Testing DU..1..2..1..2: Does a Democrat have to drop what he/she is doing ...

[wyldwolf]

....to appear at a press conference announcing articles of impeachment to prove he/she APPROVES of or BACKS those articles of impeachment?

[maddezmom]

1. No

But who is supporting them?

[wyldwolf]

3. thank you. Someone here is claiming...

...that because a certain Democrat gave a speech TODAY but did not appear with Kucinich YESTERDAY at a press conference, that that particular Democrat is some sort of bad Democrat.

[Dr Fate]

8. Has that person said he supports impeachment? Or that he is against it?

Which DEM congressman are you talking about?

The best way to see if the DEM in question supports impeachment or not may not be to see if they showed up with DK or not, but to see if they have said they agree with it or not...

I would think tht silence on such a huge thing also means disagreement- but I would have to look at past statements too...

Who is this DEM impeachment supporter who is being slandered, and what have they said in support of Cheney's impeachment?

[wyldwolf]

33. doesn't matter. If being at DK's PRESS CONFERENCE is the litmus test..

..as blm contends, then perhaps you are her have list now of who supports it and who doesn't.

[Dr Fate]

37. Not so- Rahm could show support for impeachment in many ways.

He could hold a separate presser, or go on one of those cable shows and advocate for it.

I cant force Rahm to do anything- he can show his support for impeachment, or his oppostiton to it, in anyway he feels.

But he's not for it- that's why your OP and most of this thread doesnt make much sense.

[wyldwolf]

44. Exactly. blm is wrong. Showing or not showing at the PRESS CONFERENCE in no way implies...

someone's approval or disapproval. But if it DOES, as blm contends, she should give a list of who was there and who was not.

[Dr Fate]

55. Could be. But if someone suggested Rahm opposes it, they were right.

Either way, maybe you should take that up with her.

The OP suggested this thread would be about DEMS who support impeachment- Now I realize it's just a personal thread about other specific DUers.

[wyldwolf]

60. Emanuel's opposition has never been an issue in the discussion

The issue is whether an appearance at the PRESS CONFERENCE equates to be a good Dem.

[Dr Fate]

64. Congress's support for impeachment is the core crux of the issue.

Everything else I'm seeing appears to be convoluted logic games.

OF COURSE you dont show up to a pro-impeachment presser if you oppose it.

[wyldwolf]

67. No, it is not. Further, you were not in on the initial discussion so how would you know?

[Dr Fate]

70. Your OP was concerned with whether certain DEMS support Impeachment or not. Rahm does not.

It's clear why he was not at the presser- he opposes impeachment.

[wyldwolf]

72. LOL! You're telling me what my OP was concerned with? LOL! No...

... you're seriously mistaken.

[Dr Fate]

74. I just re-read it. Dont you ask us about how to tell whether DEMS approve of impeachment or not?

You asked readers to tell you whether certain acts means someone approves of impeachment or not.

If your OP didnt concern congressional approval of impeachemnt, then you shouldnt have asked about ways to tell if congress approves of impeachment or not...

Either way, Rahm did not show up to the pro-impeachment presser, and he doesnt support impeachment. I dont see what is so confusing to you about that.

[wyldwolf]

76. No, I asked if showing up at the PRESS CONFERENCE is indicative of approval or not

... which, apparantly, is lost on you.

But I'll try a different approach and twist/turn/spin the topic like you are doing.

Dennis Kucinich is apparently alone in his desire to Impeach.

[Dr Fate]

78. Was not showing up to a PRESS CONFERENCE indicative of Rahm's disapproval?

I would say it was an indicator-one of many.

Why are we yelling out the words "press conferecne", by the way? ;)

[wyldwolf]

80. Why are you talking about breakfast cereal?

[TreasonousBastard]

15. The trick is to...

ignore DU silliness like that and concentrate on the real world.

So Kucinich presented an impeachment bill and everyone else is sidestepping around it because they've already counted the votes and it's still a waste of time.

This is not the first time Dennis has done something a lot of other people think might be a good idea if his timing didn't suck so badly and he bothered to garner at least a modicum of support beforehand.

