Dear Darcy Burner, I have a few questions before I donate.

Dear Darcy Burner,

On the section of your website titled "About Darcy,"  Your first two sentences resonated with me like the freedom bell just went off.  Congratulations for being the one of the very few who are addressing the importance of maintaining the meaning of the Congressional Oath of Office.

All of the issues that you have posted there hit right on the mark with me.  However, I just noticed a very important issue lacking from your spectacular list.  Perhaps I just didn't find the correct location and someone will correct me.  This issue is your position on HOW we should begin to restore our civil rights and actually "defend" the Constitution, and also that pesky question of impeachment.

Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both announced that fixing the FISA disaster is one item on the top of the list when Congress reconvenes next week.  Do you think they (Congress) can get any legislation through that Bush will sign that restores our freedoms?  When WILL we get this legislation, and can it pass?

Many intelligent and educated people such as Bruce Fein and Jon Nichols are passionately trying to educate America why the impeachments of Dick Cheney and George Bush are not only warranted, but necessary.  Do you agree with them?  If not, then why?

Finally, what do YOU think the best method is of repairing our Constitutional damages?

I simply am finding it hard to spend money on those who don't support impeachment.  Republicans made a mockery of impeachment, and THIS Congress should, even against the wishes of Nancy Pelosi, restore the meaning of it.

I don't see how any meaningful legislation is going to be passed any time soon.  So why can't we spend some time sending the Administration's criminals to jail, removing others from their offices, or both.

I guess your answer to these questions will decide whether I remain guarded with my money or not.  You certainly have my support otherwise.

Thank you,

FreeFallin

•  Correction! That would be Jon Nichols

  not Mike.

  You might link to the Bill Moyers show on impeachment.

  by Hummingbird on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

  •  Gracias! Hate when I do that and know better.n/t

    by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:21:50 PM PDT

•  it seems to me

  that given the fact that when Darcy is elected, Bush will not even be in office to be impeached; then the question lacks the relevance it held for prior elections.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:20:14 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure she doesn't plan to have

    an abortion either.

    by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

    •  not a valid comparison

      given the fact that abortion rights will be an issue long after Darcy's election, and Bush will no longer be available to be impeached.

      My blog. Come visit.

      by hekebolos on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:28:05 PM PDT

      •  If you say so...

        You say it's valid I say it's not, now THAT is a stupid debate.  I believe that I have a right to assign as much relevance to an issue of importance to me as I wish.  This was not a letter from you.

        by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:30:29 PM PDT

        •  that's true

          but you posted it in public, an act that invites feedback.  If you wished it to be private, you could have sent it to Darcy directly.

          And whether an issue is of importance or not is not a stupid debate.  Relevance of issues is not relative.

          My blog. Come visit.

          by hekebolos on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:56:19 PM PDT

          •  First...

            impeachment can be done even after he's out of office.  Conyer's even used that line in an interview.  So yes, impeachment might very well be an issue for her.

            I want to know that a candidate will use impeachment when it's warranted.

            by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

          •  If this issue isn't important to you

            one way or the other, then why bother answer.  Why don't you address the issues I discussed, instead of me for having the issues in the first place.

            Who do you ever tell in a conversation that their views aren't important?  It's rude and also one of the same abusive political tactics used by the right.  Don't attack the issue, attack the person for having the issue....

            by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:04:19 PM PDT

            •  inherently contradictory

              saying the issue isn't important is talking about the issue.

              Saying "why does this matter" is not an "abusive political tactic."

              My blog. Come visit.

              by hekebolos on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:06:43 PM PDT

              •  Yeah, it is....

                In a July Poll 69% of Democrats polled wanted impeachment of George Bush and believe that it's a valid option.  Tell nearly 70% of Democrats (which is not 69% of Kossaks) that this isn't a valid issue.

                I think how a candidate is prepared to take on Constitutional issues is VERY important.

                You made a statement that impeachment can't happen on her watch, well that's false.

                by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:11:05 PM PDT

                •  I'll bite.

                  Hey, 70% of Democrats - impeachment will not be a valid issue in front of the Congresspeople taking office in January 2009.  The reason it won't be a valid issue is that the President taking office in January 2009 will be a Democrat, and we sure as hell won't want to impeach him/her.

                  by mistersite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM PDT

                  •  impeachment doesn't have to happen

                    to the President that's currently in office.  It can happen to an ex-president too.  Nobody ever said we should impeach the next president.

                    by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 03:48:15 PM PDT

                    •  Of all the things I want the next Congress to do,

                      wasting their time impeaching someone who no longer is in office is not among them.  I want them addressing problems our country actually has at the moment (like cleaning up the Bush mess), not squandering the people's time on the problems of the past.

                      by mistersite on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:48:11 PM PDT

                      •  Well I don't think that it should

                        happen later, just saying it could.  I think it should happen now.

                        by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:35:05 PM PDT

  •  Actually, Bush would still be in office for a

    couple weeks.  Probably not enough time to impeach him, though.

    by cjallen on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:22:33 PM PDT

    •  Now that IS an idea!

      Impeachment could be started before Bush leaves, and continued after the house and senate swear in the overwhelming democratic incumbents to finish the impeachment.

      by Mulkum on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:54:37 PM PDT

  •  Then you are not educated...

    in the fact that impeachment can occur after he's out of office too.

    by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:23:20 PM PDT

    •  oh god

      I hope the first 100 days after Bush is gone, Congress doesn't waste its time on Impeachment.  Sure he's bad, no disagreement there, but hopefully the first 100 days will be used to FIX the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

      by devtrash on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:54:16 PM PDT

      •  I want to know her position on impeachment

        that's all.

        by FreeFallin on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:57:33 PM PDT

        •  I'm sure that subject

          Is a little hard for her to discuss.

          by devtrash on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:36:04 PM PDT