Bob Fertik: Under Fire At Home, House Dems Give Idiotic Excuses for Not Impeaching Bush

[Hissyspit]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25950
http://www.democrats.com/node/14040

Under Fire At Home, House Dems Give Idiotic Excuses for Not Impeaching Bush

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-08-19 03:41. Impeachment
By Bob Fertik, www.Democrats.com

Freshman Joe Sestak (D-PA) had a town meeting to talk about Iraq, but his constituents wanted to talk about something else.

When he turned the microphone over to the public, though, the discussion quickly turned into a heated debate about impeaching George W. Bush. Room 101 of Swarthmore College’s Science Center was filled to capacity with citizens who demanded Congress begin an impeachment process.“I don’t think I would feel more comfortable with (Dick) Cheney as president,” said Sestak. “Congress cannot even get stem cell research without a veto. Does anybody honestly think we could get an impeachment?” The crowd shouted back a resounding, “YES.”

Right on!!It's outrageous that Sestak is trotting out the tired old "President Cheney" argument when the only impeachment bill in Congress, H.Res. 333, calls for impeaching Cheney first. If Sestak doesn't want "President Cheney," why doesn't he co-sponsor the bill?And as for the veto argument, doesn't Sestak know the President can't veto impeachment?Meanwhile on the opposite coast, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) also confronted by constituents demanding impeachment.

Congress can't impeach the president without a provable crime, DeFazio said, or over the war in Iraq, because Congress authorized the conflict. No articles of impeachment have been filed against Bush, he said adding it would be better to “apply ourselves to undo the damage caused by George Bush,” rather than to struggle to impeach him.

Of course the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about "provable crimes." But if DeFazio needs a "provable crime," how about reading the Downing Street Memo, which proves Bush deliberately lied in the prewar "intelligence" about Iraq? And that of course is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence of provable crimes. Is DeFazio ignorant - or an idiot?

[babylonsister]

1. Flipping A, haven't even read this and I agree! Thanks! nt

[bbgrunt]

2. they obviously think we are all extremely stupid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Just got this email tonight

Emanuel Cleaver was here for a breakfast this morning...and even though the event was about foster care and adoption, the war and impeachment were two topics we could not get away from. Here is what he said about the war:

Petraeus is going to tell us that the surge is going well and that they need more time. However the democrats in the house (or most of them) are going to vote against the continuation of the war and surge. However, people like Nelson from Nebraska, Landrieu from Louisiana, Dennis Moore, and other blue dog democrats will not be voting with them. But he thinks the house will vote it down. The problem is the senate.....

On impeachment....he said it just won't happen. This crowd was very adamant that it should happen. He said the votes are just not there. I told him I was gathering signatures for the impeachment of Cheney and he said..."Now, that just might work!" He said Cheney is the evil one. He said signatures would give him a lot to work with...

[Kagemusha]

4. In all fairness, any idiot knows 50%+1 in the House can impeach a President

Conviction, however, is quite considerably more difficult.

Settling for impeachment and acquittal is... well, that's how Bill Clinton got stunningly high approval ratings for the rest of his term, for one example.

[PSPS]

14. Your comparison isn't accurate

Clinton's impeachment was always opposed by the vast majority of the public. The republicans did it for purely partisan reasons and everyone knew it. Clinton always had high approval ratings both before and after his impeachment. (Moveon.org was born during this fiasco.)

Bush is an entirely different matter. He is widely reviled both here and abroad, and the list of his crimes is a mile long. In fact, he's freely admitted some of his most heinous crimes. His firewall is the still-remaining members of congress who are part of his criminal cabal, and his paid apologists in the right-wing media wurlitzer.

[bbgrunt]

16. In all fairness, if they give up before they TRY, they

will have consigned themselves to minority status for the future. I for one will not be inspired by those who stand by when soooooo much is wrong.

[ljm2002]

17. Au contraire...

...Clinton's approval ratings were already over 60% and stayed there through the impeachment debacle. His being impeached did *not* improve his standing, and it certainly did not improve Gore's position when he ran for president.

In other words, it is a different situation and the side effects will likely be different as well.

