Senator Mark Dayton doesn't agree with Boxer's "Impeachment"

[in_cog_ni_to]

word. :cry::cry::cry::cry: WHY THE FUCK NOT, MARK????????!!!!!!!!! He's on Washington Journal right now...C-SPAN. :(

on edit...he also said we don't have enough info YET. Just to qualify his statement....not that it changes what he said!:cry: Why can't Dems get on the same page????

[savemefromdumbya]

1. bound and gagged?

Sen Dayton was outspoken over the supicious activity of this government on 9/11 so maybe he has been B & G'd

[myrna minx]

4. He's not running in 08 so I don't know why he

would be B&G. :shrug: He's my Senator and this disappoints me.

[ananda]

6. What's B & G'd???

Is that part of BushInc's "protection" racket?

That's what I kept thinking during Bush's speech and press conference. He's putting out a threat to people and lawmakers. If you don't let me do what I want and extort your freedom and economic security from you, I won't protect you. I just need to do this for your own good.

Anyone ever read Alice Miller's work explaining what "for your own good" really means? It ain't nuthin good.

Sue

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Bound and Gagged.

;)

[mopinko]

17. for your own good- isn't that about cruel parents?

i have never read the book, but i do believe that societies are created in indiviual cradles.

[savemefromdumbya]

28. this administration B & G's

bind and gag prisoners too

[ananda]

2. Ugghh

They're really afraid of the I word. So sad.

[mmonk]

3. Any questions?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Why?

Because there's no political advantage to it. Sheesh.

[KitchenWitch]

7. Dayton is not running for re-election...

He needs no political advantage.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Exactly right...HE COULD SAY ANYTHING!

:(

[KitchenWitch]

10. I know, I am upset with him as well

He is my senator...:grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. He has always been one of my favorite Senators

because he ALWAYS speaks truth to power, but that remark threw me for a loop! Dammit.

[KitchenWitch]

14. I think the Rethugs have hijacked his brain...

:grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Remember when he shut down his office

and sent his staff home because of a "terrorist" threat? The Government made him look like a fool. They said they had NO IDEA where he got that information. Yeah right! THEY SET HIM UP. It was soon thereafter he announced he wasn't running again, right? Hmmmmm.

[KitchenWitch]

21. I know

He was keeping the safety of those in his employ in mind, and they made him look stupid for doing it.

:mad:

[lonestarnot]

9. Well then that is nice to hear.

[mmonk]

11. If he cannot defend the constitution

he needs to resign.

[jmowreader]

29. He does need his life, though

Mark Dayton is a Democratic Senator from a state with a Repuke governor, and he's already pissed Bush off once over his comments about 9/11. If this man gets wellstoned, Bush is four votes from having a completely reliable filibuster-proof 60-seat supermajority.

Y'all think Bush is a dictator now, just wait till he gets 60 Repukes in the Senate.

[Jawja]

13. I take issue with the

"no political advantage" statement.

We aren't talking politics here. We are talking U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are talking about a man who is blatantly telling us that he is above the law, for "our protection."

This is frightening. He needs to be reigned in. Yes, IMPEACHMENT needs to be said. The Democrats need to stand up and refer to the gravity of this situation by putting the "I" word out there. I am dismayed and perplexed by those like Mark Dayton who shun the word like the plague. We need some real leadership and we need it NOW.

Say the I word, Dems! Get it out there in the public consciousness! Respond to the seriousness of this situation! * has brought us into a Constitutional Crisis and the opposition needs to respond accordingly.

edit: spelling

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. There's no point in impeaching...

...or even discussing impeachment unless a conviction is in the offing. There's no point in discussing it if it isn't bi-partisan. Find twenty Republicans who might conceivably vote to convict and then we can start thinking about it. Until then it's so much hot air.

[bpilgrim]

20. so much hot air

how can we even get support if we ain't allowed to talk about the issue :shrug:

peace

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Get support from whom, exactly?

The American public? Republicans in Congress? The latter is more important than the former, and the latter has little to do with the former.

[yodermon]

24. au contraire

2006 needs to be a referendum on impeachment.

If shrubya becomes radioactive enough in 2006(and it looks like he is, imagine what a Rove indictment would now do in this climate), the repukes' own constituents will be calling for THEM to call for impeachment.

And depending on how rapidly things unfold, the repukes might need to impeach BEFORE elections in order to save their own skin.

Unless the diebolds & dre's are so entrenched that the repukes pull off a "win" even when they're polling at 30%

capisci?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Somehow I doubt it.

2006 needs to be a referendum on impeachment.

No, 2006 needs to be a referendum on Bush's policies. If the Democrats really think they can win back one or both of the chambers of congress in 2006, they'd better be ready for leadership. Leadership needs policy. As for impeachment, there are plenty of people who despise Bush who wouldn't support impeachment. It would be highly irresponsible to define the election in such narrow terms.


If shrubya becomes radioactive enough in 2006(and it looks like he is, imagine what a Rove indictment would now do in this climate), the repukes' own constituents will be calling for THEM to call for impeachment.

Not a chance. They might not like him, but dislike to impeach is a huge leap. I'm afraid it'd have to get much worse before that gets put on the table. On the other hand, it does keep getting much worse.


And depending on how rapidly things unfold, the repukes might need to impeach BEFORE elections in order to save their own skin.

I doubt they'd opt for it with what's currently on the table as far as Bush scandals.

[bpilgrim]

27. voters & reps

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Jawja]

22. That's true and I

agree that it ain't gonna happen with this Congress.

But it should be in the discussion because the Repukes DID impeach Clinton over far less (over nothing, really); but now, they can't seem to find their moral and ethical compass on such a flagrant violation of the Presidential Oath of Office. At the very LEAST, their boy has broken the FISA law by not referring to the special court set up to issue warrants even AFTER the fact.

So I believe the I word is important for discussion, because they were so dispicably arrogant in their righteousness in impeaching Clinton. Their party needs to be continuously exposed to the public as the filthy and unabashedly hypocritical bunch that they are.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. "We aren't talking politics here."

Oh, but we are. Politics is what motivates politicians. It's essential that we understand their motivations and know what drives them to do what they do. Especially right-wing power-hungry politicians, who are the people who'd need convincing for impeachment to take place.

This is frightening. He needs to be reigned in. Yes, IMPEACHMENT needs to be said.

Again, I have no problem with its discussion. However, a united Democratic front shouting "Impeach! Impeach!" at this point in time would be nothing more than a huge boon for the repubs, who'd be able to shout "Partisan! Partisan!" at the top of their lungs, supported by a compliant media and a host of wingnut commentators. And then all of the solemnity with which this needs to be approached would be gone in a puff of he-said-she-said rhetoric. Of course we should start moving in the direction of impeachment BUT we must be very careful. There are landmines all over the place. One misstep and it's all over.

. I am dismayed and perplexed by those like Mark Dayton who shun the word like the plague.

Again, why? It isn't a hugely popular option at this point in time. He's got nothing to gain by supporting it too early. Better to wait and not have it look like bandwagon-jumping.

[Jawja]

30. Okay, you have a big point there.

Better for one or two to be out there saying the "I" word and others more reserved, calling for an investigation into whether any laws were broken. Better to lower the boom when the Democrats have the power to actually lower the boom.

I just want these people removed from power as soon as possible.


:hi:

[Skidmore]

19. He says the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has not been

touched for drilling and has been set aside for decades. So who specifically is jonesing for ANWR besides Stevens? Who is wanting to invest in ANWR?