Skip to main content

It doesn’t matter that you and I think Impeachment is a slam-dunk. It doesn’t matter how egregious Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales have been in their assault on our constitution.

What matters directly is do 6067 Senators see it that way. And indirectly but equally important, does a strong majority of the country see it that way. And by that measure none of the three are impeachable.

Nixon did not resign because of the Democratic votes for impeachment. Nixon resigned because of the Republican votes for impeachment. It was the clearly anguished votes of people like Hamilton Fish and the support for impeachment from people like Barry Goldwater.

At present an impeachment proceeding would play out like Clinton’s impeachment. It would probably pass the House on a party line vote and fail in the Senate on a party line vote (67 votes are required in the Senate). And the Republicans would spin it as Clinton redux, a raw political move with no real impeachable offenses.

Bush would emerge from such a travesty even stronger. Because politically you absolutely could not impeach him again, even if on live TV he walked in to the National Archives, burned the constitution, and declared himself dictator for life.

Yes this is harder than Nixon because the Republican party has made politics so toxic and partisan. And the Clinton impeachment debased the idea again requiring even more egregious grounds for impeachment.

And so to be successful, we must go step by step. As an example, look at Lincoln during the Civil War. At the beginning he repeatedly stated that the war was not to end slavery, it was solely to preserve the union. He famously said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." When he declared the Emancipation Proclamation it stated "all persons held as slaves within any state then in rebellion against the United States, shall then become and be forever free" – it only freed slaves in areas controlled by the Confederacy.

So why is Lincoln now viewed as the great Emancipator? As Frederick Douglas wrote: "Within the context of public sentiment, ‘a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult,’ Lincoln had acted on slavery as swiftly as possible." The abolitionists found Lincoln to be slow and proposing half measures. But he correctly judged just how far he could take the country at each step.

Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid are moving us toward impeachment. And they are doing so in a way that impeachment can succeed. But we are not there yet, even for Gonzales. The majority of the country is not ready to consider impeachment, although I think they are getting close in the case of Alberto Gonzales. And we do not have 67 votes in the Senate, but again, we are getting close in the case of Gonzales.

So yes, keep clamoring for impeachment – and concentrate on Gonzales. Part of the country moving to support for impeachment is hearing that clamor. But make sure you always list WHY. And discuss items that the average, non-political citizen can understand and will agree with.

Finally give Pelosi, Reid, et-al the respect they deserve – they are moving this forward as fast as is politically possible. They are doing a terrific job. This is a democracy and thus it takes time. And part of what we are fighting for is to bring the democratic process and the political conversation back to our democracy.

Initially published on Liberal and Loving It.

Originally posted to DavidThi808 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:34 PM PDT.


Are Pelosi, Reid, etc moving as fast as possible?

26%59 votes
16%37 votes
12%28 votes
7%16 votes
33%75 votes
3%7 votes

| 222 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  WTF? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    impeach-it does the body good impeachment-it isn't just for blow jobs anymore impeachment-i can say no more i expect no less

    by playtonjr on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:37:02 PM PDT

  •  Hmmm...remember, it was Nixon's RESPONSE to (22+ / 0-)

    the investigation that got him impeached (or forced his resignation).

    Who knows what would come from impeachment hearings and the investigation? You don't have to start with 60 votes....that is where you have to end.

  •  I was willing to give Reid/Pelosi the benefit of (24+ / 0-)

    the doubt UNTIL the FISA bill.

    Their complete and total mishandling of that shows me that they alas do NOT have any cards up their sleeves.

    •  That was a mess (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hairspray, blueintheface, celticmuse

      They're definitely not perfect. That's the problem with electing human beings.

      •  Not perfect? (8+ / 0-)

        Like the big pharma drug bill?  Like the failed immigration bill?  I'm tired of that lame excuse.  We can and will do better as we move forward.  Nothing less will do.

        No justice, no peace.

        by dkmich on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:48:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you can't trust them to pass those bills, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cambridgemac, hairspray, persondem

          how can you trust them to do better on impeachment?

          The Democrats are up against the same challenges, but on a greater scale with impeachment. If we can't overcome the Republicans on immigration, the Iraq War Supplemental or FISA, how are we going to overcome the same issues to impeach?

          We still have to get around the media, the Bush administration, their Republican enablers in the Senate, a justice system stocked with Republican cronies, and a country that just isn't ready to rise up. You need to change at least the first and last of these current conditions for impeachment to work.

          •  Democrats are always a day late and (4+ / 0-)

            a dollar short.  They are still trying to pass legislation with Republicans, which gives us piles of bad law like the drug bill and the immigration and trade bills they tried push down everyone's throats.  Instead of working with those asses (including their blue dogs), they need to sit down, refuse to fund the war and not let any bills out of committee until January 09. When it comes to impeachment, it isn't about winning or losing.  It is about justice.  Either we are a nation of laws, or we're not.  Steal a loaf of bread, smoke a joint, and they want to electrocute the perps.  Commit treason, loot Iraq and the US, kill thousands of people based on a lie, and, oh well, forget it?  What kind of a message is that?  Rules are for everyone, or they are for suckers.  Which is it?

            No justice, no peace.

            by dkmich on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:32:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately with the Criminal-in-Chief in (0+ / 0-)

              the White House, we can't pass any legislation without some kind of Republican support. We don't have to like it, but it's political reality and we need to understand it. We also need to understand that shutting down the government by not letting bills out of committee or defunding the war is not the answer.

