"I Can Promise You This: The Democrats Will Never..Pursue the President Even Once He's Out of Office

Wednesday November 28th (interview begins 35 minutes into the show, transcript begins 42 minutes into show)



i respect jonathan turley so much--and i was blown away by this--to me it is disheartening, disgusting, discouraging and infuriating.

i'm sitting here, shaking my head, mulling over all the words i have typed from that conversation--ideas i suspected were true but feared--that the dems don't want to do anything--and wondering what are we going to fu*king do?

where do we go from here?

Politicians don't take risks. If we expect them to do that, that's our mistake, imho.

On the other hand, if a plurality pushes a politician, that's not a risk. That's a mandate.

Something else seems to be trumping the majority.

the insanity. That's what will be done.

A former first lady will NOT pursue investigations against a former president's son and his corrupt administration. That's one of the advantages of dynasties - to cover up crimes of former rulers.
Bill Clinton did it - ended all BCCI and Iran-Contra investigations.
And now the BCCI crowd is donating to Hillary's campaign.
Disgusting!
And Obama, demonstrated his DC insider cred by declaring Bush has NOT committed impeachable offenses. Since Obama could never win the nomination - and his campaign basically helps Hillary - pundits are already speculating she would appoint him to the Supreme Court.

Too bad so many don't. Hillary will get the nomination. By hook or by crook. Carrying on the family tradition.

Ass hole Jerk Offs who don't love this country.

Never mind that Hillary enabled the stolen election to be shoved under the rug.

Well, I guess it is no surprise that in the last three years the numbers of Americans who left here for Canada has shown a 46 % increase. When you can't fix a situation, and you can't even think about thinking outside the box, maybe it is time to go.

where do we go from here?

out to a penned up protest that will be ignored by everyone obviously does not work anymore.

problem is the democratic party leadership assumes they have us, the progressive left, in their back pocket come election time - the Nader fiasco in 2000 is eternally ingrained in our brains.

but what if we threatened to go 3rd party- with all our resources & money- if the PDA for example took a stand against the democratic power-elite & unprincipled leadership- and we said - prosecute for war crimes or we are out?

I'm just so mad that they are going to let this conduct, the torturing, etc- go, giving them a pass.

fuck

get ready for another Republican President; it's that simple.

We gotta take *our* party BACK. :patriot:

you actually understand the past ---

Gore won the 2000 election ---

You have been given "Nader did it!" . . as a scapegoat, keeping you from seeing who
the true betrayers actually were and are ---

Further proof of this is that the DEMOCRATS totally infiltrated the Green Party, keeping
a highly favorable candidate from being nominated in 2004 ---

The Greens are a threat to the Democratic Party and they didn't sit idly by ---
they co-opted the Green Party -- in order to ensure that you had NO choice in 2004 ---

And they will continue to actively interfere with a third party choice ---

The two parties are working together to ensure that you have no other choice but
Dem/Repug ---

Again --- Gore won 2000 ---
The Nader scapegoating worked very well to separate the Democrats from any other
viable choice of parties ---
and to keep you from thinking about WHY the Democrats have done nothing about the
2000 election, the 2004 election --- or computer voting, in general ---
and in that regard, please see: VOTESCAM

This hasn't been going on for only 7 years --- computer steals have been going on
since the mid-1960's. Journalists Ken & Jim Collier began investigating computer
voting in the late 1960's --

If you go to the website you can scan or read their book ---
the result of a 25 year investigation!


Finally, the Dems also poisoned feelings for Nader ---
which have never been anything but highly positive across the nation.
Nader is the man who has educated the public as to corporate-fascism
and other realities of our politics.

You've nailed it!

I voted for Nader in 2000, and have no regrets.

Dems are nearly fucking useless. Even (ahem) progressives (like Wasserman-Shultz, for instance) have turned on us and are protecting the chimp.

It's hopeless, IMO!

that I promised them I wouldn't do it ---

I had campaigned for Nader, in limited ways --

I ran for office twice with the Greens and it's the only opportunity out there now ---

Impossible to do anything with Dems --- though I was a delegate for Brown ---

Americans are just first now talking to one another via the net ---
We've been dangerously non-politically aware ---

Europeans have always known what's been going on ---

The propaganda certainly works well --- we can't even respond to that, evidently --- !!! ????

Weakness among Dems . . . or planned weakness . . .

I say planned ---

They wanted to purge the Republican moderates or at least control them so they would have to vote with the rightwing nutcase power-brokers. They were patient and relentless--and they won. They screwed themselves in the process, because they really are nuts, so once they had power they did crazy things with it, so crazy that even their media lapdogs can't keep the lid on all of it.

But what they did is proof that true believers can take over their own party, if they really work at it. Our problem is that so many of our strong progressives are unwilling to be patient and keep working. They want it all right now, or they will take all their votes and go home.

We won't get everything right now. We can't. First we need an unassailable Dem majority and a Dem president, as well as a strong progressive bloc on the SC. For that we have to hold our noses if need be and vote for whoever is nominated by the Dem Party. Obviously, we should work our asses off to make sure we get a good nominee, but even if the nominee is one any given Dem voter might not prefer, we still need to pull together to elect him/her and to provide a strong Dem majority in both houses of Congress to work with him/her.

But we also need to be running (and funding) strong progressive primary challengers to the DLC and Blue Dog Dems, so our next Dem majority will be a progressive Dem majority. We need to focus on persuading deep pocket liberals to fund media buys and think tanks to perform the same function on our side that Scaife and Murdoch and their ilk perform for the wingnut side.

We need to take back the Democratic party from the corporatists. But that won't all happen in one election cycle, and to refuse to back Dem nominees if they aren't 100% pure won't get us on the path toward regaining control of our party and our country.

:toast: :dem: :kick: :headbang:

but now I feel that so many of the Dem reps in office are working against us that just taking
back the party would take too long --- and then tossing out those in office now --

Think I have to give new consideration to another party --

There was always hope that women and labor could come together ---
but it looks more like labor is being blackmailed by Repugs ---
in NY one of the big unions have now employed Bruno!!!
Front page story today or yesterday in NY Times ---

Most everything has been seriously corrupted and right now -- up is down and down is up ---

We now no longer have "free speech" --- we have "penned up protests that will be ignored by everyone and not work anymore."

When you have convinced your opponent that there is no open door --- they won't see one.

There are still many ways to protest ---

Is the answer to Global Warming really light bulbs?

No -- it's nationalizing our oil resources --- taking them out of the hands of a few private
families -- and putting ELECTRIC CARS on our roads over a five year period ---
Is Gore telling you that?
Does Gore have a lifetime of oil industry support? Yes.

We can protest with our cars --- keeping them off the roads for a 1/2 hour on any given Saturday --- all together.

We can protest with electricity -- turn our lights off for a period of time one day ever
week -- all together.

And many other ways --- corporate-fascism is our enemy -- stop supporting corporations --
use small business.

And I'm sure many other people will have better ideas about protests ---

And -- I also think your ideas about $ are right on target ---
it is what moved Howard Dean along ---

Couldn't have said it better. Clarification: Corporate Fascism is the expression of the problem. That we allow an elite class of plutocrats to exist is the problem.

As I understand it . . .

The revolution happened, prodded by interference with the right to free assembly ---

However, let's be clear that this problem has always been with us --
the Constitution was a great deal about the elite --
and they moved property into the hands of the elite ---
and, the first of elite-welfare program ---

The elite have always known that at some point, "democracy" would be come a threat to them.
They knew also knew it wasn't an immediate threat ---

There's a lot happening --- from Zinn's "People's History" to Chomsky --- who wants to deny
conspiracy/violence in our past -- to the investigators of the deeds of our corrupted government --
Warren Commision, Iran Contra, coups all over the world, BCCI --- understanding of Global Warming -- up to Naomi Wolf and Noami Klein now ---

We need America to wake up faster ---

Step 1: Reject self-defeating prophesy.
It ain't over til it's over. The only time that the declaration "It will never happen" is true is when nobody stands and fights for It. Intentionally or not, declarations of certain defeat say ONE thing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2382566&mesg_id=2386978">Stop fighting.

Step 2. We have the power to help the impeachophobes in Congress to "see the light." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3084238&mesg_id=3085825">Use it.
People are taking on Members of Congress and staffers on face-to-face. They are asking pointed questions and forcing them to acknowledge simple truths and moral principles that directly contradict their "reasons." They are learning how to become more effective citizen lobbyists. There are many ways, large and small, to "move the ball." Pick one. Invent one. Do it.

Step 3. Know what you are fighting for.
When we challenge them to act and challenge their bogus "reasons" for dereliction, our principle goal is to make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns.

But that is not the ONLY goal. If we are unable to wake them up and make them our champions in time, our efforts have other payoffs. As we fight we engage others who are more likely to join future battles. And when we force them to "defend" their dereliction we gather ammo (i.e., their own immoral and assinine "defenses") that primary challengers can use to defeat them.

