Kucinich's Impeachment of Cheney Killed By Dems?

Help me out here. I'm paraphrasing from a comment on Reddit: As I understand what happened today - by referring to committee they are taking away the ability of the full house to debate or vote on the issue. It is now up to committee leadership to deal with, and they can literally do nothing on it - ever.

Bottom line is Kucinich got his ass handed to him by his own party. If the Republicans had voted to table it, the Democrats could have pointed fingers and could have come out looking good.

It looks like the Republicans realized the Democrats were invertebrates on this issue, and voted to force discussion on the topic. The Democrats then had to send it to committee to bury it so that no discussion or debate could happen.

Is this an accurate description?

a discussion and vote. The Republican half of the discussion would have been nothing but impassioned cries to "stop wasting the people's time with this frivolous nonsense," and the vote to impeach would have failed, likely spectacularly.

DK did not do a good thing for us today. Had it come to a vote, we would have been defeated resoundingly. Had by some miracle it passed, it would have come to an even greater defeat in the Senate. As it stands, we look like cowards. The only Democrat who possibly could have come off looking good was DK himself. He was grandstanding today.

Flame me for saying it if you like.

Impeachment is what most Americans want. Period. We aren't just talking about the base, this is something just about every thinking mammal wants.

And, even if it was a "waste of time", it would have shown a vertebrae on behalf of incumbents for 2008.

Heck, at this point - the only ones who don't want accountability are... well... Democrats.

WTF?

election to these people.

They didn't want to make waves in 1988 either.

Now if the folks do not care how saussage is made and put pressure and something comes out of this... then
they may still salvage this

But these weak-kneed chickenshits are about to loose the store... and don't even realize why.

We have a few individuals in Congress who are not part of the Corporatist Party.

Dennis Kucinich is one of those few.

Most, perhaps even all, in the Black Congressional Caucus and the Progressive Caucus are among those few.

Who else? Ron Paul, maybe, though many of his positions are bad, like eliminating Social Security. He is getting a lot of attention from conservatives who are fed up with the GOP and the war. I'm not sure whether he's truly free of the corporatist taint but he may be.

or Basileus Basileon's?

Because, with all due respect to BB, his view is closer to the beltway consultant's view than mine.

I was just trying to explain to you how his logic is wrong

Sorry for the misunderstanding

Only the Radical HardLeft wants impeachment. Most Americans could care less about impeachment.

but that doesn't make it so.

When the first repub stands up and says cheney or chimpy should be impeached, I'll believe that "most" Americans support going forward on impeachment.

A new poll conducted by http://www.americanresearchgroup.com finds that 54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including 76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans, and 50% of independents.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/24390

This was a July 2007 poll

The poll asked a specific question: Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

There is a difference -- a significant difference -- between "beginning" impeachment proceedings and doing what DK tried, which is to move, without an inquiry and public hearings before the Judiciary Committee, to a vote on impeachment (after a mere hour's debate).

Historically, the first step in an impeachment proceeding has not been the presentation of resolutions to impeach for a vote by the full House. It has been the presentation to the full House of a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation and report back to the House with a recommendation regarding articles of impeachment.

Neither of DK's resolutions (the one languishing in the Judiciary Committee since the spring or the one he presented yesterday) followed the historical course. Both called for going straight to a vote on impeachment without the initial step of having the entire House consider whether to authorize an inquiry. The fact that a bare majority (not even within the margin of error when you focus on registered voters) support "beginning" impeachment proceedings does not mean that there is majority support for impeaching Cheney without going through the public hearing process used in prior impeachment proceedings.

Now, I recognize that even if DK had crafted his resolution(s) more in line with historical precedent the outcome likely wouldn't have been any different. That's because there is unanimous opposition among repubs to moving forward in a meaningful way on impeachment and there are more than enough red-state Democrats who aren't going to support a purely partisan vote to commence impeachment proceedings. So the leadership, rather than put to a vote a traditional resolution that would fail, would try to bottle up that approach as well.

