"Democrats shouldn't impeach. We should focus on the positive."

First of all, what positives? We're still in Iraq, the executive branch can run as wild as they please, health care is still screwed up, there's not a trace of work on global warming... what positives? Move ahead and focus on what? Letting W's administration get away with using the Constitution for toilet paper? Sending a message to future Republican and corporatist cronies that they can do as they please? Sending meaningless nonbinding resolutions up to the White House for the executive branch to laugh at? If I was W, I'd frame every nonbinding resolution and hang it in my office for the sheer entertainment value.

All of these sound bytes about accentuating the positive and looking to the future are nothing but a cover for the real reason that Pelosi and company aren't pushing impeachment: they're scared to do it. They don't care for doing anything but playing it safe. Really, it's contemptible. As rotten as the Republicans are, they've at least got the spine to carry out their schemes. Pelosi and other (but not all) Democratic leaders ought to change their party names to Scaredycrats.

It's not easy or safe to clean out crack houses, either, but would you want police to just conclude that it wasn't worth it and just focus on positive things like seat belt usage going up? That's the equivalent of the "focus on the positive" argument.

You know what? I'm sick and tired of Scaredycrats. I want Democrats. I want someone like the 2007 Al Gore or Harry Truman or RFK or FDR - people who aren't afraid to stand up for the right thing whether or not it's safe or politically expedient. It is a shame that Democrats with any kind of spine have to fight people in their own party to do what's right.

It's the fault of your own goddamn Democrats that Nancy can't move forward with impeachment. Why don't you clean up your own back yard so the rest of the country can make some progress. My god. Can this country get any dumber.

I'm sure the representatives from my state were quite happy when Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

It's the fault of your own goddamn Democrats that Nancy can't move forward with impeachment.

No, it's Nancy's fault that Nancy can't move forward with impeachment. When she was still Minority leader, she pledged that impeachment was off the table. Don't call anyone else dumb when you have no grasp on the facts.

What the hell is Nancy supposed to do when she has to deal with YOUR stupid Democrats. Clean up your own back yard and get her the votes she needs. If you can't get your own representatives to change their votes, how in the hell is she supposed to do it. And yeah, anybody who doesn't have a grasp on THOSE FACTS, is DUMB. Sick and goddamn tired of this shit.

I said RED STATE. As in REPUBLICAN. I campaigned and voted Democratic but it didn't make much difference here.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table while she was still Minority leader. She had no intent whatsoever of pursuing impeachment. It wasn't a matter of votes. It wasn't a matter of bringing other Democrats into line. Nancy's one of the Democrats who has to be brought into line. Honestly, if you can't see that, then you don't have the right to call anyone else dumb. I'm sorry you're sick of impeachment talk. Must be difficult getting around with weak knees and no spine.

She took it off the table to appease YOUR DEMOCRATS. I can read just fine. You clearly refuse to take responsibility for where you live. It's not her fault that YOUR DEMOCRATS oppose impeachment. It's YOURS. Change minds in YOUR STATE, so YOUR REPS can change their vote. That is what needs to happen and it's needed to happen for years now. We just aren't allowed to say it because it's "region bashing".

Pelosi didn't take impeachment off the table because of red state Democrats. She took it off the table because she fears the same kind of backlash in popularity that the Congress who impeached Clinton got.

The thing that she's apparently unwilling to consider is that the country knew that the Clinton impeachment was purely political, while there are manifold reasons to impeach the W administration, and the country would know it once the ball got rolling.

If you want to sit around and think that Pelosi is completely blameless, and it's all the fault of us awful red state Democrats, then I hope you've got a snorkel, because your head is firmly buried in the sand. Or should I say sandnsea?

Are you kidding me? You don't think your red state Dems have anything to do with convincing her of all this backlash bullshit?? Jesus fucking christ. How the hell will we ever make progress if the very people at fault can't see it. Unreal.

:argh:

1. Where do you come up with the idea that red state Democrats make policy for the entire party? You don't even live in a red state. You sit out on the West Coast and make stupid assumptions.

2. How can we make progress if people like you shift blame from your own leaders - who are the ones in position to make a difference, not red state Democrats - onto someone else because of regional prejudice?

