Feingold Says No To Impeachniks

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:14:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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

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

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

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

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Feingold Says No To Impeachniks | 185 comments (185 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Impeachment is now totally off the table (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:18:47 PM EST

But will the impeachment screamers move on? Of course not; we will get a week of meta out of this, minimum.

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

Impeahcment is over.

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

Parent

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

coward? ;-)

Parent

I cannot tolerate him (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:39:34 PM EST

But his "arguments" are so infuriating that they become impossible to ignore. (Reminds me of someone else we know).

Parent

I mean (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:42:38 PM EST

All he can think of is ending the Iraq Occupation so that less people die needlessly.

What the hell is wrong with the man, anyway?

Parent

: Not Kagro. Feingold. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:22:36 PM EST

We know what's wrong with Kagro.

Parent

I would ignore Kagro on this (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM EST

if he was not writing his drivel on the FP of daily kos.

And I mean it, it is drivel.

Parent

I agree (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:52:46 PM EST

and have told him as much. I appear to have pissed him off, because he fights with me wherever he can find me. (Again, like someone else we know).

Parent

This is why I am worried the (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:55:24 PM EST

participation at Yearly Kos in Chicago of so many Dem. Presidential contendors will be meaningless. Who will get their attention? Will there be a concise, studied presentation of not-funding? To whom will they listen--Kagro X? What a potential waste of opportunity for persuasion, education, and insistence on firm commitment and advocacy from the candidates.

Parent

I'm not going to YKos (none / 0) (#153)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:30:34 PM EST

even though I live in the city. the impeachment idiots are a big part of why. That freak shown just isn't worth paying $300 to see.

Parent

I'm not going either, but I really wish (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:24:49 PM EST

our views would be conveyed to the candidates.

Parent

: I do too (none / 0) (#166)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:47:07 PM EST

But I don't really like the idea of trying to make the point to them and being shouted down by a mob of irate impeachniks, which is what I suspect is going to happen there.
I'll try to meet up with those kossacks I really want to see, and I'll get the rest as it's live blogged from the comfort and security of home or wherever there's wireless.

Parent

I'll meet you at the side door. (none / 0) (#164)
by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:26:57 PM EST

n/t

Parent

: I'm there n/t (none / 0) (#165)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:44:29 PM EST

Parent

I love (5.00 / 5) (#39)
by taylormattd on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:54:30 PM EST

that you posted this story. Apparently, even though you left DKos, you are nevertheless part of the grand centrist corporate conspiracy determined to silence the meager and underrepresented voices of IMPEACH NOW proponents at DKos. Heh.

Parent

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

Parent

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

Parent

As someone (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:28:10 PM EST

Who's in the trenches on this, I'll be the first to say that Kagro is the least of personalties currently driving the impeachment screamers.

Parent

Ha ha (2.50 / 2) (#77)
by talex on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:44:43 PM EST

No. Because this is nothing but a egotistical vantiy project.

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

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

<<<>>>

That said...

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

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

Parent

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

Parent
: I honestly don't get them (5.00 / 2) (#131)
by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:11:51 AM EST

They're all basically saying the same thing and none of it makes sense. It all really amounts to "I want my pony don't you dare tell me I can't have my pony I want my pony I need my pony I will die if I don't have my pony I must have my pony NOW shutup you cowardly DINO traitor aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!".
I mean, how does this lead to conviction, without which impeachment is not just pointless, but dangerous on many levels? All this nonsense about how calling for impeachment hearings will magically give congress vast new powers and far more exposure and sympathy are just that, nonsense.
If they want impeachment, the way to get there is to follow the oversight process aggressively and see where it leads, and if there's an opening for successful impeachment that leads to conviction, go for it, otherwise what's the point?
Oh yeah, they want their ponies.

Parent
: When did you start using innuendo, talex? (none / 0) (#133)
by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:32:52 AM EST

Main Entry: in·nu·en·do
Pronunciation: "in-y&-'wen-(")dO, -yü-'en-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dos or -does
Main Entry: in·nu·en·do
Pronunciation: "in-y&-'wen-(")dO, -yü-'en-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dos or -does
Etymology: Italian
1 a : a suppository

Parent

i, for one -- am puzzled. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
by the rainnn on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:23:59 PM EST

i am puzzled by the need,
apparently on BOTH sides
of this nasty little debate,
to portray the other side as
egotistical, vanity-driven, etc. . .

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

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

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

that is all i have.

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

p e a c e

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

Parent

Good words and I agree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:42:19 PM EST

with your sentiments. There is wisdom and passion on both sides. We do not need to disparage one another. It isn't a convincing strategy.

Peace to all.

Parent

: No (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:58:59 PM EST

There isn't.

Parent

The invective is mostly coming (5.00 / 3) (#132)
by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:20:39 AM EST

from the "Impeach Now" side, towards people who don't agree with them. I haven't seen anyone on the "Impeach Later" or "Impeach Never" side call the "Impeach Now" side cowards, traitors or DINOs. We're just calling them naive and mistaken, but we're not questioning their honor or good faith (not directly at least, although I wouldn't at all be surprised if there are some GOP plants among them to steer the left in a bad direction--classic Rove dirty tricks mastered at the feet of Segretti, Colson, Liddy and Atwater).

