Repub neighbor said: "If Dems dont have 'nuf balls to impeach, how can we trust them to protect us?

[BigBearJohn]

I had no answer.

Then, upon further reflection, I had to ask myself this frightening thought:

If our Democratic leaders (now in the majority) are not willing to stand up to
and protect us from THE WORLDEST ***BIGGEST*** TERRORIST
then what the hell difference will a new election in '08 make? I mean really?
IF WE EVEN MAKE IT TO '08 -- WITH THE ADVENT OF WAR WITH IRAN AND POSSIBLY WWIII

(sorry for my pessimism, but it's late)

[LeftCoast]

1. I find it difficult to imagine him voting for Dems no matter what they did

Sounds like just a talking point.

:shrug:

[Senator]

7. I don't find it difficult -- for people who use the word "balls"

I can't speak specifically about John's neighbor. But I know a few "angry white men, of a certain age" who use that "Dem weakness" as a consistent last line of defense when discussing R/D differences on any number of "issues." It's like a security blanket for their consciences.

And this is a decades-old phenomenon, not just about impeachment. The hapless "non-binding" Dems are a staple of Jon Stewart's Daily Show send ups. So if it's a talking point, it's a brand new one. And I find it very difficult to believe that they'd float a talking point that even had the concept of impeachment in it. Very counterproductive.

It remains true, for better or worse, that many people -- particularly men -- just want to be associated with "winners" and not the "door mat" party. This is what Bill Clinton meant when he said Americans will opt for "strong and wrong" over "weak and right."

The R's have never looked so corrupt, incompetent, and weak. It's my "guesstimate" that even an impeachment attempt could garner the Dems 5-7% of the "angry white male" demographic overnight. Not a huge number anymore, but perhaps a very decisive one.

--

[LeftCoast]

13. I think you make some valid points

On the other hand, I can't help but imagine that should the Democrats work themselves up to an impeachment or two the RW noise machine will crank into gear with the old 'angry liberals playing politics' and the media will faithfully trumpet it to the hills.

[Senator]

18. But that happens anyway

Though I can't agree that the noise machine and the echo chamber function as well as it once did. We have made some real progress there.

Still, they're now in full gear screaming that Dems are "surrender monkeys." And that they're "weak on Iran." With an impeachment effort the frame changes from a fight about "how weak" the Dems are to "how extreme" the Dems are. That in itself is a positive change in the zeitgeist.

But beyond that, the "weak Dems" meme has more power because it's actually true (sorry, but being "reality-based" has its drawbacks). Trying to spin a line of "out of control" Dems is a much weaker argument. In most circles it wouldn't pass the laugh test. Thus, our side would fair better in the already-better, new frame.

And it could even break the camel's back so that the echoing is "about them" for a change. Remember, it's not only the politicians looking too far ahead to the next election. The Euphemedia might not be so quick to trash a party that could soon to be in full control of their beltway bubble -- particularly with a finally-energized base, with champions instead of chumps leading a real challenge to the neofascist war criminals in the WH.

----

[niceypoo]

34. More, "If we do this then they will just say that," cowardess

That mode of thinking seemingly guides the democrats anymore.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Exactly. The Dems are quaking in their boots, hoping the rightwing noise machine

won't see them and start in on them again.

You illustrate the problem perfectly.

The Dems are, as a group, a bunch of sniveling spineless weakings, who allow abusers to beat their kids even as they cry to their friends about it.

"If I shut up, maybe he won't get so angry."

Good luck with that.

[superkia]

52. So the answer is not to try? Dont let let your children see this post.

Yeah Johnny, I know you should do it because its the right thing to do but you they are going to tease you and you still may lose so if I were you I wouldn't even try? I really mean nothing towards you or your family at all. I just wanted to point out how the Democrats look when they take that stance. Ridiculous, if they don't want to do their job right...quit! With that attitude they have any of their corporate buddies would fire them if they worked in their company.

[Zhade]

97. Yeah, so why do the right thing and hold criminals accountable?

I mean, they might talk bad about us!

Good thing juries don't think that way, or we'd be in even worse trouble.

[liberaldemocrat7]

131. TELL THE IDIOT THAT THE 9-11 ATTACKS HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH. WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO

TELL THE IDIOT THAT THE 9-11 ATTACKS HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH. WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO PROTECT US?

We need a viral meme to tell the world that Bush and the Republican party failed to defend us on 9-11 and they appear weak on national security and national defense.

[calimary]

117. My beloved and sadly misguided best friend, a woman my same age,

used the same phrase to defend having voted twice for bush. And this from a woman who, back in the day, was as progressive in her thinking as I still fancy myself to be now. She admits this sheepishly now, yet another gullible voter who bought the sales pitch and now suffers serious buyers' remorse. Her quietly murmured explanation? "Well, at least bush had BALLS."

I swear, it all comes down to that, doesn't it. Balls versus perceived no balls. I feel almost like I'm living the DaVinci Code forcryingoutloud - the dominating masculine versus the sacred feminine. You've gotta be virile and go around kicking ass to be worth anything. It's win or lose, black or white, with us or ag'in us. SHEESH. And like I said, my friend was once as liberal as I still am. Recently she's discovered and become highly intrigued about Obama. Thank God at least it's a Dem! She's spent WAY too much time hanging out with rodeo ruffians, weekend cowpokes, and champagne buckaroos.

[Senator]

127. I hate to be the one...

...but your friend's current dalliance with Obama is not at all out of character for her. Even before he promised to nuke bin Laden, he was the closest thing to her familiar "empty suit" in the race. It's a fairly large part of his "mania" that people like your friend are seeing in him what they want to see.

This type of supporter doesn't often transfer to the "next best Dem." They're on a personality continuum, not a political one. I'm not even sure your friend was ever "liberal," but possibly was just still mourning Jack Kennedy. I'm guessing of course, but think about it.

--

[calimary]

129. She was a dyed-in-the-wool anti-war zealot back when we were

all protesting against Vietnam.

She moved to Colorado and Texas a few times after high school, and began to hang out with people even she described openly and repeatedly as "rednecks." I dunno - maybe they just brought out a latency in her that I never saw and never suspected. She's still my best friend for MANY other reasons, and I've spent a fair amount of time thinking on this and trying to figure it out. At one time, she was the LAST person on earth whom I'd EVER have expected to turn to the Dark Side.

Sigh...

[Mythsaje]

2. I wouldn't either...

This hesitancy isn't good for us, nor them. Too few of them seem willing to stand their ground when it's absolutely necessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Yeah, sure, we voted for this fuckup.. but he's YOUR responsibility, now!

"Protect us" from what? Your idiotic fucking voting patterns? Morons who are more worried about gays down the street getting married than the polar ice caps melting? Sorry, Skippy, but there's no one one the planet who can protect you from the determined stupidity of folks like yourself.

That said, we should impeach. But your Republican Neighbors should be shamed by this administration into voting Democratic no matter WHAT our people do. They've forfeited the right to have a self-respecting opinion on the matter, frankly.

[NanceGreggs]

4. Very well said, my friend!

The Republicans now want protection from the enemies that this administration - the one they voted for and so staunchly supported - have created and encouraged.

[Amonester]

41. Wep. Now that they've "won" by voting for the Korrupt Klingcons...

these "easily fooled twice" nuts want someone else to clean their awful mess... and they have the "balls" to complain...

So typical! :hangover:

[BigBearJohn]

5. a further thought...

Protect us from WHAT? How about THE WORLDEST ***BIGGEST*** TERRORIST
(and you know who that is)

If they can't (or won't) do that, then what the hell difference will
a new election in '08 make? I mean really?

