Has Kucinich Exposed the Dems Complicity?

[kpete]

Headlined on 6/12/08:
Has Kucinich Exposed the Dems Complicity?

by Michael Cavlan Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Dennis Kucinich just released 35 counts against George Bush, calling for Impeachment. He is being ignored by the media. We all need to condemn the corporate media for their continued betrayal of the public trust by its silence on this. This betrayal is even worse than the corporate media aiding the Bush Administration lies that got us into the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It is true that the brave Representative from Ohio has been marginalized and demonized by those in the corporate media. However, we must remember that that marginalization and demonization have not just been by the corporate media. There have been many willing partners in crime from within the political establishment. The corporate media blackout has had allies.

For this blackout to be broken, Progressive Democrats of America, Move On and every other progressive group need to call for Senator Obama to publicly call for Impeachment. Make it clear that if he does not do so, right now, that they will publicly withdraw support from Senator Obama and publicly support Cynthia McKinney and/or Ralph Nader. We need to make the same case for every politician running: that if they do not support Kucinich that we will publicly not support them and will indeed support any Independent that runs against them, now and in the future.

Most importantly, having Senator Obama and others making it clear that they support an Impeachment investigation will force the corporate media to cover the story. This will then provide the evidence needed to convince the American public just how deep and insidious the crimes of the Bush Administration are. This simple act of courage by progressive groups could propel Impeachment into the minds and consciousness of the public of our country. It can make the oft-heard term "holding their feet to the fire" have real meaning and relevance.

On the other hand, to not push this will do one thing and one thing only. It is unarguable that the Democratic majority has proven to be worse than spineless. For progressives to not publicly pressure the Democratic Party leadership in this manner will actually reward them for their cowardice. At this stage, this is the only leverage we have left.

Impeachment really is this important, and you all know it. Make them prove that Impeachment was not taken off the table because they had something to hide under the table. Or we can assume that they did have something to hide, in which case, they do not deserve our support. It will become undeniable that the Democratic Party leadership would rather lose the election to John McInsane and the Republicans than to push for Impeachment. It will be proof positive of their complicity, the fact that they are coconspirators in the crimes of the Bush Administration

If we all come to that horrifying reality, we can then be truly aware of how bad the situation is that we find ourselves in. It also gives We The People the responsibility to create real and lasting change for ourselves and the world in which we live.

It is up to us progressives. This is our opportunity to shine. We can choose to follow the courage and lead of Representative of Dennis Kucinich. Let us not waste this last opportunity for accountability. History can applaud us or history can condemn us.

The choice is ours to make.

Michael Cavlan RN
Candidate US Senate 2008
Minnesota
www.michaelcavlan.org
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Has-Kucinich-Exposed-the-D-by-Michael-Cavlan-080612-61.html

[Fireweed247]

1. This PNAC group could not leave the 'opposition' up to chance

Many Dems are not only complicit, they are fascist plants- helped into office by the 'powers that be' to be an actor in the dog and pony show.

Since everyone is comparing Hitler to Bush today, that is also a tactic they used in Fascist Germany.

As much as I like Obama, I question him coming out of nowhere to win the nomination. We have all seen what they did to Dennis. Obama has support from some very powerful people, let's just hope that he doesn't do their bidding in the end.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

41. TRUTH!!!!

[bjobotts]

84. Pelosi announced "Elections" are off the table as they distract from policy making

[bjobotts]

85. She says the American people don't want their legislators wasting their time campaigning

[bjobotts]

86. All this tralk about impeachment, elections, campaigns is not what Americans want

[bjobotts]

87. Madame speaker, it's the constitution stupid. Are you waiting for another war.

[bjobotts]

88. You don't represent the democratic party, your ears are shut and your mind closed

[defendandprotect]

71. Yes . . . it's been obvious that there is

a powerful effort behind Obama. I'm hoping for the best --- but I am going to be looking
at everyone around him --- and the $$$

[Just-plain-Kathy]

73. I have always felt that the people who stole the last two presidential elections

...would never give up their power to easily.

I thought for sure “they” wanted Hillary; after all look how much Bill helped the neo-cons get their war in Iraq.

I think “they” chose Obama to go against Hillary (because if we thought like bigoted neo-cons, -a black candidate would make even Hillary look good). I think Obama’s popularity took them by surprise.

During the primaries I questioned, how was it that Obama didn’t get ONE vote in many New York districts. At first it was reported that no one in Harlem voted for Obama. ...I also questioned how Hillary won all the “important” states. I honestly think “they” were steeling it for Hillary but Obama got in the way.

We have to watch the elections like hawks. We can’t let “them” get away with ANYTHING!!

[defendandprotect]

79. We're thinking alike . . .

I'm wondering if Cheney will burn down the White House if Democrats actually win ---
and/or with large majority!

Obama's popularity took me by surprise. I really didn't pay a lot of attention to him during
his Senate run, tho there was much acclaim for him. I wasn't at all familiar with him --
didn't pick up on the enthusiasm about him.

Takes a lot of watching --- !

[bjobotts]

91. How can you listen to Pelosi without thinking she's an air head

[bjobotts]

92. Her biggest fear is that she might have to be president for a day.

[bjobotts]

93. Voted in as speaker because nobody else really wanted the job.

[bjobotts]

94. Our constitution needs heros not fearful people that just can't be bothered

[defendandprotect]

153. Also . . . how much is Pelosi worth now . . . $10 million plus .. .???

How much bothered do you want to be when you have all that to think about --- !!!!

[Two Americas]

166. shhhhhhhhh!

We are not supposed to notice that. We aren't suppose to notice that getting elected to office is a shortcut to fabulous unimaginable wealth.

So long as rich people say they are "on our side," that is all we ask of them and we will worship at their feet and overlook anything.

Hey, just because we claim loyalty to the party that traditionally represented the have-nots that does not mean that we don't agree with the Republicans that wealthy people are better and deserve more - you know, so long as they have a "D" after their name and mouth some kinda liberal sounding stuff to us. We are all hoping to be well-off ourselves. Then we can donate a lot of money to good causes, and you know make a difference and all of that. Not that we don't care about all of those losers out there - we are not callous and mean like the Republicans - and once we get into power we will throw a few breadcrumbs at the poor and downtrodden and do a lot of "caring" and emoting about them.

[NorthCarolina]

109. We need Kucinich in as Speaker of the House

that alone would be a HUGE step in the right direction of fighting DC political corruption.

[defendandprotect]

154. THAT would be a dream ---- !!!

[defendandprotect]

152. I don't ... for the most part ---

It's always seemed to me that people have the ability to tell simple truths and EASILY
convey important information . . . when they want to.

I just seem to have a thing for feeling immediately that BS is coming and I move on --

The Sunday shows, IMO, have always been a farce ---

WITH THIS EXCEPTION . . . THE DAYS OF MLK, JR. . . . AND OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADERS . . .

Julian Bond, Malcolm X ... many others, including RFK, JFK ---

They were really something --- and believe me you listened --- you were riveted --- !!!

It was shocking, it was joyful, it was mayhem --- and it was wonderful . . .

until they killed them all.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

185. I'm thinking Cheney will fake a heart attack (-fake his death) and just move on.

At the beginning, I thought they were using Obama as a fund raising gimmick. You know, black against white, young against old, woman against man, establishment against newcomer.

I think the corporatists who stole the last two presidential elections wanted Hillary so people wouldn’t think that it was republicans who were steeling the elections.

To tell you the truth, I’m a little worried about our future. What will the neo-cons do in order for us to back a pro-war candidate like McCain?

[Bluenorthwest]

118. I think it all went off as planned

Your characterizations of history and of the Clintons do not make fact. Fact is, no one rises over such a short time without the full power of a political machine behind him.
Obama was the one they wanted elected, and they got him. You do know that Obama voted for the unconstitutional Patriot Act, don't you? And he voted for Cheney's Energy Bill, the funding of the occupation of Iraq, he voted in agreement with Bill Frist and the Republicans that Terri Shaivo needed government interference not family law. So it is pretty hard to understand how you can paint him as some subversive or agent of change. The Patriot Act. Yeah, he's a real iconoclast alright.

I wish we had Dennis Kucinich as our nominee, or at least John Edwards. But the beauty contest voters had to have some one tall and sartorialy acceptable. So that is what we have. A tall guy.

