(Sen.) Dodd tells crowd in Rochester impeaching Cheney won't help

[sabra]

Source: Fosters Online

ROCHESTER — Appearing before at least 60 voters at the Governor's Inn on Sunday, presidential candidate Chris Dodd said he "understands the appetite" of people wanting to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, but he doesn't think the long process would help the country.

"There are too many other issues out there the American public were hoping Democrats would decide to address and focus on. That's the choice you make. Others may make a different focus. My choice would be to focus on other agenda items," he said.

The crowd did not erupt into applause as it did after many of the other things the longtime Democratic U.S. senator from Connecticut had to say.

Dodd was responding to a multipart question about whether Cheney has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, whether he was doing it and, if not, what's the next step.

Cheney's "not been upholding it as well as he could," the candidate said.

Read more: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070625/NEWS81/106250179/-1/NEWS05

[babylonsister]

1. Well, without even reading this, IT WOULD HELP ME! nt

[Atman]

2. Does it matter AT ALL what the voting public wants it's representatives to do?

What the FUCK did we vote for them for, then??????

.

[hvn_nbr_2]

50. "other issues...to address and focus on"

"There are too many other issues out there the American public were hoping Democrats would decide to address and focus on."

Yeah, like for instance, making empty gestures about stopping the war, and then voting to give Bush all he wants to give to the war profiteers. Like sending toothless requests to admin officials to testify. Like talking (and talking and talking...) about rule of law and oversight while letting them do any damn thing they want. Like pretending that impeaching the most lawless, by far, administration in US history is a waste of time. We have more important things to gesture and talk about, I guess.

I guess they think we voted for them to talk and gesture.

[ixion]

3. Mr. Dodd, it is not about 'appetite'. It is about the Rule of Law

and if you are so politically jaded that you can't see this, then you should step down, and allow a progressive to take your place.

[Bandit]

4. If they don't Impeach then they are accomplices

There are crimes being committed in America's Name and Cheney is behind those Crimes. If he is not held accountable then What is the point of anything?

[ananda]

5. Impeachment is the only answer!

Nothing will stop the corporofascist bully but
holding him to the rule of law.

[AndyA]

6. Pathetic.

It's like a cop seeing a murder, but he doesn't want to do anything about it because there are so many other things that need his attention...

- a car theft
- shoplifting
- vandalism

You know, he can only do one thing at a time...

This is an issue of not getting priorities straight. The President and Vice President are eroding our rights, burdening us with massive debt, killing our troops, and pissing on the Constitution that they swore to uphold.

Get your priorities straight, Dodd. All of the little things aren't going to matter very much when the concentration camps are full of citizens.

[Tunkamerica]

63. Think of all the paperwork an impeachment would create... eom

[CreekDog]

66. They aren't doing this to avoid paperwork

Back your statement up.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Dodd, you bloatway bastard. I used to be impressed.

but this sucking up to the DLC line, this idiotic and traitorous "faux pragmatism", this short-sighted move goes beyond the pale.

[Maven]

8. Cheney's "not upholding it as well as he could?"

He's actively destroying it, you fucking milquetoast!

What is the point anymore? Our people can't even get half-way to telling the unvarnished truth about this slime, even NOW, when the overwhelming majority of the country despises him?

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. What they fail to understand is that Impeach wraps all the crimes

and misdemeanors into a nice package, lays them all out (count 1, count 2, count 3, count 4, ...count 121, count 122,... etc., etc., etc.). I may very well be wrong, but it seems to me that when a criminals are charged and have the book thrown at them it's usually one trial with a listing of crimes/counts, each receiving a guilty/not guilty verdict. :shrug:

The reason they need to wrap it all together and Impeach rests upon one simple rule: PRECEDENT. Is this really and truly the precedent that both parties in Congress want to allow be set for the future? --Apparently so! So, when a Democrat is in the White House, the Democrats in Congress better be prepared because "Bush did it" just isn't going to work for the Cons or the country.

Hold them accountable, dammit!!!!!

