Why, if our President Clinton was impeached, are Dems unwilling to impeach Bush?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Bush & Cheney are guilty of countless crimes far more heinous than those of Nixon. What is going on that Dems in Congress are unwilling to impeach?

[dbt]

1. Pelosi obviously wants to be impeached first.

Worthless POS.

[Thothmes]

80. She cannot be impeached.

[jgraz]

2. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone has the answer.

This article is on why the Dems won't stop the war, but it could just as easily apply to impeachment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=336826&mesg_id=336826

[Echo In Light]

50. It's a corporate mafia: sacrifice one of their own occasionally, but don't upset the apple cart

[KeepItReal]

82. "like an NFL coach... trying with a straight face to explain why he punted on first-and-goal"

Taibbi is the shit.

[DrDan]

3. don't you imagine that they believe the citizens were fed up with

impeachment talk and the energy it took from congress. That they feel the citizens just did not want to go through it again and they did not want to appear petty.

On the other hands, maybe they are weasely cowards.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Nope. I'll bet if I ask every DEM they're READY to impeach the criminals in the White House!

There have got to be other reasons. Bush & Cheney have done FAR MORE than Nixon ever did, and there they sit, protected because they know Dems won't impeach them.

[onenote]

33. Pollsters have asked that question and you won't like the answer

Fifty percent of Democrats (including a sizable number who believe chimpy/cheney have committed impeachable offenses) don't think impeachment proceedings should be conducted.

And among independent voters -- two thirds (again, including a sizable number who agree that impeachable offenses have been committed), don't support impeachment.


http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/

I daresay that the numbers supporting impeachment among repubs were much more lopsided in clinton's case. And that's the difference. Impeaching clinton was all but demanded by repub voters (spurred on by talk radio). Democratic voters are not nearly as rabid about impeaching chimpy/cheney.

You want to change what our elected officials do? Change the views of the voters that elect those officials.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. I guess it doesn't surprise me. After all, the same people voted for Reagan, voted for Bush, etc.

You're right that Democrats are not as rabid about impeaching Bush and Cheney, but they were during Nixon's time. What happened? Did Democrats die and turn into zombies? Did they become right wing? Did they lose their self-respect? What happened to Dems that they now are looking at 2 criminals that need to be impeached, and refuse to impeach them? The Dems of the 60s and 70s and before WOULD have impeached them. Something is not well with our Democrats, and I don't quite know what it is.

[Thothmes]

81. Probably Not

LBJ's war in Viet Nam was based on the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin incident. That cost 40,000 Americans their lives and the lives of 2 or so million Vietnamese. The word impeachment was not mentioned by any Congressman that I could recall from the era.

[WinkyDink]

83. "Citizens" do nothing. They don't HAVE to read about it or watch TV. IOW, "citizens"

who can't handle the practice of good government are pathetic entertainment-seekers, the kind who wax upset over a heated discussion, calling it "angry" and "divisive".

[robinlynne]

4. good question. They onyl care about the election, and are afraid that the public

might get "mad" at them for impeaching. What's the point of power if you don't use it to protect the citizens of this country?

[leftofthedial]

5. 2000 was a coup

[Uncle Joe]

7. I totally agree. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Yes, because the witchhunt against Bill Clinton began long before he lied about having sex.....

... and he had committed NO CRIMES.

Meanwhile, these two have committed crimes and are sitting pretty because our DEMS refuse to impeach.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I've come to the conclusion the witch hunt against Clinton was prolonged

in large part by the corporate media primarily as a back door attempt to keep Al Gore from coming to power because he empowered the people when he championed opening up the Internet for them while in Congress and as Vice-President. This being the same corporate media that would go on to give Bush a free pass to the White House and cheer lead us to a war with Iraq based on lies and lend a hand in outing one of our covert CIA agents in the process.

I believe as the Internet grew in power and influence, the corporate media came to resent Al Gore for it as this threatened their monopoly on information, information = power, money and influence. They didn't want the primary political champion of the Internet in the White House and to this day I resent Bill Clinton for giving them the integrity frame on a silver platter when he knew they had him under a microscope.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. That's a very interesting theory and it makes sense. Thank you.