              I want to withdraw from Iraq. But stamping our feet and holding our breaths is not the way to do it. We need to be smarter getting out than we did going in (HT Obama), and we don't need another Fall of Saigon. Iraqis who are working with us are already facing reprisals and are being killed. What happens when we leave the power vacuum, and what happens to the millions of innocent Iraqis who will certainly face an even bloodbath?

              Sorry to hijack, the point is we need to get real and stop demanding political action that just isn't possible or practical.

              •  Without republican support? (5+ / 0-)

                My point was don't do anything.  Any bill I want passed won't be supported by the current crop of crazy wingers. Fall of Saigon?  Says who?  And, get real?  You mean just settle for the crap you've been getting?  You go for it.  Me?  I'm with Markos, OPOL and the rest of the people here who are done with the status quo and won't take it anymore.

                No justice, no peace.

                by dkmich on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:01:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't do anything? (0+ / 0-)

                  How'd that work out when Gingrich tried it? And aren't we all tired of hearing the "Obstructionist Democrats" label? You can't be suggesting that we actually give those smears credence?

                  As far as the Fall of Saigon, we can not simply just pull all of our troops out immediately or even in 6 months. And we do need to recognize that there will be a catastrophic power vacuum if we don't handle the Iraq withdrawal any better than we've handled the invasion or occupation. But if you don't want to believe me, maybe you'll listen to Wes Clark.

                  And no, I've never said we should settle for anything. But being politically smart isn't necessarily settling, it's doing everything we practically can to make a difference. And if we aren't politically smart, we will be settling for another 6 years of a Republican-controlled federal government.

                  •  Obstruction of evil (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dkmich, tle, neroden, marchtoimpeach

                    is no vice.

                    Yes. OBSTRUCT the destruction of our unalienable rights. Yes. OBSTRUCT the senseless slaughter of our young soldiers in an idiotic and criminal bloodbath.

                    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

                    by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:43:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  By obstructing democracy? (0+ / 0-)

                      Look, I get mad enough too to say, "shut it down". But the reality is that if we do that, we lose everything.

                      The media will bury us. The public will blame us, NOT the Republicans. The people who need us to be working in Congress will be let down; people who want our Congress to investigate wrongdoing, pay social programs, etc. We will lose power in '08. And evil will STILL win.

                      Is that what we are trying to accomplish?

                      •  Why is it so hard for people like you to imagine (4+ / 0-)

                        that BUSH is the one responsible if he vetoes bills?


                        The country already knows he's a stubborn SOB. What's the difficulty in casting HIM as "obstructing democracy"?  

                        [By the way, if your answer is "The public will blame us, NOT the Republicans," I'll save a posting and tell you right here to grow a pair.]

                        •  Because people like "me" (0+ / 0-)

                          watch the news, they read the polls, and they see that no one seems to care what the real story is, they just accept what they are being told. Where was the outrage from the people when Bush vetoed the stem cell bill that 70% of the people voted on. Where is the outrage when Bush says he'll veto the SCHIP bill? Where's the outrage that Bush continues to abandon New Orleans and the Gulf Coast while giving away tax cuts and government contracts to his cronies?

                          When you realize that our country is not there yet, you'll understand what we are up against. The Republicans own the White House and the Judicial Branch. The corporations own the media. And the Democrats are up against all of it with little support from the people. So instead of expecting the Democrats to acheive what is politially impossible at this point, how about working on the people to rise up? Too many people on this board are throwing fits and expecting the Democrats to do the work when we haven't done enough to get the public pressure they need for support.

                          What's the difficulty in casting HIM as "obstructing democracy"?

                          If it was so easy, it would be done. But rather than ignore reality, you tell me how you'd do it in your world, since you clearly don't live in this one.

                          •  The outrage is there. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've been reading the polls -- and looking at the bumper stickers -- and reading the letters to the editor -- too.

                            You have an unwarranted pessimism.  Mr. 28% will be blamed by 72% of the American people, no matter what the media say, provided the Democrats clearly oppose him.

                            -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

                            by neroden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:24:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Not shut it down... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        If there is expiring legislation that needs to be dealt with, do it.  If not, shut up and sit down.  Obstructionist?  People want the Republicans stopped.  Can't out vote them ?  Then  stop voting on stuff that doesn't need to be done.

                        No justice, no peace.

                        by dkmich on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:58:01 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I want to strive for what is atainable and best for the country. I don't want to strive for what I think is perfect or makes me feel good - but that is not attainable.

                    A final futile gesture was hilarious in Animal House. But for the country we need to focus on the possible.

                    •  As I said, each their own. (0+ / 0-)

                      You settle for the possible, which is the same old status quo.   I'll take "do no harm" for now, and real change and reform in 08 when they have their 60 votes.  You say you're a realistist.  I say your Clinton's kind of guy.  Triangulate and give away the baby with the bath water.  That makes mush.

                      No justice, no peace.

                      by dkmich on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:01:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  The Democrats CHOSE to fail (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tle, neroden, marchtoimpeach

            on the occupation of Iraq. When the funding bill came up, they could have said "no". Instead, they decided to fund the current "summer of senseless death" in Iraq.

            They could have blocked the FISA bill (i.e. "Unalienable Rights Destruction Bell") from coming to the floor. Instead, they approved it.