[whistle]

10. That's bullshit, Cheney can be removed pretty quickly if a force

...of congress House Representatives and Senators confront Cheney in his office and make him an offer he can't refuse. Cheney will resign rather than subject himself to the humiliation of both impeachment and criminal prosecution IMHO.

As for Sen. Dodd saying "(Cheney has...) not been upholding it (the constitution) as well as he could," is just disgusting for him to show that degree of slip and slide on the people's Bill of Rights and guarantee of liberties. Sen. Dodd is pandering to a small base of money sources and not carrying out the will of the voters and he should be confronted by the voters wherever he speaks on this subject of impeachment.

[CreekDog]

54. Not really easy actually

To impeach in the House (short of removing him),

218 of 233 Democrats need to vote in favor of the impeachment (okay, possible, but it will take a while to build that case into the public record and into the congressional record for up or down votes)

then...

67 Senators will need to vote in favor of removing from office...
You would need 49 Democratic Senators to vote for it
Joe Lieberman would need to vote for it
Tim Johnson would need to vote for it
then 16 Republicans would need to vote for it

Then he could be removed.

Moral victory may be possible, but to actually get as close as you can to removal is an uphill slog, the process could run until the next inauguration. That might be worthwhile, but if you think he is going to be removed --that is very, very doubtful even with the wind at the Democrats back.

The reality check I'm asking for here is:

1) Do you understand how much the odds are against impeachment of Cheney or Bush? I'm not asking if it's possible, I'm asking if you know the odds against it happening, which are substantial.
2) If you cannot impeach either of them, do you want to trade any progress on anything else in favor of the proceedings that are far from a slam-dunk?

It is not wrong and it is not being an accomplice to figure these things into the decision of whether to pursue or not.

My problem is that many in favor are not realistic about the chances...they seem to say it's a foregone conclusion that once the charges are out there the votes will come. Not necessarily. In order for proceedings to even occur the following needs to happen on the Democratic side:

1) Those in favor of proceedings must recognize and publicly acknowledge the odds against success and pledge not to villanize their own party if the proceedings don't succeed because they can't get enough Republican votes to impeach/remove
(in other words, if you are going to go after Reid and Pelosi like some did on the supplemental, which failed because of a Republican president, yes they could have tried harder, but the greater portion of the blame must not fall on them. If not, they are not going to make themselves the whipping boys for impeachment failing --certainly not if it comes from other Democrats, especially while the media will be making them whipping boys undoubtedly).

2) Those opposed to the proceedings must accept that their agenda is unlikely to progress in any area, including withdrawal from Iraq (which is stalled either way, actually) and decide this is a worthwhile tradeoff. Impeachment proceedings will consume everyone else's time. Plus, in 2008, it is likely that Dems will not have agenda accomplishments to run on, including this because it is unlikely to be successful.

So, I would be torn between proceeding on this (because I have thought out the substantial risks) versus deciding that despite them, it would be worthwhile.

My issue to those take-no-prisoners is:
1) will you support the leaders even if they can't get the Republicans to get removal done?
2) will you villanize them if they try but can't get it done and in the process can't get any of their other agenda through because this is an all-consuming effort?
3) will you accept that in 2008, we will still be in Iraq at the same level of effort?

Otherwise, why should Pelosi and Reid bother? If history is any guide, they will try to get what they can and impeachment supporters will at first be very supportive of the efforts, then will turn on them when it fails and when the rest of the agenda fails to get enacted, not because of a veto, but because this is all consuming if you really, really want to win.

The point is to be successful requires risk and I don't see those in favor explaining that they understand the risk and that they will support the effort and the leadership if the risk is taken and not successful.

Only when that meeting of the minds occurs will any movement in that direction happen. Otherwise, don't count on it. Pelosi already got thanked by Code Pink for trying to get the troops home once and Reid got thanked in vicious terms for pushing the envelope farther on Iraq funding than any of us even thought possible 1 year ago. In fact, Reid got more votes for a withdrawal than anyone thought were there --although it was just a bare majority still --and nowhere near impeachment numbers mind you. Why go to the mat for folks that scold you for your best efforts?