Oh, it's not poor Nancy's fault, it's those awful red state Democrats! Nancy doesn't stand a chance against their conniving, Machiavellian ways! She's been bumped from the straight and narrow path by their evil silver-tongued rhetoric! Those few red state Democrats have taken the entire party down the wrong path! Do you not know how dumb that sounds?

All of this twisting is you desperately wanting to point a finger anywhere besides at the person you support, and the possibility that you could have put your support behind someone who's going in the wrong direction.

Are you kidding me? You seriously do not understand how much red state Senators and Congressmen block votes?? Who do you think made it possible for Alito to get in??

Wow. You're sitting there in the midst of the biggest opportunity to change the country and world, and you don't even know it. I don't think I've ever been more shocked at DU than right now.

I'm thinking REPUBLICANS made it possible for Alito to get in. But you want to know which Democrats voted for him?

Byrd - West Virginia
Conrad - North Dakota
Johnson - South Dakota
Nelson - Nebraska

By the way, if you flipped those four votes, Alito still gets in, 54-46. It's called a Republican majority, a fact that apparently escaped you. According to you, though, it was the fault of the southern Democrats. The fact that Democrats from Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida voted against Alito apparently escaped you. The next time you try some kind of off-the-wall argument, why don't you try checking some sources first? Even us barefoot, ignorant southerners are capable of that.

I'm guessing that your assertions re: the "Southern Connection" and Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment is based on the same amount of careful research: NONE.

Still, it's red state Dems that block this stuff, from both the south and midwest.

Point being, how are your Dems going to vote on impeachment? It's not California Dems that are the problem. You're still sitting in the part of the country that needs to change in order to change the votes, both to change the Dem votes AND to get rid of Republicans. Nancy Pelosi is simply not the problem.

He's a cosponsor of a bill to impeach Cheney. Where are YOUR representatives?

On edit: I'll give you the answer. Hank Johnson is a Democrat from GEORGIA. Game, set, match, and kiss my deep-fried, southern ass.

We're working on ours, not blaming Nancy Pelosi because he hasn't signed yet. But you can't seriously be comparing Cynthia McKinney's district to the entire south.

Find a southern Democratic representative who has been as outspoken and on the record as against impeachment as much as Pelosi.

On edit: Oh, just working? There's a Georgia representative on the bill, and on the record, for impeachment, and YOUR representatives are nowhere to be found. Yet, it's the south's fault. As I said in the previous edit: game, set, match, and you and your regional prejudice can kiss my deep-fried southern ass.

WTF? That doesn't even make any sense. Find somebody who gets as much press on ANYTHING as the Speaker. :crazy:

Look, I've been supporting a strategy to go into red areas for years, even in my home state where the eastern half is red. I don't think "san francisco liberals" listen to rural voters, and vice versa. I think that's the crux of the problem in this country. I have criticism for all Dems on the subject. But I'll be damned if I let people just rant against one person when there's an entire country that needs to step up to the plate.

Any United States representative that makes a comment on record about impeachment will get quoted, period. There hasn't been a single Georgia Democrat who has been on the record as against impeachment. Not one. Not once.

So now it's "criticism for all Dems on the subject" and "an entire country that needs to step up to the plate" instead of just us evil, machiavellian southerners, hmm?

I don't have criticism for "all Dems on the subject" when it comes to impeachment. I have criticism for those who oppose it, and I don't give a damn whether they're from Georgia, San Francisco, Montana, New York, or wherever. Pelosi's the leading Democrat against impeachment in the House of Representatives; therefore, she deserves the leading share of criticism. Now that you're done playing with the deep south straw man, how about you come to your senses and demand action, too?

And that's acceptable to you? At least my Congressman has the decency to respond to impeachment inquiries.

Okay, you can also forget my attempt at rational solutions to our national problem. I'd be happy to go back to the sorry truth that the south is fucking up the country.

I'd say that my Democratic representatives had been intimidated into silence by Pelosi's position on impeachment. It makes just as much sense - and I have exactly as much evidence for it (NONE) - as your assertion that Pelosi has been cowed into an anti-impeachment stance by southerners.

