KO!

The reason you impeach somebody is not because you hate them, or because they’re a bad guy. You impeach somebody because you want to save their office, because you respect their office and you respect the Constitution that granted the powers to that office that exist.

That's right. The fact that you do hate him and that he is a bad guy is just secondary...

Yeah, my Congressman is Don Young (R-Corrupt Bastard, AK)! So I hear you, Clara! Go Dennis!

New campaign that will hit them where it hurts..
millions are signing up ( regardless of political affiliations )

... http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org

Weve had enough.

911, TREASON, TORTURE-AMERICANS, HIGH CRIMES, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, LOOTING OUR TREASURY, BANKRUPTING OUR STATES, DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY, SELLING OUT OUR FAMILIES, OUR JOBS, OUR PRECIOUS DOLLAR AND FOR CRIMES AGAINST OUR TROOPS AND CONSTITUTION.

--> ARREST THE BUSH CHENEY SECRET SOCIETY MOB NOW

The reason you impeach somebody is not because you hate them, or because they’re a bad guy. You impeach somebody because you want to save their office, because you respect their office and you respect the Constitution that granted the powers to that office that exist.

Of course they don't respect the office or the constitution, they're politicians. They only respect whatever power and money they can get out of being politicians. If we were smart, we'd run screaming in horror from anyone who said they wanted to "lead" us.

I'm so sick of the Dems rolling over and playing dead....I'm supporting Kucinich all the way.

Impeach. Bring the motion every week. If JEB is the "secret weapon" (oh geez), let's see how Americans react to ANOTHER BUSH in the WH. My guess its, not too well at all. Emeregency emergency 9-1-1 stuff, sick to death!!

Embarrassment or fear of ridicule is no excuse for dereliction of duty.

Kucinich has my vote so far.

"The reason you impeach somebody is not because you hate them, or because they’re a bad guy. You impeach somebody because you want to save their office, because you respect their office and you respect the Constitution that granted the powers to that office that exist."

In this case its not an either or proposition, it's both.

Impeach Cheney first, then Chimperor and Pelosi appoints or becomes president right? Then we have a Dem incumbent. Of course the Rethugs (not to mention Hillary, Edwards and Obama) would never let that happen but you would get the Rethugs votes on record as going against the will of the people in holding the Bush regime accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Sounds like a win/win to me.

There are more important things to do than preserve our constitution and country. Passing laws that can be overturned by a future American dictator (thanks to no impeachment attempt) is a good way to spend time....or pretending to attempt to end a war is a better way to spend time. Why discourage future tyrants by promoting the rule of law by attempting to impeach? I mean, really...

Impeachment would be nice. Better would be exposing the truth about what these shitheads have been up to the last 7 years, followed by war crimes tribunals, and prison for ALL of them.

Ruthless People @ 17 "Impeach Cheney first, then Chimperor and Pelosi appoints or becomes president right?"

Incorrect. The Speaker made clear a year ago that she would not accept succession. The President pro tem of the Senate, Senator Byrd, would become the designee.

Sometimes I wonder if they are taking away impeachment out of respect to bush's dad. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I do wonder.

next, we need to try for 'impeachment' of Pelosi and Reid. oh, and Feinstein...what the hell.

"back-ass-wards"

first time I've heard that word used in the MSM ..

and used quite appropriately by Ms Maddow to describe the Dem's response to Kucinich' motion to impeach Darth ..

it's us people against the corporations .. that's the struggle .. there are just more sellouts to corporate interests in the Republican party than in the Democratic party .. there are always enough "war-Democrats" to give the corporations what they want regardless which party is in power .. that's what's gotta change .. or we wait and inherit the Earth after the industrialists turn it into a toxic wasteland ..

cheerio!

Wexler is trying to get it out of committee.

pissed off patricia @ 12 "Thus the Dems are looking like idiots."

So, along with Nicole, you believe that the Dems should advance a hopeless effort in order to get better ratings.

The path the Dems have chosen is one which protects the Constitution, not one which allows the conspiracy to reinitialize itself.

Breaking the chains within the R caucus is working, but it is indeed slow. However, the only thing that is holding the Constitution together is the refusal to rush to impeachment before there are ANYTHING like enough votes to carry the issue.

But, no, instead the ratings are so important that they should just throw caution to the winds, and stir all that muck up from the bottom of the pot, so that the R can harden again and the entire soup be spoiled.

• Until Republicans file impeachment, it's off the table. That's because it HAS to be a bipartisan effort, impeachment, or else it is counterproductive.

Time for an end to reason. It's the progressive's Achilles Heel: we can always be counted on to go along to get along and to half-heartedly support bad candidates and bad policies because, hey, better to do that than risk losing power altogether.

The only way to get the Dems back in the boat is for them to see that our voice matters too in this political calculus, that we will not return to the same poisonous trough again and again and again and again, believing again and again and again that THIS time, if they get just a LEEEETLE more power, they'll do what's right.