They are after all politicians. They can do what is right, but many will go after them because they "are not listening to the voters", but if they do that and decide that "listening" leads them in a different direction than many activists, they will be told they are craven politicians for not doing what is right. Some people here are putting the leadership in an impossible circumstance.

I don't expect everyone here to agree, but at least look at the political and moral equation simultaneously and recognize there are tradeoffs.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. How can any sane person

act as if this isn't a crisis that demands immediate action? Clearly, Dennis Kucinich and the other co-signers in the house recognize that something has to be done. To not be for impeachment is flat out burrying the head in the sand.

[Lupeyg2]

12. Maybe I'm Just Dumb

How does getting rid of a rogue felon in the Bush Administration who systematically undermines the very foundation this country is built upon not help the country? Dodd sounds like he is more worried about the political ramifications of impeachment rather than the legal ramifications of NOT impeaching.

[librechik]

31. exactly.There is a constitutional issue here that Dodd is spitting on

with his wimpiness.

As a candidate, I can't expect him to uphold the Contitution. If this is his attitude toward the WORST abuse, how would he handle the daily wear and tear as president?

[hyphenate]

13. Sorry; Dodd just lost me

Even if he wasn't one of my top choices, I was looking forward to hearing what the first time presidential candidates had to say. That extremely weak response is just typical of someone not willing--or able--to rock the boat, even a little bit. By not making his stand stronger, he shows he is not head and shoulders above the crowd. It's going to be "little things" like this that will eventually cull the field to a managable few and that is something most voters should look for.

In addition, Cheney and Bush have just gone completely beyond the law, and if impeachment is "not an option" I sure as hell hope that arrest and conviction are. If not, we might as well let them impose martial law now and put guns in our mouths to get it over with.

[Solly Mack]

14. sometimes they come back....America's Horror Story

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/

In July 1987, then-Representative Dick Cheney, the top Republican on the committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, turned on his hearing room microphone and delivered, in his characteristically measured tone, a revolutionary claim.

President Reagan and his top aides, he asserted, were free to ignore a 1982 law at the center of the scandal. Known as the Boland Amendment, it banned US assistance to anti-Marxist militants in Nicaragua.

"I personally do not believe the Boland Amendment applied to the president, nor to his immediate staff," Cheney said.


Cheney refused to sign it. Instead, he commissioned his own report declaring that the real lawbreakers were his fellow lawmakers, because the Constitution "does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping Presidential power."


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/110500b.html
Cheney to the Rescue

One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand.

Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

A senior committee source said one of Cheney’s top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney “kept trying to intimidate Hamilton,” the source said. “He kept saying if we go down that road, we won’t have bipartisanship.”

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

[melody]

15. BushCo must have pictures of him in compromising positions with farm animals

That's the most cowardly pack of crap I've read from him in quite some time, and
that's saying something.

[goclark]

28. ROTFL ~

:bounce:

[Wickerman]

16. trying to lose his 60 supporters, too?

:shrug: If his mother is living she might still support him.

[AndyTiedye]

17. YES IT WOULD HELP! IMPEACH THE WAR CRIMINALS AND SEND THEM TO THE HAGUE!

DO IT NOW BEFORE THEY START ANOTHER WAR!!

[Kagemusha]

18. If he's got a problem with impeachment, he should de-fund the office

the office of the vice-president. Why make it personal? Cheney's arguments are on behalf of the office, not himself the man, so the congressional response might as well be likewise.

[TwilightGardener]

19. "Won't help the country"? Upholding the Constitution of this country,

the very foundation of it, won't help the country? I am so fucking sick of their rationalizations. Such cowards! It's not the slow progress on ending the war that gets me angry--it's the NO-progress on impeachment. Seriously, this will be the thing that might drive me to a third-party, or staying home in November. WTF good ARE these people, that they won't even entertain the idea of taking down the criminal cabal, when they have oh-so-much ammo and evidence? The WaPo is giving them a gift--TAKE IT AND RUN WITH IT, YOU FUCKING YELLOW CHICKENSHITS!!!!