[Senator]

25. Impeachment is not "settling"

Impeachment has a huge value in itself. It sends a message of "objection" to that which the American People never gave their proper consent. It is a message to the world, to our children, and for history.

This objection is a necessary first step to any possible future accountability. Similar to Emil Zola's "J'Accuse" in the Dreyfus affair.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime.

It is the far worse option.

And any comparison to the Clinton farce is just oxymoronic.

--

[TransitJohn]

5. K&R

Off to the Greatest Page.

[Bozita]

6. Impeach Cheney first!

Don't sit on your hands.

Impeach.

Impeach 'em all.

[ClassWarrior]

9. IMPEACH any of 'em first, and watch the dominoes fall.

NGU.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. K&R

Dammit, we need to prod those members of the House into impeaching both Bush and Cheney!

We need to show the Republicans we mean business!

Argh...

:banghead:

[Harry Monroe]

8. Spineless fucking jellyfish

I am sick to my stomach. We should get rid of every goddamn one of them and start over.

[truedelphi]

10. Jelly fish surely have a purpose

And they don't cost the taxpayers anything.

LOL My husband just offered that maybe they are responsible for all the wonderful jelly that we have for toast and stuff

[puebloknot]

11. "...a provable crime..." What does he think impeachment is *for*?

Holding the impeachment hearings. Dozens of crimes are waiting in the wings, longing to be heard!

[sandnsea]

12. Will Hillary be impeached too?

She's already said that the intelligence was the same intelligence Bill had.

The left insisted that the Democrats 'voted for the war', and that's when we lost the ability to impeach anybody on war lies.

[Greyhound]

13. I read the DeFazio bullshit in the local paper and heard him on our

liberal radio morning show (KPOJ). The subtext of his message was quite clearly, "You people are not in charge, we are and we're going to do what we damn well please and if you don't like it, well fuck you, vote for a Republik". He was quite clearly pissed that people keep pestering him with this and I was more than a little pissed at his arrogance.

[porphyrian]

15. Every day they don't impeach, this Congress is complicit in the crimes of this administration.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

[Rageneau]

18. Democrats will enthusiastically support impeachment when...

A Democrat is the one being impeached.

Democrats aren't afraid of what Republicans will say, when they do what Republicans want them to.

But that's the only time.

[AndyTiedye]

19. Impeach Them All

[orleans]

20. they can't impeach...the dog ate their articles of impeachment

and ...

their private parts might disappear if they go for impeachment

and...

they would contract a siberian disease

and...

they're just too busy around the house

[Pastiche423]

21. I was at a town meeting w/DeFazio

At our meeting, he was asked about impeaching cheney. After calling cheney a loathsome individual, he said, we impeach cheney, we get Fred Thompson.

Then he quickly went on to say he would support Jay Inslee's resolution to impeach gonzo.

I've been to many meetings w/DeFazio and this was the 1st time he got weak applause at the end. There was a lot of grumbling going on and he did not stay to chat like he normally does.

People are pissed.

[Hissyspit]

22. Thanks for that first-person account.

Yeah, people are pissed.

[aquart]

23. Oh, I hope they feel a nasty chill in their bones.

Betrayal ain't pretty and we don't feel like putting lipstick on it.

[SoCalDem]

26. "...we impeach cheney, we get Fred Thompson..." ?? Huh??

Hardly.. an impeached vice president would leave a vacancy..which an immediate impeachment of *² would ensure that he would be appointing NOBODY..

It's a pipe dream though.. the crew we have will let them all walk..

Some of the younger ones , we will see again..Iran-Contra & watergate are our guideposts.. The pardoned/not-prosecuted ones slink back to their hideyholes and lick their wounds until they get another whack at washington..

They never get the humiliation and scorn they deserve.. they are made into folk heroes and get radio shows.. Liddy/North come to mind..

There will be hand-wringing and wailing and excuses, but we are stuck with these fools until the last hour of the last day.:(

[Greyhound]

27. Yet another difference between our Parties, they have billionaires

like Mellon-Scaife that are willing to sink hundreds of millions into losing ventures for years on end to get their message out, while our billionaires donate their time or lend their names, but rarely come up with the scratch, and on the rare occasions that they do, they demand immediate returns on their money.