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

Parent

I'm sorry things have been rough (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:14:08 AM EST

out there, but I'm glad you still bring us your voice today. I have had rough times too and argued crossly with people I would have never been able to find an argument with or be cross with ever if the Nixon administration wouldn't have pulled a Lazarus on us all during our keepers of the flame tour. Namaste

Parent

I've called a copule of them (5.00 / 2) (#154)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:34:15 PM EST

demagogues. And I called Rusty1776 "evil." But that was a response to their invective, not their position on impeachment.

Parent

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

Parent

Yes, I am (none / 0) (#168)
by kovie on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:48:14 PM EST

And your point is?

Parent

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

Parent

Not really IMO (none / 0) (#171)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:24:15 AM EST

Care to cite exemplary passages?

Parent

The Nile's in Egypt (none / 0) (#172)
by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:06:38 AM EST

But thanks for playing.

Parent

Well aren't we witty and original (none / 0) (#173)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:09:12 AM EST

Been staying up nights watching Stuart Smally videos?

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

Parent

Thanks for the demonstration (none / 0) (#176)
by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:32:09 AM EST

a high level of snottiness is running around here lately.

Parent

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

Parent

Yeah, like your SOLE purpose here (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:18:08 PM EST

isn't provoking people into smacking you down so you can then point to how mean and nasty and uncivil they are. You think I'm not onto your being a troll and nothing but a troll? And can't you come up with anything more original than falling back on the older troll trick in the book? Got any actual ideas to share or is it all about looking for and taking opportunistic pot shots for you?

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

Parent

: you're off base (none / 0) (#186)
by baba durag on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:06:13 PM EST

I'm no troll. Just ask Big Tent Dem. We go back a ways.

Parent

Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by vcmvo2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:55:01 PM EST

They won't move on they just "Yell louder!!" As one of their chief proponents argues ad nauseum.

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

Parent

Magical thinking and steroid abuse don't mix well (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:18:46 AM EST

When it comes to impeachment, DKos is experiencing some seriously messed up karma right now and I don't know what to make of it. It's as if an army of leftie WWF types took over and had the run of the place. It just hasn't "felt" right since the impeachment trolls got the run of the place. To quote Broder, "They came in and they trashed the place. And it's not their place."

Parent

Right now? (none / 0) (#178)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:14:03 PM EST

The seriously messed up karma occurred immediately after Nov. 7 IMO.

Parent

The infighting was bound to flare up (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:13:20 PM EST

after regaining the majority. But it wasn't this bad in my experience back then. There have been days recently when I've had second thoughts about posting there, which hasn't happened for a pretty long time. It wasn't so much all the vicious purity trolling as peoples' unwillingness to take them on. What good is a site if no one's willing to get your back when others pile on you?

Parent

Well (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:35:52 PM EST

that makes me feel like less of a slouch for not being willing to put up with the purity enforcement there anymore, particularly when half the time it seems based on misinterpretation or the simple enjoyment of thuggishness. I always thought you were a superb debater.

Parent

Eh (5.00 / 2) (#182)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:52:59 PM EST

I try, but folks like BTD are vastly better debators than I can ever hope to be...

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

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

Parent

Now if only (none / 0) (#183)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:03:33 PM EST

we could agree on the beneficial "force multiplier" effects of agitprop for impeachment... :)

Parent

Not gonna go there... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:10:02 PM EST

A thousand points of light, stay the course, read my lips... ;-)

Parent

: Heh (none / 0) (#185)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:17:17 PM EST

It was worth a try...

Parent

Feingold is obviously a troll (5.00 / 7) (#2)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:22:33 PM EST

and should be banned forthwith :)

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

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

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

It's upsetting.

Parent

The only thing good about the impeachment diaries (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Geekesque on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:16:37 PM EST

is that they push the Edwards puff piece diaries off the rec list.

Parent

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

walk on water?

Parent

He was pandering to me (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:21 PM EST

He has my support now . . .

Parent

Undoubtedly (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:31:43 PM EST

Because he saw how far your support has taken Dodd ...

Parent

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

Parent

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

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

Parent

Not enough time? (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by Al on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:04 PM EST

He's saying that he thinks Bush and Cheney may well have committed impeachable offenses (!) but they don't have time to pursue them?

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

Bingo! (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:28:16 PM EST

Now THATt is the attitude I want to see from impeachment proponents.

Write a diary at daily kos saying exactly that!

Parent

Fine. Let's ask this question then. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by bronte17 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:24:16 PM EST

What would you consider "success" in "ending the occupation of Iraq?"

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

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

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

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

Parent

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

this, for one thing.

Parent

Zero (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Al on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:07:06 PM EST

I think the correct number of bases in Iraq is zero. A token occupation of a country is absurd.

Parent

If you ask me.... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:43:46 PM EST

for the occupation to end there can be zero US troops and zero US bases.

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

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:55:03 PM EST

There are no US military patrols invading their homes and killing their people, or doing this to them...