[Javaman]

20. The repukes gut the soul of the american public, yet

our elected dems think we should move on?????

What the fuck is this some sort of new age reflection on how to deal with our problems?

These bastards are fucking crooks! The best way to move the fuck on is to put them in jail.

These fucking spineless dems want to heal the goddamn country? impeach these fuckers, that would warm the frigging cockles of my american heart.

:wtf:

:banghead:

[OnyxCollie]

21. Dodd's part of the scam.

Listen to him talk about his input on HAVA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVFlimWSV54

It is interesting that two people running for President (Dodd, Hagel) have had such interest in secret, proprietary voting machines.

[maryallen]

51. BINGO! Dodd is an ACTOR in the stage production called Congress!

Yeah, over the years, one must audition for the part of senator/congressperson ... to the big money people who pick and choose who would best represent THEIR needs, not ours.

Dodd's been in office, what, 30 years? Makes it so much neater, easier for
the big hitters, when they don't have to keep re-auditioning these impostors, doesn't it?

[Vidar]

22. One more fucking collaborator.

[Cass]

23. Why is he saying no to impeachment before a single hearing has taken place

to determine the scope of impeachable actions? I find Dodd's little speech insulting quite frankly. Why should we just shut up and blindly accept that certain people, by virtue of their position in society, are above the rule of law? I'm supposed to turn a blind eye to a Vice President who doesn't uphold the Constitution as well as he should? Is this guy for real?

These politicians seem to forget that they are elected to represent US - they work for US, they are paid by US, they carry out the business of government for US. We the people are their employers and I, for one, am sick and damn tired of having to beg and plead for a mere scrap of representation. We all read the polls and know that many of our views are shared by the majority. When the heck are elected officials going to start carrying out the wishes of the majority of Americans??

[pat_k]

35. When War crimes have been confirmed by SCOTUS, hearings. . .

. . .to do ANYTHING but present the case to impeach are not only unnecessary, they are destructive. They say "We Don't Have a Case." Clearly a lie. The case that immediate removal to rescue the constitution from the destroyers couldn't possibly be more compelling, simple, or indefenisble.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2892818&mesg_id=2893099

[ladjf]

24. Senator Dodd is totally wrong about this.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

25. fuck impeachment.. arrest the whole administration

oh yeah.. can't arrest dictators

[pat_k]

37. Sorry, but we can't escape our duty to enforce our sovereign authority. . .

. . .and prosecution doesn't accomplish that.

The principle of consent is the SOLE moral principle on which our Constitution, and therefore the nation, is founded. Win or lose, if we surrender that principle fascists without a fight, we will continue to pay the price for decades to come.

Certainly, justice and our international compact demand that we turn them over to the Hague, but we must first confront the grim reality of their crimes against Us as a nation and enforce the dictates of our Constitution through the POLITICAL process of impeach, not judicial process of prosecution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[WritersBlock]

26. We the people are not asking for your opinion, Senator. We're giving you ours.

I'd really like to know where they're getting this "other issues the American public were hoping the Democrats would decide to address and focus on" stuff.

How do they know? Who told them that? Did they walk up to Joe Q Public and say, "Hey, what are you hoping we'll address and focus on?"

Just who is this "American public" they know so much about?

Because, Senator, I can tell you that this particular part of the American public, and I'm not alone, wants you and your colleagues in both Houses of Congress to do your sworn duty to protect and defend the United States of America from the domestic enemies who are threatening her very survival.

And there is *nothing* more important for you to address and focus on first.

[Morgana LaFey]

47. they're certainly not paying any attention to the polls, that's for sure

6/17/2007
***** Harris Poll results leaked, 54% of likely voters favor impeachment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1129958

[aquart]

27. It would help ME.

[movonne]

29. He is a f---ing crook and should be impeached...it will do a lot of good

for our Psyche to know that this evil man is going down...but then again we have these limp dick dems.....

[mod mom]

30. If we don't hold these criminals accountable then we will never have legitimacy

in the eyes of the world.

Sen Dodd, Are we now a land of kings or laws?

[JerseygirlCT]

32. I'm sorry, but I disagree with my only senator here

I do understand what he's saying, but:

What exactly ARE we focusing on other than simply trying to tread water and pick up the messes as the administration makes them?

Crime ought to be brought to justice. High crimes most particularly, regardless of anyone's fears for the country's health or mood.

Does he really think we're in such great shape after our entire country has been taken over by criminals?

[pat_k]

33. He obviously has no concept of duty, and can't read polls. . .

He obviously has no concept of duty, and can't read polls. . .

He is in deep denial of the grim realities of our national crisis. We charged each and every one of them with the duty to "support and defend." It is a duty that requires them to defend our nation from the destroyers by fighting to impeach and remove their power to destroy. The oath to "support and defend" doesn't carry the exemption "unless I believe the fascists will beat us." Our Armed Services personnel don't have the option of saying "No thank you. I'll sit this one out. I don't believe we'll win." Neither does he. He took the same oath.

Not to mention the fact that "getting things done" and passing laws for the executive to violate is not "getting things done." It is getting steamrolled. It is proving to the public what the public has long believed -- that Democrats are wimps. Well meaning wimps perhaps, but wimps nevertheless.

Tragically, his denial of reality and rationalizations appear to be shared by the entire beltway establishment. It's gonna take continued heavy duty intervention to break through.

Whenever the fascists invoke unitary authoritarian power they tell us they are violating our Constitution and U.S. Code. Cheney, Bush, and their minions only need the cover of that fascist fig leaf when all can see they are committing grave violations.

Their criminal intent is crystal clear with every scribbled "signing statement" that claims executive power to violate the law. When they declared Gitmo a Geneva-free zone, they declared their intent to torture. We can prove they acted on that intent, but we don't need to. The intent alone is intolerable. (And the fact that their abduction, arbitrary and, indefinite impeachment constituted, and other "policies" constituted War Crimes was confirmed by SCOTUS. Even when stacked with fascists, that court couldn't deny reality.)

It is hard to imagine how Bush and Cheney could possibly have made the necessity of their immediate removal any clearer. A couple examples from the public record and it's "case closed."

The case for impeachment and removal is so simple, so compelling, and so grounded in our most treasured principles; the Democratic establishment's refusal to make the case is beyond rational comprehension.

Duty trumps all political considerations. But in this case, the RIGHT thing is the WINNING thing.

Why does he think Congressional approval is in the dumper? How do they manage to delude themselves that playing "see no evil; speak no evil; hear no evil" and continuing "business as usual" will someone win them respect and votes?

The absurdity of their blather would be laughable if it weren't so tragically devastating to the nation and the Party.

=================== Polls ==========================

http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reasons for Democratic Success

http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">51% "want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress (Newsweek, Oct-2006)

While I'm sure they they were just trying to adhere to the blackout on impeachment polling, when Newsweek asked, "do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over" they asked a question that strips away all the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobic excuses that impeachment can't/won't/shouldn't happen. They unintentionally managed to capture the ACTUAL level of support for impeachment.

Newsweek Poll, 27-Jan-07

"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

58% Yes, wish it was over

37% No, do not

5% Don't know/refused.

The breakdown by Party found that 21% of Republicans, which constitutes 7% of all Americans "wish it was over"

Tragically, 12% of Democrats, which constitutes 4% of all Americans "do not" want it over.

[BlueStater]

34. They haven't done shit on anything else, either

Cheney keeps abusing his power and we're just supposed to put up with this asshole's law-breaking for another year and a half?

[tanyev]

36. Hells bells, Dodd, it sure wouldn't hurt.

Biggus Dickus got something on him?

[depakid]

38. If Dodd refuses to do his Constitutional duty

then Connecticut needs to send him on his way.

