Radio hosts slam top Democrats for reluctance to consider impeachment

[babylonsister]

Radio hosts slam top Democrats for reluctance to consider impeachment
Jason Rhyne
Published: Monday October 15, 2007

Reid: Impeachment is a 'foolish idea;' Pelosi doesn't see justification

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- the top Democratic leaders from each of their respective chambers of Congress -- are drawing fire for a pair of recent radio appearances in which they reiterated their opposition to pursuing the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

In an interview Oct. 9 with nationally syndicated liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Pelosi defended previous statements in which she had promised that "impeachment was off the table."

"I don't see a connection between this and impeachment," Pelosi said, asked about a newly released secret memo on US interrogation tactics. A moment later, she side-stepped a repeat of the same question by elaborating on her goal to "bring the country behind a return to an America that honors the vision of our founders."

"I don't see that impeachment is in furtherance of bringing the people together in that way," she said.

"If somebody else out there has reason to think that they have evidence that the president has committed an impeachable offense that can pass the Congress, please let me know that," she continued, "but at the present time, I don't think that the justification is there for that."

Late Friday, Schultz told RAW STORY that the speaker's unwillingness to realistically discuss the impeachment option -- or even to entertain a theoretical scenario in which it might merit real consideration -- was tantamount to giving President Bush a "license to do whatever he wants to do."

"I think the Democratic leadership has signaled to the American people that there is no set of facts, no turn of events that would rise to the level of impeachment," Schultz said, adding that he thought the party's leaders had "pretty much given up."

more...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Radio_hosts_slam_top__Democrats_1015.html

[Fovea]

1. They are not my leaders

They are quizling bastards who need to be rusticated.

[roguevalley]

21. bring us together?!?!?!?!?! How about upholding your OATH to

DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!?!?!?!?! I loathe all of them right now.

[NightWatcher]

2. I cant stand Ed, but he's right on this one.

Late Friday, Schultz told RAW STORY that the speaker's unwillingness to realistically discuss the impeachment option -- or even to entertain a theoretical scenario in which it might merit real consideration -- was tantamount to giving President Bush a "license to do whatever he wants to do."


YEP

[opihimoimoi]

3. What she said was...."evidence...that can PASS the Congress"

The Radio Hosts seem to delight in fucking with the Democrats by twisting the facts.....this is giving the Pubs strength....why is this?

Do they want the BushCo/GOOPERism to continue???...it sure seems so.

Is this a PUB Plot? It could very well be....

[babylonsister]

4. So you think there's no evidence out there to prove the case for

impeachment? I wish I could defend Pelosi, but I can't because she has done nothing but enable this admin imo.

Maybe I should send her this:

http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html

[Stinky The Clown]

6. "There is no evidence right now that will pass congress"

I believe that's a fact.

I also believe that if HEARINGS started, there would be evidence and it would be strong enough to garner Democratic support.

I remain unconvinced it would sway the lockstep republicans in sufficient numbers to impeach. I also believe that will change on a dime when the country sees majority grass roots support for impeachment.

But that requires hearings.

I am at a loss to know why Pelosi won't allow hearings.

[babylonsister]

7. I don't know why either, and it's very infuriating. Did you

happen to see this thread? Two writers (3, including H20 Man) I really respect seem to think there's a case to be made:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2043703

[opihimoimoi]

8. I think she is trying to thread a fine needle between being Patriotic and Reasonable

To make the Attempt and FAIL....would embolden Bush no end....It could make the situation to the POINT of Helping the PUBs retain/regain their POWER...this is what I am afraid of....

[Senator]

17. That can't be called a fact.

And in actual fact, it is rather dishonest as an opinion. Because "evidence" that will "pass congress" must be in a specific charge. This is just part of their "hide the ball" strategery of claiming they do not have votes that they've never actually counted -- because they refuse to allow the conditions for an honest count to occur.

What they actually "don't have the votes for" at the moment is mentioning impeachment at all, particularly in public. It is currently an up or down vote on avoidance, nothing more. Which is why it is basically dishonest to be talking about "evidence" and what will or will not "pass congress."

And btw, zero repubs are required for impeachment to "pass congress" -- that's what the last election was "all about" (no, not Iraq). And while conviction in the Senate is another matter, it is one that is above Madame Squeaker's pay grade -- as well as being virtually irrelevant to the need/benefits of impeachment.

Now, if she really means evidence, that's even worse. Because there is literally no evidence required. The regime openly admits and defends their monarchical, "Unitary" actions -- including torture, violating treaties, burning CIA assets, and warrantless searches -- as some power they have derived from the Constitution.

This is madness of course. But it is not madness locked in some secret attic of carefully concealed evidence. It is a village idiot, right there on the public square, eating dirt and rubbing it in people's faces.

All that remains is to challenge it or to continue to enable it.