            Yeah. I hear the senseless bullsh!t - the Dems will be blamed for leaving the troops defenseless; the Dems will be blamed for the next terrorist attack. Instead of being "blamed" for doing the right thing, they CHOSE to:

            1. Continue the senseless carnage in Iraq and
            1. Destroy even more of our unalienable rights.

            I don't care if this IS "tactical" (and I certainly don't believe that it is...) This is outright wrong, immoral and UNAMERICAN.

            When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

            by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:41:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  There is nothing more important for them to do (3+ / 0-)

          We keep hearing about all the work they have to do.
          That's a laugh. Everything is either obstructed by the thugs or Bush.
          Legislature that is passed, Bush doesn't sign.  
          He's is controlling everything.
          They have to be masochists to keep on this way.
          Impeachment is necessary and they are obligated
          to pursue it, no matter what the outcome.
          For them to not even try is a disgrace.

    •  cards? they may not even have arms. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Terminus Est

      take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

      by rasbobbo on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:47:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gonzales AND Cheney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ek hornbeck, blueintheface

    They are just about tied or # of Reps co-sponsoring....with a few crossovers.

  •  specific articles (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think the 'case' for impeachment varies widely from issue to issue. The most stunning thing about Bush is he's given us so many (partial) openings with his lawbreaking.
    On lying to congress in the 2003 SOTU, there is less support to impeach than wiretapping, but neither has reached a boil. If congress takes a real hard look at war profiteering, you just might see quick, strong support of impeaching Cheney. If Gonzo can be proven a serial perjurer, (likely), some Repubs will vote to impeach him.

    So of course the grand prosecutorial master plan would be to show not only evidence of all these things and others, but point to the pattern.
    Sometime around 2010.
    Pick one (Gonzo) and do it already.

    Osama Bin Laden's a punk. He doesn't scare me. Cheney/Bush scares me plenty. Mission Accomplished.

    by kamarvt on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:44:22 PM PDT

    •  I think gonzales may be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the easiest to get in the near future.  But so far I don't see a "break in the case" such as the Pentagon Papers were or something similar in the Nixon case. I hope that zeroing in on Gonzles, who appears to be the weakest link, will work and soon.  As for FISA I will continue to write/call my reps to re=examine that vote.

      Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

      by hairspray on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:03:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lying to Congress (0+ / 0-)

        in the State of the Union is not an impeachable offense. It's unfortunate, and the President is a liar, but there is no law that says he can't lie in a speech before Congress. In Congressional hearings yes. A speech that he's not constitutionally mandated to give, (he could just send a report if he so felt like it) does not fall in that category.

      •  for the umpteenth time: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tle, ek hornbeck, marchtoimpeach

        an impeachable offense is what Congress says it is.

        It does not have to be an indictable crime.

        It is possible a Congress somewhere, sometime might get tired of presidential lying and impeach. They would have the right to do that.

        •  seriously (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ek hornbeck, mightymouse

          Please people, stop making pronouncements about impeachment until you've done some basic research into what it is. Impeachment is about abuses of power, and is NOT limited to violations of the criminal code. I'd urge you to read the books by Liz Holtzman and John Nichols.

          That being said, Bush and Cheney have openly committed illegal acts--most notably with the NSA warrantless wiretapping. As Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House subcommitee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has said, that's a felony offense punishable by five years in prison.

          And that's not even getting into the Plame outing, which is arguably treason and can result in a death sentence.

        •  High Crimes and Misdemenors (0+ / 0-)

            what part of that do you not understand? Unless you're making the ridiculous claim that lying in a State of the Union speech is a high crime or misdemeanor. It's not.

  •  how does taking impeachment off the table (10+ / 0-)

    move it forward as fast as it is politically possible?
    first you have to be open to the concept, then you have investigatory hearings, then you bring articles of impeachment, then you worry about 67 votes on the senate. first things first, first impeachment must be an "on the table" possibility.

    take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

    by rasbobbo on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:45:51 PM PDT

    •  Because the focus now is on getting the evidence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChiGirl88, blueintheface

      The media wanted to push her into saying she would impeach.

      But impeachment is supposed to flow from evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, not the other way around.

      •  what possible impetus is there to investigate (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, neroden, khereva, marchtoimpeach

        if accountability is "off the table."

        take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

        by rasbobbo on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:53:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well the investigations are in reality happening (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          so apparently there is indeed enough 'impetus', lol.

          •  questions are being asked, (5+ / 0-)

            non answers are being given. & accountability is off the table. i'm sure the justice department will do a bangup job of getting to the root of the problems at the justice department. do you actually think bush's political appointments are going to be overcome with guilt & turn themselves in?

            take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

            by rasbobbo on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:13:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No they aren't (5+ / 0-)

            The "investigations" are a sham.  They either totally "botch" them (on purpose, it seems) so that they are a disaster OR they immediately pass some bill (FISA, for instance) to totally nullify anything found in the investigations to have any chance of causing real problems.

            The "investigations" are merely means of determining what legislation needs to be drummed up to cover Bush and his crimes from EVER seeing a full, public accounting.

            •  Well it seems you have your mind made up. (0+ / 0-)
              •  It's very nearly the only rational (4+ / 0-)

                conclusion based on the evidence before us.