I've given up on the idea of any of them having anything like a sense of conscience or duty, so this is no idle quixotic lost cause; it's practical advice.

If you want your leaders to listen to you, you must present a credible threat that you will stop supporting them if they don't. There is simply no other way.

For once, I'd like the Democrats to be worried about pissing US off, not the Republicans whose hats they seem content to carry.

We, their base, should matter more to them than Republican spin.

You haven't lost us forever, Dems. You can get us back as soon as you demonstrate ANY willingness to listen to us.

Until then, I'd rather fight big evil than apologize for small evil, thank you very much.

Keith Olbermann brings my favorite talking head, Air America’s Rachel Maddow

She's mine too . . . makes me want to sign a petition for MSNBC asking them to giver Rachel a show instead of Rosie

JasonS @ 35:

Time for an end to reason.

Nothing more needs saying.

pissed off patricia @ 25:

Sometimes I wonder if they are taking away impeachment out of respect to bush's dad. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I do wonder.

You might also wonder if the moon is also made of green cheese.

The ONLY issue is a sufficient number of Republicans who will support the action. PERIOD.

Cand we start a letter writing campaign to get MSNBC to give Rachel a show (Sucker!'s slot) instead of Rosie.

I could listen to thoughtful, smart, PhD. earner, Dr. Rachel Maddow, all day long

[Tag edited-Sitemonitor]

Paul in LA @ 38-

Until more R are forced BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS to answer that question in the former, there is no hope for impeachment, even if Belfry Boy brings the bill every half hour until the sun comes up.

Maybe it should read: ...there is no hope for conviction.... After all, the Dems in the House could, possibly, muster the votes to impeach. The GOP Senators- or at least 34 of 'em, anyway- would certainly vote against conviction.

Just to clarify ....

I don't care if we don't have the votes to impeach the VP or not... it is simply a matter of principle, of accountability and is entirely within Constitutional bounds. I don't consider it a waste of time to illuminate the corruption of Cheney, Bush and many of those around them. The Republicans showed no mercy in going after Clinton for obstructing justice and for perjury related to an extra-marital tryst after the special prosecutor found nothing impeachable in the Whitewater matter. Here we are talking about actions that have caused the deaths of over 100,000 people... this is several orders of magnitude more serious than covering up a blowjob.

Up to now, NOTHING of substance has been done to make this administration accountable to its misdeeds. Even the Scooter Libby conviction was emasculated by the pardon. It is time to do something meaningful.

Thank you, Dennis Kucinich for having the stones to stand on principle... let's hope there are enough stones left in Congress to do something with your initiative!

I like a serious impeachment attempt, even if it fails, for the following reasons:

1. It puts into the public record the list of crimes committed by Bush/Cheney
2. It would be unavoidable for the MSM, for the first time, to report said crimes in their totality to the American people
3. It would put Democrats on record as putting America and the Constitution above all else and would finally show that they have the courage to lead this country back to where it belongs
4. I think a majority of Americans would support it if they knew the truth about what Bush/Cheney have done and what the real implications are for this country if we don't prosecute that in some way
5. It would give Congress the floor on this debate, instead of the White House quote machine and their stenographers in the press

I'm sure there are more. That's just off the top of my head.

99 (comment 31) thanks for that link. He's a Florida congressman and it's good to know he's trying to do it. Florida could use some sanity in the news.

impeach the 5 deferment kid. If they don't have the stones they should get a new job

Paul in LA @ 16:

And the $30 question is, if it's SO right, then why does nearly the entire Republican caucus in Congress not know that's so right?

Well, according to that logic we should be eating shit, after all there is no way billions of flies can be wrong...

Fuck off!

No, really, I like Rachel much better on the radio. For me, watching her is a big turn-off.

You know, we keep hearing about the cowardice, short-sightedness, bass-ackwardness, etc. of the Democratic leadership. But let's take a step back and think about why the Democratic leadership are in a position to betray the nation and the party with their inept cowardice.

Back in the 1960s, I think, Pete Seeger wrote a song titled Last Train to Nuremburg (that's the Nuremburg where Chris Dodd's dad was a judge, right?). Not that long ago David Rovics wrote How Far Is It from Here to Nuremburg?

The point of both songs is that we elected the short-sighted cowards who represent us, and those cowards in turn elected uber-cowards to lead them. In other words, as Pogo the Possum said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We gotta stop tsk-tsking the Democratic leadership and accept our own responsibility. Children's taunt, but with a grain of truth: Point one finger at me, and three point back at you.

From now on, I refuse to vote for the "least of available evils." I refuse to be an enabler. I will fight for, contribute to, and vote only for candidates who are brave, rational, and informed. Being an incumbent counts squat! Having a "D" after your name counts squat!

J.C. @ 49 "I like a serious impeachment attempt, even if it fails, for the following reasons: 1. It puts into the public record the list of crimes committed by Bush/Cheney"

That is being done already, and has been being done already.

"2. It would be unavoidable for the MSM, for the first time, to report said crimes in their totality to the American people"

Why do you think it would be unavoidable. ANY of these gross crimes are already unavoidable to cover -- and yet there is silence.