The changes, if they ever some at all, will come from those of us on the bottom.

[Senator]

30. DeFazio -- The Poster Boy for Their Stockholm Syndrome

His nonsense is almost as bad as their first reflex rationalization for inaction -- that "we'd get cheney" if we impeached. That one seems to have faded away, as it doesn't take many listeners to stare at them like they have 3 heads and say "what do think we've had for 6 years, idiot?"

But DeFazio is deep into the disease. His fear of his abuser is so high that he just presumes that they'll force their desired 2008 candidate into the WH to take advantage of incumbancy.

Someone needs to slap this bozo and remind him that a new VP-2B-P nominee must be approved by the entire Congress. Which means that only a consensus/caretaker would be accepted -- i.e., John Danforth or John Warner.

Perhaps you could "educate" him at the next meeting.

Or better yet, schedule a meeting yourself to lobby for impeachment. Bring some grumblers.

(I can provide you with instructions on how to be a citizen-lobbyist. Feel free to PM me.)

--

[Pastiche423]

31. By the time a beat up looking DeFazio got to our town

he had already attended seven other town meetings. I have attended every event; town meetings, fundraisers, campaign debates, etc in the past seven years that included DeFazio. I have never seen him look so bad and act so defensively.

He has voted against the IWR, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, the Medicare bill and many other non-progressive bills. He has been our rep since 1986 and has been loved by many.

I do not understand why this small man w/a huge fire in his belly spoke the talking points as he did and why he expected us to believe him. I watched out local news report about the meeting. Not one smile from the audience could be seen.

What are they being threatened with?

[Senator]

32. Go and ask him -- yes, really

These things are often less "talking points" than they are the "beltway buzz" conventional wisdom (always wrong and ignorant). It's hard to grasp just how deluded they become inside the beltway Euphemedia bubble. The only real "threat" is coming from their beltway-bound strategerists and consultants.

We have people here in NJ going for face-to-face meetings to discuss the failure to impeach. This is a method that really does help in that it forces them (or senior staff) to defend this nonsense to a person's face. They can't simply write it off to "bush hating" or political naivete.

It's really much easier to do than most people imagine.

--

[Raster]

33. Hmm, "we impeach and get Fred Thompson?" Obviously he ---and many of his colleagues -- are

misunderstanding or IGNORING the message from their constituents. We don't care about the planning and posturing for the next election cycle. There are more important issues at hand then maintaining the Democrats congressional status quo. And I am disappointed a Democrat would stoop to Fred Thompson scare tactics to justify not holding bush* and cheney* accountable for their treasonous actions, though not surprised. NEWSFLASH: The American people will not be electing another Hollywood stereotype in 2008. We had our overrated Reagan moment, thank you. The slogan slingers can regurgitate their 30 second spots till hell freezes over, but a Rethuglican in the White House in 2008 is next to impossible. It will take more than fraudulent elections, rigged voting machines and corrupt officials. Been there, done that, got bush*. Congress has lost the trust and faith of a majority of the American people. Its approval rating is at an all-time low, even lower than that of bush*. The well has been poisoned the for years to come. Instead of preserving the status quo, the relevance and practicality of a two party is now in question, as is Congressional necessity. For the first time in our country's history, a more direct form of democracy which places more control of government into the hands of the people may be possible, rendering Congress obsolete. Political Evolution Happens.

[Senator]

24. K&R

[autorank]

28. May I remind our Members of Contress...

...that when Harry Truman was way down in the polls, during his campaign and presidency, he never
backed off. He went out there swinging, kicking ass, giving them Hell by telling them the TRUTH.

I'm not a 3rd party guy, not at all, but this is getting to be really sad. It's like these folks
live in a parallel universe run through reverse logic. It's starting to go beyond annoying and
upsetting.

We need a presidential candidate who will express the will of the people and kick ass with these
clueless MC's. K*R

[Maat]

29. A 'provable crime' is not needed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that a provable crime is not needed, and has held that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' referened an abuse of governmental process as well.

(As everyone here knows.)

It just gets me so mad that a legislator is spouting that crud!

[Hissyspit]

34. .

[tom_paine]

35. Sad and pathetic.

n/t