In an act of DUicide I ask people to lay off our Democratic majority a bit

[jpgray]

Some of the over-the-top whining and emotional accusations are really getting me down, because they betray or feign deep ignorance of how government works.

Not everyone does this, and no one should pretend the Democratic majority has been exemplary, but let me just say: some of the complaining here is ridiculous, and the lack of patience is mind-numbingly myopic. I get the impression some people expect the process of taking on the entire Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and near half of Congress to temporally resemble an hour-long TV crime drama. I understand that you want Congress to do what you want (RIGHT FUCKING NOW, etc.), and I sympathize--who doesn't want that? But before you condemn me as a quisling apologist, let's look back on some modern examples for some context, to remember how we got here, and why the tools that put conservatives in power are still real and dangerous. This majority needs criticism, and is moving too slowly, but what examples would you hold up for doing it right? Where is the precedent for these breathless, profanity-laced condemnations? In recent history, from both parties, there exists scarcely any Congress that would have fulfilled DU expectations.

First, take the Reagan administration. A good example of how exposing tons of corruption via your Congressional majority can mean less than zip. Eliot Abrams? Nice conviction for lying to Congress, but unfortunately after a cozy pardon he was back in government in less than twenty years. Victory? Nah. Reagan? The scandals didn't even touch him, despite vigorous pressure from a few key Democrats. This was where the media started to abandon its informative role and begin its endless obsession with image. Since image is by its nature subjective, they turned a crap president into a great one, just by pretending he was -intangibly- fantastic. "Tear down this wall" became the sole cause of the USSR's collapse thanks to this phenomenon. Did it save Reagan's bacon and keep most officials from proper justice? You bet.

Nixon! Good old Nixon. Victory parade, no? Great Congressional victory, right? If only our Dems were like those Dems, no? Well, our current Dems are very much like those Dems. The Watergate break-in was in '72, and it was TWO YEARS with a Democratic majority Congress before the smoking gun tape was wrested out for public scrutiny. And how did they accomplish this feat, which led to Nixon's resignation? With an endless stream of investigations, "empty symbolic gestures" (also called subpoenas) and a lot of patience, all while resisting a president who, for all his mental instability, was an incredibly wily and dangerous political opponent who had won the last election handily. And would DUers be satisfied with the Nixon resignation as justice? I doubt it (I'm not). A 1974 DU would be howling with impatience and anger at not only the wait and seemingly endless investigation, but all the other unpunished crimes from Kissinger et al left untouched. Despite this pardon-capped victory over the head of the administration, some very bad people (hello Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell!) escaped unscathed and remained in the Executive Branch to this very day, albeit with a scanty eight-year break.

Which brings us to Clinton. By this time, the conservative weapons (think tanks, money/power centers, the press) were firmly entrenched and ready to destroy the first Democratic president in 20 years. For six years they worked on this (four with Congressional majority), with bizarre and frightening allegations the like of which this country has probably never seen. Claims of murder, Byzantine property fraud, embezzlement, sexual harassment, every route was attempted and they all failed. Can you imagine the crazy right-wingers reacting to this long wait? Doubtless they used many of the words you use now to describe their party--and Clinton had done nothing demonstrably wrong! Finally, they had what they needed in '98--a lie under oath. Perjury. What they had waited for so long they now claimed to have: a high crime or misdemeanor. Pursuing it undermined them completely. After succeeding with impeaching Clinton, they failed to convict. Talk about your empty symbolic gestures! Worse for the conservatives, the public were overwhelmingly supporting the president as the base obscenity and irrelevancy of the with-hunt was made increasingly clear to the public.

Why am I saying all this? Because DUers need to understand the value of waiting, and they need to understand that Congress exists in a gray area right now, like most things. It does not exist in two states alone, either wholly effective and heroic or bottomlessly villainous and useless. Appreciate nuance, if you can--it's something this president never could appreciate. This site plays that heroes and villains game too often. Senator Byrd is a Constitutional hero speaking out against the Iraq War, but he's the scum of the earth when he supports a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or confirming Roberts/Alito? No, he's somewhere in-between. Is this Congress superlatively great? Nah. Is it horrible enough to deserve lengthy tirades and impatient, poorly-reasoned rants about Dems being worthless? No, it's not that either. Have an attention span. Pay attention to context and history.

That said, complain and criticize all you want. That's good. But please at least recognize that historical precedent doesn't make this a do-nothing, worthless Congress. I get the impression that some DUers only started paying attention to politics in March 2003. Or act that way. Have any opinion you wish, but try your best to make it an informed opinion.

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R, and would you like to borrow this?

[jpgray]

5. I usually rely on the defenses of long-windedness, pedantry and self-doubt

:D

[bjobotts]

167. A Party of diversity, with Many varying factions, all called Democrat.

I resent it now but I did it too. I would start off by saying "the Democrats..." which immediately left me overlooking the framework of our party and altered the reality of the point I would be trying to make.
The republicans, for the most part, all vote in unison on most issues, and basically support the same things with few exceptions.
The Democrats have so many factions it's like having 12 Partys rolled into one. Because of the huge diversity it's difficult to get them all voting in unison or supporting the same issues without adding in factional differences or amendments. So what you get is a majority of Democrats or "most" Dems., or "many" Dems., or "some" Dems etc.
For instance, rather than say, " The Democrats refuse to impeach because they feel it is just too inconvenient and would take up too much "policy making" time, I now say, "Some Dems, like Waxman and Rockefeller, are continuing investigations despite the WH non-compliance with the subpoenas claiming "executive privilege" because they know exec. priv. is a principle and not a law and when evidence of a crime having been committed surfaces, that info would trump exec. priv. and the WH would be forced to comply with the subpoenas and the whole nature of the investigation would now be a criminal investigation. And while "some" Dems like Pelosi and Conyers are telling a "majority" of Dems, like us,that they are too busy to defend the constitution and make oversight and accountability a primary issue by supporting Impeachment like "certain other" Dems have already done, "some other" Dems like Waxman and Rockefeller are turning their investigations into criminal charges and are heading for indictments against the perpetrators.
The real shame is that "many Democrats", like the blue dogs and some moderates in the party will not stand for impeachment no matter what because they just don't want to be bothered with it to the point of almost joining with Republicans. As the "majority" of Democrats become more and more progressive these dwindling conservative Democrats will get left out in the cold but until then "many" democrats hope all these Democratic factions will come together on at least this #2 issue and Impeach Cheney/Bush/Gonzales.

So many factions and so little time.

[Frustratedlady]

2. You're right.

In our defense, I must say that we have just waited so long to prove to the world that we knew what was going on all along. We are also afraid this administration will destroy our beloved country/government before they leave...IF they leave.

We just wanted everything to magically go back to the way things were before GWB and thought we had enough muscle to make it happen.

[jpgray]

4. The complaining and impatience don't need any defense--they're totally understandable.

I agree completely with your post, mostly because I feel the same way.

[SharonAnn]

90. Yes. And I feel the same about the "rush to judgment" of Congress.

It takes mastery of the rules and procedures to get things done.

It takes getting the majority of votes to get things done.

It takes "framing the issue" and educating the public to get things done.

While we understand of lot of the issues and what's at stake, much of the rest of our citizenry is just becoming aware of some things.

If they're going to lead, then we need to have followers, lots of followers.

And remember, every single Representative is also running for election in 2008. And so are 1/3 of the Senators. So they've got a lot to do.

[Mythsaje]

3. Instant gratification...

Truly the bane of our society. Even here.

On that note:

:popcorn:

[Kiouni]

6. Well said, I worry about the eagerness

of some DUers for total control of the government by Democrats. The rethugs had their chance at this and look how power hungry individuals can rip down a nation. I worry about absolute power in the hands of any party and I think this basic principle of government is overlooked by to many here. Simply put, a two party system is a good thing; it keeps us honest.

[Mythsaje]

7. I'm not sure about that...

It would be fine if the other party was at least RATIONAL. But they're so far beyond that these days they've pretty much abandoned any premise of actually governing.

Besides, the left has enough factions to keep the others honest without there ever being another Republican.

Or so it seems to me.

[Kiouni]

13. Maybe, but I see these role reversals

between parties over the last century. Rethugs moving from state governments to big governments. South moving from Dem to Rethug and then back again. I think the Right is too far off the map right now but a check and balance system is important and if a independent party needs to take their place then so be it but don't leave just one faction in control. I won't make a statement about a dem candidate but thats how * got to where he is. By being placed at the front of a radical right movement started in the '80's. How is this different (besides being moral)?

[markbark]

76. Good Thing

Simply put, a two party system is a good thing
True, but a SIX party system would be positively orgasmic.
Paper Ballots and IRV, two great tastes that go great together!
Break the Duopoly!

--MAB

[truedelphi]

137. Glad to hear the term IRV being mentioned

It stands for Instant RunOff Voting right?

(The acronym portion of my brain not being one of my strong points)

[ClintonTyree]

8. Great post....

kudos. :applause: We do have more than our share of knee-jerk reactionaries here at DU. ;) Their hearts are in the right place though. At least they care enough about this country to squawk like rabid geese when they see the inequities of our society. For that we should be thankful. But sometimes we should take a step back and disassociate ourselves from the problem at hand, to gain a different perspective and take a deep breath before we speak.

I'm about to turn 57 years of age and I think patience comes along with those years . I used to be one of those knee-jerk reactionaries (and not that long ago either) and STILL have to check myself at times to keep from flying off the handle. A part of me hopes that I'll never completely lose those knee-jerk reactions but patience is a virtue (or so they say).

Great post though, but people will still react forcefully to things they deem as wrong. I don't think I'd have it any other way. I think you're correct about the glacial speed in which these misdeeds are dealt with through the system. The system was designed that way for a purpose. But what the hell, if it makes people feel better by venting their spleens on a few posts here on DU........? No biggie, really.

[jpgray]

25. The slow pace of investigation is incredibly frustrating--I don't blame anyone for feeling upset

But while emotional release is important, I guess I think it's being carried a bit too far on DU these days. I'd like to see sober analysis along with emotional responses, not just one or the other.

[SharonRB]

105. Oh, I get it now -- it must be my age that makes me patient

LOL -- I'll soon be 58. I'm frustrated, but I understand that this all takes time.

[radfringe]

9. let me tell you a story

Many years ago, when I was still in high school - a local strawberry farm switched over to a "pick your own" system.

the berries were red, juicy and ripe and our mouths watered. My dad had the great idea of picking a "brazillion" berries, and freezing them to have during the winter. We froze over 30 quarts.

So over the next 3-4 weeks, we would go out to the local farm in the evenings and pick strawberries, come home, clean them, put them in containers and load'em into the freezer.

Both my parents worked, so it was my job to prepare the evening meals. One day in September, I pulled a quart of strawberries out of the freezer. My dad came home, told me to put it back into the freezer - We had to save them for winter.

In November, the temperature had dropped, leaves were gone from the trees, and the ground had stared to freeze. I took out a quart of strawberries, my dad made be put them back - had to save them for winter you know.

In December, while technically it wasn't winter according to the calender - we did have freezing temps and a few inches of snow on the ground. I figured between the below freezing temp and the snow that it qualified as 'winter'. I was wrong and the strawberries went back into the freezer.

I tried it one more time in January - yes it was winter - but it was too early in the winter to start eating the strawberries. After that I gave up.

Winter gave way to spring, and soon it was strawberry time. We had to eat over 30 quarts of strawberries, so we could fill the containers with strawberries to put into the freezer for next winter.

Between the "impeachment off the table", "don't have the votes" and "keeping the powder dry" - I feel like I've been told to put the strawberries back into the freezer because we have to save them for winter.

[jpgray]

11. That's a good analogy for the wasted time and resources

I just hope people remember that it's an endemic problem, and while a good rant on the subject may be useful as an emotional release, it isn't exactly fair and it isn't useful when it dominates a whole forum. History should tell us that despair isn't necessary, and that we should value what -is- accomplished even as we push for better and more timely results. Also we should appreciate that a lot of what is perceived as time-wasting nonsense is often frustratingly subtle, but real, progress.

[ixion]

22. "History should tell us that despair isn't necessary"

well, yes, it should... but it doesn't.

In fact, it says quite the opposite. We are walking a road well-traveled by many an empire over the course of the millennium. There are loud, glaring warning signs all down the road, and yet we continue to walk right past them.

It is time for change, not time for "waiting". We've been "waiting" for more than 20 years now, as our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been slowly drowned in the bathtub.

[jpgray]

23. If you have a workable legislative plan to speed investigation, I'd like to hear it

In recent administrations, this sort of intensive investigation has always taken a long time. Based on the Nixonian intransigence of -this- administration and the apathy of image-obsessed, subjective media, how exactly do you propose we could have systematically and meaningfully defeated two and a half branches of government in a few months? Bear in mind you'd have to hold together a weak majority which contains some deplorable members (a certain senator from CT, for example), and that a rush to impeachment coupled with a failure to convict would ignite a torrent of disappointment on DU to an extent that would make the current upset seem like a weak ripple. Not only would I like to hear such a plan, but I'm sure most of our legislative leaders would as well.