Since I'm not wearing the tinfoil hat, I'll say this: when you don't say anything, you keep your options open. I'd rather have representatives from ANY state keeping their options open on impeachment than entirely dismissing it out of hand like Pelosi has. You congratulate someone on simply taking a stance, even if it's the wrong one? That's right out of W's 2004 campaign playbook. There's NO virtue in taking a stance if it's the wrong one. You'd think people would learn that at some point.

You don't have rational solutions. All you're doing is casting about for anyone to blame but yourself.

How can you even pretend these idiots aren't the key problem in the Dem party.

http://www.moultrieobserver.com/local/local_story_183222314.html

You just dismissed Hank Johnson as one representative who wasn't indicative of southern Democrats as a whole. Then you think that one different representative - just one - proves your point. Don't you just love shifting standards? That, by the way, is one problem with political discourse in this country. Looks like you're a contributor.

So we're got one red state rep who says to "hang in there" in Iraq. Then we've got another who's cosponsoring impeachment legislation against Cheney. Hardly the southern Democrat cabal influencing Pelosi that you paint.

I say that Scaredycrats are the problem with the Democratic Party. That includes Jim Marshall and Nancy Pelosi. Unlike you, I focus on the problem, rather than trying to find a region on which to blame the problem. Grow up.

``There are a lot of folks in the House, including some committee chairmen, who really want to push the House to the left,'' said Representative Allen Boyd of Florida, co-chairman of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of self-described conservative Democrats. ``Speaker Pelosi is going to have to be very wary and very careful, or we'll have a two-year majority and that's all.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=afe_mIacquQ4&refer=home

Honestly, who the hell are the Blue Dogs if not primarily southern Dems.

If there be scaredycats, they're in your back yard.

nm

...

The damn board is screwing up here.

Anyhow, your reply still doesn't come close to being ALL southern Democrats. And where do the Blue Dogs come from? The following 25 states:

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah

Last time I checked, the southeast was made up of a lot fewer than 25 states. And guess what? The state with the most "Blue Dogs" is...
California, with seven. Put another way, California has as many "Blue Dogs" as any two southern states. Ooops. Looks like you'd better tend to your own back yard. But what an opportunity! :rofl: Too bad you're too stupid to see what you're on top of. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

You really, really ought to look things up before shooting your mouth off.

Half of them are southern states. But just go ahead and deny deny deny. That's why nothing ever changes.

Red State Dems. Rural Dems. Southern Dems. Blue Dogs. Blocking progress. The whole lot of them.

Yes there are more in California because it's BIGGER, they have more reps of any persuasion. It has nothing to do with the fact that the entire south are Blue Dogs and are the problem, as seen by the article I already posted.

One third of southern Democratic representatives are Blue Dogs. Because you apparently need to have everything spelled out for you, that means that two-thirds of southern representatives are not Blue Dogs. This means that it is not a fact that "the entire south are Blue Dogs and are the problem."

Aren't you tired of getting your butt kicked? Give it up, junior - you don't have a leg to stand on.

I never knew. You just called it red state hell for fun. See ya. You're hopeless.

It is red state hell. And those of us here who are Democrats fight hard, and that includes not being responsible for impeachment being taken off the table.

How does it feel to have all your straw men burnt? Loser.

But none of your representatives are responsible for it being that way. Who can argue with that kind of "logic". :crazy:

There are two parties, shitwit.

On edit: None of which changes the fact that Pelosi is falling short in her role as leader of the House of Representatives. None of which changes the fact that Pelosi's the one who's declared that impeachment is off the table. Deflect, lie, set straw men. Again, you argue just like a Freeper. Perhaps, with those tactics, you should change parties.

:loveya:

Whoops. Thought it hadn't gone through.

otehr than get Cynthia McKinney replaced?

But why don't you bring your lazy blue state butt down here and fight on the front lines, if you're so concerned with Georgia?

replacement.Here is a great article on him.http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2007/06/hank-johnson-signs-on-to-cheneys.html

They have heard how I feel but that doesn't mean that they appear to give a da*n. All elected officials need to get up off of their sorry behinds and do something about the American Government and its people being help hostage by a group that does not acknowledge the law of the land. So sad!!