Nowadays the corporate media is forced to compete with the Internet, thank God. It can no longer control our minds as it once did.

[Echo In Light]

55. Powers That Be knew what was around the corner {2000, 9/11, coup} so media smeared the Left...

...in the public's mind. Corporate, right wing power owns/controls the mainline, agenda setting media; repeat the lies often enough and they take hold, gain momentum.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

59. Now that is an interesting idea. I myself believe that it was too damned convenient for 9/11 to

just magically happen, thereby allowing these criminals to carry out a plan they had devised years before.

[Echo In Light]

68. Precisely. In finding a culprit, one always looks to see who benefits most from the crime

PNAC, and America's military-industrial complex, which after the collapse of the Soviets, required a new enemy/threat to justify the profitable {on many levels} National Security State ruse.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. "Follow the money" nt

[Red Zelda]

8. Because "they" have balls

the Nancy-boys in Congress now have none. Plus, "they" have the M$M behind them and would make a mockery of the process and lionize the shitstain W.

[xchrom]

9. it's how you teach them to stop fucking with you.

show them how an impeachment is REALLY done.

we're not talkin blow jobs here with bush -- we're talkin serious jail time type stuff.

if the belt way dems want to teach the republick part not to treat them in certain ways -- then do what's necesaary.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[mitchum]

10. They all work for the same company: Oligarchs R Us

[RC]

11. Impeaching bu$h would upset the criminals in the..... errr, the republicans.

That in turn would distract them from protecting us from the terrorists. We might find we are fighting 'them' over here. With all the non-white, non-christians in this country, how'd we tell the good guy from the bad guys? Naa, better not impeach bu$h & cheney.:sarcasm:

[baldguy]

12. Dems view impeachment as a legal proceeding.

Evidence must be gathered, and presented to the House for indictment. Then on the the Senate for trial. They realize that any evidence presented will be unlikely to convince a majority of members, so they don't want to even begin the process.

GOPrs view impeachment as a political tool - and a weapon to use against their opponents.

[Uncle Joe]

15. I don't buy that argument, if Bush/Cheney haven't already given them enough evidence

to convince a majority of the Senate to convict, that's a political consideration, not a legal one. I can't imagine what any administration would need to do at this point in order to convince them to at least begin impeachment proceedings in the House.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Because it's guaranteed

to result in Bush's acquittal in the Senate, and would therefore be seen as a pointless exercise.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Not really. Our president Clinton was impeached, and it continues to humiliate us....

... and he did nothing compared with Bush & Cheney. Plus impeachment is a proceeding whereby you interrogate someone for the purpose of finding out information.

There's no excuse for not impeaching these assholes.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Clinton was acquitted.

His popularity was extremely high when they tried to impeach him. The Republicans lost seats in the '98 race, against all historical probability.

And no, impeachment is NOT a process by which you interrogate someone to find information. Impeachment is the RESULT of that process.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. For godssakes, he WAS impeached and it continues to be an embarrassment to us!

They did not *try* to impeach him. They IMPEACHED him. And the country was right wing when they pulled this stunt. Libs were ridiculed, one had to hide an abortion, the word, "lib" became a dirty word.

However, our DEMOCRATS in Congress refuse to hold impeachment hearings even tho the crimes these two are guilty of are numerous if you compare them with those of Nixon.

OUR PRESIDENT CLINTON *WAS* IMPEACHED. READ THIS:


A formal accusation of wrongdoing against a public official. According to the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives can vote to impeach an official, but the Senate actually tries the case. Several presidencies have been blemished by impeachment or the threat of impeachment: President Andrew Johnson was impeached after the Civil War but was acquitted. President Richard Nixon resigned from office as the House of Representatives prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings. President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached in 1998 but was acquitted by the Senate the following year.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/14/impeachment.html

My question remains: Why are our DEMS refusing to impeach Bush & Cheney for crimes far more heinous than Nixon?

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Have I ever said Clinton wasn't impeached?

No. So stop arguing that stupid point. I'm fully aware of what happened.

They impeached Clinton, and it was a very unpopular thing to do, and they got hurt.

There aren't 2 Republican Senators who would vote to convict, much less 18. Bush would not be convicted, so impeaching him "for show" would be as stupid as when the Republicans tried it.

And I'm not embarrassed that Clinton was impeached - I know exactly what it was about, and most Americans agree that it was a stupid, partisan, failed attack on Clinton.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Republicans did not get hurt by impeaching Clinton. The Clintons became a laughingstock because of

it. Yet the DEMS do nothing about Bush & Cheney, who HAVE committed crimes.

As for what you said. You said they tried to impeach him, and you said impeachment was not the process, but the result. Here's what you said.



"His popularity was extremely high when they tried to impeach him. The Republicans lost seats in the '98 race, against all historical probability.

And no, impeachment is NOT a process by which you interrogate someone to find information. Impeachment is the RESULT of that process."

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Yes

You investigate, then you impeach.

Not the other way around.


What hearings did the House hold AFTER voting to impeach? None. Impeachment is the result of investigations.

And yes, Republicans DID get hurt by impeaching, and Clinton's not a laughingstock in the country. He's a laughingstock among the Rush Limbaughs of the country.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. No, in fact, the Republicans gained strength after impeaching President Clinton....

... Where were you during that time?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. So frikkin what? It would go down in history, the crimes, everything would come out....

... it would be one filthy administration for all to see.

[Echo In Light]

64. And all of the other politicos and scores beholden to various corporations/organizations

Hollowed institutions would crumble. Hence no one dares wipe a clean spot...then you have to keep going. The corporate mafia system entire certainly isn't going to have that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. God that gave me chills. You're right. What can I say? So are we all screwed forever by this

corporate power structure?

[Echo In Light]

69. The "corporate power structure" is also the "military-industrial complex"

Nothing new. And many average folks during the later stages of the Vietnam aggression DID do something about it. Don't toss in the towel yet...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. Yes! And the military-industrial complex is feeding off the public trough, which is provided by us

That's one hell of a lot of money we are breaking our backs to make so the rich can live well off their companies of the military-industrial complex.

[CGowen]

19. Conyers said something of "corporate power structure"

Conyers expressed fear of what might happen following an impeachment, fear of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. The "corporate power structure", he said, would not allow impeachment without unleashing "blowback." Conyers told Ellen Taylor and Manijeh Saba: "You need to be more than brave and courageous. You need to be smart."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2835984

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. One way or another Dems always find an excuse not to impeach....

... Repukes had no excuses to not impeach an innocent man (President Clinton). They spent our money witchhunting the man. Our Dems in Congress, however, refuse to do anything. I like our candidates for president. However, I do NOT like Pelosi, and I do NOT like Reid. I don't know if they have been threatened with exposing some shit in their closet and that's why they're refusing to impeach Bush & Cheney, but if Bush & Cheney step out of office without an impeachment, Pelosi and Reid HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

[Hamlette]

23. Because Clinton's popularity went UP during impeachment

people thought he was being unfairly picked on. It gave him a great platform to defend himself, the bloody pulpit if you will. And he got it everyday. The GOP windbags going after him looked like they were on a witch hunt and Clinton and merely made an honest mistake.

Clinton survived with a 70% approval rating (yes, I know it was never as low as Bush's is now but it dipped to 45% or so), while I'd love a successful impeachment and conviction, I'm not at all sure I'm willing to risk Bush seeming the martyr.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I don't think Bush would "get" to impeachment. His people would make sure it'd get stalled....

.... but at least Pelosi and Reid would have some self-respect. At this moment I'm shocked these two are in office. I don't know who the hell voted in these two, but they definitely need to be voted out. Evidently she has no F clue how to run a thing, and he's too old to handle stress. If not that, what is it?

Besides, it's too late thanks to Pelosi and Reid.

[Orsino]

28. They can't convict * of anything in which they aren't complicit...

...and the depth of their corruption will be emphasized if they try. Their years of timid rubber-stamping of Cheney's wish list have trapped them.

[keep_it_real]

29. In a word "politics"

"Democrats insist that the reason they can't cut off the money for the war, despite their majority in both houses, is purely political. "George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the troops," says Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves

[Sarah Ibarruri]

60. Why don't they have the balls to impeach and take over? What's wrong with these people? nt

[zazen]

30. with impeachment proceedings, what if Bush/Cheney refused to comply?

I mean, they and others in their admin apparently think nothing of ignoring subpoenas now. What would make them agree to even be questioned? And if they don't, will the Dems send in the Capitol Police to drag them to jail? Maybe that's the crisis they don't want to come to.

However, it seems best to me if they began the hearings and had hearing after hearing with whistleblower after whistleblower, dragging out every crime by this administration into the news cycle and affiliating the emerging Repub candidate with these crimes (and you could at least count on MSNBC to keep that alive), with no intention of even bringing it to a vote because by the time they had gone through all the evidentiary stuff, a new president would have been elected and the point moot. Bleed them to death with hearings for the time being, then (I'm dreaming) prosecute when a Dem admin is in power, to ensure these abuses never happen again.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. Well, I'm not an expert in impeachment, but what happens if an impeached president....

... does not comply? Arrest?

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

31. Because they are pussies. Damn this party pisses me off sometimes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. It is cowardly. Other countries' lib parties are strong. I'd like for once to see Dems be strong..

but I don't know if that will ever happen.

[Brigid]

32. Because they're SPINELESS!

They tremble in fear of Bush's veto pen (never mind that it only strengthens their position against him when he vetoes things like health care for children) and don't have the courage to engage in bare-knuckle brawling with him. I don't really know what they're so afraid of, but it's extremely frustrating! :banghead:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. They're afraid Bush the village idiot has more balls than they do? nt

[karynnj]

34. An interesting answer I heard from a friend

is that it is BECAUSE the crimes are more heinous and involve what they had us do as a country. An impeachment would also put our country on trial and finding for impeachment and removable would find us guilty and quilty of some very bad things. This is not how we think of ourselves. The same was true on Iran/Contra - they clearly broke the law - they funded the Contras in defiance of the Boland amendment. They backed a brutal covert war. They brought drugs into the US and they gave guns to RW thugs in CA - and that was just the Contra piece!

The Nixon impeachment tried Nixon, and just Nixon - not the USA. In fact, it proved the USA was bigger than the President. The Clinton impeachment tried Clinton, and just Clinton - not the USA. It also was completely political and the Republicans thought it benefited them - and it likely did. It clearly hurt Gore - and allowed a man, who had a drinking problem until he was 40 to run on bringing dignity back to the White House. I don't see a similar gain for the Democrats here - this will be a painful and many in the middle will resent the messenger.

I do think that at some point, after the election we need to at least get to the truth of various things that happened.

[KoKo]

38. sadly what you say is probably the truth of it. Plus Congress for the most part

was complicit in the War, torture, Patriot Act, Spying, etc. To impeach Bush/Cheney exposes their own complicity.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Wow what a great post that is! Very thought-provoking! Thank you. nt

[Riddler]

35. Two Words.....

Spineless chickenshits

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. If that's true we should all be terrified of the Dems in Congress. nt

[onenote]

36. Because Democratic voters aren't demanding it.

Some are, but according to a poll conducted last November, even among Democrats who believed that chimpy and cheney have committed impeachable offenses, a signficant number don't support moving forward with impeachment at this point. The bottom line according to this poll was that only 50% of Democratic voters and only 1/3 of independents wanted impeachment to move forward. So if your question is why won't Democrats in Congress impeach, I think you have your answer. If the question is why do so many people not want to go forward with impeachment, even among those that think impeachable offenses have been committed...well, I suspect there are many different answers and the fact is that there isn't much that can be done about it at this stage.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. I don't know one Democrat that isn't demanding it or doesn't want it. nt

[onenote]

87. well, you obviously don't know all Democrats then.

The world is broader than your piece of it.

[Rosemary2205]

37. because the citizens of this country think that would be "tit for tat"

overwhelmingly, the polls have shown people are sick up to their eyeballs with GWB but have very little interest in impeachment. -- and quite frankly, they didn't have much support for impeaching Clinton either. Oh sure, everyone wanted the latest news on the blue dress and what Bubba stuck into Monica or vise versa and where it happened - we DO live in a "jerry springer" country - but no one except the koolaiders and hatemongers on the right had any real support for impeachment - that's why his favorable ratings WENT UP.

No one wants to give the American people any reason to support the BFEE more.

IMHO the whole point of the right railroading Clinton was to set up exactly this situation. So the BFEE could rape the world and no one but the so called "rabid leftists" would have the stomach for slapping them in jail.

[TankLV]

39. your guess is a good as mine - I'd have thought they'd have been spitting blood like me LONG ago...

sellout?
threatened?
don't care?
selfish - they're IN and only care about themselves?

all of the above?

to say it's discouraging would be a vast understatement...

[Justpat]

40. Most people knew the Clinton impeachment was a farce.

It was a right wing, Scaife funded witch hunt.

At the height of the impeachment scandal, Clintons popularity ratings were the highest of his presidency.
Maybe the Dems are afraid the same thing will happen to Bush and that would enable the bastard to
leave this debacle appearing to be a martyr.

I think the Dems fail to realize the Bush's popularity ratings aren't going to go up. People want them
to hold Bush accountable, but they are living in the past and can't seem to get the balls to do the
right thing now.

I am ashamed of all but a few of them.

[warren pease]

41. Because congress' so-called leaders are taking advice from absolute idiots who...

...have convinced them that the way to win in November is to do absolutely nothing that could be construed as divisive, partisan, progressive or even assertive. It's the three monkey approach to bipartisanship and coexistence.

They're apparently being told to avoid taking any positions that could be interpreted as obstructionist, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq occupation, anti-troops, pro-terrorism, pro-impeachment or anti-military spending.

Act like perfect junior hosts and hostesses, happy botoxed expressions glued onto cute little non-threatening pug-nosed faces, charmingly inoffensive and always ready to please... do all this and the White House is theirs.

But seriesly, there are only a few reasons I can come up with for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the "opposition" party.

They're chasing the invertebrate vote -- Their pollsters have discovered a vast, new, untapped demographic for dems to suck up to. Seems there's a huge number of swaggering, rugged individualist wannabes living a lie for the past six years; despite the carefully crafted image, they're actually candy asses and dweebs who have spent a lot of time since "the events of 9/11(tm)" in mortal fear that deadly Islamofascist terrorists, those dark forces of unspeakable evil, are all in place and just waiting for the right moment to murder them painfully and horribly in their beds. So why not play into that ambient fear and exploit the hell out of it? BushCo's created it and turned it into an art form, after all, so might as well learn from the masters.

Under that theory, the entire show of cowardice and wimpiness is all part of a grand strategy designed to create solidarity with those who've had spine-ectomies within the last six years and let them know that "we feel your pain and we'll protect you from the evil doers -- just as soon as we save our sorry asses first."


Complicity/Corruption -- The purpose and outcome of all significant legislative and regulatory measures is defined by and must conform to the needs of those corporations who have bought the parties and their candidates dozens of times over. Since both parties feed to bursting at the corporate trough, it's not surprising that their agendas have moved closer and closer over the years until they're now almost indistinguishable.


Cowardice -- We can discuss whether it's Stockholm Syndrome, battered women's syndrome or good old-fashioned wimpiness when faced with the GOP's endless roster of blowhard bullies. Whatever the reason, it's not good enough. If they lack the courage of their convictions, they have no business taking up a perfectly good seat that should be occupied by someone with principles and the courage to act on them. They've sold out their history, their constituents, their personal honor and dignity, their country, their conscience, their political roots and, incidentally, the Constitution and the entire body of precedent and case law that has grown up around it. But they don't seem to give much of a damn because their own reelections are all that matters and if cowering in a corner will help make that happen, great.


When you stop searching for logic or intelligence behind the Dems' behavior and understand that they're just playing their appointed roles as defined by political handlers and election strategists, things make a lot more sense. And become a lot more disgusting.

This is why I detest this particular pack of compromised democratic "leaders" above all their predecessors. They're obvious cowards and collaborators; simple as that. As a party badly in need of credibility, they had nothing to lose and much to gain by impeaching, sitting on war funding bills, cutting BushCo off at the wallet, contesting every single thing the bastards pulled and then shouting their reasons at the top of their lungs.

Instead, we get telecom immunity, no accountability for any of BushCo's made men, near unanimous passage of every single domestic repression bill that slithers its way from the white house, and a bottomless treasure chest of borrowed money -- as well as the crippling debt that goes with it -- to support BushCo's imperialist blood lust and, by an amazing coincidence, strangle what's left of the New Deal.

There are, of course, a ton of strongly worded statements and formal letters of complaint sitting in Ms. Nancy's and Uncle Harry's file cabinet drawers, waiting for one of those rare moments of bravado when they actually get the nerve up to send one of these things. But that doesn't last long. They end up cowering in a corner for the next three days hoping that whoever opened the letter didn't notice who sent it. And that the bald, black jacket thugs don't show up.

Congress' behavior -- and the way they've so arrogantly thumbed their noses at the people who worked their asses off to give them their majority -- only makes sense if BushCo and Congress are all in it together, two sides of the same coin, all members of the same exclusive high-dollar social club and all completely corrupted by years and decades of corporate bribery.

I think the evidence for that view is pretty strong. Like all great cons, you'll never be able to actually prove it. But what's been happening doesn't pass the smell test unless you expand the boundaries of acceptable analysis.


wp

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Thank you for this post. It explains a lot. (And I agree with you).

I've saved your post, it's that good.

However, my question is this.....

If this which you said is true (and I'm not saying it isn't, it could be!!):

<Congress' behavior -- and the way they've so arrogantly thumbed their noses at the people who worked their asses off to give them their majority -- only makes sense if BushCo and Congress are all in it together, two sides of the same coin, all members of the same exclusive high-dollar social club and all completely corrupted by years and decades of corporate bribery.
I think the evidence for that view is pretty strong. Like all great cons, you'll never be able to actually prove it. But what's been happening doesn't pass the smell test unless you expand the boundaries of acceptable analysis.>

If all that up there is true, and the Dems and Repukes are in all this crap together, WHY was Clinton even impeached? If they're all in it together, I mean.

That might seem a dumb question, but it's a logical question. If they're all in it together, and all they need to do is give the impression that they're arguing amongst themselves (Repukes and Dems), but they're actually high-fiving each other, WHY go as far as destroying our Dem president? That's what I don't understand.

[warren pease]

84. My best guess...

You ask:

"If all that up there is true, and the Dems and Repukes are in all this crap together, WHY was Clinton even impeached? If they're all in it together, I mean.

"That might seem a dumb question, but it's a logical question. If they're all in it together, and all they need to do is give the impression that they're arguing amongst themselves (Repukes and Dems), but they're actually high-fiving each other, WHY go as far as destroying our Dem president? That's what I don't understand."


And here's the best I can come up with. These days, largely due to the corrupting influence of giant sums of corporate campaign money and other forms of corporate largesse, the old Chomsky analysis is becoming more obvious each election cycle. He says there is only one political party in the US, it's called (or should be) The Business Party and it has two factions called Democrats and Republicans.

Their agendas are nearly identical, although their methods differ. Where Republicans are completely open and shameless about their love for the rich and powerful, Democrats pander to the working and middle classes when running for election, then adopt the complete GOP program once in office.

In US politics, that means the outcome of all significant legislative and regulatory measures is defined by and must conform to the needs of those corporations who bought the parties and their candidates dozens of times over.

They both appear to be playing the adversarial game. They play their scripted roles to perfection, but the outcome is always predetermined and the people are never, ever going to win because that would be bad for business.

Incidentally, I don't think this analysis applies to the few actual lefties in Congress, nor to the wingnut extremists at the other end of the spectrum. I think both ends of the continuum are populated with ideologues who truly believe in what they're doing and probably despise their counterparts on the opposite end. Imagine, for example, how distasteful it must be for Kucinich to spend a couple of minutes in an elevator with some fundie loon like James Dobson. And probably vice versa.

Anyway, that's my somewhat thin analysis and guesswork re Clinton, impeachment, the alleged two-party system, the corrupting influence of corporate money and a partridge in a pear tree.

Hope this helps.


wp



As to Clinton's impeachment, I think a couple of things were key in that idiotic maneuver. One, he interrupted what was supposed to be a seamless neocon era and this pissed off some very rich and crazy people -- Richard Mellon Scaife at the top of the list. Worse yet, Clinton isn't one of the Mandarins and blue-bloods who are supposed to run this country. Anything but. His is the kind of self-made-man, rags-to-riches story that the GOP claims its policies promote when, in reality, they absolutely despise that kind of upward mobility because it lets some poor-boy country cretin without pedigree into the inner circle.

But they ground him down nonetheless. Notice that, by the beginning of his second term, Clinton, who at best had been a centrist without a liberal bone in his body, now became a moderate right republican. He ended "welfare as we know it," which remains an absolute disaster for those who really need a social safety net and now have none. He championed the 1996 Telecom Act, which kicked off this frenzy of media buying by large holding companies and spelled the end of any possibility of non-corporatized, unsanitized news or political comment. The whole "triangulation" strategy was predicated on Clinton becoming GOP lite. Essentially, he won by losing. And the GOP won right along with him.

The other thing that drove impeachment is the fact that, while the two wings of the Business Party are pretty much indistinguishable on most issues, the GOP seems to lust after raw power more than Dems do. Clinton had ruffled some feathers attached to very big egos -- notably Gingrich when Clinton made him get off Air Force One by the rear exit -- and these people carry grudges for generations.

So Gingrich decided to retaliate by shutting down the federal government. But he miscalculated; he thought people would consider avenging his damaged ego more important than their SSI checks. Which gives you an idea of what a colossal idiot and raging egomaniac he is at heart.

And the insults just kept on coming. No matter what happened, they couldn't get Clinton off that mid 50s - mid 60s approval rating. With Scaife's Arkansas Project funding the witch hunt, investigators tried desperately to find anything remotely criminal in either Clinton's past. They're either preternaturally clean or the investigation team was incredibly inept. Either way, if they were going to bring him down, it was going to have to be a black op to set him up, using Kathleen Willey as the handler and Monica as the bait. The rest you know, I'm sure.

So the main points being, yes, the two parties have become almost indistinguishable from one another, largely because corporate money has corrupted just about all of them. Yes, they pretend to be far more adversarial than they really are, although there is some genuine animosity among certain members over certain issues. For example, I can't imagine that ignorant loon James Inhofe and liberal icon Barbara Boxer hitting it off very well.

Everything about Clinton pissed off the right wing, including his background, his ability to win elections, his brains, his dynamism and, of course, his politics -- which the right would regard as liberal and on a par with Venezuela's Chavez.

[Kitty Herder]

42. Because they fear than impeachment trial would reveal

their own complicity. For expample, Pelosi was shown the torture techniques being used when she was on the intelligence committee, but didn't protest.

[Disturbed]

44. When Pelosi said: "Impeachment is off the table." it was

to me that a deal had been struck with Busholini & his Regime of War Criminals.
What was that deal? I suspect that it was the files that NSA has on every member of
Congress would not be leaked.

[Kitty Herder]

48. I've had that same thought, actually.

I'm sure they have dirt on every one of them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. You know what? You're RIGHT! Why did that f coward Pelosi come out with that ASAP?

She's trash.

[leftchick]

43. is this a rhetorical question?

I thought it was obvious. If there are impeachment proceedings then all of the dirty shit rises to the surface. Including the dirty shit from some complicit dems. Pretty simple.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. So why weren't the Republicans reluctant to impeach Clinton, if indeed the shit rises to the top?

Didn't they have anything to hide? I'm sure they did have plenty to hide, as we've seen in the past couple of years. Why do the Dems have something to hide that might come out in an impeachment of Bush & Cheney, while the Repukes had nothing to hide and proceeded ahead with impeaching President Clinton.

[leftchick]

67. hmmm, blowjob vs High Crimes and misdimeaners??

Which MANY Democrats colluded with and voted for? Spying on US citizens? Illegal Wars? Torture? ET fucking Cetera?

lol! again, are you fucking kidding me? :eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. You're right. However, here's a question for you.....

IF indeed they are all in collusion, Dems and Repukes alike.....

Would they be in collusion on everything? For example, I saw Henry Waxman on Bill Moyers' Journal last week. (I think Bill Moyers has got a pretty good idea of what's really going on in this country). Anyway, he interviewed Henry Waxman.

Henry Waxman said this:

---------------------------
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, I want a lot from Condoleezza Rice. I want to know, as secretary of state, that she's supervising the money that's being spent by the Department of State in Iraq. That she's making sure that we're not supporting a government that can't rally its own people because it's so corrupt. The second thing, and most important thing I want to know from Condoleezza Rice, is what did she know about the false claim of Saddam Hussein having potential nuclear weapons? And did she participate in a conspiracy with people in this administration the lie to the American people to get us into a war? She's the one, I think, along with the president, has to be held accountable. Because she was the one who was supposed to work with the president to be sure he had the right information, and had the truth before those decisions were made.

BILL MOYERS: Do you regret your vote for that resolution?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I certainly do regret my vote. I would not have cast that vote had I known that they were lying.
---------------------------

Do you think Waxman is lying? Was he in collusion on this? Are they all?

[Echo In Light]

73. Naturally there will be personal differences despite collective action/inaction

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. True. nt

[leftchick]

74. I don't know if he was lying there

but it seems very strange how naive so many of these politicians have been when it comes to the neocon agenda, fucking believing them in the first place. Perhaps I am more cynical and see how it is more likely they are complicit than fools.

As far as Waxman, I have lost a lot of faith in him these last few months after I saw the influence AIPAC has over even him. It makes me sick.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. Yeah, I get really angry sometimes

I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be a congressman. I once read that even in the Supreme Court the justices make "deals" with one another. "You help me decide in favor of this case; I'll help decide against that one" type of thing. I was shocked. I imagine Congress is no different, and, if anything, it's even more corrupt.

[Echo In Light]

61. Yes, Leftchick. The system is rigged and pre-determined. "Accidents" usually don't occur in pol

There would be a lot of dirty shit rising to the surface if that can of worms were opened, and without naming specific incidents, I'm sure {gaging by other posts of yours} you know what I mean. This is the obvious reason why no impeachment, and reveals how managed Clinton's was.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. Interesting and very very scary isn't it? nt

[Cleita]

75. Probably because investigations might bring out that they too

were part of the problem. It's something to think about. I keep thinking they are covering their own asses. I hope I'm wrong, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

[treestar]

76. Could be the overwhelming nature of it where we'd have to impeach

both * and Cheney. Impeaching * and getting a guilty verdict is problematic and only leaves us with Cheney.

This is why we should run Obama with Hillary as a running mate. That would put the Repukes in precisely the same position. Their horror of Hillary knows no rational bounds.

[robcon]

77. I think you know, Sarah Ibarruri

If, as very likely, the House tried to impeach Bush and failed, (or if it impeached him, but the Senate failed to convict) it would be the opportunity for the Repugs to retake the Senate (and they would have a long shot at retaking the House) this November.

It might be what tips the presidency away from the Democrat this fall. I think Pelosi and Reid are very aware of this, and I would have thought you knew.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[area51]

86. You forgot the sarcasm icon.

If not, enjoy your stay. :eyes:

[DiamondJay]

88. because they're fucking pussies

and scared to lead, thats why they lost in 1994. they like to follow, as they did for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I. also, nancy pelosi is a walking joke. they only put her on the post to get female votes, as murtha would a been a strong speaker, a Newt Gingrich for us without the baggage.