Vermont Dems Continue on Impeachment Bandwagon

thats not what liberal means, maybe it meant that 50 years ago, but today's definition is as follows.


liberal - a democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 and still insists that he won and should be president. Also one who was against the invasion of Iraq before, during, and after it happened. One who voted for Kerry in '04 and still has the bumpersticker to prove it. One who voted for Kerry in '04 and is just waiting for another chance to vote for him in '08. And finally one who refuses to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton has two sets of knees, the woman was born without ankles!

Well listen, low orbit, you needn't get too worried. I mean, at least you can read. And the ability to create your own personal definitions for words shows some creativity as well. Let's just say you have some potential there.

Just don't get too low in your orbit. We wouldn't want you to auger in and hurt yourself.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by seattlelaw]

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Well listen, low orbit, you needn't get to worried. I mean, at least you can read. And the ability to create your own personal definitions for words shows some creativity as well. Let's just say you have some potential there.

Just don't get too low in your orbit. We wouldn't want you to auger in and hurt yourself.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks Seattle!

My other question in the impeachment matter is why doesn't this get more seriously treated? If people are thinking in terms of impeachment, what's stopping the government from taking notice (besides Feingold, Conyers and McKinney)?

A reasonable question. My guess is that

(1) the dem's remain gun shy and are having trouble presenting a united front in response to the madness taking place. There's just so much corruption it's overwhelming for all concerned.

(2) Even though they're not in the GOP, the neocon smear tactics can still unleash a painful blow to dem's. With midtem elections in a few months I think both parties are hunkering down to see what John Q. Public does. If the dem's take back the house, a meaningful opposition can begin to get traction. This would likely include impeachment hearings. If the GOP retains control I think things will continue to slide further away from most investigations of wrong doing, including impeachment.

The best thing is if the public and non-corporate, local media keep the 'impeachment' talk going up to the midterm. This will keep the focus where it belongs - on the mismanagement and outright corruption of govt. by the GOP. The rest should take care of itself - provided those Diebold machines and GOP secretaries of state don't fix the problem of honest elections for the GOP.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
A reasonable question. My guess is that

(1) the dem's remain gun shy and are having trouble presenting a united front in response to the madness taking place. There's just so much corruption it's overwhelming for all concerned.

(2) Even though they're not in the GOP, the neocon smear tactics can still unleash a painful blow to dem's. With midtem elections in a few months I think both parties are hunkering down to see what John Q. Public does. If the dem's take back the house, a meaningful opposition can begin to get traction. This would likely include impeachment hearings. If the GOP retains control I think things will continue to slide further away from most investigations of wrong doing, including impeachment.

The best thing is if the public and non-corporate, local media keep the 'impeachment' talk going up to the midterm. This will keep the focus where it belongs - on the mismanagement and outright corruption of govt. by the GOP. The rest should take care of itself - provided those Diebold machines and GOP secretaries of state don't fix the problem of honest elections for the GOP.

Seattle, isn't that the same agenda they have been pushing for the last 6 years, why will it work now? especially in war! They should come up with a strong local stance such as a strong space inititive(it still has military implications so they don't seem weak on defense) and a strong stay at home policy. Forget impeachment it's a loser, that's my neocon's 2 cents.

It's like everything in life; you have to take care of your own house first.

I don't believe that the democracy (such as it is) can survive another presidential term without an acknowledgment (accountability, if you will) of the shennanigans perpetrated by this administration. Such would require an impeachment proceeding IMO.

Like I tell my mom, who is sort of a GOP fan, I'd probably enjoy partying with Dubya. He seems like a fun guy. I might enjoy if he gave me a nickname. But he needs to go down for the sake of res publica. So do Cheney, Rummy and Rovey and probably Condi too. They've simply done too many unlawful and destructive things. Too many have died for their lies. Too much has been lost for it to simlpy be passed over as youthful exuberance (or whatever).

The disregard for truthfulness, the open lying to the public to serve a political agenda, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform for their selfish gains ... it requires that we deal with them first. If they are not held accountable by and within the government they swore to serve then the democracy will have failed and will never be the same. These are things are not as simple as breaking into offices and bugging phones. It is so much more serious than Nixon's childlike (as they appear by comparison) foibles.

The agenda is democracy. We need to repair the damage done before we can move on to other domestic and international policy agendas. Party politics aside, for this reason impeachment proceedings are imperative.

seattlelaw, I would like to say you gave a reasonable answer to my question.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
(1) the dem's remain gun shy and are having trouble presenting a united front in response to the madness taking place. There's just so much corruption it's overwhelming for all concerned.