Step 4. Prepare to cut them off -- but NOT by threatening to go third party. Third party candidates don't scare them. It must be PRIMARY Challengers.
If they fail us this time, when things are so black and white, they make it crystal clear that it is time to find powerful Primary Challengers who know the meaning of an oath.

In some states, there is still time to get on 2008 primary ballots, but even if 2008 deadlines have passed, we can still look for the strongest Democratic challengers we can find to go after House and Senate seats in 2010. A viable challenger who intends to take them on in a 2010 Democratic Primary if they fail to impeach can be a powerful motivator.

I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work. It seems to me that incumbent Democrats are safe from being replaced. I have been active with contacting my congress-critters for many years but see little if any results. In 2006 we replaced republicans with Democrats, which was relatively easy. But my HOR representative has been in office for 30 years and not much hope of unseating him. How responsive do you think he is?

I believe our current system makes it impossible to replace an incumbent within the party. If you know of any examples I would love o here. First you have to find a challenger that is willing to go against the party structure. The party will discourage anyone from challenging an incumbent. They would have to be able to raise lots of money which is easy for an incumbent. What donor will give money to a primary challenger? In CT Lamont bucked the system because he had lots of his own money. The grassroots were for him but the state Democratic organization backed the incumbent. But even he couldn't buck the beltway power. Many top Democrats supported Lieberman over Lamont. The CT grassroots Democrats did their best to replace an incumbent but still lost.

I don't intend to give up, but feel the sooner people realize that threatening to replace an incumbent in the primary is hollow.

Not sayin to stop emails, letters, and calls, but sayin it ain't enough. Must get involved in the local and state Democratic organizations.

The http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/usrepresentative_2008.pdf">filing deadline for a U.S. House candidate to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in California is March 7th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gonzalez">Matt Gonzales is already well-known in her district from the 2003 San Francisco Mayoral race, so the relatively short campaign would not pose a big problem. Given his strong performance (47.2% to Newsom's 52.8%) in the run-off election) he would pose significant threat to her, particularly given the depth and breadth of dissatisfaction with Pelosi within her district.

If Gonzales is not already a strong impeachment advocate, I suspect he could be brought around. Although he ran as a Green, I also think he would be open to running for the Democratic nomination.

Going after Speaker "off the table" Pelosi would be an effective means of telling the Democrats on the Hill "We're writing you off if you don't wake up and smell the coffee." The notion of recruiting Gonzales got a positive response when suggested to impeachment advocates in the area, but I don't know whether or not is being pursued.

I have no doubt that there are strong challengers to be found in every district and state, but we must abandon the shoe-string mentality that seems to dominate "insurgent" politics. We need to seek principled people who have already proven their viability, have name recognition, or deep pockets (or some combination of those attributes). For example, there are celebrities who would make great candidates. If he wanted (and it's not completely outside the realm of possibility) Springsteen could probably take almost any office in NJ. If she wanted to run in Connecticut, Cheryl Howard (Ron Howard's wife) would be a real threat to an incumbent.

Of course, your experience is shared by many, including myself. Your conclusions have merit. Over the decades, people have been pushed out of their own game. The "professionals" have been running the show and they are VERY protective of their turf. But that is breaking down, and breaking down fast. Contrary to beltway blather, it's not some "left v. right" divide within the Democratic Party. It's "insider v. outsider"; "weakness v. strength." The people who are getting engaged just don't fit the "left" or "progressive" or "moderate" or "conservative" boxes the establishment seeks to stick them in. The old guard's grip on the levers of power within the Party is being challenged, particularly as Independents and Republicans look to the Democratic Party for sanity.

Howard Dean's Presidential campaign was a compelling demonstration of people-power that kicked off a virtuous cycle of hope --> action. As Trippi put it to Dean:

The people are coming to this thing. And whatever we do, they take it and make it better. It's their campaign now. We're at a point where, if this is going to work, it's going to be because of them. All we have to do now is have faith in them. . .

People jumped in and were effective. As more and more outsiders -- insurgents -- demonstrate their effectiveness, others are being attracted. We all have basic need to be effective and an increasing number are finding ways to fulfill that need in the realm of politics. We also have a need for autonomy. As the politics of manipulation took over -- a politics where voters are treated like pawns, not independent actors -- many turned off and opted out. That's turning around and many are refusing to be manipulated. They are pushing the people they sent to the Hill to actually fight for what they want, not for the crumbs the "professionals" have decided they can get. There are many signs that the vicious cycle of alienation is becoming a virtuous cycle of engagement.

The effort to make impeachment a reality is so crucial because as we seek rescue our Constitution we are also declaring our own power and rejecting the lunatic "conventional wisdom" crafted by DC consultants, pundidiots, and the like. As I noted in my previous post, the fight itself, whether or not we "win", can yield big payoffs that can take us to future victories.

Perhaps I'm full of hot air, but I see people taking hold of the existing levers of power within the Democratic Party. I've concluded that continuing on that path is a far more effective way to move forward than to seek to create a parallel, competing Party infrastructure.

We do need to seek to break free of the two-party, winner-take-all system in which "lesser evil" candidates are offered up by a moribund establishment, but we cannot build on lies. We need to establish a foundation of truth and confront fact that we allowed the USA to become a War Criminal nation. Impeachment now is the most direct, and easiest way to deal with the truth as a nation. There are other ways (e.g., Impeachment in absentia by a future Congress).

Once we are back on solid ground, I think our best shot of escape from two-party politics is to make instant runoff voting a reality (starting with lobbying our State Democratic Parties to implement it in our primaries). As voters are exposed to it, they are likely to see the sense of running general elections in the same way. Instant run off voting would enable us to establish viable alternative Parties and run candidates who are committed solving our common problems in ways that reflect our values. Winners would know EXACTLY where their votes came from and what priorities those votes represent. (And the "professionals" are likely to be surprised at how far the electorate deviates from the profile and pigeon holes they've come up with.)

There are of course circumstances where it makes sense to run an independent. Gonzales running for Mayor as a Green made sense because the Republican had virtually no shot of winning in SF. Even within the current system an independent could mount a pseudo-instant-runoff campaign. For example, someone like Rocky Anderson could run in the Presidential election as an independent, but make the commitment to drop out and endorse the Democratic candidate if either he or the Democrat didn't achieve at least a 6 point margin over the Republican in key states by date X. (A margin that should put those key races outside the reach of Republican election thieves).

and obviously members of the party not raising hell ---

I think I have to say there is such an overwhelming BETRAYAL that
I'm rethinking the idea of "saving" the party ---

vs starting a new party ---

It would take too long to oust the leadership and the followers ---
too many of them ---

Also --
We don't have a lot of time . . .
fascism and Global Warming are closing in on us ---
and it's just new opportunities to make money for this crowd ---

Hard to understand, I know, but none of this is about what 'makes sense' . . . . !!!
If it was, we'd already have Instant Runoff Voting ---
we'd have responded to global warming ---
we'd have electric cars on the roads ---
we'd nationalize our oil --
We'd have national health care for all --
NO -- this is about POWER and SUICIDAL GREED ---

WE continue to try to make sense of things ---
and that's where we keep coming up with the wrong answers --
Just concentrate on corruption, propaganda, violence and suicidal greed for power/money ---

As Naomi Klein is making clear, these are psychotic people ---



Further --
Re Howard Dean's campaign --- it was, of course, his message ---
and the fact that competition sucked --- yet Kerry got it --- !!!
BUT I THINK IT WAS THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ MOVING TO DEAN WHICH SHOWED
THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE ---

And, yet, they were able to use the MSM -- to entrap him --- and end all that hope and optimism.

Ridiculing a candidate depowers them ---

IF it's not immediately and strongly responded to --- and
evidently Dems don't have the will or the intelligence to respond --- ????


LOVE IMPEACHMENT . . . WANT IMPEACHMENT . . .
DEMS HAVE HAD ALMOST A YEAR NOW AND THEY DON'T WANT IT ---

Biden now promises that if Bush invades Iran, he'll push for impeachment --- !!!

What about invading a soverign nation in Iraq and killing 2 million people ??
Wiretapping --- warprofiteering --- corruption of government --- bankrupting of the Treasury?
That's all OK??? It may be OK with these Dems -- but it's not OK with me!


Okay . . . so I'm saying that at this point, with what I see as too little to salvage in the Democratic party --- and with the extent of betrayal by Dems that I sense . . .
I vote that we try to create a new party ---

and since the committed fraud while using OUR money, what is to stop a committee and hopefully a ground swell of citizens pursuing this ourselves. Who said the congress were th only ones with the authority to investigate and arrest.

If a criminal incitement is filed by private citizens, and they have attorneys to back it up....why dint' we ask someone in the know....Any ideas.

They have committed massive fraud using OUR money.

So how do we proceed to 'file criminal indictments' against our public officals outside of the congressional framework?

At one point I had thought an eviction proceeding against bush filed in DC Housing Court for serious and repeated violations of the lease

with this conversation ---

We need more discussion of it ---

Turley, I have heard in other conversations, doesn't believe what he is seeing in right-wing
court decisions!

