"I no longer support the impeachment movement" --Joe Cannon

Whoops. The impeachbots have alienated yet another supporter:

"Bottom line, I have a hell of lot more respect for Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers than I do for an attention-seeking bitch like Cindy Sheehan. And bravo to Conyers for treating a mob in his office exactly as any mob ought to be treated."
--Joe Cannon
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-no-longer-support-impeachment.html

the removal of habeus corpus, lying to start a war that has killed over 3,600+ troops, outing COVERT CIA agents for political gain, spying on us, etc.

The impeachment process is the Constitutional remedy for a President who's out of control. If you do not support it, then the only other option is that you support the actions of the President.

Nice going, Cannon.

guess not

he issued them, and he plans to use them . . . the only questions are when and how . . . but when he does, one of the likely outomes will be suspension of the 2008 elections . . .

I hope I'm wrong -- but this is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney we're talking about . . . check the history . . . and be afraid . . .

Bush and Company will be living off of the American people for the rest of their lives.

And, ignoring the laws that Bushco broke set a very dangerous precedent going forward. "Well, Bush did it and got away with it..." No, this needs to end NOW.

If you don't support impeachment, which is a legal remedy, you support the criminals. There are no other options. Elections can be rigged, also...in case you haven't heard.

yadayadayada


I call bullshit on the idea that if one doesn't support impeachment one supports the criminals.
Things are not as black and white or cut and dried as idiot purists think.

I'd like to see Bush out of office, doesn't mean that I think impeachment is the automatic and only remedy.

So is yours.

Still keeping that powder dry? :eyes:

:eyes:

"At least I'm not a parrot?" Ok...stepping out of the sandbox and into the lecture hall. Sometimes, elections are not enough. If we don't impeach, it is not the necessary definitive statment that what Bush has done is unacceptable to the citizens of this country. When I see people so vehemently against impeachment, I wonder if those people really understand what the crimes that Bush and his cabal have committed. In such blatant and obvious abuses of power and the undermining of the very foundations of our government, impeachment, and not elections were the remedy preferred by the framers.

after the Aug recess.

Only the Sith speak in absolutes.

Which is, of course, an absolute :evilgrin:


I agree with you, but the irony of that line get me every time.

Yes, it stops Bushco, but everything done (the executive orders, etc) would still need to be undone. I'm not saying that a successful impeachment and conviction wouldn't help. I'm just pointing out that some treat it like magic potion that will right all the wrongs that have taken place in the last 6 years.

As it is, the Bush administration is setting the precedent that the executive branch can operate above the law and not be held accountable for it.
You're right about the executive orders. Hopefully, the next DEM president in 2008 will bring them all under review and reverse those that are antithetical to checks and balances.

If its so easy I have two questions for you.

1) What happened in 2006?

2) Why don't we rig them? Just balancing out the odds after all.

One last point, this question of who supports impeachment, you know you are bugging the wrong people. Go talk to the Republicans.

was a slim majority, insufficient to accomplish a lot of that they want to do, and forcing them to suck up to Lieberdweeb in the Senate.

KKKarl thought he had "THE math," but their rigging was set up before Foley, Cunningham, et al., so it wasn't enough to prevent the Dems from taking both houses of Congress, though it was enough to prevent them from taking several seats that they pretty certainly won.

The Repubs are almostt certainly working very hard to do a better rigging job for 2008.

The only other Senate race in 2006 that was even close (and it wasn't 51/49 close) was Tennessee and since there was a Democratic Governor, I don't see how the GOP thugs could've tampered with the elections process.

The only voter fraud I've seen good evidence for is a few very close House races, particularly the one in Florida. Florida still has Republicans running their government and so I question the integrity of their elections. Democrats have the Secretary of State's office or the Governor's mansion in every other swing state after the '06 elections including, most importantly, Ohio.

I don't think that there's much the GOP can do now that Ted Strickland and Jennifer Brunner are in charge of Ohio's elections.