[LeftCoast]

6. I like your response!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:)

[johncoby2]

8. Uh.......where were the republicans?

When they controlled congress?

This guy wont vote for a democrat if he crapped gold in his hands.

[skids]

60. More to the point, where were their balls?

In diapers, congressional pages, or glory holes maybe?

[tom_paine]

9. DUers don't want to hear this, and I will surely get flamed for it, but he's absolutely correct

Don't get me wrong, no amount of Bushie jackboots at 3 a.m. could convince me not to vote for the Dem in 2008, nor convince me to vote for a SINGLE Republic candidate, as that is Feeding the Beast That Is Destroying Us.

But your neighbor is correct, 100%, and the corollary thought you had haunts me, as well, and only reinforced by the Democratic "performance" since January.

In terms of attacting Independents and honest Republicans to stay home or even vote Democratic, it is DEVASTATING.

In terms of the reality situation and the question: What if the Democrats get elected majoritites in Congress and NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL changes? the adjective, DEVASTATING, may be too lukewarm to describe the damage done..

That's my take on it. We Dems don't want to hear it, but it is the cold, hard TRUTH.

Now donning flame-proof suit...

[Skidmore]

10. I wish I could k&r your response because I feel the same

way.

[Fla_Democrat]

23. Of course he is

a point missed by many.

And I agree with Skidmore, where's that darn recommend button for replies. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

38. Some people are persuaded by those who show the "courage of their convictions."

To some extent, in various spheres, most of us are. :shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

40. He's correct in that there are millions of people who read the signs the same way he does

which goes like this, "They have no spines, no fight in them--they don't even fight for themselves. How can we trust people like that with our security?"

The Republicans love to smear Democrats with the line that "they lie down for bullies" meaning foreign powers, terrorists etc., then they proceed to confirm their case by bullying us. But the real confirmation comes FROM US when we lie down, time and time again.

[tom_paine]

45. Well said, Kenny.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Voters, Republicans or Democrats, like FEISTY

They don't like wimpy.

And the Democrats are acting WIMPY.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

And don't any of the usual whiny apologists come at me with "But they don't have the votes" lame excuse.

What righteous cause EVER "had all the votes" at the beginning?

You present articles of impeachment.

You get shot down.

You present them again.

You get shot down.

You present them again.

You get shot down, but now the public is noticing...

[lonestarnot]

94. Fucking A spot on!

[NuttyFluffers]

114. yup, even Revolutionary and Civil Wars were roughly 50/50

even civil rights, too. WW I & II were so difficult to enter that we basically had to have disasters fall upon us towards the end of the wars to even get involved.

all righteous causes have rough sailing in the beginning. none of them had smooth sailing straight through without resistance. 50/50 was a mandate for most things, you'd think 70% disapproval would be a cacophony of resounding approval for impeachment.

counting beans and biding time or punching the jerk in the nose -- i can tell you easily the vast majority of america, nay the world, prefers the one who ACTS than the one who REACTS. old human psychology 101.

[Individualist]

132. The party hasn't learned that voters don't vote for weakness

[coco77]

54. We start to recall their asses right away...

all over the country...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

133. Unfortunately members of Congress are considered federal officeholders,

and there's no federal recall.

[Vidar]

92. I agree.

[Zhade]

98. Well, people here might ignore your well-stated truth, but history won't.

Sadly, with cowardice like the kind I see here excusing criminality, it'll be a hard history to try to survive through...

[radfringe]

11. been saying that for a couple of months...

and the usual response is to call the WHAAAAAAAmbulance because:

1. no table
2. powder has to be kept dry
3. won't support it because don't have the votes
4. don't have the votes because there's no support

[corkhead]

12. If he could get just half of his lockstepping Republic party reps to support chimpeachment it would

be a done deal. It isn't us holding it up.

[Enrique]

14. one of the worst possible reasons to impeach Bush

to prove to anyone, dem or republican, that they have "balls."

[tom_paine]

16. Correct. "Balls" are not the REASON for impeachment

Fraud, theft, perjury, and treason, are the REASONS for impeachment.

"Balls", rhetorically-speaking (I prefer "guts" myself), is what is required to CARRY-OUT impeachment.

And the downside of not standing up to Hitler Lite may well be as catastrophic as the downside of not standing up to the original Hitler.

[Enrique]

35. the OP is suggesting the dems impeach Bush to prove their manhood

to some republican dude he knows.

[tom_paine]

44. I disagree with that assessment as too facile

I say there is still a core issue here, and one which I have asked myself again and again, even as I threw all of my support behind the Dems and will likely continue to do so.

The question is, if the Dems are so calculating that they can put issues of primary Constitutional import behind 2008 election chances, then how can I be sure that they will fix these things even IF a Democrat is allowed to sit on the Imperial Throne for a term or two?

It is a legitimate concern, and it is merely a more detailed version of that Repub's question.

I strongly disagree that it is as simple as you say.

[BigBearJohn]

65. Tom_Paine, I agree with you 100%. The highlighted portion of your response says it all.

Especially considering how URGENT it is RIGHT NOW
to impeach. It is not unrealistic to think that
World War 3 is not possible within the next year...
an outcome that COULD be avoided if we impeach.

I argue with my neighbor all the time. He recently
said, "if Democrats truly believe that Bush is the
monster they claim he is, then why aren't they
doing anything about it?" I tell them that they
are keeping their powder dry until the next election.

He laughs, then says, "yeah, right."

[John Q. Citizen]

51. No, the OP is suggestinbg the reason the Dems don't impeach is because, frankly, the are

afraid to.

[BigBearJohn]

66. I would just be guessing to figure out why the DEMS are not doing SOMETHING

However, given the ENORMOUS damage that this administration
is doing to our country, one would think that the Dems
would be doing a lot more than they have.

It would give me enormous satisfaction to see MY REPRESENTATIVE
standing up to these thugs. Personally -- I think if all the
democratic supporters were to witness their representives
suddenly standing up and showing some REAL intestinal fortitude (GUTS)
it would a long long way to get voters FIRED UP and taking to
the streets to garner support for the next election.

[John Q. Citizen]

84. I know I'm not very excited as things stand now. I'll vote my brain and my heart in the

primary, for Kucinich.

And if one of the three current "leaders" wins, I'll probably just vote in the general and let it go at that.

I doubt I'll be knocking on doors or making calls or doing poll watching. I'll let the people who are excited with the status quo do that.

I mean, why should I support those who won't support our constitution?

[tom_paine]

140. Man, John Q., you me, and probably a million other Democrats who worked hard

in previous leections, are thinking, saying, and will be doing just that...sadly.

Which I realize only helps the bushies, but then so does the Democratic Leadership, frequiently siding with them AGAINST us.

Naturally, losing a million precinct-walkers and phone-bankers are easily "made up" by our Democratic Leadership.

Why, they just get a CEO to cut a check for $100,000 and that makes those Filthy Little Nobodies inconsequential.

I am sick of Democratic excuses and doubly sick of Democratic serial cowardice.

These fuckers don't represent ME, not even close. Who the hell DOES represent 74% of Americans?

Nobody. What the fuck, you think Imperial Amerika is a free country?

:rofl:

[Zhade]

99. I'm not seeing a lot of courage in letting criminals walk. Do you see that as bravery?

NT!

[Warren Stupidity]

15. I see no evidence that the leading War Party candidates

in either branch of the Duopoly seriously intend to change course.

[BigBearJohn]

67. that's what scares me the most.

[Moochy]

111. Get Ready For..

The New War from 44!!
Sadly I agree with your sentiment, but I still hope against hope I am wrong.

[Demeter]

17. I'm Thinking Pelosi Wants the GOPpers to Sign Up for Impeachment

and then she'll put it on the table. Good luck with that.

[Perry Logan]

19. But the Democrats have opposed Bush to an HISTORIC degree!

The facts show the OP's premise to be 180 degrees wrong: The Democrats are opposing the President with a history-shattering intensity:

"President Bush’s success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952

So the Democrats make history for the consistency of their opposition to the president...and you guys complain they're not standing up to him. It's a bad sign when your opinions are based on falsehoods.

[bettyellen]

20. we mean standing up when there's a moral imperative...or, "it's the war, stupid"

[zalinda]

21. Don't you know?

The dems are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. No matter what they do, they don't have the media on their side, so they will never be seen as "strong".

zalinda

[endarkenment]

22. Yes indeed they have.

Over *'s objections they have forced him to accept War, More War, Warrantless Wiretaps, and despite his readiness to provide persons and documents requested, have stunningly forgotten about subpoena's issued. It has been thrilling to see representative democracy function so well.

[Perry Logan]

24. A "moral imperative" doesn't give you more votes.

From Vash the Stampede:

"Tell me how Democrats go about doing the following:

1) Obtaining 60 votes in the Senate to override a filibuster, AND
2) Obtaining 66 votes in the Senate to override a veto, AND
3) Obtaining 290 votes in the House to override a veto.
-or-
4) Overcoming public opinion that states that only about 18-40% of the American people support completely de-funding the war.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.p ...

You all seem so content to call Democrats spineless and such, and yet I've not seen any realistic political plan from the anti-war Democrat bashers as to how they'd go about getting their will done. Since you seem to think it's so easy, please, tell me exactly how this would go about happening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3496302&mesg_id=3496302

[The Stranger]

27. Does "history" include anyone ever getting impeached?

[BigBearJohn]

70. "Stand Up" in this case means IMPEACHMENT

What the hell else does this administration have to do
before the dems force him to answer for his crimes?

[Zhade]

100. "the consistency of their opposition to the president"

...

:rofl:

You mean, after they read the polls? How about the ones showing how low the public rates them?

b*s* is imploding, with little help from the Dem leadership, who bring terrible bills to the floor that THEY CAN BLOCK.

Your "facts" are what's wrong here.

[bunkerbuster1]

122. Fact is, the Dems need a big, stupid, showy display of opposition.

While I get your point, it's not enough to get the attention of voters who've been fed this "Democrats are wimpy" line ever since Carter didn't bomb the crap out of Eye-Ran on account of them holdin' them hostages 444 days (ask your Gooper neighbor--"how long were the hostages held?"--s/he will know!)

I had previously favored impeaching Gonzo, but he's gone now. The Dems have to claim a scalp and hold it up there for everyone to see. If it's not a Bush or Cheney impeachment, they have to at least run some prominent Gooper out of town.

How about Vitter?

[ShaneGR]

25. Lol, give me a break, I'm sure he used to say only Bush can protect us...

It's a bait and switch, common among Republicans. Couple years ago Bush was the only man who could protect us from the terrorists. The Democrats were weak on terror compared to Bush so he had to be reelected. Now that they realize what a douche bag he is, they refuse to take responsibility for it. Of course since the Dems won't impeach (because there's Republicans who would easily stop conviction) once again we're too weak and can't protect us from the guy who was supposed to be their savior. The entire argument is HOGWASH.

[VLC]

26. While he has a point...

HIS party has TOO much nerve (seizing power, whittling our rights, secrecy) and also didn't protect us from terrorists.

[GOTV]

28. If he's a republican, he clearly is incapable of recognizing balls when he sees them

[ldf]

61. he clearly is incapable of recognizing balls

unless he sees them while peeking into the next stall...

bwhahahahahahaha.....

SOMEONE had to say it :rofl:

edit to add "sorry, but i digress.."

now, back to the slugfest.

[femrap]

29. Let's ask Harry and Nancy that

very question.

I don't know what power W and Shooter have over the Dems....more anthr*x attacks? Or is the War Corporate Machine telling the Dems that this is the only thing keeping us from The Greater Depression?

I just don't see how these 'leaders' can be so afraid...I feel as if we are missing a crucial piece of the puzzle.

I have had the same pessimistic thoughts as you. Impeachment is the only answer....and I don't care about the f*cking numbers....it has to be on the table and discussed....reported on nightly by the lamestreammedia as well.

Damn, I find this so frustrating.

[paparush]

30. Um...maybe the Dems won't ignor 20+ Reports of Impending Attacks on American Soil???

Just a thought...

[BlooInBloo]

31. Therefore, you can only trust criminals - only they have balls. American genius....

... An explicit statement that Americans don't care about right and wrong, or good vs bad consequences. Only about who has balls. This'll be the 2008 version of "who would you rather have a beer with?"

[youthere]

32. I heard the same argument during the 2004 election..

and the swift boating of John Kerry. I was asked "If he can't even stand up for himself, how will he stand up for US?" but this was from Dems.

[BigBearJohn]

71. Good point. So what's to stop them from using it in the next election?

"I can just hear the Republicans say, 'If they truly
believed Bush was the monster they claim he is, why
didn't do everything in their power to strip him of his?'
and I think this will be a VERY EFFECTIVE ploy for
them to use.

We better be prepared or they will grind this to death.

[LanternWaste]

33. I don't think one is dependent on the other.

I don't think one is dependent on the other. Different actors, different stage, and different scripts calls for different tactics and a different resolution.

I'm hopeful. I'm very hopeful.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. That's what we need more of. Governance by testicle.

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. I Don't Buy The Story For A Second.

Furthermore, the fact you condone it as if it made any sense or is something to think about, is even more troubling. The fact is, the sentiment is hogwash.

Why don't you tell this 'neighbor' that it has nothing to do with the Dems having balls, but all to do with lockstepping republicans who throw away our constitution, values, national image and social betterment only for sake of party and power. That's what you fuckin say. It ain't the Dems not having balls, it's lack of any republicans willing to put this nation ahead of their party.

[Fla_Democrat]

57. Doesn't sound plausible?

Sounds a lot like what was going around a while back. Something about the CBC/fox news debates. If they were afraid of FNC, what were they gonna do about al Qaeda? The conversations can and do happen. I haven't talked to my neighbor, but I got 9hrs a day to talk to co-workers. :shrug:




That's what you fuckin say. It ain't the Dems not having balls, it's lack of any republicans willing to put this nation ahead of their party.
Yea, that's a slow hanging curve ball I'm not going to pitch. Anything knocked that far should have a flight attendant and in-flight movie. :hide:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. You Fail To Refute It Because You Can't.

Almost every single Dem would be on board if it wasn't destined to be a completely futile and doomed act of show. It is not the Dems that are standing in the way of justice, and it is a sign of warped and narrow perception to think otherwise.

[BigBearJohn]

75. Why do you have to always insult someone in order to make a point?

"it is a sign of warped and narrow perception to think otherwise"

Nobody is insulting you -- but you feel you have the right
to insult others.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. I Simply State Fact. If Certain Facts Are Considered Insulting, That's Simply Consequential.

Impeachment cannot occur because the republicans walk in lockstep and there are no where near there being 16 or so Repub senators who would side with impeachment. Blaming the dems as if it is them that is the ultimate blockade of such an action is most certainly rooted in narrow mindedness and warped perception. It's not the end of the world though, since we are all narrow minded about certain things from time to time.

[BigBearJohn]

83. So, are you saying there is NO value to initiating impeachment proceedings unless it succeeds?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Not "Unless It Succeeds", But Rather In The Absence Of ANY Chance Of Success.

Due to the obvious up front knowledge of complete failure, the risks far outweigh any little crumbs of value that the proceedings might bring. We'd be eaten alive and decimated.

If there was a chance for success, then let the chips fall where they may. But we don't have that scenario here. Here, we have a scenario in which we already are fully aware of its fate to simply fail.

[Zhade]

101. So, they should let criminals walk instead of trying to hold them accountable for their crimes?

It's a good thing you weren't around to advise MLK, your advice would have had black Americans still segregated.

[demobabe]

116. What really needs to happen is public outcry and to campaign Republicans in Congress

At this point in time, the PUBLIC needs to stand up and DEMAND that Republicans in Congress vote for impeachment. Nothing short of that is going to work. It is really up to us - WE could turn the tide, and the best bet is to target one Republican at a time until we get them to agree to vote for impeachment. The the Dems could proceed and make it happen. This is what we really need to do.

[GOTV]

124. Yes, impeachment is only possible if the public starts to make a stink about it....

... and they haven't, thus, there's little value in starting the impeachment now.

[halobeam]

126. it's always been up to the public...

agreed. How many members on this site? If each member got one friend thats an unhappy republican AND BOTH of you contact your republican AND democratic representatives every single day and demand them to support impeachment or they will be voted out, it would be a SERIOUS matter for them to consider. No one likes unemployment.

It's all up to the people to organize... you are dead on. There is NO other way to impeach and succeed. Of course, JMO

[GOTV]

123. Impeachment CANNOT, at this time, prevent the criminals from walking....

... therefore, anyone who is suggesting impeachment is just fine with letting the criminals walk.

If you don't want the criminals to walk, look an answer other than impeach now.

[Fla_Democrat]

77. fail to refute what, exactly

that you doubt the story? Ok, I don't refute you doubt the story. I don't confirm or refute the original post, because, I wasn't there. I merely say it does not seem out out the realm of possibility that it took place, because it resembles several conversations I personally have had with co-workers. Those I can confirm, and do, believe it or not, your call.

If, and I'm going out on a limb here, you mean I fail to refute the softball, then you made my point in the follow up.

If it's the softball, and may I repost for clarity...

That's what you fuckin say. It ain't the Dems not having balls, it's lack of any republicans willing to put this nation ahead of their party.

Isn't impeachment for the good of the nation? Isn't getting it on record, win, loose or draw, the best thing for the country? I posted previously, if even 50% of what is claimed, is true, the impeachment is not only the right course, but the duty of every elected member of Congress.

Is that happening? No. Are elected officials demanding it at every news conference, town hall meeting, campaign stop, or ice cream social? No.

Why not? It won't work. It will fail. We don't have the votes. No one will help us. It will 'suck the oxygen' out of the room.

We are talking war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity, treason, et al. This is not important enough to at least TRY to stop? For pete's sake, what IS it going to take?

You want it, I want it, as you say... Almost every single Dem would be on board. Ok, well, why aren't they? if it wasn't destined to be a completely futile and doomed act of show. So? So, it fails. Is not the country worth fighting for, even if we fail? What can be so important, that impeachment is a threat to it? Someone may laugh, write bad things in the newspaper, we may loose in 08? If elections are more important, if power takes precedence over country, then who is not willing to put this nation ahead of their party.


That being said will not change the way I vote in 08. It will not change who I pull the lever for, or who I send money to. But, FFS can we get the people we put into office to quit playing games and just do what's right for the country?

[BigBearJohn]

79. Very well said! Thanks for your thoughts Fla_Democrat

You said it better than I ever could.:toast:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Wow, Really?

If those are the best arguments that the 'impeach now!' side has, then y'all got some work to do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Now That's What I Call A Softball, With All Due Respect.

"Isn't impeachment for the good of the nation?"

If it could actually be successful it would be.


"Isn't getting it on record, win, loose or draw, the best thing for the country?"

No, it isn't. Some like yourself want to convince themselves that it is, but it just simply isn't. Getting it on the record with full knowledge it will be futile and fail, just for sake of doing so, does absolutely nothing to heal this country or reverse the damage. Due to its futility out of the gate, it could even end up being regarded in the record as one of the biggest political blunders in history.


"I posted previously, if even 50% of what is claimed, is true, the impeachment is not only the right course, but the duty of every elected member of Congress."

Just because you posted it doesn't make it true. Impeachment is never the 'duty of every elected member of Congress' as it is always a discretionary and optional process. It is however, the duty of congress to uphold the constitution. Many members in congress have failed to do so. But that has little to do with impeachment itself. Now it can be easily argued that if anyone deserves impeachment he does, but that argument carries little relevance since we already know up front that impeachment will fail. He may deserve it, but he will not get it. That makes the argument moot. Now technically, I agree that impeachment is the right course. But since you have a group of lockstepping republicans on the other side that wouldn't in a million years side with you, the course of impeachment is just quite simply dead in the water. It is that and that alone that stops the 'right course'.


"Is that happening? No. Are elected officials demanding it at every news conference, town hall meeting, campaign stop, or ice cream social? No."

Thankfully not. They'd look like utter childish fools if they acted in such ways. You truly think their doing so would sway the public or republican senators for that matter? If so, then I think my statement of warped perception earlier is getting some merit.


"Why not? It won't work. It will fail. We don't have the votes. No one will help us. It will 'suck the oxygen' out of the room."

Makes sense.


"We are talking war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity, treason, et al. This is not important enough to at least TRY to stop?"

Treason? Not a chance. Some of the others are arguable as well. But I do understand your point. The Dems have tried to stop it, best they can. Without any republican support, stopping almost anything is damn near impossible.


"For pete's sake, what IS it going to take?"

Ohhhhhhh, I'd say about 17 republican senators.


"You want it, I want it, as you say... Almost every single Dem would be on board. Ok, well, why aren't they?"

Because they're intelligent enough to know it would fail outright and therefore not serve any real purpose. All risk, no reward.


"if it wasn't destined to be a completely futile and doomed act of show. So? So, it fails. Is not the country worth fighting for, even if we fail?"

Totally false argument you put forth there. Not pursuing impeachment has nothing to do with not believing the country to be worth fighting for. The Dems are constantly fighting for our country but can only do so much due to the lockstepping republicans. But the totally false part of your argument is the insinuation that pursuing impeachment would be fighting for our country somehow. I'd say that bolsters my statement above about narrow mindedness. See, to truly 'fight' for anything, there must be even remote chance of victory. If one partakes in an act in which it is clear up front there is no even remote chance of victory, but instead certain failure, then it is not an act of 'fighting for something' but instead most often an act of stupidity. Fighting for something of which is known cannot be won is an exercise not only in futility, but of questionable mental stability. It is the mark of a fool in many ways.


"What can be so important, that impeachment is a threat to it? Someone may laugh, write bad things in the newspaper, we may loose in 08?"

You don't think the elections in 08 are important? Where have you been these last 7 years?


"If elections are more important, if power takes precedence over country, then who is not willing to put this nation ahead of their party."

Yet another completely false argument, and yet another example of why I used the phrase narrow minded earlier to describe such types of rhetoric. It is not the desire for 'power' that guides this. It is not the Dems putting party before this nation that guides this. To claim such things is beyond disingenuous and silly.

What IS the important factor is that if we lose, then they win. If they win, then THEY HAVE THE POWER TO CONTINUE FUCKING UP THIS COUNTRY. That is what the Dems care about, and that's what I fucking care about. That's what it comes down to. Impeachment will fail. It will accomplish nothing, nada, zip, zero. It instead may put our 08 chances at risk. But we need 08 desperately. We cannot take another 4-8 years of this type of power we've seen. Impeachment will not stop their ability to cause destruction, only winning elections will. That's a fucking fact. So to claim it is simply because the Dems want power, for selfish reasons, is nothing short of pathetic. They want to win so that they can stop the fucking bleeding. Not being able to recognize that simple fact is the epitome of narrow mindedness in my opinion.


"That being said will not change the way I vote in 08. It will not change who I pull the lever for, or who I send money to."

Glad to hear it.


"But, FFS can we get the people we put into office to quit playing games and just do what's right for the country?"

Impeachment is not doing what's right for the country. It will fail. It will not have its desired outcome. It will split the Dems and unite the repubs. It will put the 08 elections at risk. It will create a huge threat of further republican rule and therefore further destructive policies. What is best for this country is stopping that rule. Impeachment will not accomplish that, WINNING ELECTIONS WILL. So my message to you and the others would be this: If you put half the energy into getting out the vote and encouraging Democratic victory in 08 as you do parroting the futility of impeachment, then you'd be doing a HELL of a lot more of what's right for this country then you're doing right now.

Goodnight.

[Fla_Democrat]

95. A different view

If it could actually be successful it would be.

I see it differently (big surprise). Doing what is right is never dependent on success. I can throw hyperbole around, but then it gets into a wee-wee contest of you can't compare x and y. Suffice it to say one shouldn't turn ones back on what they know to be right, because it isn't easy.

No, it isn't. Some like yourself want to convince themselves that it is, but it just simply isn't. Getting it on the record with full knowledge it will be futile and fail, just for sake of doing so, does absolutely nothing to heal this country or reverse the damage. Due to its futility out of the gate, it could even end up being regarded in the record as one of the biggest political blunders in history.

Then, as a party, we should just STFU about repubs and their corruption/crimes. What good does it do to moan, cry, get ulcers, rend our clothes, if the people we elect think it isn't a big enough matter to worry about? We, as a country, should heal and reverse the damage, by being complicit, or at least neglectful of a solemn duty to at least stop the damage?

Just because you posted it doesn't make it true. Impeachment is never the 'duty of every elected member of Congress' as it is always a discretionary and optional process. It is however, the duty of congress to uphold the constitution. Many members in congress have failed to do so. But that has little to do with impeachment itself. Now it can be easily argued that if anyone deserves impeachment he does, but that argument carries little relevance since we already know up front that impeachment will fail. He may deserve it, but he will not get it. That makes the argument moot. Now technically, I agree that impeachment is the right course. But since you have a group of lockstepping republicans on the other side that wouldn't in a million years side with you, the course of impeachment is just quite simply dead in the water. It is that and that alone that stops the 'right course'.

It doesn't make it true but it establishes that I'm not just blowing smoke, for smokes sake. With out parsing each line, let me submit...
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Discretionary. :eyes:

Thankfully not. They'd look like utter childish fools if they acted in such ways. You truly think their doing so would sway the public or republican senators for that matter? If so, then I think my statement of warped perception earlier is getting some merit.

And how do they look when their 'private' face differs from their 'public' face? How many reams of paper has been used for fund raising literature, imploring donors for money to help them "stop the Republicans and their culture of corruption"? Why hit up the base, talk up the need to fight tooth and nail, then walk hand in hand smiling all the way to the bank? Why are we (and I will allow you to self exempt if you like) as a board and as a 'movement' discussing what would be construed as high crimes? Are we (collectively) that much smarter than the public, or are we just more informed? Is the public not swayed, because they are not exposed to what is accepted as fact here? Is there anyway they could be exposed to it, say, by elected officials? Officials who by now must have substantial amounts of 'evidence'.

Treason? Not a chance. Some of the others are arguable as well. But I do understand your point. The Dems have tried to stop it, best they can. Without any republican support, stopping almost anything is damn near impossible.

I'm not so willing to write off public support. I tend to think if the information is put out, loud and often, the public can be swayed. How hard would the republicans fight against their informed constituents. After all, at one point or another, we all were uninformed.


Totally false argument you put forth there. Not pursuing impeachment has nothing to do with not believing the country to be worth fighting for. The Dems are constantly fighting for our country but can only do so much due to the lockstepping republicans. But the totally false part of your argument is the insinuation that pursuing impeachment would be fighting for our country somehow. I'd say that bolsters my statement above about narrow mindedness. See, to truly 'fight' for anything, there must be even remote chance of victory. If one partakes in an act in which it is clear up front there is no even remote chance of victory, but instead certain failure, then it is not an act of 'fighting for something' but instead most often an act of stupidity. Fighting for something of which is known cannot be won is an exercise not only in futility, but of questionable mental stability. It is the mark of a fool in many ways.

It can be considered that if the premise that starts it is the person you are to impeach is destroying the country. If he isn't, then yea, it's no big deal. Again, it gets back to if he is that bad, why the timidity? If he isn't, then someone needs to put out the memo to everyone who is concerned about the damage done to this country, by the current administration. If he is damaging the country, then remove him, if he isn't, then the disconnect needs to be worked out. Something between what is posted here (and else where) day in and day out, and 'it isn't so bad, lets just bide our time and work things out when we get into power' doesn't jive, agree? Can we say that exposing covert agents, killing civilians in battle, and prepping for a war with Iran, isn't in the country's best interests?

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ahh, that poor dumb bastard.

You don't think the elections in 08 are important? Where have you been these last 7 years?

Right here. Does it not exhibit the concept of power over country, though? Let's just ride on the rim till we get to the gas station, why bother changing the tire, it's only another 17 miles.

Yet another completely false argument, and yet another example of why I used the phrase narrow minded earlier to describe such types of rhetoric. It is not the desire for 'power' that guides this. It is not the Dems putting party before this nation that guides this. To claim such things is beyond disingenuous and silly.

What IS the important factor is that if we lose, then they win. If they win, then THEY HAVE THE POWER TO CONTINUE FUCKING UP THIS COUNTRY. That is what the Dems care about, and that's what I fucking care about. That's what it comes down to. Impeachment will fail. It will accomplish nothing, nada, zip, zero. It instead may put our 08 chances at risk. But we need 08 desperately. We cannot take another 4-8 years of this type of power we've seen. Impeachment will not stop their ability to cause destruction, only winning elections will. That's a fucking fact. So to claim it is simply because the Dems want power, for selfish reasons, is nothing short of pathetic. They want to win so that they can stop the fucking bleeding. Not being able to recognize that simple fact is the epitome of narrow mindedness in my opinion.


And by some how standing up and exposing them for what they are will hurt our chances of being elected? Some people will see the facts laid out on the nightly news, read about it in the paper, see the dark underbelly exposed for what it is and say... damn, that looks good, I was gonna vote against the repubs this year, but i want summa dat? we need 08 desperately. My question is, at what cost are we gonna purchase 08? So to claim it is simply because the Dems want power, for selfish reasons, is nothing short of pathetic. They want to win so that they can stop the fucking bleeding. Something they do not seem to be concerned with at the present. Let's give the ol artery a few more months to spurt, maybe the pressure bandage will come in time. If not, hey, at least we didn't get bloodied.


Impeachment is not doing what's right for the country. It will fail. It will not have its desired outcome. It will split the Dems and unite the repubs. It will put the 08 elections at risk. It will create a huge threat of further republican rule and therefore further destructive policies. What is best for this country is stopping that rule. Impeachment will not accomplish that, WINNING ELECTIONS WILL. So my message to you and the others would be this: If you put half the energy into getting out the vote and encouraging Democratic victory in 08 as you do parroting the futility of impeachment, then you'd be doing a HELL of a lot more of what's right for this country then you're doing right now.

