The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-09-2008, 08:23 PM
drewbert drewbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point?

Dennis Kucinich is on C-SPAN right now, about halfway through 35 articles against GWB. At this pace it looks like he'll be talking until midnight.

Not much in the way of a link yet.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but what in the world does he think he's going to accomplish at this point?

Last edited by drewbert; 06-09-2008 at 08:25 PM.. Reason: verbs are good
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,023
It's Kucinich. He's doing it as a protest.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:23 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 68,813
In Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken narrates how the 111th Congress (including Senator Franken) goes into special session immediately after the November 2008 election and impeaches and ousts Bush with only a couple of months remaining in his term. "Why? Because we can."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:03 PM
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
The point is:

1) It's in the official Congressional record. Every single word, every accusation, every shred of evidence Kucinich is bringing up will be available to be read by anyone who wishes to, forever. Bush can kiss his "history will vindicate me" goodbye.

2) It will keep Bush & Co. busy. Time and effort spent addressing these articles will be time and effort that can't be used to swift boat the election or turn other dirty little tricks.

3) It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.

4) Any news organization that does not report or underreports this will reveal themselves as Bush's butt boys and this will make it much more difficult for them to claim impartiality, thereby undermining their credibility.

5) It will help Obama by pointing out that policies McCain does and has supported wholeheartedly are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. He's gonna have to do the biggest flipflop you ever saw to try to get out of all this--and watching a stiff old man flipflop that fast just emphasizes his extreme lack of flexibility.

6) It ties McCain to an accused criminal. He's been trying to separate himself from Bush as fast as a horse can trot, with little success. This will isolate McCain even further from the benefits and protection of the Bush machine and show all the dirt he's been rolling around in with his l'il buddy.

7) IT FEELS GOOD. After so many years of being pooh-poohed and dismissed and having our righteous outrage at the erosion of our liberties and our pointing out of horrendously illegal acts ignored we FINALLY get to point our fingers at that smug, smirking chimp in chief and if nothing else give him the "J'accuse!" On the record. Let him squirm out of THAT. Let him veto THAT. Let's see if a signing statement makes THIS go away.

That's all I have right on the top of my head--I'm sure there are other points I haven't thought of yet. Maybe this night means nothing to others here, but I for one am proud as hell of my party and Mr Kucinich for having the balls and the decency to finally stand up and say what needs to be said.

No point? Please.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 06-09-2008 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:41 PM
drewbert drewbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Sounds good to me. I wonder how many people are in the chamber with him. Shame it doesn't look like many.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:43 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
In Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken narrates how the 111th Congress (including Senator Franken) goes into special session immediately after the November 2008 election and impeaches and ousts Bush with only a couple of months remaining in his term. "Why? Because we can."
Actually, the 111th Congress would assume power on 3 January 2009. If the House and Senate were to confer Articles of Impeachment and vote to convict that first day, Bush would be out of office 17 days early.

Last edited by Duckster; 06-09-2008 at 10:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:46 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 48,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
we FINALLY get to point our fingers... and if nothing else give him the "J'accuse!"
J'accuse!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:48 PM
mswas mswas is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Censored
Posts: 19,009
Wow, what a fucking circus 2008 is.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:52 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Can the President be prosecuted for actions taken while president?

If generally no does an impeachment/conviction on those counts open him to criminal prosecution?

Or is the presidency a "Get out of jail Free" card? (thinking back to Nixon and Ford's subsequent pardon I am guessing a president can be held criminally accountable in some fashion)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:53 PM
The Understander The Understander is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
The point is:

~snipping of other excellent points to get to~

7) IT FEELS GOOD. After so many years of being pooh-poohed and dismissed and having our righteous outrage at the erosion of our liberties and our pointing out of horrendously illegal acts ignored we FINALLY get to point our fingers at that smug, smirking chimp in chief and if nothing else give him the "J'accuse!" On the record. Let him squirm out of THAT. Let him veto THAT. Let's see if a signing statement makes THIS go away.


No point? Please.

Don't forget to line up the toadies in Congress who prevent even so much as an investigation with endless obstruction.

No, history will not look favorably on Shrubbie. I think the articles of impeachment may make it into quite a few history books, though. Despite the occasional fumfering, that was some nice oratory.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:53 PM
Two and a Half Inches of Fun Two and a Half Inches of Fun is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
The point is:

1) It's in the official Congressional record. Every single word, every accusation, every shred of evidence Kucinich is bringing up will be available to be read by anyone who wishes to, forever. Bush can kiss his "history will vindicate me" goodbye.
I doubt history will only look to the Congressional record to make its judgment.