We may actually have a situation where we come close now to Nuremberg laws --- !! ???

Think of the unbelievable and outrageous SC decision for Bush --- !!! ???

And the decision for Cheney energy's antics -- !! ???

On the POSITIVE side . . . we also saw that Bush's own appointees in the Justice Department --
the AG's weren't corrupt enough for what he wanted to do --- !!!

So I'm hopeful we're not there yet ---

up to their f******** ears. If we can't take the party from the bastards running it, then we need to try something else.

Time for tea in the bay.

we BET BACK OUR VOTE!

Nothing will get done until we have a verifiable, uniform election system. I don't care who's running for office, the ones that will get in are the ones the power elite want to get in office to protect their sorry asses.

The Achilles Heal to the elite one-percent - one man's vote.

There's a reason 50% of eligible voters gave-up on the system a long time ago. If our elections were fair, we would have had peace, health care, jobs, clean energy, real education, affordable housing, freedom, and most of mankind's dreams answered long ago.

There's also a reason we're not hearing this on the M$M either.

It's their Achilles Heal. They'd have to fess-up as to how do you miss a story like this? And then a whole bunch of embarrassing questions come out.

Believe that this is what this country has been fighting for since the beginning. But never forget this, at the time the writers of the Constitution and Bills of Rights wrote them, only land-owning, men could vote and it wasn't until recently that people of color and women got the vote and all along the way those that think only white, male land-owners should still be the only ones who's vote should count have been in charge of seeing who's vote gets counted, or who's doesn't.

There have been some brief moments where the dream of one-person one-vote poked through and some good things were done. But that has all but been buried by the depth of the corruption. But if anything is going to draw the lines in the sand as fast as anything else - it's this. If we are to "throw the bums out" the FIRST thing we have to do is demand fair elections. And DON't depend on someone else to fix the problem - it's up to everyone that cares about what's happening to DO SOMETHING! Beyond writing letters, calling and typing away we need to volunteer to be poll watchers, physically go to the people in control of the of the elections and demand answers, demand that E-voting end NOW! Ask for public records. These things MUST be done or the only way things will change is for the worse.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130__22uncounted_3a__the_new.htm

please read about it at the website ---

This was a 25 year long investigation --- beginning in the mid-1960's -- by journalists
Jim & Ken Collier --- of the computer steals.

Their book can be scanned or read at the website ---

This is more than 40 years of steals, folks --- !!!

THEY know we have stolen elections, but they're not hurting in the way we are because of them.
THEY know what should be done, but they're not going to do it ---

THIS thread is about Democratic BETRAYAL ---

PLEASE SEE: VOTESCAM WEBSITE

Jim & Ken Collier were journalists who investigated computer voting fraud beginning
in the late 1960's --- YES . . . IT'S BEEN GOING ON THAT LONG!!!

They investigated computer election fraud for 25 years ---
and published a book which you can scan or read at the VOTESCAM website ---

These steals didn't begin in 2000 --
though it was the noisiest of the steals ---
They began long, long ago --

Because these are people who cannot win honestly ---
it takes theft, lies, and assassination ---



As for a "point of leverage" . . . all the opportunities seem to benefit the rightwing --
but something may present itself --- keep thinking on it.

We have to depower corporations for one thing ---
that's for sure!

shitting on the living room carpet, or even look at the pile.

"they protect their own and parties mean very, very little. They’re all denizens in the same city and it’s about power."

History shows over and over and over that there is only one, inevitable, answer to this age old dilemma and at some point a critical mass of people will realized there never was any alternative.

the corrupt government. Heck, if they can do it in Georgia and Ukraine, why can't you?

I am willing to bet it would draw voters of all stripes, and become a majority force, larger than the remains of either of the two big ones.

abjectly depressing information I've learned in months. I feared it to be the case but censored
myself for being too cynical.

In this day and age, there is no such thing as being 'too cynical.'

I am sick at heart.

I think that the painful truth is that you have to vote out of office the people you hoped would impeach but have heretofore refused to. Disgusted democrat voters need to throw all their weight to a third party nominee to show that they're serious about removing anybody and everybody from office who doesn't maintain high American principles.

Vote for Ron Paul -- it'll annoy both the Republicans and the Democrats.

And the real truth -- not quite as painful or self-defeating -- is that, while they may be accomplices today, that says nothing about what they could be tomorrow. We actually DO have the power to help the impeachophobes in Congress to "see the light."

Certainly, if they fail us this time, when things are so black and white, they make it crystal clear that it is time to cut them off -- that it is time to find powerful Primary Challengers who know the meaning of an oath.

Whether or not we make impeachment a reality before the 110th Congress adjourns, as long as we keep challenging them to act, and keep tearing down their bogus "reasons" for dereliction, we win. Either we wake them up and make them our champions, or we force them to "defend" their failure, and in the process gather ammo (i.e., their own immoral and assinine "defenses") that primary challengers can use to defeat them.

More on that in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3084238&mesg_id=3085825">this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2382566&mesg_id=2386978">call Bullshit!

Then keep doing what you are probably already doing -- i.e., directly and persistently challenge bogus "reasons" (rationalizations) for refusing to impeach wherever you find them. Our so-called "leaders" may be accomplices today, but that doesn't say a thing about what they could be tomorrow. More on that in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3084238&mesg_id=3085825">this post

f******* lesser of evils bullshit. It is better to let the fascist have it now than to delay it a few years. The sooner we jump to fascism the sooner it might be possible to get the country ready to fight. If we go slow, it may be harder to recover.

let's get ready to rumble.

The only thing that will wake up the masses is to let the Right do what they always do: create a huge mass of subsistance workers while they amass great fortunes.

Low wage workers can only pretend to be rich for so long before the ensuing credit debt crushes them, right?

a second revolution is needed. Just remember the first one took many years.

"That’s part of the whole beltway mystique--is that they protect their own and parties mean very, very little" Uhm...isn't that the opposite of what happened with the Clinton witch hunt and impeachment?

Nice "sneaky trick" with the extra "l" there- no doubt that'll TOTALLY
throw the posse off of yer trail! :rofl:

For one, the MSM were working on sinking Clinton even without his penis ---
And, in my observations, the Democrats are afraid of the MSM ---
In this case, the MSM are protecting, aiding and abetting Bush ---

PLUS the rightwing have violence on their side --- and it's frequently used.

Finally, Clinton wasn't going to be able to declare martial law ---
if that's a true rumor about Bush vs Dems ... ????

basically, he's saying there is very little difference between the dems and the pigs. They both put themselves and their goals above the Constitution and the good of the country. No wonder no nuts swaggers like he does. He knows they won't touch his syphlitic ass. What a sorry bunch of quizlings we have here. Fuck you, Nancy Pelosi.

wasn't protesting it at all --- wasn't challenging it ---
in fact, she sounded more or less like she felt it could be likely.

Randi has changed a lot --- there was a point before all these betrayals when
she would not have entertained strong challenges to Dems or the leadership.

I think her military background continues to keep her very aware of the real
atrocities that both parties are allowing to continue in Iraq ---
and the harm continue re our service people, for one thing.

She's also aware of blackmail possibilities . . .
I don't know how strongly --- she mentions them from time to time.

Hello orleans, thank you for this.

:(

I really hope he's wrong on this, but I fear he's probably right.

:banghead:

k&r

TO THE BARRICADES!

They both will pass Carter in stature, I'm sure.

Crimes of the Century...and they got away with them!

Cocksucking motherfucking sons of BITCHES!!!!

Damnmit!!!!

Oh, Christ, maybe it is time for term limits... get these SORRY gutless powermongers OUT OF OFFICE!!!

*our* side has a conscience (and granted, some actually do) but when bush can get away with murder--literally!--and *our* leadership stands by, watching it happen, and turns their collective back on america ... then what? who do we depend on or turn to when there is no one for us to depend on or turn to?

and as far as term limits go--can you imagine yourself voting to end your cushy career? term limits will never happen either.

Term limits is one. A multi-party system via instant runoff voting is another.

Frankly, it's reached the point where I think all any democratic candidate has to do to win, including Mike Gravel, is simply say that, if elected, he will fully investigate the Bush Administration and bring them up on charges as needed.

Hear that, Dennis, John, Hillary, Barack? hint hint hint hint hint!!!!!

...who have betrayed democratic (small "d") principles and, by extension, the Constitution they swore to support and defend. And we can also impose term limits by voting for progressive challengers in the primaries and, hopefully, the general election -- except in those rare cases where the incumbent is actually representing the will of his/her constituents.

Let the rest of the useless pricks raise all the money and buy all the TV time in the world. Then, on election day, let them learn that the people have seen through all their canned crap and phony sloganeering and have decided to fire their miserable asses for gross incompetence and consistent failure to represent voters' interests.

Formalizing term limits on the state and local level isn't a bad idea either, but here's the weird thing: Last time I remember term limits being a big deal politically was maybe 2002 or possibly 2004. Something like 13 states had initiatives on their ballots to impose term limits on their state politicians (since states can't trump about federal law, they couldn't place term limits on federal office holders, although they would have loved to).

