still kind of chewing on it--maybe we will, maybe we wont. And I couldnt for the life of me figure out WHY. Why wouldnt they want to see what the whistle blower Mark Klein has showed them in schematics and engineering diagrams--they were copying everything that went over the fiber optic system of at&t and any other telecom as well. Some didnt even know at&t was able to grab their stuff and copy it and provide a complete copy to the government.

Why would the democrats and the republicans who seem to like less government not want to know what went on when whistle blowers are saying: Im telling you this was for permanent storage--this was a country tap he called it, not a wiretap but a country tap--why wouldnt they want that to stop? And things went through my mind, maybe theyre being blackmailed, maybe theyre being wiretapped, I dont know.

Turley: its the same reason the democrats rescued the president from the torture debacle. You could almost hear democratic senators hyperventilating when there was a demand for mukasey to answer the question on torture. And I could tell you the alarms went all over capitol hill. If he had answered that question, if they held the line and forced him to say that water boarding is torture it would have been a disaster for these members because it would have confirmed that the president ordered not just crime but a war crime as defined by u.s. courts.

Randi: the torture thing I sort of understood but now its all wrapped up in a nice, understandable package for everybody to know: that this congress is so terrified that if they investigate or if they dont give retroactive immunity that there will be a showing that the president ordered or asked for and that the telecoms were told that they should help do crimes at the behest of the president and if a court has a finding that the president committed any criminal act--a war crime in the torture instance and in this instance just the criminal activity of eavesdropping on his own citizenry--then congress would have no choice but to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry. Theyd have to start it because thered be a finding of criminality in a court.

Turley: thats right.

Randi: and they dont want it because its an election year. They want everybody to just focus on the future; they dont want anybody to look at the bad old past, and meanwhile, its the present. This is still going on, all of it. The torture is going on, the renditions going on, the wiretaps are still going on and they just want to sit there and say: well deal with it in 09.

So let me ask you this: if, if in 09 we get a president with a conscience who says I know whats been going on what do you think might happen in 09?

Turley: well, its possible for civil liberties to be restored but its just very rare.

Randi: but will anybody--in your best guesstimate--be held accountable?

Turley: well, that is very doubtful. Im willing to bet you that the democratic senate will not allow any effort, for example, to prosecute people who tortured for the american government. I mean, there are people out there who have been trained to torture people and have tortured people in the name of the u.s. government. And I can promise you this: the democrats will never allow those people to be identified and prosecuted and they will not pursue the president even once hes out of office.

Thats part of the whole beltway mystique--is that they protect their own and parties mean very, very little. Theyre all denizens in the same city and its about power. And principle has very little role in the city and I hate to say that and it may seem cynical but these are not principled people in this city and many of them are really bad people. Not all of them, but many of them are bad people. They dont really believe in principle. They believe in power and once they get power I dont think theyre going to be pursuing principle.


Randi: power must be so coolcause nobody wants to let go of it

Turley: its intoxicating. The other fascinating thing is that all of these self-inflicted wounds of the bush administration, and of the democrats, are really due to this intoxicating effect of power. They get so detached they cant even remember why they went into politics. When you sit down and talk to these people they can vaguely remember what motivated them and they can certainly speak of principle but they really are something different than as they started. I think the problem is that its a gradual bleeding that happens in this city.

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.html
november 28, 2007



i respect jonathan turley so much--and i was blown away by this--to me it is disheartening, disgusting, discouraging and infuriating.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. I have no doubt that's true. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Me, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. so what do we do about it? what *can* we do?
i'm sitting here, shaking my head, mulling over all the words i have typed from that conversation--ideas i suspected were true but feared--that the dems don't want to do anything--and wondering what are we going to fu*king do?

where do we go from here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. "Where do we find ourselves?" -- Emerson, "Circles"
Politicians don't take risks. If we expect them to do that, that's our mistake, imho.

On the other hand, if a plurality pushes a politician, that's not a risk. That's a mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. We Have Not Only a Plurality, but a Large Majority, for Ending the War
Something else seems to be trumping the majority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
35. So What Do We Do About It You Ask - Well We Elect HRC And Continue........
the insanity. That's what will be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zazzle Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
88. ....the Bush-Clinton dynasty!
A former first lady will NOT pursue investigations against a former president's son and his corrupt administration. That's one of the advantages of dynasties - to cover up crimes of former rulers.
Bill Clinton did it - ended all BCCI and Iran-Contra investigations.
And now the BCCI crowd is donating to Hillary's campaign.
Disgusting!
And Obama, demonstrated his DC insider cred by declaring Bush has NOT committed impeachable offenses. Since Obama could never win the nomination - and his campaign basically helps Hillary - pundits are already speculating she would appoint him to the Supreme Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #88
182. You got it!
Too bad so many don't. Hillary will get the nomination. By hook or by crook. Carrying on the family tradition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
148. And those who don't agree to elect Hillary are deemed the rabble rousing
Ass hole Jerk Offs who don't love this country.

Never mind that Hillary enabled the stolen election to be shoved under the rug.

Well, I guess it is no surprise that in the last three years the numbers of Americans who left here for Canada has shown a 46 % increase. When you can't fix a situation, and you can't even think about thinking outside the box, maybe it is time to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #35
256. And pretend we are involved in the process. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
45. thats the question- what is the answer?

where do we go from here?

out to a penned up protest that will be ignored by everyone obviously does not work anymore.

problem is the democratic party leadership assumes they have us, the progressive left, in their back pocket come election time - the Nader fiasco in 2000 is eternally ingrained in our brains.

but what if we threatened to go 3rd party- with all our resources & money- if the PDA for example took a stand against the democratic power-elite & unprincipled leadership- and we said - prosecute for war crimes or we are out?

I'm just so mad that they are going to let this conduct, the torturing, etc- go, giving them a pass.

fuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Then...
get ready for another Republican President; it's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #50
70. Yep. We already know what has happened with a third party
We gotta take *our* party BACK. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #70
143. Look, you're not going to break thru with any new ideas until....
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 04:35 PM by defendandprotect
you actually understand the past ---

Gore won the 2000 election ---

You have been given "Nader did it!" . . as a scapegoat, keeping you from seeing who
the true betrayers actually were and are ---

Further proof of this is that the DEMOCRATS totally infiltrated the Green Party, keeping
a highly favorable candidate from being nominated in 2004 ---

The Greens are a threat to the Democratic Party and they didn't sit idly by ---
they co-opted the Green Party -- in order to ensure that you had NO choice in 2004 ---

And they will continue to actively interfere with a third party choice ---

The two parties are working together to ensure that you have no other choice but
Dem/Repug ---

Again --- Gore won 2000 ---
The Nader scapegoating worked very well to separate the Democrats from any other
viable choice of parties ---
and to keep you from thinking about WHY the Democrats have done nothing about the
2000 election, the 2004 election --- or computer voting, in general ---
and in that regard, please see: VOTESCAM

This hasn't been going on for only 7 years --- computer steals have been going on
since the mid-1960's. Journalists Ken & Jim Collier began investigating computer
voting in the late 1960's --

If you go to the website you can scan or read their book ---
the result of a 25 year investigation!


Finally, the Dems also poisoned feelings for Nader ---
which have never been anything but highly positive across the nation.
Nader is the man who has educated the public as to corporate-fascism
and other realities of our politics.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #143
231. Yep!
You've nailed it!

I voted for Nader in 2000, and have no regrets.

Dems are nearly fucking useless. Even (ahem) progressives (like Wasserman-Shultz, for instance) have turned on us and are protecting the chimp.

It's hopeless, IMO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #231
271. I wanted to vote for Nader, but my kids were so concerned that Bush would win . . .
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 12:38 AM by defendandprotect
that I promised them I wouldn't do it ---

I had campaigned for Nader, in limited ways --

I ran for office twice with the Greens and it's the only opportunity out there now ---

Impossible to do anything with Dems --- though I was a delegate for Brown ---

Americans are just first now talking to one another via the net ---
We've been dangerously non-politically aware ---

Europeans have always known what's been going on ---

The propaganda certainly works well --- we can't even respond to that, evidently --- !!! ????

Weakness among Dems . . . or planned weakness . . .

I say planned ---




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #70
163. It can be done. The Republican rightwing nutcases did it.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 05:12 PM by tblue37
They wanted to purge the Republican moderates or at least control them so they would have to vote with the rightwing nutcase power-brokers. They were patient and relentless--and they won. They screwed themselves in the process, because they really are nuts, so once they had power they did crazy things with it, so crazy that even their media lapdogs can't keep the lid on all of it.

But what they did is proof that true believers can take over their own party, if they really work at it. Our problem is that so many of our strong progressives are unwilling to be patient and keep working. They want it all right now, or they will take all their votes and go home.

We won't get everything right now. We can't. First we need an unassailable Dem majority and a Dem president, as well as a strong progressive bloc on the SC. For that we have to hold our noses if need be and vote for whoever is nominated by the Dem Party. Obviously, we should work our asses off to make sure we get a good nominee, but even if the nominee is one any given Dem voter might not prefer, we still need to pull together to elect him/her and to provide a strong Dem majority in both houses of Congress to work with him/her.

But we also need to be running (and funding) strong progressive primary challengers to the DLC and Blue Dog Dems, so our next Dem majority will be a progressive Dem majority. We need to focus on persuading deep pocket liberals to fund media buys and think tanks to perform the same function on our side that Scaife and Murdoch and their ilk perform for the wingnut side.

We need to take back the Democratic party from the corporatists. But that won't all happen in one election cycle, and to refuse to back Dem nominees if they aren't 100% pure won't get us on the path toward regaining control of our party and our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #163
212. Kudos to all you said!
:toast: :dem: :kick: :headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #163
272. I've often supported the argument you're making --- and PROTEST DLC in party ---
but now I feel that so many of the Dem reps in office are working against us that just taking
back the party would take too long --- and then tossing out those in office now --

Think I have to give new consideration to another party --

There was always hope that women and labor could come together ---
but it looks more like labor is being blackmailed by Repugs ---
in NY one of the big unions have now employed Bruno!!!
Front page story today or yesterday in NY Times ---

Most everything has been seriously corrupted and right now -- up is down and down is up ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
145. You've kinda nailed one of the STEPS of fascism . . .
We now no longer have "free speech" --- we have "penned up protests that will be ignored by everyone and not work anymore."

When you have convinced your opponent that there is no open door --- they won't see one.

There are still many ways to protest ---

Is the answer to Global Warming really light bulbs?

No -- it's nationalizing our oil resources --- taking them out of the hands of a few private
families -- and putting ELECTRIC CARS on our roads over a five year period ---
Is Gore telling you that?
Does Gore have a lifetime of oil industry support? Yes.

We can protest with our cars --- keeping them off the roads for a 1/2 hour on any given Saturday --- all together.

We can protest with electricity -- turn our lights off for a period of time one day ever
week -- all together.

And many other ways --- corporate-fascism is our enemy -- stop supporting corporations --
use small business.

And I'm sure many other people will have better ideas about protests ---

And -- I also think your ideas about $ are right on target ---
it is what moved Howard Dean along ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #145
245. Bravo! Agreed...
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 12:51 AM by Union Thug
Couldn't have said it better. Clarification: Corporate Fascism is the expression of the problem. That we allow an elite class of plutocrats to exist is the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #245
268. "The Establishment is a conspiracy --- "
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 12:31 AM by defendandprotect
As I understand it . . .

The revolution happened, prodded by interference with the right to free assembly ---

However, let's be clear that this problem has always been with us --
the Constitution was a great deal about the elite --
and they moved property into the hands of the elite ---
and, the first of elite-welfare program ---

The elite have always known that at some point, "democracy" would be come a threat to them.
They knew also knew it wasn't an immediate threat ---

There's a lot happening --- from Zinn's "People's History" to Chomsky --- who wants to deny
conspiracy/violence in our past -- to the investigators of the deeds of our corrupted government --
Warren Commision, Iran Contra, coups all over the world, BCCI --- understanding of Global Warming -- up to Naomi Wolf and Noami Klein now ---

We need America to wake up faster ---





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
247. Step 1: Reject self-defeating prophesy.
Step 1: Reject self-defeating prophesy.
It ain't over til it's over. The only time that the declaration "It will never happen" is true is when nobody stands and fights for It. Intentionally or not, declarations of certain defeat say ONE thing: Stop fighting.

Step 2. We have the power to help the impeachophobes in Congress to "see the light." Use it.
People are taking on Members of Congress and staffers on face-to-face. They are asking pointed questions and forcing them to acknowledge simple truths and moral principles that directly contradict their "reasons." They are learning how to become more effective citizen lobbyists. There are many ways, large and small, to "move the ball." Pick one. Invent one. Do it.

Step 3. Know what you are fighting for.
When we challenge them to act and challenge their bogus "reasons" for dereliction, our principle goal is to make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns.

But that is not the ONLY goal. If we are unable to wake them up and make them our champions in time, our efforts have other payoffs. As we fight we engage others who are more likely to join future battles. And when we force them to "defend" their dereliction we gather ammo (i.e., their own immoral and assinine "defenses") that primary challengers can use to defeat them.

Step 4. Prepare to cut them off -- but NOT by threatening to go third party. Third party candidates don't scare them. It must be PRIMARY Challengers.
If they fail us this time, when things are so black and white, they make it crystal clear that it is time to find powerful Primary Challengers who know the meaning of an oath.