He's obviously been in and around the Beltway too long-

[pat_k]

39. The threat "Demand impeachment or kiss your seat goodbye" . .

. . .must come long before the primaries. (Long before the actual "sending away.")

Why do Members of the House and Senate justify their dereliction when they require military personnel to risk life and limb to "support and defend." A soldier who says "No thanks, I'll sit this one out. I'm sure we'll lose" is subject to the penalty of death.

Perhaps we need to pass law that subjects Members of Congress to the ultimate penalty for dereliction of duty?

One way or another, you are right. Since we don't currently have law that subjects them to the risk of losing their lives, at least those who fail us must be subjected to he threat of losing their office.

[NoodleyAppendage]

40. It's time to start a movement to chat "WIMP" when these Dems say such things.

It would be awesome to start a grassroot effort for 2008 candidate meetings, in which the audience rhythmically chants "wimp...wimp...wimp..." whenever they respond that impeachment isn't feasible or a solution.

J

[roguevalley]

41. what a pathetic person. I am going to write to him today. If I understand

it, the Constitution isn't something you uphold when you feel like it. WOn't help the country? Bullshit, Dodd. You total coward. Since the dems haven't ended the war like we voted them in for, what the hell else, Dodd, are you holding out for? Loser.

[pacalo]

42. The point of impeachment, Sen. Dodd, is that we don't want another BushCo ever again!

That's the main desire we have in our hunger for impeachment, but there are many other reasons for it:

-- BushCo has lied this country into war -- what could be worse than causing so many deaths & misery based on a lie?

-- BushCo is the most partisan, political "presidency" that has severely divided this country; based on their actions, they do not consider non-Rethugs as part of their constituency;

-- BushCo has flagrantly broken law after law;

-- It would send a message to the world that BushCo does not represent our values -- our country no longer has the moral authority to speak out against atrocities in other parts of the world unless those responsible for the tarnished reputation of our country are held to account through impeachment. The world will never see us as a rehabilitated policy-maker if we don't act through impeachment.

[redqueen]

43. I'm about sick of all these people throwing out the rule of law

cause it's not decorous, or cause it's bothersome... or whatever lamea$$ed excuse they concoct.

Go ahead on and whore yourself out if that's who you are, but don't frickin LIE to us about WHY.

[closeupready]

45. Thank you.

Thinking the same thing.

[originalpckelly]

44. Senator Dodd, you are one of the reasons it has come this far, and you should be ashamed.

[fooj]

46. It's called the RULE OF LAW, Senator Dodd.

That's what WE want you to focus on.

[tbyg52]

48. It would help the Constitution!

It's not Dodd's prerogative to ignore people who break the law, trash the Constitution, and act like monarchs!

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. Dodd, buh-bye!

[Mister Ed]

52. Dodd re Cheney: "He has not been upholding the Constitution as well as he could."

Dodd re Jack the Ripper: "He has not been upholding women's rights as well as he could."

[youngdem]

53. Could we just send him hunting by himself?

[annabanana]

55. Cheney causes more damage every SECOND he sits in that office...

Every day he's still there, disasters that will take decades to unsnarl and fix are hatched and sent out to wreak havoc . .

[CreekDog]

56. Yes, villanize Dodd, please

So many here just dumped on Dodd,

Not because of his position on the supplemental, he was in agreement with most here

Not because of his position on getting troops out of Iraq, still in agreement

Not because he has not been critical of Bush/Cheney --he has been, clearly

Not because of his stands on the issues, he's pretty much correct down the list, even by hard line activist standards.

But nevermind all that. Just demonize him, a reliable liberal senator, who while not perfect, probably understands what has a chance of getting done a little better than the know-it-alls here.

You can disagree with him, even I think he should have struck a coarser tone on this issue.

But I don't doubt his credibility, his knowledge of the chances of impeachment and I don't doubt his commitment to Democratic ideals.

And if you do, you are disowning one important vote and piece of support for what you want to accomplish. See if you can get a Republican to do better than Dodd on this issue between now and 2008.

You can't and if you don't know it, you just shouldn't be making strategic decisions about the party in my opinion.