Three Little Iraqi Girls - And Their Mother

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

Parent

: It's time. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:56:37 PM EST

It's time for the Democrats to use their power and bring the Iraq occupation to an end. There are no excuses left...

Parent

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

Parent

Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#56)
by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:56:07 PM EST

but not enough to fight the occupier.

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

Parent

Well, they applied enough pressure for some (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:52:59 PM EST

U.S. bases on Okinawa to be closed and moved to the mainland.

Parent

: I salute them..... (none / 0) (#66)
by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:56:52 PM EST

and defer to your knowledge of Okinawa...about all I know is where it is on a globe and what I learned from "The Karate Kid".

Parent

rotated... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by manys on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:58:37 PM EST

Maybe we can say that the first priority is to end Iraq and then if we have time we can start impeaching the bastards.

Parent

Impeachable Offenses (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by noonan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:00:28 PM EST

I had the privilege to talk to Russ at a listening session last summer (he timed the one for this summer the same day as the local Dem fundraising/unity picnic). Last summer, this was his same thought - have they done enough to impeach? Yes. Is there enough time to actually impeach? No. He made this point when he brought forth the censure proposal.

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

Parent

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

The Politics of Politics

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

True.

Parent

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

Parent

Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:16:03 PM EST

Extreme centrist.

Parent

Who, as I recall, sd. on that awful blog-Tv (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:16:47 PM EST

mess that he supports Dodd "in theory." No wonder the guy's coffers are so empty!

Parent

"that awful blog-TV mess" (none / 0) (#104)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:43:28 PM EST

It certainly did lack some of the pure entertainment value of that Robin Wright-Joel Achenbach exchange. Fortunately.

Parent

I thought the content was excellent (none / 0) (#106)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:36 PM EST

but was troubled by the lack of standard production values. For example, the interviewee seeming to stare into space whilst awaiting divine intervention or something. Kind of reminded me of the Bush "wired" debate. I suppose there must have been a TV monitor up there?

Parent

The not looking into the camera part (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:39:28 PM EST

was eerie. Looking off to the right means someone is accessing memory, and looking off to the left means they're lying... or is it the other way around? A distracting thought in any case...

Parent

Are you referring to the recent research (none / 0) (#126)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:48:40 PM EST

regarding the direction a dog wags its tail?

Parent

Ahhhh lol, you slay me (none / 0) (#140)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:50:01 AM EST

I noticed all that too. I'm a big fan of NLP and according to that school of mostly considered FAKE JUNK science BTD is left handed. So BTD, are you left handed? He is also extremely visual and I would have guessed that because I'm exremely visual and I can visualize in my mind what he writes about........that is also why he looks up when he is accessing memory and I would bet he likes everything in its place and HATES clutter. He didn't look at the camera because he was visualizing in his mind the person he was talking to. According to NLP being visual is also why he is perceived by so many who aren't that visually hard wired to be a total a$$hole. Visual people with dominant personalities use language in a fashion that strikes those not so visual like a blunt object, and then they aren't even sorry and tell you to walk it off. They are good finishers though. They hate things left unfinished and they hate messes and they are extremely success driven when cleaning up and finishing the messes of others while applying heaping ample guilt to the messy messers.

Parent

I think I'll have a couple more cups of coffee (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:54:17 AM EST

and then try reading that one again. ;-)

Parent

NLP is this whole school (none / 0) (#142)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:15:46 AM EST

of "study" with many skeptics. I fell in love with it though when I became the mother of an auditory wired child. She loves noise. She has a messy damned room and I once found half a brick of dried up cheddar under her bed. My grandmother to my mother to me........a big long line of visually wired women cleaning house and trying to tidy the world and I give birth to a person who tells me how she is feeling by which CD is blaring from her messy room. It didn't make any sense to me until I studied some NLP and I personally found so many things to ring true in my own life I have studied it a lot. I also shared a lot of it with my husband for the class he teaches, people who want to be helicopter pilots tend to be very kinesthetic and the only way they can take in information in a lecture format is if you pace the room back and forth. So he remembers to do that and provides lots of pictures for the visual learners. He's auditory so he can just babble to himself and every auditory person in the room will "get" what he is teaching.

Parent

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

for wingnuttery too?

Parent

I haven't looked for anything (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:32:07 AM EST

along those lines. It is an interesting idea and I think I'll see what I can find on it.

Parent

: Maybe it can explain (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:37:26 AM EST

crippling insecurity and extreme overcompensation by sliver dicks?
Same thing, no? ;-)

Parent

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

What is the tipoff again?

Parent

: You shouldn't tell me things like (none / 0) (#148)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:45:02 AM EST

that because it only feeds my NLP sickness. When you were answering questions during your interview and you searched your mind for the facts you store there your eyes both went to the right. We store facts in our lobes opposite the side of our dominant hand. Your creativity is on the left side of your brain and during the interview when you were asked a question pertaining to your opinion of a projected outcome your eyes moved to the left side where your creativity exists. Are you neatish? Do you hate starting projects that you may not be able to finish? Do you only wear ironed clothing unless washing a car? Is your idea of camping staying at the Holiday Inn with your room door open ;)? If so those are traits of being visually wired and when you are thinking your eyes move side to side like everyone else's but it is side to side looking up.