"3. It would put Democrats on record as putting America and the Constitution above all else"

They are on record doing that by BLOCKING impeachment until there is sufficient will in the Congress to actually succeed.

"4. I think a majority of Americans would support it if they knew the truth about what Bush/Cheney have done"

This thought is charming. Have a look around.

"5. It would give Congress the floor on this debate, instead of the White House quote machine and their stenographers in the press"

The exact opposite. Unless you want to watch Republicans and Republican complicit media go on and on about how "He lied for our safety," you had better reexamine the issue.

This CANNOT be a partisan effort. It MUST have a modicum of Republican support, or it is a non-starter.

Would anyone who can refute the charges against Cheney please raise your hand. Anyone. Anyone?

Dr. Who @ 60 "I am sure the feeling is mutual..."

The dirt people have inside would cost them their jobs, their marriages, their families. So that's why they look only at the outsides of things.

Then they stupidly expose their insides when they make comments like Aurelius.

Jesus said something about what is hidden will be shown. Their fear of their own insides, of the dirt in their own psyches, causes them to search for scapegoats.

Aurelius, Maddow is far more beautiful than you. Just look into your own ugliness for a minute, and you might benefit from the self-knowledge. If you have that courage.

Paul Sez:

YOU? You don’t do any local politics, you sit in a Republican district in a Republican state, and throw rocks at the Dem Congress, who are suffering with your representatives TODAY.

Is that what you have left? Is that the paltry soup your party loyalty has left you? Ad hominem attacks? What arrogant presumption. Ill-informed as well.

For your information, I live in SF, have supported Dems (including Nancy Pelosi) all my life and am active in local politics including taking to the streets, canvassing (mostly for environmental and labor causes) and working with Engineers Without Borders on water, health and agricultural issues in East Africa.

You can take a look at some of that work here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jSh2DLrgvDw

But none of that has anything to do with the price of tea in China. Had I been a lethargic, self-involved neoconservative from Georgia, it would not affect the truth value of any of my statements.

So, if you don't mind, I'd like to keep it about the subject at hand and not attack each other's pedigrees.

Keith got his waterboarding special comment wrong!
[Please don't link to a nasty little site like that-comparing Olbermann to Dick Cheney because they choose to misinterpret the message? It's also off topic in this thread-Sitemonitor]

J.C. @ 49:

I like a serious impeachment attempt, even if it fails, for the following reasons:

1. It puts into the public record the list of crimes committed by Bush/Cheney
2. It would be unavoidable for the MSM, for the first time, to report said crimes in their totality to the American people
3. It would put Democrats on record as putting America and the Constitution above all else and would finally show that they have the courage to lead this country back to where it belongs
4. I think a majority of Americans would support it if they knew the truth about what Bush/Cheney have done and what the real implications are for this country if we don't prosecute that in some way
5. It would give Congress the floor on this debate, instead of the White House quote machine and their stenographers in the press

I'm sure there are more. That's just off the top of my head.

1). The public record? Puttin' somethin' on the Congressional record makes it more true?

2). There's some law requirin' the MSM to report on somethin' that's on the Congressional record? Is that why we're seein' all of those primetime slots dedicated to the Law of the Sea?

3). What differentiates what the Dems say in a failed attempt to remove Bushco from what they say in a stump speech in front of the ABA?

4). Majority of public support or not, there are at least 34 Republican Senators who would vote against conviction. Hey, the majority of the populace supports the expansion of S-Chip, but Congress still couldn't override the veto, could they?

5). See #2.

Is altruism a bad thing? Of course not!

But when gusts of altruism hit the brick wall called reality, the wall wins.

note to rachel: let's see now, from kerry's refusal to answer the swift boat liars with force and then his reluctance to utilize all of the funds donated to his campaign in a radio blitz at the end of the campaign, to nancy pelosi's steadfast refusal to put impeachment on the table, this sorry excuse for dem leadership has fumbled the ball at every opportunity. they have let us down perhaps as much as the repubs are crooked and corrupt. consequently, this latest debacle carried no surprise. nothing the dems would do at this point would move me or surprise me.

Paul in LA @ 23:

Ruthless People @ 17 "Impeach Cheney first, then Chimperor and Pelosi appoints or becomes president right?"

Incorrect. The Speaker made clear a year ago that she would not accept succession. The President pro tem of the Senate, Senator Byrd, would become the designee.

but she's a worthless, lying scumbag! you think she'd say that if there was a chance of it happening?

no longer a proud american @ 73 "kerry's refusal to answer the swift boat liars with force and then his reluctance to utilize all of the funds donated to his campaign in a radio blitz at the end of the campaign":

Kerry won the election nonetheless.

sofia couldn't be more proud of you. great job. thanks to you and others such as yourself this impeachment may still stand a chance. sorry if the "proud of you" sounds a little condescending, but it was sincere, and besides i'm older than you probably much older and i'm allowed a little latitude. i come from a different time.

pissed off patricia @ 18:

If MSNBC hires Rosie, I probably will never watch her. If they hire Rachel, she would be as much of a 'must watch' to me as Keith is now.