Anyway, term limits passed in all these states. Simultaneously, all incumbents were reelected in all states where term limits initiatives were on the ballot. Which says to me these voters are either a) thick as a railroad tie, or b) think everybody else's representatives are bastards, but love their own. Better the devil you know than the one you don't?

So given that kind of schizophrenia at the ballot box, we need to get a little more serious about imposing term limits ourselves. We also need to get more serious about putting forth viable progressive candidates for the primaries who can actually beat the entrenched slime creatures who wear the "D" but usually vote with the "R's."

And unfortunately, in this insane bribocracy, that means we need to give them lots and lots of money to buy name recognition, TV spots, subsidize their travel and phone bills, pay for some full-time staffers, print flyers and mailers, establish and maintain a web site, and all the other crap you need to run a campaign these days.

Ultimately, it's well worth the money, imo. You invest a couple of hundred dollars and some of your free time in challenger A, who manages to unseat entrenched slime creature DINO B, the same thing happens in Congressional districts across the country, and suddenly progressives are a major force in American politics and you're represented by somebody who believes in single payer health care, a living wage, an immediate end to the Iraq occupation, hunting down BushCo to the ends of the earth and extraditing them for trial here or to The Hague, repealing all BushCo's fascist, repressive, unconstitutional legislation, eliminating all illegal surveillance of all people in the US, citizens or not -- and all kinds of wonderful things that would never have happened as long as the entrenched slime creatures held their seats.

That's serious return on investment, and that's exactly the way corporate swine have gamed the system to get all their regulatory and taxation needs met through the undying loyalty of their bought-and-paid-for employees in Congress and the executive branch.

Sure it's revolting; politics is revolting on many levels. But if you live in the world capital of limitless, unregulated campaign dollars flowing from corporate coffers into the pockets of their official corporate apologists -- if you live in the world's leading bribocracy and you see the model actually works time after time after time... you'd be a damn fool to act any other way.


wp

Rewarding neocon enablers with votes only encourages more enabling. I'll vote for progressives and damn the DLC.

the 47 Blue/Bush Dogs as I type. There is a tree on the cover of the card and I put stickers spelling S O N beside the tree....TREEson! Get it?

On the inside I wrote and stickered (in caps): Blue DOG ______,
Stand UP(arrow pointing up) 2 W's TREEsonous BEEhavior! Use these BALLS (round Xmas ornaments) HAND (and) STARt impeachment now!

I really think the Progressives of the Dem Party need to focus on these 47 conservative Blue/Bush Dogs in the House. And of course we have same problem in the Senate...Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Mikulski, Bayh, CASEY (what a fuck), McCaskill, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Lincoln, Pryor, Salazar(another ass), and Webb.....all of these Senators voted for FISA AND censuring MoveOn. So we might want to send them a Holiday card as well saying we will find a real Dem to run against them in a primary.

and occasionally saying here. Run progressives against them in the primaries. Even if the incumbent pulls a Liberman and runs and wins as an independent, at least he's not calling himself a democrat anymore.

What I've been told is that the party machine never allows this to happen. If that's the case, I'm not sure how Ned Lamont managed to pull it off.

most important, he had access to $$. His and his wife's. She is a venture capitalist and has done very well.

I love Ned. I hope the people of CT are kicking themselves for voting for Lieberman.

What you said.

unless our votes are COUNTED! Which they aren't.

Do you really think bush won the 04' election? The 2000' election? With the turn-out for the 06' elections there should have been a HUGE land-slide victory for progressive candidates and these pricks would have already been impeached, but instead we were denied. And the 08' elections will be worse. Don't think for a moment that these bastards didn't learn from their mistakes and are doing everything, will pull every dirty trick they can, to make sure that our votes get skewed again.

So we can vote till we're blue-in-the-face - it won't mean a thing. Fix the vote - we fix everything!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130__22uncounted_3a__the_new.htm

Just as my post was based on somewhat wishful thinking, so is the underlying supposition that election fraud is somehow addressed, the machines are decertified, we go to paper ballots, voters get ballot copies and receipts, the originals are hand-counted precinct by precinct, results are posted on each precinct's doors, the ballots are transported under armed guard to the county seat or state capitol for another hand count, those results are tabulated against the individual precinct figures, any discrepancies are flagged and investigated by an impartial (if such exists anymore) election commission. Same for ballot measures, initiatives, local races, etc. All issues, no matter how relatively trivial, are subject to the same scrutiny.

Oh, and voter intimidation, vote switching and all other elements comprising election theft are now federal crimes carrying a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole. Prisoners to be housed in the general population at Leavenworth or some similar hellhole; no Club Fed for these bastards.

Kucinich has a very detailed plan to deal with election theft on his web site, which of course I can't find at the moment. But last I saw, it looks much like the above list, with the exception of the last item.

Cleaning up elections also means the end of voter caging, voter roll purging, racist profiling, understaffing in democratic precincts, involvement of wingnut Federalist Society judges and the rest of the ugly litany of criminal practices the GOP uses to hold onto power when fair elections in 2004 and 2006 would have buried them in the blackest depths of the nearest landfill, where they so richly deserve to be. And 2006 would have dumped another million tons of garbage over them had the Dems not started about 4 million votes in the hole.

So yeah, you're absolutely right that nothing works without clean elections. And the Holt bill that recently cleared the House (Senate too?) is a piece of shit that does nothing to clean things up, but does ensure that Diebold, EDS and the rest can continue to make money while electing ever more GOP slime creatures.

Now it's back to Pollyanna land, where the birds are chirping, the bees are buzzing, the goats are frolicking and there's nobody named Bush or Cheney in any position of political power whatsoever.

Good comments and thanks for weighing in.


wp

These computer steals have been going on for more than 40 years ---

Journalists Jim & Ken Collier investigated this beginning in 1960's . . .
25 year investigation ---

You can scan or read their book and understand how they became aware ---
at the website

D Democratic Party won't let us do it. I have thought like you for many years but have come to realize it won't work. Incumbents can not be replaced within the party. No one will run against them. And if they do the big D party will support the incumbent. The closed club in Washington DC sticks together. Lieberman is a great example. The big f**** D party supported joe all the way in the face of the CT Democratic voters. Maria Cantwell had a anti-war candidate run against her in the primaries. Guess what happened? She literally bought him off. Hired him onto her staff. The big f*** D party will al-f******-ways support the incumbent.

It *sounds* like a good idea, it *is* a good idea in theory, but right now (from my observation of election reform & fraud news) it seems it is being used mostly as an excuse for pushing the paperless electronic voting machines, which are at least as much of a threat to our democracy as the above.

He is the only one is calling for accountability. That is the reason why they all try to marginalize him.

#263 in this thread. We have to take back control of Congress. At least the HOR. It is supposed to represent the common folks but once they get in they forget us and know we can't do anything about it. They are all rich and have very little connection with us commoners.

Hard to find #263 --- took a while ...

Yeah -- I didn't read all of the recommendation ---
I'll go back and look again if I can find it again ---

But, you'd have quite a battle for Nancy's seat ---

and I think that still ignores the presence of the DLC --
which is poison and has been poisoning the party for how long now --- ??? 15 years?
or more ???

Gore and Clinton co-founded it ---


And --- we obviously have way more than leadership betraying us ---

too many betrayers ---

I've got to start rethinking the move to another party --- a new party --- maybe?

It's got to be something swift and all at once ---



Here's my reply to #263 . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2382566&mesg_id=2392944

Scratch him off your list, will 'ya?

The corruption of government has continued on unabated since the coup on JFK ---

Whether that was a grand betrayal in not responding to it by Dems . . .
or whether they were unable to at the time --- all hell broke loose afterwards ---

and certainly our "free press" were in there playing the game with the new powers to be!!!

Right next to the place where people who drown kittens are.

Regardless, though, the longer a person is in Washington, the longer their political career, the more hooks get into that person.

A turnover rate of 20% or so, maybe a smidge higher, is probably ideal. We don't get that very often. I think it's typically less than 10%, thanks to the gerrymandering.

It's not the solution, it's part of the solution.

I agree.. "Cocksucking motherfucking sons of BITCHES!!!!"

Yeah, it must be really "cool to have power".

noticed, they are in power. And there ain't nothing you can do.

Our Founders fought a throne and won ---

I wouldn't count us out on this yet ---
and there are many ways to depower corporations ---
which are dependent upon all of us for their existence!!!!

There are many ways to protest without standing with a sign in a barricaded/penned up area.

We can act and work together to protest peacefully --- in meaningful ways ---

Australia has a lights-out movement --- it's environmental, but . . .
could be adapted ---

We have cars and can create actions around them ---

And whatever other commodity exists or service --- we can protest ---

Don't give you Social Security number to banks or others ---

Seems to only work for Repiglickans.

They sure didn't do that when Clinton was in office.