[Senator]

78. How about "no investigation" -- As none is required

What is it that you are proposing that these investigations "find out?" This is no "rush to impeachment."

The impeachable crimes (both int'l and federal) of the regime are well known. They admit to them. They "defend" them as within their "unitary" theory of "war powers." It is comparing to the Nixon circumstances that is the "uninformed opinion," because "investigation" is not necessary here. In fact, on war crimes and illegal spying, we've already had "adjudication" by federal courts -- including the finding in Hamdan that years of Geneva violations had already taken place.

All that is left to do is accuse/impeach. Then for the Senate to vote up or down on the war criminals.

(And no, our "legislative leaders" do not want to hear such simple reality. Because they are fumbling around for a "legislative plan" when what is required is NOT a legislative act. And in a circumstance where all legislative acts have been rendered moot by "Rule By Signing Statement.")

All of this "subtle" activity that you confuse with real action has an easily predictable result -- protracted, unnecessary court battles over settled law, with the added opportunity for regime judge-shopping to codify as much of their neofascism as possible. This is what "gumming it to death" looks like. That is if they don't laugh themselves to death with the oldest GOP joke in DC: "Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."

Sure, failure to convict/remove may ignite a torrent of anger and disappointment. But it will be directed in the right directions, at those defending the war criminals -- instead of at the "business as usual" Dems in DC.

But Failure To Impeach -- to even object -- is a far worse outcome.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime for history.

That is the direction you are recommending -- whether you see it or not.

--

[AntiFascist]

97. I totally agree, what gets me about our elected Dem "leaders"...

is that many are now stating that they are ruling out impeachment as an option...it seems mostly out of laziness. Some have even stated that the alleged crimes aren't serious enough (I suppose anyone who has been brainwashed by the MSM might see it that way). I also suppose that these politicians will need to pour more energy into their future campaigns than actually doing something to change the criminality and corruption in government. All I can say is, good luck in 2008.

[puebloknot]

169. Well said! John Conyers has already compiled needed evidence...

...for impeachment. He has caved under the pressure of Pelosi, who is making the question of accusation and impeachment her personal prerogative.

I would love it if I'm wrong, but I see the current inaction, protracted hearings, slowness to issue subpoenas, as an intention to run out the clock until Election 2008.

Strong emotion in defense of one's country is a great virtue.

[ixion]

91. obtaining an independent counsellor, rather than going to the DOJ would be a great start

but we haven't heard any talk of that.

[ixion]

21. great story... very appropriate

this whole "keeping the power dry" thing is ridiculous, given the past seven years have been nothing short of a world-wide nightmare.

[ClintonTyree]

135. But this whole strawberry thing didn't occur over a 6 month period

By your own admission it was a year's worth of "put the strawberries back". The Democrats have had a slim majority for 6 months now. I think they deserve as much time as the strawberries. ;) I'll give them until this fall to get results. If they don't deliver I'll jump on the Dem bashing bandwagon with the rest of you. For now, I'm not going to succumb to any knee-jerk reactions.

[radfringe]

177. we've 6 1/2 YEARS

of being told to put the "strawberries back in the freezer"

from jan 2001 through jan 2007 - we were told "dems aren't in the majority, they can't do much"

now it's "don't have the votes, can't do much"

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Been saying this all allong, although...

usually in shorter posts.

There's a crowd here that won't accept anything less than their version of perfection, and they are simply proving that they have absolutely no idea how things work in the real world.

Deja vu-- the battles over executive privilege and Congress fighting the White house while fighting internally.

[Skidmore]

12. Oh, bosh. It's not about perfection.

It is about doing what is right and just for this nation.

[ellisonz]

14. 67.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. And when have we ever expected politicans...

to do that?

Dunno about you or others who make that claim, but I grew up under Tammany rule and spent a lot of years living in places run by machine politics-- doing the "right" thing has many very interesting definitions. Yes, the "right" thing occasionally does get down, but often as not without thanks to the congresscritters.

I've got two Senators-- one is running for President and the other is looking for the Scandal of the Day so he can keep his name in the news. Getting any real "work" done by either of them is a bit much to hope for.

My Congressman isn't a bad guy, but the district is slightly more Republican than Democratic, so he's got a wee problem with appearing "too liberal." I used to live in a place where my Congressman had about the safest seat in the House-- installed there by the Mayor of Newark and Essex County leader. Since he had no fear of losing his job, he had no reason to actually do anything not requested by his master.

In almost all cases, politicians rightly deserve their reputations slightly below that of used car salesmen and about even with TV preachers. From the earliest days of the Republic they were seen as necessary evils to be bought and sold like cattle.

And, just for shits and giggles-- precisely who decides what is "right and just."

[puebloknot]

174. You mean the corporate-controlled "real world" on the Hill?

[OzarkDem]

16. As a lifelong active Democrat

and someone who knows a thing or two about government, I actually plan to increase the pressure on Dems in Washington.

We are in very perilous times and they appear to be hewing to a do-nothing DLC agenda. Its not only harmful to our country and damaging to our legislative agenda right now, but also:

Its going to cause them to lose the election in 2008.

We were definitely left with the "B" team in Dem leadership after so many years of Republican rule. The "B" team is in charge and they are making a huge mess.

The sooner we remove them the better.

[jpgray]

17. Remove them on what basis? How? To be replaced with what?

If you were to use DU as your rubric for a purge, no Democratic representative on a national level would survive. There are odious stances and actions by DU standards that can be laid at the door of each and every one.

How to remove them? Vote in the primary for the best choice? That is already available, and is an admirable solution. Say there are no primary challengers. Take your vote to a third party? Don't vote? There are problems with those methods:

1) If your goal is moving the party towards your views, your missed vote (or even many missed votes) are not easily noticed. Even less identifiable is the reason for the missed vote--supposing a significant block of Democrats refuse to vote for a candidate, the result will not always be properly interpreted. You also have to deal with the businesslike minds of politicians--they chase success. Every pol you see ape JFK's speaking style or pay homage to the obscenity of Reagan is proof of that. When a Democrat incumbent loses to a Republican, they (sometimes wrongly) will look to the Republican's ballots for the reasons of that loss as opposed to elusive missing votes in their own.

2) If your goal is electing good people from any party, you are stuck with the fact that very few decent third party candidates run for office, and most if not all are so strategically inept and have such weak organizations that (barring instant run-off voting) your vote will not be pivotal in terms of the election and again won't be interpreted as a message for others to be more progressive.

If no viable replacement exists either within the party or without, a Republican will stand a better chance of winning, should your purge go into effect. A Republican majority means zero investigations, zero subpoenas, and further erosion of all the values we hold dear.

It's a difficult situation, and I wouldn't blame anyone for chafing at it and wishing to throw out the undesirables (a Senator from CT leaps to mind), but to look at the reality of that purge shows that there are near-insurmountable obstacles to success, and serious consequences for failure.

[OzarkDem]

100. No one said anything about a purge

But targeting Dem leaders who are neglecting their Constitutional duties may be in order.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an attorney, but I'm smart enough to know there is probably a way to accomplish it.

And let me clarify, I'm not just a lifelong Dem, I'm a 5th generation Democrat. I inherited this party from my parents and grandparents and I'm doing what they would expect me to do - protect its integrity. And I have a lot more to work with than my own vote to get it done.

So do lots of other Democrats.

Its not about a point of view on an issue, its about upholding the Constitution and fulfilling the legal obligations of one's elected office. No triangulating there. You either do it or you don't.

And there are plenty of good Democrats out there who can replace the failed leaders we have. You must not be involved with the Democratic party at the state or local level or you would know.

[Me.]

18. Nonsense n/t

[terrya]

19. Recommended.

Thank you. No other comment because you said it all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. thank you for this post.

[Telly Savalas]

24. For some of us, this isn't just about impeachment or sticking it to Bush.

I understand that the whole impeachment/White House soap opera issue is the sort of divisive thing which can take some time. What deeply disturbs me is the lack of progress on things where they can and should be building a consensus.

A couple quick examples (I'd offer more, but I gotta get ready to go work):

*They should be able to muster enough support to pass legislation which would ensure health care for all children in the U.S. Unless you count some moribund bills parked in committee, nothing has been done to address this.

*There was no reason that war funding bill shouldn't have have provisions to put tighter controls on where the money goes. Are they funding the troops or Halliburton?

Democrats of Capitol Hill aren't doing enough to advance a policy agenda. For all the issues the presidential candidates are talking about, you don't see Congress actually doing much to tackle them.

[jpgray]

26. I'd be the last to argue that the Dem majority is doing everything it can

It is doing vastly less than it can. I just want the most over-the-top attackers, who would declare the majority totally worthless for not having impeached the president within a few months, to consider the context. I don't want people to stop criticizing this Congress, I guess I'm asking for more sober analyses and fewer emotional rants. I don't mind emotional rants, but I think DU is capable of more than just that.

[Telly Savalas]

181. Fair enough.

However, frustration with Congress's inability to make even modest progress sometimes drives me to emotional rants. I'll try to keep the caps lock key in its holster, though.

[LWolf]

27. So...If I don't like the way "government works,"

if I want to CHANGE how government works, I'm ignorant?

I should "lay off" a majority I see as corrupt and inept, because that's the way government works?

If I should not speak for, and stand for, needed change, there's really no reason to speak up at all. Or is that the point?

[jpgray]

28. Where do I say any of those things?

I know asking someone questions using grossly twisted paraphrase is a common DU practice, but come on! I specifically indicated in my post that all of those actions you mention are reasonable and fine. Don't like this gov't all you want! No one likes it. Wanting to change government is admirable. Criticize the majority all you want, it deserves it.

What I'm asking for is cognizance of context. That's it. Just bear in mind how long this process has taken in the past, and recognize that seemingly incremental steps make a difference, however frustrating the slow pace can seem.

[LWolf]

73. I see.

I'm thinking about incremental steps. You make an important point.

I'm beyond thinking that the Democratic majority suggests incremental steps because in order to begin to make a positive change. I think they use incremental steps as obstacles. It's the intent, rather than the steps themselves, that have me fuming.

I don't believe they really want to change the things I do.

[Marrah_G]

29. Excellent Post

In my humble opinion those truly impatient types won't stay too long anyway. They will get disgusted take their toys and go home.

Change takes time. As much as anyone I want it now. But the reality is thatit's going to be a nasty couple years and true change will not come until we have more of a majority and the white house.

[jpgray]

32. I hope they stay, but I also hope they consider the obstacles ahead

They're right to say we could move faster. For example, I think an all-out move against Cheney has a significant chance of being successful, and compromise might give us our few needed Republican votes if we gave Bush some latitude (within reason) in choosing a new veep, since that would further their party strategy for '08 of distancing themselves from this administration. Cheney's an electoral millstone no one wants to associate with at the moment, so I think that would be possible.

[bigtree]

30. Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy

look like they're committed to the accountability folks are hollering for.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the product of their work evolve into a prosecution or two which could springboard into an impeachment, much like the Watergate committee was able to pressure Nixon's henchmen into testifying against him, well before the initiation of the impeachment process.

[jpgray]

33. Too often in the general inaction folks like Conyers get lumped in for the blame

Another good reason to recognize the nuances.

[MrPrax]

98. By nuance...

you mean that Conyers's HR 676 only has 70 or so co-sponsors?

Or the strategy stuff that Sirota points out:

"...So again the question is why? Why would Democratic leaders bring up EFCA as a standalone bill - that is, in a form that is most politically easy for the average Republican to oppose? Is it just that Democrats have no sense of “strategery?” Or is it something more insidious?

Does it have something to do with Democrats wanting to set up a situation that allows them to claim they care about workers and labor rights, while making sure that those labor rights continue to get trampled? This wouldn’t be unprecedented…at all. In fact, we saw this situation recently on the Iraq bill, where Democrats manipulated parliamentary procedure to deliberately engineer a situation that let them simultaneously claim they were doing all they could to oppose the war while helping make sure the war continues. Are we experiencing the same thing now with worker rights? And if we are, does it have something to do with the spate of stories about Big Business showering top Democratic leaders in cash and throwing Democratic Hill staffers offers of six-figure corporate lobbying jobs?

I honestly don’t know the answer, as it can sometimes be very tough to tell whether the behavior from folks in Congress is driven by short-sightedness or corruption. That said, its not like Senate defeat of EFCA was a surprise - Democrats knew from the get-go that it would lose as a standalone bill, meaning it really is possible they don’t truly want it to pass in the first place. Additionally, Roll Call reported earlier this month that a “senior House Democratic aide” was assuring top corporate lobbyists that “this card check bill is never going to see the light of day.”

Thus, moving forward, the bottom line is clear: If Democrats really want to get EFCA passed - as American workers need them to and as they should as the supposed party that represents those workers - it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than setting up legislative scenarios that make sure EFCA doesn’t pass. Some may argue that attaching the EFCA to something else is legislatively uncouth. To them I say, start getting serious about power. In a legislative body, the power comes from the rules - and we elected Democrats in 2006 to use that power to enact a progressive agenda, not just talk about it while citing Beltway manners and Senate floor etiquette as the reason for inaction..."

David Sirota

Lots of nuances and specifics in that piece....

[Carni]

87. I certainly commend those three!

Obama and Pelosi however pissed me off radically yesterday when I read the remarks here on DU about them being against impeachment.

What would be wrong with them saying something along the lines of *We have no plans to start proceedings at this time, although that could change as events unfold"

Wouldn't that/shouldn't that legitimately be the case anyway?

Or is their intention to give the chimp a blank check for the next year and a half? What the hell?

To just dismiss the thought of impeachment all together...is to me lazy, irresponsible, spineless and obviously it pissed me off.

If there have been laws broken, then these two assholes bush and cheney, by God had better be held accountable--as we were told repeatedly in the 90's...
The Pres is NOT above the law and I want to see these crooks held to the very same standard!

[Odin2005]

31. Great post. Instant gratification and Congress don't mix

The Founders intentionally designed the legislative branch to be slow and deliberative.

[pnwmom]

34. Thank you for saying it so well. K & R. n/t

[blueworld]

35. I needed the laugh, grazie

You're basically complaining about all our complaining & you're impatient because we're not changing as quickly as you think we should. That is the essence of true democratic debate. In the words of my sainted grandfather, "You're a pip". :yourock:

[jpgray]

38. Let no one deny it

:dunce:

[SIMPLYB1980]

36. Thank you.

I've tried to express that myself a couple of times, but never with such clarity.:yourock:

[jpgray]

42. Sure! And welcome to DU

:toast:

[TwilightGardener]

37. Thanks for some historical perspective!

[EstimatedProphet]

39. HEAR HEAR!

Well stated sir! Hopefully people will get it.

For some reason I've never been able to fathom, there's many on this site that don't understand that Conyers/Waxman's hearings are not separate from impeachment, but are in fact THE BEGINNING OF IMPEACHMENT. The hearings have to go on, as a first step. People here talk about how we don't need hearings because we already know they are guilty. I've even seen someone say that an unsuccessful attempt at impeachment, done right now, would be better than a successful one done a few months from now! They said this in all seriousmness, apparently not understanding the fact that wanting to have an impeachment hearing that will fail is pointless and self-destructive.

We have to have the hearings to get the information about BushCheney's misdeeds out, because the average person isn't aware of it. Worse yet, what the average person is aware of, Bush to their mind has already answered, so it's not a crime in their minds. the hearings will provide the proof we will need to follow through, the proof we will need to get the extra votes in the Senate, and the proof we need to show the average uninvolved person that impeachment is correct.

[tblue37]

40. Good post. K&R. (eom)

[blondeatlast]

41. I'm frustrated as hell, but I know that getting rid of a mountain of poop

is not only labor-intensive but damn unpleasant and that's what we are having to do.

The demands to have it done yesterday with the slim majority in the House and the razor-thin majority in the Senate make it nigh impossible.

The worst are those who expect failure before votes even come up. And don't even get me started on the parsing of the statements made by the Dems while precious few ever look at how the RRRs have perverted the discourse.


Ah, well before I go there, thanks for a great post.

[paulk]

43. well said

k & r

[DeeDeeNY]

44. There is one difference to the examples you list

In no case did top leaders of the opposition party state ahead of time "Impeachment is Off The Table." I think that is what bothers so many DUers.

[jpgray]

48. I think that's a bit similar to "no war plans on my desk"

Not to equate Bush lies with Pelosi question-dodging, but I don't think you can take that statement at literal face value. If impeachment were truly off the table, Bush could commit the most obscene crimes for the remainder of his term and Pelosi would refuse to impeach--I doubt anyone believes that. To my mind it's one of those half-truths used to make politicians seem less radical or belligerent to people who oppose them by claiming to have no plans for a controversial action without really taking the option away. Usually it's the sort of thing said during a campaign (as it was with Pelosi, if I remember.) If something big comes up in the investigations, I have little doubt impeachment will magically re-materialize on that elusive table.

[DeeDeeNY]

84. Pelosi's statement has to be taken at face value

She has to know that a degree of importance will be attached to her statements because of her position. At worst, what she said gives Bush license to commit the most obscene crimes for the remainder of his term and get away with them, exactly as you so aptly framed it. And at best, she is telling a half-truth, which means she is not being honest with us.
And what was the need to rush to say anything? Why not say she would take a wait and see attitude? By her very statement, she exhibited exactly the impatience that you mention is lacking in DUers. She couldn't even wait for results of investigations, because she is already sure that she does not want impeachment. This is what is worrisome.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. Actually, I expect the worst is yet to come from Bush

and no, I don't think Pelosi will impeach. Pelosi's "off the table" is Bush1's "no new taxes". There's no way she can recant without it blowing up on her. It was a stupid statement, and now we will all have to live with it no matter WHAT Bush does.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. And while we wait patiently

An Iraqi dies every 10 minutes

An American soldier dies every 10 hours

and we spend 2 billion dollars every 10 days.

[puebloknot]

173. And we just don't have an unlimited supply of lives and dollars!

[Javaman]

46. Climate change and peak oil get me down, our "leaders" make me angry...

so while we "lay off" our elected "leaders" more die each day in iraq because, you know they want to give the surge a fucking chance. :crazy:

:banghead:

[leftofthedial]

47. yeah, the Constitution clearly was written to ensure

that only repukes could implement their agenda without a 67% supermajority in both houses

[BuyingThyme]

99. I am so sick of that 67% talking point around here.

It's like an elementary school yard.

And talk about a lack of historical context... How 'bout never.

I'm looking forward to the comprehensive compromise on the privatization of Social Security.

[H2O Man]

49. I respectfully disagree.

While you raise some interesting points, I think it is important for the progressive wing of the democratic party to continue to place pressure on moderate and conservative wings. The sad fact is that although the democrats are in the majority in both the House and Senate -- as a direct result of the country's rejection of the Bush policies in Iraq -- the congress has increased the amount of money the president can invest in his insane Iraq policy.

The moderate and conservative democrats who are sincere about wanting to end the war are going to be pleased with the continued pressure from the progressive wing. It allows them to tell the more rational republicans that they need to work together to find a solution to the administration's madness.

I would liken it to February of 1965, when the SNCC invited Minister Malcolm X to address their meeting in Selma, Alabama, while Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr was incarcerated. Mrs. King spoke to Malcolm, and was impressed by his sincerity when he told her that he felt that his speaking out actually helped Martin, by showing those opposed to King's work that there was a more militant alternative waiting in the wings. And, indeed, Malcolm made Martin more acceptable to many in the power structure.

There were a few of King's aides who were bothered by Malcolm's going to Selma. Rev Andrew Young and Rev James Bevel met with him before he addressed the SNCC, to ask him to "lay off" with his strong talk. And Minister Malcolm responded, "Remember this: nobody puts words in my mouth."

Ms. King would later say that Martin was impressed with Malcolm's coming to Selma.

[jpgray]

51. I wouldn't liken some of the emotional rants on DU to Malcolm X speeches, myself

The energy is needed, absolutely. And the center-conservative Democrats need to feel it. I'm not convinced, however, that we need to fill up entire forums with it here. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone to shut up, but at least I want to remind them of the historically slow precedent that exists for taking on a whole administration.

[H2O Man]

55. I do not think

that Malcolm or Martin would advocate "emotional rants," though I think that is no more of an accurate description of the posts that question the democrats in congress than those which endorse them. More, referring to one viewpoint as being "emotional rants" seems an attempt to discredit them, rather than participate in a discussion.

The Constitution gives the responsibilities of handling the nation's purse-strings to the congress. The democrats are in the majority of both houses of congress. They provided the administration with the funding needed for the "surge" in the violent occupation of Iraq. I think DUers who are familiar with history recognize that both Malcolm and Martin would have opposed providing more money for more violence.

Martin addressed the error in thinking which too often results in people thinking that "time" will take care of business. In his Passion Sunday address at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1968 -- his last Sunday morning sermon -- he said:

"And now if we are to do it we must honestly admit certain things and get rid of certain myths that have been constantly disseminated ... One is the myth of time. It is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. And there are those who often sincerely say to the Negro and his allies in the white community, 'Why don't you slow up? Stop pushing things so fast. Only time can solve the problem. And if you will just be nice and patient and continue to pray, in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out'.

"There is an answer to that myth. It is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation -- the people on the wrong side -- have used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, 'Wait on time.'

"Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God. And without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. So we must help time and realize that the time is always ripe to do right."

[jpgray]

58. If those two men were judged by DU expectations, MLK would be see as a quisling enabler

And Malcolm X would be seen as a right enough guy who unfortunately wanted too little change and was moving too slowly. Now that's a bit hyperbolic, but as long as we're putting words in the mouths of famous dead people to back up our arguments, I thought I might as well. In the meantime let's also emphasize their patience, and their contempt for directionless, purposeless anger or contempt. Sort of what they were fighting against, no? I suppose they were able to wrap up that whole endemic racism business in a few months, yeah?

Above all both men saw to effect change one needs to provide constant, determined pressure. Change isn't helped much by nanosecond bursts of purely emotional responses that betray an ignorance of historical context and an attention span that allows those who were hailed as unsurpassed heroes in the past rant to be damned as the most contemptible villains in the next within the span of a month.

Pressure's great. Emotion's great. But put it to good use, and recognize incremental progress even if you condemn it for slowness.

[H2O Man]

65. Way wrong.

I think you are wrong on every part of this. To call a quote "putting words in the mouths of famous dead people" is a sad display that exposes those errors.

[jpgray]

67. I refer to your claims about how MLK and X would have voted on a funding bill

But to assume I would call a quotation "putting words in the mouths of famous dead people" reveals you have such a contempt for me I doubt you take anything I say seriously.

[H2O Man]

68. In fact

both Malcolm and Martin spoke frequently on issues relating to US military involvement in foreign wars; it is silly to make the claim that I am saying they "would agree with me," especially in light of the OP's suggestion that people put things in a historical context.

More, both have a rather well-documented history of advocating grass-roots activism.

[jpgray]

75. Claiming to know how dead historical figures would act is a tactic prone to serious error

Any good historian would tell you that such seductive analogies can horribly undermine the legitimacy of one's analysis, starting with Ibn Khaldun over six hundred years ago.

Grass roots activism again takes years and years to be effective, not a few months of directionless emotion. And yes, you are putting both MLK and Malcolm X in a legislative setting and idly speculating on how they would vote on a modern bill. Don't you think that strategy is a bit prone to error? I should know--I skated way too close to misguided historical analogy than I'd like in my OP.

:dunce:

Should people push their representatives with every bit of emotion and grass roots organization they can muster? Yes! Absolutely! Are they justified in arguing that this Congress is obscenely horrible for not having overcome two and a half branches of government in a few months? Emotionally? Yes. Realistically? Not so much. Our majority is worthy of the harshest criticism, but I wish people would keep in mind how long these things have taken in the past, and that a general frustrating inactivity doesn't mean progress isn't being made and pushed for by the few great Democrats we have.

[Joe Chi Minh]

120. I think is was to some extent substantiated in a post I read yesterday,

stating that impeachment was very much "on the table" in private, and the prospect of best timing it to be successful, under constant discussion.

[H2O Man]

155. Nope.

Anyone familiar with their works would know that you are way wrong.

[jpgray]

156. So you would abandon hundreds years of arguments from revered historical scholars

To dig up MLK and Malcolm X, prop them up next to you, and say "Look who stands with me!" Fair enough. :D

[OzarkDem]

150. Excellent parry, H2O Man

You speak for me and many others here.

[puebloknot]

170. With deep emotion, I concur in your defense of open dialogue here! nt

[BlooInBloo]

196. Somebody fucking shoot me now. jesus.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. What he said, as usual.

What us whiners and complainers and incessent critics do is keep their feet in the fire 'cause if we didn't they would all be sitting down to the usual big fat lunches, going on junkets, and otherwise enjoying the perks of power while pretending to be an opposition party. These days it is the blogbarians, over cafinated, angry, impatient, and determined to BE REPRESENTED that will push our reluctant leaders places they are uncomfortable going.

[David Zephyr]

147. Well said, H2O Man. My hero, Frederick Douglass also said:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

[Pithy Cherub]

161. Better yet is Douglass's

"Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!"

[Tsiyu]

50. I was thinking about instant gratification today

but I was contemplating the Executive.

One of the key components to any takeover of a nation this large is to do it gradually. But * and Darth and all of their Dark Underlords are too impatient for this. They are trying to railroad their devouring of our society rather than slowly boiling us. This makes their motivation transparent to those who are looking.

And those people are frightened and frustrated and disgusted with the rapid change in the SCOTUS, in the way the Constitution is applied (or denied) by the Executive - backed by the Supremes - and how the Legislative seems limp and timid.

Yes, these wheels grind slowly, but the Neocons' wheels keep spinning at a disturbing pace. The People need something to hold on to and at this point all they have is their simmering rage.

[jpgray]

52. This conservative takeover has been decades in the making, starting from the Powell Manifesto

Untold billions from wealthy patrons such as Scaife and Coors and tireless effort from all conservatives were taxed to the limit for over twenty years just so the conservatives could claw their way to a slim majority in '94. The Bush folks are recklessly destroying what their predecessors built for them, but they'd never have been able to do so much damage in the process without all that preceding groundwork. It'll take a lot to dismantle all that.

[Tsiyu]

60. You are correct but most people did not see this coming

and they are undone by it, not to mention the fact that the People need relief NOW.

Jobs, houses, lost.

Medical care unavailable or inadequate.

Natural disasters neglected.

Families and communities broken apart by and strippped of the resources of constantly deployed military...


Shall I go on?

If Congress does not see this and offer some sort of bone to the hungry dogs, those dogs are going to turn on the Dems. It's not just a matter of political due process not being comprehended.

It is the matter of people paying their bills and eating and staying alive.

[jpgray]

62. People have every reason to be freaking out, and every right to.

I just want to show that this Congress isn't completely useless, but rather is going about the investigation in a manner very similar to those before it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

122. Surely, a constant underlying factor in people's rage and impatience.

But it does enrage me that masquerading trolls exploit their pain, further fomenting the disaffection and division.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. They are running out the clock and we are supposed to be patient?

I rest my case.

[jpgray]

56. Yes. They're doing essentially what the initial Watergate investigators were doing

That took about two years to get off the ground--there's no reason not to be frustrated or impatient, but let's at least try to keep things in perspective. It's not a binary choice of either impeachment or no progress towards that end at all, which necessitates posts declaring the latter every single day Bush isn't impeached.

[Throwing Stones]

132. apples to oranges again

the Watergate scandal and what finally pushed Nixon to resign took years to both (1) figure out, and (2) explain to the public.

The crap this misadministration has pulled is about as complicated as the hokey pokey.

Too bad the dem leadership is so afraid they'll lose the right foot, should they dare put it in.

[Seabiscuit]

184. You obviously don't know squat about Watergate.

Everything you've said about it seems to be pulled out of your arse. Someone like you should *never* try to lecture an entire website about being ignorant about history.

The Watergate investigation didn't take "about two years to get off the ground." That's absolute rubbish.

At the time of the Watergate burglary in the summer of 1972, no one (except Nixon and his inner circle of aides) knew who the men were inside that building or why they were there. There were 4 Cuban-Americans and 1 anglo, Bernard Barker.

The trial of these men took over 6 months. Sometime between arrest and trial it was discovered that an E. Howard Hunt had scribbled a note to one of the burglars about dropping off a letter in the mailbox for him. The note and letter had been left in the hotel room across the street from the Watergate used as a base of operations.

The prosecutor's team who took these burglars to trial then learned that Hunt worked for CREEP (The Committee to Re-Elect the President). That was the first piece of evidence that remotely tied anyone related to the White House to the break-in/attempted burglary. And it led them to G. Gordon Liddy, also connected to CREEP.

But it wasn't until Bernard Barker at sentencing in early 1973 wrote a note to Judge Sirica in that case that mentioned that this White House connection was far more extensive than the prosecutors were aware of, and that there had been a coordinated cover-up reaching into the highest level of the White House that Congress first learned of the connection.

Remember, Nixon wasn't impeached for the burglary. He was impeached for the cover-up - obstruction of justice.

Within just a COUPLE OF MONTHS of learning this, NOT TWO YEARS, the Senate set up a special committee to investigate the Watergate thing, headed by Senator Sam Ervin, known as the Senate Select Committee On Watergate, or more simply, as the Senate Watergate Committee. Meanwhile, the Washington Post's own investigation had led straight to Haldeman, Erlichman and Dean, who all stepped down (forced out by Nixon in an attempt to protect himself) in April, 1973. By July - August, 1973, John Dean was testifying before this committee and as an aside during his testimony me mentioned he got the impression during one of his Oval Office conversations with Nixon that the conversation was being taped. This led the Ervin Committee to immediately question Alexander Butterfield, a Nixon aide, about the existence of a taping/recording system in the Oval Office. He confirmed its existence in response to direct questions.

By now it's late summer, 1973.

Congress immediately managed to set up a special prosecutor's office to go after any evidence of wrongdoing that might exist on those tapes. That special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, not only subpoenaed some of them, but immediately took Nixon to court in response to Nixon's "executive privilege" stonewalling, and got an order from Judge Sirica demanding Nixon turn over the tapes. Rather than comply or refuse to comply with the court order, Nixon demanded that his attorney general, Elliot Richardson, fire Cox. Instead, Richardson resigned. Same demand to Ruckleshaus, Richardson's assistant AG, and Ruckleshaus resigned. The AG position then fell to Robert Bork, the Solicitor General at the time, and Bork finally did Nixon's bidding. This was all known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" in late October, 1973.

In response to Cox's firing, not only was the press enraged, the people were too, and we not only flooded the White House with angry telegrams, we flooded Congress with demands for impeachment, and flooded the streets of Washington, D.C. with Impeachment demonstrations. The result? The House Judiciary Committee took up the business of impeaching Nixon without hesitation, without any calls for us to be "patient" while they attend to other business and without any bleatings about impeachment being "off the table" because they weren't sure they had the votes yet. They immediately convened the committee and began their investigation, pouring over evidence obtained by the Cox and then Leon Jaworski, the new Special Prosecutor, and the Senate Watergate Committee and calling witnesses.

This was in November-December, 1973.

From that time to the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. vs. Nixon upholdiing the lower courts' order that Nixon turn over new tapes subpoenaed by Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor that replaced Cox, ONLY 6-7 MONTHS HAD PASSED. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee had finished its investigations, drafted 3 final articles of impeachment, and voted to pass them. So the Impeachment process itself only took 6-7 months, NOT TWO YEARS.

The "smoking gun" tape was significant only in that it was the final nail in Nixon's coffin which convinced Nixon's most die-hard Republican supporters in the House to vote to impeach, and in the Senate to vote to convict. Rather than face certain conviction and removal from office and loss of his pension, Nixon resigned, but only after intense pressure from V.P. Ford, Chief Of Staff Alexander Haig, and several prominant Republicans from Congress.

Congress didn't hesistate one bit to impeach Nixon. They didn't sit around saying everyone must just be "patient" while years and years of serious crimes continued to be committed, and unresponded to, as this one has. You can't equate that Congress with this Congress. Not only has this Congress continued to drag its feet since last January about impeachment, its Democratic leaders keep saying it's "off the table". No one ever said those words in 1973-1974.

That's the real story about Watergate (in a very small nutshell with the chance of some small and insignificant errors). The real story doesn't support your thesis but rather very convincingly contradicts it, and certainly doesn't justify your call for "patience" from DU'ers on the subject of impeachment.

Had this Congress done its job quickly (as its first order of business in late January, 2007) and efficiently as the Congress did in 1973 to 1974 on the subject of Watergate, there would be Articles of Impeachment drafted and approved by the House Judiciary Committee and then by the full House by this September (yes, we have the votes for that). And then either two things would happen: Either enough Senate Republicans would be convinced by the evidence to give Impeachment the super-majority in needs to convict in the Senate (and Bush and Cheney would either resign or be convicted and removed from office by Hallowe'en) or a vote to convict would fail as a result of Republican obstructionism, and as a result, the public, learning for the first time as a whole about all of Bush and Cheney's impeachable offenses would not only overwhelmingly elect a Democratic president in 2008, it would vote out every Republican up for election in 2008 who voted against impeachment in the House or against conviction in the Senate, giving the Dems a super-majority in both the House and the Senate in the 2008 elections.

I'll take that either/or scenario any day over spineless and absurd calls for "patience".

[Throwing Stones]

187. Interesting that you call out the OP as "condescending"

I appreciate the information you've posted and I stand corrected as to the timeframe of the Watergate investigations. My larger point, however, is that we are in a completely different time with so many shifting variables that comparing Nixon v. Dems to * v. Dems isn't terribly workable.

Perhaps with the instantaneous flow of information, investigations now should move more quickly; but as another poster noted, we live in a society that values instant gratification. I would love nothing more than to see the entire misadministration frog marched to the Hague - yesterday, but it's just not going to happen overnight. We all need to keep the pressure on to make sure it does happen, and I think Conyers, Waxman, Leahy and Schumer are our best hope, even though it's yet to be seen if any of them actually has a pair.

[Seabiscuit]

197. I'm not sure what to make of your post title, but

to be fair, I was not the one who iniated the comparison betwen this Congress and the Congress in Nixon's time. The OP did that when he basically equated them. My point about the OP is there is no comparison to be made - except to note the differences - that one did its job promptly and efficiently under the Constitution, and this one is dragging its feet in cowardice and refusing to do its job under the Constitution by keeping Impeachment "off the table".

I agree that Conyers and Waxman are our best hopes, but I've lost all confidence in Leahy, Shumer, and Pelosi. They make a lot of noise but accomplish next to nothing.

[Throwing Stones]

213. I agree that any comparisons between then and now are not terribly helpful

That was the point I was initially trying to make, as well. However, I recognize that by remarking on the timeframe (incorrectly, on my part) in support of the current Dems, I misspoke.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether these Dems are doing their job in light of the changed times. I would certainly like to see swifter action, but the current NSA and AG investigations are, at the very least, slowing down these assholes in furthering their insane agenda. Yes, I know that sets the bar pretty low, but (1) I don't have very high expectations that any politician will ever act nobly in the face of adversity, and (2) despite number 1, I do have a glimmer of hope that Dems will at least stumble onto something too big for even Fox "News" to ignore.

To me, it seems to stand logic on its head that the speed with which the electorate can get the news now and form opinions is incomparable to the early 70s, yet decisions and action take longer. My guess is that this isn't necessarily an anomaly, but a direct cause of squeezing all nuance down to a palatable and marketable soundbite.

As to the title of my last post: while I don't disagree with most of what you've written in this thread, I did find your tone a bit pedantic, although nonetheless informative and provocative.

[jpgray]

188. If I had said "impeachment proceedings took two years" I'd agree with you

The -investigation- took two years. Which is exactly what I said. But thanks for posting the full Watergate information here. My point still stands.

[Seabiscuit]

198. You point is still absolutely wrong.

You CANNOT count the criminal court trial against the burglars apprehended at the Watergate hotel as part of "the investigation" when you're discussing Congress. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with that trial and that trial had absolutely nothing to do with Nixon or anyone involved in the White House. To say "the investigation" took two years" means you're including that criminal trial as part of a Congressional "investigation" which I'm sure even you know is utterly absurd, because you're the one who started a thread talking about *Congress*. The Senate Select Committee on Watergate investigation took about 6 months, from the spring of 1973 to the end of summer, 1973, and resulted turning mere suspicions about abuse of power/impeachable conduct into solid evidence of the same and also resulted in the appointment of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, whose firing by Nixon led to the Impeachment hearings which again only took about 6 months.

If you want to add the Senate Investigation to the House Impeachment investigation, you can claim a TOTAL OF ONE YEAR of "investigation" by Congress beginning with a special committee of the Senate convening as a result of mere suspicions of wrongdoing. But you CANNOT CLAIM TWO YEARS. That claim is patently false. The current Congress has had actual knowledge of years of solid evidence of abuse of power by Bush and Cheney (not mere suspicions) to support impeachment proceediings, yet has done absolutely nothing about it. That's such a travesty I and countless others who you accuse of being "impatient" consider it treasonous.

See my other posts for more elaboration on such points.

Your fundamental point trying to use Watergate as an example of Congress taking some supposedly agonizingly slow "two years" to get a job done so we should be "patient" with the current Congress is patently ridiculous, and comparing this Congress which refuses to do its Constitutional duty to the Congress during Nixon's second term which executed its Constitutional duties promptly, thoroughly, and efficiently is patently absurd. After Nixon resigned the country experienced a huge sigh of relief, and the common phrase of the day was that "the system worked", meaning Congress and the Courts proved worthy of their Constitutional responsibilities in a supremely successful manner, meaning our democratic institutions worked, meaning our system of checks and balances worked. I followed it all closely and it inspired me to attend law school, which I completed. Today our democratic instutions appear to be broken, and despite the fact that Dems since late January have held immense power with their new committee chairs and large majority in the House, their inaction on the most critical issues of our time is so shameful that opinion pollsters show that this Congress is about as popular as Dick Cheney.

[jpgray]

205. These are claims I didn't make--I didn't claim Congress was investigating Watergate for two years

I'm sorry if that was implied or unclear. But if I were to cede you that point, Nixon's administration had certainly committed other impeachable offenses by DU standards. Other than Agnew's essential murder/suicide via his own stupidity and greed, the big boys escaped unscathed up until the criminal investigation tied with some bizarre revelations and hard work led to the "smoking gun." My point that it took years of work to unravel and fix on Nixon still remains. If you feel that it's a failed point because I didn't express myself clearly, fair enough. But do you see what I'm driving at? This sort of thing takes time. By your rationale my Clinton example is also meaningless, since disparate groups were trying to bring down Clinton long before Congress took an official hand.

[Seabiscuit]

210. Oh, yes you did. You're being disingenuous to try to weasel out of it now.

Your entire OP was about Congress. You NEVER said anything in your OP about "investigations in general" (which you've now later come up with to facetiously include a criminal trial against the Watergate burglars which had absolutely nothing to do with Nixon or Congress or the White House). You compared our current Congress to past Congresses and in the one I've focused on, Watergate, you couldn't be more wrong in your points.

You falsely rewrote the history of Watergate in your OP, and now you're falsely trying to rewrite the points you made about Congress in your OP.

I don't see any point in continuing discussions with people who behave in that manner.

I've said more than enough to correct you and point out how wrong your points are when it comes to the Nixon/Watergate issues. If I knew as much about your other examples (Reagan, Clinton, etc.) as I do about the Watergate affair, I would undoubtedly rip those points of your to shreds as well with the real facts but I'm not the kind of person that goes around lecturing people about how ignorant they are when I don't know what I'm talking about. Hopefully, some of that kind of good sense humility may rub off on you someday and you'll learn to stop putting up posts like your OP in this thread. I get the impression you're young enough to still learn from experience and aging. Someday.

Good luck on that journey.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. No they are not running out the clock!

In sports, when a team runs out the clock, it gets the ball and sits down. Congress is doing investigations that have to be done before impeachment can even start.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. 1) Impeachment is off the table.

So while congress might indeed be doing investigations that have to be done before impeachment can even start, a fact that I dispute, our congressional leadership has made it clear that this is NOT what they are doing. It appears that you have psychic powers that allow you to see through their repeated statements to discern some other truth, I am stuck with what they have actually said they are doing.

2) They are running out the clock on their administration. 1-20-09 they are out of office and can no longer be impeached for anything. In addition that disaster in mesopotamia will then be the fault of the sacrificial lamb installed to replace the worst administration in the history of this nation. And finally we will have, a few weeks prior to that, ended the 110th congress, controlled by the nominal opposition party, without having done anything to bring the worst administration in the history of this republic to task.

3) Impeachment proceedings are the investigation. The crime, the 500lb gorilla of a crime, the stinking turd in the punchbowl of a crime, the deliberate fraud that took us to war in Iraq, is just sitting there, and we are all dancing around it as if it is not manifestly obvious.

[AntiFascist]

101. Great point (#3), and the sad truth about the Democratic majority is...

that they want this war to continue and are granting huge blank checks to the criminals who got us there. This makes them accessories to the crime in the court of public opinion. No wonder Congress has lower approval ratings than even the President.

[EstimatedProphet]

126. Again I have to disagree

The idea that the investigations are not necessary is incorrect in my opinion. It makes no difference what Bush has said he has done in public, because he has given a rationale for it, which his supporters agree with - including a lot of Congress and the SCOTUS, when it comes down to it. The investigations have been revealing how much partisan corruption has proliferated throughout Washington, and IMO that's germaine to the issue. What you are arguing seems to me like asking a prosecuting attorney to walk in to the courtroom on day 1 and say "Your Honor, this man is guilty. I request you recess the jury to deliberate." without making any kind of argument. WE may know there's multiple deliberate frauds from the Bush administration, but the average guy on the street isn't really aware yet, and the Repubs will continue to back Bush as long as they can get away with it. The key to getting the Repubs to turn is going to be showing them that their political livelihood is tied directly to this issue, they are beginning to get the picture now but that will never fully happen if we don't build a public, transparent case. I for one do not believe that Pelosi, regardless of what she has said in the last couple of days, is going to use her speakership to keep an impeachment proceeding from happening if and when one comes about from investigations. I'm sure she will if impeachment comes about in a rushed fashion.

[yardwork]

57. Your post sounds reasonable, but I don't agree.

Politics is not based on rationality. Politics is based on responding to the constituents. Unfortunately, in this country right now the corporations have way more than their share of attention as constituents. The only way to start to balance this out is for the rest of us to squawk loudly.

That means telling Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party that WE WILL NOT SUPPORT THEM unless they do the things that we want them to do. That means stating that we won't necessarily vote for whomever the Democratic Party chooses as the nominee, if that person doesn't address our concerns. That means not sending money to Democratic candidates or the Party unless they respond to our needs.

It doesn't sound rational, and it isn't, but that's the way our political system works. It's based on being adversarial. Money and support are the only things that matter to candidates.

Candidates WILL pay attention if we don't support them. In fact, it's the only way to get their support. They're not going to do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts, when the corporations determine whether or not they get elected.

We have to be squeaky wheels.

[jpgray]

61. This strategy reminds me of "don't buy gas day"--your target is too big

The problems with it (concerning politicians or soulless Exxon Mobil) are:

1) Will the target even miss the withheld support?

2) If the target does miss the withheld support, can it discern why the support was withheld?

3) If it can discern why support was withheld, will it act to reclaim the support or just to replace it?

Most times I think these little campaigns don't get beyond step 1, because the problem is just too big. It's enormous. The powers of organization we have here on DU will likely amount to a tiny drop of financial or ballot support for these national representatives. I think a superior method, rather than the negative reinforcement of withdrawing support, is providing massive support (through not only money and votes but internships and volunteer work) to candidates who are doing what you want done. To my mind politicians imitate and try to learn from success--it's why all the GOP candidates invoke Reagan every third breath. Rather than wander around looking for people who have abandoned them and caused their minority or loss, they'll look to the more successful pols and copy them, from their stances to their speaking style. I could be totally wrong on this, but that's my opinion as far as the plan you mention. I would be very interested if there is documentation showing how this plan has worked or hasn't worked in the past. To use an imperfect example, by your rationale, the 5% that voted for Nader would have caused the Democrats to swing left, since his voters mostly abandoned the Democrats in 2000 as being supposedly too like the Republicans. The Democrats didn't read that message properly, perhaps?

[yardwork]

69. dupe post

dupe post.

[yardwork]

70. I don't agree with your assessment or your comparison.

I didn't participate in "don't buy gas day." It would have been futile, as I would have had to fill up the day before or the day after, and the oil companies knew it.

I'm talking about the political process. First, Gore won in 2000, despite the support for Nader. The Democratic Party followed up in 2004 with an even more liberal ticket (Kerry/Edwards being more liberal than Gore/Lieberman, imo), and again, the Democratic nominee won the election. However, neither of these Democrats were allowed to take office because of vote-fixing, corporate-controlled media misinformation, and the Supreme Court.

In 2006, the country managed to be allowed to vote in a majority Democratic Congress (probably so that the Republicans would have somebody else to blame everything on for a while). The Democrats in Congress COULD AND SHOULD be doing a A LOT MORE to address the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 and ensure that it stops happening. Instead, they've ignored the voting irregularities, dismissed lawsuits, failed to restore the Fairness Doctrine in the media, and generally acted as if they are in total denial about the fascist takeover of the country.

I can't in any conscience support a Party that is perpetuating a disastrous status quo. Instead, I'm sending my money to human rights organizations that are attempting to address the disasters the United States is imposing on many people in the world.

I will gladly donate to a Democratic candidate who takes the situation seriously. If enough of us insist that the Democrats start behaving with integrity, conscience, and sense - they will.

[AntiFascist]

121. In that case the only presidential candidate I want to support is Kucinich...

unfortunately thanks to the "liberal" media, including the likes of David Letterman and Conan O'Brien, Kucinich has the reputation for being little more than a "garden gnome." (I like Letterman and O'Brian, but this is exactly how the globalist-controlled media wants Kucinich to be perceived) Progressive bloggers who complain about the Democratic Party are all about shaping perception, which is exactly why threads such as this one are started in order to try and do damage control.

[MasonJar]

59. Thank you, JP, for a very good suggestion. I totally agree with your thesis.

[IronLionZion]

63. I thought Democratic Underground was for digging graves for Democrats

deep underground. :sarcasm:

Kudos to you for posting this. I feel like puking whenever I hear the obviously bullshit meme that our Dems are not doing anything when in fact they are among the hardest working classes of congress. I love seeing the threads once in a while that show all the various pieces of legislation and other initiatives that have recently been accomplished. When we are focused exclusively on blind attack mode we miss a lot of good stuff that's going on all the time but doesn't get any press. It's important to not overlook the stuff going on at the state and local levels as well. All politics is local.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. The Republicans "lost" on Clinton's impeachment but won the congress and presidency.

Clinton was not convicted but the aftermath was a victory for the Republicans.

Impeachment is a political, not legal, act.

The desire for the electorate to be "patient" is exactly what Bush and the generals are asking for in Iraq. It's exactly what LBJ asked for in '67 and Humphrey wanted in '68. Followed by Nixon pleading with the electorate to "stay the course".

Now is not the time for "patience" it is the time to prod, poke, scream at, bash, the politicians to do more, not play it safe and keep their powder dry.

The war in Vietnam didn't end because of the machinations of politicians. It ended because the politicians were forced to take action by a public who finally acknowledged that the war was lost and was costing them sons and treasure to no purpose. And, due to the work of a noisy, impatient, minority and the efforts of people like Daniel Ellsburg.

Nixon wasn't impeached, and forced to resign, because of congress. He was forced impeached and forced to resign because the public, with a lot of help from Woodward and Bernstein, forced the politicians to act. And, it was more due to the public's weariness with the war than a burglary.

I submit that had Clinton been caught in his romp with Monica while waging a highly unpopular war, or had the economy been in ruins, he would have been successfully impeached and convicted. Clinton escaped conviction because he was a popular president. Reagan escaped impeachment because he was a popular president.

Bush, by every measure, is an unpopular president, running a highly unpopular war, mistrusted and scorned by the public.

The Watergate burglary was a tool used by the Democrats to rid the country of disastrous president. He was impeached under the rubric of the burglary, and cover-up, but was forced from office because of the war.

Now isn't the time for patience. Now is the time for the politicians to read the mood of the country and take advantage of it. And, I believe, it is our obligation to keep the pressure on them to do so.

[jpgray]

66. Why do people read "patience" as inaction or complacency?

Of course you should prod, bully, push and pull the living crap out of your congresspeople! Do it by day, do it by night, do it whenever the thought strikes you. But be realistic. Remember the past. Recognize nuance. Don't write off all members of the majority as do-nothing worthless enablers. That's all I'm asking.

[madamesilverspurs]

95. I'm fairly new to DU, (but not to the planet)

and part of the problem seems to be a rather widespread failure of perception. Our current situation doesn't "feel" like one where we can safely indulge patience. It's kind of like a doctor telling you to "take two aspirin and call me in the morning," when he should be saying, "get your butt into the ER so we can stop the bleeding and deal with that compound fracture!"

[puebloknot]

140. Good analogy! And welcome to DU. Time is of the essence...

...of this contract. People are giving their lives for someone tucked safely at home and practicing patience.

The "contract" is the oath our elected representatives swore to uphold the Constitution.

[jpgray]

141. Welcome! And thanks--that's a good way to describe it

And no one should be blamed for feeling that way.

[yardwork]

71. "It is our obigation to keep the pressure on them to do so."

I agree.

[Phredicles]

74. The frustration isn't because the results haven't come yet; it's because it doesn't look

like they're trying with any particular urgency to reach them.

[Seabiscuit]

212. Indeed. In any human endeaver there must be a beginning before one

can be either patient or impatient about final results.

People are impatient with this Congress because it hasn't even begun to talk about giving us any beginning yet. We're angry because all we're hearing is that Impeachment is "off the table". The impatience has nothing to do with how long an impeachment process might take if done right.

The OP conflates these two separate and entirely distinct issues (much like Bush has always conflated Iraq with Al Queda) by pretending people are impatient about how long Congressional processes work, because, as it condescendingly claims, people are ignorant about history and how government works, when in point of fact the Congressional process hasn't even begun yet. The people he calls "impatient" are complaining about the lack of a beginning, not how long it takes to get results once a process has begun. Thus the entire thesis of the OP is fatally flawed from the outset.

[jobycom]

77. Harry Potter politics.

All it takes is faith, trust, and little bit of pixie dust. If you wish really, really harder than the other side, and keep repeating "I do believe in impeachment, I do, I do!" everything good will happen at once.

It takes hard work, not magic wands. The other side wants to win just as badly as we do, and they are better funded, have the media on their side, and are willing to do the hard work. Plus, they have the White House, and the Supreme Court, and they have an easier time of it, since we have to actively stop what they've done, and all they have to do is obstruct us and let things continue.

Politics is never about a final solution, it's about pointing the nation in the right direction and keeping it going that way. So far we are in the early stages of turning this thing around. That's just how it is. Those who want miracles would be better ignoring politics and finding religion.

[Phredicles]

80. Damn right it takes hard work, and I'm not seeing any.

Just a bunch of empty bluster that's never backed up.

[jobycom]

81. Then you aren't looking.

No one can help that but you. The work is being done.

[The Count]

103. Are principles miracles then? Decency too much to ask for?

I am not oblivious to the hard work involved, and appreciate Pelosi's efforts.
But I cannot condone war votes - especially from people knowing it was based on lies.

[jobycom]

111. No, they are red herrings.

And they are not relevant to what I posted.

[The Count]

157. People's lives red herrings? All rightey then. We inhabit different worlds then.

In mine, people matter more than parties.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

79. Tell this to all the soldiers who have died these past months

:shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

82. historical precedent doesn't excuse them from doing farkin' nothing

it doesn't excuse Nancy Pelosi from removing impeachment unilaterally and pre-emptively.

it doesn't excuse them from not taking us seriously.

It doesn't excuse them from voting for the damn war funding.

Sorry, I don't give a damn about what happened in the past. Anyone -- ANYONE -- who tries to tell me this Congress is doing all it could on those issues that are critically important to the mere continuation of this country as a nation, and the Constitution as a viable force in our lives is a damn fool.

A DAMN FOOL.

We will be waiting for fucking ever if we don't make enough noise to make them LISTEN because they are NOT performing. Period.

[yardwork]

85. There was no reason whatsoever for Congress to approve war funding without at least a timeline.

The only reason was cowardice. They were afraid it would hurt their chances for reelection. So hundreds more people die.

[treestar]

86. You're right, and if anyone is to be blamed make it the Rethugs

in Congress who stay loyal to Chimpy and his Handler Cheney without regard to what they do. They are the ones not doing the right thing, especially in the Senate where the Democratic majority is slim.

[Richardo]

88. Well said, JP

:applause: + Rec

[mdmc]

89. they are doing as good as they can

can't piss the corporations off too much... much better to stay the corporate course...

[hiphopnation]

92. a lapse of lucidity here on DU

are you sure you're in the right place? :rofl:

k&r and thank you so much

:kick: :thumbsup:

[riona]

93. I appreciate your point of view

but I can understand our members'impatience too. When this administration took office, I never anticipated the amount of destruction that could be done in a few measly years. I thought that the wheels would be slow as usual and damage would be minimized. Clearly, this hasn't been the case, and with the time left, who knows what else they can accomplish. Destruction has taken a remarkably short amount of time.

[cmd]

94. Recommended n/t

[cui bono]

96. A 1974 DU would be also be "howling with impatience"

at how long it would take us to make this thread using snail mail.

[The Count]

102. I started paying attention to politics November 7, 2000. I understand that

a lot of it involves negotiation and power sharing. I understand how this works for a minority or even for a small majority.
What I don't understand is playing politics with people's lives (i.e - war & peace), or signing away - for practically forever our civil rights (Supreme Court appointments). There ought to be limits to what can be bartered.Such as some basic principles?

[SharonRB]

104. Thank you for this.

You said it much better than I could have, but I agree that everything takes time and we need to be patient. The drip, drip, drip is turning into a steady flow and soon will be a rushing rapids that cannot be ignored. I realize that after the last six and half years we're all anxious to bring these guys down, but victory will be sweet when it arrives, and I do think that it will, indeed, arrive.

[NanceGreggs]

106. This deserved a REC just on the basis of the word ...

... "DUicide"!

But I've got to give it a REC on the basis of a well thought-out essay that makes sense, and needed to be said.

I, too, have often expressed my frustration and anger at the slowness with which our reps seem to be acting. But in the great scheme of things, every journey towards a desired destination requires not only fortitude, but patience along the way.

[Lindsey]

110. I COMPLETELY agree....

There was a conversation last night on Air America about the expections of Americans being way too high for Congress. My God, my feeling is that they've done a HELL of a lot. AND I believe they are focusing on what they should be - getting these thugs before congress to testify about the attorney firings, issuing subpeonas, etc. Thanks for your brave and well thought-out post :-)

[maggiegault]

107. Just a friendly word of advice from a professional writer...

The condescension toward those who do not share your viewpoint was betrayed, as you put it, in your very first line. Since I do not share your viewpoint, your very first line was the only one that I bothered to read.

You don't know me, nor do you know my background. I have worked as a lobbyist for Democratic causes at the state level for several years now. I have also worked for the County government. My work with the County had me in close daily contact with the Feds, namely the FBI.

I may not have extensive Beltway experience, but as an individual who has significant life experience, including owning my own business, I don't think that I nor anyone else deserve your snottiness. You killed your own message.

[Joe Chi Minh]

127. Just a friendly word of advice from a non-writer, Ms Gault. Pardon my presumption, won't you?

It seems to me that it is, rather, your own deficient grasp of the English language, even at this non-professional level, that has betrayed your own seemingly exaggerated self-esteem in the same regard.

'over-the-top whining and emotional accusations' and .... 'they betray or feign deep ignorance of how government works.' are expressions that somehow do not strike me as having the remotest connotation of graciousness, yet Chambers dictionary defines 'to condescend' as 'to act graciously to those one regards as inferior'.

On the contrary, the aforesaid terms seem perfectly 'UNcondescending' in that they are arguably quite rude expressions of jpgrays' viewpoint - while perfectly appropriate for a forum. Neither is he "stooping" towards the other posters on this thread, but rather addressing them as adults, who can 'give as good as they get'.

Now, I shall invite an arguably correct accusation of condescension from you, and say that the emotions excited by jpgray's post in your heart perhaps clouded your mind uncharacteristically. There! I've sugared the pill.

[maggiegault]

162. No, you didn't sugar the pill...you only made yourself look like an ass.

This had nothing to do with you, and you leapt in the fray. Why, I wonder?

[Joe Chi Minh]

190. Obviously, irony is not a strong point of yours, either.

I jumped into the fray because it was obvious to me that jpgray is a man of exceptional intelligence, whereas your post indicated that the superiority of your intelligence was entirely in your own mind, and in inverse proportion to the extraordinary level of arrogance it betrayed. A little more humility on your part, and my correction of your English would not have been unnecessary.

[jpgray]

139. The OP is pedantic. No question.

However, rather than just attack the admittedly imperfect tone of my post, I'd ask you to at least consider the rest of it beyond the first line before condemning it completely. I apologize if my post seemed to condescend or belittle the experiences of those who post emotional reactions to this situation. You can think it through as a person even as you -feel- it as a person--I don't want to spurn the latter part of that combination.

[puebloknot]

142. "I'll have what she's having."

Well said. There's a growing tendency here to demean as politically uninformed anyone who offers criticism of the recently-empowered Dem leadership.

[jpgray]

145. I wish people would show me where I argue criticism should stop

Or when patience became a pejorative synonym for inaction and complacency?

[maggiegault]

163. My brother was killed in Iraq. You advocate "patience." Explanation, please.

I had to pick my husband up at the airport this evening and saw five soldiers, all dressed in their desert fatigues, saying goodbye to their families, including their children.

Maybe I should have advocated that they be "patient" while this Congress dicks around with their lives.

My money is on that you have no personal investment in this war. I lost my darling baby brother to it. He left behind a young wife and two children. Maybe I should tell those kids to be "patient" when they cry for their Daddy at night. Maybe I should tell my mother to be "patient" as she tries to get the gumption to leave the house long enough to work at her job. After all, she lost her youngest, her only son.

Maybe I should have been comforted by the notion that this Congress deserves my "patience" as I lived the lowest moments of my life: hearing the 21-gun salute for my brother, and listening to the bugler play Taps.

This Congress enabled * the same week that my brother was killed by refusing to give * a timeline. And you have the gall to tell someone like me, and others like me (and our numbers are sadly growing), that we know nothing about how this government works, that we are foolish and childish and ignorant in our impatience with their lack of activity, not to mention aptitude?

How dare you. I understand only too well how this government works. So do the other thousands of family members who have lost their loved ones to this war. We understand more about this government more than you ever would or could...or should. Dear God, I hope that you never understand what WE understand.

[jpgray]

178. How long would you fight to avenge this tragedy? As long as it takes?

How is that not patience?

[maggiegault]

194. Oooh, you *got* me. Thanks for using my brother's death to ZING his sister.

[puebloknot]

176. "...over-the-top whining and emotional accusations..." would be...

...a good place for you to start.

[jpgray]

183. Reading past the first three lines of the OP would be a good place for you to start

This majority needs criticism, and is moving too slowly,

...

That said, complain and criticize all you want.

[puebloknot]

193. I read every word, minutes after it was posted. Over and out.

[billyoc]

108. To borrow a phrase,

You go to war with the Democratic Party you have, not the Democratic Party you *wish* you had. ;)

For myself, I have taken the Dem victories in November for what they are, not the salvation of us all,
just another step in a long process.

[KamaAina]

109. I have just added the term "DUicide" to my DU lexicon!

:rofl: but with more than a grain of truth. Well done!

[eagleswing963]

113. I can understand this one dude.

Like many on Nov 8 06, I said, finally!! Then I realized the truth.

Senate majority by one vote tops (depending on what subject, since Lieberman is a Republican no matter how much he claims not to be!)
House, well a better majority, but not enough

REALITY CHECK TO ALL DEMS:

To get any bill beyond Bushs veto pen takes 67 Senate votes. Plain and simple.
As Obama said in one debate, it takes 16 votes and one signature to end the Iraq War.

Bush will never sign any bill like that, unless it has a veto proof majority.
The 16 votes, well we sadly have to give that time, until 16 Republicans are convinced their re elections are shit unless they vote to end it.

IMPEACHMENT: Again it would be nice, but as of now the outcome is certain:

50 will vote Yes
50 will vote No (Lieberman has his tongue up Bushs ass so he will side with his Republicans)

Patience is a virtue, and we must have it. I do not say be silent, but remember the numbers we have to deal with. Its as simple as that!

[L. Coyote]

114. That's like asking the White Collar Mafia to quit bilking the government.

That's my hook. Of course, you are very right.

But, who do you suppose is busy at DU trying to get you down? Yes, the worms.
Politics is war, and you must expect the enemy to be within too. Part of that battle
is to simply drive people out, or to make threads and DU offensive to as many as possible.

Plus, there is that large contingent of ranters who know almost nothing about how government works.
Lots of DUers are probably 15 years old, if their use of language is any indication.

And yes, a lot of DUers started paying attention to politics in the last year or so.
I worked in the '68 campaign. How many go that far back? Very few, percent wise.

[L. Coyote]

115. Is there a solution? How about fora where one can only post if identity is known?

People hiding behind avatars do not say and behave as if there is a consequence to their actions. Is that part of the problem?

Should we think about what is a good solution to the problem. I agree this place often is "a pile of DU," to add to the DU lexicon!

[Control-Z]

116. I've been thinking the same

Nothing of great value or importance is accomplished overnight and without hard work. There are no quick fixes or magical cures.

Thank you for your post. I hope it is read by many.

[Joe Chi Minh]

117. A superb post, jpgray! Bang on the mark.

I don't think these people could be more mistaken, albeit innocently (obviously, I mean the ones in good faith - you don't look for figs to grow on thorns). They constantly gibber as if your Democratic leaders don't want to impeach Bushco, when surely the reality is that the one thing that is certain, is that there will inevitably be impeachments of them and probably more than 2. It seems to me, to be virtually the one 'given'.

They maunder on about impeachment as if it's the be-all and end-all and the one thing your leaders are seeking to avoid, when the reality is the reverse, as you pointed out. The Republicans need their collars felt by the long arm of the criminal code, as well as impeachmnent of their leading lights: darkness visible.

The reality is that these trials would surely facilitate investigation of the election fraud since 2000 in a major way, so that there would be little chance of their great grand-children holding local municipal office, without changing their name - and in any case, the Republican Party would need to be rebranded. Only a probably inevitable, ultimate slide into corruption by an unopposed Democratic Party would give them a hope in Hades of regaining office, even on a Scandinavian-style, judicious and socially-responsible platform.

[autorank]

118. I couldn't agree more. Tell the Congressional delegations to lay off the majority of Democrats who

focus on the realities of everyday life in the US and around the globe.

Tell them

We're beleaguered at the lack of leadership.

We're weary of constant retreat.

We're ready to fight.

We're tired of bills that never really pass given the perfection of the stall, veto and signing statements.

We're discouraged at the party bureaucrats who, with the exception of Dean and a few others, fail to
inform the members that 71% of Americans want us out of Iraq now.

Finally, tell them that no Holt bill, no DON'T Help America Vote Act is going to dhange anything.

I'm ready to be left alone by those low percentage Democrats who think the best action is inaction.

[Grandrose]

119. Brilliant post!!!

You deserve a medal...not DUicide and you have a DUlifeline to me and others that agree wholeheartedly with you! Thank you for stating the obvious!

I sincerely hope others reading this post will reflect on their knee jerk responses and the need to over react!
:applause: :kick:

[many a good man]

123. You're right. We must begin impeachment hearings starting NOW ...

...for the NEXT Republican president (whoever he is). It may not be till 2012, but I'm already running out of patience!

[LSK]

124. but circular firing squads are so much fun

[poverlay]

125. I agree completely and thank you. When I posted the same points i got called a

treasonous conformist and Donna Brazile. I'm not sure which is worse.
Anyway it's nice to see people have come to their senses a bit. Due, I'm certain to your eloquence and passion.

Good Job

[Malva Zebrina]

128. Well, I am one who got involved in politics in '03

after a long life not paying too much attention to politics at all, although I always voted, and it is my opinion that no one, not anyone, should back off of criticism of their government on either side of the aisle. It is an American tradition. No one should join the crowd and ignore their doubts and should have full confidence to speak up about it. Bring it on.

It is my opinion that no one should fullyj, blindly, support any party and squelch expressing their doubts about any party and, on the blogs, should be allowed to express their doubts and the reasons for those doubts without being castigated and even shunned or belittled by the "regulars" on that blog. It happens all the time, in my estimation after reading many commentators on many blogs. Belonging to a sheeple group who are willing to go along with the most popular crowd just to stay in it's good graces and be one of the in crowd, is adolescent, in my opinion, I will continue to criticize the Democrats as well as
Bush and the Republicans and will do so according to my independant analyses.

My two cents.

[deutsey]

129. "Remain calm...all is well"

[jpgray]

134. Remain informed, and use your energy for pushing your congresspeople

But also please take the time to recognize our people who are pushing in directions that can lead to impeachment.

[deutsey]

151. I am informed and do push congresspeople

I also see and support those who are pushing in directions that can lead to impeachment.

I guess we'll all see how this shakes out in the end, but I also saw the Iran/Contra crooks get away with what they did, so sorry if I'm not all that certain justice will happen this time either.

[jpgray]

152. Very true--there are few precedents where justice was fully served

Even the assault Nixon's administration, wherein the head was pushed to resign, left behind many nasty people that haunt us to this day in the current administration. Not to mention of course the ill-advised pardon of Nixon himself.

[creeksneakers2]

130. kicked

Criticism helps. Fighting doesn't.

[Throwing Stones]

131. You make many good points, but I think that, in the end, your opinion is not well-informed

The Clenis impeachment and the (would, great god it happen) bush/cheney impeachment are apples and oranges. The reason it took so long to bring articles against Clinton is that the special prosecutor couldn't for over two years, find anything resembling a crime to pin on Bill. I certainly hope that you're not suggesting that, at the very least, an inference can be drawn that bushco has broken a number of laws. With so much evidence already in the public realm, Congress is obligated to bring charges. The crap about not having enough votes, to me, is a comfortable position for those who really don't mind the status quo. We wait at our collective peril.

[jpgray]

133. Those historical comparisons are always dangerous, for the reason you describe

And your point is well-taken--that comparison doesn't show as much reason to have a bit more patience with Democrats as some of the others, because as you say the reasons for impeachment are very different with Bush. I was just trying to show some more context as far as historical legislatures going after the executive.

[Throwing Stones]

136. we are in a time like no other in this country's history

Lincoln is probably the greatest usurper of presidential power prior to *

I'm sure that, at the time, many people questioned Lincoln's constitutional power. Under different circumstances, I have no doubt that Lincoln's actions were, if not outright impeachable, at least worthy of congressional inquiry.

That's all the impeachment wing of DU is asking for - accountability to the Constitution. Just because it is a function of Congress rarely needed or used does not mean that it should be "off the table".

[jpgray]

138. It's a noble goal

I just want people to bear in mind this sort of thing doesn't usually take six months. It can't happen fast enough, and it's right to be frustrated, but one can respond to this difficult situation in more than one way--both with logic and emotion, or a mix. No way is wrong, but I hope people just bear context in mind as much as possible.

[Throwing Stones]

146. Six months is understandable ...

But I read your post to be for calling off impeachment entirely on the reasoning that even though we have video proof of the President admitting that he broke the law, we should just wait it out because his term expires soon.

oh, and we might hurt our own electability.

Fuck any and all candidates with that attitude - it's different now, and it matters.

[truedelphi]

143. Good talking points there, Throwing Stones

The Democratic Leadership took impeachment off the table for what reasons?
Not once did Pelosi say "I am taking it off the table because we don't ahve enough votes."
I always felt she did it to avoid the charges that the MSM might have thrown her way about being too partisian or too political.

It is EXTREMELY unethical state that you and your colleagues are willing to take impeachment off the table.

When crimes are committed, charges must be pressed.
ABout Pelosi - First of all, who is she viewing as her real colleagues? Why did her party gain the number of seats it gained in The Senate and in The House? It is we the American people who brought about that change.

Yet I doubt that she views us as her colleagues. Pelosi got to her place in local San Francisco politics through courtesy of Di Feinstein.

Yes that Feinstein -- the one who is oft witnessed going to the Opera and to dinner with the George Schultzes. I am left believing that Feinstein and Pelosi are merely gatekeepers.

[Throwing Stones]

186. to what "talking points" are you referring?

I agree with you that the leadership likely took impeachment "off the table" in order to avoid charges of partisanship. So when, exactly, did I say that I agreed with that position? On the contrary, I've advocated the opposite.

[The Count]

159. Excellent point. The Clenis witchhunt was contrived and purely vindictive.

W's impeachment would be a matter of justice, safeguarding the constitution, democracy.

[David Zephyr]

144. You overlooked Jimmy Carter, a great president and a good man.

You wrote in your OP: "By this time, the conservative weapons (think tanks, money/power centers, the press) were firmly entrenched and ready to destroy the first Democratic president in 20 years."

Er....James Earl Carter was president between 1977 and 1981.

[jpgray]

148. A mistake, but only an arithmetic one. The point remains the same

Hopefully people don't use that to undermine all other aspects of the argument, calling me a Carter-hating un-knowledgeable troll in the process. But we'll see! Thanks for pointing that out.

[ProudDad]

149. The difference is

"Nixon! Good old Nixon. Victory parade, no? Great Congressional victory, right? If only our Dems were like those Dems, no? Well, our current Dems are very much like those Dems. The Watergate break-in was in '72, and it was TWO YEARS with a Democratic majority Congress before the smoking gun tape was wrested out for public scrutiny. And how did they accomplish this feat, which led to Nixon's resignation? With an endless stream of investigations, "empty symbolic gestures" (also called subpoenas) and a lot of patience, all while resisting a president who, for all his mental instability, was an incredibly wily and dangerous political opponent who had won the last election handily. And would DUers be satisfied with the Nixon resignation as justice? I doubt it (I'm not). A 1974 DU would be howling with impatience and anger at not only the wait and seemingly endless investigation, but all the other unpunished crimes from Kissinger et al left untouched. Despite this pardon-capped victory over the head of the administration, some very bad people (hello Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell!) escaped unscathed and remained in the Executive Branch to this very day, albeit with a scanty eight-year break."


Some Dems in the Congress began the process right after the break-in. The taping of White House conversations was the final straw not the magic smoking gun that suddenly appeared.

The difference is that the leadership back then didn't announce that there will be NO process that might accidentally arrive at impeachable offenses as this bunch has done...

There WAS more courage among a few Dems and the Dem leadership in '73 than this latest crop are displaying. This current bunch if more interested in getting re-elected in '08 than in seeing that the Constitution survives.

This is the kind of Democrat that used to inhabit those halls:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

This could be Conyers if Pelosi would let him loose...


-------------------------

On Edit: It didn't take all that long -- Feb. 73 until the Saturday Night massacre in October pretty much cooked nixon's goose...

And in nixon's case the evidence was hard to tease out. In the bush crime family's case, the evidence is ALL over the web and in bush's signing statements and executive orders. According to John Dean, nix...I mean bush has already confessed to impeachable offenses...

We aren't crying for Articles of Impeachment next week followed by the (probably difficult) removal the next. We ARE DEMANDING that the Dem leadership let the process BEGIN and let's see where it ends up.

Anything less is cowardice and a crime against the attempt at Democracy that the Constitution represents.


"In February of 1973, the U.S. Senate established a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin, to investigate all of the events surrounding Watergate and other allegations of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of Nixon's re-election.

March and April of 1973 saw the start of the unraveling of the coverup. On March 23, one of the five burglars convicted after the Watergate break-in, James W. McCord, informed U.S. District Judge John J. Sirica that he was being pressured to remain silent. On April 20, acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray resigned after admitting he had destroyed Watergate evidence under pressure from Nixon aides. Ten days later, four of Nixon's top officials resigned: Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman; Domestic Affairs Assistant John Ehrlichman; Attorney General Richard Kleindienst; and Presidential Counsel John Dean.

The Senate Select Committee began televised hearings on May 17. A month later, former Presidential Counsel John Dean testified there was an ongoing White House coverup and that Nixon had been personally involved in the payment of hush money to the five burglars and two other operatives involved in planning the Watergate break-in. Three weeks later, another Nixon aide revealed the President had ordered hidden microphones installed in the Oval Office in the spring of 1971 and had recorded most conversations since then on audio tape.

The tapes then became the focus of an intensive year-long legal battle between all three branches of the U.S. government. In October of 1973, Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been appointed by the Nixon administration, publicly vowed to obtain the tapes despite Nixon's strong objections.

This resulted in the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20 in which Nixon attempted to fire Cox, but was temporarily thwarted as Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused Nixon's order and instead resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to carry out the order and fired Cox. "

[puebloknot]

175. And I find it insulting to We the People that Pelosi has him...

...by the neck, or some other bodily inhibition.

One wonders if Pelosi's constitutents are going to let her loose in 2008!

[Redneck Socialist]

153. Your Reagan analogy is a little too apt, given...

that then, as now Impeachment was explicitly "off the table." Then as now, Democrats failed to push for what was right and obvious. They did this ostensibly for the "good of the country" or in order to "keep their powder dry" or some such similar reason.

Our leadership deserves a great deal of the criticism it receives at DU, some of it, eh, not so much.

[jpgray]

154. Agreed. Your last line is basically what I'm trying to say

[provis99]

158. I don't get this whole "stealth" impeachment thing

Some of you seem to think the Democrats have a secret plan on moving forward on impeachment issues. Folks, impeachment of Presidents is as constitutionally irrelevant as Amendment III of the Bill of Rights. It just isn't used. No President has ever been impeached and removed from office. On the Nixon impeachment, they only got as far as the impeachment committee; he might have been impeached in the House, but I doubt he would have been removed from office in the Senate. Thats why the Republicans under Goldwater pressured him to resign; not because he faced ignominious removal, but because he didn't, and would have exposed the impeachment process for what it is: a paper tiger.

My guess is that the Democrats have no plans to impeach Bush, and won't bother trying. He will simply slide quietly out of office as his term expires. Hey what can you say? Some of the parts of the Constitution obviously haven't worked out well (electoral college, for one) and never will; impeachments of Presidents being one of those irrelevant parts.

George Mason led the push to put "misdemeanors" into the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", and he explicitly stated it was so you could get rid of not just outright criminal Presidents, but incompetent, immoral, unfit, or otherwise unsuitable officeholders. Looks like Mason's vision wasn't followed.

Let's all of us stop pretending this is going to amount to impeachment against Bush. Thats a childish pipe dream. None of our representatives take that stuff seriously; why should we?

[Seabiscuit]

160. I find the condescending tone of the OP offensive to all.

Just another "I know more than you do" put-down thread, creating stawmen who indulge in "over-the-top whining and accusations" that "betray or feign deep ignorance of how government works.

Such unrelenting smarminess and arrogance still can't conceal the author's own ignorance/misconceptions/misrepresentations about history.

Take just one example. Nixon. Sorry, but "our current Dems are very much like those Dems." It did NOT take them "TWO YEARS before the smoking gun tape was wrested out for public scrutiny." The Senate committee investigating Watergate was convened just a few months after Nixon was sworn in for his second term, and it wasn't until late in the summer of 1973 that the existence of the tapes was discovered as a result of John Dean's chance testimony that he got the impression he was being taped, and then Butterfield's admission to direct questions about the existence of a taping system. A special prosecutor was then appointed and when Nixon had him fired within a couple of months ("The Saturday Night Massacre", late October, 1973) there was so much outrage across the country that within a month or so Impeachment proceedings were started. ONLY 7-8 months later the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon on the tapes issue after months of legal wrangling between Leon Jaworski, the House Judiciary Committee, and Nixon through the court system. IT DIDN'T TAKE TWO YEARS, IT TOOK WELL LESS THAN A YEAR. And it never would have happened if Congress hadn't initiated the Impeachment process, for a crime far less serious than the multitude of criminal acts committed by the Bush junta.

This Congress doesn't have the balls that Congress had or it would have begun Impeachment proceedings back in February and we would be rid of Bush and Cheney by Thanksgiving. There was NEVER any talk about Impeachment being "off the table" back in 1973 and 1974.

As a footnote, us Dems didn't have DU back then, but we WERE all "howling with anger" that Ford pardoned Nixon after he resigned. None of us ever forgave Ford for that.

Perhaps you're not as ignorant as you seem, but rather even more disingenuous than you seem.

The OP reads like a DLC talking-points memo.

Barf.

[Seabiscuit]

185. Corrections:

The second sentence of the third paragraph should read: "Sorry, but it's absolutely untrue that 'our current Dems are very much like those Dems'".

Later in that third paragraph, "7-8 months later" should read "6-7 months later".

[jpgray]

189. The investigation took two years, no?

Then it is as I said--patience. Congress knew something was very wrong with Nixon from the beginning, and high crimes were committed by his subordinates on a regular basis (Kissinger anyone?). Despite this, they weren't able to get a killing blow in until the Watergate break in was thoroughly investigated. Which took two years. I never said the Congressional impeachment proceedings took two years.

[Seabiscuit]

195. No. Absolutely wrong.

You're talking about Congress. The Congressional investigation by the Senate (an exploratory, evidentiary investigation convened as the Senate Select Watergate Committee, aka the Senate Watergate Committee or the Ervin Committee) did not begin in June, 1972 right after the break-in. It began in the spring of 1973, because it wasn't until then that anyone knew that there was a White House connection to the break-in. Slightly over a year before Nixon was impeached by the House and faced certain conviction in the Senate. So Senate investigation took about SIX MONTHS, NOT TWO YEARS

The Impeachment investigation began in November to December, 1973 (I haven't checked the exact date recently) after John Dean let it slip in his testimony before the Ervin Committee in the late summer of 1973 that he got the impression he was being taped in the Oval Office by the way Nixon was behaving with him, and the existence of the tapes was uncovered, a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, was appointed, a grand jury convened, and the "Saturday Night Massacre", in which Nixon had Cox fired for doing his job and getting a court order to enforce his subpoena of White House tapes. The House Investigation culminated in Three Articles of Impeachment plus some icing on the cake, a Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Nixon upholding the lower courts' orders compelling Nixon to hand over even more tapes, one of which, it turned out, became known as the "smoking gun" by the press, merely because it was the final nail in Nixon's coffin which convinced the last die-hard Republican Nixon supporters in the House and the Senate to abandon their support of Nixon. The House already had the votes to approve the Articles of Impeachment without that piece of evidence, and the Senate already had the votes in the Senate to convict without that piece of evidence.

Trivia question: Do you even know why that tape was called "the smoking gun"?

To summarize: The Senate investigation took about 6 months. Then the House Impeachment investigation took another six months before concluding its business. You can't count the investigation of the evidence against the burglars themselves who were convicted of their crimes because that was not a Congressional investigation - it was a criminal court trial of very narrow issues what had nothing to do with Nixon.

The bottom line: Congress from 1972-1974 did not waste any time going after Nixon once it had reason to suspect that he *might* be involved in some criminal activity. By stark contrast, our current Congress has done nothing during the first 5 months in power to go after Bush and Cheney despite knowing for many years of numerous far more serious crimes, many of them impeachable high crimes, committed by them. For you to pretend and declare that there is no difference between this Congress and the earlier Congress is so staggeringly false as to appear utterly ludicrous.

It is utterly absurd for you to count your timeline for "the investigation" beginning with the break-in itself, 2 years before Nixon resigned, because NO ONE besides Nixon and a few aides knew the White House was connected in any way until Bernard Barker hinted at it VAGUELY in a letter to Judge Sirica in early 1973, 7-8 months later. Within a month or two of that revelation the Ervin Committee was formed.

You have completely distorted this history with your ridiculous phrases like "the investigation took two years", no?" The current Congress has DONE NOTHING to move towards an Impeachment investigation, much less begun one, yet there are 6 years full of dozens upon dozens of impeachable offenses they've known about as they've unfolded during these 6 years.

BTW, subordinates like Kissinger cannot be impeached. Only the President, Vice President, Attorney General, and judges (including Supreme Court judges) may be impeached. Kissinger therefore could not be found guilty of "high crimes". Nixon's subordinates, Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean, Magruder and Colson did prison time for perjury (except for Dean) and conspiracy to obstruct justice for their role in the Watergate cover-up before the grand jury and the the Ervin Committee. They were not "impeached" or found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors". BTW, don't confuse the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as contained in the impeachment clause of the Constitution with "felonies" or "misdemeanors" or any "crimes" we think of today under our criminal codes. To the framers, the phrase meant *abuse of power* and did not have to constitute a crime under any criminal statute, state or federal. So whether or not Kissinger might have commited some "crime" as we think of it today while acting as an aide to Nixon, he by definition could not be impeached, and therefore could not be guilty of "high crimes" no matter what he did.

My main point is that you have demonstrated not only a profound ingnorance of those events, you have the gall to insult the intelligence of those of us who are angry about the way the Democratic majority in Congress has not only dragged its feet in going after the Bush criminal cabal since January and repeated "Impeachment is off the table", by telling us we're the ones who don't understand history or how Congress works. You have the gall to misrepresent history which in truth contradicts your mealy-mouthed mumblings about "patience".

If the House Judiciary Committee ever gets around this year to beginning Impeachment proceedings, then I will have all the "patience" in the world for them to go through the process and do it right, because I know how the process works. If they don't start until 2008 it's probably too late. Bush and Cheney will be out of office before they could conclude the proceedings. But I've run out of "patience" with the spineless Dem leadership who not only haven't done squat about beginning such proceedings, they keep spouting B.S. predicting they "don't have the votes to convict" and that "impeachment is off the table". No one in Congress in 1972-1974 ever said "impeachment is off the table" and no one ever tried to predict how the House or Senate would vote impeachment down as an excuse to do their job mandated by the Constitution. This Congress has IMHO treasonously betrayed its duty under the Constituion to uphold the Constitution and laws of this land by cowering from the "I" word as they cower from the spectacle of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Faux News calling them names.

[jpgray]

203. No, you're talking about Congress. I'm talking about investigation in general

By the time the matter was taken up by Congress, there had already been an on-going criminal investigation. That isn't the case with Bush. But everyone knows this. Why do you type reams and reams of words to duplicate what's already in a wikipedia article?

[Seabiscuit]

209. Now you're just trying to rewrite your own history in your OP.

You OP in its opening paragraph and in its entire paragraph about Nixon specifically referenced Congress and its investigations numerous times (indeed it is the entire heart of your OP) not some "investigation in general". Go back and read it. You erroneously blame that Congress for trying the publilc's patience for "TWO YEARS". Your new attempt to talk about an "investigation in general" is pure B.S. and nonsensical (see below):
just
You refuse to pay attention to what others said: "By the time the matter was taken up by Congress there had already been an on-going criminal investigation." That was MY point, but you've just cynically misused it as a deceptive half-truth - I specifically pointed out that that criminal investigation and trial had absolutely nothing to do with either Congress or Nixon. The issues were narrowed to convicting the burglars of the crime they committed themselves. Once Congress was aware of a possible connection with Nixon it began its investigations immediately, without any hesitation, in the spring of 2003. How dare you claim that they had any responsibility to investigate something they had absolutely no idea about before that time???

You have simplistically falsified and deliberately distorted the history of Watergate in a specious attempt to support your spineless whimpering about "patience" in your insulting lecture to those of us who have every reason to have run out of patience with the Dem leadership in the current Congress. I have spelled it out to you at some length to point out that the actual facts of the Watergate episode utterly contradict, rather than support, your claims.

Apparently you refuse to learn and refuse to admit that you might just be completely wrong about it all (which in fact you are).

And, for your information, I have not seen any wikipedia articles. I have typed my post purely from my recollections of the events, which are quite good, by the way, as I lived through that time and paid close attention to it all, and have during the past year re-watched an excellent four-hour documentary on the subject several times.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. That's All You Have to Say to His/Her Critic of Your Post?

You're missing his/her point completely.

[jpgray]

206. Now I understand what he/she means. He/she assumed all my examples were about Congressional activity

If that were true, Clinton would be just as flawed an example, as many disparate conservative groups went after him before Congress took a direct hand.

[wanpete]

164. Thanks for posting...I feel you...I've often wondered lately if this is actually the DEMOCRATIC

Underground!

[defendandprotect]

165. Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table" -- !!!

You may be right to some degree . . . only time will tell.
Personally, I think there are too many signs that you are wrong.
For instance, the Democrats have supported privatizing Iraq's oil
and keeping troops there after the end of the war.

And, let's admit that Pelosi's "Impeachment is off the table" did nothing but give instant comfort to the enemy.

[bling bling]

166. Great post.

Thanks for this thought-provoking thread. I miss old-school posts like this. I don't think I've learned much from this place in months. I used to learn something interesting every single day from some of the brilliant minds that used to post all the time. I miss that stimulating type of thoughtful idea sharing desperately.

[orleans]

168. no comment eom

[puebloknot]

171. "DUicide" is clever, but hardly accurate.

Perhaps you are projecting your own tendency to want to close down open, spirited, *emotional* exchanges.

There's nothing at stake here except the future of our democratic republic, our constitutional freedoms, our very hope for peace in our lives ever again.

I've always heard that patience is a virtue. I think not, in this instance.

[Nevernose]

172. BULLSHIT! PERJURY NEVER HAPPENED!

Finally, they had what they needed in '98--a lie under oath. Perjury. What they had waited for so long they now claimed to have: a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bill Clinton's lawyers had stipulated with the other lawyers exactly what constituted sex: vaginal intercourse. And the testimony and evidence pointed in the direction of, well, let's just say, NON-vaginal intercourse. They asked a lawyer for a specific stipulation and then feigned surprise at the response? Bullshit. The only surprise to them is that the person they'd turned into Satan Himself was guilty of neither Jack nor Shit, even when scores of millions of dollars and half a dozen years were spent.

[bread_and_roses]

179. From the day that no one stood with the CBC the answer for me would be "No."

the Congressional Dems have showed little but willingness to go along to get along with the crimes of this mal-administration (with of course a few brave, easily drowned out without back-up exceptions like Conyers et al). They showed thieir cowardice again when they didn't make an unending din about the mostly black voters in Ohio having to stand in lines for hours.

They put "impeachment off the table" in the face of what are plainly "high crimes and misdeameanors" or whatever the phrasing is. Now, they whine that they don't have the votes, as if the only criteria for doing the right thing is an iron-clad assurance of victory.

When the Rs were in the majority we heard again and again how they held secret caucauses, put Bills out without ever letting a Dem see them, etc. Somehow, the other day, on NPR, I heard a story about a Bill on the Floor and SOMEHOW the minority Rs were able to force reading the Bill's amendments on the Floor. Somehow, those minority Rs seem to have a lot more power in Congress than did the Ds. (Not that it is right or democratic to dis-allow other Representatives opportunity to consider legislation, or that the Ds should do it, but the Rs clearly seem to be able to use procedure to their advantage as a minority. Even if the D majority leaders do not (as they shouldn't) engage in clearly undemocratic obstructionism and so allow procedure to be used, how many times did the Ds vote "no" as a block with each one giving the reason on record that they had not been allowed to read the Bill? There are things that can be done that are dramatic enough to get Press, that done often enough will enable the public - which CANNOT be expected to follow the arcane rules and justifiably wants RESULTS or a clear reason why they are not getting results - will understand.

And before anyone tells me how naive I am, let me forstall you. I have worked in every election - endless hours - to help elect Ds that I thought were only marginally better than their R opponents. I'll be doing the same in local elections this year. Work for '08 starts the day after the '07 election. I usually read all the posts before I respond, but can't today because I am off to a Breakfast for a Dem. *And I'm not even a registered D.

But my answer to your question is no, no again, and no again.

*added on edit

[pingzing58]

207. Excellent post. It's not just about creating a record (that no one ever hears about) but also

creating a news and media record that daily informs the public of their work and efforts to promote the Democratic agenda.

[mmonk]

180. If the complaining was uninformed and merely political

argument over legislation I could see your point. But it is not. The constitution, laws and stare decisis, and the bill of rights are not supposed to be up for removal by political parties.

[kurth]

182. "DUers need to understand the value of waiting"????

WTF. Yeah, it took only SIX years to see anything critical coming out of the WP or NYT.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

200. Yea.....I Read that Line as Well and Wanted to

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Evoman]

191. Wrong....you have to keep beating on them and beating on them, until they fucking change.

The "waiting" attitude is the opposite of what people do in countries where their government does what they want. The protest, fight, and beat what they want out of their government. And if their government doesn't capitulate, you pull them off their throne.

[jpgray]

192. Why confuse "patience" with "complacency?" Are people just reading the first and last lines?

This majority needs criticism, and is moving too slowly,

complain and criticize all you want. That's good.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

199. CAN ANYONE SAY "APOLOGIST"

Let me guess........you're on the staff of Nancy Pelosi?

[jpgray]

201. Too many people. And yes, I am. You've caught me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. Please Submit Your Resume to the White House

I'm sure they'll find a position for you.

[dEMOK]

208. I Just Gotta Ask...

I can't name one major advance in our system where our "leaders" weren't dragged kicking & screaming into the future, by the will of the people.

Asking us to be patient now is like having asked MLK to "just wait a little longer."

If we don't hold the Dem leadership's feet to the fire now -- when would you suggest would be a better time?

[DFW]

211. I don't think the OP was asking us not to hold the leadership's feet to the fire

I got the impression the OP was asking us to wait for
the meat to at least get medium-rare before we started
biting in.

[dEMOK]

214. That sounds good but...

...when have you ever known politicians (of any stripe) to have the required sense of urgency -- when they're not prodded on by public opinion?