[defendandprotect]

155. Many of us wanted Kucinich/Edwards . . .

And they shoved them off the stage very quickly!!!

Was making them nervous, IMO ---

No -- I'm not completely trusting of Obama --- I hope just having Dems in office will
improve things ---

HOWEVER, we also still have to worry about steals ---

And I'm still concerned about the DLC and this co-option of the party --- very serious!


It leaves the question . . . is there enough left of the party to save it???

My opinion is NO . . . but I'm trying to believe YES . . .

[blindpig]

106. little late for that

'we' are in the bag.

[Raksha]

186. You're not the only one!

Re I'm hoping for the best --- but I am going to be looking
at everyone around him --- and the $$$

I support Obama and I'm guardedly optimistic about him, with the emphasis on "guardedly." He and the people around him are going to have to earn my trust--and it's not going to come easy. At this point I take nothing and nobody on faith.

[George II]

99. Would you prefer McCain as President? Any viable option to those two?

operative word - VIABLE

[Stainless]

122. So we're back to......

The lesser of two evils? I only hope Obama proves to be much more than that.

[George II]

141. Not in my mind..

For once we have a great choice - a choice between a semi-senile nasty old man who knows nothing about anything except war and a young man who is exciting, refreshing, and energizes the American people.

No, it's not a cynical "lesser of two evils", it's perhaps the most exciting presidential candidate we've had in generations!

[Two Americas]

129. backward

Trying to force the debate and discussion into a narrow channel according what is "viable" is exactly backward, and is corrosive and destructive to our representative democracy. What is viable is determined by the debate and discussion, and the debate and discussion should never be controlled by what is viable. With your approach, nothing of any value will ever become viable.

Politics is not consumerism and a matter of "choices" where we must look at the merchandise available and use that as the only guideline and context for political discussion. The "choice" aspect of politics - voting - is an effect, not a cause, and it is the last step in democracy, not the first.

Here is what is "viable" - allow the wealthy and powerful few to continue to expand their control over every aspect of our lives. That is the most practical, the most realistic, and the most viable course.

You cannot win a battle against bullies by worrying about what is practical, realistic or viable. The bullies are not fettered by those restrictions. Why should we place them on ourselves?

[George II]

142. Corrosive and destructive?

Hah! Listen, like it or not there are only two major political parties, each with a candidate. The last time a "third party" had a real chance of winning a presidential election was about 100 years ago.

Ok, let me change my wording - instead of "viable" let's use realistic. Is there anyone out there with a realistic chance of getting elected president other than McCain or Obama?

All you say is idealistic. How do we stop "the wealthy and powerful few to continue to expand their control over every aspect of our lives." other than violent revolution? The best choice we have of stemming that tide and maybe reversing it would be to elect Barack Obama. He may not be your perfect candidate, but he's the best that's come along in generations - most certainly not a "lesser of two evils" as someone else said here.

The difficulty democrats have is that they're too idealistic - if they have 10 specific issues they're concerned about, the only candidate they could support would be one who agrees on all tem issues. If the candidate only agrees on nine, democrats refuse to support him. So what do they get by sitting back and either not support the 90% candidate or don't support anyone? They get the candidate that disagrees on ALL TEN issues!

Your choice. You can sit on the sidelines waiting forever for that ideal candidate that will never appear, or you can support our candidate this year and start the ball rolling.

[Two Americas]

145. yes, corrosive and destructive

"Like it or not?" That is an apology for the status quo. Who cares what I "like" - I don't care about what I "like" and don't expect you to. Let's talk about what works, and what meets the needs of the people.

"Third parties" never win, or they wouldn't be called "third parties." When they win they are called "new parties." In any case, who was talking about a new party?

Where did this silly and widespread notion come from that tells us that the only alternative to the way things are is "violent revolution?" Why do so many people parrot that line again and again? It is so clearly false.

Politics is not a matter of a laundry list of your preferences. It is about power and economics, not your likes and dislikes on various issues that you imagine. The wealthy and powerful are already waging all out war against us. Why can we not fight back and defend ourselves?

It is almost as though many people in the party have been programmed on this issue - painted into a corner with obviously illogical arguments as to why nothing can work, so therefore we have to accept the way things are - as we hear the same tired old arguments trotted out year after year after year. Calling this thinking "reality based" and "being an adult" is laughable.

This "sitting back" bullshit is getting a little shopworn, too. Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean they are "whining" or "sitting back" or "doing nothing" or "hurting the cause" or "helping McCain."

By the way, what does "support the candidate" mean anyway? I always work for and vote for the lesser of two evils. Why is that not sufficient loyalty? Why must we also restrict our thinking and our discussions?

I say that we put all of these arguments in the dust bin once and for all - this is "the way things are," we need to "accept reality," we need to "be practical," the Democrats are "better than the Republicans," stop "being a purist," we "have a two party system," "third parties don't work," and "violent revolution is the only alternative and we don't want that," and we need to "work within the system" all of the rest of the arguments that are dishonestly used for the sole purpose of suppressing thought and speech. That defeatist and suppressive thinking can only enable the right wing and cripple us. It serves no other purpose.

[George II]

158. Yes, let's talk about what works, or would work - instead of just talking about what one perceives..

...as not working.

My comment about "violent revolution" that you're spouting about was taken out of context - you don't like the republican candidate, you don't totally like the democratic candidate, there is no other candidate out there that has a realistic chance of being elected. So, what's left in your eyes? THAT is what I was saying.

The rest of your post is just regurgitation of complaints, nothing positive, nothing constructive, and still NO ALTERNATIVE is given to what we have. And you refer to what I say is "defeatist and suppressive thinking"? If that's the case, give me something else to grab onto. Otherwise, you are "defeatist" with your "suppressive thinking". I think it's funny that in the same paragraph where you complain about what others say you also decry "suppressive thinking". Hypocracy at it's finest!

[Two Americas]

171. you proved my point

I didn't say this - "you don't like the republican candidate, you don't totally like the democratic candidate, there is no other candidate out there that has a realistic chance of being elected."

What does whether or not I personally "like" this or that politician have to do with anything? It is your frame that anything and everything political must be held within the confines of one's personal voting choice as based on what one personally likes. Who is looking for a celebrity that they "totally like?" Not I.

This "you have no alternative" argument needs to be retired, since it communicates nothing. One does not need to "have an alternative" in order to speak out against atrocities. The alternative to thinking and speaking in terms only of horse race preferences and personal choices is to stop doing that. Then the options are endless and the possibilities are vastly expanded. I am sorry that you see my attempts at prying your death grip off of this limiting and destructive way at looking at politics seems "suppressive" to you. I suppose that taking away a drug addicts fix is suppressive in the same way. Speaking of which, what if addicts refused to quit until and unless those concerned about them would "stop being negative and critical" about what they were doing, and came up with a "positive alternative" to what they were doing. Come to think of it, that IS what addicts say.

What is left once we get out of this same restrictive and confining rut? The whole world is left, all possibilities are left.

Before the right wing propaganda convinced everyone that politics was all a matter of personal stance and personal choices, and that voting for the candidate of your choice was all that there was to democracy, there was an amazingly intelligent and vibrant and free-wheeling national political discussion going on in the country. That ongoing national discussion is what drives politics, not voting or "choosing" one's preferences. Leave that mentality for shopping and for being a consumer. We need to be actors, not consumers in politics.

The national discussion drives politics, and that determines policies and candidates, and voting is the effect of that process, not the cause. If we make the entire national political discussion all about voting and choices and candidates, we short-circuit the process, dumb down the public, surrender our representative democracy to the wealthy and powerful few, and ensure ever growing tyranny over our lives.

It is the difference between getting into the kitchen and cooking, or sitting out at a table selecting from the menu and getting angry and defensive when anyone wants to talk about what is happening in the kitchen. "Look! Here is the menu! here are your choices! Would you please make a choice and shut up about the kitchen??" In a representative democracy, the ongoing national discussion by everyday people is the "kitchen." If the people in the kitchen stood around arguing only about the existing choices on the menu, not much would get cooked, would it?