It's late, so I'll leave the googling to you.

it is evenly split in the Senate, 49-49 with 2 Independents...so when anyone is talking about our great majority, and how we should be able to do this and that including impeachment....no, no, no...not possible with the "majority" of seats we have now...we need 67 votes or 2/3 majority to pass any damned thing, including the articles of impeachment, IF it even gets out of the House, where we have a whopping majority of 31...

The best thing we could do...is figure out exactly which seats in Congress are up for grabs, and work like hell to get more like minded Democrats elected in both the House and the Senate, so that next time around, we have a REAL majority...one that will allow us to take care of business w/o having to kiss Republican ass...which is what we should be doing now...instead of worrying about the best candidate for the WH...(especially since it's pretty obvious who that's going to be)...
windbreeze

The post of mine that you replied to was simply asking for more evidence that had there not been election fraud in '06, we would have a larger majority in the Senate.

I thought you were indicating that we had a 51-49 majority in the Senate...do a lot of us not understand just how closely divided the Senate/House really are?.....I do not mean you, but others who are screaming for the Dems to wipe out all that's been done to this country in the last 6 1/2 years...in reality there is NO majority...not when we have to depend on the two independents to vote with us to give us those last two seats, especially considering one of them is Lieberman....or when we need 67 votes at the very least to accomplish anything..but we only have 49 actual Democratic votes...

I guess it's becoming frustrating for me, when I see so many people dissing the current Dem Congress all the time....I didn't mean to appear to point at you precisely, but at anyone who doesn't understand that our Congress does NOT have the majority needed..that's what Obey/Conyers/Pelosi/Reid all know...they understand we still have to count on r's helping us out...and what THEY (r)may appear to be willing to do on the surface...does NOT guarantee they would follow through when an issue came to a vote...which leaves us hamstrung....how frustrated must our Congressmen also feel when they get it from both sides...and no one is happy with anything they do manage to accomplish....
wb

This is a discussion forum... for Democrats and like-minded people. There is going to be some diversity of opinion, but we have the opportunity to change each other's minds through dialog. Statements like the above just accuse anyone who doesn't agree with the writer of the most extreme opposite viewpoint. There is no attempt to convince anyone of the point of view, just an accusation. Why would someone post that here? It's just a rant and an insult. It illuminates nothing, surely attracts no new adherents, and uselessly antagonizes anyone who might have been receptive to an idea. People start blogs for stuff like that, but dropping the proverbial turd in the shared forum punch bowl just seems destructive to the purpose of this place.

I am left with the image of an old lady I used to see standing on the street corner on my way to work some mornings. She would stand there in her bathrobe screaming at the traffic that was going by. I never really understood what she was screaming about, but it wasn't hard to imagine that she felt some uncontrollable rage and was using the only soapbox she could find to try to let it out. She showed no comprehension of whether or not it mattered if anyone paid attention. The screaming was the only thing that seemed to matter.

And she invited a few hundred of her friends to join her.

For illustrating Mr. Cannon's point.

as an "attention grabbing bitch."

Very nice. She is the mother of a dead soldier. Have a little respect.

Failure to proceed with the impeachment process means Bushco gets away with all their crimes, and all of us will be paying for years to undo the damage that's already been done.

When I see other suggestions that indicate there are ways to see that justice is served without impeachment, I'll keep an open mind. But investigations that don't lead to impeachment will do nothing, they'll just cost money and the media and GOP will spin them to make it look like the Dems are just getting back at them for Clinton.

New day, same story.

If you don't support impeachment, what are the other options that will see that justice is served and the Constitution is protected? Investigations that aren't acted on are worthless, and the only way to act on them is to impeach.

Cindy is in this for Cindy now...

Yep!

:eyes:

Yeah right.

:eyes:

because they were furious about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are the very voters that the Republican "Southern Strategy" has been built on ever since.

If you and I had the same name, that would not make us the same person (though we would both probably end up on the same no-fly list).

after the press took the spotlight off her for a couple of days.