In some states, there is still time to get on 2008 primary ballots, but even if 2008 deadlines have passed, we can still look for the strongest Democratic challengers we can find to go after House and Senate seats in 2010. A viable challenger who intends to take them on in a 2010 Democratic Primary if they fail to impeach can be a powerful motivator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #247
257. With due respect, would you explain to me how #4 works?
I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work. It seems to me that incumbent Democrats are safe from being replaced. I have been active with contacting my congress-critters for many years but see little if any results. In 2006 we replaced republicans with Democrats, which was relatively easy. But my HOR representative has been in office for 30 years and not much hope of unseating him. How responsive do you think he is?

I believe our current system makes it impossible to replace an incumbent within the party. If you know of any examples I would love o here. First you have to find a challenger that is willing to go against the party structure. The party will discourage anyone from challenging an incumbent. They would have to be able to raise lots of money which is easy for an incumbent. What donor will give money to a primary challenger? In CT Lamont bucked the system because he had lots of his own money. The grassroots were for him but the state Democratic organization backed the incumbent. But even he couldn't buck the beltway power. Many top Democrats supported Lieberman over Lamont. The CT grassroots Democrats did their best to replace an incumbent but still lost.

I don't intend to give up, but feel the sooner people realize that threatening to replace an incumbent in the primary is hollow.

Not sayin to stop emails, letters, and calls, but sayin it ain't enough. Must get involved in the local and state Democratic organizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #257
263. An example -- recruit Matt Gonzales to run against Pelosi
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 05:06 PM by pat_k
The filing deadline for a U.S. House candidate to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in California is March 7th.

Matt Gonzales is already well-known in her district from the 2003 San Francisco Mayoral race, so the relatively short campaign would not pose a big problem. Given his strong performance (47.2% to Newsom's 52.8%) in the run-off election) he would pose significant threat to her, particularly given the depth and breadth of dissatisfaction with Pelosi within her district.

If Gonzales is not already a strong impeachment advocate, I suspect he could be brought around. Although he ran as a Green, I also think he would be open to running for the Democratic nomination.

Going after Speaker "off the table" Pelosi would be an effective means of telling the Democrats on the Hill "We're writing you off if you don't wake up and smell the coffee." The notion of recruiting Gonzales got a positive response when suggested to impeachment advocates in the area, but I don't know whether or not is being pursued.

I have no doubt that there are strong challengers to be found in every district and state, but we must abandon the shoe-string mentality that seems to dominate "insurgent" politics. We need to seek principled people who have already proven their viability, have name recognition, or deep pockets (or some combination of those attributes). For example, there are celebrities who would make great candidates. If he wanted (and it's not completely outside the realm of possibility) Springsteen could probably take almost any office in NJ. If she wanted to run in Connecticut, Cheryl Howard (Ron Howard's wife) would be a real threat to an incumbent.

Of course, your experience is shared by many, including myself. Your conclusions have merit. Over the decades, people have been pushed out of their own game. The "professionals" have been running the show and they are VERY protective of their turf. But that is breaking down, and breaking down fast. Contrary to beltway blather, it's not some "left v. right" divide within the Democratic Party. It's "insider v. outsider"; "weakness v. strength." The people who are getting engaged just don't fit the "left" or "progressive" or "moderate" or "conservative" boxes the establishment seeks to stick them in. The old guard's grip on the levers of power within the Party is being challenged, particularly as Independents and Republicans look to the Democratic Party for sanity.

Howard Dean's Presidential campaign was a compelling demonstration of people-power that kicked off a virtuous cycle of hope --> action. As Trippi put it to Dean:
The people are coming to this thing. And whatever we do, they take it and make it better. It's their campaign now. We're at a point where, if this is going to work, it's going to be because of them. All we have to do now is have faith in them. . .
People jumped in and were effective. As more and more outsiders -- insurgents -- demonstrate their effectiveness, others are being attracted. We all have basic need to be effective and an increasing number are finding ways to fulfill that need in the realm of politics. We also have a need for autonomy. As the politics of manipulation took over -- a politics where voters are treated like pawns, not independent actors -- many turned off and opted out. That's turning around and many are refusing to be manipulated. They are pushing the people they sent to the Hill to actually fight for what they want, not for the crumbs the "professionals" have decided they can get. There are many signs that the vicious cycle of alienation is becoming a virtuous cycle of engagement.

The effort to make impeachment a reality is so crucial because as we seek rescue our Constitution we are also declaring our own power and rejecting the lunatic "conventional wisdom" crafted by DC consultants, pundidiots, and the like. As I noted in my previous post, the fight itself, whether or not we "win", can yield big payoffs that can take us to future victories.

Perhaps I'm full of hot air, but I see people taking hold of the existing levers of power within the Democratic Party. I've concluded that continuing on that path is a far more effective way to move forward than to seek to create a parallel, competing Party infrastructure.

We do need to seek to break free of the two-party, winner-take-all system in which "lesser evil" candidates are offered up by a moribund establishment, but we cannot build on lies. We need to establish a foundation of truth and confront fact that we allowed the USA to become a War Criminal nation. Impeachment now is the most direct, and easiest way to deal with the truth as a nation. There are other ways (e.g., Impeachment in absentia by a future Congress).

Once we are back on solid ground, I think our best shot of escape from two-party politics is to make instant runoff voting a reality (starting with lobbying our State Democratic Parties to implement it in our primaries). As voters are exposed to it, they are likely to see the sense of running general elections in the same way. Instant run off voting would enable us to establish viable alternative Parties and run candidates who are committed solving our common problems in ways that reflect our values. Winners would know EXACTLY where their votes came from and what priorities those votes represent. (And the "professionals" are likely to be surprised at how far the electorate deviates from the profile and pigeon holes they've come up with.)

There are of course circumstances where it makes sense to run an independent. Gonzales running for Mayor as a Green made sense because the Republican had virtually no shot of winning in SF. Even within the current system an independent could mount a pseudo-instant-runoff campaign. For example, someone like Rocky Anderson could run in the Presidential election as an independent, but make the commitment to drop out and endorse the Democratic candidate if either he or the Democrat didn't achieve at least a 6 point margin over the Republican in key states by date X. (A margin that should put those key races outside the reach of Republican election thieves).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #263
274. With questions about BETRAYAL by Democratic leadership . . .
and obviously members of the party not raising hell ---

I think I have to say there is such an overwhelming BETRAYAL that
I'm rethinking the idea of "saving" the party ---

vs starting a new party ---

It would take too long to oust the leadership and the followers ---
too many of them ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #263
276. Unfortunately, our main and only problem isn't Pelosi . . . it's overall betrayal by Dems ---
Also --
We don't have a lot of time . . .
fascism and Global Warming are closing in on us ---
and it's just new opportunities to make money for this crowd ---

Hard to understand, I know, but none of this is about what 'makes sense' . . . . !!!
If it was, we'd already have Instant Runoff Voting ---
we'd have responded to global warming ---
we'd have electric cars on the roads ---
we'd nationalize our oil --
We'd have national health care for all --
NO -- this is about POWER and SUICIDAL GREED ---

WE continue to try to make sense of things ---
and that's where we keep coming up with the wrong answers --
Just concentrate on corruption, propaganda, violence and suicidal greed for power/money ---

As Naomi Klein is making clear, these are psychotic people ---



Further --
Re Howard Dean's campaign --- it was, of course, his message ---
and the fact that competition sucked --- yet Kerry got it --- !!!
BUT I THINK IT WAS THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ MOVING TO DEAN WHICH SHOWED
THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE ---

And, yet, they were able to use the MSM -- to entrap him --- and end all that hope and optimism.

Ridiculing a candidate depowers them ---

IF it's not immediately and strongly responded to --- and
evidently Dems don't have the will or the intelligence to respond --- ????


LOVE IMPEACHMENT . . . WANT IMPEACHMENT . . .
DEMS HAVE HAD ALMOST A YEAR NOW AND THEY DON'T WANT IT ---

Biden now promises that if Bush invades Iran, he'll push for impeachment --- !!!

What about invading a soverign nation in Iraq and killing 2 million people ??
Wiretapping --- warprofiteering --- corruption of government --- bankrupting of the Treasury?
That's all OK??? It may be OK with these Dems -- but it's not OK with me!


Okay . . . so I'm saying that at this point, with what I see as too little to salvage in the Democratic party --- and with the extent of betrayal by Dems that I sense . . .
I vote that we try to create a new party ---


















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
80. Well since the president and the vice president were OUR public officials
and since the committed fraud while using OUR money, what is to stop a committee and hopefully a ground swell of citizens pursuing this ourselves. Who said the congress were th only ones with the authority to investigate and arrest.

If a criminal incitement is filed by private citizens, and they have attorneys to back it up....why dint' we ask someone in the know....Any ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #80
93. I like your thinking
They have committed massive fraud using OUR money.

So how do we proceed to 'file criminal indictments' against our public officals outside of the congressional framework?

At one point I had thought an eviction proceeding against bush filed in DC Housing Court for serious and repeated violations of the lease
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #80
147. Your ideas are why I thought it so urgent that Randi/Turley continue on ....
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 04:46 PM by defendandprotect
with this conversation ---

We need more discussion of it ---

Turley, I have heard in other conversations, doesn't believe what he is seeing in right-wing
court decisions!

We may actually have a situation where we come close now to Nuremberg laws --- !! ???

Think of the unbelievable and outrageous SC decision for Bush --- !!! ???

And the decision for Cheney energy's antics -- !! ???

On the POSITIVE side . . . we also saw that Bush's own appointees in the Justice Department --
the AG's weren't corrupt enough for what he wanted to do --- !!!

So I'm hopeful we're not there yet ---






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #80
244. Good idea, but don't rely on Democrats. Maybe Moveon.org. But the big D party is in it
up to their f******** ears. If we can't take the party from the bastards running it, then we need to try something else.

Time for tea in the bay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
87. To start ...
we BET BACK OUR VOTE!

Nothing will get done until we have a verifiable, uniform election system. I don't care who's running for office, the ones that will get in are the ones the power elite want to get in office to protect their sorry asses.

The Achilles Heal to the elite one-percent - one man's vote.

There's a reason 50% of eligible voters gave-up on the system a long time ago. If our elections were fair, we would have had peace, health care, jobs, clean energy, real education, affordable housing, freedom, and most of mankind's dreams answered long ago.

There's also a reason we're not hearing this on the M$M either.

It's their Achilles Heal. They'd have to fess-up as to how do you miss a story like this? And then a whole bunch of embarrassing questions come out.

Believe that this is what this country has been fighting for since the beginning. But never forget this, at the time the writers of the Constitution and Bills of Rights wrote them, only land-owning, men could vote and it wasn't until recently that people of color and women got the vote and all along the way those that think only white, male land-owners should still be the only ones who's vote should count have been in charge of seeing who's vote gets counted, or who's doesn't.

There have been some brief moments where the dream of one-person one-vote poked through and some good things were done. But that has all but been buried by the depth of the corruption. But if anything is going to draw the lines in the sand as fast as anything else - it's this. If we are to "throw the bums out" the FIRST thing we have to do is demand fair elections. And DON't depend on someone else to fix the problem - it's up to everyone that cares about what's happening to DO SOMETHING! Beyond writing letters, calling and typing away we need to volunteer to be poll watchers, physically go to the people in control of the of the elections and demand answers, demand that E-voting end NOW! Ask for public records. These things MUST be done or the only way things will change is for the worse.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #87
150. Agree -- !!! Town Councils? And if you're not familiar with VOTESCAM . . .
please read about it at the website ---

This was a 25 year long investigation --- beginning in the mid-1960's -- by journalists
Jim & Ken Collier --- of the computer steals.

Their book can be scanned or read at the website ---

This is more than 40 years of steals, folks --- !!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #87
280. Agree and disagree --- we need a point of leverage ---
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 10:43 PM by defendandprotect
THEY know we have stolen elections, but they're not hurting in the way we are because of them.
THEY know what should be done, but they're not going to do it ---

THIS thread is about Democratic BETRAYAL ---

PLEASE SEE: VOTESCAM WEBSITE

Jim & Ken Collier were journalists who investigated computer voting fraud beginning
in the late 1960's --- YES . . . IT'S BEEN GOING ON THAT LONG!!!

They investigated computer election fraud for 25 years ---
and published a book which you can scan or read at the VOTESCAM website ---

These steals didn't begin in 2000 --
though it was the noisiest of the steals ---
They began long, long ago --

Because these are people who cannot win honestly ---
it takes theft, lies, and assassination ---



As for a "point of leverage" . . . all the opportunities seem to benefit the rightwing --
but something may present itself --- keep thinking on it.

We have to depower corporations for one thing ---
that's for sure!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
99. He clearly stated the problem and 'we' refuse to admit there is a pachyderm
shitting on the living room carpet, or even look at the pile.

"they protect their own and parties mean very, very little. Theyre all denizens in the same city and its about power."