We see it differently (see above). I think it would inform the public, a public that we will need in 08 to win. We have our base, the repubs have theirs, it isn't enough to just have your faithful. At some point, we have to convince Mr. & Mr.s Average Voter that we are their best interest. At some point, Joe, Maria and Mike (he sure does get around) will be sitting around listening to the conversations between neighbors (or co-workers) and hear it laid out.

So, Bush is the most dangerous terrorist in the world. He's a fascist, he's tapping your phone lines, he's torturing people for the recipe for coke classic, he's deranged and murdering Iraqi civilians, he's rounding up cub scouts and throwing them into Gitmo, he MIHOP/LIHOP...... and what are ya'll doing about it? I'm gonna have to answer.... nothing, but we are damn sure gonna make sure he isn't elected in 08.


Goodnight.


Sleep well, it's been interesting.

I hope we are both (and the readers) able to read the others view, and while we may not agree with it, respect that it is a honest and heartfelt position, reached by reasoned thought. I think this is the most I have written here, (though, to be fair, most of the post was your words, I just included them to help me maintain my train of thought) as my schedule does not permit me as much time here as I would like. So, please, don't think that if I don't respond to your (sure to be) well thought out reply that I took my keyboard and went home, or am ignoring you.

Stay safe,
/salute
:kick:

[BigBearJohn]

108. A few words from someone smarter than I am:

The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

Speaker Pelosi's argument against impeachment is not high-minded, however. It is the fortunes of the Democratic Party, not the fate of the Constitution and the strength of democracy, that animate her decision. She opines that Democrats would risk losing control of Congress and the occupancy of the White House in 2008 if impeachment efforts moved forward. Many Democrats dispute that opinion. They maintain that citizens voted for authentic change last November and will revolt if Democrats ape President Bush and maneuver for partisan advantage while the Constitution burns. If an impeachment inquiry is blocked by Pelosi, and the White House is left undisturbed in its constitutional usurpations and celebration of perpetual war, voters may turn against Democrats for their political spinelessness.

But even if the speaker's political and strategic impeachment worries were valid, the Constitution is beyond party. It has remained generally unscathed for more than two centuries only because our leaders have subordinated their parochial concerns when looking into a constitutional abyss. The speaker should not be permitted to frustrate the will of 434 co-equal members who collectively represent the entire nation and who are inspired by loftier motives when the Constitution and the relevance of Congress lie in the balance. Just as President Bush should not be a king, Speaker Pelosi should not be our queen. If she possessed a crumb of decency or respect for democracy, she would permit a "free" vote in the House to decide on an impeachment inquiry without any obligation to support her lead. It is certainly customary in parliamentary systems like Great Britain or Canada for party leaders to permit free votes on matters of conscience, like the death penalty or abortion. Deciding on whether to enforce the Constitution through impeachment is just as much a matter of moral scruple.

Speaker Pelosi is no constitutional expert. Neither is she an impeachment expert. She is no expert in discerning how President Bush and Vice President Cheney are slashing away at the sinews of Congress. Why should her voice be the final word on impeachment when it runs against the grain of the American people and the House of Representatives? Checks and balances and protections against government abuses are too important to be left to an imperious amateur with a Bush-like mental worldview. If House Democrats have any constitutional honor and dedication to the nation, they will force Speaker Pelosi out if she neglects to turn a new leaf with alacrity.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.slate.com/id/2172547/pagenum/all/#page_start

[Zhade]

103. Some people would rather "win" a dubious victory than prosecute criminals.

They are, in effect, Good Germans.

[GOTV]

125. If it's so important to stop the president, why are you demanding impeachment....

... which we know will not stop the president.

"We are talking war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity, treason, et al. This is not important enough to at least TRY to stop?"

I think so. Why don't the impeachment hawks see it? Why do they insist on a course of action almost certain to fail and leave the president vindicated and emboldened? Why don't they stop demanding symbolic action of their representatives and start looking for solutions that actually stop the president?

You want to stop the president? It seems there is only two options.

** 1) Build an environment in which impeachment is possible. This means working on your neighbors, or at least your Senators, and lay off of congress. When the votes are there, they will make your head spin with how fast they pursue impeachment.

We should have been working that angle all along, as I've been saying, instead of attacking Conyers and asking hime to save us. Now we've wasted almost all available time.

** 2) Find something other than impeachment.

[BigBearJohn]

72. So, are you saying the DEMS are doing the best they can given the circumstances?

[OzarkDem]

39. Voters don't like weak candidates and parties

Those who don't follow the issues closely and vote more from gut instinct tend to support candidates and parties who exhibit qualities of strength, willingness to act and who differentiate themselves from their opponents.

Our party's leaders just aren't projecting that image right now. They're aligning their ideas and policy with the GOP. Its an old DLC strategy, and a losing one in this situation.

[AllyCat]

42. Excellent question. Now, if he was a teenager asking McCain

he'd be accused of being disrespectful.

[wryter2000]

43. Here's your answer

"The Republicans will protect him from removal. How can you trust them to protect you?"

[onenote]

47. I'm confused. Does your neighbor think the repubs would support impeachment?

If not, then exactly what is his point?

[BigBearJohn]

73. His whole point is the DEMS are not fighting for what they believe.

In other words, if the DEMS truly believe that
Bush is such an evil man destroying our country,
why aren't they using their power to stop him.

When Clinton was disgracing the Presidency, the
Republicans at least TRIED to remove him from office.

[warren pease]

48. Damn good question...

I suppose I'd be in "yeah, but, but..." stuttering mode and launch into some pseudo-logic argument when all he wanted was an honest answer (and although I'm sure it's part of the wingnut echo chamber script, it's still a legitimate question).

Personally, considering the Demo candidates, I trust Kucinich, sorta trust Edwards on some issues, and the rest of the corporate suck-ups can go straight to hell. Same for the congressional "leadership." May they all be swamped in a progressive primary landslide, and may Ms. Nancy end her life in a cardboard refrigerator box perched over a sidewalk steam vent somewhere in northern Wisconsin.

Given her net worth -- somewhere between $14 mil and $54 mil (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp), I'm afraid that's not going to happen. Never know, though; the peasants might get a little out of hand if they get tied much tighter to the whipping post.


wp

[ComerPerro]

49. As though your moron neighbor would vote Dem anyway...

[BigBearJohn]

74. He wouldn't vote for the DEMS under any condition, but it was

still a legit question.

[coco77]

53. This neighbor can shut up

where were he and his party when they were enabling the asshole to get us into this mess for the past sic years.... and they continue to enable just so that their dumb ass leader can pretend that he is strong and resolute and steadfast. When in reality everyone know that he is a weak ass cry baby,who doesn't know what he is doing and is cheney's little puppet, who wants to stay the course instead of looking at the facts and changing the strategy when it is needed. By the way they can quit it with this WAY FORWARD shit in all of their speeches.

[uppityperson]

55. "Can we trust the republicans to protect us?" Better than the alternative.

[krkaufman]

56. You might counter that "balls" and those giving improper weight to same ...

... is what got us into this mess.

Impeachment is more complex than "balls."

[WhiteTara]

58. tell that repubic to call their RW congressman

it's all in the math.

[pitohui]

62. the PUG neighbor would have another excuse to hate us if we did impeach

they have a different song for every dance, that's what liars do

[bbgrunt]

63. that statement, whether you like it or not, will be the

focus and tipping point of many in the election next year.