But DK made it easy by showboating with an approach that is out of line with recent historical precedent.

like most of the dems?

did not abuse his power. Illegal wiretapping of American citizens without a court order, a policy of suspending any American's Constitutional rights to due process because you label them as an enemy combatant, labeling non-Americans as enemy combatants, and holding them on non-U.S. soil indefinitely, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, along with direct violation of our laws, and the Geneva Convention in regard to Abu Garib. Some of their justification is the same justification that we used to intern the Japanese AMERICAN CITIZENS during WWII

Your argument implies that Nixon should never have been impeached

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

i believe that his motivation was to get Conyers to start acting on H Res 333. The pressure is now on Conyers to look at the Articles and do something.

DK succeded in pulling an end run around recalcitrant House leadership that is far too invested in the "Impeachment is off the table" mantra to even look at his resolution.

The Democratic party is controlled by qausi-Republicans. It's not my party anymore either and I'm mad as hell that our republic is nearly lost. I want an opposition party. I want my party back!

I hope Kucinich hands us our party back and the corporate Dems don't convince us that handing Dennis his ass was reasonable and prudent.

as standing behind the rifleman. They can try to paint it some other way, but that's the bottom line, they all ran for cover like rats.

they expected to make fun of dems in an hour of open debate... ooops

for cheney. They wouldn't put up the fight, they'd rather make it go away for a while. Voting to table it would go down as a vote of confidence for cheney, nobody in their right mind would do that.

then it didn't come... I watched the whole thing

They realized their mistake in not tabling it by the second and third vote

as all the vote switiching was going on, you were proclaiming that the repukes wanted impeachment and were "deserting the sinking ship".

Look at the numbers, it was the Republicans who got the votes to move forward with impeachment.

Now it can truthfully be said that the Republicans have worked harder to impeach Bush/Cheney than the Democrats have.

This makes the looks terrible! What little street cred the Democratic Party had, they just lost it.

Can I interest you in a bridge?

cost the Dems the white house in 1988?

in the congress a year prior would be news to me.

I suppose you're right - it was "slight of hand". Thanks to sell-out Dems, in 2008 Republicans will not have to explain why they didn't support impeachment, because they did.

Quite a trick.

Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=
Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=
Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=
Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=
Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=
Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=Republican Party=Democratic Party=
Republican Party...

Both are owned by corporations.

We are a fascist State.

We no longer elect our representatives.

They are selected and marketed for our consumption just like cars and beer.

One person, one vote - worthless

Billions in corporate embezzlement of public funds - priceless

Bend over America... we are not a nation of justice based on laws, we are a nation of fools cowed by criminals.

I would like that to be the Green Party. There are a few problems with that.

Repeal the 12th amendment, reforming the electoral college, standardizing party qualifications in the states, qualified and free access to public airwaves.

1.Uniform Ballot Access
2.Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
3.Universal Voter Registration
4.Election Day Holiday
5.Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
6.Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
7.Secure Voting Machines
8.Public Campaign Financing
9.Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
10.Congressional Representation

how would removing the requirement that separate votes are cast for President and VP be a positive reform?


If you want direct popular election of the president, that would require a new amendment not a repeal of the 12th.

Additionally the small states would oppose the removal of the electoral college as the presidential candidates would only go after states with high populations


Unless you require anyone running for office to accept public campaign financing how would this be any different than what we have now?

Election day is already a holiday.

Not here in NC. Everyone shows up late for work with their little "I voted" stickers on. It is most certainly not a holiday.

a national holiday.

You cannot force businesses to close on a holiday. For example I work on Columbus day, but that is a national holiday too.

Anyone here live in Conyer's district? You want to start writing massive numbers of letters now, call the Congressional switchboard. I intend to call and write everyone on the Judiciary Committee. I've placed asteriks against ones I think we should target. NOTE-WE HAVE THREE CO-SIGNERS OF THIS RESOLUTION ON THE COMMITTTEE, PEOPLE, SO STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th *

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd *

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th * - co-signer

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th * - co-signer

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th *

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th * - co-signer!

Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

This isn't about negativity, this is about realizing the Democratic Party did not represent the will of the American people, its progressive base, or its own supposed values.

It's an observation based on objective reality. If the truth hurts, don't blame the messenger.

Side observation: Every job I've had that had "no negativity" rules, was full of unfulfilled promises of success "right around the corner.".

Which has me wondering why i follow this party line.