[ldf]

62. yeah, yeah, yeah

they strike all the right poses, then don't do shit.

and WE are the ones to be castigated for getting tired of it...


whatever..

:grr:

[CreekDog]

65. First, they did do sh*t, take a look at the reocord of proposals and votes on them

Second, you are getting castigated for lying about their record.

Third, if you see them as the enemy, then you are reducing by probably half, the number of votes that can be used to actually impeach Bush and/or Cheney and end the war in Iraq.

While there are no guarantees that they can do anything thanks to not enough Democratic votes to impeach or override a veto, there is the guarantee that if the Democrats are split, there is even less likelihood that those things can happen.

Take stock before you jump to conclusions.

But what's most frustrating about this thread is that people refuse to actually acknowledge that politically this is not possible right now and that they would fail at the moment to pass impeachment or withdrawal from Iraq. If people who supported those things recognized that they aren't likely to pass, our party would have the political cover to attempt it.

Right now, if they attempt it and fail, the activists will blame them --heck, they blamed them for the supplemental. You guys won't do that on impeachment?

[IndianaGreen]

69. Hitler had his enablers that allowed him to become Fuehrer. Dodd is an enabler of dictatorship

If Cheney cannot be impeached, then no one can. We lost the Republic to a bunch of Beltway cowards that when the country called on them to restore the Constitution, they only gave excuses for their sorry ass imitation of a modern Petain.

[BattyDem]

57. Let's face it ...

No one is going to do a damn thing about Bush and Cheney! They can break every law and do whatever they want because it won't matter. The people who are supposed to be representing us in Congress are not interested in protecting our rights or our Constitution. They are only interested in the next election and the amount of money they can raise. We the people cannot compete with the millions of dollars they get from the corporations.

Senator Dodd: THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION (AND OUR COUNTRY) FROM THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO DESTROY IT!!! IF THAT ISN'T FIRST ON YOUR AGENDA, THEN YOU SHOULD RESIGN BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OATH YOU TOOK!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[CreekDog]

58. What's your evidence they are not interested?

Do you think if they calculated that they could impeach Cheney and Bush (which requires all Dems to vote for it and then another 16-17 Republicans in the Senate to go along also, which would include about 10 hard core conservatives and all the moderate Republicans).

Do you really think they would?

The barrier now is that this is only seen as a political scandal by the majority of the public. It is seen as a legal scandal by one third basically. To get where you want to go, you need two thirds to see it that way. To do that is uphill sledding and even if you could, you got 16 months at most to do it.

Holy cow.

No, it's not that they aren't interested, they are going to make those that want them to do it face up to the reality of how hard/impossible it is. If you guys face up to that, you may persuade them to take it on, but they've mostly been mocked and called Republican enablers even when they try to do the right thing by pro impeachment folks.

Walk in their shoes for a moment and think about why they might not do it and what might change their mind in favor of doing it.

And changing their mind doesn't probably begin with saying they have no morals and that they LIKE helping Bush and Cheney.

I mean, do they really ENJOY and WANT their opposition to do well?

I'm not buying it.

You know I was so mad I could spit after the supplemental, but this whole discussion is scapegoating the leadership for things they did not cause and they don't have the power to change.

I don't see what good it does to pull the rug of support out from under them if you want them to succeed. Seems like what you should do is say, press forward on these things and don't worry, we will support you even if you don't succeed. We will have your back.

Instead it's we don't support you unless you both take a risk and you succeed.

And think about how forgiving people were when they tried to defund Iraq and ultimately ran up against the Republican reality. Based on comments here, I would have thought the Democrats alone were responsible for that failure.

Man alive.

[BattyDem]

73. It's not just Dodd ... it's all of Congress

Clinton got impeached for a BJ, yet they don't think they've got enough reason to get rid of these two criminals? I'm sick of hearing "we don't have enough time" or "we have other priorities" or "we don't have the votes" - impeach them so the evidence can be made public and any Senator that chooses to ignore the evidence in favor of party politics can be voted out.

