home

Feingold Says No To Impeachniks

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:14:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You got to give Senator Russ Feingold credit -- not a panderer (unless he is pandering to one person, me):

It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

The impeachniks are in high dudgeon. It turns out Russ Feingold is a coward, sellout, Vichy, DLC, corporatist Dem too. That leaves the Senate with . . . exactly ZERO potential adherents to the impeachment movement.

< Hillary's Latest Endorsement: Joseph Wilson | Habeas Vote Tomorrow, Call Your Senator Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Feingold Says No To Impeachniks | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Impeachment is now totally off the table (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    But will the impeachment screamers move on? Of course not; we will get a week of meta out of this, minimum.

    There's the rebuttal to Kagro (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    Impeahcment is over.

    Will he move to anything else? No. Because this is nothing but a egotistical vantiy project.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is Feingold ::such:: a pandering (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    coward? ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    I cannot tolerate him (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    But his "arguments" are so infuriating that they become impossible to ignore. (Reminds me of someone else we know).

    [ Parent ]
    I mean (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    All he can think of is ending the Iraq Occupation so that less people die needlessly.

    What the hell is wrong with the man, anyway?

    [ Parent ]

    Not Kagro. Feingold. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    We know what's wrong with Kagro.

    [ Parent ]
    I would ignore Kagro on this (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    if he was not writing his drivel on the FP of daily kos.

    And I mean it, it is drivel.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    and have told him as much. I appear to have pissed him off, because he fights with me wherever he can find me. (Again, like someone else we know).

    [ Parent ]
    This is why I am worried the (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    participation at Yearly Kos in Chicago of so many Dem. Presidential contendors will be meaningless. Who will get their attention?  Will there be a concise, studied presentation of not-funding?   To whom will they listen--Kagro X? What a potential waste of opportunity for persuasion, education, and insistence on firm commitment and advocacy from the candidates.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not going to YKos (none / 0) (#153)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    even though I live in the city. the impeachment idiots are a big part of why. That freak shown just isn't worth paying $300 to see.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not going either, but I really wish (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    our views would be conveyed to the candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    I do too (none / 0) (#166)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    But I don't really like the idea of trying to make the point to them and being shouted down by a mob of irate impeachniks, which is what I suspect is going to happen there.

    I'll try to meet up with those kossacks I really want to see, and I'll get the rest as it's live blogged from the comfort and security of home or wherever there's wireless.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll meet you at the side door. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:26:57 PM EST
    n/t


    Keep your eyes on November, Frodo. Don't use The Ring.
    [ Parent ]
    I'm there n/t (none / 0) (#165)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:44:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I love (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by taylormattd on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    that you posted this story. Apparently, even though you left DKos, you are nevertheless part of the grand centrist corporate conspiracy determined to silence the meager and underrepresented voices of IMPEACH NOW proponents at DKos. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    I am indeed (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:10:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TexDem on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:37:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    As someone (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    Who's in the trenches on this, I'll be the first to say that Kagro is the least of personalties currently driving the impeachment screamers.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha ha (2.50 / 2) (#77)
    by talex on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:44:43 PM EST
    No. Because this is nothing but a egotistical vantiy project.

    Uh huh! Speaking of...Oh never mind.

    I'll just say it's kind of like the pot calling...

    <<<>>>

    That said...

    I'm glad Feingold has put this to rest. Truth be told that most astute people who wanted impeachment thought it through, listened to Pelosi on the conference call and to others and determined that while warranted impeachment at this juncture made no sense.

    The only ones still favoring impeachment now are the same ones who are clueless on most political issues. Certainly they deal fact free. It's nice to have them on one thread today screaming and not messing up the other thread at dkos.


    [ Parent ]

    Looking in the mirror I see (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:59:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I honestly don't get them (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:11:51 AM EST
    They're all basically saying the same thing and none of it makes sense. It all really amounts to "I want my pony don't you dare tell me I can't have my pony I want my pony I need my pony I will die if I don't have my pony I must have my pony NOW shutup you cowardly DINO traitor aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!".