So what the hell is Nancy supposed to do? We have to work harder at changing more minds where we live and stop this assinine foot stomping at the leadership. It's a waste of time and money.

It is painful to admit, but we have no one to bail us out. It was nice to dream that Nancy could turn this country around but that was a fleeting notion. Face it, this one party system will continue their 'In you face' ways until the American people stand up. By the way now is not the time to conserve time or money.

Until we face that reality, we aren't going to change anything ever.

That would explain why the states are red in the first place. :eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

You've been flipping elections and shaping the debate for years.

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

to Kucinichs Impeachment Articles.
Did Yours?

would convince a lot of people just what that party has become: a criminal organization bent on looting the country while it protects its own against all the laws of the land.

:grr:

list is growing by leaps today.

Two words. Paul Wellstone.

why do you want her to become President?

Besides which, despite the cowardice, she'd be better than the sociopaths who inhabit the executive branch right now. You have to admit that Bush and Cheney set the bar awfully low.

What a load of BS.

You can't get to "the positive" without cleaning out the garbage.

You're correct. The Dem leadership is paying us lip service and thinking we're going away. We are DEMANDING action.

Not only can Gore help save the planet, but he can help unite this party.

Impeach Pelosi for Derilection of her Constitutional duties in not pursuing impeachment of Busha nd Cheney. I don't know if there is a provision for impeaching the third in line of succession. But, clearly she and any other Democrat or for that matter patriotic republican, who refuse to pursue impeachment need to resign from Congress or otherwise step aside to allow the courageous members of the House and Senate to do their duties. Remember, it was Barry Goldwater, the arch right wing republican who took members of Congress to the White House to tell Nixon his gig was up!. Even Nixon, did the honorable thing for the country and resigned, not wanting to take the country after Vietnam thru the trauma of an impeachment of a President.

the country - it was what impeachment would do to the Republican party that scared him. And Goldwater. And the Republicans that convinced him he needed to resign, for the sake of the Party. There was nothing honorable about it - they were all just covering their collective asses.

We have no bullets but we may stand here and pull the trigger anyway.

It'll show them we won't stand for their actions!

Thanks.

I'll show you what a real corporate tool looks like..

So dear -- what exactly have YOU been doing to turn Georgia *blue*? I mean besides knocking everyone else who has managed to change direction in THEIR states?

Georgians who throw stones need to be reminded that they need to clean up THEIR Good ole Boy BS before they start dissing other people's actions.

Or should I say "dear"? Condescensing ripostes aside, it's easier to be a Democrat in a blue state. Do you get yelled at, flipped off, have notes left on your car, or go through any kind of the crap that red state Democrats do? Mighty easy for you to sit nice and comfy in your blue state and talk about how I should clean up "good ole boy BS" when there are those of us who are actually trying to do it.

And on edit: Yours is a really stupid straw man argument anyway. What does it matter where I post from, or where I live? Whether I post from Georgia or from Alabama or from San Francisco, it doesn't change the fact that Pelosi is letting us all down with her refusal to consider impeachment.

The People love that.

:P

She's our rep, so let's get her to do what We the People want!

We could easily bring back the goodwill that Bushco squandered away. Make them accountable - JUST ONCE.

What are they doing exactly right now that is illegal? Gitmo? Renditions? Warrantless wiretapping? Patriot Act abuses? Destroying the DOJ? How can we just put on abig smile and say that we will only focus on the future with happy thoughts?

The house in on fire but she wants to garden? We need to save our country. It is in jeopardy daily. With every moment they assert complete unchecked power the Constitution and our System becomes diluted and diminished. Either we are a country of laws or not. The current Congress has a tremendous responsibility to address the harm and illegality that has occured. Without repairing the damage, and acknowledging the truth of the illegality of their actions will repair the damage in many ways in and of itself, there is no foundation to add anything positive to.

How do address healthcare or any other domestic issue when the president acts as if he were king? It's like focusing on a rash before you cure cancer.

they have a "D" by their names, they're the "good guys"

there are a handful of Democrats left. All the rest of the DC cabal are on the same side--their OWN side, not ours, regardless of nominal party affiliation.

We criticize them everyday. You just can't support a Green or any other third party candidate on DU.

who only got injured. Thank god that they all signed up voluntarily to have their lives splattered about!