Parent

Heh, yeah (none / 0) (#149)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:54:32 AM EST

That's what I was wondering too - left or right handed? It makes all the difference. Also yeah on it being junk science.

Parent

Et tu, Russ? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:46:19 PM EST

I come here not to praise impeachment, but to bury it...

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

Heh (5.00 / 6) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:47:07 PM EST

Russ, right or wrong, writes what he thinks.

Not the best pol in the world because of it.

But my fav nonetheless.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:14:32 PM EST

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

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

Parent

I agree with your assessment (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:39:33 PM EST

of the fact that there is little leadership on Iraq and Iran. However as much as I support BTD on the strategy of leaving Iraq, I also feel that impeachment has to be on the table. It or the threat of it is necessary. If no good legislation is passing then I prefer the cleanup process of impeachment. I think the public will support it even if it is not clear now.

Parent

You're basically asking Dems to gamble (5.00 / 3) (#95)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:10:03 PM EST

politically and constitutionally by putting impeachment back on the table before they have built a case for it that is constitutionally and politically strong enough to be likely to lead to conviction. I.e. you're asking them to do the constitutional and political equivalent of indicting a suspected criminal before an investigation has been concluded and its findings presented to a grand jury. As with the criminal system, that is not how impeachment is supposed to work, ethical, or very wise, both constitutionally and politically.

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

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

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

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

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

Parent

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

Impeachment will fail. Period.

There is no gamble to it.

Parent

Explicitely persued at this point (none / 0) (#112)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:03:40 PM EST

it would clearly fail. But never, under any circumstances, including the unforseen? I wouldn't go quite that far. I cannot predict with such definitiveness about that which has yet to unfold. But it's not something I would put any money on at this point. In any case, this is a moot argument, as if impeachment is to have ANY chance of happening, it will have to unfold organically, as in Watergate.

Parent

What will convince (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:09:39 PM EST

17 GOP Senators to vote to convict?

Nothing.

Parent

: At this point, clearly nothing (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:59:19 PM EST

But I'm not prepared to say that nothing that might unfold would convince them to do so, however unlikely. But as I said it's a moot question, as even if that did happen, it would have to emerge organically out of oversight, as in Watergate.
But if you're asking for specific examples of developments that could flip 17 Repubs, I don't know. Every example that I can think of (lying about WMD, USAGate, torture, letting Bin Laden get away, attacking Iran if it happens) has long since failed the "Big Whoop" (if not "Whoopie!") test with the GOP.
Still, I repeat, it doesn't matter, as I'm not calling for or expecting congress to try to impeach any time soon. All I ask for and expect is for it to continue its oversight efforts and pursue them all the way.
If that yields sufficiently damning evidence or developments that cause 17 Repubs to flip, great. If not, then there are still other ways to check this administration and restore some semblence of democracy.
Plus, the thing about impeachment is that even if it did lead to conviction, it would and could not by itself accomplish this restorative process. That will require years of legislation, battles with the courts, and lots and lots of healing.
This is a silly debate, I'm sure you'll agree. Let oversight continue and we'll see where it leads. The key is for Dems to not back down on it, and be smart. A bit of a stretch with this bunch, but the people leading the oversight charge show no signs of being gutless. The real question is how smart they are.

Parent

People Care About "law & order" (none / 0) (#121)
by seabos84 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:25:41 PM EST

on steriods? the 17 episode story? nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the THRUTH seekers are missing that SOMETHING needs to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at least die trying.

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

f$$$ing DO SOMETHING. YESTERDAY.

rmm.

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

Parent

Do what? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:04:34 AM EST

You paint with a broad brush. What specifically do you want and expect Dems to do that they're not doing now, or doing well, and how do you want them to do it? I'm not saying that there aren't lots of things that they can do, but some paths are more promising and important than others. I honestly don't understand the L&O reference. What does that have to do with anything?

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

Parent

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

political advisor, consultant, strategist,

therapist hypnotist ... anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rmm.

Parent

If you think that our form of democracy (5.00 / 3) (#130)
by kovie on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:03:36 AM EST

is a "fire and forget it" one, then you are mistaken. Voting for the people whom we think and hope will do the job isn't enough. Nor is simply beating up on them and trying to replace them when they disappoint (or cheering them on and trying to get them reelected when they do good).

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

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

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

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

Parent

: middle ground tween clicking the (none / 0) (#137)
by seabos84 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:26:00 AM EST

remote and writing grad school tomes.
'all politics is local', and most people are most easily involved in fixing the local cross walk / school / granny home / fire station.
right now, and for decades, millions of us put a few bucks and a few hours into the federal office holder community pot, and with those hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of volunteer hours,
we get losers who give us excuses.
I think that time would be better invested in getting new people to send to Federal offices.
we the usa are still the richest country in the world, and we are p$$$ing away our wealth, and we are gonna end up a Nigeria or Brazil. we should be EXPORTING efficient educational systems, transportatino systems, power systems, green housing, ... we should be using our wealth to figure out how to have 6.6 billion people employed doing the stuff that 6.6 billion people need.
instead, if we're not glued to the idiot box for american idol, or spending 110% of our take home on yet another idiot box, we're breaking our butts for worthless Dems who wilt, whimper and run from fascists. It would be a better use of time to work to find real leaders.
rmm.