---

[AuntPatsy]

22. Is that true that they cannot even mention impeachment without having the votes?

Are you saying that there were enough votes from both sides to begin impeachment procedings against Clinton?

[Senator]

26. No, just that it is the scam they are pulling...

...to avoid having to deal honestly with the reality of protecting war criminals with their dereliction of duty.

--

[AuntPatsy]

31. Then Impeach now for crying outloud.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. Schultz is a Johnny-come-lately

as far as impeachment is concerned.

God knows Mike Malloy's been talking about it for YEARS as, I think, have Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes.

The more pertinent question, I think, though, is why Reid and Pelosi are so utterly convinced that it's wrong to even THINK about impeachment. One gets the idea that if George Bush was videotaped drowning kindergarteners in front of the White House, Nancy Capitulosi would call it a baptizing.

[opihimoimoi]

9. So what happens if the attempt FAILS...who looks like shit? and who wins?

She doesn't have the VOTES to make it PASS...

Look to the CONSEQUENCES of Failure...it would be disastrous to the DEM Party...I feel this is what she has in mind...

[jgraz]

12. Where is your evidence that the "CONSEQUENCES" would be "disastrous"??

The Rethugs tried unsuccessfully to remove Clinton when he was at 60% approval, and they gained seats in the next election (and got close enough to steal the White House). Anti-impeachment Congressmen lost their seats in '74, even though the evidence against Nixon was far weaker than that which a simple google search yields against Bush.

What possible evidence do you have that "CONSEQUENCES of Failure" would be "disastrous to the DEM Party"?? This sounds like a simple talking point to me, with no substance behind it.

[opihimoimoi]

13. And where is your evidence that a failure WOULDN'T have consequences?

Any Failure of this sort would be disastrous>>>Its based on COMMON SENSE and REALITY

[jgraz]

16. You must not leave the house very often

Where is your evidence that a METEOR won't fall on your HEAD the minute you step OUTSIDE???

Where is your evidence that a PINK UNICORN won't IMPALE YOU if you don't turn the light on and off 20 times before entering a ROOM?


Just because you capitalize words like "COMMON SENSE" and "REALITY", that doesn't mean you have any connection to them whatsoever. I've given you two examples where impeachment proceedings HELPED the party that started them. Since you cannot produce any evidence for your UNSUPPORTED OPINION, perhaps Congress should just do "THE RIGHT THING" and follow the "CONSTITUTION". Hmmm?

[opihimoimoi]

19. Your Reasoning/Logic/Common Sense escapes me...Never Mind..go on with rationalization

[jgraz]

20. The fact that "Reasoning/Logic/Common Sense" escapes you was obvious a couple of posts ago

You also seem a bit unclear on the concept of "quitting while you're behind", which is strange given how risk-averse you are in other areas of your life.

Before that METEOR takes you out, you may want to do a bit of reading on the Null Hypothesis. I think you'd have much more success in these discussions if you understood that very simple idea.

[opihimoimoi]

30. You seem to be projecting....

[Fovea]

23. Dateline Dec 7th 1941

Combined elements of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Airforce ruthlessly attack American Naval base at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian islands. After conferring with Congress and the Military, President Roosevelt believes that the damage from an attempt at defense would be too great, and America unconditionally surrenders Hawaii to the Japanese.

Some things you do because they are the right thing to do. The Constitution of the United States obligates Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The crimes of this administration have destroyed constitutional protections of privacy and due process. Once you decide they are not worth fighting for, where does it end?

We might not win, but we can succeed at restoring the bill of rights, bringing the hidden to light, and destroying the neocon agenda. In the end, that is far more important than where Bush goes before the Hague tries him in absentia.

[opihimoimoi]

29. Totally diff analogy

[Hawkowl]

11. Capitulosi!

Snort!!!! Execellent!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

15. That's how I've taken to referring to her on-air

Honestly, though, I might be able to stomach some of her tactics, if only she'd tell us what she wants to do with that big ol' majority she wants, and thinks she can have by continuing to let George get away with murder. End the war? Clean up campaign finance? Universal single-payer healthcare? Gay marraige? All of the above?

Sadly, however, we're expected to take it all on faith. Kinda reminds me of Nixon's "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam in 1968.



Get On THe H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[pat_k]

14. Better late than never. . .

. . .and seeing those who have been "sitting it out" get on the bandwagon is a VERY good sign.

As is the ridicule and increasing anger that Pelosi http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3604951">et. al. are directing at Americans who are demanding impeachment.

First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
-- Mahatma Gandhi

We don't need to figure out "why Reid and Pelosi are so utterly convinced that it's wrong" to diagnose their affliction and seek to intervene. And their's is a fairly simple affliction to diagnose. It is characteristized by a set of remarkably predicable, and dysfunctional, reactions to any challenge to Pelosi's "off the table" edict -- i.e., they blather a standard set of "reasons" (rationalizations) they can't defend.