History shows over and over and over that there is only one, inevitable, answer to this age old dilemma and at some point a critical mass of people will realized there never was any alternative.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
114. This would be the moment were the people by hundreds of thousands pour into the streets & overthrow
the corrupt government. Heck, if they can do it in Georgia and Ukraine, why can't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
186. We Need an Impeachment Party
I am willing to bet it would draw voters of all stripes, and become a majority force, larger than the remains of either of the two big ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
187. K&R. Because I have such high regard for Turley and his opinions, this is by far the most
abjectly depressing information I've learned in months. I feared it to be the case but censored
myself for being too cynical.

In this day and age, there is no such thing as being 'too cynical.'

I am sick at heart.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CubicleGuy Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
225. where do we go from here?
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:09 PM by CubicleGuy
I think that the painful truth is that you have to vote out of office the people you hoped would impeach but have heretofore refused to. Disgusted democrat voters need to throw all their weight to a third party nominee to show that they're serious about removing anybody and everybody from office who doesn't maintain high American principles.

Vote for Ron Paul -- it'll annoy both the Republicans and the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #225
232. Third Party candidates don't scare them. It must be PRIMARY Challengers.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:47 PM by pat_k
And the real truth -- not quite as painful or self-defeating -- is that, while they may be accomplices today, that says nothing about what they could be tomorrow. We actually DO have the power to help the impeachophobes in Congress to "see the light."

Certainly, if they fail us this time, when things are so black and white, they make it crystal clear that it is time to cut them off -- that it is time to find powerful Primary Challengers who know the meaning of an oath.

Whether or not we make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns, as long as we keep challenging them to act, and keep tearing down their bogus "reasons" for dereliction, we win. Either we wake them up and make them our champions, or we force them to "defend" their failure, and in the process gather ammo (i.e., their own immoral and assinine "defenses") that primary challengers can use to defeat them.

More on that in this post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
230. First. . .
call Bullshit!

Then keep doing what you are probably already doing -- i.e., directly and persistently challenge bogus "reasons" (rationalizations) for refusing to impeach wherever you find them. Our so-called "leaders" may be accomplices today, but that doesn't say a thing about what they could be tomorrow. More on that in this post


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
242. For one, don't ever vote for someone that doesn't support your principles. Don't fall for the
f******* lesser of evils bullshit. It is better to let the fascist have it now than to delay it a few years. The sooner we jump to fascism the sooner it might be possible to get the country ready to fight. If we go slow, it may be harder to recover.

let's get ready to rumble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #242
246. I hate to say it, but I think you may be right.
The only thing that will wake up the masses is to let the Right do what they always do: create a huge mass of subsistance workers while they amass great fortunes.

Low wage workers can only pretend to be rich for so long before the ensuing credit debt crushes them, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
252. we could do what the founding fathers did and take matters into our own hands
a second revolution is needed. Just remember the first one took many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alllyingwhores Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
214. So Turley's theory or explanation applies to the Ass Emperor but not Clinton?
"Thats part of the whole beltway mystique--is that they protect their own and parties mean very, very little" Uhm...isn't that the opposite of what happened with the Clinton witch hunt and impeachment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #214
226. I don't think I said that, allegedly new DUer "AllyingWhores". THINK before retrying, because...



Nice "sneaky trick" with the extra "l" there- no doubt that'll TOTALLY
throw the posse off of yer trail! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trusty elf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #226
254. Have you seen the original "undoctored" version of that pic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #214
281. Yeah . . . there are parts of all of this which don't quite still make any sense . . .
For one, the MSM were working on sinking Clinton even without his penis ---
And, in my observations, the Democrats are afraid of the MSM ---
In this case, the MSM are protecting, aiding and abetting Bush ---

PLUS the rightwing have violence on their side --- and it's frequently used.

Finally, Clinton wasn't going to be able to declare martial law ---
if that's a true rumor about Bush vs Dems ... ????



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
236. Jonathan Turley would never say anything he couldn't back up so
basically, he's saying there is very little difference between the dems and the pigs. They both put themselves and their goals above the Constitution and the good of the country. No wonder no nuts swaggers like he does. He knows they won't touch his syphlitic ass. What a sorry bunch of quizlings we have here. Fuck you, Nancy Pelosi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #236
282. What makes me feel that this is a STRONG possibility is the fact that Randi Rhodes ....
wasn't protesting it at all --- wasn't challenging it ---
in fact, she sounded more or less like she felt it could be likely.

Randi has changed a lot --- there was a point before all these betrayals when
she would not have entertained strong challenges to Dems or the leadership.

I think her military background continues to keep her very aware of the real
atrocities that both parties are allowing to continue in Iraq ---
and the harm continue re our service people, for one thing.

She's also aware of blackmail possibilities . . .
I don't know how strongly --- she mentions them from time to time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. I greatly admire Turley and trust his take on things. This sucks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. R&K #5 ...
Hello orleans, thank you for this.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Suich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Whenever Jonathan Turley talks, I listen.
I really hope he's wrong on this, but I fear he's probably right.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. True, that. This should be absolutely clear and obvious to anyone who's been paying attention.
k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. time for a purge
TO THE BARRICADES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dembotoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
58. amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lutefisk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
9. Bush will be an elder statesman after leaving office. Cheney, too.
They both will pass Carter in stature, I'm sure.

Crimes of the Century...and they got away with them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Son of a BITCH!!!!!
Cocksucking motherfucking sons of BITCHES!!!!

Damnmit!!!!

Oh, Christ, maybe it is time for term limits... get these SORRY gutless powermongers OUT OF OFFICE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. you know, we (or i) always want to think *our* side is better,
*our* side has a conscience (and granted, some actually do) but when bush can get away with murder--literally!--and *our* leadership stands by, watching it happen, and turns their collective back on america ... then what? who do we depend on or turn to when there is no one for us to depend on or turn to?

and as far as term limits go--can you imagine yourself voting to end your cushy career? term limits will never happen either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. we need something.
Term limits is one. A multi-party system via instant runoff voting is another.

Frankly, it's reached the point where I think all any democratic candidate has to do to win, including Mike Gravel, is simply say that, if elected, he will fully investigate the Bush Administration and bring them up on charges as needed.

Hear that, Dennis, John, Hillary, Barack? hint hint hint hint hint!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
61. We need to create our own term limits by refusing to vote for incumbents...
...who have betrayed democratic (small "d") principles and, by extension, the Constitution they swore to support and defend. And we can also impose term limits by voting for progressive challengers in the primaries and, hopefully, the general election -- except in those rare cases where the incumbent is actually representing the will of his/her constituents.

Let the rest of the useless pricks raise all the money and buy all the TV time in the world. Then, on election day, let them learn that the people have seen through all their canned crap and phony sloganeering and have decided to fire their miserable asses for gross incompetence and consistent failure to represent voters' interests.

Formalizing term limits on the state and local level isn't a bad idea either, but here's the weird thing: Last time I remember term limits being a big deal politically was maybe 2002 or possibly 2004. Something like 13 states had initiatives on their ballots to impose term limits on their state politicians (since states can't trump about federal law, they couldn't place term limits on federal office holders, although they would have loved to).

Anyway, term limits passed in all these states. Simultaneously, all incumbents were reelected in all states where term limits initiatives were on the ballot. Which says to me these voters are either a) thick as a railroad tie, or b) think everybody else's representatives are bastards, but love their own. Better the devil you know than the one you don't?

So given that kind of schizophrenia at the ballot box, we need to get a little more serious about imposing term limits ourselves. We also need to get more serious about putting forth viable progressive candidates for the primaries who can actually beat the entrenched slime creatures who wear the "D" but usually vote with the "R's."

And unfortunately, in this insane bribocracy, that means we need to give them lots and lots of money to buy name recognition, TV spots, subsidize their travel and phone bills, pay for some full-time staffers, print flyers and mailers, establish and maintain a web site, and all the other crap you need to run a campaign these days.

Ultimately, it's well worth the money, imo. You invest a couple of hundred dollars and some of your free time in challenger A, who manages to unseat entrenched slime creature DINO B, the same thing happens in Congressional districts across the country, and suddenly progressives are a major force in American politics and you're represented by somebody who believes in single payer health care, a living wage, an immediate end to the Iraq occupation, hunting down BushCo to the ends of the earth and extraditing them for trial here or to The Hague, repealing all BushCo's fascist, repressive, unconstitutional legislation, eliminating all illegal surveillance of all people in the US, citizens or not -- and all kinds of wonderful things that would never have happened as long as the entrenched slime creatures held their seats.

That's serious return on investment, and that's exactly the way corporate swine have gamed the system to get all their regulatory and taxation needs met through the undying loyalty of their bought-and-paid-for employees in Congress and the executive branch.

Sure it's revolting; politics is revolting on many levels. But if you live in the world capital of limitless, unregulated campaign dollars flowing from corporate coffers into the pockets of their official corporate apologists -- if you live in the world's leading bribocracy and you see the model actually works time after time after time... you'd be a damn fool to act any other way.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Absolutely.
Rewarding neocon enablers with votes only encourages more enabling. I'll vote for progressives and damn the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
77. I'm sending Holiday cards to
the 47 Blue/Bush Dogs as I type. There is a tree on the cover of the card and I put stickers spelling S O N beside the tree....TREEson! Get it?

On the inside I wrote and stickered (in caps): Blue DOG ______,
Stand UP(arrow pointing up) 2 W's TREEsonous BEEhavior! Use these BALLS (round Xmas ornaments) HAND (and) STARt impeachment now!

I really think the Progressives of the Dem Party need to focus on these 47 conservative Blue/Bush Dogs in the House. And of course we have same problem in the Senate...Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Mikulski, Bayh, CASEY (what a fuck), McCaskill, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Lincoln, Pryor, Salazar(another ass), and Webb.....all of these Senators voted for FISA AND censuring MoveOn. So we might want to send them a Holiday card as well saying we will find a real Dem to run against them in a primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #77
92. Exactly what I've been thinking
and occasionally saying here. Run progressives against them in the primaries. Even if the incumbent pulls a Liberman and runs and wins as an independent, at least he's not calling himself a democrat anymore.

What I've been told is that the party machine never allows this to happen. If that's the case, I'm not sure how Ned Lamont managed to pull it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. Ned had grassroots people willing to knock and phone....
most important, he had access to $$. His and his wife's. She is a venture capitalist and has done very well.

I love Ned. I hope the people of CT are kicking themselves for voting for Lieberman.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
84. Great post, my friend
What you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #61
91. It won't matter ...
unless our votes are COUNTED! Which they aren't.

Do you really think bush won the 04' election? The 2000' election? With the turn-out for the 06' elections there should have been a HUGE land-slide victory for progressive candidates and these pricks would have already been impeached, but instead we were denied. And the 08' elections will be worse. Don't think for a moment that these bastards didn't learn from their mistakes and are doing everything, will pull every dirty trick they can, to make sure that our votes get skewed again.

So we can vote till we're blue-in-the-face - it won't mean a thing. Fix the vote - we fix everything!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #91
123. That's a given...
Just as my post was based on somewhat wishful thinking, so is the underlying supposition that election fraud is somehow addressed, the machines are decertified, we go to paper ballots, voters get ballot copies and receipts, the originals are hand-counted precinct by precinct, results are posted on each precinct's doors, the ballots are transported under armed guard to the county seat or state capitol for another hand count, those results are tabulated against the individual precinct figures, any discrepancies are flagged and investigated by an impartial (if such exists anymore) election commission. Same for ballot measures, initiatives, local races, etc. All issues, no matter how relatively trivial, are subject to the same scrutiny.

Oh, and voter intimidation, vote switching and all other elements comprising election theft are now federal crimes carrying a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole. Prisoners to be housed in the general population at Leavenworth or some similar hellhole; no Club Fed for these bastards.

Kucinich has a very detailed plan to deal with election theft on his web site, which of course I can't find at the moment. But last I saw, it looks much like the above list, with the exception of the last item.

Cleaning up elections also means the end of voter caging, voter roll purging, racist profiling, understaffing in democratic precincts, involvement of wingnut Federalist Society judges and the rest of the ugly litany of criminal practices the GOP uses to hold onto power when fair elections in 2004 and 2006 would have buried them in the blackest depths of the nearest landfill, where they so richly deserve to be. And 2006 would have dumped another million tons of garbage over them had the Dems not started about 4 million votes in the hole.

So yeah, you're absolutely right that nothing works without clean elections. And the Holt bill that recently cleared the House (Senate too?) is a piece of shit that does nothing to clean things up, but does ensure that Diebold, EDS and the rest can continue to make money while electing ever more GOP slime creatures.

Now it's back to Pollyanna land, where the birds are chirping, the bees are buzzing, the goats are frolicking and there's nobody named Bush or Cheney in any position of political power whatsoever.