                Elect even more Democrats!
                Three times nothing has *gotta* be worth *something*, right?

                by khereva on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:43:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bablhous, bunny99

                Until they actually PROVE that what I accuse them of is NOT the absolute truth (it is) by actually taking substantive ACTIONS contrary to the facts thus far, then they are guilty and complicit in every bit of criminality that BushCo has committed.  At EVERY step, the Dems have aided and abetted EVERY criminal act committed by the Administration and have done NOTHING to stop it, reverse it, correct it.  NOTHING has (or will) come of the joke investigations.  They are merely running out the clock while leaving EVERYTHING in place.  The power of the Prez to make war all on his own?  Yep, no resistance there at all.  The power of the Prez to illegally spy on Americans?  Yep, they even added powers that weren't there before!  Protect habeass corpus?  Absolutely not!  They voted to gut that sucker long ago and have done SQUAT to reverse that (words don't count).  Ensure that the rule of law applies to all people, regardless of their position in government?  Nope, they have held not a single person accountable in this Administration.  In fact, Leahy was more than happy to extend his extension for Bushie to respond with another rejection on the illegal spying "investigation"!

                I base my judgments NOT upon words said, but upon actual actions to their full depth.  Full depth meaning such things as "How did you vote on the Alito confirmation? No?  Really?  Is that the floor vote or the cloture vote?"  It works.  Look are actual results, not words or even a simple vote.  Look at what the leadership did, what rules they used on various bills, etc.  THAT is where the information is, not in the words and the simple floor votes.

                •  If the Democratic congresspeople are no different (0+ / 0-)

                  in your opinion, why are you here? Because the main goal of this site is to elect more Dems. And if they are all equally to blame, then you should not be putting in any effort for them.

                  •  Not *ALL* the Dems are complicit.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Terminus Est

                    Unfortunately the leadership is, and what appears to be almost all of the Dems in the Senate; and something less than half of the Dems in the House, but still too many.

                    And hey, which is better, the Nazi Party or the Centre Party?  If they're the only two options, I'd still have to go with trying to fix the Centre Party....

                    -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

                    by neroden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:28:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Because we CAN unseat the traitors (0+ / 0-)

                    And force the survivors to do our bidding.  If you do not put the fear of Mithras in their hearts and keep at it, then they take your acquiescence as support for their criminality.  We can, and MUST, make it very very VERY uncomfortable for them on everything evil they have done.

                    Case in point.  Pelosi, upon receiving the full ire of the Amerrican people for her treason on FISA, called for a (bogus) bill to be worked out and ready for the Dems to vote on immediately upon their return in September.  For her, it is a mere empty trick to bolster her bogus progressive bonafides.  She wants to use it as merely a positioning piece with no expectation that it will make it.  She passed the Bush bill and now immediately wants to do what should have been done the first time?  KNOWING that now that she has given Bush MORE than what was "necessary" to "fix" FISA, there is no way he will agree to losing that bonanza...he WILL veto and he can argue about the flip-floppy nature of the Dems and be right!  She destroyed the Dem FISA bill and RAN with the Bush bill and NOW wants to reverse course and only now stick forward the Dem bill?  Bush isn't going to give up powers that they Dems have happily given to him!  She KNOWS this and KNOWS that her move to "correct" the evil will fail but she wants to APPEAR to have tried to do the right thing.

                    Pathetic.  We can FORCE her and her traitorous colleagues to actually pass the bill for real and NOT use it the way they want to use it - as a political prop.  We can force her (them) to make it a REAL fix and force them to use their prop as the REAL DEAL instead.  THAT is why I'm here.  There can be NO giving in to ANY loss of ANY right.  NO forgiveness, no retreat on a single one.

  •  Gonzalez is certainly impeachable right now (4+ / 0-)

    which is why so amny Republicans have already said he should go.

    If you look back through Emptywheel's 2007 postings on the next hurrah, you'll find all the evidence you need. If they start impeachment proceedings against him, even with a load of bogus "executive privelege" whining, it can be shown on national TV - just from what we have already - that AbuG is a travesty and that is the best way to get the ball rolling on Cheney and Bush's impeachment.

    "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

    by Brecht on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:46:34 PM PDT

  •  60 votes??? (4+ / 0-)

    You need 67 votes in the Senate for a conviction

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueintheface, TruthOfAngels, 0wn

    I think you need 67 votes in the Senate to convict. Impeachment isn't going to work mainly because, as you state, the country at large isn't clamoring for it and because they don't have the votes. Until/unless something so horrible comes out about Bush, something so simple, yet so extreme and outrageous that even ordinary people would be angry and would understand it, impeachment isn't going to happen.

  •  Very well said, (5+ / 0-)

    highly rec'd.

    I would only add that they need to push inherent contempt charges for Rove, Miers and Josh Bolten, jail the DOJ officials who have lied under oath, and hold hearings of war profiteering and the investigations would move much faster.

  •  I agree that there isn't enough public support (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx, blueintheface, skaye19

    but what the hell will it take to make people angry?  Lying about the war, eavesdropping on Americans, torturing people, getting rid of habeus corpus-and that's not all of it.  

    Does he actually have to declare himself dictator for life, as suggested above, before people give a damn?