The "symptoms" of the affliction point to a potentially effective intervention -- i.e., get in theeir faces and directly challenge the rationalizations.

Having a label to hang the diagnosis on can be very useful. I happen to like "impeachophobia."

From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">Impeachophobia:

. . .

Although they do not meet all the criteria for a http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/specphob.htm">formal diagnosis of phobia (e.g., they don't "recognize that the fear is excessive or unreasonable"), the label "impeachophobia" is a good one because it captures the irrational avoidance at the heart of the affliction (i.e., "Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation")

Because "phobia" is a well-known term, the label has the benefit of immediately shifting expections. Because we expect irrational avoidance from an "impeachophobe," we aren't surprised, frustrated, or confused when we encounter it, and thus can respond more effectively.

Rationalizations and self-defeating prophesies

Impeachophobes have adopted effective means of shutting out and purging information that contradicts their conviction that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. The rationalizations they invoke both justify and reinforce their conviction. Although it sometimes seems like they have an endless supply of rationalizations, they actually rely on relatively few. The most common are:

* "We'll get Cheney"
* "The public will rise against us"
* "We'll lose the White House"
* "Impeachment will tear the nation apart"
* "We don't have the votes to remove"
* "It would be a futile waste"
* "We need to focus on stopping the war"
* "Impeachment is a distraction"
* "The public is not behind it"
* "Now is not the 'right' time; maybe later"
* "We must investigate first"
* "It will take too long"
* "It's not gonna happen because it's not gonna happen"

. . .

There is a Cure! -- Turning Impeachophobes into Impeachers

Whatever position or office -- member of the press, Member of Congress, staffer, activist, citizen -- impeachophobes are all just people and people can be reached. We know impeachophobia can be cured because it is being cured. We are seeing and rank and file Democrats "out here" conquer impeachophobia and become "impeachers" everyday. Simply being exposed to impeachment advocates has been enough for some. Others require more intensive "intervention.". . .

[Fovea]

25. like many phobias, it may respond to desensitization

start with Cheney.

[pat_k]

27. Impeaching cheney is certainly a start, although a problematic one. . .

Kucinich's resolution provides a specific action -- co-sponsoring -- can focus lobbying efforts, which seems to be a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

The "only cheney" option is incapable of rescuing the Constitution or actually stopping the monarchical bushnchcney torture machine. As an ineffective half-measure it has little power to energize or engage the public's anger with the insanity of Bush World. "Impeach Cheney" makes just isn't a very effective call to arms, particularly since Kucinich failed to go after him for their unconstitutional claim that executive power trumps all law -- that they can torture, spy, whatever they want "to protect us."

Going after Cheney for "lying us into war" is not a call to fight for the Constitution and the People's Government. He missed the simple case -- the case that makes itself.(1)

While I had hoped Kucinich's move would "densensitize" and help make impeaching bush and cheney "thinkable," I fear that it may be doing some real harm to our efforts. Since "impeach Cheney" hasn't done a great job of galvanizing the public, they can point to it to reinforce their erroneous belief that "the public doesn't want impeachment."

In any case, it's out there. It's something. It helps us identify the people willing to do Something. And we can use it as a lauch point to make the case to impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney for their fascist fantasy that they have the unitary authoritarian power to turn Americans into torturers.

======================================

(1) Even a middle-of-the-roader like Jane Harman recognizes that the case against their claim to unlimited power is a "slam dunk."

9/25 Countdown with Kieth Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript

Harman: I actually find that quite incredible, given the fact that, at will over most of the last five or six years, the administration hasn‘t followed FISA
or all the FISA. They admit that. . .

What‘s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our Constitution. And I can‘t believe that anyone around here would be so short-sighted as to buy that. . .,

[AndyA]

10. Pelosi and Reid should step down, they are not doing their jobs.

And be neglecting to perform their duties responsibly, they are aiding and abetting Bushco.

Step aside, Nancy and Harry, and let someone who *GIVES A F*CK* the opportunity to do the right thing.

It's what America wants.

[superkia]

18. Its nice to know that at least one candidate feels impeachment...

is and issue that the American people believe in. I don't understand why all of our candidates haven't stood up for the people and spoke out on the issue. Do our candidates running actually represent us like they are supposed to, or are the corporations and the wealthy the only ones worth representing? I am proud that I support a candidate that does support impeachment and he speaks out for me. Thank you Dennis Kucinich for representing the people!

[AtomicKitten]

24. Schultz is on point again today.

As it is becoming abundantly clear that the war will not end short of impeachment, it's the only sane thing to do.

Unfortunately the Democrats have an eye on the next election and aren't willing to do their damn jobs NOW.

[Cha]

28. Amazing to me that Ed Schultz

is on this side of the ISSUE..the side I'm on!!

[SlingBlade]

32. Big Ed's right on with this

Schultz is often on the right side of issues.

He may not carry all the water, but he carries a lot of it.

[Senator]

33. K&R&I