Good comments and thanks for weighing in.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #91
154. Please see VOTESCAM website ----
These computer steals have been going on for more than 40 years ---

Journalists Jim & Ken Collier investigated this beginning in 1960's . . .
25 year investigation ---

You can scan or read their book and understand how they became aware ---
at the website

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #61
209. There is a huge problem with what you say. I completely agree with your idea. BUT: The big f*****
D Democratic Party won't let us do it. I have thought like you for many years but have come to realize it won't work. Incumbents can not be replaced within the party. No one will run against them. And if they do the big D party will support the incumbent. The closed club in Washington DC sticks together. Lieberman is a great example. The big f**** D party supported joe all the way in the face of the CT Democratic voters. Maria Cantwell had a anti-war candidate run against her in the primaries. Guess what happened? She literally bought him off. Hired him onto her staff. The big f*** D party will al-f******-ways support the incumbent.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
73. Ouch, to instant runoff voting, at least right now
It *sounds* like a good idea, it *is* a good idea in theory, but right now (from my observation of election reform & fraud news) it seems it is being used mostly as an excuse for pushing the paperless electronic voting machines, which are at least as much of a threat to our democracy as the above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felipe Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
85. Dennis said that a while back
He is the only one is calling for accountability. That is the reason why they all try to marginalize him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #85
155. We need third parties, IRV, public financing --- are Dems going to give it to us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #155
218. How do I put this politely, F*** no. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #218
267. OK -- then what's PLAN B --- I've been asking this for months -- ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #267
273. I have also. Most of the time I am totally ignored. Best response I have gotten is
#263 in this thread. We have to take back control of Congress. At least the HOR. It is supposed to represent the common folks but once they get in they forget us and know we can't do anything about it. They are all rich and have very little connection with us commoners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #273
275. Next time . . . include a link . . . !!!
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 01:55 AM by defendandprotect
Hard to find #263 --- took a while ...

Yeah -- I didn't read all of the recommendation ---
I'll go back and look again if I can find it again ---

But, you'd have quite a battle for Nancy's seat ---

and I think that still ignores the presence of the DLC --
which is poison and has been poisoning the party for how long now --- ??? 15 years?
or more ???

Gore and Clinton co-founded it ---


And --- we obviously have way more than leadership betraying us ---

too many betrayers ---

I've got to start rethinking the move to another party --- a new party --- maybe?

It's got to be something swift and all at once ---



Here's my reply to #263 . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
152. Hell, maybe we should be hoping Bush invades Iran and BIDEN impeaches --- ?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emcguffie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
173. But without an honest media, nobody would know about it. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
233. Dennis has already introduced impeachment of the big dick..

Scratch him off your list, will 'ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
283. Our side used to be better . . . !!!
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 10:59 PM by defendandprotect
The corruption of government has continued on unabated since the coup on JFK ---

Whether that was a grand betrayal in not responding to it by Dems . . .
or whether they were unable to at the time --- all hell broke loose afterwards ---

and certainly our "free press" were in there playing the game with the new powers to be!!!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
105. Term limits: yeh, that oughta keep them lobbyists in their places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #105
133. There is a special place in Hell for lobbyists...
Right next to the place where people who drown kittens are.

Regardless, though, the longer a person is in Washington, the longer their political career, the more hooks get into that person.

A turnover rate of 20% or so, maybe a smidge higher, is probably ideal. We don't get that very often. I think it's typically less than 10%, thanks to the gerrymandering.

It's not the solution, it's part of the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
120. Past Due..
I agree.. "Cocksucking motherfucking sons of BITCHES!!!!"

Yeah, it must be really "cool to have power".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
196. Is this Gilbert Godfrey? Seriously, just how do you propose to change anything. If you haven't
noticed, they are in power. And there ain't nothing you can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #196
284. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Our most hopeless situation is Global Warming ......
Our Founders fought a throne and won ---

I wouldn't count us out on this yet ---
and there are many ways to depower corporations ---
which are dependent upon all of us for their existence!!!!

There are many ways to protest without standing with a sign in a barricaded/penned up area.

We can act and work together to protest peacefully --- in meaningful ways ---

Australia has a lights-out movement --- it's environmental, but . . .
could be adapted ---

We have cars and can create actions around them ---

And whatever other commodity exists or service --- we can protest ---

Don't give you Social Security number to banks or others ---



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
12. Doesn't Make Sense
they protect their own and parties mean very, very little.


Seems to only work for Repiglickans.

They sure didn't do that when Clinton was in office.

How is it that "parties mean very, very little" to the Democrats in DC, but not the Repiggies, who are as partisan as ever?

It is because the Democrats are being threatened and/or blackmailed.

What do you THINK they were doing that they couldn't even let the FISA court know about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
left is right Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. Democrats are being threatened and/or blackmailed
Maybe it is time to grant a one time amnesty to all Democratic representatives. Tell them to publicly confess all of their sins. We as voters will forgive them for anything except murder and high-treason--just this once. With their sins confessed and our forgiveness, bushco will no longer have anything to hold over them and they can get on with impeaching the real murders and traitors.

Of course, part of me would like to think that some of the supposed threats have less to do with personal scandal and more to do with world safety. Perhaps, the BFEE have threatened nucular annihilation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #33
57. Yep. Wire taps are NOT for terrorists suspects. They are for maintaining power
Think back to what a kitten Dianne Feinstein was when she got off AF1 after that little look a the fires with bushco.

They handed her a file (possibly on husband?) and she did not look out the window at California burning. Bet on it.

If they can't be bought, they probably can be blackmailed. If they are so clean that won't work, they can be threatened.

Wire taps ARE for security; but not America's nor American's security. Wire taps, and everything else done the past few years, has been done for the security of the top one-half of one percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
158. Here's the little kitten with her protector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
208. And that's what the torture is for as well.
The Bush gang, I suspect, has made it clear that the Democrats in Washington will be tortured if they step too far out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
113. No, they're just being cowardly and corrupt
and I'll take Turley's word for it that most Dems don't feel this way, just some in leadership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
156. Truth hearings . . . one day --- ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
60. Do we have to list the dead Democrats to name the threat? Starting
with JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #60
160. We sat by waiting for them to investigate --- a real investigation ---
We're waiting more than 45 years --- !!!

MLK -- a conspiracy found by jury and almost none of the public knows that ---
See: Wm. Pepper

RFK -- evidence is overwhelming that it was a political murder ---
probably conducted by CIA operatives

This is how Hitler came to power and held on to it --- political violence ---
kill your enemies before they can rise to do you harm ---
and finally the violence will keep the masses in control ---






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
79. As Turley describes so well...
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 01:12 PM by TwoSparkles
...these people are "intoxicated" by power. Most of our Congressional members (Dems and Republicans)
are people who lack something in their soul---and they seek control and power to compensate for their
weaknesses. These are not healthy people. Most of them are probably very dysfunctional--with an abuser mentality.

Look at how they treat the American public. We are their victims. They use us to get elected
and butter us up with campaign promises and lofty speeches--then they ignore us, meet in their back
rooms and laugh their asses off that they had to spend time meeting the grunts beyond the beltway.

They lie to us. They waste our money. They're destroying our democracy and taking away our civil
rights. They're torturing people and bankrupting our nation. They gutted the FDA so much
that more people die from drug side-effect--since the installation of the FDA. Why do
children's bibs and toys contain lead? Because the Consumer Protection Agency
is run by people who cater to the corporations and ignore our precious children.

America is frickin gone. These politicians--WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO US--have abused us seven ways
to Sunday--while repeatedly lying to us and feigning interest in our well being.

We've all noticed by now--that abusers with power act reckless. Power gives them a false sense of invincibility
and they begin to lose all sense of reality as they seek out situations that bolster their power high. Ever wonder why so
many of them are caught molesting children? Child molesters do not molest for sex. Child molesters molest because
they get off on powering up on the weak and manipulating others. Why do so many pontificate about
religious platitudes and stand against gay marriage--while they tap dance in bathroom stalls? It's not
just hypocricy. They get off on leading a double life because they love the manipulation and the deception.
Controlling an entire country, while engaging in behavior that you prevent others from doing--fuels the power high.

We are all being abused...and they enjoy every moment. Fully functioning, healthy, altruistic
people are not powermongers who live life drunk on power. It's a sick existence.

The current state of our shredded democracy is a consequence of these extreme dysfunctionals
remaining in power for so long.

:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #79
185. damn, twosparkles! nicely said. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
285. Agree, we're missing pieces of this puzzle --- and can only imagine that
the corruption is so extensive that they can't even rely --- as we saw with Justice Dept
whistleblowers --- on their own Repugs keeping covered up!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. No surprise here
I'm just waiting for the anti-impeachment/party purity brigade to turn up and rake Turley over the coals for bashing the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
16. He probably is right. There appear to be a few who aren't
corrupted by power, but I suppose most of them may be. And there may be some other reasons mingled in. But you know what? I don't give a shit. Let's keep banging the drums, and even louder. They hope we'll get disgusted and tired and give up, but we have to keep hounding them until we see cracks in the wall. It is up to us "masses" of pitchfork weilding commoners to see that the criminals are stopped. They are attacking US every minute that ticks by as we watch them commit these unforgivable atrocities against our Constitution. They have to hear us again and again until we actually strike some fear into what's left of their conscience. They are still replacable by others who are not corporate owned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. You don't get anywhere in DC unless you're corporate-owned
You either play by the rules or you're marginalized. Kucinich is a good example, although there are others less known. More often than not, good intentions are eventually eroded by the desire to get something done for your constituents so you stand a chance of being re-elected...and to do that you have to compromise your principles and play ball.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is the rare exception, not the rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. Edwards will restore our civil liberties if he is elected.
Dodd will restore our civil liberties if he is elected. Both of them have stated that they will. I don't know whether Obama will, but I think there is a good chance he will.

Has Hillary stated whether she will restore our civil liberties? I find nothing on her website on this. Bill Clinton's administration allegedly pushed the Europeans to end their protections for the privacy of electronic communications according to a German website that I read. What does Hillary say about our restoring habeas corpus, etc.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. You have to follow the corporate contribution money trail to get an answer to that question...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zazzle Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
89. Since Obama doesn't believe Bush has committed impeachable offenses, his judgment is questionable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
117. Remember the illegal renditions of suspects to countries were torture was allowed was in place
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 02:58 PM by DutchLiberal
during the Clinton years already. I thought he introduced it, but I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #117
162. We should check on that --- did it appear in a CIA playbook, or what?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #117
213. You are right according to the ACLU, renditions started under Clinton
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantnamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/222...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #213
264. So why doesn't anybody even care Clinton started this?
Because he's a Democrat, it's no big deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #213
277. Yes --- but when did the playbook come into being?
It's not necessarily the same thing ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
179. Will Edwards hold the Bush admin accountable
after thefact? Really? In your dreams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
223. All by himself?? Bill Clinton had big asperations to before he became president. He seem to forget
them all too quickly. Power is corrupting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:24 AM
Response to Original message
19. he's probably right, but I'm kind of "iffy" on Turley
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 03:25 AM by Syrinx
Remember when he was so outraged by Clinton's lies about his sex life and was so hot for impeachment?

I don't know. Maybe that shows consistency and respect for principle. But I thought he was pretty ridiculous for being so outraged by Clinton's sins. And I'm not a particular booster of Bill Clinton. I thought he was an okay president, that had the potential to be so much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
164. I didn't know that --- and I'll take a big MINUS for that re Turley . . .
a BIG MINUS . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
20. If Turley's right, the only thing left to do is
to tear the whole thing down and start over again. That's the only principled response. Either that, or just to live as unthinking insects.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
37. Pitchforks and torches time.
Turley is absolutely right, and we have no recourse whatsoever, unless, by some freak accident, a true progressive takes over the White House and appoints an attorney general who will simply bypass Congress by going directly after the neocon fascists out there and indicting, convicting and imprisoning them. Not likely to happen, especially with the voting machines stealing our votes in so many precincts across the country.

IOW, short of an armed insurrection which topples the government and imprisons all the neocon perpetrators and Congressional cohorts and enablers,

WE ARE DOOMED.

I have a 3 year old son who is very bright. I've dreamt of him going to one of the best colleges in America and leading a productive and successful life. But if things don't change drastically and pretty damned soon, there may not be an America left for him to grow up in in that way. And it's my responsibility to put him in a position some day where he can have a productive future. I may be forced, like it or not, to move my family to some European country before long in order to protect him and his future.

After seeing Michael Moore's video clip of the part that was left out of his movie, "Sicko", Norway is looking pretty damned good right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
165. How's your Norwegian?
Emigration is difficult, even under the best of conditions. When it's forced, and the refugee is forced to a country where (s)he doesn't speak the national language, life is very hard, indeed.

Might be better to stay here, and fight the good fight.

I know. I've prepared hundreds of asylum cases for people from more than 30 countries seeking refuge here in the United States.

America used to be the beacon. It can be again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #165
270. My Norwegion is nonexistent.
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 12:37 AM by Seabiscuit
But I can dream, can't I?

I know emigration is difficult anywhere. We've already looked into New Zealand and Australia. I could qualify just about anywhere though based on the fact that I'm not only retired, I'm fairly wealthy, and wouldn't be a drain on anyone's economy.

I don't know that anyone knows really what "good fight" there is left to fight. In an ideal world, we could manage to elect progressives everywhere but I don't see that happening. The power elite in D.C. is so entrenched, it's going to take decades to alter it in any significant way, and the RNC/war profiteering corporations/right wing think tanks/PNAC group/Bush crime family and connections and right-wing corporate media ownership are so entrenched in power right now they seem to control everything and will control just about everything even if they lose the White House. It didn't happen overnight. It happened over decades while everyone else was basically asleep.