[George II]

177. This is getting ridiculous:

You don't understand the concept of "liking" or "disliking" a candidate in politics. If you don't realize that I'm not talking about him or her "personally" (your word which you inject, not mine) you're way out of your league. This isn't American Idol - I couldn't care less if you "like" or "dislike" a candidate personally. My reference, in the context of a political discussion on political website (got it yet?) is to the policies of those candidates.

Beyond that, your long tome basically said nothing, and you still haven't given us any idea of what you would like (that word again!!!) to see in a candidate.

Lacking that, you really don't belong in this discussion and if you still refuse to tell us what your idea of a candidate should be, I'm finished with you here.

[Two Americas]

178. what policies?

That is the problem. I am trying to talk about policies. You insist on talking about so-called practical realities.

One more time: I don't want to see anything in a candidate. I am talking about us, about what we demand, what we stand for, what we advocate. That is the first step, then what we want in a candidate is that they represent the needs of the people, not that they take some "position" that we like.

We don't give them anything of any substance to represent.

That is my constructive alternative. I am talking about US, not the politicians.

[George II]

194. My last message said this was "starting" to get ridiculous..

...we've now moved into the realm of total ridiculousness. You just keep going on and on about esoteric bullshit.

WHAT do you "demand"?
WHAT do you "stand for"?
WHAT do you "advocate"?

Those are just words that mean nothing without specifics.

"That is my constructive alternative"? You have said nothing, just that you're not happy with what we have now. Quite frankly, from what I've seen in this discussion, I don't think even you know what you want.

[Two Americas]

197. so...

You accuse me of not being happy with the way things are now. Are you happy with the way things are? You resist hearing about what is wrong with thiings now, and say that we cannot describe the problem until and unless we as critics have a so-called "constructive alternative" that meets with your undefined and unspoken specifications. How could anyone meet your test and thereby earn your permission to express their opinion? You ask the impossible, and then forcefully repeat and repeat the demand as though the fault were with the target of your wrath.

So what we can talk about, what we can say, is to be dependent upon your judgment of what we do, or recommend doing. That is illogical, and suppresses discussion and grants you the right to bully and dominate the discussion should it not go the way you wish it to go.

There are no "constructive alternatives" if the discussion must be contained within the context of seeing voter choice as the only possible important political consideration, and accepting your odd notion that this must preclude any and all critical analysis. "These are the choices, that is all there is to it, pick one and shut up" is the message I am getting from you. Voting, and what we talk about, are related in the opposite way that you are demanding we accept them to be related. Voting does not and should not determine what we are permitted to discuss or think, the choices we have when we vote are the product of what we think and discuss. You are asking us to shut down the entire political process, and abandon any power or influence we have, and to abrogate our civic duty and responsibilities all because you happen to be uncomfortable with the discussion and will not tolerate it. I am refusing to do that and will not honor your demand that I do.

Define what a "specific" would be in your imagination. Otherwise there is no way to answer your demand, and the demand becomes merely a rhetorical device to bully others and attempt to control the discussion. In any case, what do specific recommendations for action have to do with what we can and cannot talk about? How could we get to discussing any specific action - other than this mindless consumerist personal choice voting as the end all and be all of political action idea - if we are to strictly limit the discussion, as you are demanding?

[George II]

200. Still nothing...

I'll repeat just one more time:

WHAT do you "demand"?
WHAT do you "stand for"?
WHAT do you "advocate"?

WHAT is your "constructive alternative"?

Stop bullshitting us, post some substance, ok?

[Two Americas]

202. huh?

I don't know why you think it is appropriate or useful to interrogate me and demand that I answer your questions. You haven't bothered to respond to any of my points. No need to shout either, nor to keep repeating yourself. Why the rudeness and hostility?

WHAT do you "demand"?

From whom in regards to what? All I am asking here is that we be allowed to have the conversation we are having. You think we should not. That is the only thing you and I have been discussing, and that is at your insistence, not mine.

WHAT do you "stand for"?

Free speech, in regards to this discussion, and the freedom to explore ideas and talk without being bullied.

WHAT do you "advocate"?

I post everyday and advocate. Search my posts, and you can see me advocating a variety of things. If there is a specific area you are interested in, let me know and I will direct you to advocacy posts of mine.

WHAT is your "constructive alternative"?

"Constructive alternative" to what? My constructive alternative to shutting this discussion down is to continue the discussion.

Why don't you tell me what you demand, what you stand for, what you advocate, what your constructive alternative is? That might give me some idea as to what you are talking about.

[George II]

203. Just as I suspected...

esoteric bullshit - rewording of non-specifics claiming to be specific.

You're the one who claimed to have a "constructive alternative", not me, so why ask me? You're the one who said you wanted what you "demand", what you "stand for", what you "advocate" and have a "constructive alternative". But you have repeatedly failed to tell us other than etherial crap that means nothing.

Don't bother any more, you've got nothing.

[Two Americas]

204. ROFL

Amazing. Demand rudely that we play by your rules, and when I refuse declare "mission accomplished" and claim that you "won" somehow. That is not the way a discussion works - the person willing to be the biggest bully wins.

I am not writing for you, and certainly not playing crossfire talking points with you. I am writing for the benefit of others here who run into the same arguments every day. That is all. I don't expect to persuade or convince you of anything, and I do not see your talking points as being worthy of serious consideration. Discussing something with you is like being a guest on the Sean Hannity show, since your debate style on this thread is identical to his.

If you want to think you "won" something, that is fine with me.

By the way, when did you stop drowning kittens? Hmmmm? Give us a specific date. Can't do it? Just as I suspected, NO ANSWER.

:rofl:

[George II]

205. .....

:nopity:

[Two Americas]

207. this is kinda fun

Here is mine...

:grouphug:

[Runcible Spoon]

191. AMEN Two Americas and APPLAUSE for a string of beautifully worded and righteous posts!

:hug: :applause: :cheer:

[Two Americas]

215. thanks farce

I have been appreciating your posts lately as well.

[blindpig]

105. If yer banking on 'hope'

yer in deep shit from the git go.

Not a good place to be. Too like 1992, when we 'hoped' Bill Clinton wouldn't be as centrist as he obviously was. Didn't work out to well, imo.

[NorthCarolina]

108. Can you say DLC?

eom

[Two Americas]

131. misleading

The DLC is not some secret society with a nefarious and cryptic agenda. It reflects the direction that the party has been going, it does not control the direction the party has been going. DLC or not -DLC is useless as an indicator or predictor of which politicians might or might not do. It is a phony dividing line, a cartoon fantasy used to replace serious political analysis.

We may as well blame the Illuminati or Free Masons or international banking conspiracy rather than the DLC. It would make about as much sense. Real life doesn't work that way. GIVEN that the party and the politicians are going to be owned by the wealthy and powerful few, nothing about the DLC should surprise us. How about we go after the real problem, the real enemy for once, instead of making up fantasy villains that we can be against so we can continue to be in denial and avoid facing the truth?

The DLC could be completely eliminated tomorrow, and not a damned thing would change in regards to the control of the party by the wealthy and powerful few and the promotion of a pro-corporate agenda by the party.

[NorthCarolina]

134. Eliminating the DLC would be one hell of a good start

IMHO

[Two Americas]

146. how?

Close the office? Disband the organization? Deport the members to remote deserted islands? Change the name of the organization? Kick out anyone who is a member? Kick out anyone who ever was a member? How would we kick people out? Line all DLC members up against the wall?

This idea - "getting rid of the DLC" - sounds comforting, and who could argue with it, but is otherwise pretty meaningless. While we are at it. why don't we just get rid of the Republican party? If we did that, all of the wealthy and powerful people and their right wing shills would all just go home, give up and wouldn't bother us anymore, right?

That is my proposal: ban the Republican party. That will solve all of our problems. No need to think about it anymore or do anything.

[NorthCarolina]

157. Ummm, you vote them out at every opportunity

elections are a means to not only elect, but also to reject an incumbent whose politics you don't agree with....it's a pretty basic concept. If your incumbent is DLC, look to vote for a challenger in the primaries. I mean come on, it's not rocket science we're talking about here.

[Two Americas]

162. won't work

The corruption of the government by corporate interests, if not tackled directly and forcefully, will just take new forms and guises.