How is it that "parties mean very, very little" to the Democrats in DC, but not the Repiggies, who are as partisan as ever?

It is because the Democrats are being threatened and/or blackmailed.

What do you THINK they were doing that they couldn't even let the FISA court know about?

Maybe it is time to grant a one time amnesty to all Democratic representatives. Tell them to publicly confess all of their sins. We as voters will forgive them for anything except murder and high-treason--just this once. With their sins confessed and our forgiveness, bushco will no longer have anything to hold over them and they can get on with impeaching the real murders and traitors.

Of course, part of me would like to think that some of the supposed threats have less to do with personal scandal and more to do with world safety. Perhaps, the BFEE have threatened nucular annihilation.

Think back to what a kitten Dianne Feinstein was when she got off AF1 after that little look a the fires with bushco.

They handed her a file (possibly on husband?) and she did not look out the window at California burning. Bet on it.

If they can't be bought, they probably can be blackmailed. If they are so clean that won't work, they can be threatened.

Wire taps ARE for security; but not America's nor American's security. Wire taps, and everything else done the past few years, has been done for the security of the top one-half of one percent.

The Bush gang, I suspect, has made it clear that the Democrats in Washington will be tortured if they step too far out of line.

and I'll take Turley's word for it that most Dems don't feel this way, just some in leadership.

with JFK.

We're waiting more than 45 years --- !!!

MLK -- a conspiracy found by jury and almost none of the public knows that ---
See: Wm. Pepper

RFK -- evidence is overwhelming that it was a political murder ---
probably conducted by CIA operatives

This is how Hitler came to power and held on to it --- political violence ---
kill your enemies before they can rise to do you harm ---
and finally the violence will keep the masses in control ---

...these people are "intoxicated" by power. Most of our Congressional members (Dems and Republicans)
are people who lack something in their soul---and they seek control and power to compensate for their
weaknesses. These are not healthy people. Most of them are probably very dysfunctional--with an abuser mentality.

Look at how they treat the American public. We are their victims. They use us to get elected
and butter us up with campaign promises and lofty speeches--then they ignore us, meet in their back
rooms and laugh their asses off that they had to spend time meeting the grunts beyond the beltway.

They lie to us. They waste our money. They're destroying our democracy and taking away our civil
rights. They're torturing people and bankrupting our nation. They gutted the FDA so much
that more people die from drug side-effect--since the installation of the FDA. Why do
children's bibs and toys contain lead? Because the Consumer Protection Agency
is run by people who cater to the corporations and ignore our precious children.

America is frickin gone. These politicians--WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO US--have abused us seven ways
to Sunday--while repeatedly lying to us and feigning interest in our well being.

We've all noticed by now--that abusers with power act reckless. Power gives them a false sense of invincibility
and they begin to lose all sense of reality as they seek out situations that bolster their power high. Ever wonder why so
many of them are caught molesting children? Child molesters do not molest for sex. Child molesters molest because
they get off on powering up on the weak and manipulating others. Why do so many pontificate about
religious platitudes and stand against gay marriage--while they tap dance in bathroom stalls? It's not
just hypocricy. They get off on leading a double life because they love the manipulation and the deception.
Controlling an entire country, while engaging in behavior that you prevent others from doing--fuels the power high.

We are all being abused...and they enjoy every moment. Fully functioning, healthy, altruistic
people are not powermongers who live life drunk on power. It's a sick existence.

The current state of our shredded democracy is a consequence of these extreme dysfunctionals
remaining in power for so long.

:(

the corruption is so extensive that they can't even rely --- as we saw with Justice Dept
whistleblowers --- on their own Repugs keeping covered up!

I'm just waiting for the anti-impeachment/party purity brigade to turn up and rake Turley over the coals for bashing the Dems.

corrupted by power, but I suppose most of them may be. And there may be some other reasons mingled in. But you know what? I don't give a shit. Let's keep banging the drums, and even louder. They hope we'll get disgusted and tired and give up, but we have to keep hounding them until we see cracks in the wall. It is up to us "masses" of pitchfork weilding commoners to see that the criminals are stopped. They are attacking US every minute that ticks by as we watch them commit these unforgivable atrocities against our Constitution. They have to hear us again and again until we actually strike some fear into what's left of their conscience. They are still replacable by others who are not corporate owned.

You either play by the rules or you're marginalized. Kucinich is a good example, although there are others less known. More often than not, good intentions are eventually eroded by the desire to get something done for your constituents so you stand a chance of being re-elected...and to do that you have to compromise your principles and play ball.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is the rare exception, not the rule.

Dodd will restore our civil liberties if he is elected. Both of them have stated that they will. I don't know whether Obama will, but I think there is a good chance he will.

Has Hillary stated whether she will restore our civil liberties? I find nothing on her website on this. Bill Clinton's administration allegedly pushed the Europeans to end their protections for the privacy of electronic communications according to a German website that I read. What does Hillary say about our restoring habeas corpus, etc.?

during the Clinton years already. I thought he introduced it, but I'm not sure.

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

Because he's a Democrat, it's no big deal?

It's not necessarily the same thing ---

after thefact? Really? In your dreams.

them all too quickly. Power is corrupting.

Remember when he was so outraged by Clinton's lies about his sex life and was so hot for impeachment?

I don't know. Maybe that shows consistency and respect for principle. But I thought he was pretty ridiculous for being so outraged by Clinton's sins. And I'm not a particular booster of Bill Clinton. I thought he was an okay president, that had the potential to be so much more.

a BIG MINUS . . .

to tear the whole thing down and start over again. That's the only principled response. Either that, or just to live as unthinking insects.

Turley is absolutely right, and we have no recourse whatsoever, unless, by some freak accident, a true progressive takes over the White House and appoints an attorney general who will simply bypass Congress by going directly after the neocon fascists out there and indicting, convicting and imprisoning them. Not likely to happen, especially with the voting machines stealing our votes in so many precincts across the country.

IOW, short of an armed insurrection which topples the government and imprisons all the neocon perpetrators and Congressional cohorts and enablers,

WE ARE DOOMED.

I have a 3 year old son who is very bright. I've dreamt of him going to one of the best colleges in America and leading a productive and successful life. But if things don't change drastically and pretty damned soon, there may not be an America left for him to grow up in in that way. And it's my responsibility to put him in a position some day where he can have a productive future. I may be forced, like it or not, to move my family to some European country before long in order to protect him and his future.

After seeing Michael Moore's video clip of the part that was left out of his movie, "Sicko", Norway is looking pretty damned good right now.

Emigration is difficult, even under the best of conditions. When it's forced, and the refugee is forced to a country where (s)he doesn't speak the national language, life is very hard, indeed.

Might be better to stay here, and fight the good fight.

I know. I've prepared hundreds of asylum cases for people from more than 30 countries seeking refuge here in the United States.

America used to be the beacon. It can be again.

But I can dream, can't I?

I know emigration is difficult anywhere. We've already looked into New Zealand and Australia. I could qualify just about anywhere though based on the fact that I'm not only retired, I'm fairly wealthy, and wouldn't be a drain on anyone's economy.

I don't know that anyone knows really what "good fight" there is left to fight. In an ideal world, we could manage to elect progressives everywhere but I don't see that happening. The power elite in D.C. is so entrenched, it's going to take decades to alter it in any significant way, and the RNC/war profiteering corporations/right wing think tanks/PNAC group/Bush crime family and connections and right-wing corporate media ownership are so entrenched in power right now they seem to control everything and will control just about everything even if they lose the White House. It didn't happen overnight. It happened over decades while everyone else was basically asleep.

I'm just saying that there could very well come a day when this country isn't a safe place for my son to grow up in.

While there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality in Washington, and things move egregiously slow, impeachment is not practicable at present. There aren't enough votes, the freshman Dems are too skittish, and the Republicans are not likely to run away from the most visible symbol of their party. To effect impeachment, we'd have to have a solid investigation that ends in success, and we don't have a strong or large enough majority to even get that off the ground. Lots of blame to pass around for that, but complicity is hardly the only possible cause of the Democrats' frustrating behavior. As others have pointed out, parties do mean something, as the GOP had no qualms about stealing the election, or spending millions to investigate Clinton for eight years and attempt impeachment on top of that. I expect a Reagan-style scenario as far as further investigation after the presidential term, but I doubt W will be as falsely lauded by dumb "historians" as was Reagan.

whatever it ends in. It is the vehicle to expose the crimes of this administration to the public. Even if it did not end in referral to the Senate, and conviction there, it would still serve a practicel, moral, constitutional purpose.

you don't impeach, and then go look for evidence of crimes.

It's the other way around.

>you don't impeach, and then go look for evidence of crimes.

Nonsense. That's EXACTLY what you do. Do you even understand how the impeachment process is supposed to work? Do you happen to remember during the Watergate hearings when Alexander Butterfield spilled the beans about the private recording system Nixon had had installed in the Oval Office? Nobody on the judiciary committee had heard of this before. But from the mouth of a minor White House functionary and Haldeman assistant came that startling revelation, which eventually led to nationwide jokes about the missing 18 1/2 minutes and, finally, the Supreme Court 9 - 0 decision that Nixon had to release all the tapes, despite pleas of executive privilege, which pretty well cooked his goose. So impeachment is an investigation based on evidence or strong indications that a member of the administration has committed one or more impeachable offenses.