I'm just saying that there could very well come a day when this country isn't a safe place for my son to grow up in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
21. Much as I like Turley, that's a lot of bunk
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 03:32 AM by jpgray
While there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality in Washington, and things move egregiously slow, impeachment is not practicable at present. There aren't enough votes, the freshman Dems are too skittish, and the Republicans are not likely to run away from the most visible symbol of their party. To effect impeachment, we'd have to have a solid investigation that ends in success, and we don't have a strong or large enough majority to even get that off the ground. Lots of blame to pass around for that, but complicity is hardly the only possible cause of the Democrats' frustrating behavior. As others have pointed out, parties do mean something, as the GOP had no qualms about stealing the election, or spending millions to investigate Clinton for eight years and attempt impeachment on top of that. I expect a Reagan-style scenario as far as further investigation after the presidential term, but I doubt W will be as falsely lauded by dumb "historians" as was Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Impeachment *is* the investigation that ends in....
whatever it ends in. It is the vehicle to expose the crimes of this administration to the public. Even if it did not end in referral to the Senate, and conviction there, it would still serve a practicel, moral, constitutional purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. No
you don't impeach, and then go look for evidence of crimes.

It's the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. 180 out yet again...
>you don't impeach, and then go look for evidence of crimes.

Nonsense. That's EXACTLY what you do. Do you even understand how the impeachment process is supposed to work? Do you happen to remember during the Watergate hearings when Alexander Butterfield spilled the beans about the private recording system Nixon had had installed in the Oval Office? Nobody on the judiciary committee had heard of this before. But from the mouth of a minor White House functionary and Haldeman assistant came that startling revelation, which eventually led to nationwide jokes about the missing 18 1/2 minutes and, finally, the Supreme Court 9 - 0 decision that Nixon had to release all the tapes, despite pleas of executive privilege, which pretty well cooked his goose. So impeachment is an investigation based on evidence or strong indications that a member of the administration has committed one or more impeachable offenses.

If a member of the House suspects that an administration official has committed an impeachable offense -- such as outing a covert CIA operative (treason, or high-treason in time of war) or repeatedly violating the Constitution by ignoring international treaties to which the US is a signatory -- then the House is derelict in its Constitutional duty, as defined by the oath of office, if it doesn't at least submit articles of impeachment to the judiciary committee for its consideration. Note that "consideration" doesn't mean ordering Conyers to sit on them until January 2009.

Comparing impeachment to a conventional prosecution, impeachment is just the equivalent of convening a grand jury, which the ADAs (the judiciary committee), after gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses, hope will result in an indictment. If the grand jury (in this case, the House) fails to return an indictment, then either the jury fell down on the job or the case was without merit. Either way, the House has discharged its duty, since impeachment is the duty, not its approval.

The House returns an indictment, the Senate (which is where the actual trial takes place, with Senators acting as both judges and jury) must then be convinced by the evidence and witness testimony that the crimes in question reached the threshold for impeachable offenses. Regarding impeachment of Cheney/Bush, it's an a posteriori case based on the incontrovertible evidence that they have absolutely demolished Constitutional law in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of instances. If an indictment based on even Kucinich's three articles were taken to trial, it's a slam dunk case.

But remember that to convict, articles of impeachment first had to be introduced, then sent to the judiciary committee, which gathers evidence, questions material witnesses, compels testimony from uncooperative witnesses and so forth, just as in any other criminal proceeding other than those in which the suspect confesses (which is a whole other can of worms). The House then had to return the indictment, saying that the evidence they've heard and seen constitutes grounds to take the case to trial. The Senate then sat in judgment and returned a guilty verdict. All by the book. Or rather by the Constitution.

Failing to impeach doesn't have anything to do with failure to remove a sitting administration figure. But removal is legally impossible without proceeding down the path that begins with introducing articles of impeachment.

In this situation, once there's a public accounting of the numerous crimes this administration has committed against the Constitution and the rule of law, it might turn out that House members and Senators who failed to vote for impeachment would find their jobs in serious jeopardy next election cycle.

So Pelosi's failure to even allow articles of impeachment out of committee does in fact constitute dereliction of Constitutional duty. She swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's pretty unambiguous, and it doesn't sound like it's optional either.

It's not for her to decide the fate of these criminals. It's for her to uphold her oath of office, shut the hell up, quit appeasing these snakes, get out of the way and let the process unfold. Taking impeachment off the table is perhaps the stupidest, most senseless and unlawful capitulation to executive branch power I've ever heard of -- unlawful being the key point. She isn't responsible for interpreting the Constitution, nor is she authorized by law to let political considerations, back-room deals or veiled threats offset her duty. If she can't handle the pressure, she needs to resign as Speaker and return to serving her constituents before they decide to kick her self-serving ass all the way to Oakland.


Thus endth civics class for the morning.

wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
78. i loved reading your civics class this morning! thanks for kicking ass! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
126. Great post.
Small cavil: Pelosi is a San Franciscan, not an Oaklander.

But your larger point is very well made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #126
161. Geography...
Yeah, I know. I grew up in The City. I was referring to the wonderful idea that a true progressive would/should kick her ass all the way from her zillion dollar Pacific Heights mansion over to the Oakland Colosseum. With luck, she'd land on second base just as an A's outfielder slams a sizzling line drive up the middle, right past the pitcher's ear, and...

Well, can't get too weird around here.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #40
169. Great piece. You should post it once a day, as an OP or as a response...
...to the many people who *do not* understand what impeachment is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #40
265. Delighted to see someone kicking
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 06:28 PM by Seabiscuit
the ass of someone on my "ignored" list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #29
54. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Impeachment IS EXACTLY to research and FIND OUT THE CRIMES - like bringing an indictment.

THEN, after the impeachment - you go to TRIAL in the SENATE.

Impeachment is ALL ABOUT INVESTIGATING FOR CRIMES COMMITTED.

God - I hate ignorant people spewing crap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #54
69. sorry, you're just wrong
impeachment is like a grand jury indicting.

Bill Clinton had the Starr commission investigate him for years before impeachment was discussed. Nixon was investigated by the Senate watergate committee before impeachment was brought up.

How can they vote for articles of impeachment if they haven't done the investigation yet? You can't vote to impeach without specific charges - and you get the evidence for those charges by investigating first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
97. Are you out of your mind?
I can think of a half-dozen impeachable offences off the top of my head that there's evidence to act on without even trying.

The ONLY reason we haven't seen impeachment is they're protecting their own. We haven't had a representative government in this country for decades. Maybe the last was Kennedy and look what happened to him. Now with E-voting there is NO chance at all that we'll ever get people in office that actually represent the people or have any accountability.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #97
170. Agree to a large extent: Signing Statements, for one outrage ---
It's the responsibility of the Congress to ENSURE that the legislation they pass is
carried out in the spirit and intent which was intended by Congress ---

So they have a firm basis to move against Bush on signing statements ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
106. Read the Constitution
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 02:43 PM by OzarkDem
The impeachment process begins with an investigation.

I'm quite certain most of the anti-impeachment crowd here at DU understand this point. Their insistence on denying isn't working.

On edit: Anyone who persists in making this false argument isn't just opposed to impeachment, they're also saying they oppose any investigation at all.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #106
171. And they need to brush the dust off of their high school civics textbook...
...and remember what the process of impeachment is all about.

And there *will* be a test. Failing it means we've lost our democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
168. Yes! Impeachment is the process of holding hearings to determine...
...if impeachable crimes were committed.

There's plenty of evidence and we all know it. John Conyers compiled a wealth of information with regard to impeachable offenses. What is missing is the formal, public impeachment hearings (like a preliminary hearing in criminal law) to expose the truth. Whether or not the House then refers it to the Senate for trial, that process would expose the truth to the public!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. BINGO!!!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
192. Then how was Nixon's admin effectively destroyed without one impeachment hearing?
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:09 PM by jpgray
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #192
262. His circle of advisors knew that impeachment was coming...
...that he had committed impeachable crimes, and urged him to resign to avoid impeachment (for the good of the party), which he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. Correct!
We can't let up. The regime is so entrenched they still have many, many people hypnotized. Impeachment must be pursued vigorously so there is media exposure at all times. We must make sure more and more people get on board and loudly demand action from their Congress before the regime shuts us up completely, or before some catastrophic distraction takes hold of the nation's attention. Time is of the essence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
191. Patently false. Nixon's administration was destroyed before a single impeachment hearing took place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #191
221. Absolutely wrong! That someone took a walk up the hill and advised Nixon to resign...
...to avoid impeachment does *not* make what I've written "patently false." What I've described (and others have eloquently backed up) is the procedure written into the Constitution for impeachment. Many people don't understand that procedure. Many say "Clinton was impeached" without understanding that he was *not* convicted in the Senate trial, assuming they are one and the same.

In the kind of world that existed back in Nixon's time, the Bush Baby administration would have been over a long time ago, too, without a single impeachment hearing taking place. We simply don't have congressional leaders with the will to bring down this criminal administration -- likely because the majority in Congress are complicit with Bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #221
227. Compeltely false. Nixon's resignation followed an -extensive- gathering of evidence.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:16 PM by jpgray
As did the vicious, disingenuous and downright loony Clinton impeachment, but I digress. Nixon's administration was on the ropes from regular ol' investigation, NOT impeachment. How do you square that with your contention that impeachment -is- the investigation? What do you call the televised Watergate committee hearings? They weren't impeachment, therefore in your view they were not investigation. So what were they?

The central truth I'm trying to point out here is that the only successful takedown of an administration in US history began and ended with strong Congressional investigation. It began, proceeded, and ended before a single impeachment hearing took place. How then do you justify your contention that impeachment -is- the way you investigate? The Saturday night massacre, the smoking gun, the destruction of Agnew and myriad other administration officials all resulted from investigation that preceded any impeachment hearing. Only after all this evidence was gathered and aired before the public, when Nixon's admin was teetering, were impeachment articles brought forward. That is when the airing of charges and extant evidence is made, it isn't the investigation itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #227
243. What do you think John Conyers was doing down in that basement?
Do you suggest that it would take an extensive *further* investigation, prior to beginning an impeachment hearing, to find *anything* that this administration has done that is impeachable?

On another note, in observing your posts to others, as well as to me, I find you argumentative and unwilling to listen to the opinions of others, as well as unwilling to acknowledge that investigations have *already* been done, and far better writers than I have pointed that there is ample evidence for impeachment, just a stubborn refusal on the part of the House to do it.

"They weren't impeachment, therefore in your view they were not investigation." This is disingenuous. The point of my original post was that impeachment is *not* the trial; that happens in the Senate, if the House refers it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
224. Right on. But the big f******** D Democrats will never, never impeach. They are afraid, so very
afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
103. Start the impeachment investigation
the majority will come after the facts become public and the voters demand it of their Congress members.

They won't have any trouble getting a veto proof majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
127. Sorry to say this
But I am SO tired of the old not enough votes bullshit. If we have to wait on the votes that will be the end of the reupblic, if it isn't over already. But you keep on waiting for the perfect moment to impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
167. How did the GOP have "success"...? The public was against impeaching Bill ---
Now, we have a public which would support impeachment ---
especially if Bush were connected in any way to 9/11 --- even if LIHOP

without torture and without bankrupting the Treasury --- btw, doesn't that count?
and without eavesdropping ---

When we have sham investigations --- like the WC --- we just get more political violence --
more threats to a people's government --- and fascism moving in on us.

If we don't have investigations and impeachment over this Bush behavior ---
we'll just get more of the same!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
217. So are you saying that someone will be held accountable??? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
22. That is why it is so dangerous to have a complicit MSM 'protecting' the corrupt....
If you investigate the corruption in the MSM consolidation like Edwards says he will do, you will begin to put some pressure on the obvious corruption that is overflowing on Capitol Hill.

Once media scrutiny is reestablished, pressure will be brought to bear on members of Congress who ignore the clear evidence of corruption that the MSM unearths and reports.

It takes 'an outsider' to go up against the corporate money and the influence it buys on Capitol Hill. So campaign finance reform is the wooden stake that must be driven through the heart of the corporate controllers.

Once the media is broken up to allow more voices to be heard, and the influence of corporate money is reduced, you can then set about holding members of Congress accountable when they act against the interests of the American People.

THis is not a one term job for the next PResident, but John Edwards could certainly make a good start. And until we put someone in the Oval Office who is not afraid to go after the prior corrupt Administration, we will continue to see the same power and influences resurge in the future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felipe Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
94. Edwards is not so believable
He talks about all this investigations when elected but can't support impeachment. He even used the same talking points as Pelosi. Al he has are political promises. The only candidate who will send all this criminals to jail is Kucinich and he is already trying to do it through impeachment. All those candidates who does not support impeachment will most likely pardon all these criminals.

Justice for all the 4000 dead soldiers and over million dead Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
172. Keep in mind that the corruption of media began long, long ago ---
They must have been working on PBS about 30 years . . . !!!

Finally did it!

Nothing but fake programming now ---

And the only way they can control media is by moving it into monopoly ownership --
absolutely no competition from anyone who wants to actually practice journalism!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. I've suspected for awhile that leaving office will constitute a "get out of jail free card" for *...
...and his minions.

I can't fathom what is wrong with my party.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
26. Well duh.
But when we DUers say it, we're called nay-sayers. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
28. Trouble Is, The Highest Court Already Found Criminality In Hamdan
When they ruled "Geneva applies," it meant that years of war crimes had already been committed. I don't know what Turley's on about in that regard.

His description of a delusional beltway, mad with power, blithely destroying our once-great nation from the core principles up makes more sense. But even he allows that it's really just "some of the democratic leadership."

Which means that things are far less hopeless than he makes them out to be.

Even the most craven DC Dems could be made to see that impeachment offers us an opportunity to unify the nation and reap the myriad of security and economic benefits such unity would provide. (Even the "power mad" want money and safety.)

We can still turn the tide back to Redemption of Our National Soul.

---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thepurpose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
30. If we sit around and wait for them to do it. It will never happen.
Mr. Turley is dead on. Our rulers (both dems and gop) know full well we won't vote them out or rise up and take the streets about this. So they can get away it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
31. I think this Turkey fella is all wrong......most likely a closet Pub...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
32. Extremely true,
Disheartening but true. This is obvious to any long-term observer of American politics. It's all about getting reelected, and reelected, and reelected and....

Let's face it. Power IS like a drug that makes you feel great. Power is like being wealthy. If you were poor, then struck it rich, would you WANT to go back to being poor? I know I wouldn't. I would do damn near anything to stay wealthy.

It's just like all these celebrities that go off the deep end. If people keep telling you that they love you, you're wonderful, you're fantastic, then eventually you begin to actually believe you really are this way. You can do no wrong. The rules don't apply to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
34. I heard this interview while it was happening and was not surprised by what he had to say.
I have become numb here and have no hope that justice will be served since the Democrats voted to extend the unconstitutional FISA before they left for summer break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
174. Right . . . going so far as to not prosecute Bush . . . but to forgive those who aided in the crime!
And, I understand that there are provisions for corporations under FISA ---
if approached to violate, they were to report to FISA ---

So -- as far as I can see, the corporations see the power structure as Bush ---
not the courts . . . ???!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
36. Confirmation of what we already know.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 08:32 AM by tom_paine
While I am thankful for "confirmation of what we already know" I am tired of this country being about it's very wrst instincts. About our beautiful Old American Republic being reduced to the funtion of a tyrant's toilet paper.

And I am SICK of "confirmation of what we already know".

I know totalitarianism in Amerika is boring and mind-numbingly predictable, but I'd like to be surprised sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
38. And, also, the most depressing statement on this whole thing that I have ever heard.
And goes a long way toward reminding me why I have always had a general distrust of politicians of all stripes. And why it is so hard sometimes to get myself to vote, because I am so convinced that who I vote for makes no difference, for reasons like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. This answers the question
"Why aren't the Democrats doing anything?" It's the power. It's always been the power. As Turley, says, it's intoxicating and it makes no distinction of party affiliation. It's a collusion of power and we, the American people, are the stupid suckers who keep paying for these vermin. Virtually every one of these parasites need to be replaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. If they were replaced...maybe we get more vermin with new faces IE Blue Dogs yapping about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. If they were replaced,
maybe we could get real Americans into office, like a mechanic, or a hairdresser, or a nurse, or an administrative assistant -- people who KNOW what it's like out here. Once every couple of months I start a thread urging DUers to run for office. It sinks like a stone every time but it doesn't keep me from resurrecting it every now and again in the hopes that it will gain steam. We don't have to go for the politicians "the party" shoves at us. It's time for average Americans to run for office. Goddess knows they can't do any worse than the leaches we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #43
59. Yes, I can agree with the notion....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alterfurz Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
121. my dad always used to say...
...that taking the first 535 people from the telephone book would yield not only a far more representative Congress, but a far more enlightened one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
132. What you're talking about ...
is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. There never was supposed to be "professional carreer politicians". Ordinary people were to come forth, serve their time in office, then going back to being whatever they were.

Again, and I can't harp on this enough, we need to fix the voting system before anything else. Because it doesn't make a bit of difference to anything if our votes aren't correctly counted - and right now THEY ARE NOT!

We fix the vote and all the other problems melt away. That's why we're not hearing about the Election Fraud anywhere. It IS the one thing that would bring the powers that be to their knees. And they'll do everything in their power to make sure we don't have fair elections - unless we STOP THEM! This country has been being hi-jacked for years by rigged elections and it's only getting worse.

How else does one explain that a majority of the people WANT accountability yet the so-called representatives of the people are doing everything in their power to deny the people's wishes? Just who are they "representing"? Not us - that's for sure.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #132
176. There certainly weren't supposed to be two official parties, either ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #132
255. I agree with you that
citizen government is what (some of) the Founders intended. I also agree that election reform should be our number one priority. I, however, disagree that if we get the election fraud issue straightened out, that all will be magically OK. It won't. We'll still have special interests shoving candidates down our throats and special interest dollars getting them elected -- regardless of party.

Convincing regular Americans to run is one thing, getting the party to back that person is quite another. The Founders KNEW that political parties were the bane of Democracy and they were right. It's too bad because the parties could actual HELP regain our Democracy. The bad news is that the power-grabbing seen in Washington is duplicated on a smaller scale at the local level within each party. Everyone has their own little fiefdoms and no one wants to give up power. Consequently, they quickly lose sight of what it is they were there to do in the first place. So then it becomes a question of, are the parties actually hindering our efforts and if they are, do we need to rethink their usefulness to the citizenry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #43
157. Thank you for your post on people running.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 05:01 PM by truedelphi
I ran for office (City COuncil) in 2000.

I heard all sorts of criticism from my fellow Democrats. I don't have a master's degree. I don't hold an executive postion. My wardrobe isn't suitable for the bright lights. Etc.

I actually got more support from Republicans who knew me!

And once you are part of this process, you begin to see the area that exists behind the curtain. The people behind the curtain are not any smarter or hard working or deserving than the auto mechanic, or the nurse. In fact, some of them are clueless, but because they have their own personal "Rove" managing everything for them, they are elected over and over again.

Republicans have made it their priamry goal to have their people run for ofice, starting small and going big. And yet we yap on and on about them being in power.But except for the stolen elections of the past eight years - all the hard work of the Republicans to get the local offices is just that - hard work. Their school teachers, librarians, nurses and auto mechanics do run for office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
175. It's impossible to run as a Democrat --- you need huge piles of $$$
YOU CAN RUN AS A GREEN ---

And doing just that you can get a lot of info across ---

With the Democrats, they even have the "delegates" pretty much sewn up ---

I did, however, become a delegate for Brown ---

So --- in weighing things --- maybe I've been wrong in thinking of pushing to reform
Dem party --- maybe we do need a new party?

ALL of us together moving to a new party --- at one time --- ???






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
44. Tutrley "these are not principled people in this city "
"They dont really believe in principle. They believe in power and once they get power I dont think theyre going to be pursuing principle"

He's talking about some of the democrats as well as the republicans in congress.

and he's right.

oh fuck this is depressing.

I'm thinking John Edwards has the moral fortitude to resist the intoxicating, perverted influence of political power described here and to stand for principle.

but what of our congressional leaders? the Diane Feinsteins and Chuck Shumers.

our system is fucked. just fucked. and I'm disgusted by it all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
46. Of course not
the next president will be elected to end the war and fix the economy. Can't do either if the Congress is tied in knots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
47. "...parties mean very, very little."
That's what many of us on the left have been saying for the last decade and more. There will be no meaningful, sustainable political reform in America as long as the country is divided between two flavors of the same party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
49. Turley's is second theory I've heard on this.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:45 AM by philly_bob
The other theory was that the Dems know that Bush, facing impeachment, would call martial law and cancel 2008 election. (Please I don't have time for link, but I read it on DU; help anyone?)

Now Turley offers this...

Hmmm. Two theories? Or two pieces of one theory?

(Edited to add third explanation)

Of course there's a third, less exciting explanation: that the Dems know they don't have the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #49
190. How can they know they don't have the votes
...when they haven't even investigated and gathered any evidence yet? That's the first part of impeachment: House investigations. The trial takes place in the Senate after the House finishes investigating and votes to send it on to the Senate based on the weight of the evidence uncovered.

Just like the police pick up law-breakers and present the evidence they find, and the case is either brought to trial or not. The police don't decide before they arrest someone what the chances are of convicting. Neither should the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
51. Knowledge is power.
The more that have this knowledge, the better. Our power can outweigh theirs if there are enough who have it. We have to keep putting on the pressure and pray for media coverage from true journalistic patriots like Moyers. But we must stay focused and not let up on the pressure, and we must be creative about our angles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #51
178. Re Moyers . . .
I don't see that he has ever brought any changes about ---

What he does is repeat what Nader revealed decades ago ---

What he does is put everyone to sleep ---

I remember once there was a lot of foo foo about Betty Friedan's book --
"The Feminist Mystique" . . . and that the French writer, whose names escapes
me at the moment had really done the issue before her --- in her own book --


BUT the difference was that it was Betty Friedan who actually got women up off
their couches and out into the streets, into the schools, into politics -- etal.

Again -- I don't see that Moyer ever changes anything ---
and his background and connections to LBJ are disgusting ---

Pierre Salinger once related that he and Moyers recognized that LBJ was
"clinically psychotic" when he was in the White House .. .

and . . . ????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
52. They not only won't investigate, but they will cover it up.
Read how the Clinton Justice Department tried to cover up wrongdoings by the Bush Regime:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111406.html

--snip--

Clintons Justice Department apparently wanted to clear the decks of these complicated historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush years. Clinton found those old controversies a distraction from his goal of focusing on the nations domestic needs.
The Clinton administrations debunking report about Iraqgate had been so determined to see no evil that the Clinton lawyers didnt even object to the discovery that the CIA had been hiding evidence from them.
In the course of our work, we learned of sensitive compartments of information not normally retrievable and of specialized offices that previously were unknown to the CIA personnel who were assisting us, wrote John M. Hogan, counselor to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Without further skepticism or curiosity, Hogan added, I do not believe this uncertainty severely undermined our investigation.
In other words, the CIA had withheld sensitive compartments of information from the Justice Department and rather than conclude that this concealed evidence might be worth seeing the Clinton investigators assumed that the hidden compartments must not be very significant.

--snip--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zazzle Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
90. John Edwards would investigate Bush's corruption!!
It's unlikely Obama or Hillary would because of their DC insider status that Edwards never sought.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #90
112. The Dem candidates need to be confronted and asked
if they would commit to a wide ranging investigation of the Bush Administration.


This idea that it would be a distraction isn't going to cut it this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
53. I doesn't have to be that way.
It is the cowardice of Democratic voters, who continue to put corrupt people into office because they are terrified of "losing," that has lost the big picture and the long-term health of the nation.

If Democrats don't like it, they can quit following the corrupt establishment blindly with their votes, and start electing people who won't play along.

For example, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to agree with Turley's statements, and then cast a vote for several of the candidates on the '08 primary ticket.

Why not start right there, and nominate someone who won't play that game? Someone who WILL hold the Bush administration accountable, now and after they've left office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #53
100. BRAVO!!!
Something similar that I posted yesterday...

Ever since I found DU in 2004 there were a few common concerns...the integrity of our elections, the lies that lead us to war, the illegal acts of this administration and the loss of our Constitutional Rights and maybe the loss of jobs/wages and the lack of health care.

Dennis finds himself in a unique spot because he voted against the bills that created so many of the problems while many other candidates voted for the bills.

So who should I support? For me the choice is clear.


"If other candidates will not do the will of the people, whose will are they doing?"

Good question!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #100
110. Exactly.
The choice couldn't be clearer.

"It" (I really do know how to spell it, lol) can be any way that we choose, as long as we have the same courage DK does, to keep voting for, and working for, the change we wish to see regardless of the size of the opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #110
183. Yes it can!!!
"It" can be any way that we choose...

And I just added the "t" in my mind :)

I'm voting for courage this time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duval Donating Member (377 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
151. Kucinich wouldn't "play the game",
but he'll never get the nomination. Makes one wonder about getting a can of gasoline and a light! I respect Turley and he is probably right about all of this. As for "taking to the streets", unless we do in massive numbers, some of us may end up in one of Haliburton's holding pens. And, yes, that does scare me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #151
177. Each person, one at a time,
has to decide what he or she can do, and is willing to do. I'm willing to give DK a vote, because that's the direction I want the country to go. If more people had that kind of courage, he COULD get the nomination.

I'm not sure what I can do "in the streets," but I'm willing to direct my votes to supporting those who won't play the game, regardless of their party affiliation. I'm willing to direct my spending towards local and independent business, and locally produced goods, whenever possible. I'm willing to support, with time and $$, any cause that moves us forward.

If each of us will say the same, we can effect change. My small contributions aren't much, but I've got my slingshot, and I'm ready.

Together, we are a force that can take down the game. Somebody has to start, though. Someone has to have the courage to step out on their own, and begin the process. Just like Kucinich has done in Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
55. Too important to drop. But too frustrating for commentary. A depressed K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
56. I really just don't even want to let myself believe this. A sickened K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #56
102. Denial is an ugly thing
How can you deny what is front of your face? When the reasons ring hollow - when you know you're being lied to - when you see the results - how can you not believe the system is rigged?

We could change things - we could change them over-night. But we need to ACT on those changes. The FIRST and most important thing is to make our votes COUNT! And by that I mean "counted", because right now they're NOT! And if we don't make a major push for uniform, verifiable elections we'll keep getting screwed over an over again and this country will NEVER reach it's true dream.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
62. ...
...