[saracat]

2. No. But then I don't support stupidity.Or the wasting of time whenwe have urgent issues to be addres

[wyldwolf]

4. Thank you. Your position, then, is that showing up at a PRESS CONFERENCE...

... to support articles of impeachment would be a demonstration of stupidity. Correct?

[saracat]

6. Yes. I would have loved to see Cheney impeached but it is NOT gonna happen.

and I think it makes us look silly, though god knows he should be impeached. However he is going to be gone soon anyway and we have bigger fish to fry.JMHO.

[Dr Fate]

11. It's true. The "dry powder" DEMS will see to it that never even gets off the ground.

How about impeaching Gonzo?

Are we too frightened of GOP retaliation to do that? Can I get you guys on board for that one at least?

[Zhade]

27. My fear is that these people can't admit the scope of crimes committed.

It's almost as if they think letting the administration get away with their crimes is okay, because they somehow bizarrely don't think of them as criminals.

[blm]

12. Now YOUR argument is that Rahm supports imnpeachment even if he wasn't WITH Dennis?

But, now it might be that Rahn didn't show to support impeachment because it's stupid?

[wyldwolf]

14. No, but contrary to YOUR claim, Rahm or anyone need not show up at a PRESS CONFERENCE...

... if they support the action.

[Dr Fate]

20. The point is that Rahm wants impeachment back on the table- that is wonderful news.

Damn- I know we have had our disagreements in the past- but I'm glad that a top DLC member now supports impeachment.

I'm with you Wyldwolf- Rahm can support impeachment and also not show up with DK. I'm fine with that.

What has Rahm said in support of these resolutions?- I'm very excited about this...

[wyldwolf]

28. the point is just how many Democrats showed up at the PRESS CONFERENCE? Nancy there?

ANYONE else from the Progressive Caucus?

[Dr Fate]

35. You dont make any sense. Either Rahm is for impeachment or he isnt.

Nancy has already said that "impeachment is off the table"- so I would imagine she would not there either.

Unless you have some new info, Rahm and Pelosi are opposed to impeachment, so it makes sense that congressmen who oppose it would not be at the conference.

[wyldwolf]

38. you don't make any sense. Either appearing at the PRESS CONFERENCE reinforces your Dem bona-fides..

..or it doesn't. From the most liberal to the most conservative Dem.

[Dr Fate]

40. If you say so. All I know is Rahm does indeed oppose impeachment.

No wonder he wasnt at the presser- why would he show up if he opposes it?

I imagine one can be absent from DK's presser & still support impeachment- but that's just not the case with Rahm.

[wyldwolf]

45. irrelevant to the argument blm is making

No wonder he wasnt at the presser- why would he show up if he opposes it?

Who was there that supports it?

[Dr Fate]

52. BLM's arguments? I was adressing your point in the OP.

When did your suggestion that hypotehtically, Rahm "could" be for impeachment depsite his non-appearance at a presser, become BLM's thread and arguments?

I'm responding to you, not BLM.

Sure- Rahm certainly "could" be for impeachment and still not be at the presser- but he is not for it.

[wyldwolf]

57. ..which was based on an ongoing discussion with blm

When did your suggestion that hypotehtically, Rahm "could" be for impeachment depsite his non-appearance at a presser, become BLM's thread and arguments?

I have never hypothetically suggested that. In my replies to you and to her I have consitantly stated that the PRESS CONFERENCE should not be an indicator of who is for or against impeachment or on a broader scope be an indicative of who is a good Democrat.


I'm responding to you, not BLM.

You've injected yourself into a thread without knowing the history of the discussion.

[Dr Fate]

61. I now realize that this is a personal thread aimed at one specific DUer.

Sorry for getting involved- perhaps next time you should try PMs for this kind of thing- that way people cant assume it's a public discussion for everyone.

[Dr Fate]

16. So Rahm is the congressman in question? I thought he agreed that "impeachment is off the table"

Is there some new news or statements from Rahm that are pro-impeachment?

If not, then I'm confused as to why someone would think he supports impeachment and supports DK.

Are we sure that Rahm is who the OP is talking about? It doesnt make sense.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

21. Oh. So this thread is just nothing but bullshit then. Sorry- I should have known.

I'm guessing that BLM assumed correctly that Rahm opposes impeachment.

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[wyldwolf]

25. You can go back to sleep now. Maybe blm will tell us which Dems were at the PRESS CONFERENCE

[blm]

30. I did not say that - I said if Rahm believes certainly that WH is corrupt, then his duty

is to impeach - and that his statement would have been made at the impeachment event.

Since he has spoken against impeachment in the past, why try to impress us with a speech atelling us how CORRUPT they all are.

Make the speech, Rahm - then IMPEACH. Doing one without the other is all show and no go.

[wyldwolf]

31. sure you did. But I'm still wondering where Kerry was.

[wyldwolf]

68. no, you said his duty was to be at the "impeachment event" with Kucinich

[Dr Fate]

5. Separate, public announcements and television appearances can be effective too.

It would be great if some high profile, household name congressmen could be at the conference-

But separate public announcements of support, or appearances on those cable TV "news/debate" shows advocating for it are fine too.

I think that if some DEMS want to make separate announcements to keep the news alive, that is fine too.

If certain DEMS are silent on it, then yes, I think it's safe to assume that they disagree with impeachment.

[wyldwolf]

7. "certain" Dems? Or ALL Dems?

Who decides. If Dem A is silent, he disagrees? If Dem B is silent, he/she doesn't disagree?

[Dr Fate]

10. It's pretty simple. If a member of congress supports impeachment, he should say so.

If the congress member in question said they opposed it in the past and is silent on it now, then most people should safely assume they oppose impeachment.

[wyldwolf]

13. so it's an either/or thing with no guessing involved about "certain" Dems?

Ok...

So, how many congressman at present have signed on?

[Dr Fate]

22. Youe either support it or you dont. Most DEMS dont seem to want to support it. n/t

n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

17. LOL! LOL!

1. Go ask your question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3234270&mesg_id=3234270

2. Give me an example of my continous breaking of the rules.

[blm]

19. You want people to believe Rahm Emmanuel is FOR impeachment but was TOO BUSY to support Kucinich?

Have fun selling THAT one here.

[Dr Fate]

23. I have to admit, I fell for it. I thought he was saying our mysteryman was for impeachment.

I should have asked myself why he failed to mention the person's name before I commented so much.

[wyldwolf]

26. but what I'm actually saying is a Dem doesn't have to show at a PRESS CONFERENCE to support it.

How many were there with DK? Who were they?

[Dr Fate]

36. But Rahm opposes impeachment-he's AGAINST IT- so no wonder he wasnt there.

Your OP and subesquent posts dont make sense.

Are you arguing that Rahm is for impeachment or not?

Unless you know something we dont, Rahm does indeed oppose impeachment.

Why in the world would he be at the press conference unless he was for it?

[wyldwolf]

39. so WHO is for it that also WASN'T there?

Your OP and subesquent posts dont make sense.

Your replies don't make sense

Are you arguing that Rahm is for impeachment or not?

That was never the argument. The argument has been does someone have to had appeared at the KUCINICH PRESS CONFERENCE to be considered on board with it.

Why in the world would he be at the press conference unless he was for it?

based on blm's original argument, why in the world would John Kerry and a host of other Dems NOT be at the PRESS CONFERENCE?

[AtomicKitten]

41. Dude, you are messing it up for them.

They are faced with a conundrum here wanting to diss Emanuel for not appearing at the Kucinich press conference, but their hero Kerry wasn't there either, so what to do.

Hmmmmmmmm ..... I know! Say that the constitution prohibits Kerry from being there. Done and done.

Oy vey. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

46. they've yet to produce a list of ANY "approved" Democrats who were there with Kucinich.

[Dr Fate]

49. Are you talking about me or someone else? When did I bring Kerry into the mix?

How Am I dissing Rahm?

None of this thread makes much sense- I honestly cant tell what you all are trying to say.

Rahm is AGAINST impeachment- why is this big news or a point of contention for his DLC supporters?

[wyldwolf]

53. if you want to enter into a conversation that has been ongoing...

...it isn't up to me to give you a summary. Kerry has been paramount in the ongoing discussion with blm.

[Dr Fate]

58. You said "they"- in a sub thread that I had posted in. I thought "they" might have included me.

I thought "they" might have included me.

My apologies- I now realize that the thread isnt about who supported impeachment or not, but that it's a personal thread about a specific DUer.

[Dr Fate]

43. I agree with you on one thing- Rahm could support impeachment and not be there.

But you say Rahm doesnt support impeachment-so it should be no SUPRISE- he wasnt there.

I agree with you that if you support impeachment, saying so in one forum or another is a good thing- but Rahm is against it.

[wyldwolf]

47. Irrelevant. The argument is whether appearing at the PRESS CONFERENCE denotes one's approval or not

If Rahm NOT being there makes him a bad Dem (and renders the points in the speech he gave null and void as blm contends), then Kerry and any other blm "approved" Dem not being there also makes them unworthy.

[Dr Fate]

66. Perhaps you better just PM and ask BLM about all that. All I know is Rahm does oppose impeachment.

And it makes perfect sense to me that he does- No big suprise on my part.

[wyldwolf]

69. I have a better idea. Why don't you try to catch up on the discussion so...

...you know what you're talking about or gracefully bow out of it.

[Dr Fate]

71. I'm perfectly caught up. I do realize that this is a personal thread about one particular DUer.

Of course you were never trying to discuss the actual issue of whether Rahm supports impeachment or not- everyone knows he doesnt.

[wyldwolf]

73. I was never to discussing Emanuel's impeachement position because it isn't what the thread is about

Of course blm - and now by extension you - don't want to address the fact that she stated the only way a Dem can believe this administration is corrupt is by showing up at Kucinich's PRESS CONFERENCE which, by the way, no one did.

[Dr Fate]

75. This thread is all about congress member's approval of impeachment.

In your OP, you ask us to discuss whehter certain acts tell us if an elected DEM supports impeachment or not.

I dont see how you can say this thread is not about whether one elected DEM or another approves of impeachment- when you started the very discussion with this concept in your OP.

At this point, I think you are arguing just for the sake of it.

[wyldwolf]

77. At this point, I think you are arguing just for the sake of it.

[Dr Fate]

79. I've agreed with you several times that Rahm doesnt support impeachment.

And I think we agree that people who dont support impeachment probably dont belong at pro-impeachment pressers.

Not much for us to argue about, really.

[wyldwolf]

81. breakfast cereal??

[wyldwolf]

24. you want people to believe any Democrat has to show up at a PRESS CONFERENCE...

... to be supportive of DK? Good luck selling that ANYWHERE!

By the way, who WAS at the PRESS CONFERENCE??

[AtomicKitten]

32. that only applies to certain people, wyldwolf

You know how it goes here at DU.

It would be funny to watch the pretzel logic in action if you swapped out names.
And the best part is that there is ZERO insight into that behavior.
Twice the funny.

[wyldwolf]

34. since blm has established that being at the PRESS CONFERENCE distinguishes who is a good Dem...

..she could at least produce a list of who was actually there.

[SaveElmer]

48. Dennis Kucinich: "I do not stand alone."

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

Really laying the groundwork there isn't he...as usual, he is not willing to actually put the legwork into getting what he proposes seriously considered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341.html

[wyldwolf]

50. LOL!

[SaveElmer]

51. And more from DK's grand effort...

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.

"Yes, I did," she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341.html

[Tellurian]

59. DK earned his MA in speech communication..

all HAT, NO Cattle!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

62. Who was there supporting Kucinich?

Provide a list!

[SaveElmer]

63. Here you go...list follows!!!

[AtomicKitten]

65. damn that Emanuel !!

[William769]

29. I gave him an answer wyldwolf

Go check it out see if you agree or not.

[IndianaGreen]

42. It depends how one feels about the Constitution being the Law of the Land

Both major parties played a role in undermining the Constitution, and civil liberties, when they established the national security state at the end of World War II. Bush is perhaps the most egregious example of unconstitutional behaviour, but he didn't become a quasi-dictator on his own, he had a lot of bipartisan help.

The Constitution is quite clear on when impeachment is necessary. What we lack is the political will to restore the rule of law and hold the criminals accountable. It was this lack of will that gave us PATRIOT and IWR in the past. Starting impeachment proceedings against the co-President Dick Cheney is but the first step in restoring the Republic.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.