    I mean, how does this lead to conviction, without which impeachment is not just pointless, but dangerous on many levels? All this nonsense about how calling for impeachment hearings will magically give congress vast new powers and far more exposure and sympathy are just that, nonsense.

    If they want impeachment, the way to get there is to follow the oversight process aggressively and see where it leads, and if there's an opening for successful impeachment that leads to conviction, go for it, otherwise what's the point?

    Oh yeah, they want their ponies.

    [ Parent ]

    When did you start using innuendo, talex? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:32:52 AM EST
    Main Entry: in·nu·en·do
    Pronunciation: "in-y&-'wen-(")dO, -yü-'en-
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -dos or -does
    Main Entry: in·nu·en·do
    Pronunciation: "in-y&-'wen-(")dO, -yü-'en-
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -dos or -does
    Etymology: Italian
    1 a : a suppository

    [ Parent ]
    i, for one -- am puzzled. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by the rainnn on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    i am puzzled by the need,
    apparently on BOTH sides
    of this nasty little debate,
    to portray the other side as
    egotistical, vanity-driven, etc. . .

    what ever happended to accepting
    that the two approaches differ, and
    have diffeing pluses and minuses -- but
    leaving room for both to be advocated?

    this has the suffocating smell of
    a paranoia taking hold -- on both
    sides. . .  let it go already.

    let each side advance their agenda;
    let the better ideas rise in the market-
    place of ideas. . .

    that is all i have.

    i am sorry -- for us all -- at yearlyKOS,
    and as a coalition of several groups,
    supposedly loosely-bound together
    by interests in common, which were to out-
    weigh our differences. . . quite sorry, indeed.

    p e a c e

    to all who seek it,
    in whatever way they seek it. . .


    [ Parent ]

    Good words and I agree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    with your sentiments.  There is wisdom and passion on both sides.  We do not need to disparage one another.  It isn't a convincing strategy.

    Peace to all.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    There isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    The invective is mostly coming (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:20:39 AM EST
    from the "Impeach Now" side, towards people who don't agree with them. I haven't seen anyone on the "Impeach Later" or "Impeach Never" side call the "Impeach Now" side cowards, traitors or DINOs. We're just calling them naive and mistaken, but we're not questioning their honor or good faith (not directly at least, although I wouldn't at all be surprised if there are some GOP plants among them to steer the left in a bad direction--classic Rove dirty tricks mastered at the feet of Segretti, Colson, Liddy and Atwater).

    I've been accused of being all of these things on DKos while trying to engage in what I felt was a reasonable discussion on impeachment, and when I had to TR a few people for hitting below the belt, I got smeared even more viciously and TRed in retaliation, which is strictly againt site rules. I haven't seen any of that coming from the "Impeach Later" or "Impeach Never" side. I'm more than willing to live and let live and agree to disagree. It's the other side that isn't. So any calls for taking it easy need to be directed at them IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry things have been rough (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:14:08 AM EST
    out there, but I'm glad you still bring us your voice today.  I have had rough times too and argued crossly with people I would have never been able to find an argument with or be cross with ever if the Nixon administration wouldn't have pulled a Lazarus on us all during our keepers of the flame tour.  Namaste

    [ Parent ]
    I've called a copule of them (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    demagogues. And I called Rusty1776 "evil." But that was a response to their invective, not their position on impeachment.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you reading this coment thread? (none / 0) (#167)
    by baba durag on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:25:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I am (none / 0) (#168)
    by kovie on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    And your point is?

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty invective filled I'd say (none / 0) (#169)
    by baba durag on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:52:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not really IMO (none / 0) (#171)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:24:15 AM EST
    Care to cite exemplary passages?

    [ Parent ]
    The Nile's in Egypt (none / 0) (#172)
    by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:06:38 AM EST
    But thanks for playing.

    [ Parent ]
    Well aren't we witty and original (none / 0) (#173)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:09:12 AM EST
    Been staying up nights watching Stuart Smally videos?

    He's running for senator, you know. Perhaps you should go work for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the demonstration (none / 0) (#176)
    by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:32:09 AM EST
    a high level of snottiness is running around here lately.