Parent

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:09:21 PM EST

I'm NOT paid to be a (none / 0) (#129)
by seabos84 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:17:38 PM PDT
political advisor, consultant, strategist,
therapist hypnotist ... anything.
I'm a math teacher - that is what I'm paid to do. Maybe the people
The people who are paid to beat the fascists should beat the fascists. They should figure it out.

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

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

Parent

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

they create problems, or worse, create new laws.

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

If nothing else it will save us from new laws.

Mell of a hess, though, if successful (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:19:26 PM EST

re Bush and not re Cheney.

Parent

The two impeachments put together.... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:28:31 PM EST

should keep 'em pretty much tied up till Nov '08. Besides, Cheney may as well be the president right now....you don't think GDub is really in charge do ya?

Parent

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

Parent

Why this concern about impeachniks? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:55:21 PM EST

Why this concern about impeachniks? Okay, so maybe they have problems, but they aren't squatting in the White House, and so it is between them and their respective psychiatrists. Who is going to be first to break from an adversarial relationship, them or you? Let it be you, and simply present your case against impeachment and let it speak for itself.

On another note, I have found that Rudolph Giuliani is actually on record suggesting that the White House should leave the troops in Iraq even if Congress cuts off funds. This kind of 'thinking' is within the 'acceptable' range for 'Republicans', though it takes a loser like Giuliani to actually say it rather than just do it.

Those Iran-Contra hearings were quite entertaining to watch, by the way, at least for me. Too bad the hearings were designed to shelter Reagan, although as it worked out Reagan was too sick to defend himself. Anyway, those guys found ways to get money when Congress cut off funds.

: Feingoldf and I (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:09:49 PM EST

My good friend Russ and I (joke) are concerned that impeachnik fever and impeachnik falsehoods are harmful to the cause of ending the Debacle.

Parent

at Russ' Picnic in Middleton yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:13:37 PM EST

I've never seen his as impatient with constituents as he got on a couple persistent impeachers. Not Dave Obey impatient mind you, but...

My agenda for the day was Mandatory Minimum Sentences. I gather he's hoping the initiative will come from the House.

Did he at any point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by kovie on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:21:14 PM EST

mention that the votes simply aren't there, nor are likely to be there any time soon, making impeachment (either as a process or as a goal) essentially moot as a mechanism to actually check the administration's power? That is ultimately all that really matters vis a vis impeachment--it will NOT achieve its primary goal of meaningfully checking their power, no matter how much it'll make the public hate them even more, and without conviction can only hurt Dems and the republic.

Parent

Wasn't a speech (none / 0) (#59)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:28:10 PM EST

but rather a series of one-on-ones, of which I only partly overheard a few, so my observation was more of tone and body language.

Parent

Convention (none / 0) (#70)
by noonan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:05:34 PM EST

Hey Ben!
Do you remember Russ talking about impeachment at all during the State Convention?

I couldn't bear the heat and the line to talk to him in person, but he seemed pretty much at ease with those talking to him as we watched from the food line.

Noonan
WI-89 Assembly 08
http://www.actblue.com/page/votekoehn08

Parent

: I missed his speech (none / 0) (#73)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:33:29 PM EST

and we touched other topics when the traffic jam in the hall geave us a minute.

Parent

Your agenda of the day was not (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:22:06 PM EST

legalization of MJ?

Parent

It Is Obvious (5.00 / 6) (#49)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:19:29 PM EST

BTD gave Feingold a ten million dollar donation, why else would he pander to only one person?

Good work BTD, even if it cost you a ton.

Not really new from Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:19:43 PM EST

Nov. 20, 2006 listening session in Onalaska:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2006/11/21/news/02feingold21.txt

One thing Feingold expressed no enthusiasm for is impeaching President Bush.
"I don't support impeachment, and I don't support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense," Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.
"We are not required to impeach the president simply because he's committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it's in the best interest of the country to go through that process."

Is that why Boxer called for it, because (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by yourstruly on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:55:55 PM EST

she's a zero?

too funny, thanks

Boxer (5.00 / 4) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:43:20 PM EST

called for what? Come now. If Boxer'sa statement is the thin gruel that sustains impeachniks, you folks are hopeless cases.

Parent

She said put it "back on the table" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by yourstruly on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:46:18 PM EST

which makes this what but inaccurate?

"""That leaves the Senate with . . . exactly ZERO potential adherents to the impeachment movement."""

Parent

Unlike You (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:50:00 PM EST

Dream on, Boxer has not called for Impeachment. Her words and intent are quite different than the words of you and those calling for impeachment.

Parent

Boxer on CNN: (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:48:05 PM EST

she did say she has never sd. impeachment should be off the table. July 13, 07.