[NorthCarolina]

173. So your solution is to simply not try?

Sorry, that might work for you, but it doesn't work for me. I'm sick and tired of the conservatives trying to take control of the Democratic Party and making it a clone of the GOP. The DLC has been quite successful at this "conversion", but I say it's way past time to bring the party back to the progressives. Only then will we have real choice in our elections.

[Two Americas]

174. of course not

Why is the only imaginable alternative "not trying?"

My solution is to stop playing silly games and living in a fantasy. We had virtually no differences of any substance between the two leading candidates, so something needed to be fabricated, and that is what I think this DLC versus non-DLC thing is about - an artificial distinction that we can get all worked up about so we can see ourselves as being on the side of truth and righteousness.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "bring the party back to progressives." There are a handful of us battling here daily to point out to people how far this "progressive" crap has strayed from the traditional principles and ideals of the party. Why are so few interested in bringing the party back to the FDR New Deal advocacy for the common people, with standing for labor over capital as we once did, with fighting the right wingers as though we meant it, with standing for political solutions to social problems such as public transportation and regulation of finance and Wall Street, with standing against the libertarian politics of "personal choice," with the protection of public resources, with strong and immediate public programs to house the homeless, feed the hungry, restore agriculture, with restoration of the public infrastructure, with a progressive tax structure that does not punish the poor, and on and on and on and on.

There is strong and widespread - almost universal - opposition to the political left one way or another right here every day. THAT is what the corporate interests, what the wealthy and powerful, what the right wingers are battling against, not cultural "progressives."

How about we return the party to the people, rather than to the few, the upscale mostly suburban and professional "progressives" who have no more interest in left wing politics, in the traditional principles and ideals of the party, in the positions and programs that always gave us the greatest chance at electoral success, or in the fate of the common people in the country than the right wingers do?

Do that, and I am fired up and so will be millions of people not now engaged in politics. But "we are battling against the dark, evil and nefarious DLC so that we progressives can take back our party!" - bah, what a cruel joke that is on the people, and what a milquetoast gentrified and meaningless cause.

We can not very well fight a battle when we do not know what the battle is about nor where the battle lines are drawn. The Republicans know and are fighting relentlessly and successfully night and day. We are missing in action, off fighting our make-believe fights, safe little imaginary fights that cost us nothing and keep us safe from any risk or harm and allow u8s to continue to be in denial, morally compromised, and complicit.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. No.

Dem complicity is a distraction and GOP talking point.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

If not, your post is a distraction and a GOP talking point...

[ColbertWatcher]

12. No, I did not forget the sarcasm tag. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

3. He certainly has separated himself from those who refuse to impeach.

:)

[dana_b]

16. yes.

Love your graphic!! (as usual)

[Fireweed247]

4. dupe-sorry

One tactic of COINTELPRO is to set up their own organizations, install the leaders then lead peace activists to nowhere.

[Fireweed247]

5. "Progressive Democrats of America, Move On and every other progressive group"

Have any of these groups sent word to do whatever we can to support Impeachment? Did Moveon organize a protest in support of Kucinich, did PDA? Did they send the info to all of their mailing list, informing people and asking them to call their Representatives?

Now is a good time to find out who is really working for peace and which organizations are set up to mislead peace activists.

[Greyhound]

13. Good point. n/t

[LWolf]

28. Excellent point.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

35. Agree n/t

[defendandprotect]

64. Excellent questions . . . !!!!

How about the League of Women Voters which seems to be trying to resurrect itself . . .

they are a real "do-nothing" pain in the a--

[rhett o rick]

76. I totally agree. nm

[robinlynne]

83. Yes, PDA did all of the above. EXCEPT putting it to Obama. And I have doubts

about whether or not that is a good strategy. I think the senate and congress, hell yes. Obama, as a Senator, yes. As a presidential candidate, no. he is winning the presidency.
I think we need to protect the election so he can take office.
He is not a John Edwards, Edwards, but he is our next president.

[bjobotts]

89. Yes they have and have been for years now.

[George II]

100. Impeachment is pointless

By the time hearings and a trial roll around, they won't be able to be conducted anyway.

Congress can't impeach a man who is no longer president.

[Two Americas]

138. depends

Depends on what we are going for. A smoothly running empire and corporate machine that "gets things done" with a patina of liberal causes probably makes messy things like impeachment just an impediment to our march into the glorious future.

War crimes, torture, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, corporate control over all resources, the collapse of the public infrastructure - What does it say about us and about the truth about the modern Democratic party that so many people see these as petty or distracting issues? what sort of "win" are we seeking that leaves all of that off the table? Win for whom? To what end? So we can have a more intelligent and charismatic figurehead running the show, and so that we can continue to be complacent about the crisis we are in, and keep telling ourselves that we are "taking baby steps" and that we are "better than the Republicans" as though that means a damned thing in the real world.

I think people are going for feeling good rather than for fighting back and actually achieving objective results in the real world, and feeling good requires putting our heads in the sand while be pat ourselves on the back for being oh so "practical" and "realistic." Only a small percentage of the population can afford to promote a political program of feeling good at the expense of actual;ly taking up the fight against those who are bent on destroying us and our country, with the willing compliance of most in the "opposition" party.

We are fighting for our lives. The few, the relatively comfortable and privileged who control the party and liberalism at all levels keep telling us to go slow, to be cautious, to be clever, to be patient. Easy for them to say that; they have little at stake and are not at great personal risk. The upscale few, maybe 10% of the population at most, who dominate and control the discussion on what passes for the political left in this country, from the water cooler to the halls of Congress, seek to tie our hands behind our backs while the right wingers endlessly pummel and destroy us. They are betraying the people for the sake of a shallow and meaningless "win" that will only benefit the few.

Of course the Democrats are "better than the Republicans." Fire fighters - in theory at least - are better than arsonists, too. But we don't judge them by the same standards, do we? When the whole f-ing town is burning down, and the fire fighters are sitting on their asses making excuses, or befriending and cooperating with the arsonists, "we are better than the arsonists so keep supporting us and being loyal to us and don't consider or do anything else" is a pretty pathetic excuse, and it soon becomes obvious that they have no intention of protecting us from the arsonists and do not care that the whole town is on fire. We would be better off to put the fires out ourselves rather than wait for the fire fighters to do anything, but we have people right here everyday telling us not to do that because it will somehow "hurt the cause" - the cause of promoting and supporting the lazy, lying, corrupted and compromised fire fighters.

]

[George II]

144. Sadly, this is all we see lately on DU:

"the whole f-ing town is burning down, and the fire fighters are sitting on their asses making excuses"

About all that many posters in this thread have been doing is sitting on their asses making excuses and placing blame. I've asked a few times here for something specific that can be done - now - in 2008 - to correct things. All I see is esoteric bullshit and "impeach, impeach, impeach"! Would an impeachment proceeding now really get bush out of the white house, and out before his term ends in January? I seriously doubt it on both scores. But, with our economy in the dumpster, gas prices 300% of what they were less than two years ago, our reputation in the international community in shambles, is it really practical and sensible to tie up congress for the next 8-10 months?

If bush committed crimes (which he most certainly did), the courts will still be there AFTER he leaves office and we get this country back on it's feet. Thinking of impeaching NOW is poor timing and ridiculous

[Two Americas]

164. yes

Thanks, I understand your point better now.

The question about what we can do specifically, now, in practical terms comes up often. Usually, there is an unspoken second half to that sentence - "...given that we are going to work within the system, given that we are not going to get 'too radical,' given that we are not willing to take any risks or make any sacrifices..." Under those unspoken set of controlling conditions, the answer is this: "there is nothing effective we can do."

[George II]

168. Thanks..

In all honesty, for effect, I think an ex-president being dragged into Leavenworth in legirons for crimes he committed as president would be much more effective and send a better message to any other president committing crimes. If he were to be impeached and removed from office by Congress, with all the publicity surrounding the impeachment proceding and the evidence that would be used during that proceding, chances are it would be impossible to find an unbiased jury for the ultimate criminal trial.

My opinion is that for the next 7 months we let Congress run the country and get it back on track, and leave it to the courts (domestic AND international) to convict bush/cheney.

[Two Americas]

172. mass organizing, mass strikes, mass resistance

That is what it always takes. I know that many liberal activists think those things are out of fashion or obsolete something - "everything has changed! They didn't have the Internet back then!" (as though we put the Internet to much effective use) - but I think that is merely cowardice and denial, assuaged by a level of relative material comfort and ease and the illusion that we can purchase social justice on the cheap, by "working within the system" or "making baby steps" and so spare ourselves any discomfort or risk or sacrifice.

We aren't special, we aren't immune from the forces of history. Freedom, justice and equality must be fought for. I didn't make that up, it is not part of my "belief system" or something I am promoting or selling, I just noticed it from reading history.

[Freddie Stubbs]

175. These groups are staying focused on the November election rather than tilting at windmills

[Two Americas]

179. I doubt that

They are focused on the success of their organizations, on the income and influence that the leaders and founder enjoy, and on kissing butt to the powers that be and being players in the game. That explains their behavior better than any other bizarre theories that give them a pass. Moveon was once very radical and took risks. the they started making tons of money and became a player. That is how the system works in America, and going along with that makes us part of the problem, and we can never be part of the solution. Money and power and influence and success turn people, almost without exception, very cautious and conservative.

[DearAbby]

6. As a Senator,

Obama can not call for impeachment, that is for the House of Representives to do, he must remain and appear unbiased. The time when this case goes to the senate, he as a senator will sit in judgement.

It is not Obama's place to support this, it is for us to take up the mantle and get our Congress critters to support it.

[Senator]

17. No, Obama Does Not Get A Pass

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. There is no requirement for a Senator to remain or appear anything. Whether he judges specific charges to be proved or not in a Senate trial has nothing to do with demanding that charges be brought.

Obama has responsibility as a party leader and a gov't official under the Geneva treaties. Sadly, he is currently leading the firewall against accountability for the regime, the abandonment of the Constitution, and the aiding/abetting of torture and war crimes.

He's no worse than the rest of the DC-Dem "leadership," but he's no better.

--

[petgoat]

20. Touting removal is biased. Touting impeachment hearings--an investigation--is judicious. nt

[Hart2008]

47. Right! He should simply state that he is a juror in the event of impeachment.

But if he didn't vote to convict in an impeachment action, some people might take a hard look at Nader or Barr.

[defendandprotect]

65. That's BS . . . even Sen, Goldwater found a way to tell us that Nixon was a criminal ---

When you are in the company of garbage you smell it ---

if you don't, you're pretending ---

[DutchLiberal]

199. If it's not his place, he should have shut up about it.

But in 2007, he explicitly said he doesn't support impeachment. If he doesn't want to get judged on this issue, he should have kept his mouth shut.

[Edweird]

7. No. Their complicity has been out in the open since the beginning.

More people are paying attention now. I was using the word complicit about a month after Pelosi was sworn in, only to hear the peanut gallery chorus of "these things take time" over and over again. I am not politically savvy, but I know when I'm being sold out.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Some complicity has been out in the open since 1981

:grr:

[stillcool]

8. Silence is complicity...

for us too.

[varelse]

9. I think he has

and that it is something that needs exposure.

[Fovea]

11. I don't know about complicity

but it has exposed how few congresspersons give an elephant's ass about the constitution and their oath of office.

[Hydra]

14. Never happen

McSame or Obama will get in, pardon everyone, then nuclear bomb Iran into a sheet of plate glass.

I still have to ask, though- WHERE THE HELL IS MY PARTY?!?!?!

[mzmolly]

15. He's exposed why we need to keep Republicans out of office.

eom

[bowens43]

18. No, he hasn't.

[rhett o rick]

77. Not enough information. Please elaborate. nm

[Pooka Fey]

19. K&R

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Pelosi has threatened to remove Conyers from the Judicial Committee if he even opens and inquiry

Sounds like someone has complicity issues, maybe? :shrug:

[Hart2008]

30. He should call her bluff

Her district wants Junior impeached.

If she ignores her district, Cindy Sheehan might win her seat.

[Kansas Wyatt]

34. Agree. He should dump it back in her lap.

He should present to the American people exactly what was said to him, ask the American people for their support, and go forth.

She then has two choices... Be a Mini-Bush or allow the truth to see the light of day. After all, her job is to represent the American people, not cover-up for anyone, especially not vipers in a snake pit.

[Two Americas]

182. one small caveat

Conyers is my rep, and I have to ask people not to forget that as a Black representative he does not enjoy the support of the white liberal community, and that he represents one of the most oppressed and poorest districts in the country, and that he must stand for what the best interests of the people in his community are, not what is best for or desired by the relatively upscale and well-off white liberal activist community.

Black leaders carry a higher burden, and for the most part the white community - liberal or progressive or not whatever - does not have the back of a Black politician.

He is no doubt being held hostage by Pelosi, and is no doubt asking himself if he bests serves the needs of the people he represents by taking a fall or martyring himself. The Black community and the Black representatives were fighting against the right wingers long before and much harder than the white liberal community has ever dreamed of doing, and are at much greater risk and under much more pressure.

For many relatively well-off white liberals, it is just shocking shocking shocking that we live in a police state, and they now think that something must be done! Black people have been living in that police state for a long, long time, and suffering much more from that and at much greater risk than most white liberal activists are.

[defendandprotect]

62. If Pelosi removed Conyers I think she'd have a hell of a riot on her hands . . .????

[Freddie Stubbs]

176. An Conyers has cowardly complied? Are you suggesting that he lacks a backbone?

:shrug:

[bobthedrummer]

22. He is a real threat to the DLC, New Dems and other RW political machines inside the Democratic Party

that are complicit and partners of the BFEE.

[NorthCarolina]

110. Democrats should be voting DLC members out of our party at every opportunity

maybe one day we will actually be able to draw a distinction between the two parties, something that has been missing since the infiltration of the conservative DLC.

[Psyop Samurai]

23. Who didn't see this coming?

And where are the rabid party whips... is it their day off? :shrug: They sure as hell haven't been shamed into silence.

Obama, of course, will do no such thing. He and his backers have orchestrated an end run around these fuckers, but he himself was only in a position to do so by maintaining the BIG LIE.

No, we are to be tended like sheep. Nothing more, nothing less. For we now know that even Roosevelt was more worried about a socialist revolution than a fascist coup. He was their protector. So is Obama. And that, unfortunately, is the best that we can do, given the profoundly deficient state of humanity.

I'm sure we will be chastened soon enough for not disowning people of conscience who have not yet come to that shattering conclusion. And I'm sure whatever goes wrong, it will be all their fault. :eyes:

However, barring any totally unforeseen development, most of us will continue to support impeachment and continue to support Obama.

[defendandprotect]

63. Agree with you re Obama . . ..

He isn't going to come in and open investigations --- it will be like Clinton ---

We also have problems with some of the $ people backing him ---

I really have to start looking into that more ---

THIS is why, in the end the party may be too corrupted already to save ---

It's a question in my mind and I hope the answer is "No" . . . but we'll see ---

Our interests have to be in our nation and what works best to save it ---

[tom_paine]

24. That, or something close to it like simple cowardice and lack of principles.

I didn't want to believe it, because what it really means is that there is no way out of this. Inverted Totalitarianism is here and it's here to stay, is what it means. Maybe Classic Totalitarianism when the "belt tightens" and the economic and environmental chicken REALLY come home to roost.

But the evidence is there, and daily it mounts. Whatever is going on here, it is something well beyond normal politics. I can't pretend to know what it is: complicity, cowardice, blackmail from Bushei spying, playing politics to the point of ignoring High Treason, fear of getting an envelope of Bushie-mailed anthrax, or any combination of any or all of them. I don't know.

But SOMETHING is going on, and it isn't mere politics.

[westcor]

26. my conspiracy theory

I think Bush told Pelosi in 2006 that she wont impeach Bush if he gets rid of Donald Rumsfeld (which he did soon after the dems took over) The Clinton impeachment took forever, and she knew it would go on past till Bush leaves and would be pointless (which I fell is crap; its never too late)

Anyone else think this may of happened?

[magellan]

82. I don't think there was a need for that horse-trade

This is what BushCo is holding over her head:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/accomplices-by-digby-yesterday-on-cnn-i.html

Pelosi knew and said nothing. That makes her complicit in Bush** and Cheney's war crimes.