If a member of the House suspects that an administration official has committed an impeachable offense -- such as outing a covert CIA operative (treason, or high-treason in time of war) or repeatedly violating the Constitution by ignoring international treaties to which the US is a signatory -- then the House is derelict in its Constitutional duty, as defined by the oath of office, if it doesn't at least submit articles of impeachment to the judiciary committee for its consideration. Note that "consideration" doesn't mean ordering Conyers to sit on them until January 2009.

Comparing impeachment to a conventional prosecution, impeachment is just the equivalent of convening a grand jury, which the ADAs (the judiciary committee), after gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses, hope will result in an indictment. If the grand jury (in this case, the House) fails to return an indictment, then either the jury fell down on the job or the case was without merit. Either way, the House has discharged its duty, since impeachment is the duty, not its approval.

The House returns an indictment, the Senate (which is where the actual trial takes place, with Senators acting as both judges and jury) must then be convinced by the evidence and witness testimony that the crimes in question reached the threshold for impeachable offenses. Regarding impeachment of Cheney/Bush, it's an a posteriori case based on the incontrovertible evidence that they have absolutely demolished Constitutional law in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of instances. If an indictment based on even Kucinich's three articles were taken to trial, it's a slam dunk case.

But remember that to convict, articles of impeachment first had to be introduced, then sent to the judiciary committee, which gathers evidence, questions material witnesses, compels testimony from uncooperative witnesses and so forth, just as in any other criminal proceeding other than those in which the suspect confesses (which is a whole other can of worms). The House then had to return the indictment, saying that the evidence they've heard and seen constitutes grounds to take the case to trial. The Senate then sat in judgment and returned a guilty verdict. All by the book. Or rather by the Constitution.

Failing to impeach doesn't have anything to do with failure to remove a sitting administration figure. But removal is legally impossible without proceeding down the path that begins with introducing articles of impeachment.

In this situation, once there's a public accounting of the numerous crimes this administration has committed against the Constitution and the rule of law, it might turn out that House members and Senators who failed to vote for impeachment would find their jobs in serious jeopardy next election cycle.

So Pelosi's failure to even allow articles of impeachment out of committee does in fact constitute dereliction of Constitutional duty. She swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's pretty unambiguous, and it doesn't sound like it's optional either.

It's not for her to decide the fate of these criminals. It's for her to uphold her oath of office, shut the hell up, quit appeasing these snakes, get out of the way and let the process unfold. Taking impeachment off the table is perhaps the stupidest, most senseless and unlawful capitulation to executive branch power I've ever heard of -- unlawful being the key point. She isn't responsible for interpreting the Constitution, nor is she authorized by law to let political considerations, back-room deals or veiled threats offset her duty. If she can't handle the pressure, she needs to resign as Speaker and return to serving her constituents before they decide to kick her self-serving ass all the way to Oakland.


Thus endth civics class for the morning.

wp

Small cavil: Pelosi is a San Franciscan, not an Oaklander.

But your larger point is very well made.

Yeah, I know. I grew up in The City. I was referring to the wonderful idea that a true progressive would/should kick her ass all the way from her zillion dollar Pacific Heights mansion over to the Oakland Colosseum. With luck, she'd land on second base just as an A's outfielder slams a sizzling line drive up the middle, right past the pitcher's ear, and...

Well, can't get too weird around here.


wp

...to the many people who *do not* understand what impeachment is!

the ass of someone on my "ignored" list.

Impeachment IS EXACTLY to research and FIND OUT THE CRIMES - like bringing an indictment.

THEN, after the impeachment - you go to TRIAL in the SENATE.

Impeachment is ALL ABOUT INVESTIGATING FOR CRIMES COMMITTED.

God - I hate ignorant people spewing crap...

impeachment is like a grand jury indicting.

Bill Clinton had the Starr commission investigate him for years before impeachment was discussed. Nixon was investigated by the Senate watergate committee before impeachment was brought up.

How can they vote for articles of impeachment if they haven't done the investigation yet? You can't vote to impeach without specific charges - and you get the evidence for those charges by investigating first.

I can think of a half-dozen impeachable offences off the top of my head that there's evidence to act on without even trying.

The ONLY reason we haven't seen impeachment is they're protecting their own. We haven't had a representative government in this country for decades. Maybe the last was Kennedy and look what happened to him. Now with E-voting there is NO chance at all that we'll ever get people in office that actually represent the people or have any accountability.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130__22uncounted_3a__the_new.htm

It's the responsibility of the Congress to ENSURE that the legislation they pass is
carried out in the spirit and intent which was intended by Congress ---

So they have a firm basis to move against Bush on signing statements ---

The impeachment process begins with an investigation.

I'm quite certain most of the anti-impeachment crowd here at DU understand this point. Their insistence on denying isn't working.

On edit: Anyone who persists in making this false argument isn't just opposed to impeachment, they're also saying they oppose any investigation at all.

...and remember what the process of impeachment is all about.

And there *will* be a test. Failing it means we've lost our democracy.

...if impeachable crimes were committed.

There's plenty of evidence and we all know it. John Conyers compiled a wealth of information with regard to impeachable offenses. What is missing is the formal, public impeachment hearings (like a preliminary hearing in criminal law) to expose the truth. Whether or not the House then refers it to the Senate for trial, that process would expose the truth to the public!

:applause:

...that he had committed impeachable crimes, and urged him to resign to avoid impeachment (for the good of the party), which he did.

We can't let up. The regime is so entrenched they still have many, many people hypnotized. Impeachment must be pursued vigorously so there is media exposure at all times. We must make sure more and more people get on board and loudly demand action from their Congress before the regime shuts us up completely, or before some catastrophic distraction takes hold of the nation's attention. Time is of the essence.

...to avoid impeachment does *not* make what I've written "patently false." What I've described (and others have eloquently backed up) is the procedure written into the Constitution for impeachment. Many people don't understand that procedure. Many say "Clinton was impeached" without understanding that he was *not* convicted in the Senate trial, assuming they are one and the same.

In the kind of world that existed back in Nixon's time, the Bush Baby administration would have been over a long time ago, too, without a single impeachment hearing taking place. We simply don't have congressional leaders with the will to bring down this criminal administration -- likely because the majority in Congress are complicit with Bushco.

As did the vicious, disingenuous and downright loony Clinton impeachment, but I digress. Nixon's administration was on the ropes from regular ol' investigation, NOT impeachment. How do you square that with your contention that impeachment -is- the investigation? What do you call the televised Watergate committee hearings? They weren't impeachment, therefore in your view they were not investigation. So what were they?

The central truth I'm trying to point out here is that the only successful takedown of an administration in US history began and ended with strong Congressional investigation. It began, proceeded, and ended before a single impeachment hearing took place. How then do you justify your contention that impeachment -is- the way you investigate? The Saturday night massacre, the smoking gun, the destruction of Agnew and myriad other administration officials all resulted from investigation that preceded any impeachment hearing. Only after all this evidence was gathered and aired before the public, when Nixon's admin was teetering, were impeachment articles brought forward. That is when the airing of charges and extant evidence is made, it isn't the investigation itself.

Do you suggest that it would take an extensive *further* investigation, prior to beginning an impeachment hearing, to find *anything* that this administration has done that is impeachable?

On another note, in observing your posts to others, as well as to me, I find you argumentative and unwilling to listen to the opinions of others, as well as unwilling to acknowledge that investigations have *already* been done, and far better writers than I have pointed that there is ample evidence for impeachment, just a stubborn refusal on the part of the House to do it.

"They weren't impeachment, therefore in your view they were not investigation." This is disingenuous. The point of my original post was that impeachment is *not* the trial; that happens in the Senate, if the House refers it.

afraid.

the majority will come after the facts become public and the voters demand it of their Congress members.

They won't have any trouble getting a veto proof majority.

But I am SO tired of the old not enough votes bullshit. If we have to wait on the votes that will be the end of the reupblic, if it isn't over already. But you keep on waiting for the perfect moment to impeach.

Now, we have a public which would support impeachment ---
especially if Bush were connected in any way to 9/11 --- even if LIHOP

without torture and without bankrupting the Treasury --- btw, doesn't that count?
and without eavesdropping ---

When we have sham investigations --- like the WC --- we just get more political violence --
more threats to a people's government --- and fascism moving in on us.

If we don't have investigations and impeachment over this Bush behavior ---
we'll just get more of the same!

If you investigate the corruption in the MSM consolidation like Edwards says he will do, you will begin to put some pressure on the obvious corruption that is overflowing on Capitol Hill.

Once media scrutiny is reestablished, pressure will be brought to bear on members of Congress who ignore the clear evidence of corruption that the MSM unearths and reports.