    [ Parent ]
    Been admiring yourself in the mirror again? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:57:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, like your SOLE purpose here (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    isn't provoking people into smacking you down so you can then point to how mean and nasty and uncivil they are. You think I'm not onto your being a troll and nothing but a troll? And can't you come up with anything more original than falling back on the older troll trick in the book? Got any actual ideas to share or is it all about looking for and taking opportunistic pot shots for you?

    There, that ought to give you a whole new set of openings. Fire away, troll.

    [ Parent ]

    you're off base (none / 0) (#186)
    by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    I'm no troll.  Just ask Big Tent Dem.  We go back a ways.

    [ Parent ]
    Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by vcmvo2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    They won't move on they just "Yell louder!!" As one of their chief proponents argues ad nauseum.

    Not a day that dailkos covered itself in glory calling Senator Feingold a traitor and a coward. Disgusting!

    [ Parent ]

    Magical thinking and steroid abuse don't mix well (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:18:46 AM EST
    When it comes to impeachment, DKos is experiencing some seriously messed up karma right now and I don't know what to make of it. It's as if an army of leftie WWF types took over and had the run of the place. It just hasn't "felt" right since the impeachment trolls got the run of the place. To quote Broder, "They came in and they trashed the place. And it's not their place."

    [ Parent ]
    Right now? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    The seriously messed up karma occurred immediately after Nov. 7 IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    The infighting was bound to flare up (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    after regaining the majority. But it wasn't this bad in my experience back then. There have been days recently when I've had second thoughts about posting there, which hasn't happened for a pretty long time. It wasn't so much all the vicious purity trolling as peoples' unwillingness to take them on. What good is a site if no one's willing to get your back when others pile on you?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    that makes me feel like less of a slouch for not being willing to put up with the purity enforcement there anymore, particularly when half the time it seems based on misinterpretation or the simple enjoyment of thuggishness. I always thought you were a superb debater.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    I try, but folks like BTD are vastly better debators than I can ever hope to be...

    ...I'd argue. Heh. ;-)

    And thanks. The importance of supporting each other when up against these trolls can never be overstated. It's a "force multiplier", to use a military term.

    [ Parent ]

    Now if only (none / 0) (#183)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:03:33 PM EST
    we could agree on the beneficial "force multiplier" effects of agitprop for impeachment... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Not gonna go there... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    A thousand points of light, stay the course, read my lips... ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#185)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    It was worth a try...

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold is obviously a troll (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    and should be banned forthwith :)

    But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country.

    They are going to have the same multiple trial problem with the use of inherent contempt.  

    Daily Kos is off the deep end (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    It's upsetting.

    [ Parent ]
    there are now (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by taylormattd on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    four fucking impeachment diaries on the rec list. Jesus, Feingold has really sent them off the deep end.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe there is an upside (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    and they will all get so disillusioned that they'll throw their collective hands up, pull their collective heads out, and say f*ck it... if we can't impeach him then take his wallet and make him beg.

    [ Parent ]
    And I thought (none / 0) (#155)
    by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    Cindy Sheehan's flip out gave them a look in the mirror. Guess that was more just a period of laying low since if they'd kept up their usual antics then it would have ended badly for them.

    [ Parent ]
    The only thing good about the impeachment diaries (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:16:37 PM EST
    is that they push the Edwards puff piece diaries off the rec list.

    [ Parent ]
    You trying to tell me he doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    walk on water?

    [ Parent ]
    He was pandering to me (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    He has my support now . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Undoubtedly (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    Because he saw how far your support has taken Dodd ...

    [ Parent ]
    Our campaign is evolving . . . (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:33:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:38:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Will your man Dodd last until the Iowa primary? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:57:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not enough time? (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Al on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    He's saying that he thinks Bush and Cheney may well have committed impeachable offenses (!) but they don't have time to pursue them?

    One thing is for sure: If Congress is willing to turn a blind eye to impeachable offenses in order to devote all their attention to ending the occupation of Iraq, they damn well better end the occupation of Iraq.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    Now THATt is the attitude I want to see from impeachment proponents.

    Write a diary at daily kos saying exactly that!