There is NOTHING more important than removing an out of control, criminal administration that is actively trying to destroy our Constitution and our country!

[CreekDog]

64. If impeachment is voted on in the Senate how will Dodd vote?

Ok, now next question:

If Dodd resigns and the Republican Governor of Connecticut appoints a Republican to replace him, how will that replacement vote on impeachment?

Still think this is a good idea, the resignation thing?

[BattyDem]

74. What difference does it make? It's not just Dodd

We all thought that a Democratic majority would mean an end to the bad policies, the failed war and the criminal activity - but it hasn't. Bush and Cheney have pretty much said "fuck you" to Congress and Congress hasn't really done a thing about it. The administration ignores the laws, the requests by Congress, the attempts at oversight and the Constitution and so far, nothing has been done. We've got the majority and guess what? They are too damn frightened to stand up to this criminal administration. Republicans block every effort to hold anyone in the administration accountable - the Dems couldn't even get a no confidence vote against Gonzalez! It's funny how the minority Republicans have no problem blocking legislation, but the minority Democrats never could. :eyes:

How can anyone in Congress say "there are too many other issues to focus on" when our country is under attack from within? What is more important than that?

Dodd can't do anything by himself - I know that - but when are the Democrats finally going to stand together and say "Enough is enough! These people are criminals and it's time to do something about them for the sake of our country." How many more crimes have to be committed? Hom many more laws have to be broken? How many more people have to be killed?

I'm tired of blindly supporting Dems who "do the right thing" on most of the issues, but fail to even acknowledge a problem on the most important issue of all. The House needs to impeach and the Senate needs to have a trial. If they don't have the votes to convict, then so be it - at least the country will know the truth and the world will know we tried to do something. If we can't even get someone like Dodd, who's a good guy, to acknowledge how bad things are, then like I said - we have to face it: no one's going to do a damn thing and the only way to change things is to elect people who get it.

Dodd could have avoided the whole "we have other issues to focus on" excuse if he simply said, "I know how you feel, but I'm a senator and the Senate cannot impeach them. That must be done in the House." Instead, he basically blew off the calls for impeachment and that attitude is no longer acceptable from any Democrat. JMHO

[SquireJons]

59. Man, that was disappointing....

There goes my support for Dodd.

[CreekDog]

60. So, you won't support him on anything?

Or you just disagree on the impeachment?

[u2spirit]

61. No Wonder congress has low approval ratings

Even most conservatives I know are done enough with Shrub that if we impeached and tied the whole gang they wouldn't give a shit. The beltway Dems like Dodd are completely out of touch. I can assure anyone here that the moment Hillary, Barack, Edwards or any other Dem President does the least thing considered unethical, a rethug congress will be baying for impeachment. We have shitty representation as progressives by the most powerful in congress at least.

[IndianaGreen]

67. Dodd is another stupid Beltway Democrat that just doesn't get it!

It's the Constitution and the Republic that is at stake!

Someone ought to tell Dodd that Bush is polling higher than the Congress.

[Captain Hilts]

71. Dodd can add. The Dems do not have a big enough majority to make impeachment work. nt

[IndianaGreen]

72. There weren't the votes to impeach Nixon either!

It was the impeachment hearings that shifted public opinion in favour of impeachment.

If the Democrats won't impeach Cheney, then they might as well disband as a political party!

[Boo Boo]

68. "There are too many other issues out there the American public were

hoping Democrats would decide to address and focus on."

Bullshit.

[Senator]

70. Doddering Dodd's Just Parrotting Their False Memes

Here's a sampling of some of them.

The good news is they've moved from laughing at us to fighting us.

The bad news is they may have had their chance, and flubbed it.

--

[eppur_se_muova]

75. Crowd tells Dodd, "Try it anyway!"

Because, you know, you could be wrong.

[yurbud]

76. jesus christ! Do these DC douchebags know that repeating that shit makes them look like cowards?

or worse, complicit?

Why is he bothering to run if he is going to say shit like that?

What's the other business they're getting done--prolonging the war?