Quote:
2) It will keep Bush & Co. busy. Time and effort spent addressing these articles will be time and effort that can't be used to swift boat the election or turn other dirty little tricks.
They will hardly need to spend any time on this.

Quote:
3) It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.
Nobody will care next month.

Quote:
4) Any news organization that does not report or underreports this will reveal themselves as Bush's butt boys and this will make it much more difficult for them to claim impartiality, thereby undermining their credibility.
Nobody will be doing much reporting on this next month because nobody will care.

Quote:
5) It will help Obama by pointing out that policies McCain does and has supported wholeheartedly are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. He's gonna have to do the biggest flipflop you ever saw to try to get out of all this--and watching a stiff old man flipflop that fast just emphasizes his extreme lack of flexibility.
This will not happen.

Quote:
6) It ties McCain to an accused criminal. He's been trying to separate himself from Bush as fast as a horse can trot, with little success. This will isolate McCain even further from the benefits and protection of the Bush machine and show all the dirt he's been rolling around in with his l'il buddy.
This reading will mean nothing.

Quote:
7) IT FEELS GOOD. After so many years of being pooh-poohed and dismissed and having our righteous outrage at the erosion of our liberties and our pointing out of horrendously illegal acts ignored we FINALLY get to point our fingers at that smug, smirking chimp in chief and if nothing else give him the "J'accuse!" On the record. Let him squirm out of THAT. Let him veto THAT. Let's see if a signing statement makes THIS go away.
Masturbation feels good, but it won't get anyone pregnant.

Remember when Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Cheney? How did work out?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:20 PM
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun

Masturbation feels good, but it won't get anyone pregnant.

Remember when Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Cheney? How did work out?
1) I'm sure you know more about that than pretty much anybody.

2) Just because YOU weren't paying attention/don't care doesn't mean everybody else isn't/doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:26 PM
Two and a Half Inches of Fun Two and a Half Inches of Fun is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq

2) Just because YOU weren't paying attention/don't care doesn't mean everybody else isn't/doesn't.
I was paying attention. That is why I know that Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Cheney last year.

Which party tried to kill the debate on that resolution? Do you think they did that because it made Cheney look bad? Or do you think they tried to kill it because it makes their party look nutty having a nut like Kucinich introduce meaningless resolutions?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:27 PM
tds1273 tds1273 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Dennis Kucinich stands taller than any one else in Washington. IMNSHO, one of the greats.

Now I might be too much of an optimist, or just a sucker, but I think I might have hope on this one. Looking back on the primaries with Clinton one word never came up(aside from Dennis) within the debates- impeachment. The Rethuglicans, however, would never have ignored that 800lb gorilla had Hillary been the nominee. I can’t help but wonder if the real reason Pelosi pulled impeachment off the table was because the wife of the last impeached President was assumed to be the inevitable nominee.

It simply would not have been possible for the Democrats to run Clinton AND have the impeachment process going on.

However, with Obama that burden is lifted, and infact, pursuing impeachment now, or even criminal charges will help fill the insatiable news void with the Democrats actually doing something and standing up for the rights of law. Congress goes after the criminals and Obama goes after the heir apparent to the familia. If nothing else, it could put the entire GOP on their heels trying to save their own ass and not allowing them to focus on going after Obama.

ETA: Also, it bears noting that with Kucinich's articles to impeach Cheney, we did not yet have McClellon blowing whistles

Last edited by tds1273; 06-09-2008 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:02 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Good grief. This is only going to play well with the faithful and I'm guessing the rest of the Democrats (including Obama) wish they could bury Kucinich somewhere deep until after the election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
1) It's in the official Congressional record. Every single word, every accusation, every shred of evidence Kucinich is bringing up will be available to be read by anyone who wishes to, forever. Bush can kiss his "history will vindicate me" goodbye.
Historians aren't going to be looking at this farce...there will be plenty of REAL reasons for them to look unfavorably at GW. This will simply be a footnote that historians will talk about at dinner parties and laugh about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
2) It will keep Bush & Co. busy. Time and effort spent addressing these articles will be time and effort that can't be used to swift boat the election or turn other dirty little tricks.
Why? They won't take it seriously because it's not serious...it's a joke. Bush et al won't even expend the effort to go meh! My guess is that the right wing will get some mileage out of this during the election though as they use it to portray Dems as nut-cases. Don't take my word for it though...see how much play time this gets on Fox and then keep a sharp eye out for what the Dems (especially Obama) have to say about it.