    [ Parent ]

    Fine. Let's ask this question then. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    What would you consider "success" in "ending the occupation of Iraq?"

    How many of those 14 permanent military bases can be occupied [and funded] by the American military before you consider it a continuing "occupation?"  All fourteen?  Surely not.  

    How many American soldiers remaining in Iraq in those X number of permanent military bases qualify as an "occupying" force?  If we reduce our military units from 130,000 down to ????   What is the magic number to make it NOT be an occupation?

    And then you have the remaining mercenaries which are equal to or greater in number than our military.  Do they count as an occupation?

    Just some questions because the troops and those bases are not all going to disappear from Iraqi soil and come home.

    [ Parent ]

    Stopping (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    this, for one thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Zero (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Al on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    I think the correct number of bases in Iraq is zero. A token occupation of a country is absurd.

    [ Parent ]
    If you ask me.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    for the occupation to end there can be zero US troops and zero US bases.

    As far as I'm concerned we are still occupying Germany and Japan.  They just don't seem to mind being occupied.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:55:03 PM EST
    There are no US military patrols invading their homes and killing their people, or doing this to them...

    Three Little Iraqi Girls - And Their Mother

    ...convoys leapt meridians in traffic jams, ignored traffic signals, swerved without warning onto sidewalks, scattering pedestrians, and slammed into civilian vehicles, shoving them off the road. Iraqi civilians, including children, were frequently run over and killed.
    ...
    "A car following got too close to their convoy," he said. "Basically, they took shots at the car. Warning shots, I don't know. But they shot the car. Well, one of the bullets happened to just pierce the windshield and went straight into the face of this woman in the car. And she was--well, as far as I know--instantly killed. I didn't pull her out of the car or anything. Her son was driving the car, and she had her--she had three little girls in the back seat.


    [ Parent ]
    It's time. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    It's time for the Democrats to use their power and bring the Iraq occupation to an end. There are no excuses left...

    [ Parent ]
    The Okinawans mind--big time. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:18:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    but not enough to fight the occupier.

    I can't blame 'em, I mind the actions of my got. but am too selfish and comfortable to do something about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, they applied enough pressure for some (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    U.S. bases on Okinawa to be closed and moved to the mainland.

    [ Parent ]
    I salute them..... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    and defer to your knowledge of Okinawa...about all I know is where it is on a globe and what I learned from "The Karate Kid".

    [ Parent ]
    rotated... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by manys on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    Maybe we can say that the first priority is to end Iraq and then if we have time we can start impeaching the bastards.

    [ Parent ]
    Impeachable Offenses (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by noonan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    I had the privilege to talk to Russ at a listening session last summer (he timed the one for this summer the same day as the local Dem fundraising/unity picnic). Last summer, this was his same thought - have they done enough to impeach? Yes. Is there enough time to actually impeach? No. He made this point when he brought forth the censure proposal.

    To me, I understand the desire to apply the rule of law. If I had a student tell me to go Cheney myself at the very end of a class period, the punishment would be as harsh and swift as if the incident happened at the beginning of the class. I don't have to end a war. I don't have to put out all the other fires Bushco have started.

    [ Parent ]

    TalkMiddle (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    The Politics of Politics

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    True.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD is a centrist, after all. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:03:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    Extreme centrist.

    [ Parent ]
    Who, as I recall, sd. on that awful blog-Tv (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:16:47 PM EST
    mess that he supports Dodd "in theory."  No wonder the guy's coffers are so empty!

    [ Parent ]
    "that awful blog-TV mess" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:43:28 PM EST
    It certainly did lack some of the pure entertainment value of that Robin Wright-Joel Achenbach exchange. Fortunately.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought the content was excellent (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    but was troubled by the lack of standard production values. For example, the interviewee seeming to stare into space whilst awaiting divine intervention or something. Kind of reminded me of the Bush "wired" debate. I suppose there must have been a TV monitor up there?

    [ Parent ]
    The not looking into the camera part (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    was eerie. Looking off to the right means someone is accessing memory, and looking off to the left means they're lying... or is it the other way around? A distracting thought in any case...

