More meta below the fold.
Have we reached this state in our discourse, that mere expression of disagreement is too harsh?
I find your arguments unconvincing.
I don't have to pull up pages and pages of facts and spend hours and hours re-inventing the wheel or pull the appropriate bookmark on the last thorough debunking of what you still consider a valid debatable point.
Among points that are not debatable are that impeachment enjoys majority support among people who self identify as Democrats. Yes I'm talking about the ARG Poll-
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07 Percent of Sample- ek Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9%
3/15/06 (Trend- ek) 42% 49% 9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.
That's a fact. Now you can argue that apples indeed fall up (and they actually do on quantum level, but I digress), but you can't expect to convince me.
Why is convincing me important?
My name is Norman Bates. I'm just a normal guy.
"My name is Norman Bates-s-s-s-s."
I represent your normal mainstream Democratic voter. The kind of guy who might drive little old ladies to the poll if you asked me nice.
In fact, despite my enormous vanity, I'm even popular among a certain circle and my opinions carry weight.
A responsibility I might add that I don't take lightly.
Here are some of them-
- The Democratic party is perceived by many as weak, and unable to protect our liberty (libertarians can feel free to interpret that remark any way they like) even though this is contrary to reality.
- Especially among people who self identify as Independents there is a perception that all politicians are corrupt liars who are only interested in their own careers (as a practicing politician I can only attest personally to that sad fact).
And here's where I really get speculative, so break out some extra tinfoil.
- A way for the Deomcratic party to combat these right wing, neocon, Thuglican talking points is to actually show some gumption and stand up to Mr. Now 25%, in any measurable way at all.
Front paged on this site was a graph demonstrating that this obstructionist Thuglican group of co-conspirators and enablers is going to set new records in defense of the criminal cabal that now rules Washington.
What do you expect to change about the debate unless you change what the debate is about? How do you expect to overcome obstruction when any action at all takes 60 votes to agree to even discuss things?
And while I favor defunding the occupation I don't think it will have any effect at all on the actions of this criminal regime so there!
Prove me wrong.
Some suggest that all we need do is not pass any bills at all and shut down the government. "How did that work out for Newt" is a legitimate question and one that had to be defended by defunders before everyone decided that it was actually a good thing to be for.
So the Overton Window moves.
I say, get over it.
Some people are opinion leaders and some are
I'm a centrist and if you're not willing to court my vote and pander to me with chocolate fountains why should I listen to abhorrent opinions at all? Why clutter my mind with such things?
Dismissive of your reasoned arguments?
Hah, hah, hah.
Or should I say Doh.
I suggest you go back to the top and explain to me again, slowly for I am frightfully dull (and boring to talk to too) how those numbers don't mean that a majority of yellow dog base Democratic voters are not in favor of impeaching right now? No more evidence needed than the public record at this point.
And yet those who claim to represent us are slow to respond.
On a website dedicated to Democratic Electoral Victory I fail to see how one would not want to court the votes of 50% of Independent voters who make up 33% of the electorate. I would expect discussions of that to be frequent.
I wouldn't expect them to be heated.
Or one sided in defense of what is a minority opinion, especially on the part of those who advance no arguments of their own other than Beltway Bozo Conventional Wisdom unsupported by facts and references trading entirely on their personal credibility.
You know, when Tim Russert does it, we all laugh.
And so the same tired old arguments will be advanced about how impeachment is impossible and anyone who suggests it or that our elected Representatives should somehow be held accountable for their positions on it is somehow uncivil, that this is a debate that should be hidden.
If you want anything except a chuckle you best stay away from my shameless taunting of your silliness.