Correct me if I'm wrong, but an actual impeachment is pretty newsworthy, right?

[Richardo]

It follows then that if NO ONE is covering it, then perhaps it's not an actual impeachment, but just a guy reading stuff into the record.

You know, like a proclamation of National Potato Day or something. And with about as much impact.

[liberal N proud]

1. I would think that the introduction of Articles by Congress would be

It was all over the news a decade ago when a certain occupant of the Oval Office was Impeached over a simple blow job.

[MrCoffee]

13. This is at least the 3rd time DK has introduced Articles

Without support from the leadership, it goes exactly nowhere.

Edited because I was wrong, he's introduced Articles of Impeachment three times, but the first two were against Cheney. They went nowhere.

[Fireweed247]

17. This is the FIRST time Articles of Impeachment of Bush have been introduced

And it is obviously newsworthy which is why they aren't covering it. They can't have it interfere with Dancing with the Stars.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. That makes no sense

"it is obviously newsworthy, which is why they aren't covering it".

If it were newsworthy, they would, by definition, cover it.

No matter how much you stamp your feet and hold your breath, though, it's just NOT newsworthy. It has no meaning in the real world. It has no consequences, no effects. It's not newsworthy.

[PeaceNikki]

2. But but but

St. Dennis, The new "Ghandi", the "only Dem in the whole wide world" read it in.

You should send him ALL your money. Now. And 435 dozen white roses.

Snap to it or you're no Dem.

[Richardo]

3. I didn't see the broadcast...was there anyone else in the chamber with him?

Wouldn't a real impeachment be like, a prime-time event? With some other Representatives around?

These are some of the random thoughts that occur to me.

[PeaceNikki]

4. Dunno. I was watching "The Mole"

My co-workers husband is a contestant.

[magellan]

11. What do you mean, "a real impeachment"?

Introducing articles of impeachment is how impeachment starts.

[Winterblues]

16. You sound like a Republican

Sorry you don't think restoring Constitutional government to be a worthy goal..

[PeaceNikki]

19. Because I don't worship at the feet of DK?

Whatever.

[Tarc]

5. It is not an "actual impeachment" though

until/unless the full House holds hearings on it and votes to impeach. C'mon, Civics 101 here.

The filing of the articles itself isn't that big of a deal...Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez filed articles of impeachment against Reagan and Bush Sr. in the 80's as well, and there were barely a blip as they went nowhere.

The ball is in the House leadership's court now. If they prove to have the fortitude to proceed, then it will be more newsworthy.

[Richardo]

6. So that should answer eveyone's paranoia about there being little coverage

:thumbsup:

[magellan]

12. It's how impeachment is started

The same way it was done on Dec 9, 1998, when the House Repubs introduced four articles of impeachment against Clinton.

The only difference may be that Kucinich actually read them out so they'd be placed in the record. I don't know if that's standard. But otherwise, this is the process.

[Richardo]

20. I guarantee that the GOP Articles were not read into the record by Bob Barr at dinnertime.

With no one else in the chamber.

[magellan]

21. That it didn't happen similiarly for Kucinich is a failure of the House Democrats

...and has absolutely no bearing on the significance of the process he initiated last night.

Neither does whether it goes any further.

It's ACTUAL impeachment, by the book. If you had any regard for the Constitution or knowledge of the impeachment process you wouldn't belittle this procedure by suggesting it isn't actual impeachment.

[mmonk]

7. We are ruled arbitrarily and the media is controlled.

You sound as if we are still free or something. We are not. We are not a free people. That has officially ended in the 21st century. Where in the past, we have gotten things wrong, we still had a framework from which to get things right. That has been removed from your life and the lives of our children.

[Richardo]

8. Every media outlet is controlled. Right.

Most are publicly held companies. An impeachment - in an election year - would sell a lot of news. Heighten the conflict. Intensify the drama. Raise the revenues. Raise the stock price.

How about applying Occam's Razor: Rather than some kind of ill-defined conspriacy, perhaps it just isn't newsworthy.

[mmonk]

9. Editors and editorial boards control content

Ad space is where they make money. The major media outlets are controlled by conglomerates that make money through policy rather than a limited burst of newspaper sales. Those that control the media have made their preference.

[CK_John]

10. It's just a campaign stunt for DK. n/t

[magellan]

14. THIS IS HOW IMPEACHMENT STARTS!

Articles of impeachment are introduced to the House. It was done the same way on Dec. 9, 1998 when the Repubs introduced four articles of impeachment against Clinton. Whether or not Congress moves on it, it is a very real and very serious exercise of that thing called the Rule of Law.

The ONLY difference may be whether they're read aloud. Kucinich did that purposely to have them entered into the official record...so that in future, when a new bunch of DUers are asking why we didn't impeach the assholes when we had the chance because their slimy brethren have come to power and are doing even worse damage, it can be said that not ALL the Congressional Dems were sitting on their collective asses and letting it happen.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. In the future, hopefully.

DUers will be able to count to 67.

[TwixVoy]

22. Ummmm

Ever take a civics class?

The articles have been introduced, next step is for them to be VOTED ON. One member does not an impeachment make.

It is an "actual impeachment" in that the articles have been introduced, but they have to be voted on before they actually are passed. Then it would be on to the senate for trial.

Of course they will be voted down, but they have been introduced.

[Richardo]

23. Exactly.

It may technically be an 'actual' impeachment; but in actuality it's declaring National Potato Day. Except it will get fewer votes, if it's voted on at all.

[Growler]

27. yup n/t

[Marrah_G]

24. If it were being backed by the leadership and had a shot at going anywhere it would be.

But it isn't and doesn't.

[tuckessee]

25. According to the TV you're wrong.

I was watching Fox this morning and in case you missed it there is a dead BLONDE woman in Illinois.

How can something as mundane as impeachment (yawn, didn't we have one those about ten years ago) be more important than a dead, hot, blonde chick?

Plus, there was an exciting story about how the Coast Guard rescued some boaters in the Gulf of Mexico.

Can you imagine that? Boaters in the water, the Coast Guard off the coast and rescuers rescuing people. Simply amazing! I never would've thought it possible!

Now that's what's newsworthy.

:sarcasm:

[AuntPatsy]

26. Your not wrong, it is news worthy, we must somehow find a way to become the news...

and ensure all America is aware...