[BigBearJohn]

76. That's the whole point of this OP

[bbgrunt]

78. and I agree.

[Chemical Bill]

64. Is he calling on his congresscritters to do that?

Give him your cellphone so he has no excuse. Put up or shut up I say.

Bill

[JVS]

68. Watch the GOP make this work in 2008. Quimby even released Sideshow Bob

[bdamomma]

69. we are the only ones to protect ourselves, I am sure the Dems

will say every man for himself or just leave the country.

[upi402]

80. that's just like what I hear too

from Joe Sixpacks and sportsmen.

[treestar]

82. There is something inherently illogical about that position

Is he saying Chimpy is the biggest terrorist there is, yet he trusts Chimpy to protect his whiny ass more than someone who is less of a terrorist?

The authoritarian personality's submissive side - why, I guess he trusts Al Qaida to protect him more than the Dems. Al Qaeda has the "guts" to kill people, too.

I guess Ted Bundy was "tough" too. He didn't mind killing people. Guess he'd make a better "protector."

No, the idea is who is most likely to respect the Constitution, and that's the Dems, because they wouldn't try to take the power that the repukes are so willing to grab "so we can protect you."

Dems are not so much "weak" as ambivalent about using power, and that's more in line with the way this country should be. They wouldn't protect you so well, but then, you wouldn't need as much to be protected, and could protect yourself better.

[illinoisprogressive]

86. the repukes know our leaders have no spine

[brentspeak]

89. Maybe it's just that the Democrats are smart enough to add and use arithmatic

Bare majority in Congress = not nearly enough votes to get anywhere with impeachment.

The end.

[Zhade]

104. Right, so let criminals walk. That's your solution.

I'm glad I don't see it that way, so I can at least sleep at night.

[BigBearJohn]

109. Not the end -- read on:

The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

Speaker Pelosi's argument against impeachment is not high-minded, however. It is the fortunes of the Democratic Party, not the fate of the Constitution and the strength of democracy, that animate her decision. She opines that Democrats would risk losing control of Congress and the occupancy of the White House in 2008 if impeachment efforts moved forward. Many Democrats dispute that opinion. They maintain that citizens voted for authentic change last November and will revolt if Democrats ape President Bush and maneuver for partisan advantage while the Constitution burns. If an impeachment inquiry is blocked by Pelosi, and the White House is left undisturbed in its constitutional usurpations and celebration of perpetual war, voters may turn against Democrats for their political spinelessness.

But even if the speaker's political and strategic impeachment worries were valid, the Constitution is beyond party. It has remained generally unscathed for more than two centuries only because our leaders have subordinated their parochial concerns when looking into a constitutional abyss. The speaker should not be permitted to frustrate the will of 434 co-equal members who collectively represent the entire nation and who are inspired by loftier motives when the Constitution and the relevance of Congress lie in the balance. Just as President Bush should not be a king, Speaker Pelosi should not be our queen. If she possessed a crumb of decency or respect for democracy, she would permit a "free" vote in the House to decide on an impeachment inquiry without any obligation to support her lead. It is certainly customary in parliamentary systems like Great Britain or Canada for party leaders to permit free votes on matters of conscience, like the death penalty or abortion. Deciding on whether to enforce the Constitution through impeachment is just as much a matter of moral scruple.

Speaker Pelosi is no constitutional expert. Neither is she an impeachment expert. She is no expert in discerning how President Bush and Vice President Cheney are slashing away at the sinews of Congress. Why should her voice be the final word on impeachment when it runs against the grain of the American people and the House of Representatives? Checks and balances and protections against government abuses are too important to be left to an imperious amateur with a Bush-like mental worldview. If House Democrats have any constitutional honor and dedication to the nation, they will force Speaker Pelosi out if she neglects to turn a new leaf with alacrity.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.slate.com/id/2172547/pagenum/all/#page_start

[brentspeak]

90. So you're here to convince people not to vote for the Democrats? Is that it?

You sound concerned.

[Kelly Rupert]

91. I find this "story" extremely unlikely.

A Republican would be unlikely to advocate the impeachment of President Bush--especially not one who believes in the American Balls vs. Terrorist Balls story. It is more likely he would see the impeachment to be a cowardly political move designed to distract the President in his fight against terror.

I believe you are making this story up.

[BigBearJohn]

110. So I guess you're calling me a liar. Believe whatever you want.

Oh, so you're the expert on the Republican mind, eh?
How man Republicans have YOU spoken to? Several
Republicans I know changed their vote in the last
election.

I live in an area that has many military republican types.
Some of them can see that the current administration is
fucking things up, but they can't see much difference
in the Democratic Congress.

The neighbor never said he "advocates" impeaching Bush. His only
point was, "If Bush is as bad as Democrats believe (as I have argued
with him), then why haven't they tried to impeach him?"

This is the very same point being made on television and radio every day.

He said the Democrats were supposed to sweep into Congress
and make all these changes and they have done diddly squat.

[Kelly Rupert]

121. I suppose I am.

In summers, work in a blue-collar environment, with about 80% of my coworkers being honest-to-god Republicans. I hang out with a few college republicans from time to time. I haven't heard impeachment ever brought up, except preemptive fury that the Dems would consider such a thing. To me, this just sounds like wishful thinking.

[BigBearJohn]

134. Your argument doesn't hold water. Pat Buchanan, is a regular on MSNBC

and is a Republican and he has asked on several occasions
why the Democrats don't impeach Bush if they believe
so steadfastly that he has committed crimes.

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

[mzmolly]

93. That is exactly right. This will be the thought process of many.

:(

[Zhade]

96. Damn, that says it all, doesn't it?

He's right - they're fucking cowards who are fast becoming criminal accomplices.

[Beam Me Up]

102. Are they protecting us from Bush and Cheney?

Tell that to the dead.

New York, Washington DC, Afghanistan, New Orleans, Iraq.

Whose next?

Gore called it before the 04 election: He suggested the whole executive resign as they were a threat to our national security.

He gets it and he wasn't just using 'colorful' speech.

[pollo poco]

105. Personally, I think "balls" are a big part of the problem

In conversation "balls" serve as a substitute for "guts", but in everyday practice they are usually substituted for "brains". Everything is about balls these days. Symptomatic of fascist masculinization. Even left wing culture has adopted the masculinist language of the fascist machine. Colbert and Stewart, for example, never miss a chance to mention them. Ha ha ha- it just feels great to talk balls. They are a natural centerpiece for any conversation in our warrior nation.

But, if we oppose the world view of fascism, we should stop talking about balls. Balls are the essence of fascism. When we adopt hypermasculinist language, we are adopting the right wing frame. We empower the fascists when we belittle artists, homosexuals, "pussies", or others who fail to meet the current standards of manworship so popular among good citizens of the New Reich.

I know this isn't the point of the OP, but you can tell by the "ballsy" language of some of the posts the degree to which the fascist zeitgeist has affected all of us. They've really got us dancing to their tune.

[BigBearJohn]

112. Ok, so if it's eloquence you want and desire, then read this:

By Bruce Fein

The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

Speaker Pelosi's argument against impeachment is not high-minded, however. It is the fortunes of the Democratic Party, not the fate of the Constitution and the strength of democracy, that animate her decision. She opines that Democrats would risk losing control of Congress and the occupancy of the White House in 2008 if impeachment efforts moved forward. Many Democrats dispute that opinion. They maintain that citizens voted for authentic change last November and will revolt if Democrats ape President Bush and maneuver for partisan advantage while the Constitution burns. If an impeachment inquiry is blocked by Pelosi, and the White House is left undisturbed in its constitutional usurpations and celebration of perpetual war, voters may turn against Democrats for their political spinelessness.