She doesn't get all freaky when she talks. She's more like Keith, calm and rational.

I totally agree. Calm, rational, and most of all, intelligent.

I don't think Kucinich was stumbling around in his statement. It sounded good to me. A little long perhaps, but Cheney has done alot to subvert the Constitution. I actually fell asleep at the computer towards the end.

But I think it took alot of guts to get up there and do this and I'm glad he did. Impeachment is serious stuff. If he stumbled around it may have been a bit of nervousness about bringing himself up before Congress to lay down an Impeachment Resolution.

I actually think it is better to go after Cheney first. If impeachment has anychance, even though it is a long shot, Cheney is the one to go after. Then go after Bush for War Crimes another time. But I bet his lawyers are working overtime to write up executive protections to cover Bush.

But go Kucinich!

I noticed this didn't make alot of the major media outlets. Not as juicy as a sex scandal I suppose.

Andy K @ 71 "Hey, the majority of the populace supports the expansion of S-Chip, but Congress still couldn't override the veto, could they?"

They haven't yet, but it's not dead. We just overrode our first Bush veto yesterday, though it isnt' getting covered here -- Democrats must be portrayed as failures at any cost.

The Clean Water Act has just slapped Bush in the face. SCHIP will be back, and we WILL overcome Bush's chains, and by doing that, we are creating the basis for an impeachment, if there ever could be one. Only by breaking those chains will that be on the table.

And here's another point, which is that trying to run at the wall of Republican intransigence only makes that wall stronger. The Speaker's strategy of shaking the tree until the fruit fall is slow, but it represents our best chance of changing the facts in Congress.

J.C. @ 84 "I don't give a f#ck anymore what the right wants to do."

Then you do not support Congress, because by the way, they have VOTES.

Otay @ 82:

"It just seems like a really shortsighted move by the Democratic leadership."

Well that is the problem with the Dems - they don't have leadership. They just have lemmings running away as fast as they can away from the Repub attacks and over the cliff. The "leaders" just happen to be faster runners.

The problem here is that the Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The repercussions of a failed attempt at impeachment are that a Republican leader- say, Giuliani or Romney- will champion the defense of Bushco. When the conviction fails the political fence-sitters in the general public will flock to that champion at the polls next year- 'cause Murkins love a winner- and sweep that candidate into the White House. The Dems will lose Congressional seats.

So, yeah, take yer pyrrhic victory now, true lefties, and get the government ya deserve tomorrow.

Paul in LA @ 85-

I've been outta the loop fer the last few double-shiftin' days- it's nice to see some vetos can be overcome!

Paul in LA @ 87:

J.C. @ 84 "I don't give a f#ck anymore what the right wants to do."

Then you do not support Congress, because by the way, they have VOTES.

What I'm saying is that "the Republicans won't go along with it" is never a good enough reason not to defend your country. Look at the responses here. People are actually arguing that impeachment isn't the right thing to do because... "What will the Right say?" God, that pisses me off. Conservatives are in the minority in this country and only have power because it was ceded to them by the Left. And continues to be.

Actually, refering impeachment to the Judiciary Commitee could be a real good thing, if the commitee actively investigates the matter. It was Congressional commitees that brought Nixon down, not floor debate. Let the subpoenas fly.

While treason and incompetence are sufficient justification for impeachment, the best reason for doing it is to blame Bush and Cheney for getting us into Iraq, so we can say, "Oops, we shouldn't have done that." and withdraw with some degree of dignity.

Maybe the reason why impeachment seem to be resisted by the Democratic leadership is that they already traded the option away with Bush.

- Say for Rumsfeld's resignation back in '06.

Richard Peterson @ 95:

Actually, refering impeachment to the Judiciary Commitee could be a real good thing, if the commitee actively investigates the matter. It was Congressional commitees that brought Nixon down, not floor debate. Let the subpoenas fly.

While treason and incompetence are sufficient justification for impeachment, the best reason for doing it is to blame Bush and Cheney for getting us into Iraq, so we can say, "Oops, we shouldn't have done that." and withdraw with some degree of dignity.

But the only reason that the committees were effective in the wake of Watergate, imo, is because the real threat of conviction loomed. Withdraw that threat and Nixon could've stonewalled his way through to January of '77.

And this type of stonewallin' have been rampant of late (see: DOJ Scandal), because there's no fear that the GOP Senators would take one step toward takin' punitive measures.

Many manufacturing jobs hsve been outsourced, what is left, mexican are doing every job that americans used to do, but cheaper leaving many people wondering what to do for income. Truckers are competing with companies that pay no benefits, This congress is attacking us with everything they have and continue to pat themselves on the back.

Paul in LA @ 78:

mike @ 75 "but she's a worthless, lying scumbag! you think she'd say that if there was a chance of it happening?"

Well, you foulmouthed little twit, I've closely watched Nancy Pelosi in politics for twenty years.