Parent

: Yes (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:37:41 PM EST

On the table and the postition of the impeachniks are not that close. It is like the difference of saying maybe and saying absolutely.
I would say Boxer is much closer to BTD's position than the impeachniks.

Parent
: Thinnest of gruel (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:55:25 PM EST

Parent

I don't get this 'deterrent' argument AT ALL. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by Geekesque on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:59:15 PM EST

If the death penalty has proven to lack the ability to deter criminals, why on earth would futile and politically counterproductive efforts to remove someone from office have such value?

Well (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:06:57 PM EST

that has to be the closest thing to unanimity I've ever seen on dk - 1500 comments and only a handful of people going along with his reasons for rejecting impeachment. I wonder if that's the kind of hurricane of reaction he's getting in person with his constituents too. Buhdhy's diary shouldn't hurt in that regard either.

Don't recall ever seeing so many people (none / 0) (#72)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:15:04 PM EST

in agreement on DK. Amazing.

Parent

Not that Feingold (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:51:41 PM EST

doesn't know a thing or two about bucking the tide.

But I thought he sounded rather apologetic. Far from saying don't pursue impeachment - he seems to be feeling the pressure to explain what's keeping him from advocating it himself. It must be getting scorching hot out there on the receiving end of the growing mass calls for impeachment.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:54:34 PM EST

You really must be kidding.

Parent

Heh, nope, not at all (none / 0) (#103)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:38:22 PM EST

Got something against the will of the people being heard?

Parent

Nope (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:55 PM EST

You don't like hearing my will be heard?

Impeachniks are a bunch of idiotic harmful jerks.

And before you get personally offended, understand my definition of impeachniks.

Parent

Not at all - say what you think (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:55:28 PM EST

I understand you have to be responsible in what you're advocating. I don't feel hampered in what I choose to advocate.

I'm looking at the energy involved as a kind of natural resource that shouldn't be squandered, that can provide pressure and impetus for many other things.

And before anyone like squeaky or edger feels the need to jump in with arguments why impeachment is not a Good Idea, forget it - my head is already won over but not my heart.

Parent

It is irresponsible (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:08:05 PM EST

to falsely denigrate End the Debacle talk in order to pump up impeachment as the impeachniks do.

The King Impeachnik sits on a perch at the FP of daily kos and he is dishonest on Ending the Debacle on a daily basis.

He is a cancer now.

Parent

: Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:11:31 PM EST

Makes me want to scream.

Parent
: KX isn't king (none / 0) (#158)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:57:27 PM EST

At best, he's a court jester. He's not anywhere near the driving force behind the impeachment movement anymore. He may have got the ball rolling, but it's been passed on to other people who are far more toxic then KX has ever been on the subject.
There's a cancer alright, but he's not it.

Parent

Heh heh (none / 0) (#118)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:20:24 PM EST

my head is already won over but not my heart

Ummm...so... are you like, more than halfway convinced, or less than halfway convinced, AA?

:-)

Parent

I'm usually utterly rational (none / 0) (#122)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:30:53 PM EST

but when I'm mad...watch out. :)

Parent

: Hah. Good. (none / 0) (#124)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:41:10 PM EST

Get mad at the occupation ok? ;-)

Parent

His constituents? (none / 0) (#88)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:53:52 PM EST

You're kidding right?

Parent

Um, no (none / 0) (#102)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:37:16 PM EST

I've been hearing some of those same comments in Wisconsin.

You read the diary, right?

Parent

Sure (none / 0) (#105)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:46:23 PM EST

You think Russ Feingold will lose in Wisconsin because he does not support impeachment?

Puhlleeeaze.

Parent

Funny (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:49:12 PM EST

I don't recall saying that.

Parent

I'm sorry (none / 0) (#110)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:53:08 PM EST

So what is it that you think Russ will do in the face of the hurricane?

Parent

I want impeachment talk (none / 0) (#113)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:03:53 PM EST

everywhere - the airwaves, the headlines, talk. I want the massive disapproval of the people to be stated in a practical existential way toward this administration. Stopping the war is only one direction for protest.

What do I think Russ will do? I want him to do everything he can to stop them, to work on his colleagues, to redouble what he's doing to end the war. And if an impeachment trial comes to the Senate, to act and vote with integrity.

Parent

I want (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:06:34 PM EST

and insist upon End the Debacle talk.

the harm of impeachniks is manifest now.

No one writes about End the Debacle in the Netroots anymore.

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#119)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:21:56 PM EST

if you weren't so pigheaded I'd suggest try riding the energy of the impeachment movement in the service of ending the war instead of fighting against it. Aside from K I don't see too many others promoting impeachment vs defunding as an either-or. There's no reason they need to be opposed. I see no conflict between them at all.

Parent

: He is a FPer (none / 0) (#120)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:25:18 PM EST

I know folks don't like to think so, but it makes a big difference.
Granted, it is not the bullhorn it once was, but it still is a big one. Bigger than all the diaries combined.

Parent

Yeah, his constituents (none / 0) (#125)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:46:23 PM EST

The picnic Sunday was not in downtown Madison, but in suburban Middleton (coincidentally just voted Money mag's "Best Place to Live"). His old State Senate District. Not a downtown Madison crowd, but still pushing him for impeachment. Nichols doesn't just publish in The Nation, he's got a near daily column in the Cap Times too.

Parent

Maybe there is an upside (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:17:29 PM EST

and they will all get so disillusioned that they'll throw their collective hands up, pull their collective heads out, and say f*ck it... if we can't impeach him then take his wallet and make him beg.

I gave my best shot over there (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:41:56 PM EST

Most just want their impeachment show®.

Yes (5.00 / 4) (#87)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:44:27 PM EST

They are way too emotional. Shortsighted to boot.

Parent

Never pegged you as a meta-diarist, though. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:14:45 PM EST

Parent

The issue became meta (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:18:45 PM EST

and I'm not much of a diarist period. Sometimes the moment meets the man, right?

Parent

Man? Fooled again. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:30:12 PM EST

Parent

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:41:54 PM EST

Not the first time I've heard that.

Parent

Oh really? (3.66 / 3) (#34)
by JHFarr on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:35:12 PM EST

You wrote:

That leaves the Senate with . . . exactly ZERO potential adherents to the impeachment movement.

How very, very odd to be celebrating the continuation in office of a treasonous, criminal gang. Whether the Senate is for impeachment is so far beyond the point, I'm astounded you keep harping on it.

Bush & Cheney have committed numerous impeachable offenses.
They are getting away with it.

We NEED impeachment, or who the hell cares about anything? The Constitution doesn't mean crap, I guess, because it's just "not possible" to stand up for what we say we believe in.

I want nothing to do with people who think like this. I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION. May everyone else enjoy the hell they're enabling.

I guess you don't care about anything. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:36:38 PM EST

Parent

You miss the point. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:49:46 PM EST

No one is celebrating.

There is a political reality to face, however.

Right now the dems can stop funding the Iraq occupation without the repubs. They cannot impeach or overcome vetoes without repubs.

Much as I'd love to see it, without possibility of removal impeachment will hand Bush more power than he has now, castrate Congress, and backfire catastrophically on the Democrats.

It would simply look like a pointless partisan witchhunt.

I use to howl for impeachment, until I realized that

1. there are not the votes for it,

2. it would take longer than Cheney and Bush's remaining time in office,

3. it would have no practical effect since the Senate would not remove them,

and

4. it would be a distraction taking time and energy away from pushing the Democrats to end the occupation.

What the dems can do is stop funding the Iraq occupation without the repubs. What the dems cannot do is impeach or overcome vetoes without repubs.

Parent

Votes and numbers (4.66 / 3) (#69)
by Geekesque on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:05:15 PM EST

There are more Republican Senators voting for a timeline for withdrawal than there are Democratic Senators expressing even mild approval of impeachment proceedings.

The numbers will never be there for removal. A veto override? Well, let's see how much stomach the Republicans have for endorsing Bush's failed policies.

Parent

Awww, jeeze Geek (none / 0) (#83)
by Edger on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:24:11 PM EST

If there were enough to overcome a veto there would be enough for impeachment.

Repubs who break with Bush and the GOP are getting primary challenges from the right.

Right now the democrats can stop funding the occupation without the repubs. They cannot impeach or overcome vetoes without repubs.

Parent

: not really (none / 0) (#156)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:32 PM EST

over-riding a veto has very different political consequences then voting to impeach or convict.

Parent

Ironic and true (none / 0) (#91)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:56:23 PM EST

Parent

I couldn't agree more dude. Feingold (2.33 / 3) (#57)
by yourstruly on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:03:27 PM EST

and all the rest of that crew evidently want to continue lying to the American people about this issue.

Perhaps maybe someone advocating this two-tier justice system in America that WILL result, can show how the peoples business was unduly impeded or derailed during the Nixon impeachment investigations.

Parent

: Huh? (none / 0) (#157)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:50:10 PM EST

what is Feingold lying about? Your comment does not make sense.

Parent

If we believed in the Constitution.... (none / 0) (#37)
by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:48:26 PM EST

the federal govt. as we know it would have been disbanded long ago.

Parent

Wrong Frame (none / 0) (#7)
by Joe Student on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:27:34 PM EST

Senator Feingold says that impeachment will distract the work of the senate.

The alternate frame should be:
1 - We know this president is a bad president. But is he the first disastrously bad president this country has had?

2 - Will the congress and senate be able to accomplish what they were elected to as long as this man remains in the White House?

I have heard the argument from senators before (most notably Joe Lieberman) that the president should be given great deference in the appointments and other courtesy's afforded the office. I counter with can this president be afforded the responsibilities and deference normally afforded to a US President?

Screw frames (5.00 / 7) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:28:55 PM EST

End the Debacle.

Removal will NEVER happen.

Parent

Mr. "Frame" himself is facilitating (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:19:57 PM EST

questions from the floor when the Pres. candidates' panel is in session in Chicago.

Parent

: A bad idea (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:57:37 PM EST

Parent
: that's not going to end well n/t (none / 0) (#159)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:59:42 PM EST

Parent

A "top comment" if ever one existed. (none / 0) (#96)
by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:14:08 PM EST

Parent

Let's be clear (none / 0) (#63)
by kst on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:48:18 PM EST

If Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses, and they're not impeached, I'm concerned about the precedent that will set for future Presidents. (And why didn't this same line of reasoning prevent the Republicans from impeaching Clinton?)

We need to continue agressively investigating the offenses committed by this administration. Impeachment, if it happens, can and should come out of the results of those investigations. And if there aren't enough votes to impeach in the face of the existing evidence, that's a serious problem in itself; how do we fix that?

Ok, I understand that there aren't enough votes in the Senate, and that an impeachment and possible trial would distract from other important work. But let's always make it absolutely clear that if we choose not to impeach these clowns, it's only because (a) we don't have the votes in the Senate, and (b) because we have other things to do. They have committed impeachable offenses. Never let that be forgotten.

Taking impeachment off the table is one thing. Publicly announcing that impeachment is off the table is something else.

Worse precedent if (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:36:15 PM EST

threy're impeached and not removed.

Parent

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by troqua on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:18:59 PM EST

And I'm not even sure articles of impeachment would pass in the House with the simple majority. The whole thing would definitely be screwed in the Senate. So, Republicans get to walk away with another victory over the "majority." I'm all for fighting the good fight for principles, for what is just, but it's pretty hard to swallow this one when I know from the outset it's a losing cause. And while everyone is wrapped up in the impeachment, troops will continue to die, Iraq will continue to implode.

Frankly I'd rather see them tackle the war and get those guys home. That's something we can accomplish.

Parent

Not just the war (none / 0) (#134)
by kst on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:08:48 AM EST

Yes, we need to end the war in Iraq, but that's hardly the only issue there is. Invading Iraq is the worst thing these clowns have done, but it's far from the only bad thing they've done.

(And I suppose the argument is that impeachment proceedings would distract from everything else too.)

Keep investigating, keep opposing them in Congress, and let them stay awake nights worrying about the possibility of impeachment.

Parent

: Why would it worry them. (none / 0) (#135)
by Edger on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:11:33 AM EST

It can have no teeth. It can't hurt them.

Parent

A very good point (none / 0) (#160)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:00:43 PM EST

Jesus Ben, where have you been when this comes up on DKos?

Parent

Old 'puter. (none / 0) (#161)
by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:20:25 PM EST

When a thread gets over 200 comments, I hang for 10 minutes. Too frustrating.

Parent

: gottcha n/t (none / 0) (#162)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:21:04 PM EST

Parent

Something I will add here (none / 0) (#136)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 04:53:07 AM EST

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feingold.01/

All Meta eventually dies (none / 0) (#139)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:28:47 AM EST

Unless you are a Metahead I suppose and they are out there. I was very much a watcher on this playing field. I don't know enough about impeachment legalities and realities to play on the field so I mostly just watch and watched, glean and gleaned anything that seems to lead to a tangible, realistic, obtainable goal. Iraq has always been my focus because of the cost of human life. I also understand the importance of picking our battles. At some time I would like to see justice served up to Bush and Cheney and take heart knowing that there are many ways to skin a lowlife cheating stealing chickenhawk.

Impeachment proponents are (5.00 / 5) (#144)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:05:29 AM EST

in my estimation, wasting their time and energies. But I do not begrudge them their right to do so. Indeed, when the first wave of the impeachment wars were ongoing at dkos in December, I defended the right of impeachment proponents like OPOL and buhdydharma to diary as they wish. I severely criticized the impulse of some FPers to try and shout them down.

What I do and did criticize is the false statements impeachniks, a special breed of impeachment proponents, make about the OTHER powers the Congress has to check the President. Most specifically, the false statements about the use of the not spending power to end the Iraq Debacle.

They can have their fun with impeachment, as long as they are not dishonest about ending the Iraq Debacle. Too many are incredibly dishonest.

Parent

: As Goldwater might have said (none / 0) (#175)
by kovie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:25:24 AM EST

had he been Leo Strauss, "Dishonesty in the defense of liberty is no vice!".
Ironic how those who would take down the neocons mimic their core practices.

Parent

And I thought (none / 0) (#155)
by Goldfish on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:36:40 PM EST

Cindy Sheehan's flip out gave them a look in the mirror. Guess that was more just a period of laying low since if they'd kept up their usual antics then it would have ended badly for them.

Feingold Turns to Dross (none / 0) (#170)
by dutchfox on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 06:55:14 PM EST

David Lindorff -

Feingold Turns to Dross

In a diary entry on DailyKos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most consistently progressive liberals in the Senate, surrendered to the Democratic Party Establishment, with an embarrassing string of lame and tired excuses for not standing for impeachment of the Bush/Cheney regime.
Feingold, who once took the lead in opposing Bush's and Cheney's abuses of power and their undermining of the Constitution with a censure motion filed in the Senate, wrote in the DailyKos diary that while he agreed that Bush and Cheney "may well have" committed "impeachable offenses," he nonetheless did not support impeachment.

Read the rest in Counterpunch

Feingold Says No To Impeachniks | 185 comments (185 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment