How's the anti-impeachment crowd holding up tonight?

[mmonk]

[orleans]

1. probably busy getting some flowers together to send feingold. n/t

[davidwparker]

2. LOL

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. Well...over at that "site that shall not be named" place...

The replies below are in response to an article by DU's own davidswanson

AND! We have a new word that is also defined!

Demoicracy! :rofl:

Enjoy these couple of gems from "over there"....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864697/posts

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Demoicracy is a good system for governing a reasonably homogeneous group of people with shared values and ideals. It is not a reasonable system for sharing power between two or more groups with nothing in common at all, and who basically just hate each other. Control under those circumstances as often as not is in the hands of those who are best at gaming the system. The conclusion I come to is that the US is no longer a viable country and needs to be split up.

11 posted on 07/12/2007 5:00:50 AM PDT by rickdylan
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

-----------------------------------------------------------

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Wait until they find out there are no grounds for impeachment! I’ve seen impeach bumper stickers around my neighborhood (Valley Village/Studio City which is part of Los Angeles). Last Friday after our rally we saw a “Family For Impeachment”. I sure hope people rise up against these folks. They are the same ones that drove Nixon out.

23 posted on 07/12/2007 8:16:19 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Rise up against the people who threw Nixon out?

And what, may I ask, was wrong with that?

[TahitiNut]

16. Well, to be fair, all of us Nixon-drivers are over 50 and easier for them to fight.

:shrug:


:dunce:

[Jack Rabbit]

29. True, however, TN, your forget something we should not let them forget

You and I are vets. They are chickenhawks.

[TahitiNut]

30. It'd be nice to fight for something worthwhile.

Reeeal nice. :evilgrin:

[regnaD kciN]

19. Actually, I'm beginning to agree with the first poster...

...although I'm sure for different reasons. As I see it, the Bush administration has finally completed the task of installing a right-wing cancer in the system. That cancer has metathesized, and spread throughout all branches of government, such that democracy can no longer survive. And I see no way to excise that cancer surgically. No matter if Obama/Clinton/Edwards/Gore/whoever wins next year, with a solid progressive Democratic majority behind them in Congress, they will never be able to undo the damage done by eight years (and twenty out of the last twenty-eight) of stuffing the courts with ideologues whose allegiance to their political philosophy and/or religious beliefs trumps the Constitution. And, no matter what, the blatant disregard for democracy and the rule of law, once established, is a cancer of its own -- having shown it to be possible, future administrations will be much more tempted to follow the lead of the Bushies in stuffing their agenda down the country's throat, Constitution be damned. And, even if we consider ourselves and our party the "good guys," we can be certain that, eventually, the political heirs of our current leaders will one day regain power, and be much more easily enabled to complete the work their predecessors began.

In short, I think the current malefactors in Washington have found the chinks in the American political system and exploited them to the extent that the system, prized for two-hundred-plus years, will no longer be viable in the future. I see only two alternatives to an eventual Bush-style strongman state extending into the long-term future: either secession/split of the U.S. into some equivalent of the "nine nations of North America," or a revolution that would completely overthrow our current corrupt political system and replace it with a new paradigm, with a new Constitution and electoral/representation system designed to avoid the newly-revealed fatal flaws of the system that served us well from 1789 to 2000. Actually, there may ultimately be no difference between the two, since I suspect that the second solution would more likely lead to the first, just as the overthrow of the Soviet system led to the splitting of the U.S.S.R. into a whole host of independent sovereign states. But it's hard for me to look at the current situation and conclude that the future of what we now call America is but a choice between split, revolution, or a dictatorship with merely the trappings of the democracy we once had.

[mmonk]

20. It's definitely in a "change" stage and I'm

not optimistic. I still have a DVD of constitutional lawyer and member of the Center for Constitutional Rights Barbara Olshansky speaking to a group of people whereby she said things were going against everything she was taught in law school. I've never seen someone like that with such despair in their eyes and anger and sorrow in their voice. If she was that pessimistic, I figure it foolish to think this thing is just going to turn around. Now, more than ever, we have to be that change. Nobody or no election is going to do it for us.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. FR is not the site whose name cannot be spoken.

PM me for clarification.

[Whoa_Nelly]

32. It was a joke

Why should I PM you for clarification? :shrug: :hi:

[Orrex]

4. Huh? What'd I miss?

Did someone get impeached? Don't tease me like that!

[mmonk]

5. I post this every once in awhile when an outrage occurs or

they get away with another injustice or crime. I know there are those that support the decision expressed by Pelosi as she became Speaker. Just one of those things I can't resist nor will ever stop until the right thing is done.

[LittleClarkie]

7. And does it stay open each time? Or does it generally get locked

pretty quickly?

[mmonk]

9. Stays open.

There's nothing offensive about it.

[Orrex]

8. Outrage? You mean the declaration of martial law?

Honestly I've lost track.

But if our good friends at DHS are reading, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend our brave and duly elected President for the fine--nay, excellent--job he's doing.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything that might seem counter-productive to our right noble efforts in Iraq. Nosirree!

[mmonk]

10. Lol

[LittleClarkie]

6. I don't think they are anti-impeachment, or hate impeachment

or whatever.

It's just not as high a priority as it is for the pro-impeachment folk. They're not pushing for it, is all.

[mmonk]

11. Off the table is definitely not pushing it, I agree.

[mmonk]

12. .

[PBass]

21. Right, our elected officials have their careers to worry about.

Gosh, there's an election coming up soon! That's a heck of a lot more important, than trying to protect the Constitution!!

Impeachment is for the immature idealists, who don't realize how hard everything is. First, Democrats win the big election. THEN they can worry about little things like the Constitution.

See, here's the plan: once the democrats win the next election, things will be a LOT different. The Dems will start acting strong, and they'll show some backbone. They'll really start fighting for stuff, after they win the next election! And they'll start being progressive, too. It's going to be so wonderful, so many big changes, and they're going to start acting so different, in 2009!

Just you wait and see!



:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

25. When the op asked about the "anti-impeachment crowd" I thought he meant DUers

Hence, I wouldn't call DUers who don't favor impeachment anti-impeachment, because it seems too strong a word. Some just don't think we're in a good enough position. And I'd agree. We gave ourselves a bit of a majority in 2006, but not enough.

[tyedyeto]

28. Then what are they?

Anti-impeachment is anti-impeachment... no matter which way you look at the political climate of today. You are either for or against it. Majority has nothing to do with it. Taking a stand is what gives one balls.

[JacquesMolay]

13. Bush is going to issue an executive order banning impeachment.

And that will be that.

[mmonk]

15. Doesn't look to me like he has to.

[pinto]

17. OK.

[mmonk]

18. Darn. Still hoping for some sort of tipping point.

I'll keep checking as we go along.

[Heath Hatcher]

22. Besides all the anti-impeachment rethteric I throw around

I'm kinda like Feingold that I wouldn't want to persue impeachment because of the lack of votes(more in the Senate then in the House) and of all the time it would it. But if I knew that the votes were there in Congress to do this I wouldn't care about all the time they would take investigating on this, I just when we do this I don't want to impeach Bush then have that die in the Senate because we don't have the 67 votes.

[pinto]

24. Good answer.

:hi:

[mmonk]

27. All one can do is try and see where everyone is on the issue.

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

23. Hijacking Catastrophe?

Hijacking Catastrophe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZaWh0cJPQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8S_vOZqJbE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GT7ti8LZ6A&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOtqGNJ8qI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBX00TR-aA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghh00bn_DA&mode=related&search=

[mmonk]

26. I have that DVD in my collection.

Top notch.

[EFerrari]

33. What, and ruin a perfect landslide?

All those dead people and dead principles will just have to be patient.

:sarcasm:

[jpgray]

34. Since impeachment proceedings will change exactly zip right now, why be pro impeachment?

Yeah, I get and agree with the -idealism- of that position--defend the Constitution, hold Bush accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors, initiate a symbolic showdown to bash all his horrible policies, etc. But in real terms, it won't have much effect. Rove will play the "behold me, I am wronged / Dems play political theater" media game, we don't have the votes to carry it off in the Senate, so the main impact of it would be to attempt to satisfy a group of people who will never be satisfied with the Democrats anyway. The fact that they see "off the table" as meaning "I will never impeach" is worrisome. May as well say you believed Bush's "I have no war plans on my desk," and admit you know nothing of political PR or refuse to admit it exists.

[EFerrari]

35. Here's a reason:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/19/inside-the-surge/

[jpgray]

36. How will impeachment proceedings fix that?

[EFerrari]

37. If you challenge your enemy on more than one front, your enemy

then has to direct resources to meet your challenge. It's not rocket science.

[jpgray]

38. You've just described Bush's justification for staying in Iraq. Congratulations

Works great, doesn't it! Choose the wrong front, where your opponent can exploit an advantage, and you'll watch all your resources drain away trying to win the wrong fight, all to zero effect.

[EFerrari]

47. No, this is precisely not about choosing a wrong

front but about using every point of assault at your disposal.

And, btw, your condescension is pretty much wasted on me.

[jpgray]

49. Use -every- point of assault at your disposal? You might want to read some Sun Tzu

Or some Machiavelli. Politics isn't as simple as "just attack on all fronts and then you win." Advancing on the wrong front too soon or without preparation can waste your resources and give your opponent the chance to regroup and hit you back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. And figting in the field the enemy chooses

leds to your defeat too

[jpgray]

53. The Bush administration -chooses- to be subpoenaed and investigated?

Listen to Bernie Sanders. Listen to Al Gore. They've forgotten more about the political process than you or I will ever know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't question what our leaders are thinking and doing, but at least take it into consideration.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Sure

sure we will, if the dame mentality was prevalent in '73 A certain Richard Milhaus Nixon would have ended his term.

I suspect the anwer has to do with something far more macabre than we don't have the votes

[jpgray]

56. The same mentality -was- present. It started with -investigation-, not impeachment

At least lay off posting for a bit so any mis-characterization of history you post can be corrected before you repeat it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Once again impeachment has a process

investigation is part of it.

It is a grand jury after all...

I was not born yesterday

And at this point I don't trust anybody in the US Government, and I want my country back... and waiting for them to do something without us sopeaking out, forget it. It will never happen. You are the little person, they only care about you, half jockingly, every two years for the house, six for the senate and four for the Presidency

[jpgray]

60. But what will impeachment -do- without the votes? No one seems to be able to answer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. PUT PRESSURE

FORCE THINGS INTO THE CONFRONTATION THAT IS ALREADY HERE. THE CRISIS IS HERE. NO LINE IN THE SAND, THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD. THAT IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT DOES.

If you cannot see it, I can't help you

by the way, the last action of the DOJ is enough to start drawing articles... what they have discovered in invesigations is also quite a bit of it.

[jpgray]

63. If it fails utterly? If the GOP exploits it successfully for a massive PR boost?

Then where do the investigations go? Nowhere. Then what can our presidential candidates do? Nothing. Then what happens to judicial appointments and other instances of malfeasance? They'll be ignored by the media. If you take this option, you have to do it right. A failed impeachment can be disastrous not just because it does nothing, but because it spoils many other things if it fails badly. And there's a significant chance for that.

As for pressure, how is putting Bush to a vote he's in no danger of losing worse pressure than mounting investigations into his felonies and violations of public trust?

[MonkeyFunk]

64. People

don't seem to care that impeachment would fail. They just want SOMETHING done.

They think there's no downside to failing to convict, but in fact, there's a huge downside.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Then we do nothing and this republic is dead

got it...

They win... why keep fighting?

Lets just tell Bush, Sir, Emperor, may you live long and prosper, we your humble servants surrender to you and your minions to do as you wish with this country that ONCE was free.

That is what you, and our fearless leaders, are saying to us... middle finger and all

I took an oath, but I now understand it was to an ideal that died soon after. And the US... is a nation led by cowards, and inhabited by cowards.

Thank you for the lesson...

Perhaps I should go tear the letters to our jelly fish in charge, and never again contact the jelly fish in charge or their underlings... (and trust me, they wish we stop doing that), Oh and vote, why bother? Diebold chooses our leaders anyway.

Is this what our fearless leaders want?

If this is the plan... then why bother? And yes, this is what I fear is the plan... since we are playing the Republican game and why they are not doing what they should be doing... and if the events of this night did not make this painfully clear to you, troops in the streets or cancellation of elections will not make the point either. You will still say, we don't have the votes.

There are times you do things for principle... I guess they don't teach that in surrender politics, but if you wonder why Dems are easily portrayed as cowards, now I get it, Dems ARE cowards... with a few notable exceptions.

Republics die in thunderous applause... enjoy the applause...

Tonight was the culmination of many lines on the sand... they have thrown the gauntlet, and it seems to me, our fearless leaders, if you represent their views, are about to surrender.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. Why do you always present it

as a choice between impeaching now and doing nothing?

How about we hold investigations? Find incontrovertible evidence of crimes?

Why do you act like those who argue against the wisdom of impeaching now want to do nothing? That's just not true. Unlike you, I want an impeachment that will SUCCEED. To do that, we must continue investigations.

[jpgray]

79. It's depressing that you go from "I fight!" to "why bother?" so quickly

Consistent pressure is needed. If you fold after superficial disagreement from someone who just supports impeachment in a different -way- then you support it, how can you have the stomach to combat those who will oppose it all the way all the time?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I have one among many

not that this will matter to you either

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625_pf.html

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01



Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

--------------------------

As I said, I don't think this will matter to you, but we are NOW, and have been in the midst of a Consittional crisis

Those who surrender to these crooks due to "poltical expediencey" are surrendering nothing less than the US Constitution.

I guess this is difficult to understaend to the political hard nosed who want to keep both houses

I know in 2008, as far as I am concerned, my choices are... the known quantity (republican) or the Jelly fish, or the unknown. Yes, in case you wonder, I doubt the Dems will keep power... it is that simple.

that assumes we will even have elections

And don't give me the you are being dramatic

The Geramans also thought they were free... and yes, it CAN happen here, it is HAPPENING here, and the current Democratic party can more properly be compared to the Social Democrats in the Germany of the 1930s... by the time they realized they had to actually do something... there was nothing they could do.

[jpgray]

40. Any half-aware person recognizes these problems. How will impeachment fix them?

Be specific, if you can.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. The same way impeachment fixed Nixon

those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it

And the history you are repeating is not the best in the 20th century

[jpgray]

42. Really "fixed" him, didn't it? Negroponte, Abrams, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger

They all got the ax, no? Stayed out of government ever since, no? No? Well that's a shame. Keep in mind Watergate was blown in part by an ongoing police investigation that was undertaken for two years. The Democrats have barely had an investigating majority in Washington for half a year. Be careful with historical comparisons--they tend to lead to errors because it's easy to focus on similarities that make your argument and ignore the vast contextual or epochal differences that make such a comparison practically useless. I'll give you one besides the difference in investigations--56 D to 42 R in the Senate, with two independents if I remember. Bit of a difference there, no?

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Ok... I will take the view of Professor Niemuller and speak

against evil and DEMAND our so called leaders do something about this

while you continue to calculate how many seats you will win in November of '08

I can almost guarantee that you will wake up the Wednesday of the election to the news that we lost it... and one primary reason is this political calculation.

Evil will persist as long as good people refuse to speak up.

As to the boys... you can blame Ford... and quite frankly that was one decision he probably regretted.

Oh and when that morning comes, it will be people LIKE YOU who lost it...

As well as our spineless leaders... and again that assumes we have elections

After all that boy who wants to be a dictator is closer to fulfilling his dream than I care to imagine

[jpgray]

46. Good! You should! Public pushing towards impeachment is dandy with me

However, it should come with a recognition of what is possible with our current Congress (not just what is politically "cautious"), what good such proceedings could do, and what possible openings such proceedings could give the GOP for attack. Nobody wants to see Rove or Bush use impeachment as a PR miracle to shore up their anemic numbers. You should never operate in total fear of what your enemy might do, but you should at least keep it in mind. Again, this is something the Bush admin had problems with in Iraq--a bold all-out attack, while satisfying, sometimes isn't the best choice. Whether this is one of those cases or not I don't know--but I do advise people to examine -why- some of the best congresspeople are reluctant -at this time-. Hell, even Gore's reluctant at this time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. And those are the talking points

the GOP will do anything and I mean ANYTHING to stay in power... (including criminal acts)

So you are dealing with crooks (I am being nice), Bullies, and people who generally speaking do not believe in the Constitution

I have some news for you... the Dems are playing THEIR GAME... with a few moments when it seems they finally got the spine transplant

And as long as they play their game by their rules they alredy lost

[jpgray]

51. Two questions: do we have the votes to convict? If no, what does it accomplish?

And I mean "accomplish" in real terms. What malfeasance does it stop outright, what officials will it put away for good, etc. To me the good strategy is to push investigation as much as possible--if something like the wiretapping scandal is solidly investigated, that could be a big enough bludgeon to impeach with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Again talkling points

we didn't have them in 73 either... if they had the same mentality back then I can bet Richard Milhaus Nixon wold have ended his term and Ford would have never served

[jpgray]

55. How did it start in '73? With a Senate investigation into Nixon campaign practices

It -didn't- start with impeachment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Investigation is part of the process

but given the last step taken by the President, it makes the Saturday Night Massacre look like lambs sweetly walking down the Meadows.

I used to think the way you still do... that somehow we had stratetic geniouses in charge. No more, they are human, they are scared, and they have a bunch of excuses

[jpgray]

58. We don't have strategic geniuses in charge. But let's dispense with this analogy

The differences are far too vast between Nixon's impeachment and a possible Bush impeachment. I've named a few already. The media are another example of a major, major difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. You wait, I fight

Your way, looses all power

My way has a very small chance of actually succeeding.

But your way... we already lost...and what we lost is the Republic, yes it is that simple. That is what is at stake

[MonkeyFunk]

65. That's hyperbolic....

EVERYBODY who argues against impeaching now wants investigations to continue. We're not just saying everything is OK and nothing needs to be done.

We're saying it's too early to impeach right now, because it WILL fail. Guaranteed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Line in sand drawn tonight

have a good night.. enjoy the little freedom you still think you have

That is not hyperbole

[MonkeyFunk]

68. That's just an emotional argument

you still haven't explained how failure to convict will accomplish anything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. And you have failed to understand the process

during watergate

I have failed to explain it properly, so that is my failure.

But tonight is far more than just a mere disagreement.

Your way, its defeat, for sure... and that is the Republican game

[MonkeyFunk]

72. Nadine..

I don't know why you keep bringing up watergate as an analog for whats happening now.

There had been a number of investigations, including a huge, nationally-televised Senate investigation into watergate. Half of Nixon's staff had pled guilty to crimes or been convicted in courts of law.

It was only after all that did the House vote to start impeachment proceedings.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. You know I reached a sad conclusion today

if many native born americans don't give a rats ass...

Why should I care? I am serious about that one...

Slowly I am getting the feeling that our leaders don't care, and many native born don't care

Perhaps it is time to batten down teh hatches, for the very long night, and find a way out from this assylum

I understand what is coming, but they don't and they really don't care. You obviously do, but they don't

[MonkeyFunk]

77. Again

because somebody doesn't see the wisdom in impeaching now (because it WILL fail), it doesn't mean they dont care.

it just means they favor a different approach than you do.

I assure you, you don't care more than I do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I assure you

I am about to go to hell with it and let you, as in native born, fight it out....

Why care? If ours so-called leaders don't?

Oh I expect a strongly worded letter after this latest fiasco, but nothing more

Yep, I realize what the latest action means, but if people cannot see it, why care?

[MonkeyFunk]

76. you need to explain

which 17 Senators are going to convict.


And, Gilligan, it's against the rules to call another member "dumbass".

[MonkeyFunk]

44. It was Republicans who

told Nixon he had to go.

When today's republicans tell Bush it's over, then we can talk. But I don't see that happening.


Many of Nixon's aides had ALREADY been convicted or pled guilty by the time impeachment hearings were started. The Senate held hearings on Watergate before impeachment hearings were started. The crimes were known and proven by that stage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Which is what I hope they are doing

investigating

In reality, and I have told you this before, the investigations are PART of the process

Don't worry, what investigations? With today's little announcement, if Congress keeps twidling thumbs, its game over

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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