I partially agree with you here. Yes, the Dems are gun shy. However, I'm convinced that the problem they are having a united front is that they are being shut out by the media in terms of getting their message. And secondly, Karl Rove's engineering of propaganda has made it seem like the Democrats are scattered in their approach of presenting something credible in terms of a platform. Let's not kid ourselves. Everytime one Dem representative from government appears on T.V., their comments are simply cut short and then the pundits do a hatchet job on what they say. So, any strong statement by the Dems are going to be misconstrued as simply an "attack" on the POTUS instead of perhaps, a focus on policy.

Journalists, these days, are hatchetmen instead of doing their true jobs. They gain status on the media, whether in print or broadcast, on the way they can "spin" a situation instead of presenting the facts. Call it sensationalism if you want. But reporters have to clean their own house and institute a new policy in which to report the story in hand instead of relying on talking points from a political party. Since reporters are now pundits, they are much prone to include all sorts of bias in their reporting without following the guidelines of ethics. And because viewers (as well as readers) are powerless to stop them in their tracks, they can get away with murder in misrepresenting the facts as well as not honoring "equal time" to both sides of the story.

The Dems, because of this are truly screwed. We both have probably witnessed how the RNC's efforts filled a segment of the population with misinformation that is hard to dismiss even though facts have provided the contrary.

If the Dems truly try to highlight the "culture of corruption", who will actually believe them? It will seem like a tactic that simply places them in a terrible light. Added with the RNC talking points, the reporters (as pundits) will simply spin the information against Democrats and dismiss it as "liberal nonsense", imho. I know you said that you didn't watch a lot of the media, but the most simplest test is to see how many hours are devoted to "republican" news and pundits compared to "democratic" news and pundits.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
(2) Even though they're not in the GOP, the neocon smear tactics can still unleash a painful blow to dem's. With midtem elections in a few months I think both parties are hunkering down to see what John Q. Public does. If the dem's take back the house, a meaningful opposition can begin to get traction. This would likely include impeachment hearings. If the GOP retains control I think things will continue to slide further away from most investigations of wrong doing, including impeachment.

This I truly agree with. The Dems, imho, are being way too cautious. They simply cannot buy into the hype that the "smear campaigns" will destroy them. The reason why I give credit to people like Barbara Lee (D-Ca), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Maxine Waters (D-Ca.), Cynthia McKinney(D-Ga.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.) is that they defy the democratic policy of "rolling over and playing dead". Dennis Kucinisch(D-Ohio) as well as Howard Dean (DNC Chairman) are also good because they stood up and spoke their minds against the policies of the neo-Conservatives in office. They took courageous stands at key times to display a sense of character and courage when their party and the other side of the aisle opposed their efforts.

They have to stop the infighting and start a concerted effort to contradict every neo-con smear with facts of the situation. Hire investigators. Constantly bring up impeachment along with other key issues that Americans care about during stump speeches. Make time to be interviewed on the Sunday morning shows as well as radio talk shows across the country (there are shows other than O'Reilly, Hannity, and of course Rush). They have to convince their constituents that they mean business instead of waiting to see how the public reacts.

I prefer the Dems to be reactive and very supportive of grassroots campaigns. And they have to convince people to believe in their core platform by presenting the plain facts about the economy, jobs, health care as well as happening in the government. They also have to find a way to quickly counter negative publicity by hiring someone that is ready to confront Mr. Rove's tactics instead of just letting him get away with murder.

I agree that they have to reach the public through alternative sources and local media in order to get the message of impeachment across. In the past, I would think that there would have been a bold attempt on television or radio to present a case for unseating the president. Now is the time instead of worrying about what the public thinks to make their case known through simple logic and persuasion in order to present a clear picture of why the situation is so dire.

If they wanted to, the Dems could present a case why Bush needs to go by continuously filtering the airwaves with the proof of the matter. Can they not present the illegalities of the case against Bush clearly through all the violations that have already been done? The more and more the public sees the situation, then the outrage will be there. Until then, there isn't enough outrage (except for the immigration protests that are happening across the country) to generate the support for impeachment.

It's time that the Dems used the Republican's logic against them.



[edit on 12-4-2006 by ceci2006]

Yes to that. But when people like Feingold stand up in Congress and read articles of impeachment and almost no dem's stand up with him and support him we have a problem. I once read a definition of 'fear' that seems apt: False Evidence Appearing Real.

The remaining dem's (the ones you didn't name) need to be proactive in support of each other. They desperately need a team effort to combat the neocon attack machine. Another problem is that independents and fence sitters see the dem's as also taking the corporate handouts. As Nader said in the 2000 campaign, it's tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber. Not because they haven't any differences, but because they are both servants of corporate interests on some level.