K&R

a bubble burster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
64. Sickening, but true
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:21 AM by MissDeeds
It's becoming increasingly apparent that we have lost our country; not losing it, but lost it. We thought the huge victories in November '06 would mean a change, an accountability, but nothing has come of it. Of course there were a few feeble attempts at "investigations" and threats of impeachment if this despotic administration did one more thing...then one more thing...then one more thing. It has all been an attempt to give us crumbs and lull us into believing that our leaders are really doing something, that it just takes time. All the while our Constitution has been shredded, people have died, a country that did nothing to us has been invaded and bombed, our soldiers return home to be denied benefits, health care and find themselves homeless - Those of you here know the whole wretched tale as well as I.

And then we roll around to Dec. 2007, and we are told it's too late now; that this administration will be out of office in just over a year and investigations, probes, and impeachment proceedings take too long - and there simply isn't any time left.

We've been had, folks. We made the mistake of believing that good would win out and that this country - and our leadership was better than this.

What is sickening is that they are going to get away with it. Not just BushCo, but our Democratic leadership that enabled this to go forward, unchecked, unstopped. Each and every one of them is complicit. Damn them all to hell.

Rant off




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiendish Thingy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
65. Yet another reason why DU should be renamed dU...
Change the name of this forum from

Democratic (party) Underground to

democratic (principle) Underground

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
66. Oh man. That's so depressing
He's a smart guy. But boy, that's hard to take!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
67. Correct..."disheartening, disgusting, discouraging and infuriating" and
...totally un-American, anti-constitutional and corrupt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
68. Thank you so much for this - I listened and my heart broke - I knew he was right
Randi kept saying he's a libertarian - and that may be so, but unlike his brethren, this one is far from retarded. Can't argue with the facts either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
71. What a truckload of B.S. this is. This is lies passing for news talk.
Turley said, "I can promise you this: the democrats will never allow those people to be identified and prosecuted ..."

So, now Turley is the dictator of the Dems. I don't think so. It is an interesting conversation, but I just lost respect for Turley.

This is just a pile of useless spin bashing the Dems. For example, "And so, one of the reasons you dont see the democrats tackling these issues and the reason theyre thinking about immunity for telecoms is that they cant afford to have a court actually render a verdict."

Well, they are tackling telecom immunity, debating it and voting on it. So, that's just a lie.

And, the real whooper, paraphrasing to a reality-oriented version, Dems cannot afford to have Bush found guilty of a crime. Now, that's really a rich spin. Give that one a "Solar System" award for the degree of spin. If a court renders a verdict that finds Bush guilty of crimes, Bush resigns. Simple enough.

Do not hang this on the DEMs, dammit. Bush committed the crimes of torture and illegal spying.
Now, spin the fact to injure the DEMs. That, my friends, is one very huge truckload of R B.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #71
82. you lost respect for turley? well, go ahead and live your dream
that first dream of bush resigning if found guilty by a court! hahaha! i guess you didn't bother to listen to the interview--because before this section of the interview they discussed court cases whereby these judges keep throwing the cases out everytime the government whispers "states secrets"

why don't you take your time and listen to the entire interview?

(and just the thought of bush resigning is fucking hysterical! step into the real world here--that fucker sure as hell isn't nixon!)

"Well, they are tackling telecom immunity, debating it and voting on it. So, that's just a lie."
right...and that's why difi and schumer are gonna give them immunity. i'm assuming this remark is based, in part, on your eagerness to have your telecom thread responded to with emails--but come on. maybe you missed the memo? "Feinstein backs legal immunity for telecom firms in wiretap cases" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/1...


and finally: if "Bush committed the crimes of torture and illegal spying" and if our dems are such heros then WHY IS NOTHING BEING DONE ABOUT THIS SHIT???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #82
146. first, Turley says judges throw cases out due to state secrets but THEN Turley says if Bush
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 04:44 PM by cryingshame
was tried in court via Democrats, he'd be found guilty.

Hello? Which is it, case gets thrown out due to state secrets or it goes ahead and he's found guilty.

He then goes on to say that this would automatically trigger an impeachment. That is totally untrue, since impeachment is only begun when someone introduces it, it's voted on and then acted upon in the House.

Not to mention that it is NOT a given Bush would technically be found guilty.

Turley is just making shit up.

It sounds feasible. Especially if you're frustrated and desperately want the Democrats to wave a magic wand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #146
188. hello? "state secrets" are being thrown up to judges in court cases
according to randi, from privacy groups and individuals who feel they have been spied on--

THAT has nothing to do with impeachment getting thrown out of the house. what the ___ are you talking about?

turley is just making shit up? he's a constitutional scholar.
seems to me someone is making shit up but it ain't turley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasterdemocratkilkil Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
107. I disagree.
Actually, the FISA bill would've sailed through if Chris Dodd hadn't of stepped in. I don't know how to explain why Democrats have been pulling their punches (on the impeachment of Gonzalez, signing statements, the USA scandal, WMD lies, etc), but this is just as good of an explanation as any.

Why do you think the Dems are not pursuing impeachment? There are obviously real crimes involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
137. Right! All those BCCI crooks walked the plank after Clinton took...
er... never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladywnch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
72. well, what I'm still not getting is: so the dems made this 'pact' with the
repubs to not impeach jr and company. does ANYONE really think that repubs will return the favor once a dem is back in the white house? If the dems in fact are as power hungry as Turley indicates, it would make much more sense to impeach and brand the repubs as the corrupt party thus tarnishing them for another 30 years or so like it did when they drove Nixon out of office?

I still just don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftist_not_liberal Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. It's not all that different from the liberals in 19th century Russia
The bourgeoisie protects itself when the shit really hits the fan. True then. True now.

There is nothing nonsensical about it through the eyes of a commie, I'll tell you that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #74
201. The Democrats are the bourgeoisie--that's too stupid to even laugh at!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
75. It's important for people in this era to join NGO's
that stand up for the constitution, human rights, etc. The only way to confront power with truth is to be organized and become a political force to fight issues for democracy in our courts and in the public through education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
76. Dems are implicated in this whole criminal enterprise, damn right they are not
going to pursue this...
with all the help they gave george along the way? It would be suicidal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
202. How could the Dems get burned by what bush did?
How are they implicated in anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #202
205. enablers who knew many of bush's statements were lies, and then voting for the war
and funding it. just for starters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #205
206. The public sees this as bush's war.
Even though a lot of the public realizes that the Democrats were useful stooges in the early enterprise. Who could forget the bush "cult of personality" and all the media hype that was flung at America? That's not the Dems fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #206
228. stooges is right. Pelosi, wHoyer, Reid = Curly, Moe and larry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #228
266. No. Gephardt, Dascle and Lieberman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileo3000 Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
81. Maybe I lack your vision
but I'm just not this paranoid. I'm not convinced that the best way to fight policies and decisions made out of fear by embracing theories based on more fear. Just my meager opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
219. Fair response. What do you think will happen? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
83. Prove it
Where does Turley get his information that the Democrats have signed a super-secret pledge to protect Bush at all costs? Show me the document. He's not an insider to the halls of power any more than I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #83
111. Prove it?
Look, if I'm walking through the woods and I step in bear shit, I can pretty much assume there's a bear there somewhere. I don't need to bump into to him to know the bear is there.

We're stepping in shit all over the place and you can assume that someone is denying that it doesn't smell to high heavens. One only has to look at what is NOT being down in the face of over-whelming evidence that the "fix" is in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. Oh really?
So because there's arrogance in Washington (and no one denies that) this PROVES that all the Congressional Democrats have made a pledge to Bush that they will leave him alone forever?

We know the one. No one denies it. The second is wild specualtion. Prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #116
122. Not all - enough ...
Not all the Dems are in on the fix - but enough are - the proof is in their INACTION to do what everyone knows is right. The reasons given for not acting on impeachment are ridiculous and an insult to us all. We know it - we see it - we hear it - and nothing happens. Investigations that drag on forever with no results. Hearings that shock us and then nothing happens. The killing goes on, the kidnappings go on, the torture goes on, the wire-tapping goes on and all this will keep going on because there is no one there to stop it. That's all the "proof" I need.

If you're waiting for someone to come forward with some sort of written document signed in blood that they've pledged not to impeach you'll be waiting for a long time. They don't write these things done. It's a wink and a nod. The "proof" is in the pudding. And the pudding here is the sorry ass excuses we keep hearing for not impeaching.

Look how the Dems tried to stiffle Kucinich's charge's against cheney. In the face of over-whelming evidence that cheney should be held accountable Dems were tripping over themselves to make sure a man with a 9% approval rating remains in office. Explain this and I'll concede that the Dems aren't in on the fix. But until then - through the results (or lack of) I've seen so far I will have to believe that the Dems are as bad as the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #122
128. Nope, I don't buy it
The fact that an impeachment would absorb all the time left in Bush's term does not mean that they are protecting him by not doing it. The fact that the Dem leadership voted to table Kucinich's resolution does not constitute them trying to protect Cheney. the reasons that impeachment aren't happenning are simple enough, they get explained here every day, and people ignore them because they want an impeachment regardless. I'm not going back into them. I quit, because no one listens anyway. But I still want a lot more real proof, and not just specualtion, that the Democratic leadership is in a secret cabal with Bush than just the fact that impeachment isn't happenning the way you want it to. It's going to take a lot more to convince me that Turley simply stating it is that way too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #128
180. they get explained here every day ??
The only reasons I hear explained here are shallow amoral political calculations. And most of them are transparent long-discredited lies - like the "takes too much time" meme. Fucking sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #116
136. prove it? OKAY! "IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE"! there! i fucking
proved it.
from the mouth of our democratic leadership!

and btw--turley never said dems *signed* some super secret document or whatever you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #136
144. Wow! You're right!
Pelosi said that impeachment is off the table. THAT PROVES she's made a secret agreement with Bush, which IS in Turley's interview transcript in the OP! (right here BTW - you may want to see about a course in reading comprehension while you're at it: And they have already promised the white house--Im talking about the democrats--that they will not have any impeachment inquiry for the rest of his term. PROMISE means an actual agreement)

Watertight case! It's a recorded fact! Pelosi is fellating Bush as we speak!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #144
189. promise is not a secret signed document. not on *this* planet.
do some reading comprehension yourself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #144
204. You forgot the :sarcasm: smilie
and your foils forgot to craft a response. :sigh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. oops - Being "done" - instead of "down"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
222. Me thinks that if you are on the Titanic and someone said it was sinking, you'd say "prove it".
Look around. The Constitution has been shredded. Who is even interested in putting it back together? Pray tell me who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
86. It is a RACE
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 01:59 PM by windoe
to see how many fascist laws can be put in place before more Americans wake up. It is just dawning on most of us that we do not presently have a Constitution and must work to retrieve it back now. Meanwhile MSM is circulating memes that are attempting to change popular opinion enabling the enforcement of these new tyrranical laws. Laws against 'radicalization' are moves to crush all dissent and organizations.
I know people personally that have lived under dictatorships and they are telling me we are pretty far down that road, folks. I want to see more people wake up and smell the cappacino.
What do we do now? France shut down until they got what they wanted. I do not want to see things come down to this kind of standoff, but if we are not heard how else can we get the message across peacefully?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southern_belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
95. k & r ;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
98. Not to rain on this parade, but Turley's making a lot of assertions without
anything to back them up. How does he know, for example, that the Dems made a deal with Bush? Who are his sources for all these assertions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #98
130. Apparently it's self-evident
Since Bush hasn't been dragged from the White House and beheaded yet, all of the Democrats have been taken over by some sort of Bush mind-control power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #98
138. (i don't know--but i'm still pissed about pelosi's double date w/bush) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
101. If true, Dem leaders in Congress are breaking the law
and must also be held accountable.

Its reassuring that he mentions not all Dems in Congress support this, only some Dem leaders.

But we have to be prepared to go after members of our own party as well as the Bush administration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gonnuts Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #101
125. Is it just dawning on some of you ...
that we have a criminal government?

I've been around for a long time and I would be hard-put to remember when the "fix" wasn't in. In my life-time I don't it ever was not in. But now it's grown into something so totally corrupt as to be unrecognizable as anything close to being a representative government. Holding elected officials on some kind of pedestal and thinking that because they belong to a certain party that they can't be corrupted is naive at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #125
134. Sorry, I disagree
I'm not a believer that "all politicians are corrupt" or "government is bad".

The majority of Dem elected officials work very hard, are honest and deserve praise and support. There are a few lately who have sold out and need to be held accountable, but saying they're all corrupt is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
104. Welcome to the human race
This is how it is. If you think people interested in power are scary when they get into power, wait until you see what it's like when people motivated by ideology get into power. How many millions did Stalin kill in the name of a philosophy based on sharing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. We don't want Stalins in the USA
and there's no point in being complacent about Dem leadership complicity in Bush crimes.

This is America, we believe in democracy and we need to honor our ancestors and forefathers by protecting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
108. Of course nobody of the Bushites will be held accountable.
Of course no civil liberties are going to be restored.

That's all in the game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
115. D.C.'s a cesspool
The totality of the American political system needs to be lanced. The few that are noble have no power to speak of and they are very few.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
119. Last paragraph - Naomi Wolf - on a Nazi coup by this admin.
"Wolf concluded that history shows the only safe course for preserving freedom in such a climate is to prosecute and jail the protagonists of the coup as early as possible, a process many would argue should have been enacted several years ago."