Where have we heard such logic before? "You're with us or you're with the terrorists"

A few weeks ago, some, questioning Sheehan's possible run were congress were told that they must support Cheney. Why? Because not supporting Sheehan's run meant you were for the status quo, hence against impeachment, hence in support of Cheney (in their logic).

We've criticized the Bush administration and their acolytes for painting things in black and white and ignoring the many shades of gray for most issues. Yet, some of us do the exact same thing with posts such as yours.

Ah there is a voice of lucidity and reason that I will heed and follow.

our country is crashing into the pits and the brainwashed will utter the propaganda that has been fed to them.

Stupidity abounds on all sides of this debate.

She is abrasive and annoying. Yes, I know it is her point, but she is only preaching to the choir with her methods.

To appeal to those she needs to convince, she needs to be more nuanced. But she is just (very understandably) angry.

I'll defend her right to do what she is doing until my last breath, but I do NOT like her effect on the anti-war movement. She makes a convenient punching bag for the Right, because she is unfocused, undisciplined, will waver to other issues often, and alienates those we need to convince to get the rest of the boys and girls home.

Her "style" is exactly why they give her so much attention. There are many "reasoned voices" against the war and for impeachment. Faux and Klear Channel don't act as though they don't exist. Instead, they focus on a mother in grief who has chosen to stand up.
Do you know of any politicians who aren't "attention hounds?" except when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar or their pants down?
Using Cindy as a reason to oppose impeachment is pretty freak'n lame!

to stand up for our rights.

MLK,jr and all those others who wouldn't stop running their mouths and confronting their leaders. What have we become when we vilify people like Cindy Sheehan simply because she chooses to fight the same fight in a different way.

Cindy's companions have vilified personal friends of the two HEROS you note above. It's tiresome to see continued comparisons of "thoughtful" leaders like MLK and Rosa Parks to Cindy Sheehan. Cindy is passionate, but she's not thoughtful about how she's being used. In fact, I don't think she yet realizes that she IS being used?

Equivocate as hard as you might, you can't make this a civil rights issue.

MLK and Parks fought for the rights of people the government was all to happy to classify as second class citizens.

The protesters of the 60's fought for the rights of young people forced by their government to fight for a cause they didn't believe in.

Currently--and I mean in the last year or so--Sheehan is fighting for only one thing: punishing the executive branch, and punishing those who aren't rushing to punish. That's just not the same--in many ways, she's fighting only for her own piece of mind, not for the rights of a disenfranchised minority. Sure she's entitled, but Martin Luther King she ain't.

I have a hellofva lot more respect for those who are pushing for Impeachment.

In fact, I hope against hope that both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid LOSE their next Primary to their Democratic Challenger. Neither of them are doing their damn jobs. :grr: They need to be kicked out by their constituents and bring in some new representatives with SPINES, instead of "gutless wonder" dancers in pink tutus. ;)

God Bless Cindy Sheehan. She speaks for me. :yourock:

the people who have the real courage to stand up and fight for our rights. I'm calling them the insanitybots...the ones that keep voting for the same system and expecting different results. Cindy Sheehan is a blessing to the people of this country...and so many brainwashed fools are throwing her to the wolves. So pitiful.

What is your problem?

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

Cindy Sheehan doesn't own impeachment.

The impeachbots do not seem to be good bridge-builders or diplomats. They get high marks on passion. But their idea of a brilliant strategy always seems to be attacking the Democrats. They have no idea how screwed they'll be when they need allies in the future.

...of hanging out with the likes of that nutball Rockwell & the ANSWER loons. These are the ones that love to shovel the "there's no difference between the two parties" bullshit. Much of what she says just regurgitates their crap and marginalizes her right along with them.

polite and appropriate. NOTHING will ever change unless you get in the Ruling Classes's faces (to include the elitists in the Congress) and DEMAND THAT THEY REPRESENT YOU, THE CONSTITUENT, BEFORE THEIR BELOVED CORPORATE MASTERS.