They need more people like Dennis Kucinich who will refuse money form corporate lobbyists. If the dem's forego the corporate money it might sting their campaigns in the short run, but in the long run it will allow them to stay above the fray. The public would really respond to that. Just watch Kucinich go without one corporate dollar.

I would love to see the party unite behind Gore again. I think his time in the wilderness has done him well. He's firing on all cylinders now. We need him to lead the party. Dean is alright but I think Gore speaks to all the current issues with passion and intelligence in a manner which communicates on a simple and understandable level. He's a different guy now and I think he could not only win, I think he could lead the party as well or better than Clinton did. And Hillary carries too much Clinton era baggage and is a favorite punching bag of the Rovian smash-mouth smear tactics. She's too much of a distraction, unfortunately.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by seattlelaw]

I don't think you should blame people for not following Russ Feingold. Have you seen the guy?

seattlelaw,

I agree with what you are saying. The Dems do need to be proactive. Some of them have. As far as I know Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.)[another person I forgot to mention in my previous post], Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich) and of course Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) have combined their efforts to call on impeachment hearings. I just don't know why they didn't support Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) on his measure to censure Mr. Bush. I have tried to find this out via the media outlets as well as independent sources but there isn't an answer.

However, they do need to form a coalition and begin to speak out in the media. Sadly, money is important in terms of buying time in the media. But, it would be a brave and courageous thing to give up corporate interests. In fact, I think Howard Dean, in his 2004 run for President, raised a lot of funds via the internet. He was one of the first to use the Web as a source to get his message out. And since his act, others followed. Mr. Conyers, I believe, has a running blog which he updates every week.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
I would love to see the party unite behind Gore again. I think his time in the wilderness has done him well. He's firing on all cylinders now. We need him to lead the party. Dean is alright but I think Gore speaks to all the current issues with passion and intelligence in a manner which communicates on a simple and understandable level.

Here too, I would agree with you. Al Gore has become more passionate and outspoken in character since he dropped out of the limelight for a while. However, he has said that he will not run in 2008. That means unless someone will step up and challenge Hillary, she's the only one we've got unfortunately.

It's not that I don't like Hillary Clinton. I too believe that she has baggage, but not from her husband. Mr. Clinton remains popular with a lot of people. You could witness that when he and Mr. Bush entered in the Church at the same time during Coretta Scott King's funeral. People gave Mr. Bush applause. But they cheered and gave Mr. Clinton a standing ovation. So, the baggage that Ms. Clinton might have is her record in Congress as well as she has said in public. I feel that she hasn't spoken up enough on issues to make it count. Furthermore, she is trying to be too "right of center" for my tastes. She should stand up for what she believes instead of trying to be "Republican Lite".

Perhaps the party should unite behind Mr. Gore. After all, he is a figure representative of the 2000 "selection" of Mr. Bush. He is symbolic of the "funny business" that went on in Florida, especially when Tom DeLay, John Boelten and Mr. DeLay's aides "allegedly" shut down the election with the storming of the offices where the votes are being counted. However, Mr. Gore's mistake in 2000 was shutting Mr. Clinton out. For all that it is worth, Mr. Clinton is still a figure that people respect because he brought the poor, working and middle class a time of prosperity.

But...then again, even I find his association with the Bushes questionable. So that idea might sit on the fence. What do you think?

But, if I were the head of the DNC, I would right away publicize a few names that could counter Mr. McCain's rising influence. Along with that, start hitting the airwaves with facts. I would work with organizations like moveon.org in order to register voters and get out the message. And whenever the RNC pus out more "talking points", I would have the PR person counter those points with a quick response on some other show. And, I would also enlist the efforts of Walter Cronkite--who openly spoke out against Bush and the Iraq war. After all, Cronkite was, at one point, "the most trusted man in America".









[edit on 13-4-2006 by ceci2006]

didn't Walter Cronkite die? Just wondering?

No. He's alive and well. And about to give Tom Brokaw the Cronkite award in November.

Originally posted by ceci2006
seattlelaw,
Here too, I would agree with you. Al Gore has become more passionate and outspoken in character since he dropped out of the limelight for a while. However, he has said that he will not run in 2008. That means unless someone will step up and challenge Hillary, she's the only one we've got unfortunately.

Perhaps Mr. Gore believes he can be more effective outside politics. His speeches with Moveon.org and other groups in the past couple years have been spot on and very encouraging. I also believe it was hard on his family to be lambasted by the neocon assault goons and who can blame him for wanting to spare his lovely family that abuse?