My prediction: The Dems won't say anything about it and try and make it go away, while it gets a lot of loving play time on Fox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
3) It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.
This will focus attention alright...but not on the Republicans. As I said, I think this is going to be an overall negative for the Democrats...that is if anyone even pays attention or notices it. Pray no one does and it dies a quiet death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
4) Any news organization that does not report or underreports this will reveal themselves as Bush's butt boys and this will make it much more difficult for them to claim impartiality, thereby undermining their credibility.
And if the Dems downplay this does that make them 'Bush's butt boys' too? And if Fox spends the next few months talking about this, does that somehow mean they love the Dems now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
5) It will help Obama by pointing out that policies McCain does and has supported wholeheartedly are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. He's gonna have to do the biggest flipflop you ever saw to try to get out of all this--and watching a stiff old man flipflop that fast just emphasizes his extreme lack of flexibility.
I will be completely shocked if Obama even mentions this, let alone plays it up as you suggest. He'd be a fool to associate himself with Kucinich in general and this idiotic stunt to be specific. If he DOES try and make hay out of this and also tries to associate McCain with it as well then I predict Obama will be lucky to win his home state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
6) It ties McCain to an accused criminal. He's been trying to separate himself from Bush as fast as a horse can trot, with little success. This will isolate McCain even further from the benefits and protection of the Bush machine and show all the dirt he's been rolling around in with his l'il buddy.
If McCain mentions this it will be to play up how nutty the Dems have become. But unless the Dems (and Obama) actually acknowledge this and try and make hay out of it I doubt McCain will do more than a drive by in one of his up and coming speeches and then forget about it...unless it gets traction. If people actually notice this THEN you will see the Republican election machine swing into action...and it won't be pretty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
7) IT FEELS GOOD. After so many years of being pooh-poohed and dismissed and having our righteous outrage at the erosion of our liberties and our pointing out of horrendously illegal acts ignored we FINALLY get to point our fingers at that smug, smirking chimp in chief and if nothing else give him the "J'accuse!" On the record. Let him squirm out of THAT. Let him veto THAT. Let's see if a signing statement makes THIS go away.
It is a totally idiotic thing for Kucinich to do...and I'm guessing that the groans from the Democratic party can be heard outside the beltway right now. There isn't going to be any impeachment of Bush...you are living in a fantasy world. I actually tuned in for a minute and there was practically no one there. Do you understand what that means?

This is going to do Obama and the Democrats a lot more harm than good. So, I hope you enjoy the feel good aspects of this while you can.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:36 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
xtisme: I actually tuned in for a minute and there was practically no one there. Do you understand what that means?
It's the middle of the night?

Last edited by Zoe; 06-10-2008 at 12:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2008, 01:09 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 57,344
I think it's a bad idea.

First, keep in mind that Cheney is next in line if Bush actually were kicked out of office. Even if he is reined in by Congress and is unable to do anything in office, he'd still have been handed the honor of having been the President of the United States.

And if Bush isn't going to actually be removed from the Presidency, it's all about public image. An impeachment threat isn't going to be a badge of honor. But there will be people who will see Bush as the victim of a partisan attack. Kucinich might end up giving Bush more in public sympathy than he takes away in public respect.

The only way I see this really working out for Kucinich and the Democrats is if there are some smoking guns that haven't been seen in public yet.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-10-2008, 05:27 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,578
I'm all for standing up for the truth. Maybe Kucinich has added a bunch of absurd impeachment charges in with the obvious ones, and people laugh at him. But though this President and Vice-President have deserved a tandem impeachment proceeding for years, the gatekeepers of our dialogue have ridiculed the whole idea from day one.

They've lied us into an unnecessary and disastrous war, they've admitted to authorizing what we used to agree was torture, they've engaged in wide-scale wiretapping without FISA (or any other kind of) warrants, they've turned the prosecuting authority of the Federal government into a banana-republic-style partisan operation, they've thumbed their noses at Congressional subpoenas pretty much across the board, and have in general used the Constitution for toilet paper.

The proper arena to consider these matters, in the absence of any other sufficient investigative authority, is and has always been an impeachment proceeding. But the Broders and Hiatts of the world have pooh-poohed that idea, and the Dem Congressional leadership has bought in.

So even if it's Kucinich, Kucinich is a hell of a lot better than nobody. Who knows what history will say about this Congress, but I believe its failure to act as its Article I powers were disregarded by the Executive Branch won't be looked on favorably. Historians are more likely, IMHO, to wonder why Kucinich didn't have more mainstream company, than to laugh at Kucinich himself.

Originally the leadership's idea that they would be too busy passing legislation and conducting investigations, and impeachment would just get in the way, made some sort of sense. But legislation founders on the Great Wall of Cloture, and with the Administration's unwillingness to honor Congressional subpoenas (and Congress' unwillingness to use inherent contempt), Congress has no advantage over any private entity with respect to investigations. So there's nothing standing in the way of impeachment in that regard.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-10-2008, 06:43 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly
I'm all for standing up for the truth. Maybe Kucinich has added a bunch of absurd impeachment charges in with the obvious ones, and people laugh at him.
Right, right - you're all for the truth, except for the parts that are clearly not true.

Kucinich can masturbate in public all he wants. It won't make his dick any bigger, and it won't make his political wet dreams come true.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:35 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
It's the middle of the night?
Well....yeah. Do you think that weighty things like impeachment articles are usually held at night with no one about? If this was a serious event, do you not thing there would be, oh I don't know, say a few more people around? Some reporters? Guys selling programs and refreshments? A couple of those Congressmen guys? You know, that kind of thing.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:06 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
Right, right - you're all for the truth, except for the parts that are clearly not true.
You seem to intend this as criticism, but I'm hearing the equivalent of "your mother drinks iced tea on summer afternoons."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:30 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Well, it's obvious that a stunned nation has yet to throw off the shock and really start getting excited about these mighty articles of Impeachment! A quick survey of the normal news websites I look over in the morning shows no mention of these momentous events on their front pages (not even Fox....I assume it's because they are to shocked and in disarray after this mighty blow).

A quick google search (Kucinich Impeachment) does get a few back page hits on MSM sites...but most of the excitement seems to be coming from left wing fringe sites so far (I know...shocking).

I haven't seen any reaction from Obama or the Democratic party yet...I await with bated breath to see the rallying around of Kucinich as the Dems pick up the gauntlet and run with it to get rid of Bush! It should be nearly as momentous as when the Kucinich Impeached Chaney (who is currently serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison at an undisclosed facility in Europe IIRC).

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:37 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
I'm glad he's doing it so that 22nd century historians will note that some people knew just what kind of men Bush and Cheney were. If it does nothing more but get entered into the Congressional Record, I'm perfectly happy with that result.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:04 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
If it weren't Kucinich, this might make a very good cynical ploy, in that it smokes out the Pubbies. Will they defend The Leader, or no? Will they defend the proposition that a President might very well be impeached for lying about a knob job, but not for lying us into a war? When they are campaigning back home, will they be asked about this, do you think? I rather imagine they might.

Of course, everybody knows Dennis is just a loony moonbat, so that can't be it....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:05 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun
Masturbation feels good, but it won't get anyone pregnant.

Remember when Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Cheney? How did work out?
1) I'm sure you know more about that than pretty much anybody.

2) Just because YOU weren't paying attention/don't care doesn't mean everybody else isn't/doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
Kucinich can masturbate in public all he wants. It won't make his dick any bigger, and it won't make his political wet dreams come true.
SmartAleq, You are in direct violation of the rules of this Forum.

On the other hand, while not a direct violation of this Forum rule (as I suspect that Rep. Kucinich is not actually posting, here), this is not appropriate for this conversation and simply makes Two and a Half Inches of Fun and Shodan look like jerks.

[ /Moderating ]

Last edited by tomndebb; 06-10-2008 at 10:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:37 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
The point is:

1) It's in the official Congressional record. Every single word, every accusation, every shred of evidence Kucinich is bringing up will be available to be read by anyone who wishes to, forever. Bush can kiss his "history will vindicate me" goodbye.
BFD. And accusation is just that, and nothing more.

Quote:
2) It will keep Bush & Co. busy. Time and effort spent addressing these articles will be time and effort that can't be used to swift boat the election or turn other dirty little tricks.
I'd be surprised if they spend 1 second worrying about this.

Quote:
3) It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.
Why? It's an obscure act by an obscure pol-- one who gets single digit votes in national elections.

Quote:
4) Any news organization that does not report or underreports this will reveal themselves as Bush's butt boys and this will make it much more difficult for them to claim impartiality, thereby undermining their credibility.
Lose credibility with whom? Almost no one will even hear about it. Why should they report on a political stunt that has zero chance of success?

Quote:
5) It will help Obama by pointing out that policies McCain does and has supported wholeheartedly are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. He's gonna have to do the biggest flipflop you ever saw to try to get out of all this--and watching a stiff old man flipflop that fast just emphasizes his extreme lack of flexibility.
If no one hears about this, it isn't going to help or hurt anyone. What do you think Obama would say if interviewed about this action? Would he support it or not?

Quote:
6) It ties McCain to an accused criminal.
No, it doesn't. Accused by whom? There are people who accuse Obama of criminal activity.

Quote:
7) IT FEELS GOOD.
Bingo.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:43 AM
jkusters jkusters is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
Bush's butt boys
Really, sophomoric insult like this, especially on this board, do not help your position.

While I love the image of a stalwart Congressman (or woman), standing up and making such a grand gesture, I can't see how anything will come of it. They'll let Kucinich have his spotlight time and then move back on to the business at hand. They just don't have the votes to even begin considering impeachment, and Kucinich knows it.

It's just theatre.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:49 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator
If it weren't Kucinich, this might make a very good cynical ploy, in that it smokes out the Pubbies. Will they defend The Leader, or no? Will they defend the proposition that a President might very well be impeached for lying about a knob job, but not for lying us into a war? When they are campaigning back home, will they be asked about this, do you think? I rather imagine they might.
No...they won't defend The Leader because there is no need to do so. The Leader won't defend himself for the same reason. They will either ignore it because it's not serious or they will make some hay off of portraying the Dems as, to use your quote, 'moonbats'.

This is not even a worthless gesture...because it will actually have a negative effect on the Dems. Why do you suppose the Dems aren't rallying around Brave Sir Kucinich? Why do you suppose they pretty much tried to hush him up when he went off the reservation last time and tried the exact same thing against Chaney?

If the Dems REALLY wanted to hold real investigations and really lay out articles of impeachment against Bush they would have done so by now...they have had plenty of opportunity since 2006. Instead you have one little weasel in the hen yard grandstanding...and probably hurting the Dems election chances (though in a small and weaselish way, to be sure).

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator
Of course, everybody knows Dennis is just a loony moonbat, so that can't be it....
No doubt....he's positively Machiavellian....



-XT
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:51 AM
Antinor01 Antinor01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Even if they impeach Bush (resurrect the impeachment of Cheney too!) with 17 days left in office....we'd still get our first female president, even if only for 17 days.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:56 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinor01
Even if they impeach Bush (resurrect the impeachment of Cheney too!) with 17 days left in office....we'd still get our first female president, even if only for 17 days.
Not sure if you are saying this tongue in cheek or not...but the probability of them impeaching Bush from this is pretty much approaching zero. In fact, I believe the snowballs have a better chance in hell.

Sure, it's a great fantasy (on par with Bush and Chaney getting dragged off in chains to Europe to face war crime trials and be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in a small room with their new friends Bubbah and Tiny)...but it's only a fantasy.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:01 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinor01
Even if they impeach Bush (resurrect the impeachment of Cheney too!) with 17 days left in office....we'd still get our first female president, even if only for 17 days.
Which would honk Hillary off to the nth degree. That makes it a win-win-WIN scenario!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:01 AM
Antinor01 Antinor01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Not sure if you are saying this tongue in cheek or not...but the probability of them impeaching Bush from this is pretty much approaching zero. In fact, I believe the snowballs have a better chance in hell.

Sure, it's a great fantasy (on par with Bush and Chaney getting dragged off in chains to Europe to face war crime trials and be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in a small room with their new friends Bubbah and Tiny)...but it's only a fantasy.

-XT
I agree with you that the chance of it actually happening are virtually zero. I was just pondering on another plus of them being removed.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:25 AM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
If the Dems do nothing, you can be sure the Pubbies will be calling them "spineless" over the next few months, even if it's spinelessness over prosecuting them (such is political commentary). I think Kucinich's effort would actually help the Dem's public image, if they had the spine to back it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:36 AM
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
First off, sorry for the insult--mea culpa.

Secondly, it's fairly obvious that the naysayers didn't actually WATCH the proceedings last night. Just so we're all on the same page, here's a link (PDF) to the articles in question. Can we get agreement that there are genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented here? Actions that we can agree are of sufficient weight and moment as to support impeachment? Things that NO president should EVER do? Actions that are a national disgrace? Actions which have caused substantial harm to American citizens? Not to mention death for thousands of us?

Anatole France said that “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” By the same token, if a million MSM pundits and status quo apologists ignore an important thing, it does not thereby reduce its importance.

I, for one, am sick and disgusted with the way Congress, the Bush administration and just regular old citizens of this country are ready, willing and able to handwave criminal actions away with the excuse of "political expediency" or "executive privilege." I, for one, do not care a whit how many handwavers there are or how vigorously they handwave, because the breeze of their waving hands, regardless if it reach Force Five levels, will NEVER be strong enough to banish the stink of corruption that has settled like a dismal smog bank over this country.

Dennis Kucinich has done THE RIGHT THING. I think it says something profound about the state of government in this country that he will no doubt be ignored, mocked and trivialized over the course of the next few months. It appears manifestly true to many that trees falling in forests make no sound--apparently many feel that if they themselves don't find something important, or worthy, or admirable that it changes the original action, but this is not the case. Mr Kucinich has more courage than anybody posting in this thread--he stood up, made his case, told the truth and did so with full knowledge that the panderers and naysayers and trivializers and Monday morning quarterbacks will have a field day making fun of his ears or how many votes he didn't get in an election. He appears to be fine with that, and I intend to take his example to heart and rise above the cynical, specious twitterings of those who can't see a genuine patriot when he stands before a microphone for five straight hours dispassionately yet passionately making his case to a mostly absent, unhearing, apparently uncaring set of peers.

This is NOT an issue of Right vs. Left. It is an issue of right vs. wrong and I pity anyone who can't see this, who won't see this, or who will continue to defend the actions of a corrupt, criminal administration. Truly it has been said that citizens of a democratic republic get the kind of government they deserve.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:58 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
Secondly, it's fairly obvious that the naysayers didn't actually WATCH the proceedings last night. Just so we're all on the same page, here's a link (PDF) to the articles in question. Can we get agreement that there are genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented here? Actions that we can agree are of sufficient weight and moment as to support impeachment? Things that NO president should EVER do? Actions that are a national disgrace? Actions which have caused substantial harm to American citizens? Not to mention death for thousands of us?
Here is the thing. If the documentation provided in the PDF REALLY described "genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented" then why hasn't the Dems DONE anything with it? They have had years now to do something....and if they had real smoking gun proof of this stuff why aren't they supporting Kucinich in this?

Maybe it's because the Dems are afraid, maybe it's because they are lazy, maybe it's because they are in on it....or maybe there really isn't enough actual documentation or proof to ACTUALLY impeach Bush? My own Occam's Razor says that this is the simplest explanation....as the other explanations don't seem to factor in the human element (i.e. it's in the Dems best interest to nail Bush to the wall if in fact they have proof of 'genuinely criminal actions'.

So, I guess to answer your question...no. I don't agree that what Kucinich is ranting about has any basis in more than speculation, spin and partisan politics. This of course isn't to say that Bush et al HAVEN'T done anything illegal...just that the Dems obviously don't have a real smoking gun (that is going to convince more than the faithful who are already convinced). Because if they DID have such smoking gun proof then they would have used it in concert...instead of having a long nutball attempt to push it out in the dead of the night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
Anatole France said that “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” By the same token, if a million MSM pundits and status quo apologists ignore an important thing, it does not thereby reduce its importance.
Conversely if one moonbat says something, even if it's something you want to hear, you shouldn't necessarily take it as gospel either. Maybe you should consider WHY the OTHER Dems (including Obama) aren't jumping on the bandwagon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
I, for one, am sick and disgusted with the way Congress, the Bush administration and just regular old citizens of this country are ready, willing and able to handwave criminal actions away with the excuse of "political expediency" or "executive privilege." I, for one, do not care a whit how many handwavers there are or how vigorously they handwave, because the breeze of their waving hands, regardless if it reach Force Five levels, will NEVER be strong enough to banish the stink of corruption that has settled like a dismal smog bank over this country.
And I'm sick of the screeching Dems and the corrupt Pubs....I'm sick to death of all this bullshit partisan politics from both sides. It's SO stupid, pointless, petty and counterproductive. And this impeachment articles pretty much exemplifies the stupidity.

A pox on both your houses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
This is NOT an issue of Right vs. Left. It is an issue of right vs. wrong and I pity anyone who can't see this, who won't see this, or who will continue to defend the actions of a corrupt, criminal administration. Truly it has been said that citizens of a democratic republic get the kind of government they deserve.
No, this is throwing a bone to the rabid left wingers thingy and my pity is for the poor deluded souls that take it seriously.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:10 PM
jkusters jkusters is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Here is the thing. If the documentation provided in the PDF REALLY described "genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented" then why hasn't the Dems DONE anything with it?
We can't know for certain since the House leadership will not even discuss it, but my intuition tells me they won't move because of several reasons, none of which have anything to do with a "smoking gun" kind of accusation.

1) There is doubt as to whether there would be enough votes in the House to carry an Impeachment vote. There are plenty of Republicans (and possibly some Democrats) who are strongly against Impeachment proceedings even if there was a body, a gun, fingerprints, and eye witnesses.

2) Even if the House managed to Impeach, there isn't much chance of a conviction in the Senate. Wounded too recently by the Clinton Impeachment fight, the Senate really doesn't want another one, especially in a chamber so evenly divided. There's no way that Lieberman would support Conviction (it would invalidate most of what he currently stands for), so that would leave the Democrats in the slight minority with the assumption that every single one of them vote to convict (highly unlikely).

3) The Republicans, when they went through the Clinton Impeachment spectacle, took quite the hit to their reputation. At the time, they had enough good will amongst the people of the country to survive such a hit and then elect a new Congress and President. Currently, the Democrats are enjoying a slim margin of popular favor, but are losing it as the war drags on. An Impeachment would destroy that thin margin, jeopardizing their chances in the Fall general election.

So, even if there *was* strong evidence, and I don't claim there is otherwise, the House leadership doesn't want to spend any time on it. It would be a futile waste of time, no matter how much righteous indignation they'd be able to stir up.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:20 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Well, gosh, XT, can we send him to bed without supper? Or is that a little too "rabid left wing" for you?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:22 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusters
1) There is doubt as to whether there would be enough votes in the House to carry an Impeachment vote. There are plenty of Republicans (and possibly some Democrats) who are strongly against Impeachment proceedings even if there was a body, a gun, fingerprints, and eye witnesses.
I disagree here. I think if there really was overwhelming evidence they would be able to get the votes needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusters
2) Even if the House managed to Impeach, there isn't much chance of a conviction in the Senate. Wounded too recently by the Clinton Impeachment fight, the Senate really doesn't want another one, especially in a chamber so evenly divided. There's no way that Lieberman would support Conviction (it would invalidate most of what he currently stands for), so that would leave the Democrats in the slight minority with the assumption that every single one of them vote to convict (highly unlikely).
Ok...I'll buy this somewhat. I thought of the Clinton impeachment when this all started and how it actually hurt the Republicans (as you say, not a fatal blow but it still hurt them). I still think if there really was overwhelming evidence of obvious criminal and illegal activity there would be sufficient reasons not to sweep this under the rug...which leads me to conclude the evidence is no where near as air tight as some folks seem to think it is. I concede that YMMV and certainly that political considerations are central to the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusters
3) The Republicans, when they went through the Clinton Impeachment spectacle, took quite the hit to their reputation. At the time, they had enough good will amongst the people of the country to survive such a hit and then elect a new Congress and President. Currently, the Democrats are enjoying a slim margin of popular favor, but are losing it as the war drags on. An Impeachment would destroy that thin margin, jeopardizing their chances in the Fall general election.
Definitely a major consideration...especially if the evidence is less than air tight or cut and dried. And at this late date perhaps even if it WAS rock solid....it's a distraction from the election even if it were somehow fully justified.

The thing is though that whatever evidence there IS, Kucinich had it at least a year ago when he went after Chaney...and yet at that time this evidence didn't even warrant either support from the Dems or defense form the 'Pubs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusters
So, even if there *was* strong evidence, and I don't claim there is otherwise, the House leadership doesn't want to spend any time on it. It would be a futile waste of time, no matter how much righteous indignation they'd be able to stir up.
Well, I agree that it IS a 'futile waste of time'...and that Kucinich is certainly going to stir up some indignation, though if the Dems are lucky no one (but the faithful) will pay much attention to this and it won't effect Obama's election chances.

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:24 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator
Well, gosh, XT, can we send him to bed without supper? Or is that a little too "rabid left wing" for you?
Well 'luci, if it's advice you seek, I think I'd tie him up and gag him until after the election was over and done with. After Obama is elected then it won't matter so much and he can be free to do whatever it is that moonbats do best...

-XT
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:06 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 26,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Well, it's obvious that a stunned nation has yet to throw off the shock and really start getting excited about these mighty articles of Impeachment!
Whatever.

Few have noticed, and few are going to notice, that Kucinich is actually doing anything about impeachment. The Dem leadership will not take up the issue. In terms of concrete results in the here and now, this will not matter at all. And it may or may not make a difference down the road.

But it doesn't matter. Someone in Congress making the case for impeachment, even if it's Kucinich, is better than no one making the case for impeachment.

Quote:
If the Dems REALLY wanted to hold real investigations and really lay out articles of impeachment against Bush they would have done so by now...they have had plenty of opportunity since 2006. Instead you have one little weasel in the hen yard grandstanding...and probably hurting the Dems election chances (though in a small and weaselish way, to be sure).
"The Dems" don't. And I'm sure Kucinich would be delighted if Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were to support impeachment, so Kucinich didn't have to 'grandstand.' But fuck-all if "the Dems" were going to take this one on, so the only alternatives were for some Dem or Dems to speak up, or simply shut up and pretend that essentially nobody in this country felt impeachment was worth looking into - a pretense contradicted by what occasional polling has been done, btw.

So good for Kucinich - someone is representing, in this regard, the 30% or more of the country that thinks impeachment needs to be considered.

Quote:
Maybe it's because the Dems are afraid, maybe it's because they are lazy, maybe it's because they are in on it....or maybe there really isn't enough actual documentation or proof to ACTUALLY impeach Bush? My own Occam's Razor says that this is the simplest explanation..
Bush has admitted to approving what we used to regard as torture, and essentially confirmed Cheney's complicity as well.

The idea that there's no open-and-shut case, in this instance, is absurd. The only question is, does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

That's the sort of thing that only Congress can decide. And maybe I'm way off base here, but this seems serious enough that ducking the debate entirely - no censure vote, no further investigation to see who else besides KSM has been waterboarded, no examination of other things done to prisoners per this Administration's orders to determine if they should be regarded as torture, no nothing - is an abdication on their part of their constitutional responsibility.

Quote:
..as the other explanations don't seem to factor in the human element (i.e. it's in the Dems best interest to nail Bush to the wall if in fact they have proof of 'genuinely criminal actions'.
For the most part, this Democratic Party has demonstrably been a bunch of timid rabbits. There's your human element. Republicans are rarely afraid to go on offense against the Dems, whether it's in their best interests or not - and if you substitute 'almost always' for 'rarely' you get the Dems.

People, and groups, often fail to act in their best interests, simply because of who they are.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:27 PM
BarnOwl BarnOwl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,748
Even if the impeachment got really serious in a white hot hurry, W could pull a Nixon and resign.


Then, uh, who would succeed him for the remaining days? And there'd surely be enough time to bomb Iran

Last edited by BarnOwl; 06-10-2008 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:36 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 68,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarnOwl
Even if the impeachment got really serious in a white hot hurry, W could pull a Nixon and resign.


Then, uh, who would succeed him for the remaining days? And there'd surely be enough time to bomb Iran
We're assuming that, forced or willing, he'd go out the door with Cheney in tow (because any plan that put Cheney in the OO even for a week would be unacceptable), so . . . Pelosi.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 06-10-2008 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:39 PM
BarnOwl BarnOwl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
We're assuming that, forced or willing, he'd go out the door with Cheney in tow (because any plan put Cheney in the OO even for a week would be unacceptable), so . . . Pelosi.
Okay.

But it plays only in my fondest dreams.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:41 PM
mswas mswas is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Censored
Posts: 19,009
It seems like a total fucking waste of time to me. He's just fellating his moonbat constituency. Yes, this means YOU much of the SDMB.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:45 PM
mswas mswas is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Censored
Posts: 19,009
I think impeachment will be a tradition for a while now. I can't wait til 2016 when President Obama gets his articles of impeachment.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:46 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 20,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Well 'luci, if it's advice you seek, I think I'd tie him up and gag him until after the election was over and done with. After Obama is elected then it won't matter so much and he can be free to do whatever it is that moonbats do best...

-XT
I've wanted to do that to him for YEARS!

Glad you're finally on board with the idea.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:55 PM
jkusters jkusters is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
It's interesting that I just got an email from Rep. Wexler, supporting Kucinich, and promising to try and get the articles brought up before the Judiciary committee. So, apparently *some* in the party paid attention. We'll have to see it it gets any traction this time around...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-10-2008, 03:02 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusters
It's interesting that I just got an email from Rep. Wexler, supporting Kucinich, and promising to try and get the articles brought up before the Judiciary committee. So, apparently *some* in the party paid attention. We'll have to see it it gets any traction this time around...
I'm sure the big-wigs in the House will be looking at Nov. If they think it helps the Dems in Nov, they'll push it forward. If they think it doesn't, they won't. It would be very interesting to hear Obama's opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:45 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 57,344
The Democrats should stop worrying about who won the last two Presidential elections and spend more time working on winning the next one.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:21 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 68,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewbert
Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point?
Kinda. The movie won't be out for another year.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.