Too funny - those of you who think that ensuring our continuance of a Democratic Republic will be just a matter of assertion. NO! We're going to have to get nasty and vote out those who refuse to do their damn jobs. :thumbsup:

Lead. Follow. Or get the hell out of our way! ;)

Joe Cannon's reaction should tell you something, if you'd just calm down and think about it.

Is John Conyers?

He might need this...

who made it their mission to "Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable."

Congress was just as GUTLESS during the Vietnam Era. I submit that it was the numerous conflicts between "these two factions" (supporters vs opponents) that pushed *the middle* into forcing their Representatives (both Democratic and Republican) to end THAT senseless war.

You never wish to recognize us *activists* but we are the SPARK to the Democratic Party's fire. In fact, your disregard of us liberals has a large part to do with the Democrats Lack Luster Performance over the past Decade.

YOU. NEED. US. But you treat us like shameful poor relation trailer trash. Yes, many of us are working class and many of us may live in trailer parks and public subsidized housing, but NEVER FORGET that we are your base. You lose us, you lose the elections.

That's the point. Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the senate. The republicans who need to defect to make impeachment a reality won't defect. Ergo, if she moves to impeach, it will be a big time consuming humiliating mess, and it will fail. So why are we attacking her instead of the republicans who won't see the light? We need to stand together in a way we haven't before, so that our mass creates a black hole big enough to start sucking in republicans. That's when we'll see some impeachment action going on!

the proceedings should be underway by now ... hell, a year ago would have not been too soon.

No, I don't think that when our illustrious House of Representatives took their oath to uphold and defend The Constitution, had the following qualifier: *You may opt-out if it is not politically feasible for your career and/or for The Party.* :grr:

No OTHER Executive Branch has met standard for Impeachment Proceedings MORE THAN the present junta (Bush/Cheney), yet our representatives are, IMO, GUTLESS because it may threaten their careers. What about the GREATER GOOD? ... what about following the requirements of The Constitution?

I'm more than disgusted with Pelosi's inaction. And I'm ashamed that Harry Reid is our Democratic Leader in the Senate when he allowed *HIS OWN WIFE* (Nepotism anyone? :grr:) to grandfathered in - in essence she can continue lobbying Congress while all new spouse of Senate members can NOT.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are far too comfortable in placing PARTY before COUNTRY. They are, IMO, COWARDS, that need to be voted out and replaced by their next Democratic Challenger. :thumbsdown:

The truly terrifying thing here is not that Bush is a fascist...any country has its share of dimwits who can't understand the founding principles of the country, and there are psychopaths everywhere. Its that so few people UNDERSTAND that Bush is a fascist. If everybody understood what you just said, there would be nobody in congress against it. But as is, all the republicans still don't see it.

And this matters. Impeachment requires that the majority of people there are willing to impeach. For this to happen

1) Democrats must be strongly unified, willing to stand together to impeach
2) Republicans must be fractured, with some willing to impeach.

So why work as cindy is to fracture the DEMOCRATS? Its the last thing we need.

When King came out in opposition to the Vietnam war, MANY people in the civil rights movement wanted him to shut up - derided and ostracized him for speaking out against the war. King's position, for all practical purposes, split the Civil rights movement. But, the war was ended and civil rights advanced.

I've asked this before and I've never gotten an answer. She gets in as a third party candidate, bashing the Dems. Then she has to come up with the impeachment plan, and get not only every single Democrat there, which she just pissed on, to back it, but also get a good number of Republicans to defect and support it as well. How on earth does this work?
Cindy Sheehan doesn't have the power to create a third party/movement which can knock out all these entrenched Democrats and Republicans. Its just silly. But if she could work WITH the dems and help build popular support strong enough to make republicans defect, than we could actually have a chance of making Pelosi change her tune.

Now, you're just being silly what with your facts and logic and whatnot.