Get yer diapers off, kid.

Are you on the DLC or DNC payroll?
Because I would've guessed--for quite some time now--either that, or that you're young. Apparently, you are not young.
Your cheerleading is quite impressive. And has impressive blindspots.

Death star @ 101:

Many manufacturing jobs hsve been outsourced, what is left, mexican are doing every job that americans used to do, but cheaper leaving many people wondering what to do for income. Truckers are competing with companies that pay no benefits, This congress is attacking us with everything they have and continue to pat themselves on the back.

Welcome back to the Plantation

hadenuf @ 103 "Are you on the DLC or DNC payroll?

No. I have never been on any political payroll of any sort. All of my work is voluntary, and free.

I am a Democrat, lifelong. I will die a proud Democrat.

Paul in LA @ 104:

Andy K @ 99 "But the only reason that the committees were effective in the wake of Watergate, imo, is because the real threat of conviction loomed."

No, the real reason Nixon resigned was because of the media coverage of the smoking gun tape.

The media coverage of Nixon's outing was ridiculously partial, but it was nightly once this evidence was revealed.

In this case, sufficient evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors was outed and PROVEN all the way back in 2002, if not before. And what happened?

The draft created the Vietnam war protest. There is no draft, and so the public is not sufficiently riled up. And that is by design. I go out to protest in an hour. How many of you will join me? So don't pretend that this is equivalent to the case with Nixon. It's not.

People then also were serious about changing the system. Not waiting for the system to change itself.

Dr. Who @ 55:

Paul in LA @ 16:

And the $30 question is, if it's SO right, then why does nearly the entire Republican caucus in Congress not know that's so right?

Well, according to that logic we should be eating shit, after all there is no way billions of flies can be wrong...

chalk one up for Dr. Who. that's a winner.

Otay @ 98:

Andy K @ 89:

Otay @ 82:

Well that is the problem with the Dems - they don't have leadership. They just have lemmings running away as fast as they can away from the Repub attacks and over the cliff. The "leaders" just happen to be faster runners.

The problem here is that the Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The repercussions of a failed attempt at impeachment are that a Republican leader- say, Giuliani or Romney- will champion the defense of Bushco. When the conviction fails the political fence-sitters in the general public will flock to that champion at the polls next year- 'cause Murkins love a winner- and sweep that candidate into the White House. The Dems will lose Congressional seats.

So, yeah, take yer pyrrhic victory now, true lefties, and get the government ya deserve tomorrow.

That is a lot of analysis conducted, lacking in historical data to back it up.

I take this approach as similar to "If you ask a girl out, she will reject you. And when she rejects you, all the other girls will reject you, making you a loser. Therefore, don't ask a girl out." Then who is the loser?

The reality is, you will never succeed if you don't try. And just the information alone that is brought to light during impeachment hearings would be invaluable to the public, whether impeachment itself succeeds or not. It is a good long-term strategy for the Dems and the country. But instead of impeachment, they pull political theories out of their asses to back and justify their spineless proclivities.

Historical data?

Nixon resigns. Ford(a pro-choice, fairly liberal Republican by today's if not '76's standards) loses presidential race to a conservative Democrat named Carter. Backlash ensues, political center shifts no small distance to the right. 12 years of Reagan-Bush I, followed by corporate Dems fer 8 more years, followed by the Abyss.

No historical data?

Look, I posted what might seem a non-sequitir up-thread: Patience is a virtue. Lay off, true lefties, of Pelosi & pals fer one year and you'll be rewarded. Keep tiltin' and windmills and paranoiacally imaginin' every Dem in Congress as the enemy and you'll just give the GOP the ammo they need to win the political war- or to, at least, continue the stand-off.

no longer a proud american @ 111

Although I am listed in that quotation, nothing I wrote is contained in your reply.

Paul in LA @ 96:

The issue is REMOVAL. And we cannot get there via Congress. The actual public which isn't you and me, protesters, is going to have to demand impeachment, and not just Democratic or leftist public, but REPUBLICAN public. Otherwise, it stands no chance, and is just a stunt.

If you believe W and co. have committed high crimes etc.; do deserve to be removed from office; why is it considered just a stunt to bring about a motion to do it? And why do you think that it's a stunt(your opinion) that will backfire? Were the schip votes just a stunt? They knew they couldn't overcome the veto... is there a difference between these two issues that makes one just a stunt and the other something else?

The link shows that a Speaker may be removed from office. It doesn't matter whether she was elected unanimously. The GOP has say in who the leadership is. If her Caucus decides to put her above her oath, then they could be prosecuted, 5 USC 3331. The oath is to the Constitution without any mental reservation.

Talking about why something "might not work" is different than developing a strategy to defeat all fifty states -- and their citizens -- from openly discussing methods to remove all impediments to an impeachment investigation.