[undergroundpanther]

27. I know some Dem's are complicit

There is alot of money shady deals and shit that does not make sense that certain Dem's in congress do,they ARE complicit, The DLC was infiltrated by fifth columnist neocons.

I think the Dem party is fractured right along complicity lines.You can infer this if you astutely observe them and compare and you research the vote records and whence comes the money,and the buddies they associate with and, if they attend those neocon prayer breakfasts getting cozy with'the family'. Some Dem's really sold us down a river of shit to be where they are now.And I have no nice things to say about them,they are as criminals to me.

To see these lines look for who is blocking investigations,who rejects impeachment who's too tolerant of bush,too in sync with the corruption to risk standing up against it,too willing to sidestep the real issues,for repetitive bullshit, too eager to let the money talk more than following their own democratic ethical principals they should understand but have seemed to lose in a haze just when it is most needed.
You can see the effect that the neocon culture of corruption has had on our government officials.Just look,read,awaken, it IS a conspiracy.Every time there is a scandal in the halls of power of the magnitude we are dealing with,it takes co-conspirators to make it happen and to cover it up and to make sure the ringleaders(neocons) and their agendas are hidden,and the Dem's that are complicit with it have an interest also in ensuring these corrupt actions are not exposed for it will reveal their complicity further. And people will realize we have been taken over by a silent coup and the Dem's been broken by manipulating fifth column infiltrators and their money and flawed arguments .We would realize our government is under siege by these corrupted,psychopathic, fascist theocratic elements that should have no place holding political power in a democracy, if our democracy was functioning as it should be...Kuchinich is fighting it,but As for Pelosi she is complicit she is protecting bush. Why? COMPLICITY.
She is a neoconned ass kisser scumbag in my eyes forever I hope she takes her skank ass away from baltimore and never returns here when she leaves washington.I am that ashamed of her..

[LWolf]

29. YES. n/t

[Echo In Light]

31. Abso-fucking-lutely. K&R

[crickets]

32. YES.

[snot]

33. fyi

under most states' criminal law, anyone who knows of a crime and fails to report it is automatically an accessory to it and also criminal.

These Dems have had the power not just to report it but to investigate and prosecute it -- 35 counts of it -- and they've had plenty of time to do it and they have refused despite more than adequate public support, even from a population largely brainwashed by the corporate media. 98% of Congressional Dems are OWNED.

I'm frankly scared of sacrificing Obama to this cause. However complicit the Dems, I don't think Obama would continue to wreak the havoc on the rest of us at the same rate the Repubs will (esp. considering that McCain, even if he had any integrity left, which doesn't seem to be the case, seems senile -- just the kind of plausible tool his corp. masters can use).

But to those who defend Dems against the "complicit" charge -- well to me, with dam' few exceptions (Kucinich being one), that's sheer delusion -- or an attempt to delude others.

[OzarkDem]

36. I have a feeling, he knows even more

about Dem complicity, but because of his loyalty to the party, he would never admit it.

[Runcible Spoon]

37. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up in a small aircraft crash with what he knows...

and he would wringing his hands with Wellstone in the afterlife.

Two of my all-time favorite Dems.

[Vilis Veritas]

44. Of course he does...

These are warning shots. Each time he introduces this he lets more on the record.

He will come back with 60 articles if this one dies.

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2257&Itemid=1

saddlesore

[slipslidingaway]

38. Yes, he has in the past and not just on impeachment...

On health care

Kucinich on Health Care and Prescription drugs 2004

Kucinich has been consistent on this issue, he brought the issue of single-payer health care to the 2000 and 2004 Democratic Platform Committees, but the idea was rejected.

As he has said many times this is a fight within the Democratic Party

video at link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=75044


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/13059612.html

"Chris Hedges: Why has the Democratic Party not done what it should do?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Lack of commitment to Democratic principles. No understanding of the period of history we're in. Failure to appreciate the necessity of the coequality of Congress. Unwillingness to assert Congressional authority in key areas which makes the people's House paramount to protecting democracy. The institutionalized influence of corporate America through the Democratic leadership council. Those are just a few.

Hedges: Have we evolved into a corporate state?

Kucinich: I Look at it as the political equivalent of genetic engineering. That we've taken the gene of corporate America and shot it into both political parties. So they both now are growing with that essence within. So what does that mean? It means oil runs our politics. Corrupt Wall Street interests run our politics. Insurance companies run our politics. Arms manufacturers run our politics. And the public interest is being strangled. Fulfilling the practical aspirations of people should be our mission. How do we measure up to providing people with jobs? It was a Democratic president that made it possible for NAFTA to be passed, causing millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs that help support the middle class. . . .NAFTA, GAT, the WTO, China Trade, and every other trade agreement that's passed in Congress has been passed with the help of either the leadership of or with the help of the Democratic Party, knowing that each and every one of those agreements was devoid of protections for workers, knowing that if you don't have workers' rights put into a trade agreement then workers here in the United States are going to see their own bargaining position undermined because corporations can move jobs out of the country to places where workers don't have any rights. They don't have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike. So what I see is that the Democratic Party abandoned working people, and paradoxically they're the ones who hoist the flag of workers every two and four years only to engender excitement, and then to turn around and abandon their constituency. This is now on the level of a practiced ritual. At least a biannual ceremony, or every two years. So you can see how pernicious this becomes when the minimum wage increase was tied to funding the war. That, to me, says it all. Because it is inevitably the sons and daughters of working Americans that are the ones who are led to slaughter. Aspirations for health care... So what I've done in my campaign is to advocate a full-employment economy. How do you do that? A new WPA-type program. We'll rebuild America's bridges, water systems, sewer systems, our libraries, our universities, our mass transit systems..."

[pberq]

40. Kucinich - great American and Democrat

[bertman]

50. Thanks for NOT slipslidingaway on this post.

The Congressman has nailed it and isn't afraid to let the world know.

A few other reasons the Dems are complicit:

They're human beings just like the Repugs. So, they love the power. They love the perks. They love the adulation they receive because of their station in life (It's like being a TV or movie star--Oh! Oh! Look, there's Senator So and So!! Ooh! Aaah!!) They screw up sometimes and being in the sightline of the ALL-SEEING EYE they get videoed or record-eeoed. Then they get compromise-eeoed and told how to vote-eeoe.

The power elite have been playing this game for CENTURIES. And playing it very successfully. Now they have digital and electronic devices that allow them to have access to about any place on the planet. They know that knowledge is power, but the knowledge they have is about the things our Senators and Congressmen don't WANT them or us to know about. Well, too bad!! They've got it and they're going to use it if our reps don't do as they're told.

This makes me wonder about Dennis Kucinich, who I admire greatly. Has he been so honest and above reproach that he is untouchable? Or does he just not care what they might have on him?

Excuse my cynicism. It's just that I can't understand how else otherwise good Democrats and honest (though misguided) Republicans would let this happen to our republic.

[slipslidingaway]

127. Welcome to DU, yes he nailed it. As to why others do not

see the gravity of the situation I have no explanation.

[defendandprotect]

66. And some say this man couldn't be elected --- !!!!

They were so concerned about him that they ushered him off the stage as quickly as possible ---

My hero!!

[NorthCarolina]

112. "The institutionalized influence of corporate America through the Democratic leadership council"

that says it all.

I hope every Democrat voter makes a commitment to vote the DLC out of our party at every opportunity. If you want change in Washington, there is no better place to start than doing this. If we are stuck with a two party system then we need to have two parties that differ on the issues. There is no place for corporate conservative DLC legislators in a progressive Democratic Party.

[windoe]

39. So Representative financial ties to corporations needs to be put 'on the table'

for all to see! I wonder who can stand up to that scrutiny? Probably few, but we can put the ball in their court by taking the invisibility cloak off the big corporate elephant in the room. It has to be done sometime, either we expose all the corporate ties, or this elephant will continue to run the show behind the scenes.
Time to play hard ball.

[defendandprotect]

67. Teddy Roosevelt in . . . 1915 . . . ??? "Corporations have to be barred ...

from any participation in our elections."

[windoe]

103. This is the key- corporate ties to government and corporate personhood

if these two things were changed in the course of impeachment, we would be miles ahead toward being back on track in this country. We can call them on it now.

[cynatnite]

42. Another idiot who forgot to read the constitution and can't count count...

Two thirds vote in the senate is needed to convict and there is zero chance of that happening with it being an almost even split. If the two thirds were there bush and cheney would have been impeached, convicted and imprisoned a long time ago.

He ignores the fact that the repukes are the ones who refuse to acknowledge the laws bush has broken. He also ignores the fact that it is the repukes who have covered for the bush administration and let them get away with it all for majority of the time bush has been in office.

What does he do? Blame the Dems.

This is embarrassing for a candidate.

[Two Americas]

51. utter nonsense

Leaving the snarky little school yard bully taunts about not reading the Constitution and not being able to count aside for the moment, let's examine the logic you are using here. If every criminal case were approached the way you are suggesting we approach impeachment - that a slam dunk case is needed before proceedings begin - we may as well disband the police departments and prosecutor's offices.

I think there is a high probability that once started, impeachment proceedings will get strong public support. But of course before the public can support anything the politicians need to be speaking about those things, and before that happens we need to be pressuring them to speak about those things. That is how a representative democracy works, and what you are advocating short-circuits that process and corrodes and eventually destroys democracy.

Senators do at some point need to answer to the public, regardless of which party they belong to. We have a representative democracy, as i said, and politics is dynamic and interactive and volatile. Always hedging out bets and playing the odds is to trade away any power to change the odds, to gain control over the national political discussion.

We may not succeed at the things we advocate, but one thing is for sure. If we do not advocate for what is right, we will never achieve anything. Every good and successful political idea started with a handful of people, as did every successful political movement. Had people said in the 1850's "oh well Congress and the Supreme Court are all in favor of slavery, so no sense pushing abolition and it is more important that we get Whigs elected right now - they are better than the Democrats!! - and advocating for Abolition right now is a distraction and we don't have the votes and it will hurt our possibility of winning the elections..." actually that is what people said, and the people saying that controlled the Whig party. That led to the death of the Whig party, followed thereafter by the success of the supposedly impossible cause - Abolition.

If impeachment is in fact doomed, it is because of people such as yourself spreading these ideas, not because of any "numbers."

The thing most harming the Democratic party is this persistent and clearly false notion that we must choose between principle and practicality, between winning and what is right. The two are not at odds with each other. Taking stands on principle is what leads to practical success. Playing it safe and compromising on what is morally right is what leads to failure.

[cynatnite]

55. Two thirds majority in the senate to convict....

It's in the constitution.

If the repukes won't even break from bush on the unpopular war, there is no way they'll vote to impeach or convict him. Even now as a minority in the house and the senate...they are still in lock-step with bush.

I think bush and cheney should be impeached to hell and back, but in the real world with politics as it is today (not the civil war era)they cannot get the votes. Reid, Pelosi and Obama all know it. They all agree that impeachment is not realistic.

This is reality...not the fantasy land that so many of you wish it were. Yes, morality is on our side on this, but it's not enough. The numbers do matter. Ask Hillary Clinton.

[Two Americas]

58. you have to be kidding

Why drag Clinton into this discussion?

The numbers follow taking a stand, not the other way around.

I don't see any evidence to support your idea that lessons from the Civil War era are inappropriate or obsolete. As a scholar of that era, what is remarkable to me is just how similar the behavior and thinking within the modern Democratic party is to that in the Whig party at that time. It is uncanny how similar the two are.

I don't see the war as being an issue that people would be more likely to break with their own party over. Of course, I don't see "the war" as an issue at all. For one thing there is no "war" - that is right wing framing.

Reid, Pelosi, and Obama all agree that impeachment is unrealistic? That is a pretty faint endorsement of the cautious and cowardly position. It is too soon to assess Obama, but I think Pelosi and Reid are two of the weakest politicians in history. They make people like James Buchanan or Calvin Coolidge look radical by comparison. I certainly hope that Obama is not in the same category.

I see no evidence that the Republicans are any more "in lockstep" with their leadership than you are asking us to be with ours.

By the way, in a healthy representative democracy, the politicians represent us, not the other way around. Our job is not to be sycophants and blind followers, promoting and defending politicians. You are asking us to abrogate our civic duty and moral responsibility.

[cynatnite]

59. The numbers matter and even Hillary had to accept it...

So does everyone else who thinks that impeachment somehow magically will happen.

The reason why the civil war era doesn't work in this case is because it was a completely different time, circumstances and just doesn't equate with what is going on here. They are not similar at all unless you think Lincoln was worthy of impeaching because of the things he did during the civil war.

Repukes will not break from bush. There is no denying that reality. There is also NO evidence to indicate they will.

Can you honestly see McCain doing it? Orin Hatch? Can you list the 17 or so republican senators that would be willing to vote to convict?

Obama has said impeachment is not acceptable. Here is a link...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Now, if you want to pull your support...more power to you, but think what will happen if McCain gets the WH. We get more bush years. Frankly, I'll take Obama any day of the week over impeachment....because I know that Obama winning the WH has a far better chance than the other. I won't waste no energy on what I consider a pointless effort.

You don't have to tell me how this democracy is supposed to work. Sadly, it's taken this obscene administration to school me...plus a few good online friends who said to read the constitution at least a couple of times a year.

Impeaching them is the moral thing to do. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying is that impeachment is not going to happen. Period.

[Two Americas]

70. you are lecturing me without cause or credibility

I reject the idea that enforcing group think is the path to success, let alone the only path to success. I have found, in 40 years of working for the party, that the exact opposite is true. I loathe and object to your use of the tactic of insinuating that those who disagree with you are therefore disloyal or suspect in some way. That is highly suppressive and manipulative.

Merely saying that your ideas are more loyal or are helping defeat the Republicans does not make that so, nor does it give your ideas instant and automatic credibility or value.

You haven't responded to any of my points.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

214. I agree with you

on this...

If seeing an injustice and pointing it out is wrong, well then we are fucked.

[karynnj]

188. Thank you for being a sane poster

There are not enough votes and at this point, there likely is not enough time. I think the Senate has a break in August followed by a short session before the elections. This has yet to be debated in the House. Feingold only got three co-sponsors for a censure - a milder measure and that was over a year ago - They were Boxer, Harkin and Kerry.

We can still investigate it when Bush is out of office. We do need an accounting of what did happen.

[Two Americas]

198. that is not the way politics work

You may not win this time around, and there are always and have always been "practical" arguments against taking political stands, but it is dead certain that you will never successfully fight for political principles if you refuse to start advocating for the cause sometime, and there is never a better time to do so than right now.

Don't you realize that the abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, labor unions and workers' rights, the end of child labor were all called "impractical" at one time, that this is always the main argument against fighting for social justice, and that if people had waited until it was practical before they started fighting for those things, or waited until they were assured of victory, that those things would not have happened? Don't you realize that the same arguments you are using have been used all throughout history to block social progress and to deny justice and freedom, almost word-for word?

This "elections first then principles" approach has failed again, and again, and again. If we reward politicians by electing them for cowardice and clever self-serving mealy-mouth nothings, then they will never have any incentive to take any kind of stand. Once they are in office, they don't have to listen to us at all and we lose all leverage and power.

Can you imagine if we hired employees that way? "I will give you the job, and then once you are entrenched in it and it is almost impossible to remove you, THEN I will tell you what I want you to do. Here are the keys to the building and the password for the company bank account while we are at it. I will let you know in 4 years if I like what you have done, and will then tell you what I wanted. I really admire the way you are so vague and refuse to tell me what you will do once you have the job, and that you don't think that what I want you to do is 'practical." Just the kind of employee we have been looking for. By the way, you will become a millionaire in the next couple of years if that is OK with you. Don't worry about me, I can live in that trailer out back and cut back on food and medicine. If any of the other idiotic people around here dare criticize you in any way, or question this relationship we have, I will attack them and drive them away for you, so don't worry about that either."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. You're guilty of excessive pragmatism

Impeachment proceedings would make the general public aware of the Republicans' crimes. It would be a great education in Constitutional principles, education that is greatly lacking.

[petgoat]

126. We count the votes AFTER the hearings. Not before.

Hearings would make headlines, which would arouse public opinion,
which may make the Republican Party impeach Bush to save the party.

Why do you think the lack of votes now translates to a lack of votes
after public hearings?