Politically, she is naive. And she is driven by her sense of what is "right." I think she is a soul in distress, trying so hard to somehow make it up to her lost son. Cindy is a tragedy playing out on the national stage.

And I think it's awful that anyone would call her a bitch. Can we disagree without resorting to sexist name calling?

John Conyers sympathizes with Cindy's cause. He told her he doesn't have enough support in congress to go ahead with impeachment and he's right.

I'm sure President Kennedy told Martin Luther King that same thing several times with regard to Civil Rights legislation. Yet MLK didn't stage a sit-in outside of the White House, he met with Kennedy in a civil manner and they discussed how they could change that. You do make change by being polite and appropriate to those who sympathize with your cause. Confrontation, theatrics, and pissing people off needs to be saved for those who are fighting against you.

...impeaching these dangerous criminals who are about to launch an illegal military assault on yet another Middle East country, and citing the behavior of a very small subset of those who do support it as the reason, is incredibly small minded and smacks of the kid who picks up his bat, ball, and glove and stomps off home to his mommy if he doesn't get to pitch and bat cleanup.

Perhaps with time Joe will grow up.

...Who claimed that she was quitting the "Peace Movement" after somebody on DU made rude comments about her.

...DU as her reason(s) for taking her long overdue and much needed rest.

super-strong to begin with if this is his rationalization.

n/t

and expecting different results.

I guess there are "bots" for every occassion!

keep voting for the same system and expecting different results.

Therefore, they don't want to Impeach because they want HRC (and Bill Clinton with Poppy and the boys from Carlyle) to WIELD THAT POWER that's been stolen for The Unitary Executive. :wow:

The only way that THREE EQUAL BRANCHES of Government can be squared is to IMPEACH Gonzales, Cheney and/or Bush. The overwhelming "power grab" for the Executive Branch, regardless of which party wins The Presidency, is TOO MUCH and must be reigned in. :scared: :grr:

I don't see them as one and the same; I see this particular "movement" as counter-productive.

Cindy Sheehan? You can't control what other people do.
Because people threw rocks through windows in Seattle didn't suddenly legitimize corporate globalization.
People get sucked into the fact that this is what the rightwing media focuses on. This is their strategy: to focus on the extreme elements as a way of undermining the whole notion of impeachment - i.e. it's just something the "radicals" want.
They don't focus on "mainstream" people who are calling for impeachment - and they are legion- because they know that far too many people would identify with them and start calling their Congressional reps asking: why haven't you done something yet?

Which is why I see this "movement" as counter-productive. People don't want to be associated with the tactics.

"You can't control what other people do." No kidding.

That is part of the problem with our government today, and shame on him.

On another note, I support the "impeachment movement," but I don't support those inserting themselves into the front of the line.

Is he just a dude with a blog?

I'm not impressed somehow.

As I've said, civilly stated criticism is preferable to name calling on either side.

I want the world to know that I want the Iraq war to end and that the only ways to do it are not offering any funding and impeaching the war criminals starting with Dick Cheney

and if I had the balls to quit my job and move to DC so I could protest and seek redress every day or even run for office I would do it

but alas all I have the balls to do is make phone calls post web messages and contribute to candidates who are willing to stand up for the constitution no matter what the consequence for 'the party' is

wasn't that a TV show in the 70's?

Then I won't care. But until justice is served for the most grievous of all crimes, I want impeachment, and I will take it any way I can get it.

interesting ad hominem, and quite ironic, actually.

I thought calling a woman he disagreed with "bitch" was truly hilarious.

need I addd.....

:sarcasm:

:)

Interesting that bit of "ad hominem" is allowwed to stand.

:shrug:

Oh, and for chrissakes -- don't think you're going to impress me by telling me that you'll take this site off your bookmarks. As you know, my heart has not been in this work for quite a while, primarily because I feel nothing but contempt for most of my readers. I'm the only blogger whose heart sings when his stats go down. If I wanted to make money from this site, I'd turn it into a forum for trannyism and Pelosi-hate. I'd never miss an opportunity to get on the radio and scream that both parties are the same and Hillary voted for the Iraq war and ran drugs for the contras and something something Clinton Bush Mena something something.