By your assertion -- that it is "too slow" -- you admit the idea has merit. The issue isn't that the process is slow, but that it takes time -- from when the idea was first proposed last year -- for the public and States to digest their options. Indeed, look at all the states that are well aware of their power to pass resolutions calling for changes in leadership -- More than 24 which means the Speaker now has 24 new problems, plus another 26 on the way.

Paul in LA @ 94:

Speaker Removeal @ 90 "There is an effort underway to remove an impediment to impeachment" The Speaker was elected unaminously. She still enjoys the full respect and support of the caucus. Just inventing some strategy for something is not equivalent to doing it. Those state legislatures are so slow to act, that even if you could convince a few (you can't) to embark on your effort, the effects would not occur before 2009 in any case (there will be a new Congress, and a new Speaker election).

She has no power over the States or We the People. Her Caucus doesn't include the GOP, nor the DNC members who support impeachment. States are free to debate proclamations calling for removal as Speaker. The links show how this can be done. She has no power to block all 50 States from launching proclamations into the House. Fifty [50 ] States are already aware of House Rule 603. They may be slow, but they're already primed; saying it cannot be done is different than blocking all fifty states. They have the power of the rule of law and We the People behind them. The Speaker does not.

The effort to lawfully remove Nancy Pelosi from her Speakership -- outside elections -- has started. She is powerless to stop this.

Death star @ 101:

Many manufacturing jobs hsve been outsourced, what is left, mexican are doing every job that americans used to do, but cheaper leaving many people wondering what to do for income. Truckers are competing with companies that pay no benefits, This congress is attacking us with everything they have and continue to pat themselves on the back.

get off the mexicans are taking the jobs of americans. they are some of them hardest working people on the planet only trying to provide for their families. when you say stuff like you've said, you play directly into the hands of the conservatives. they would welcome you gladly in san diego or perhaps more directly into the roles of the minutemen. read the Journey of Enrique or watch the dvd, The Wetback. both will enlighten.

no longer a proud american @ 121:

Death star @ 101:

Many manufacturing jobs hsve been outsourced, what is left, mexican are doing every job that americans used to do, but cheaper leaving many people wondering what to do for income. Truckers are competing with companies that pay no benefits, This congress is attacking us with everything they have and continue to pat themselves on the back.

get off the mexicans are taking the jobs of americans. they are some of them hardest working people on the planet only trying to provide for their families. when you say stuff like you've said, you play directly into the hands of the conservatives. they would welcome you gladly in san diego or perhaps more directly into the roles of the minutemen. read the Journey of Enrique or watch the dvd, The Wetback. both will enlighten.

Not all of them pal. But thats another issue.

Remove Speaker @ 119:

The link shows that a Speaker may be removed from office. It doesn't matter whether she was elected unanimously. The GOP has say in who the leadership is. If her Caucus decides to put her above her oath, then they could be prosecuted, 5 USC 3331. The oath is to the Constitution without any mental reservation.

Talking about why something "might not work" is different than developing a strategy to defeat all fifty states -- and their citizens -- from openly discussing methods to remove all impediments to an impeachment investigation.

By your assertion -- that it is "too slow" -- you admit the idea has merit. The issue isn't that the process is slow, but that it takes time -- from when the idea was first proposed last year -- for the public and States to digest their options. Indeed, look at all the states that are well aware of their power to pass resolutions calling for changes in leadership -- More than 24 which means the Speaker now has 24 new problems, plus another 26 on the way.

Paul in LA @ 94:

Speaker Removeal @ 90 "There is an effort underway to remove an impediment to impeachment" The Speaker was elected unaminously. She still enjoys the full respect and support of the caucus. Just inventing some strategy for something is not equivalent to doing it. Those state legislatures are so slow to act, that even if you could convince a few (you can't) to embark on your effort, the effects would not occur before 2009 in any case (there will be a new Congress, and a new Speaker election).

She has no power over the States or We the People. Her Caucus doesn't include the GOP, nor the DNC members who support impeachment. States are free to debate proclamations calling for removal as Speaker. The links show how this can be done. She has no power to block all 50 States from launching proclamations into the House. Fifty [50 ] States are already aware of House Rule 603. They may be slow, but they're already primed; saying it cannot be done is different than blocking all fifty states. They have the power of the rule of law and We the People behind them. The Speaker does not.

The effort to lawfully remove Nancy Pelosi from her Speakership -- outside elections -- has started. She is powerless to stop this.

Speaker Steny Hoyer.

Thanks alot fer yer movement, pal.

Andy K @ 125:

Remove Speaker @ 119:

The link shows that a Speaker may be removed from office. It doesn't matter whether she was elected unanimously. The GOP has say in who the leadership is. If her Caucus decides to put her above her oath, then they could be prosecuted, 5 USC 3331. The oath is to the Constitution without any mental reservation.

Talking about why something "might not work" is different than developing a strategy to defeat all fifty states -- and their citizens -- from openly discussing methods to remove all impediments to an impeachment investigation.