It takes 'an outsider' to go up against the corporate money and the influence it buys on Capitol Hill. So campaign finance reform is the wooden stake that must be driven through the heart of the corporate controllers.

Once the media is broken up to allow more voices to be heard, and the influence of corporate money is reduced, you can then set about holding members of Congress accountable when they act against the interests of the American People.

THis is not a one term job for the next PResident, but John Edwards could certainly make a good start. And until we put someone in the Oval Office who is not afraid to go after the prior corrupt Administration, we will continue to see the same power and influences resurge in the future.

He talks about all this investigations when elected but can't support impeachment. He even used the same talking points as Pelosi. Al he has are political promises. The only candidate who will send all this criminals to jail is Kucinich and he is already trying to do it through impeachment. All those candidates who does not support impeachment will most likely pardon all these criminals.

Justice for all the 4000 dead soldiers and over million dead Iraqis.

They must have been working on PBS about 30 years . . . !!!

Finally did it!

Nothing but fake programming now ---

And the only way they can control media is by moving it into monopoly ownership --
absolutely no competition from anyone who wants to actually practice journalism!!

...and his minions.

I can't fathom what is wrong with my party.

Hekate

But when we DUers say it, we're called nay-sayers. Oh well.

When they ruled "Geneva applies," it meant that years of war crimes had already been committed. I don't know what Turley's on about in that regard.

His description of a delusional beltway, mad with power, blithely destroying our once-great nation from the core principles up makes more sense. But even he allows that it's really just "some of the democratic leadership."

Which means that things are far less hopeless than he makes them out to be.

Even the most craven DC Dems could be made to see that impeachment offers us an opportunity to unify the nation and reap the myriad of security and economic benefits such unity would provide. (Even the "power mad" want money and safety.)

We can still turn the tide back to Redemption of Our National Soul.

---

Mr. Turley is dead on. Our rulers (both dems and gop) know full well we won't vote them out or rise up and take the streets about this. So they can get away it.

Disheartening but true. This is obvious to any long-term observer of American politics. It's all about getting reelected, and reelected, and reelected and....

Let's face it. Power IS like a drug that makes you feel great. Power is like being wealthy. If you were poor, then struck it rich, would you WANT to go back to being poor? I know I wouldn't. I would do damn near anything to stay wealthy.

It's just like all these celebrities that go off the deep end. If people keep telling you that they love you, you're wonderful, you're fantastic, then eventually you begin to actually believe you really are this way. You can do no wrong. The rules don't apply to you.

I have become numb here and have no hope that justice will be served since the Democrats voted to extend the unconstitutional FISA before they left for summer break.

And, I understand that there are provisions for corporations under FISA ---
if approached to violate, they were to report to FISA ---

So -- as far as I can see, the corporations see the power structure as Bush ---
not the courts . . . ???!!!

While I am thankful for "confirmation of what we already know" I am tired of this country being about it's very wrst instincts. About our beautiful Old American Republic being reduced to the funtion of a tyrant's toilet paper.

And I am SICK of "confirmation of what we already know".

I know totalitarianism in Amerika is boring and mind-numbingly predictable, but I'd like to be surprised sometimes.

And goes a long way toward reminding me why I have always had a general distrust of politicians of all stripes. And why it is so hard sometimes to get myself to vote, because I am so convinced that who I vote for makes no difference, for reasons like this.

"Why aren't the Democrats doing anything?" It's the power. It's always been the power. As Turley, says, it's intoxicating and it makes no distinction of party affiliation. It's a collusion of power and we, the American people, are the stupid suckers who keep paying for these vermin. Virtually every one of these parasites need to be replaced.

maybe we could get real Americans into office, like a mechanic, or a hairdresser, or a nurse, or an administrative assistant -- people who KNOW what it's like out here. Once every couple of months I start a thread urging DUers to run for office. It sinks like a stone every time but it doesn't keep me from resurrecting it every now and again in the hopes that it will gain steam. We don't have to go for the politicians "the party" shoves at us. It's time for average Americans to run for office. Goddess knows they can't do any worse than the leaches we have now.

...that taking the first 535 people from the telephone book would yield not only a far more representative Congress, but a far more enlightened one!

is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. There never was supposed to be "professional carreer politicians". Ordinary people were to come forth, serve their time in office, then going back to being whatever they were.

Again, and I can't harp on this enough, we need to fix the voting system before anything else. Because it doesn't make a bit of difference to anything if our votes aren't correctly counted - and right now THEY ARE NOT!

We fix the vote and all the other problems melt away. That's why we're not hearing about the Election Fraud anywhere. It IS the one thing that would bring the powers that be to their knees. And they'll do everything in their power to make sure we don't have fair elections - unless we STOP THEM! This country has been being hi-jacked for years by rigged elections and it's only getting worse.

How else does one explain that a majority of the people WANT accountability yet the so-called representatives of the people are doing everything in their power to deny the people's wishes? Just who are they "representing"? Not us - that's for sure.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130__22uncounted_3a__the_new.htm

citizen government is what (some of) the Founders intended. I also agree that election reform should be our number one priority. I, however, disagree that if we get the election fraud issue straightened out, that all will be magically OK. It won't. We'll still have special interests shoving candidates down our throats and special interest dollars getting them elected -- regardless of party.

Convincing regular Americans to run is one thing, getting the party to back that person is quite another. The Founders KNEW that political parties were the bane of Democracy and they were right. It's too bad because the parties could actual HELP regain our Democracy. The bad news is that the power-grabbing seen in Washington is duplicated on a smaller scale at the local level within each party. Everyone has their own little fiefdoms and no one wants to give up power. Consequently, they quickly lose sight of what it is they were there to do in the first place. So then it becomes a question of, are the parties actually hindering our efforts and if they are, do we need to rethink their usefulness to the citizenry?

I ran for office (City COuncil) in 2000.

I heard all sorts of criticism from my fellow Democrats. I don't have a master's degree. I don't hold an executive postion. My wardrobe isn't suitable for the bright lights. Etc.

I actually got more support from Republicans who knew me!

And once you are part of this process, you begin to see the area that exists behind the curtain. The people behind the curtain are not any smarter or hard working or deserving than the auto mechanic, or the nurse. In fact, some of them are clueless, but because they have their own personal "Rove" managing everything for them, they are elected over and over again.

Republicans have made it their priamry goal to have their people run for ofice, starting small and going big. And yet we yap on and on about them being in power.But except for the stolen elections of the past eight years - all the hard work of the Republicans to get the local offices is just that - hard work. Their school teachers, librarians, nurses and auto mechanics do run for office.

YOU CAN RUN AS A GREEN ---

And doing just that you can get a lot of info across ---

With the Democrats, they even have the "delegates" pretty much sewn up ---

I did, however, become a delegate for Brown ---

So --- in weighing things --- maybe I've been wrong in thinking of pushing to reform
Dem party --- maybe we do need a new party?

ALL of us together moving to a new party --- at one time --- ???

"They don’t really believe in principle. They believe in power and once they get power I don’t think they’re going to be pursuing principle"

He's talking about some of the democrats as well as the republicans in congress.

and he's right.

oh fuck this is depressing.

I'm thinking John Edwards has the moral fortitude to resist the intoxicating, perverted influence of political power described here and to stand for principle.

but what of our congressional leaders? the Diane Feinsteins and Chuck Shumers.

our system is fucked. just fucked. and I'm disgusted by it all.

the next president will be elected to end the war and fix the economy. Can't do either if the Congress is tied in knots.

That's what many of us on the left have been saying for the last decade and more. There will be no meaningful, sustainable political reform in America as long as the country is divided between two flavors of the same party.

The other theory was that the Dems know that Bush, facing impeachment, would call martial law and cancel 2008 election. (Please I don't have time for link, but I read it on DU; help anyone?)

Now Turley offers this...

Hmmm. Two theories? Or two pieces of one theory?

(Edited to add third explanation)

Of course there's a third, less exciting explanation: that the Dems know they don't have the votes.

...when they haven't even investigated and gathered any evidence yet? That's the first part of impeachment: House investigations. The trial takes place in the Senate after the House finishes investigating and votes to send it on to the Senate based on the weight of the evidence uncovered.

Just like the police pick up law-breakers and present the evidence they find, and the case is either brought to trial or not. The police don't decide before they arrest someone what the chances are of convicting. Neither should the House.

The more that have this knowledge, the better. Our power can outweigh theirs if there are enough who have it. We have to keep putting on the pressure and pray for media coverage from true journalistic patriots like Moyers. But we must stay focused and not let up on the pressure, and we must be creative about our angles.

I don't see that he has ever brought any changes about ---

What he does is repeat what Nader revealed decades ago ---

What he does is put everyone to sleep ---

I remember once there was a lot of foo foo about Betty Friedan's book --
"The Feminist Mystique" . . . and that the French writer, whose names escapes
me at the moment had really done the issue before her --- in her own book --


BUT the difference was that it was Betty Friedan who actually got women up off
their couches and out into the streets, into the schools, into politics -- etal.