Go figure... :shrug:

Cindy Sheehan is ove-reacting to a problem that's real: we have a criminal White House and virtually none of our elected representatives give a damn enough to do anything about it.

All we need is a few of our leading elected officials to say publicly that they think Bush has committed numerous crimes for which he ought to be impeached, if proven guilty.

Not complicated. If its shown for certain that he's committed crimes, he should be out.

Ted Kennedy could say it. Hillary and Obama could say it. John Kerry could say it. But instead, we get nothing. Not a peep.

We need men and women of stature to join the cause of justice, instead of the cause of self. Then, and only then, will the numbers start moving in our favor. Right now, impeachement is seen as a fringe cause. Where are all the patriots who love America???

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

all these people changing their minds just to spite her.

btw, Who the hell is Joe Cannon?

:)

Like most of his views, he makes them based on whether he'd like to be friends with the people who espouse them. Then he attacks the other side with venom bordring on psychosis.

Anyone who calls a gold-star mother "an attention-seeking bitch" has lost all credibility as a writer and a human being. What a pathetic piece of crap this guy is.

"My decision was based not on any improved opinion of Bush and Cheney, but on my disgust with the pro-Impeachment movement, which has been taken over by a weird coalition of progressive purists and "Libertarians." (I guess that's the new term for what used to be called "John Birchers." "Libertarian" used to mean something different.) They seem to hate the Democratic Party more than they hate the Republicans, so f*ck 'em."
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

You tell 'em, Joe!

Ask yourself: how many Democrats, without blogs, are quietly thinking the same thing?

that want Impeachment - some in higher places than you might think.
What are the poll #s now on impeachment? How many of those who want it are Republicans?

They want a return to the gilded age of the robber barons. Cindy chose to cast her lot with them.

He's changing his views on perhaps THE critical issue facing us because he doesn't like the tactics of people who agree with him. Isn't that just about the most childish thing you can think of?

I tend to think that most voters in this country have actually managed to get past their sulky adolescent phase. Joe seems stuck there for life.

Cindy Sheehan is the queen of sulk. She's ONLY attacking people who agree with her, again, over their tactics.

Pot, kettle, and all that.

What an attention seeking bitch.

I said she was sulking and attacking Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers because they won't do what she wants. Same reason she left dailykos. People weren't just automatically agreeing with her, so she left.

her dead son isn't what's motivating her anymore. It's her crypto-libertarian handlers.

Seriously, where the hell do you get off? You don't agree with her tactics? Fine, I'm not sure I do either.

But turning that into some sort of condemnation of motives of which you know nothing and which you understand even less? Now we're off in Ann Coulter territory.

Like no one here is critiquing the motives of Nancy Pelosi or of John Conyers.

Why are they fair game, but Cindy isn't?

Fine, I don't know what motivates her.
But I DO know she's parroting lines from libertarian wingnuts, and that she has surrounded herself with them.

Both are career politicos and neither of them has as much skin in the game. I'm just asking for a little civility and respect. After all, isn't that why everyone's attacking Cindy -- because they don't feel she's being appropriately civil or respectful? Seems a bit ironic to me.

critiquing her for a variety of reasons, some more valid than others.

My critique is that she appears to have drunk some right-wing coolaid along the way somewhere and is now parroting old rightwing talking points.

My other critique is not about how "civil" or "respectful" she's being, but about whether her actions are helping or hurting. I don't give a damn how rude she is, if she were actually doing something that would lead to a good result. But she isn't.

And if she's going to be running for office and giving interviews on national TV, I'm sorry, but she's a public figure and has as much responsibility for her actions as anyone else.

and why should we care what he thinks?

will all fall into place, even the Dick Cheney will conveniently resign due to health conditions, don't think his last health reports were designed to be nothing more then this anticipated move.