Impeaching Cheney: What the Democratic Leadership Does Not Get

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/impeaching-cheney-what-t_b_71960.html

Sheldon Drobny

Impeaching Cheney: What the Democratic Leadership Does Not Get

Posted November 9, 2007 | 03:16 PM (EST)


The Republican leadership in the House has voted to allow for Cheney's impeachment to reach the House floor. They think that the Democrats would be losers in the impeachment process. It is my position that the Democrats would be BIG WINNERS if they understood the constitution and what the public wants. Below are the positive points that would bolster their position with the media and the voters:



If I missed something, please let me know. My belief is that the Democrats will lose credibility with their base and independents unless they do what is best for our country. This is a fight that they should welcome instead of rationalizing that we are better off waiting until January 2009. That is a strategy that will not work with these guys. The waiting game puts us all at risk of global annihilation.

The American people would rather vote for somebody who aggressively does the wrong thing than for somebody who passively does nothing.

example of that than Bu$h, he is as bad as a President can be yet two terms in office. Republics are still saying the same things about him that helped him get those two terms, and many are still lapping it up like manna from heaven. Strong, resolute, means what he says, stands up for what he believes, not afraid to stand firm, etc.

given to them in 2006. Across the country grassroots democrats at all levels broke their backs working to give the party leaders what they wanted, a majority, in both houses even. It appears to me that the Demo leaders are taking the grass roots for granted, thinking that if they pass some legislation e.g. min wage, school loan help, vet help, etc. which granted is important, that the grass roots would be appeased. But this country has been taken over by tyrants and the grass roots Democrats want action. Action on spying, habeas corpus, Iraq, unfair trade, election stealing, etc. You said it, the leaders don't get it as the polls show. This could affect the democratic turn out in 2008. Will a democrat win in 2008 be better? How would we know based on current performance.

There are only a few possibilities why the Democratic leadership is acting as they are:
One, they are totally clueless, stupid and spineless. I doubt this is the case.
Two, they are part of the conspiracy to turn the country into a dictatorship. I doubt this too.
Three, they are so entrenched in the political game including lobbyist influence, that they feel they are risking their jobs if they do what is right. Bingo, this has my vote. They would rather let the country go to hell than do what is right and needed.

Other than getting elected in 2008, I doubt the Pelosis and Hoyers of the world have anything in common with the value systems of people in the pro-impeachment camp.

Given that the gutless image is both well-deserved and a millstone around their necks, I still think they'd rather be seen as gutless than actually take action that could be perceived as "radical" or "partisan." Problem is, they still think they're fighting over the dozen or so undecideds who haven't already passed judgment on BushCo or on dem spinelessness.

They could claim that patriotism trumps partisanship, although I doubt very many people would believe it. And in fact, the opposite is true, as it has been for decades. They don't give a damn about the country; they just want to keep getting elected.

Agreed that Cheney is the perfect villain and neo-con prototype. But since Pelosi and the rest have most of the same neo-con instincts themselves, I doubt they really want to go after Cheney.

All the facts you cite about no more executive privilege, powers of arrest and seizure of documents, possibility of contempt of Congress charges -- these sound great to us, but the dem leadership wants no part of them. They know that their complicity in enabling BushCo the past seven years would eventually rise to the surface in any serious investigation. So better sham investigations, like the ones Waxman and Conyers have been running, and ignored subpoenas than an attack on the whole BushCo syndicate.

They don't want to end the Iraq occupation; if they did, they'd simply table all supplemental spending bills. It remains true that war is great for business. I'd be shocked if house leadership weren't heavily invested in arms manufacturers and other war profiteering organizations. And if they're not direct share holders, they certainly own substantial amounts of stock through mutual funds.

They have no legislative agenda beyond getting themselves reelected in 2008. These plutocrats don't give a damn about a minimum wage, much less an actual living wage. They don't care about real heath care as opposed to this scam we call a medical system. They don't give a damn about curbing executive branch power, since they think they'll inherit it in 2008. If they had a real agenda, they'd be racing to impeach both Bush and Cheney to eliminate their veto pens. That's not the case, though.

As to other congressional business, these clowns have admitted numerous times that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Plus, there is no other congressional business, unless you count censuring progressive organizations, shutting up one of their own who dares to call Bush a bloody minded war monger, or deciding if the last Thursday in April should be designated National Mayonnaise Day. And again, without getting rid of Bush and Cheney, any business they do conduct that results in legislation will either be killed in the senate or vetoed by Bushie.

So they're just keeping their power dry, plotting and scheming in their usual brilliant ways -- masters of political intrigue that they think they are -- and they'll continue to depend on the combination of suet-headed voters and mass media Hillary coronations to deliver yet another choice of dangerous reactionaries to the people for ratification.

It's really past time for a second party in this country. A third, fourth or fifteenth would be nice, too, but first let's break the stranglehold these corporatist swine and status quo protectors have on US politics.


wp

:applause:

"Democratic leadership" ? = oxymoron, or "moran", as it were!
No spine, no balls (sorry ladies)...no leadership.
Pathetic...that's why I changed my affiliation to Independent after the '04 Kerry cop out. He fell apart like a cheap suit after the Ohio debacle. Sad, but true.

in another thread .

What trial are you referring too? Any trial comes after Impeachment not before. Investigations can be stymied by Chenbey in exactly the same manner he has used for seven years. What will the Democrats do? All Cheney has to say is I'm not releasing anything and if they want it they have to get the Extreme Court to say they can. Anybody here wonder how the Court would rule. Maybe another duck hunting trip with Scalia would happen just before the ruling...First the Congress must vote on Contempt charges against Miers and Hadley and there is no reason to believe those Contempt Charges will pass the Congress and even if they did pass Congress they would only go to the Just Us Dept to carry out if they believe it is warranted. We already know how the Just Us Dept believes, it was them that told the Administration that they didn't have to comply with the subpoenas and I doubt very seriously they would issue against themselves...When criminals run the whole show there isn't much that can be done, that is unless unorthodox methods are used. Congress does have "Inherent Contempt" they could use and issue arrest warrants to be carried out by Sgt of Arms.. They won't though so it is a moot point. This is why they won't initiate Impeachment, they know the Court will rule against them and they will look foolish to the nation. A nation of fools I might add.