Who cares if the house impeaches the asshole, the Senate has to convict him. Without a convition or a resignation it would be as stupid as them going after Clinton in '98 IMO.

Whether or not it succeeded, it would send a message to future administrations that criminal activity wouldn't be glossed over in the name of convenience. Additionally, it could serve to bring a lot of stuff to the light of day that has been covered up by the Bush administration, and they'd be known for the criminals that they are.

OJ didn't get convicted, either, but everyone knows he's a criminal, and he's a pariah. In the same sense, bringing the depth of corruption of Bush's administration to light would brand them, too - and maybe make the next nest of criminals think twice.

The vote comes LATER... you don't figure the jury won't convict, so you just ignore evidence and decline to bring charges.

:wtf:

As in, the majority of this board and the majority of the country favor impeachment. And Republicans don't even have to block it. Pelosi's doing it for them.

you know people who would rather see the Dems get to work passing all these resolutions that have no chance of becoming laws. People who would rather watch all these investigations go nowhere as the Administration blocks testimony, threatens and coerces people, and destroys important national records. Yeah I think we should sit around for another 18 months WITH OUR FUCKING THUMBS UP OUR ASSES and watch as the Democrat apologists keep whining that they have more important things to do (like cover their collective re-election asses) than to keep my buddies from getting blown up in Iraq.

Where exactly do you think the Democrats are whose votes need to be changed?? San Francisco???? They're beating up the wrong damn Democrats. We're supposed to ignore that because we don't want to hurt the widddle southerners feelings???

You know the state. It's the one where his region and his representatives are completely blameless and faultless, and it's all someone else's fault.

You know, I'd understand if he was blaming it on southern Republicans, or southern fundamentalists, but southern Democrats? It's absolutely insane.

So Nancy puts it on the table tomorrow. What do YOUR Dems do?? Hmmm????

If Pelosi put impeachment on the table and any Georgia Democrats opposed it, I'd immediately shift any blame and criticism to them.

As to your question, out of four GA Democratic representatives, only one has expressed a specific opinion on impeachment, and it's Hank Johnson, who has joined 10 other members of Congress in co-sponsoring a bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

A GEORGIA representative is cosponsoring the bill. Where are YOUR representatives?

When it comes to understanding what we have to put up with in this state.
I especially love it when people from Reagans home state bash us southerners.

Nyah Nyah Nyah...? I happen to agree with him that whether it works or not Impeachment needs to be put back on the table. I could care less about anyone's feelings, as long as kids are dying in Iraq the Dems first priority should be to get them home. They chickened out on the budget, now they are left with removing the CIC. When Einstein invented the electric light bulb he tried hundreds of things to use as the filament, people kept telling him, give it up, it's never going to work, nothing you do can make this work. I'm kinda glad he stuck with it.

What is it about votes that the left just absolutely refuses to acknowledge.

Dig some of the votes up. Demonstrate a voting pattern that shows southern Democrats are the basis for the nation's evils. Go ahead. Until you do, you are continuing to throw out unfounded assertions. No wonder you have your head buried in the sand; you're apparently quite content to talk out of your ass.

bankruptcy, abortion, taxes, environment, all of it. Every blessed thing it's southern and midwest Democrats getting in the way. Everybody knows it. Why do you pretend otherwise?

You want to make these broad, sweeping generalizations about southern Democrats, but you've got nothing better that "everybody knows"?

Usually, when I hear "everybody knows," it's accompanied by something like "everybody knows it's a liberal media." Everybody knows - the calling card of wild generalizations with no proof.

I know you're no Freeper, but you might be more convincing on a Democratic board by not using Freeper forms of argument.

You've just shown that Jim Marshall is part of the problem. You, however, have not demonstrated that southern Democrats en masse are the problem. That's been your point all along, and you have conclusively and pathetically failed to prove it.

Edited for html.

I could care less if it works or not, I'd just like to be able to tell my overseas friends that we at least tried. But there's no point in trying. It's just a waste of time. Time could be better spent passing legislation that has no chance whatsoever of becoming law, at least then they could say they tried to do something, but they couldn't get past the most criminally inept president in the history of the U.S. He and his cronies were just too smart for them.

and if it's not looking good, they just decline to indict?