    •  The only thing that turned Americans (0+ / 0-)

      against Vietnam was the draft. This fall the army will no longer have the troops they need to sustain the 'surge' (I read that somewhere) and will need fresh troops.  A diary on right now examines the likelihood of that happening.  That will change things pronto and should end once and for all the concept of an all volunteer army. I would be in favor of Wes Clark's idea of national service for all 18 year olds. They can choose, Peace Corps like activities or the military. Then we will have some basic fairness in this country about who pays for the insanity in the Whitehouse

      Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

      by hairspray on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:09:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that will work (0+ / 0-)

        People will find ways to avoid service just like they always have.  And I can never support forced service in what should be a free country.  I would support making service, whether it is the Peace Corps or military being made more attractive for people (e.g., stop getting in b.s. wars so people will not risk their lives for nothing, better stipends for volunteer work, etc.).

  •  You have no evidence at all... (11+ / 0-)

    for any of your assertions about what the American electorate's reaction to impeachment will be or that Pelosi and Reid are doing anything about it.

    What makes your gut more reliable than Chertoff's?

  •  For crying out loud (0+ / 0-)

    It would probably pass the House on a party line vote and fail in the Senate on a party line vote (60 votes are required in the Senate)

    It's 67 votes in the Senate, not 60.  It doesn't invalidate any of your other points, but it's very important that people know what is required to remove Chimpy from office. Isn't it?

    Because 60 votes won't be enough.  Sorry, diarist, but it's not the first time I've read this misconception, and it bugs me.  Because impeachment is not enough.  Sending a message is not enough.  Fuck it, even removing these cretins from office wouldn't be enough, but at least it's a start.  But 60 votes will not do it.  Let's promulgate the announcement.

    Daily Kos exemplifies the best of America today.

    BBC World Service

    by TruthOfAngels on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:58:50 PM PDT

  •  Clarification, please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nixon resigned because of the Republican votes for impeachment. It was the clearly anguished votes of people like Peter Rodino and the support for impeachment from people like Barry Goldwater.

    Rodino was a Democrat.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:04:31 PM PDT

  •  excuse me (4+ / 0-)

    but do you have a direct line to Reid and Pelosi?
    After their performance on the FISA vote I have no faith that they will do their job any better on this matter.

    I am not willing to wait for their brilliant plan to emerge.  They need to give us some sign they are DOING THEIR JOBS.

    You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

    by lisastar on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:05:45 PM PDT

  •  So sadly wrong (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Rayk, khereva

    They are very much personally a-feared of impeachment because they are simply scared people in general.  They do NOT deserve any respect.  One must EARN respect.  Sure, they were entitled to a modicum of respect initially, sort of a draw on the bank...a load of respect when they took control of Congress.  After that it was entirely up to them, via action, to actually earn respect with interest.

    Instead, they blew the bankroll on continuing to fund Iraq entirely to Bush's spec in the supplemental.  To add insult to injury, they removed language from the bill that would act to officially reign in any thoughts of attacking Iran.  Don't even get me started in FISA!  Hell's bells, well before these last two atrocities, they voted FOR the MCA and adamantly refuse to restore Habeas corpus.  REFUSE to restore it.  They couldn't terminate the 4th and 5th Amendments fast enough on FISA.  They needed their precious vacations (AND they are perfectly happy with the authoritarian police state).

    Pelosi...PELOSI!  She ran on "impeachment is off the table" and she has done everything within her power to keep that sucker off the table.  You are dreaming if you think they are "playing it perfectly".  No. They. Are. Not.  They are purposefully and consciously throwing THE main remedy that the Constitution provides the Congress to kill tyranny into the shitcan.  Reid...HE sets up the FISA bill that BUSH wrote and ran with it.  He railroaded that sucker through the senate and then evacuated the senate immediately thereafter, before the House went anywhere near the FISA bill.  He KNEW what he had done and he KNEW what Pelosi would then do.  That bill was a done deal before any vote was officially taken because the "leadership" wanted it.  At EVERY turn the Dem leadership (Reid, Pelosi) keep sabotaging ANY chance of bringing to justice the criminals in the Bush Admin.  They have all but rendered it impossible to remove Gonzales (or force him out otherwise).  They GAVE HIM EVEN MORE POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY WITH THEIR FISA BILL!

    How very quickly you people forget.  How quickly you are all willing to forgive and forget the stepwise dismantling of the Constitution and YOUR Bill of Rights.  Respect them?  NO WAY!  They spent their borrowed respect long ago and have been drawing on the loan ever since.  They are in a respect deficit bigger than the US deficit.  Respect them my ass.

    •  Lincoln ran with abolition off the table (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Clearly and repeatedly said it was not something it was trying for...

    •  Umm (0+ / 0-)

      I suppose it's irrelevant to your argument that both Reid and Pelosi voted against the FISA bill?

      •  Yes, as a matter of fact (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cambridgemac, bablhous, khereva

        It's like this, see.  Remember Alito?  Remember the cloture vote vs the confirmation vote?  Let's see, if you try to claim your progressive good-guy bonafides by claiming you voted AGAINST Alito in the floor vote, but handily forget to mention that you voted YES on cloture, you are a friggin shithead and you get NO credit for the second NO vote.  Your vote on cloture was the real vote that determined whether or not Alito got on the SCROTUS.