Again -- I don't see that Moyer ever changes anything ---
and his background and connections to LBJ are disgusting ---

Pierre Salinger once related that he and Moyers recognized that LBJ was
"clinically psychotic" when he was in the White House .. .

and . . . ????

Read how the Clinton Justice Department tried to cover up wrongdoings by the Bush Regime:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111406.html

--snip--

Clinton’s Justice Department apparently wanted to clear the decks of these complicated historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush years. Clinton found those old controversies a distraction from his goal of focusing on the nation’s domestic needs.
The Clinton administration’s debunking report about Iraqgate had been so determined to see no evil that the Clinton lawyers didn’t even object to the discovery that the CIA had been hiding evidence from them.
“In the course of our work, we learned of ‘sensitive compartments’ of information not normally retrievable and of specialized offices that previously were unknown to the CIA personnel who were assisting us,” wrote John M. Hogan, counselor to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Without further skepticism or curiosity, Hogan added, “I do not believe this uncertainty severely undermined our investigation.”
In other words, the CIA had withheld “sensitive compartments” of information from the Justice Department and – rather than conclude that this concealed evidence might be worth seeing – the Clinton investigators assumed that the hidden “compartments” must not be very significant.

--snip--

It's unlikely Obama or Hillary would because of their DC insider status that Edwards never sought.

if they would commit to a wide ranging investigation of the Bush Administration.


This idea that it would be a distraction isn't going to cut it this time around.

It is the cowardice of Democratic voters, who continue to put corrupt people into office because they are terrified of "losing," that has lost the big picture and the long-term health of the nation.

If Democrats don't like it, they can quit following the corrupt establishment blindly with their votes, and start electing people who won't play along.

For example, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to agree with Turley's statements, and then cast a vote for several of the candidates on the '08 primary ticket.

Why not start right there, and nominate someone who won't play that game? Someone who WILL hold the Bush administration accountable, now and after they've left office?

Something similar that I posted yesterday...

Ever since I found DU in 2004 there were a few common concerns...the integrity of our elections, the lies that lead us to war, the illegal acts of this administration and the loss of our Constitutional Rights and maybe the loss of jobs/wages and the lack of health care.

Dennis finds himself in a unique spot because he voted against the bills that created so many of the problems while many other candidates voted for the bills.

So who should I support? For me the choice is clear.


"If other candidates will not do the will of the people, whose will are they doing?"

Good question!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3775695&mesg_id=3775958

The choice couldn't be clearer.

"It" (I really do know how to spell it, lol) can be any way that we choose, as long as we have the same courage DK does, to keep voting for, and working for, the change we wish to see regardless of the size of the opposition.

"It" can be any way that we choose...

And I just added the "t" in my mind :)

I'm voting for courage this time!

but he'll never get the nomination. Makes one wonder about getting a can of gasoline and a light! I respect Turley and he is probably right about all of this. As for "taking to the streets", unless we do in massive numbers, some of us may end up in one of Haliburton's holding pens. And, yes, that does scare me.

has to decide what he or she can do, and is willing to do. I'm willing to give DK a vote, because that's the direction I want the country to go. If more people had that kind of courage, he COULD get the nomination.

I'm not sure what I can do "in the streets," but I'm willing to direct my votes to supporting those who won't play the game, regardless of their party affiliation. I'm willing to direct my spending towards local and independent business, and locally produced goods, whenever possible. I'm willing to support, with time and $$, any cause that moves us forward.

If each of us will say the same, we can effect change. My small contributions aren't much, but I've got my slingshot, and I'm ready.

Together, we are a force that can take down the game. Somebody has to start, though. Someone has to have the courage to step out on their own, and begin the process. Just like Kucinich has done in Congress.

How can you deny what is front of your face? When the reasons ring hollow - when you know you're being lied to - when you see the results - how can you not believe the system is rigged?

We could change things - we could change them over-night. But we need to ACT on those changes. The FIRST and most important thing is to make our votes COUNT! And by that I mean "counted", because right now they're NOT! And if we don't make a major push for uniform, verifiable elections we'll keep getting screwed over an over again and this country will NEVER reach it's true dream.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joan_bru_071130__22uncounted_3a__the_new.htm

...

K&R

a bubble burster

It's becoming increasingly apparent that we have lost our country; not losing it, but lost it. We thought the huge victories in November '06 would mean a change, an accountability, but nothing has come of it. Of course there were a few feeble attempts at "investigations" and threats of impeachment if this despotic administration did one more thing...then one more thing...then one more thing. It has all been an attempt to give us crumbs and lull us into believing that our leaders are really doing something, that it just takes time. All the while our Constitution has been shredded, people have died, a country that did nothing to us has been invaded and bombed, our soldiers return home to be denied benefits, health care and find themselves homeless - Those of you here know the whole wretched tale as well as I.

And then we roll around to Dec. 2007, and we are told it's too late now; that this administration will be out of office in just over a year and investigations, probes, and impeachment proceedings take too long - and there simply isn't any time left.

We've been had, folks. We made the mistake of believing that good would win out and that this country - and our leadership was better than this.

What is sickening is that they are going to get away with it. Not just BushCo, but our Democratic leadership that enabled this to go forward, unchecked, unstopped. Each and every one of them is complicit. Damn them all to hell.

Rant off

Change the name of this forum from

Democratic (party) Underground to

democratic (principle) Underground

He's a smart guy. But boy, that's hard to take!

...totally un-American, anti-constitutional and corrupt!

Randi kept saying he's a libertarian - and that may be so, but unlike his brethren, this one is far from retarded. Can't argue with the facts either.

Turley said, "I can promise you this: the democrats will never allow those people to be identified and prosecuted ..."

So, now Turley is the dictator of the Dems. I don't think so. It is an interesting conversation, but I just lost respect for Turley.

This is just a pile of useless spin bashing the Dems. For example, "And so, one of the reasons you don’t see the democrats tackling these issues and the reason they’re thinking about immunity for telecoms is that they can’t afford to have a court actually render a verdict."

Well, they are tackling telecom immunity, debating it and voting on it. So, that's just a lie.

And, the real whooper, paraphrasing to a reality-oriented version, Dems cannot afford to have Bush found guilty of a crime. Now, that's really a rich spin. Give that one a "Solar System" award for the degree of spin. If a court renders a verdict that finds Bush guilty of crimes, Bush resigns. Simple enough.

Do not hang this on the DEMs, dammit. Bush committed the crimes of torture and illegal spying.
Now, spin the fact to injure the DEMs. That, my friends, is one very huge truckload of R B.S.

that first dream of bush resigning if found guilty by a court! hahaha! i guess you didn't bother to listen to the interview--because before this section of the interview they discussed court cases whereby these judges keep throwing the cases out everytime the government whispers "states secrets"

why don't you take your time and listen to the entire interview?

(and just the thought of bush resigning is fucking hysterical! step into the real world here--that fucker sure as hell isn't nixon!)

"Well, they are tackling telecom immunity, debating it and voting on it. So, that's just a lie."
right...and that's why difi and schumer are gonna give them immunity. i'm assuming this remark is based, in part, on your eagerness to have your telecom thread responded to with emails--but come on. maybe you missed the memo? "Feinstein backs legal immunity for telecom firms in wiretap cases" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/09/BA13T97BN.DTL


and finally: if "Bush committed the crimes of torture and illegal spying" and if our dems are such heros then WHY IS NOTHING BEING DONE ABOUT THIS SHIT???

was tried in court via Democrats, he'd be found guilty.

Hello? Which is it, case gets thrown out due to state secrets or it goes ahead and he's found guilty.

He then goes on to say that this would automatically trigger an impeachment. That is totally untrue, since impeachment is only begun when someone introduces it, it's voted on and then acted upon in the House.

Not to mention that it is NOT a given Bush would technically be found guilty.

Turley is just making shit up.

It sounds feasible. Especially if you're frustrated and desperately want the Democrats to wave a magic wand.

according to randi, from privacy groups and individuals who feel they have been spied on--

THAT has nothing to do with impeachment getting thrown out of the house. what the ___ are you talking about?

turley is just making shit up? he's a constitutional scholar.
seems to me someone is making shit up but it ain't turley.

Actually, the FISA bill would've sailed through if Chris Dodd hadn't of stepped in. I don't know how to explain why Democrats have been pulling their punches (on the impeachment of Gonzalez, signing statements, the USA scandal, WMD lies, etc), but this is just as good of an explanation as any.

Why do you think the Dems are not pursuing impeachment? There are obviously real crimes involved.

er... never mind.

repubs to not impeach jr and company. does ANYONE really think that repubs will return the favor once a dem is back in the white house? If the dems in fact are as power hungry as Turley indicates, it would make much more sense to impeach and brand the repubs as the corrupt party thus tarnishing them for another 30 years or so like it did when they drove Nixon out of office?

I still just don't get it.

The bourgeoisie protects itself when the shit really hits the fan. True then. True now.

There is nothing nonsensical about it through the eyes of a commie, I'll tell you that.