But even if the speaker's political and strategic impeachment worries were valid, the Constitution is beyond party. It has remained generally unscathed for more than two centuries only because our leaders have subordinated their parochial concerns when looking into a constitutional abyss. The speaker should not be permitted to frustrate the will of 434 co-equal members who collectively represent the entire nation and who are inspired by loftier motives when the Constitution and the relevance of Congress lie in the balance. Just as President Bush should not be a king, Speaker Pelosi should not be our queen. If she possessed a crumb of decency or respect for democracy, she would permit a "free" vote in the House to decide on an impeachment inquiry without any obligation to support her lead. It is certainly customary in parliamentary systems like Great Britain or Canada for party leaders to permit free votes on matters of conscience, like the death penalty or abortion. Deciding on whether to enforce the Constitution through impeachment is just as much a matter of moral scruple.

Speaker Pelosi is no constitutional expert. Neither is she an impeachment expert. She is no expert in discerning how President Bush and Vice President Cheney are slashing away at the sinews of Congress. Why should her voice be the final word on impeachment when it runs against the grain of the American people and the House of Representatives? Checks and balances and protections against government abuses are too important to be left to an imperious amateur with a Bush-like mental worldview. If House Democrats have any constitutional honor and dedication to the nation, they will force Speaker Pelosi out if she neglects to turn a new leaf with alacrity.

Read more:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172547/pagenum/all/#page_start

[samsingh]

106. so the repug says that repugs are so evil that if we good people

don't get rid of them, then we are the ones who are wrong?

wierd repug assinine logic.

[BigBearJohn]

113. Nobody is defending my stupid Republican neighbor, me especially

But when he asks, "if you guys think Bush
is such a monster, then why haven't you
done anything about it?" What do I say?

Obviously he doesn't think Bush is a monster.
He thinks Bush is defending this country.
His most annoying mantra is, "Hey, how
many terrorist attacks have we had since
Bush took over?"

The underlying point of this OP is: Why aren't
our dem leaders doing more to impeach
this administration?

[McCamy Taylor]

107. Just because the GOP shot both their feet in 1998, doesnt mean we should, too.

Impeachment gives the GOP a cause to rally around. They can claim the Dems are trying to overturn an election. They have the votes to stop it, and then they can claim they "won." That is what the Dems did in 1998 to score tremendous political brownie points.

We are smart. They are dumb. (If they were not dumb, they would not be voting for a party that serves the financial interests of about 2% of America) We must not be fooled into copying their Republican dumbness, just because one of them yells "chicken." The guy is a dumb ass, who labors for his corporate master.

[NNN0LHI]

120. Hard to believe seemingly intelligent people fall for this stuff isn't it?

Makes me wonder.

Don

[Hissyspit]

115. kick

[SalmonChantedEvening]

118. When are his republics going to do anything besides

March in lockstep?

What kinda "balls" does it take to vote and act as you are ordered, lest you get a bu$hbot put up against you in the next primary who WILL do as he's told without a second thought, let alone a first.

This in no way exonerates the Dem leadeship from playing Charlie Brown to *'s Lucy. Or going on with the foolish notion that compromising is ever going to be a 2-way street, for it has never been the case with this pResident or his party.

There are so many people I run into that just have no clue about what is going on aside from what the teevee tells them. and are seemingly content with that. And the msm bears more than it's share of blame for that.

Impeachment MUST be on the table Nancy. Let IT be the new Elephant In The Room.

[NNN0LHI]

119. When did we start taking political advice from Republican pond scum?

I am sure not going to.

Don

[Cha]

128. Good fucking question!

Nancy? ...crickets.

[Nikki Stone1]

130. Change "balls" to "guts" (or courage) and you can count me in.

Impeach already!

[redqueen]

135. Most of them are on board for occupying Iraq / stealing Iraq's oil.

Don't apologize for your pessimism, cause it's realism. Be glad you're not a mindless cheerleader.

[Mnemosyne]

136. I see you've been 'rebuked' by

some that seem to want to jump into lockstep with no tough questions being allowed of the status quo Dems and certainly do not dare to question them NOT working on justice for our Constitution and for 'We the People', rather than bs crap hearings such as steroids in pro wrestling and baseball. It seems some would rather think about their next 'election' instead.

None of those smaller things should matter at all when we are in the biggest Constitutional crisis in scores of years, possibly ever in our history. Without our Constitutional rights restored to 'We the People', not one damn thing will matter in the end.

It seems a perfectly reasonable question asked by your neighbor, imo. I wonder about it myself and can only conclude one of two things; either they are all being black-mailed somehow( i.e. 'The Franklin Cover-Up'), or they haven't the brains or guts that the Universe gave a turnip and need to go home and let someone that actually cares about 'We the People' more than their bank accounts to step in and et us back on course.

We have our Constitution in shreds, proven stolen elections, no accountability for any of the money that is 'unaccounted for' (including the 2.3 trillion missing at the Pentagon as of 9/10/2001), ignored subpoenas, war crimes against humanity, treason and torture. Oh, and a House with many, many, many moral and ethical hypocrites covering all their own asses and profits.

And we aren't putting impeachment on the table why?

Maybe I'm just an 'old' radical, but I believe OUR Congress people need to refuse to do a damn thing until we get explanations for all of it, the major issues first. I think we are beyond all of the simpering bullshit, "My honorable friend from...". Makes me sick to hear that simpering 'politeness' on the floors of the House and Senate. They cannot even bring themselves to call all of the lies, lies! Misstatements my ass! :puke:

I've seen only a few trying to get anywhere, but they are often rebuffed and humiliated; see Dennis, Gravel, even Feingold, Waxman, Leahy and Conyers. I'm missing some I am sure, but out of 535, less than 50 dare to even whisper 'impeachment'? Knowing all of the crimes committed and that continue to be committed by this administration? Huh?

When did right become so indistinguishable from wrong? Oh yeah, it's 1984 now.

It's getting harder all the time to see that line between the parties.

Can't impeach as it would 'upset' the country, more 'important' things to deal with?!! Or whatever the current chicken shit is being fed to us as excuses. Everyone I speak with is furious that the Dems haven't started at least public impeachment hearings. Even the repukes I know, most of them voted Dem to have impeachment.

The kids are still dying in Iraq, innocent Iraqis are dropping like flies, *asswipe & his posse are robbing the US blind leaving freakishly large debt and *asswipe & regime are trying to attack another sovereign nation for no reason other than greed, thus committing further war crimes against humanity.

I will say it again; We OWE it to the entire world to impeach this regime before they cause more irreparable damage. It is the only way we will ever be forgiven by the world.

It's always about US, selfish people.

Sorry John, frustration rampant here. :hi:hug:

[BigBearJohn]

139. WOW!! You go girl!!! Wish I had said all that. That's quite a wallop.

:bounce: :hi: :hug:

[DFW]

137. The Republicans had the balls to impeach Bill Clinton

.....for the high crime of being legitimately elected
to the presidency as a Democrat.

And they have subsequently protected us from what, exactly?

[trekbiker]

138. If the Dems impeach I'll vote. Doesnt matter whether they succeed

They just have to find the guts to do it... If the Dem's impeach I'll support whichever candidate is nominated.

barring that, if Gore runs I'll definately vote.

If the Dem's dont impeach and Gore doesnt run I'll not vote for the first time in 30 years. FUCK IT!! I may hate the Repubs with a passion but I am literally sick to death of the Dems bullshit and lack of real leadership