        So here...Reid put the BUSH bill to the floor for a fast vote, not the Dem vote.  He herded his peeps through the vote KNOWING that the Bush bill would pass.  He also knew that he wanted to give some Dems cover by allowing them to vote "no"  (including himself) without sacrificing the bill itself.  Because of the way HE, the leader, handled it, HE guaranteed that the Bush bill on FISA would pass and that the Dem-written bill would never make it.  Now come Pelosi.  Same tactic.  She required a supermajority vote to allow the Dem bill to pass but only a majority vote for the BUSH atrocity (blessed by Reid) to pass.  Steny "The Treasonous Bastard" Hoyer required unanimous consent to bring the Bush bill to the floor...guess which "good guy" Dems objected to unanimous consent to help prevent that bill from passing?  That's right, NOT A SINGLE DEM OBJECTED.  They ALL ensured that the Bush FISA bill would come to the floor for a vote that was known, beforehand, would pass on a simple majority vote.  Pelosi knew this and the RULES she setup for handling the two bills was designed to pass Bush's bill and scuttle the Dem bill.  Her subsequent vote NO was a jackoff vote at that point.  She was trying to give us a nice reach-around jackoff when, in fact, she was stabbing us (We the People) in the back with her Bill of Rights-killing dagger.

        Just like the "no" votes on the floor vote for Alito are irrelevant, the "no" votes on the floor vote for the FISA bill are largely irrelevant.  The actual point of killing that bill was, first, blown off by Reid AND Pelosi who worked their asses off to make sure the Bush bill would pass.  THEN, the entire House made sure the Bush bill would pass by not objecting to unanimous consent.  After that, it was a done deal, just as Pelosi and Reid wanted.

        Don't give me that shit about Pelosi voting "no".  BULLSHIT.

      •  Because Reid and Pelosi... (0+ / 0-)

        both had the POWER to not put it up for a vote.  If they were so unsure about this Constitutionally charged legislation that they couldn't even vote for, then they should have stayed in Washington and got a "safer" bill passed.

    •  Says it all. (0+ / 0-)


      When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

      by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:53:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It’s about the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terminus Est

    Constitution/Bill of Rights


    Why does the Republicans hate America?

    "Bush always listens to the generals. When he gets tired of listening to them he replaces them. ..." - Wesley Clark.

    by army193 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:16:40 PM PDT

  •  The Democrats don't want impeachment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Terminus Est, Residentcynic

    The Democrats are going to win the Executive branch in '08, guaranteed.

    They won't want impeachment for the simple reason that they will have the power then. They want to keep the powers that have been stolen from us and used against Our Constitution, so they can further their own agenda, much like this evil Bush-Cheney Administration has.

    This is exactly what Pelosi and Reid want. Kucinich and Conyers are the only Representatives that have actually stated that this Administration is power-hungry and corrupt by filing Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney.

    If the Democrats were really for the People, they would have reinstated the Writ of Habeas Corpus (there isn't an invasion or rebellion, the Republicans suspended that right because they want to detain American Citizens further, like Jose Padilla); they would have designed a lobbying system where only a person, who can vote, not corporate lobbyists, can donate money only to their district, and they would have immediately canceled their August recess for granting funds for infrastructure improvement and reconstruction and made illegal the mining methods used in Crandal Canyon.

    Now I have not seen any of this done or even proposed, but what I have seen is the same, if not more, usage of earmarks to grant favors to companies and people that gave a bump to their campaign credit.

    So how exactly are Pelosi and Reid even moving to correcting the terrible state of affairs in Our Country by slowing down progress in an investigation into the criminal acts of the Bush-Cheney Administration?

    •  Guaranteed? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Dont make me laugh. They're working as hard as they can to lose this one, right now.

      They've all but sworn in the next Republican Emperor.

      Every act of cowardice is another nail in the coffin of the Dem Nominee's campaign.

      Elect even more Democrats!
      Three times nothing has *gotta* be worth *something*, right?

      by khereva on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:52:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, guaranteed. (0+ / 0-)

        You don't hear much about the Republicans in the media do you? Most of it is about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

        The Republicans can't steal '08 like they did '00 and '04; it would look too suspicious, but they don't need to anyways. The Democrats are going to work to form an authoritarian state just like the Republicans have been doing the past six years and counting.

        •  Of course they can. (0+ / 0-)

          They won't even need to, however.

          Not when the Republican candidate asks the people what the Democarats have accomplished since taking power, and the Democrats have nothing-- not one goddamned thing-- to point to.

          And even if you can find any uncommitted voters who'll vote for us in '08, Democratic Presidential winners have already formed the tradition of surrendering to the Republican Usurper.

          Elect even more Democrats!
          Three times nothing has *gotta* be worth *something*, right?

          by khereva on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:35:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You guys are awfully fast to surrender (0+ / 0-)

            Then you say that the Dem politicians have totally sold us out, won't get elected in '08 and if they do, will be just as bad as the Repub ones.

            So why are you working to elect Dems if they are just more of the same?

            •  I don't plan to work to elect them in '08. (0+ / 0-)

              If Edwards gets the nom, I'll vote for him. That's the extent of my '08 support. If the Dems want more, they'll have to have something to point to, as in actual, real accomplishments.

              Elect even more Democrats!
              Three times nothing has *gotta* be worth *something*, right?

              by khereva on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:39:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me guess - you voted for Nader in '00 (0+ / 0-)

                Because you figured Gore as president would have been just as bad...

                how did that work out?

                •  And you're wrong... AGAIN. (0+ / 0-)

                  At least your record for accuracy is consistent.

                  I voted for Gore, and was enraged to see him throw in the towel when the fight was not done.