    [ Parent ]
    Are you referring to the recent research (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:48:40 PM EST
    regarding the direction a dog wags its tail?

    [ Parent ]
    Ahhhh lol, you slay me (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    I noticed all that too. I'm a big fan of NLP and according to that school of mostly considered FAKE JUNK science BTD is left handed. So BTD, are you left handed?  He is also extremely visual and I would have guessed that because I'm exremely visual and I can visualize in my mind what he writes about........that is also why he looks up when he is accessing memory and I would bet he likes everything in its place and HATES clutter.  He didn't look at the camera because he was visualizing in his mind the person he was talking to.  According to NLP being visual is also why he is perceived by so many who aren't that visually hard wired to be a total a$$hole.  Visual people with dominant personalities use language in a fashion that strikes those not so visual like a blunt object, and then they aren't even sorry and tell you to walk it off.  They are good finishers though.  They hate things left unfinished and they hate messes and they are extremely success driven when cleaning up and finishing the messes of others while applying heaping ample guilt to the messy messers.

    [ Parent ]
    I think I'll have a couple more cups of coffee (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:54:17 AM EST
    and then try reading that one again. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    NLP is this whole school (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:15:46 AM EST
    of "study" with many skeptics.  I fell in love with it though when I became the mother of an auditory wired child.  She loves noise.  She has a messy damned room and I once found half a brick of dried up cheddar under her bed.  My grandmother to my mother to me........a big long line of visually wired women cleaning house and trying to tidy the world and I give birth to a person who tells me how she is feeling by which CD is blaring from her messy room.  It didn't make any sense to me until I studied some NLP and I personally found so many things to ring true in my own life I have studied it a lot.  I also shared a lot of it with my husband for the class he teaches, people who want to be helicopter pilots tend to be very kinesthetic and the only way they can take in information in a lecture format is if you pace the room back and forth.  So he remembers to do that and provides lots of pictures for the visual learners.  He's auditory so he can just babble to himself and every auditory person in the room will "get" what he is teaching.

    [ Parent ]
    Does NLP have an 'explanation' (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:08:48 AM EST
    for wingnuttery too?

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't looked for anything (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    along those lines.  It is an interesting idea and I think I'll see what I can find on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe it can explain (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:37:26 AM EST
    crippling insecurity and extreme overcompensation by sliver dicks?

    Same thing, no? ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    I am left handed (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    What is the tipoff again?

    [ Parent ]
    You shouldn't tell me things like (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:45:02 AM EST
    that because it only feeds my NLP sickness.  When you were answering questions during your interview and you searched your mind for the facts you store there your eyes both went to the right.  We store facts in our lobes opposite the side of our dominant hand.  Your creativity is on the left side of your brain and during the interview when you were asked a question pertaining to your opinion of a projected outcome your eyes moved to the left side where your creativity exists.  Are you neatish?  Do you hate starting projects that you may not be able to finish?  Do you only wear ironed clothing unless washing a car?  Is your idea of camping staying at the Holiday Inn with your room door open ;)?  If so those are traits of being visually wired and when you are thinking your eyes move side to side like everyone else's but it is side to side looking up.  

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, yeah (none / 0) (#149)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    That's what I was wondering too - left or right handed? It makes all the difference.  Also yeah on it being junk science.

    [ Parent ]
    Et tu, Russ? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    I come here not to praise impeachment, but to bury it...

    If it wants to come back as a zombie, then that's its prerogative.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    Russ, right or wrong, writes what he thinks.

    Not the best pol in the world because of it.

    But my fav nonetheless.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    I personally think that he made the weaker argument against impeachment, e.g. there's not enough time, we won't get other things done, etc., rather than the strongest and really only necessary one, which is that at present we just don't and won't have the votes. He shouldn't have implied, however unintentionally, that were it possible, impeachment (i.e. that leads to conviction) still would not be advisable. Even though I don't see impeachment as viable or advisable right now, there's no reason to further take it off the table as an implied future threat.

    He also seems to have lost his fire since his censure resolution was ignored by most Dems. Right now I honestly don't know who's carrying the Democratic mantle in the senate for standing up to Bush on the war and everything else. Still way too much cautious calculation and incrementalism. Something decisive needs to happen soon, especially with the prospect of an attack on Iran looming.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with your assessment (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:39:33 PM EST
    of the fact that there is little leadership on Iraq and Iran.  However as much as I support BTD on the strategy of leaving Iraq, I also feel that impeachment has to be on the table.  It or the threat of it is necessary.  If no good legislation is passing then I prefer the cleanup process of impeachment.  I think the public will support it even if it is not clear now.  

    [ Parent ]
    You're basically asking Dems to gamble (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    politically and constitutionally by putting impeachment back on the table before they have built a case for it that is constitutionally and politically strong enough to be likely to lead to conviction. I.e. you're asking them to do the constitutional and political equivalent of indicting a suspected criminal before an investigation has been concluded and its findings presented to a grand jury. As with the criminal system, that is not how impeachment is supposed to work, ethical, or very wise, both constitutionally and politically.

    Look back at Watergate, and how it unfolded. First there were regular (ok, technicallly "select") hearings, not "impeachment" hearings, to look into Watergate, that lasted about a year. Plus there was a special prosecuter appointed. Only when these revealed possible impeachable actions by Nixon was impeachment formally initiated a full year later.

    You're asking Dems to short-circuit this process--which took all of 18 months from start to resignation--without benefit of even a special prosecuter. That would be unethical, not to mention stupid, not just politically, because it will open them to accusations of "partisan witch hunts", but constitutionally, because it would likely lead to acquittal, which would effectively validate the Bush regime's actions.

    I understand your frustration and impatience, but this is simply not how impeachment is supposed to work, or would have any chance of succeeed. And ANYTHING short of conviction would be a failure IMO.

    If you really want impeachment, push Dems to conduct more aggressive oversight and to widen the scope of hearings into other big scandals, such as the no-bid contracts and war profiteering and mismanagement, the missing billions, election fraud, Katrina, homeland security, Hatch Act violations, EPA lies after 9/11, etc. Tell them to move more quickly on issuing subpoenas and following them up with contempt citations, and to ask tougher questions during hearings and ask better follow ones. And that they get some sort of special prosecutor appointed.

    If you want impeachment, this is the way to go about it, by following the constitutional process as aggressively and smartly as possible. It's still a long shot, but the only realistic shot they have. But pushing for impeachment now is simply not going to work, is foolish, and can only backfire.

    [ Parent ]

    Gamble? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:50:06 PM EST
    Impeachment will fail. Period.

    There is no gamble to it.

    [ Parent ]

    Explicitely persued at this point (none / 0) (#112)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:03:40 PM EST
    it would clearly fail. But never, under any circumstances, including the unforseen? I wouldn't go quite that far. I cannot predict with such definitiveness about that which has yet to unfold. But it's not something I would put any money on at this point. In any case, this is a moot argument, as if impeachment is to have ANY chance of happening, it will have to unfold organically, as in Watergate.

    [ Parent ]
    What will convince (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:09:39 PM EST
    17 GOP Senators to vote to convict?

    Nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    At this point, clearly nothing (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:59:19 PM EST
    But I'm not prepared to say that nothing that might unfold would convince them to do so, however unlikely. But as I said it's a moot question, as even if that did happen, it would have to emerge organically out of oversight, as in Watergate.

    But if you're asking for specific examples of developments that could flip 17 Repubs, I don't know. Every example that I can think of (lying about WMD, USAGate, torture, letting Bin Laden get away, attacking Iran if it happens) has long since failed the "Big Whoop" (if not "Whoopie!") test with the GOP.

    Still, I repeat, it doesn't matter, as I'm not calling for or expecting congress to try to impeach any time soon. All I ask for and expect is for it to continue its oversight efforts and pursue them all the way.

    If that yields sufficiently damning evidence or developments that cause 17 Repubs to flip, great. If not, then there are still other ways to check this administration and restore some semblence of democracy.

    Plus, the thing about impeachment is that even if it did lead to conviction, it would and could not by itself accomplish this restorative process. That will require years of legislation, battles with the courts, and lots and lots of healing.

    This is a silly debate, I'm sure you'll agree. Let oversight continue and we'll see where it leads. The key is for Dems to not back down on it, and be smart. A bit of a stretch with this bunch, but the people leading the oversight charge show no signs of being gutless. The real question is how smart they are.

    [ Parent ]

    People Care About "law & order" (none / 0) (#121)
    by seabos84 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:25:41 PM EST
    on steriods? the 17 episode story? nope.

    c'mon, all the conditions you detail for impeachment, from 35 years ago, apply to today how?

    Back then there were a few teddy white wanna-bees who also had some integrity. more than 75% of thug leaders were NOT fascists. EVERYBODY either watched 'all in the family' or knew about the last episode.

    the debates about to impeach or not to impeach, to stop iraq to not stop iraq ...

    are healthy. this is supposed to be a democracy with that right to assemble and petition for redress ...

    but, as people try to out Pope the Pope, (ya know, that Catholic Church guy who said last week that non Catholics didn't know the truth / wouldn't get to heaven / would be banned ...??)

    with who has THE TRUTH in blog-o-topia, so we can figure out who shall be cast from the temple,

    the THRUTH seekers are missing that SOMETHING needs to happen.

    how about destroying the budget surplus AND enriching your friends 6 months into taking office? ooops, bush did that already in May 2001.

    how about destroying the budget AND enriching your friends AND cutting off the hands up for those not born in kennebunkport? oooops, RayGun started that in 1981.  

    how about starting a war based on lies and jingoism ... ooops, bushII, oct 2001.

    how about REALLY REALLY fighting for that percentage of the 149,000,000 working americans who'd be fired on Wednesday for getting blamed on Monday - ya know, that 130,000,000+ of us?

    should fighting for someone other than the rich be impeachment, or stopping iraq, or frog marching 100 or so of the executive branch to gitmo?  

    beats me, I already have a job to do, and if I don't do it, I'll be fired and I'll not really give a s$$$ about congress or bush till I get back on my feet.

    how about this for an completely, totally, unreasonably UNAMERICAN idea - how about those hundreds of congresscritters with a -D and their thousands of staffers and their millions in salary

    how about they do their jobs and quit telling me and telling us why they can't do anything?

    ya know how Cindy Sheehan and Katrina were tipping points against the fascists? (inflection points on a continuous curve ...)

    well, how about our DC Dems figure out some tipping points, or create them, or

    at least die trying.

    i've read people who think we outta impeach to get outta iraq write good stuff with all kinds of reasons for and against and what happened here and then what happened there, and like your good stuff, I don't agree with it ... it is too much like some 17 episode 'law and order'.

    f$$$ing DO SOMETHING. YESTERDAY.

    rmm.

    http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html  

    [ Parent ]

    Do what? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:04:34 AM EST
    You paint with a broad brush. What specifically do you want and expect Dems to do that they're not doing now, or doing well, and how do you want them to do it? I'm not saying that there aren't lots of things that they can do, but some paths are more promising and important than others. I honestly don't understand the L&O reference. What does that have to do with anything?

    Do "something" just doesn't cut it. We're way past general exhortation.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm NOT paid to be a (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:17:38 AM EST
    political advisor, consultant, strategist,

    therapist hypnotist ... anything.

    I'm a math teacher - that is what I'm paid to do. Maybe the people

    The people who are paid to beat the fascists should beat the fascists. They should figure it out.

    the 'law and order' reference - most of the analysis I read of why something will work, or won't work, has all these precise steps, some permutation of events. The permutations seem to me to be like stringing together 17 episodes of 'Law and Order' - if you miss 1 you lose the others - a ratings killer.

    people will watch 17 episodes of many things, survivor or american idol or lost,

    if they kind of have a clue what is going to come out the other end and they don't have to think too much.

    sometimes a lot of people will watch something like the watergate hearings or the clarence thomas hearings or the o.j. trial, but, it ain't too often.

    know a REAL reason people want to watch something simple - cuz their lives are tricky enough. cuz they'll get fired on Wednesday for something that happened on Monday, even if Monday wasn't their fault.