It's not that I don't like Hillary Clinton. I too believe that she has baggage, but not from her husband. Mr. Clinton remains popular with a lot of people. You could witness that when he and Mr. Bush entered in the Church at the same time during Coretta Scott King's funeral. People gave Mr. Bush applause. But they cheered and gave Mr. Clinton a standing ovation. So, the baggage that Ms. Clinton might have is her record in Congress as well as she has said in public. I feel that she hasn't spoken up enough on issues to make it count. Furthermore, she is trying to be too "right of center" for my tastes. She should stand up for what she believes instead of trying to be "Republican Lite".

Sadly, I have to agree with you here. Her lack of willingness to stand for and by the people during the last 6 years was unexpected. Perhaps she learned from the master that you let sleeping neodogs lie - and I do mean lie. But she is to the dem's what McCain is to the GOP - as you say, Republican Lite.

Perhaps the party should unite behind Mr. Gore. After all, he is a figure representative of the 2000 "selection" of Mr. Bush. He is symbolic of the "funny business" that went on in Florida, especially when Tom DeLay, John Boelten and Mr. DeLay's aides "allegedly" shut down the election with the storming of the offices where the votes are being counted. However, Mr. Gore's mistake in 2000 was shutting Mr. Clinton out. For all that it is worth, Mr. Clinton is still a figure that people respect because he brought the poor, working and middle class a time of prosperity.

Gore is the real President, no question about it. Jeb guaranteed Florida and made certain they got it. Their tactics were effective if undemocratic and reprehensible. Voting While Black meant you had a pretty good chance of being on the felony do-not-vote list regardless of the existence of any criminal history. In a state which Bush "won" by some 536 votes, Gore lost over 20,000 votes to disenfranchisement by fiat. I agree also that Gore was mistaken to keep Clinton out of the campaign. What an asset to leave by the boards. Clinton is the best speaker I have ever heard and he forgets no one. What a talent!

But...then again, even I find his association with the Bushes questionable. So that idea might sit on the fence. What do you think?

Honestly, the more time I spend researching and reading on ATS the more jaundiced my views regarding big time politics and the people involved. Anyone who gets to the levels of Clinton and Bush have already made their Faustian bargains. Since they essentially have the same master it should not be too surprising that they are pals. Also, Clinton spanked 41 and 43 spanked 42's annointed one. They've hurt each other so now they respect each other. It's sort of a guy thing. Not that it's pretty.

But, if I were the head of the DNC, I would right away publicize a few names that could counter Mr. McCain's rising influence. Along with that, start hitting the airwaves with facts. I would work with organizations like moveon.org in order to register voters and get out the message. And whenever the RNC pus out more "talking points", I would have the PR person counter those points with a quick response on some other show. And, I would also enlist the efforts of Walter Cronkite--who openly spoke out against Bush and the Iraq war. After all, Cronkite was, at one point, "the most trusted man in America".

I'm old enough (just) to remember many of Cronkite's original b&w broadcasts. He was actually sort of dull (OK, I was a kid) although he never shied from tough stories. Guys from his era weren't respected by their peers if they sold out the truth of a story for filthy lucre. Most of those guys were pretty poor, but it was about honor. The guys doing it for honor today are the first to get canned. Some (most?) would rather fall into line and salute than settle for some crappy job flipping burgers.

Who can really blame them. The world no longer seems to applaud the real heroes. Maybe it's because no one knows they're out there or what they're doing. Look at Scott Ritter. The guy laid it on the line for truth and he's been accused of many evil things in retaliation. Most people just throw up their hands and decide that the patriotic thing to do is believe their president. Some see through the veil of deceit. Check out this site.

westpointgradsagainstthewar.org...

seattlelaw, you say some really great things in your post. In fact, the web site highlighting the West Point Cadets was mind-blowing. The best thing about that site is that they went point by point citing the violations of the Bush Administration when conducting the war in Iraq. By highlighting the wrongdoing of the present leadership, they set up a case that could possibly be tried in the Hague--if the U.S. would recognize the "world court". It further solidifies in my mind that Mr. Bush ought to be tried for war crimes because he simply did not follow the law--whether it was the Constitution or the Geneva Convention.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
Gore is the real President, no question about it. Jeb guaranteed Florida and made certain they got it. Their tactics were effective if undemocratic and reprehensible. Voting While Black meant you had a pretty good chance of being on the felony do-not-vote list regardless of the existence of any criminal history. In a state which Bush "won" by some 536 votes, Gore lost over 20,000 votes to disenfranchisement by fiat. I agree also that Gore was mistaken to keep Clinton out of the campaign. What an asset to leave by the boards. Clinton is the best speaker I have ever heard and he forgets no one. What a talent!