                  I voted for Kerry, and was enraged to see him throw in the towel less than 24 hours into the fight.

                  Try another straw man. I'm sure you've got a million of them.

                  Elect even more Democrats!
                  Three times nothing has *gotta* be worth *something*, right?

                  by khereva on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:51:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I sometimes wonder if keeping Bush around is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, bablhous, FreeFallin

      regarded as a winning strategy by Pelosi and Reid. Bush may be the best spokesman ever for the Democratic Party. But I'd still rather impeach him.

      "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

      by java4every1 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:13:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Finally (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidThi808, army193

     a rational post on impeachment, rather than the blood spitting hatred of anyone who disagrees with them crap that has been on here for a long time.

     I think you are exactly right. Impeachment can happen, just not yet. But watch yourself, you're likely to get called a troll, a freeper, a coward, a wimp, and get sworn a lot by people on here who can't understand why it hasn't already happened. Be prepared.

  •  I'm not buying it. (4+ / 0-)

    You are suggesting that Pelosi and Reid are being tactical. I don't believe that is true.

    Also, I don't believe that:

    1. Caving in is necessarily a good political strategy for the Democrats to win elections, and
    1. Political benefit should come ahead of fulfilling their oblications

    Every Senator and Congressman has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This the Democrats have repeatedly refused to do (although some individuals in the party have done so.)

    If I want justice, I'll give my support and money to the ACLU. If the Democrats want my money they'll need to 1) actually stand up to Bush (not tactically retreat) and 2) "pander" to the patriots who want us out of Iraq, and want our unalienable rights defended; NOT pander to blood thirsty war hawks and other people of that ilk...the noisy minority.

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:41:15 PM PDT

    •  What is their obligation (0+ / 0-)

      To propose impeachment now, knowing it will fail?

      Or to take the time to build up political support so it will succeed?

      I think their obligation is to govern well, not to take stands we find appealing that fail.

      In other words, it's results, not (losing) votes that matter

      •  Do you really believe this is tactical? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Because I don't. The Dems have folded on EVERYTHING. They haven't stood up to Bush on anything even once.

        When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

        by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:04:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Criminals would love your approach. Oh, the jury (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        may not vote the way we want so here's some bus money.. go home and plot your next burglary.

        "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

        by java4every1 on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:19:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The obligation is this: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ybruti, Rayk

        If the end result MUST be to remove the President, then you're right, it's iffy and not certain.  However, if the end result is to create an unmistakable historical marker that says "Congress does not agree with this behavior", then impeachment is the answer.

        A censure goes into the history books as a blurb.  

        An impeachment in the House goes down as far more.  George Bush's (and others) name would go down in the history books as being impeached in the House of Representatives, whether or not it was convicted in the Senate.

        In the event of a Senate non-conviction, history would simply add that the bi-partisan and complacent nature of the Senate failed to remove him from office.

        It also sends a message to the next President and Executive body that these actions are unacceptable.

        Hope that was articulate enough...I'm willing to help anyone counter these sill Defeatocrat arguments.

        •  excuse me folks, I mistakenly used bi-partisan... (0+ / 0-)

          should read "partisan"

        •  Clinton's impeachment (0+ / 0-)

          sent a message that you can't get a blowjob in the Office, and that anything is reason for impeachment, not just high crimes and misdemeanors.

          This isn't about making a "history marker"; this is about clearing what a President has power to do and not do. That lying to the People is a treasonous act, and that war profiteering was not the design of Our Founding Fathers for the United States.

      •  DavidThi808, I think you are (0+ / 0-)

        missing something very important about the impeachment process.

        The way it works is this:

        1. The HJC (dominated by Dems right now) decides to vote to begin impeachment investigations, which is conducted like a criminal investigation and trial.
        1. Various administration figures are subpoened  to testify, and various evidence is gathered by the HJC. This will take several months.
        1. A finding is made - the results of the investigation.
        1. The finding is then presented to the Senate
        1. The Senate votes AFTER they have considered the findings of the investigation.

        The Senate does not vote to impeach until after the investigation is completed.

        In other words, If the HJC decides to impeach today, it does not mean that immediately the Senate votes to impeach. The Senate has to go through the impeachment investigation and findings first, then they vote, like a jury.

        Because of BushCo's continual stonewalling of recent oversight investigations, it can be assumed they are covering up various crimes, and they will no doubt attempt to do the same if the HJC introduces impeachment proceedings.

        But because of the seriousness of an impeachment investigation, (far more serious than any investigation so far) any BushCo official who lies or stonewalls will have committed an impeachable, criminal offence - Perjury - and thus can be charged. This is how Nixon was brought down; At first, there weren't "enough votes" for impeachment, but when the impeachment investigations were under way, various Nixon officials began to lie and stonewall and they were caught lying. One of the officials, John Dean, Nixon's attorney, decided to snitch on Nixon. That's how Nixon was eventually brought down.
        Nixon never even made it to the impeachment vote. He resigned before the vote was possible.

        It is almost certain that an impeachment investigation into BushCo would follow roughly the same path as Nixon's; BushCo officials will attempt to stonewall. They will refuse to turn over evidence like emails and documents. They will plead the 5th. Perhaps one of them might even snitch and tell all. It is the investigation that will trigger BushCo's downfall. The GOP Senators will be under pressure to vote for impeachment after that.