    The Dems have to do something with pizzaz if they want people to tune in and stay tuned in --  stopping this stupid war or jailing these criminal scum or ... something!

    and it ain't us working peee-ons job to figure something out.

    It is our job to get rid of people who don't do their jobs.

    rmm.

    [ Parent ]

    If you think that our form of democracy (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:03:36 AM EST
    is a "fire and forget it" one, then you are mistaken. Voting for the people whom we think and hope will do the job isn't enough. Nor is simply beating up on them and trying to replace them when they disappoint (or cheering them on and trying to get them reelected when they do good).

    Citizens also have, I believe, an implicit obligation during the 2, 4 or 6 years between elections to participate, any way they can. It's not and need not be a fulltime job. But following the news and giving some critical thought to it, talking to people both in person and online about events, contacting elected officials from time to time, sending LTE's, etc., are all civic duties, IMO.

    Of course, we would all like them to do what we thought we elected them to do, without our input and participation.  But in reality, they often tend not to. Well, they often tend not to even if we do participate, but less so than if we just leave them alone, I think. We're not trying to do their jobs for them, but rather make sure that they do do their jobs, as we think that they should.

    It's kind of like watching a sporting event and not booing, cheering or offering unsolicited "advice" from the stands or in front of the TV. Except, unlike athletes, politicans are elected by us and supposed to listen to what we say, because, um, they play for US, not the corporate owners or sports writers.

    So I like this sports analogy more than your L&O one, which is strictly one-way and non-participatory. And I haven't watched L&O for years--ever since they basically killed off every New Yorker (where I'm from).

    [ Parent ]

    middle ground tween clicking the (none / 0) (#137)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:26:00 AM EST
    remote and writing grad school tomes.

    'all politics is local', and most people are most easily involved in fixing the local cross walk / school / granny home / fire station.

    right now, and for decades, millions of us put a few bucks and a few hours into the federal office holder community pot, and with those hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of volunteer hours,

    we get losers who give us excuses.

    I think that time would be better invested in getting new people to send to Federal offices.

    we the usa are still the richest country in the world, and we are p$$$ing away our wealth, and we are gonna end up a Nigeria or Brazil. we should be EXPORTING efficient educational systems, transportatino systems, power systems, green housing, ... we should be using our wealth to figure out how to have 6.6 billion people employed doing the stuff that 6.6 billion people need.  

    instead, if we're not glued to the idiot box for american idol, or spending 110% of our take home on yet another idiot box, we're breaking our butts for worthless Dems who wilt, whimper and run from fascists. It would be a better use of time to work to find real leaders.

    rmm.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    I'm NOT paid to be a (none / 0) (#129)
    by seabos84 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:17:38 PM PDT
    political advisor, consultant, strategist,

    therapist hypnotist ... anything.

    I'm a math teacher - that is what I'm paid to do. Maybe the people

    The people who are paid to beat the fascists should beat the fascists. They should figure it out.

    When the netroots try to act like political consultants and figure out the angles they get it wrong. THIS is the power of the netroots - saying This is what I as a citizen want or I think this is broken. Fix it.

    The power of this medium is its ability to mobilize that on a mass level. Strategizing about eg why impeachment won't work is for the wonks to figure out. It's the job of the people to say This is wrong. It requires justice be done. Do it.

    [ Parent ]

    Congress doesn't solve problems.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:15:40 PM EST
    they create problems, or worse, create new laws.

    I'd love nothing more for them to keep busy doing something productive for a change...attempting to impeach Bush, and if sucessful, Cheney.  

    If nothing else it will save us from new laws.

    Mell of a hess, though, if successful (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    re Bush and not re Cheney.

    [ Parent ]
    The two impeachments put together.... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    should keep 'em pretty much tied up till Nov '08.  Besides, Cheney may as well be the president right now....you don't think GDub is really in charge do ya?

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:20:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why this concern about impeachniks? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    Why this concern about impeachniks? Okay, so maybe they have problems, but they aren't squatting in the White House, and so it is between them and their respective psychiatrists. Who is going to be first to break from an adversarial re