By your assertion -- that it is "too slow" -- you admit the idea has merit. The issue isn't that the process is slow, but that it takes time -- from when the idea was first proposed last year -- for the public and States to digest their options. Indeed, look at all the states that are well aware of their power to pass resolutions calling for changes in leadership -- More than 24 which means the Speaker now has 24 new problems, plus another 26 on the way.

Paul in LA @ 94:

Speaker Removeal @ 90 "There is an effort underway to remove an impediment to impeachment" The Speaker was elected unaminously. She still enjoys the full respect and support of the caucus. Just inventing some strategy for something is not equivalent to doing it. Those state legislatures are so slow to act, that even if you could convince a few (you can't) to embark on your effort, the effects would not occur before 2009 in any case (there will be a new Congress, and a new Speaker election).

She has no power over the States or We the People. Her Caucus doesn't include the GOP, nor the DNC members who support impeachment. States are free to debate proclamations calling for removal as Speaker. The links show how this can be done. She has no power to block all 50 States from launching proclamations into the House. Fifty [50 ] States are already aware of House Rule 603. They may be slow, but they're already primed; saying it cannot be done is different than blocking all fifty states. They have the power of the rule of law and We the People behind them. The Speaker does not.

The effort to lawfully remove Nancy Pelosi from her Speakership -- outside elections -- has started. She is powerless to stop this.

Speaker Steny Hoyer.

Thanks alot fer yer movement, pal.

He can also be removed. Lawfully. You're welcome. On the table: The Constitution, above Hoyer and Pelosi.

J.C. @ 110 "I don't agree that we have to wait for rank-and-file Republicans to get on board."

I haven't suggested waiting, and we aren't waiting.

Yesterday's vote was one of the largest R Rep defections yet. The Speaker is working very hard to give the R Reps a ton of reasons to vacate their cowardice and actually stand up for their political careers.

That's why she held more than 1,000 rollcall votes before November. The R leadership cannot organize or threaten enough complicity when the votes are pushed together like that. So their caucus is getting weaker, not stronger.

Hopeless efforts at impeachment would simply reverse that accomplishment, strengthen the chains, and re-consolidate the R caucus. RATHER than that, break out more R Reps, and ruin the R leadership's powerbase.

What is missing is the R PUBLIC. Until the public constituents of these R Reps are demanding impeachment, it is off the table. We, and especially people in R districts, need to BRING THE PRESSURE LOCALLY.

Simply scapegoating Pelosi is not going to change the actual proportion of votes. It's ass-backwards, as someone said. We need to increase the heat on the R public, and that takes LOCAL work, even here in overcast Los Angeles.

That said, I have to get ready. I'll check back tonight to see if I missed some replies.

Death star @ 101:

Many manufacturing jobs hsve been outsourced, what is left, mexican are doing every job that americans used to do, but cheaper leaving many people wondering what to do for income.

Yes, all those poor American kids flocking to the farms, wanting to work 10+ hr days picking up strawberries for shit pay, only to find out that their positions have been filled by Mexicans. What is a poor hard working white American kid from suburbia to do with the onslaught of them brown people taking their jobs, eh?

Andy K @ 113:

Historical data?

Nixon resigns. Ford(a pro-choice, fairly liberal Republican by today's if not '76's standards) loses presidential race to a conservative Democrat named Carter. Backlash ensues, political center shifts no small distance to the right. 12 years of Reagan-Bush I, followed by corporate Dems fer 8 more years, followed by the Abyss.

12 years of Reagan-Bush because of impeachment? Or because of the economy? Or because of the South upset over the direction of the Democratic Party and thus joining the Repubs? Or because of Reagan's rhetoric? Or because of the media catapulting the propaganda that Dems (Carter) were weak on terror (or in this case, Iranians taking hostages)?

Pointing to the wins of the Repubs as being caused by impeachment are just plain silly.

Look, I posted what might seem a non-sequitir up-thread: Patience is a virtue. Lay off, true lefties, of Pelosi & pals fer one year and you'll be rewarded. Keep tiltin' and windmills and paranoiacally imaginin' every Dem in Congress as the enemy and you'll just give the GOP the ammo they need to win the political war- or to, at least, continue the stand-off.

You know, the point here is that the Dem congress is giving the Repubs all the ammo they need. Many of us are just trying to get the Dems to keep the ammo for themselves...and use it, for Christs sake.

JasonS @ 132:

So, let's turn the question around.

Assuming, for the moment, that the balance of power in Washington is what it is now...votes will not change...what, exactly, would Bush and Cheney have to do to merit even attempting impeachment (knowing it will ultimately fail?)

Take one extreme: assume they just started rounding people up and disappearing them off en masse, Pakistan style, but the Rethugs were obstinate: the disappeared needed disappearing, don't question the commander-in-chief, etc. etc.

Suppose 99% of the population supported removing the president and vice president, but the Rethugs would not budge. Suppose the president has a caucus blockus of loyal Bushies that will always support him.

And suppose you had 14 months of this to look forward to. And stipulate that there's nothing legal you can do to actually remove the administration.

Would impeachment STILL be off the table?