        Right now, the GOP Senators are starting to distance themselves from BushCo because of his terrible approval ratings and his incompetence. Those Republicans will be up for re-election in 2008, and many of them will not want to be associated with Bush. This greatly improves the possibility that they will not vote to defend BushCo, especially after that investigation will most likely result in crimes being exposed by WH officials.

        Thus, the excuse that "we don't have enough votes" right now is irrelevant. What matters is the votes after BushCo has been exposed. Only an impeachment investigation will expose them. There is no other way.

        On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to wait and waiting died.

        by sean oliver on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Impeachment investigations are MUCH (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sean oliver

          harder to claim executive privelege against, since the executive privelege is at the very heart of the matter.

          This is when people start going to jail, falling all around them.

          That's where your argument breaks down.

          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

            When BushCo starts claiming executive privilege on everything, they will be seen as crooks covering their asses.

            On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to wait and waiting died.

            by sean oliver on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:00:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly right (0+ / 0-)

    I think you've got it exactly right.  

    I believe Pelosi and Reid would vote to impeach all of them in a New York minute if they had the votes. They don't.

    •  It's not the votes that are stopping it... (0+ / 0-)

      the "votes" right now are irrelevant. What counts is the votes after an impeachment investigation.

      The real reason the Dems are not pursuing impeachment is because it's too much work, that's why. There isn't enough of a smoking gun lying around to make it simple.

      They have a big election coming up, and all of their time is spent fundraising and campaigning. An impeachment is too much hard work!

      Remember, both Nixon and Clinton were impeached fairly soon after they were re-elected, IOW at least two years before the next big election. It's too close to 2008 for the Dems to bother.

      On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to wait and waiting died.

      by sean oliver on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:56:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do you at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    understand why we can't trust them anymore?

    Let's just start out with FISA and the War.

    What else can I say about the FISA legislation fiasco or the war that hasn't already been so eloquently said?

    We all know the list...and now talk of a draft?  They're now, possibly, going to start stealing our children to use for their illegal war...

    My fear, is that if we quiet down, they will stop listening.  And I'm not willing to take that chance.

    •  Fool me once, shame on you...but fool me twice/NT (0+ / 0-)
    •  I haven't seen any sign that they're listening (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tanya, FreeFallin

      to anything we say, only the noise level.

      But just because they're not doing their job doesn't mean the citizenry should stop doing our job.

      We must continue to object loudly and constantly. Force them to look into our eyes when they betray us.

      I, for one, will not go quietly into that dark night.

      "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

      by bablhous on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:29:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GENERAL STRIKE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If WE THE PEOPLE ever got organized enough to do that, we'd be able to change everything. 100 million plus of us, versus a few thousand thugs trying to subvert our freedom.

        They'd run for the hills. Because, as we all know, the neocons are chickenhawk cowards.

        When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

        by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:46:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't say be quiet (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, I said keep pushing (with an emphasis on the grounds for impeachment). I just said realize that it will take some more time to get us to hearings.

  •  I've made the same argument (0+ / 0-)

    in support of Pelosi and Reid's strategery here, here and here. It's nice to see it receiving a little more positive response this time.

  •  The dems didn'temerge stronger (0+ / 0-)

    from the linton impeachment. Gore ran away from him and to lieberman as a running mate. We didn't take back th ehouse or the senate after the impeachment. The repugs came out stronger even though they lost the vote.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:48:48 PM PDT

  •  EVIDENCE? (0+ / 0-)

    that this is a strategic move, and not simply a cave-in? I'd LOVE to believe that Pelosi and Reid were gutsy, smart and principled.

    Please convince me!

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 03:49:34 PM PDT

    •  A number of things (0+ / 0-)

      Keep in mind that they didn't tell me their grand plan. But I look at how this is evolving.

      The most recent big sign is the bill to start looking at if there are grounds for impeaching Gonzales. Pelosi could have arm twisted to stop it from being entered. Or she could have said it was going to just sit in the queue.

      Instead she said yes it will move forward, but she has larger issues she is going to attend to. This is a low key way to move it forward without putting anything on the line. Which gives the house the time to investigate the grounds without it being a partisian circus.

      And I think Gonzales is the road to Bush and Cheney. The investigation may be just about Gonzales but hey, who knows who else might come up in that investigation.

      •  I hope you are right. (0+ / 0-)

        You might be. I'm still unconvinced. In the meantime, to protect our rights, my money is going to the ACLU, not the Democratic Party...

        When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

        by Rayk on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:51:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We need the draft! (0+ / 0-)

    It will finally get the college students off their asses and help end this war.

    We all need to become walking talking propaganda machines. I bought 1200 bandanas at 36 cents each and rolls of 1/2 inch ribbon and boxes of safety pins.  Wear orange to Impeach Bush and Cheney.  See more at World Can't Wait. Sponsor Town Hall meetings.  Circulate petitions to show your city council and get them to vote in an official capacity.


  •  I'd believe it if they did anything *else* right (0+ / 0-)

    The grotesque failures on the Iraq war capitulation and the FISA capitulation -- both of which can only be described as utter failures, situations where they lost substantively, emboldened Bush and the worst of the Blue Dogs, lost massive amounts of popular support, made Nader seem correct, and demonstrated incompetence at parliamentary maneuvering -- prove that this is not a clever, calculated strategy.

    -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

    by neroden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:21:11 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site