From next blog on DU after this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wash. state Desk Jet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #119
129. It ain,t over until it,s over.
You cannot account for the unforeseen befor it is there. What you can do is count on past erxperience when confronting the unforeseen.
You don,t over estimate acrossed it befor itis there either ,because that,s pie in the sky.

And the stadium is never built over night.
To build a case for impeachment it,s one thing stacked upon another in order and all the facts clearly there.

Edwards says there is a wall that was built over time around Washington DC. Has he forgotten about the instant wall put up around the White House when the Bush,s came back into power?

Because that,s just where it ain,t over until it,s over and nobody has as of yet seen the unforeseen. That does not mean it will not come to the surface.Which further means, It Can Happen.

And it further means that reguardless to party , it does not matter who get,s caught in the cross fire ,if and when it does.

It,s only too easy to toss in the towel, which is giving up hope.

It,s not what you see in it, it,s what you have not as of yet seen that counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wundermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #119
142. too late
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
124. THESE Democrats will do nothing.
We need to repopulate the house with non-corporate, educated citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
131. 
God, I hope he's wrong. There are three things that will push me out of the Democratic Party.

1) A failure to restore habeus corpus and the rule of law.
2) A failure to punish those who have destroyed the rule of law.
3) Selecting a candidate who will not do either of the above and will seek to preserve the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
135. Hey -- thank you! I checked last night and didn't see the program listed yet ---
I also called the show, speaking with the assistant --- trying to get them to cover
the subject again --- in even more depth . . . but I don't think I got across how
significant I thought all of this was. ???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
139. Democrats are just as much insiders as the GOP is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librarycard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
140. I will never contribute to another incumbent, period.
I believe new blood in politics encourages a restoration of principled politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
141. Why, pray tell, is DENNIS KUCINICH's name so conspicuously absent from this discussion?
When he has already shown that he is serious about impeachment, investigations, hearings and such to address the crimes of the Bush
Administration?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #141
149. Because we are talking about the people in power that we are MAD AS HELL AT
And Dennis is not one of those??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. ah, thanks for the clarification n\t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #153
159. But in a sense you are right too - people
Ask numberless times in posts above what the solution is.

Maybe some one ought to go in and post Dennis is the solution! to every post that asks that !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #159
200. Yes. That is my point exactly.
All this Liberal hand-wringing seems more than a little ridiculous when there's a viable vocal courageous man
putting himself on the line to address these very issues.

If you don't put together such a post I may. thanks for the suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
166. When politicians don't contest it is usually because THEY have something to hide
the many skeletons in the closet Democrats may have might be exposed. The other thing is that Bush and friends have ways to make people not do something to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #166
181. Yep - all the investigations and outstanding matters left from Bush1 got deep-sixed
by his Dem successor and throughout the 90s whenever a matter involving Poppy Bush's illegal operations came up they were quietly swept aside.

BushInc grew STRONGER in the 90s thanks to Bill's willingness to protect Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #181
193. Yes, BushCo grew stronger because they got away with
everything. Then Bush Jr. was in a position to appoint two SC judges and Alito was the person who wrote the proposal in the '80's on how a president could make more effective use of signing statements. I sent the link to a few Senators during the Alito confirmation hearings, but I never heard any reference to the document. Robert Parry posted the link in one of his articles, but I'll find it if anyone is interested.

Holding people accountable for their actions does matter.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
184. Well we know the French will go after Bush if he should enter that country after ending his term
just like they did with Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
194. Another missing aspect
If these things were declared, the those Democrats that are infected with the same hunger for power as the Republicans won't be able to use these cool, unconstitutional toys themselves once they kick the Republicans out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
195. I believe that Edwards will ensure Bush accountability because he is a plaintiff's attorney.
He believes in seeing justice done in the court room. He will instruct his DOJ to start enforcing the Constitution, and he will make sure that people who have been victimized can sue in civil courts.

This is one of the reasons why the GOP is so scared of him. He respects the law, as all true lawyers do.

Kucinich would do the same thing, because he represents the common man and woman.

Turley, whether deliberately or by accident is feeding into one of the GOP's campaign strategies, which is to encourage voter apathy among Democrats. He is painting our primary as over and done with before it is even done. He acts as if Hillary is no different from Bush (a Republican lie) and as if she has already anointed (another Republican lie).

I think it is an accident. I think the man knows a lot about law and sh*t about politics. Therefore, he does not realize that his words breed apathy, which breeds working class voter despair, which encourages voters to opt out of the democratic process altogether, making his prediction a self fulfilling prophecy. Already, GOP puppets are scribbling down what he has said and will quote selected passages out of context to further their own goals.

Too many media pundits who live, sleep and breathe within the ivory towers of the corporate world have assumed that Democrats will vote the way that we have been instructed to by the corporate press. This is not how it works in the Democratic primary. At least, this has never been how it worked in the past. Prove them wrong once again. Vote for Edwards or Kucinich in the primaries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #195
211. Even if he does, he would be fighting his party. They don't believe that. Ask Nancy. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
197. Wow damn. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
198. This is exactly why some of us bitterly resent, the lesser of evils bullshit. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dunn Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
199. I wonder if that is why Bush wants to keep the war going...the Democrats could be accused
of going after the President during a time of war and being more interested in politics then national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #199
234. now you know rove was telling charlie rose that it was the dems who
pushed for a vote on the war--not bush. i don't know if what you said is the justification for keeping the war going--i suspect it's too lucrative to put an end to it. but now they (rove at least) is going about the task of rewriting the fucking criminal history. amazing, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
203. I just finished listening to this on the podcast
and all I can say is.. when the people are left with no other recourse....

And this is why they are also trying to criminalize thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
207. This is an easy one. We are living in a 21st Century fascist country.
Technology has changed everything. It is easier to accept a lie as truth. Orwell was right in more ways than he even knew.
It's more than a politician protecting their ass. What needs to be done cannot be spoken or expressed out loud for fear of being carted off to a concentration camp in another country. We do not live in a free country any longer and the people that disagree with the government will be marginalized and destroyed either psychologically or physically. :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
210. Please, this post points out the most significant issue our democracy faces.
Our government no longer represents us. The are way to comfortable. They are all in the club. Term limits are needed. But you can't get them to invoke term limits. They will pledge to do such then change their minds when they get in there. You can't unseat an incumbent in your party. YOU CAN'T F********* REPLACE AN INCUMBENT IN YOUR OWN PARTY. Do I have your attention. They can and do whatever they want. And some people still believe that emails, letters and phone calls work. Bull-f*****-shit, Why would a Democratic incumbent pay any attention to emails?????? Tell me plez. They are guaranteed reelection. Nancy Pelosi is guaranteed renomination by the Democratic Party.

Unless...............unless you are ready to vote for a republican to unseat an incumbent Democrat. And then hopefully next time get a Democrat that will listen. Unless you are ready to do that, we are toast. Lesser of evils is a joke.

the HOR is supposed to represent the middle class. How can they do that when they all are rich and in the rich class.

Our representatives are not willing to fix a system that benefits them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #210
259. Sorry, I went a little over the top on this post. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #210
279. How would electing a Repug help in any way --- ??? Whaaaaat????
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 10:36 PM by defendandprotect
Term limits are meaningless ---
They work against you and for you at different times ---

We don't have much time --

if you understand Global Warming ---

and if you understand fascism ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
215. This is what I have thought for a long time! I have no heros anymore!
At first it was depressing but now I just hate their guts and take pleasure in every bit of misery that comes their way! I have some people I still like but I don't let my guard down. Washington stays the enemy in my mind until something is done to reign them in! They need a cage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
216. This is the most important post. kick. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
220. "You are powerless. Go back to bed America."
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:14 PM by pat_k
Declaring they'll never impeach" is just as false, and destructive, as declaring "The Senate will never remove."

These "nevers" say one thing:
"You are powerless. Go back to bed America."

"Don't lobby for impeachment. It's a waste of time. They'll never do it.
You are powerless. Go back to bed America."

"Don't impeach. The Senate will never remove. The U.S. House is powerless.
You are powerless. Go back to bed America."
And if the House impeaches, don't be surprised if a new drumbeat starts:
"Don't vote to remove. They won't go anyway. The Senate is powerless.
You are powerless. Go back to bed America."
Like so many others who sow hopelessness and apathy, I've heard Turley ask "Where are the people?"

Sadly, a whole bunch of the people who might otherwise be demanding action are precisesly where the chattering class has told them to go. When it comes to politics, they've gone "back to bed."

But if those who wonder "Where are the people?" would bother to notice, they'd see that there are more people actively and vocally calling for impeachment than they've seen on any other issue.
  • Offices on the Hill are being hammered with an ever increasing number of calls, faxes, and even visits. When asked, staffers can name no other lobbying effort that has generated as many contacts by as many people for as long a period of time. Even those who defend Pelosi's "off the table" edict tell us they personally want to see Bush and Cheney impeached.
  • "At the offices of the Pew Research Center in Washington, Scott Keeters inbox gets jammed up every so often with hundreds of e-mails asking him to poll on impeachment." and "Pew and other pollsters say they have never seen anything like it." (link)
  • Earlier this month, ARG found that 70% believe the Bush administration is abusing power.
Clearly the DC Dems are feeling the heat. If they weren't, they wouldn't feel compelled to lash out at impeachment advocates.

The only time that the declaration "It will never happen" is true is when nobody stands and fights for It.

Well, people are fighting for imepachment and Members of Congress are getting more defenisve. And the more they defend, the more they find themselves being forced to confront reality. The more they fight us, the more they talk themselves into a box they can only escape by impeaching Bush and Cheney.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
--Mohandas Gandhi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #220
235. I will continue fighting for it but I don't expect them
to do the people's business

Their INTERESTS are not yours or mine, but those of the elite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #235
240. Sadly agree. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #235
248. It's not about them. It's about us.
From Response #247:

. . .When we challenge them to act and challenge their bogus "reasons" for dereliction, our principle goal is to make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns.

But that is not the ONLY goal. If we are unable to wake them up and make them our champions in time, our efforts have other payoffs. As we fight we engage others who are more likely to join future battles. And when we force them to "defend" their dereliction we gather ammo (i.e., their own immoral and assinine "defenses") that primary challengers can use to defeat them. . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #248
251. i like your spunk! (after reading post 247!)
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
229. Is anyone really surprised at this?
Except for a few mavericks who get ostracized and ridiculed for their efforts, the Democrats in Congress seem almost desperate NOT to hold the Junta accountable for their actions.

This latest bit is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #229
237. I am not surprised. It will take a revolution to get us back, if possible. Actually, I don't think
it is possible. Nice run, but the greedy win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
238. Please read my post #210. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #238
249. i did read it. but i don't have a solution. i agree w/your point, but i
would be hard pressed to vote for any republican. so i just don't vote and let a puke get in? and eventually we run a "real" progressive rather than the old dem politician that was too fucking comfortable in his/her job to do what they should have by standing up for justice for the american people? well, i guess i could do that.

so then we put up w/republica rule for two years. again.

and lose the committees (and the oversight--what little we're actually doing with it!)

jesus--even jane harmon has become a traitor to the american people with her freak
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18442/26 /
"A clue to future "other purposes" may lie in the Act's parentage. The proud House "mother" of the Patriot Act's evil twin is Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. Rep. Harmon has admitted to a long and productive relationship with the RAND Corporation, a California based think-tank with close ties to the military-industrial-intelligence complex. RAND's 2005 study, "Trends in Terrorism," contains a chapter titled, "Homegrown Terrorist Threats to the United States." Is this Act a bastard child?"

check out the whole article.

i'm pretty much at a loss at the moment, rhett. i don't have the answer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #249
260. Thanks, but i think you are the only one to read my response. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #260
261. i doubt that i was the only one to read your post. i think a lot of people
read posts but don't reply--i wasn't going to reply, because--as i said in the reply i finally made--i don't have any answers. i read your post and i just didn't know what to say.

i'm sure i wasn't the only one to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #261
269. Thanks for that. I got a little crazy on Sat. To think that the Bush Admin will never be
held accountable drove me over the edge. I don't know the answer that's why I wrote the response. I am hoping some one will tell me I am crazy or tell me a strategy to get out of this problem. I am afraid a major rebuild of the process is necessary. How can we ever get those in power to yield the power back to us?

Thanks for responding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGodsNoMasters Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
239. Sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
241. I have to ask with some others here,
why did this cut against Clinton but not Bush? I'm not saying there's nothing to it, but something's missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
250. as someone who grew up in DC & visits often, I must say Turley is right
This is the "incumbent party," whether they're repukes or Dems. There are just so very few who see through the Beltway mystique.

Of course, I can because I remember when the Beltway was farm country producing tomatoes, corn and tobacco. Oh, how far we've come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
253. Thanks for posting this
I heard the interview and sat transfixed at his ominous prediction, and I am glad to read the interview now. He paints a bleak picture and I've got a knot in my stomach.

I have to believe and hope that the People won't allow it. The People are waking up, and they are sick of the Republicans and the Democrats forgetting their principles and promises. They are SICK of it. They've been slumbering deeply, and while they're late to the party, they are coming and there will be a day of accounting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #253
258. More people need to wake up
There are still too many slumbering deeply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
278. THIS should make Democrats question even further PELOSI and DLC ---
and any DLC candidates running for presidency ---

When is that going to happen here ---???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Aug 19th 2019, 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC