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?
It’s Kucinich. He’s doing it as a protest.
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.” 
The point is:
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.
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.
It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.
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.
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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
Sounds good to me. I wonder how many people are in the chamber with him. Shame it doesn’t look like many.
[QUOTE=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.” 
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
we FINALLY get to point our fingers… and if nothing else give him the “J’accuse!”
[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a fucking circus 2008 is.
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)
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
The point is:
~snipping of other excellent points to get to~
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.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
The point is:
I doubt history will only look to the Congressional record to make its judgment.
They will hardly need to spend any time on this.
Nobody will care next month.
Nobody will be doing much reporting on this next month because nobody will care.
This will not happen.
This reading will mean nothing.
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?
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure you know more about that than pretty much anybody.
Just because YOU weren’t paying attention/don’t care doesn’t mean everybody else isn’t/doesn’t.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
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?
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
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=SmartAleq]
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=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.
[/QUOTE]
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=SmartAleq]
3) It will focus attention and make it more difficult for the republicans to play their favorite election tampering/stealing stunts.
[/QUOTE]
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=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.
[/QUOTE]
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=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.
[/QUOTE]
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=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.
[/QUOTE]
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=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.
[/QUOTE]
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
It’s the middle of the night?
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.
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.
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
[QUOTE=Zoe]
It’s the middle of the night?
[/QUOTE]
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