And if the caucus blockus and administration deem that, in the interest of national security, elections must be suspended and martial law imposed?

At what point will it become permissible to shout our disapproval, to the future if no one else?

Your point is valid, and I would argue we're well beyond that: Bush and Cheney have allegedly been complicit in Genocide and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Either we move to impeach -- now -- or we broaden the effort to prosecute those who are blocking impeachment, to include DOJ Staff counsel, Congressional Staff Cousnel, and Members of Congress. Either they do their job, or we prosecute them.

Time to debate impeachment means expanding pressure Congress to put their oath first; then reminding them: Do your job, or you're out. Before the election.

Dr. Who @ 128:

Andy K @ 113:

Look, I posted what might seem a non-sequitir up-thread: Patience is a virtue. Lay off, true lefties, of Pelosi & pals fer one year and you'll be rewarded. Keep tiltin' and windmills and paranoiacally imaginin' every Dem in Congress as the enemy and you'll just give the GOP the ammo they need to win the political war- or to, at least, continue the stand-off.

Party over country, got it.

No, the party isn't over; nor is the country in chaos; nor is there no plan.

The problem for the US Congress and Speaker: She has no plan to respond to this plan that is underway to remove her from her Speakership. Zip.

Time is up: Time to stop asking Congress to cooperate; and time to expand the oversight of Congress to all fifty states: Open discussions about the DNC-GOP combined efforts to not fully enforce the Constitution; and get on the table a serious plan to review the evidence of impeachable offenses.

This Speaker has not led. She has blocked what is required. That allegedly brings discredit upon the House, herself, and her oath.

This is progress: It will remind the public and the leadership that the reason they are there -- the Constitution -- shall be defended, not explained away as a 'divisive" issue.

The Constitution is there to bind us together. When that document is violated, that violation must be checked, examined, and challenged. But when the Congress and its leadership refuse to do that -- and allegedly violate their oath -- their decision to do nothing is not precedent. It is evidence.

Amazing, despite a clear oath to the Constitution, and a plan underway to lawfully remove the Speaker, there is "no plan" to defend the Constitution; nor defend the Speaker. Where there is no defense of alleged illegal activity, that is a victory for We the People. The Constitution shall prevail. Encourage your friends to openly discuss with your state officials proclamations calling for the Speaker to be removed.

tiger cub @ 136:

Paul in LA @ 129:

J.C. @ 110 "I don't agree that we have to wait for rank-and-file Republicans to get on board."

I haven't suggested waiting, and we aren't waiting.

Yesterday's vote was one of the largest R Rep defections yet. The Speaker is working very hard to give the R Reps a ton of reasons to vacate their cowardice and actually stand up for their political careers.

Those weren't Republican defections; they were votes in the hope of seeing the dems go on record as a 'yea' or 'nay' on impeachment.

The RNC voted to support what the President and Vice President cannot stop: A resolution calling for impeachment.

That is a defection from inaction to action. The RNC Stonewall has been cracked.

Chris @ 22:

The Dems don't want to go the trouble of impeaching, and they know very well they will still get the election votes because the only other party is the Republicans.

This two party system is screwing us.

I agree...the problem is this ridiculous TWO party system we have...it's not real democracy!

driven989 @ 141:

Chris @ 22:

The Dems don't want to go the trouble of impeaching, and they know very well they will still get the election votes because the only other party is the Republicans.

This two party system is screwing us.

I agree...the problem is this ridiculous TWO party system we have...it's not real democracy!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if we really want to break the duopoly party system, we must make ELECTORAL REFORM a priority! Everywhere. Start locally, and in your state. We have to completely revamp our electoral system.

We need to abandon the single-member, winner-takes-all districts!

Olbermann's devil's advocacy isn't that strong of an argument.

If Cheney were to be convicted upon impeachment (and there's pretty much no chance of that anyway), Bush would not merely be allowed to choose his successor.

According to the Constitution, Bush would have to appoint a new VP, who would then require majority support in BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE in order to take office.

The Democrats could, theoretically, have a great deal of say over who becomes the next VP. It could be someone independent. Theoretically. And then, once he were installed, Bush could be impeached and removed, whereupon the independent would ascend to the presidency.

And by the way, if one of the reasons Pelosi is against impeachment is that she doesn't want to be president herself, she ought to fucking resign the speakership! Seriously! I can appreciate the various practical stances and political posturing about impeachment (even if I now disagree with them, and stand more with JasonS) but simply not wanting to take the presidency upon impeachment is NOT A LEGITIMATE STANCE! That's part of the job description of being speaker!!

What we need to do to reduce the power of the two-party system, but at this point will probably never be done, is to introduce ranked voting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Until then, we will only elect those who the media tells us are electable - in other words, only elect the same-old-same-old wimpy corporate-sponsored lackeys.

JasonS @ 146:

The Democrats could, theoretically, have a great deal of say over who becomes the next VP.

Unfortunately Gehrahld Fahrd was eaten by wholves today.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZnoLeVuAwy4

:lol:
Thanks, Jason. That's great!