Is that how it works there?

:shrug:

If a DA doesn't have enough evidence for a jury to convict, he gets in quite a bit of trouble for indicting. See Duke LaCrosse team.

We have plenty of evidence.

DAs do not tuck their tails when they have evidence.

Because it's been seen by the entire Congress and only 14 people think it's enough to impeach with.

If the evidence to impeach were easy to understand, the country would be screaming for impeachment. It's not. Change minds, change votes. Nancy will be delighted to impeach this bastard.

For now, it looks like we've got the votes for troop withdrawal and isn't that more important than a partisan battle over impeachment??

If they are scared, it must be of something. What is it?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Pelosi's afraid that impeachment proceedings would generate a backlash against Democrats in the same fashion that impeachment generated a backlash against the Republican congress that impeached Clinton, and we'd lose control of Congress.

However:

a) the backlash wasn't because of the fact of impeachment itself - it was that impeachment was being wasted on perjury about oral sex

b) the presidential election just a couple of years later was close enough for Bush's cronies to steal it, and Congress went Republican, too. Not much of a backlash if you ask me.

Pelosi could be afraid of accusations that her House didn't accomplish anything, but I'd say that holding the most corrupt administration since Grant responsible for its actions is a damn fine accomplishment.

I think she's just playing it safe and running out the clock on the Bush administration, and I think that's cowardly.

"everything changed" per 911, she thinks that the people would actually be upset at impeaching a "wartime President?" Though I can't see that. In 2002 maybe, but not now.

Chimpy is so unpopular, and Cheney even more so, it's hard to imagine such a backlash really taking place.

Maybe they want the evidence and all their ducks in a row - repukes do play dirty and those of us who don't would probably be surprised by the tricks they will pull in defense of Chimpster and his Puppetmaster.

They'll immediately start attacking Pelosi and other Democrats. Perhaps the Dems need time to line up what they will need to defend themselves personally.

Which I just posted above. :crazy:

done to start impeachment proceedings?What the fuck have your idiots done to end the war?What the fuck have your idiots done to expose the criminal cabal wrecking our country?

Other than not supporting impeachment at this time, plenty.

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=65

Look at what my Rep is doing.He has done more to end this war and take down bushco than a lot of Dems in the rest of the country have done.
http://hankjohnson.house.gov/news.shtml
My previous Representative stirred things up so much that they unleashed total war against her to silence her.You may have heard of her before.Cynthia McKinney.

That's a representative to be proud of.

It's a shame human cloning and rapid growth hasn't been perfected. If it was, you and your shitty regional prejudice could literally go fuck yourself.

YES IT IS

Last time I checked, she was the boss. If she's cowed out of impeachment by one Florida representative who's part of a coalition that makes up one third of southern Democrats, then she's a chickenshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

That is a GREAT one dude!

Positive IS as positive DOES, Madame Squeaker.

Hint: Only Impeachment ... is that positive DOING.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic, (and legal, electoral, diplomatic...) option.

Get on with it.

----

While the net is screaming about instant impeachment Democrats put contempt findings on the table today. That's a criminal offense and pressing contempt could wind up setting of a constitutional showdown that ends with impeachment.

The Democratic contempt effort could really use support now and if the issue gets framed as Bush putting himself above the law it will be tough for members of Congress to vote against contempt. Contempt prosecutions would send a strong message to the Republicans that they can't turn the presidency into a dictatorship.

Still, the net is aflame with people who want to swing for the bleachers and strike out with instant impeachment. Not many on the net are interested in an easy double like contempt.

Thanks.

Because this thread is so much about Democrats failing while they are succeeding as we speak.

Ya know?

"I want someone like the 2007 Al Gore or Harry Truman or RFK or FDR - people who aren't afraid to stand up for the right thing whether or not it's safe or politically expedient."

Truman wasn't afraid... to commit genocide by dropping two a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. FDR wasn't afraid... of ruïning thousands of Japanese Americans lives by putting them in camps, just because they were Japanese. RFK wasn't afraid... to plan numerous assassination plans for Fidel Castro, who just ousted the US-sponsored dictator Battista.

But besides that, you're right.