This is the issue that particularly bothers me the most about the present administration. The RNC hijacked the voting process and got off without any penalty--even though people know what happened. The only thing that was done centered around the efforts of a few Floridians who sued Katherine Harris for the denial of their votes. They won. But this fact, except for Greg Palast's mention of it, never gets out.

In fact, he mentions how it was done in his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

From Palast, Greg. "Jim Crow in Cyberspace: The Unreported Story of How They Fixed the Vote in Florida." The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. London: Plume, 2003.

Here's how it worked: Mostly, the disks contain data on Florida citizens--57,000 of them. In the months leading up to the November 2000 balloting, Florida Secretary of State Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local elections supervisors to purge these 57,000 from voter registries. In Harris' computers, they are named as felons who have no right to vote in Florida.

Thomas Cooper is on the list: criminal scum, bad guy, felon, attempted voter. The Harris hit list says Cooper was convicted of a felony on January 30, 2007.

2007? (11)

From that very first page, he draws out the story of how the vote was stolen in Florida. And after I read that, I felt furious over the fact that people fought and died for the right to vote except to have it stolen away thirty-seven years later. I still wonder why criminal charges have not been brought up.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
Honestly, the more time I spend researching and reading on ATS the more jaundiced my views regarding big time politics and the people involved. Anyone who gets to the levels of Clinton and Bush have already made their Faustian bargains. Since they essentially have the same master it should not be too surprising that they are pals.

I try not to be a cynic about the system. But how can you not be after you read about all the underhanded dealings going on? I find it hard during this time to be idealistic. As of Mr. Clinton's "friendship" with Mr. Bush, all I can say is that something must have been done under the table for this to happen. Of course, they all serve the same master. But whether that has to be because they are both alumni from the same school (Yale) or the fact that they both belong to a select group of Americans (POTUS), I do not know. It's just that I'm not surprised it happened. But, more often than not, I find myself suspicious of why they are friends now. But then again, as I read history, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams (the father) bickered terribly in their earlier years only to have a long lasting friendship at the end of their lives. Go figure.

Originally quoted by seattlelaw
I'm old enough (just) to remember many of Cronkite's original b&w broadcasts. He was actually sort of dull (OK, I was a kid) although he never shied from tough stories. Guys from his era weren't respected by their peers if they sold out the truth of a story for filthy lucre. Most of those guys were pretty poor, but it was about honor. The guys doing it for honor today are the first to get canned. Some (most?) would rather fall into line and salute than settle for some crappy job flipping burgers.

My memories of Mr. Cronkite do not go back that far. I remember him just before he retired and Dan Rather became the next anchor of CBS. Now, that was when I was little. However, my parents tell me that during the Vietnam war, he actually put the body count of the soldiers on the screen daily. In my book, that required a lot of courage. And today, I see few examples of character and courage displayed in the reporting. And it is sad and frustrating. People are more interested about what happened to the groom that disappeared from the cruise ship during his honeymoon to care about the real issues affecting us.

In my most idealistic of moods, I wish that someone would counter the media sycophants with more independent sources. Then, there would be more choices in the news sphere to get information rather than the usual suspects. But Ben Badgikian, media critic, said that the corporations consolidated media outlets into one mega-monopoly. And as a result, the news--no matter where you get it from--caters to the same interests all the way around. You end up getting the same thing.

And until people get upset about how the news is being conducted, nothing is going to change.

Btw, I was inspired by your inclusion of the West Point Grad site. I decided to include a couple of more sites that readily talk about the impeachment of George Bush. You probably know about the Center For Constitutional Rights in New York. However, what is important is that they did a book called, Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush (2006). I would think that this tract would be of importance to you. As the West Point Cadets have broken down GWB's violations, so have the lawyers who work for this center. In fact, some of them are challenging the government in terms of the mistreatment of Guatanamo Bay prisoners. Their points in the text are really a worthwhile read and can go in conjunction with what the cadets and graduates of West Point said.

This is their web site: Center For Constitutional Rights. Recently they did a round table discussion on the book with Amy Goodman. I saw it on CSPAN a few weeks ago. Their explaination about impeachment and the violation of constitutional rights fascinated me. I just bought the book which outlines their points to bring GWB to impeachment. It is just as great as the West Point Cadet's site in which lays out the entire deal on the table.

And, John Bonifaz's 2004 interview with democracynow.org is rather interesting as well.

Check them out when you have time.