[Two Americas]

181. of course

You are talking real world practical realistic politics, and describing the way that politics work. Ironic that some are calling that "tilting at windmills" or "impractical."

"No sense in making an arrest or holding a trial, we know how juries always vote."

How about this, then to all of the people ridiculing and mocking and dismissing us dissidents -

"No sense in being impractical and having elections or working for the party, or even talking about politics. The wealthy and powerful control everything, and we already know what they want and that they are opposed to us. So let's not waste time and energy anymore fighting them and let's be realistic grown-ups and accept the way things are, and just find our little place at the bottom of the heap and be grateful for whatever crumbs fall our way."

There is infinitely more truth and logic to that statement than there is to the notions that impeachment is a distraction or a waste of time.

By the logic of the naysayers on this thread, we should just give up any political work or discussion at all, because none of it is realistic or practical so long as the wealthy and powerful few control everything - and they certainly do.

[LWolf]

115. "The two are not at odds with each other."

Thank you for that rare gem of truth and common sense.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Vilis Veritas]

43. Dennis said that if this one dies he will bring it back...

with 60 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I think that Dennis is firing warning shots over their bow. His current articles implicate that at least some Dem leaders were knowledgeable about several impeachable offenses and he is letting them know that he will enter into the record even more of their complicity if they do not at least TRY.

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2257&Itemid=1

saddlesore

[Pavulon]

45. He is on minute 18..

of his lot. Lets elect a president and actually fix the problem. Novel concept.

[FunMe]

46. WHY does Pelosi keep getting reelected???

And from "lilberal" San Francisco no less!

[Twist_U_Up]

49. Diebold?

[cynatnite]

56. Nine times with an average of 81% of the vote...so I'd say you're wrong...

Since first winning her House seat in a 1987 special election, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has breezed to re-election nine times with a whopping average of 81.66 percent of the vote.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/20/BAG4PLT1OC1.DTL

[cynatnite]

57. Ask the 81 percenters...that's been her average over the years...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/20/BAG4PLT1OC1.DTL

[bertman]

60. 81% BASED ON HER LIBERAL RECORD PRIOR TO NOW

I may be in "fantasyland" about the impeachment, but it's hard for me to believe Nancy will do 81% after this godawful mess.

There has to be a limit to how often even Democratic voters will pull the lever for someone who has been such a dismal failure as Speaker as she.

In the event they vote her back in, then those San Francisco libruls once again get the sorry-assed gummint they deserve.


P.S. Before the '06 elections I remember all the frickin angst about having Nancy "the San Francisco LIBERAL" Pelosi as Speaker. So much for that crap.



Goddam!!! Sometimes I hate the Democratic Party. Cowards and asshats except for a valiant few.

[George II]

102. If that's the way you feel, change your affiliation to "republican"

[NorthCarolina]

113. I think it's better to change the Democratic Party by voting out the DLC

eom

[George II]

121. OK, fine...

How do you propose we do that?

[NorthCarolina]

128. Well, if your legislator is up for election and you know he is a DLC member

then during the primary see if he has a democratic challenger, and if that challenger is also not affiliated with the DLC. If so, then campaign for that guy over the incumbent during the primary. Voting is a supposed to be a means whereby citizens can rid themselves of legislators they don't like. I think it's like the basic premise of our electoral system, or something like that.

[George II]

143. What's the deal with the DLC? Why is everyone so set against them?

Seems people like to bitch about them, but I don't recall seeing anything specific (or significant!) here.

[NorthCarolina]

148. Because they are a conservative influence on the Democratic Party

and one of the primary reasons that we now find the Democrats complicit in much of the Republican sponsored legislation that we all come here and bitch about. DLC members should rightly be Republicans, and in fact actually represent GOP-like infiltration into the Democratic Party. Wikipedia has plenty on the DLC if you are unfamiliar with it.

[George II]

I'm familiar with the DLC, just not familiar with this irrational perception of the DLC.

[NorthCarolina]

156. Oh, and whats your perception of the DLC

please enlighten us.

[George II]

159. My perception certainly isn't one of a bunch of democrats in cahoots with conservatives.

That idea is ludicrous.

[NorthCarolina]

160. Ludicrous as it may seem, that's exactly what the DLC is.

It's easy to look it up for yourself and find out rather than to just go by some gut feeling that "it can't possibly be true".

[George II]

169. It's even easier for you to say specifically what they "are" instead of these vague accusations.

[bertman]

130. I TRIED THAT 44 YEARS AGO, BUT COULDN'T HANG WITH THEM AFTER

I spent a tour in Nam. Gave Perot a good listen-to but stuck with the Dems. Thought about joining up with the Greens when Ralphie Boy ran in 2000, but didn't do that.

Unfortunately our system is set up for the two parties. And while I agree with the broad spectrum of Dem political thought I find our leadership is too timid and poll-oriented. I'm counting on Hopey to change that.

[George II]

151. Hopey? Who the F- is that?

[Two Americas]

137. there is liberal, and then there is liberal

We have a serious split in the party, and modern liberalism is ascendant right now at the expense of the traditional FDR New Deal coalition. Pelosi perfectly represents the modern upscale liberalism of "personal choices" and cultural and lifestyle issues, and politically that is 90% about the prejudices of suburban professionals and has little to do with working class politics. The needs and concerns of professional people - bike paths, organic choices, "socially responsible investing" - there is an oxymoron - and other pursuits available only to the upscale few are not relevant or meaningful to most of the people in the country who were once part of the New Deal coalition.

[onenote]

208. well, she just got 89 percent in the primary

So I guess what you find hard to believe may nonetheless be the real world

[mmonk]

61. Easy. The average American hasn't figured

everything out yet.

[bertman]

81. Sadly, if they're busy watching MSNBC, Fox or American idol, they won't.

[defendandprotect]

68. There's only one answer: MONEY ---

If you've ever tried to work with the Democrats you quickly become aware that there's a money barrier, money ceiling --- we're electing multi-millionaire Democrats. What sense could that make?

[George II]

101. Um, maybe because she serves her constituency? Isn't that how it works?

[Greyhound]

161. Yes, just look at her donor lists and then look at the names of the beneficiaries

of her largess. They have stolen billions while the voters nod their heads in unison.

We have similar systems here, Nike is the most obvious of them. Oregon has a rep as being very liberal, but get outside the heart of Portland and you'd swear you're in Kansas with trees.

[George II]

167. Hah! I guess the American form of democracy isn't good enough for you?

A representative gets more votes than her opponent (far more, considering her average margin is in the range of 80% vs. 20% for the opponent) and you don't like it?

Again...HAH!

[Two Americas]

184. dollars vote

Dollars do the voting, not the people. Who wins is dependent much more on who gets the dollars than who gets the votes, since the dollars determine which candidates the public even hears about. Once in office, the politicians act on behalf of their wealthy donors at the expense of the welfare of the people, and we are surprised and then blame "the DLC" or some other such nonsense.

Is that the "American form of democracy" to which you refer?

[Greyhound]

190. Depends on what you're talking about, the myth of American Democracy

or the reality of the Amerikan democratic theater.

Define your terms and we can discuss.

"I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." - Harriet Tubman

[tavalon]

124. Same reason every incumbent (generally) gets reelected

Name recognition by voters who don't bother to pay attention to what their representative is actually doing in DC. The primaries are generally attended by more activist folk, whereas the general elections bring out the voter who cares enough to vote but not enough to research.

[KoKo]

48. K&R... "Some so..called" Progressive Blogs have been very silent on Kucinich

..yet they Called for us To SUPPORT OBAMA...as "THE ONE!" So, I'm looking for some "pay back."

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

52. k and r

Thanks for this kpete.

[G_j]

53. agreed

[balantz]

54. Thanks kpete

K&R

[TreasonousBastard]

72. This bullshit is a waste of electrons...

We're supposed to withhold out support from the Democratic nominee and hold him hostage to some statement about impeachment? Just how insane is that?

And this demand comes from some guy who claims to be running for the Senate from Minnesota? Against Al Franken? Seems he's running as a Green, but he doesn't say anything about that on his own website. Flaky?

Anyway, yeah, hold up the whole campaign just to have Obama endorse impeachment, which he's not supposed to have anything to do with until and unless it happens and he has to vote on it as a Senator.

And you people are cheering this on? We're all supposed to be on the same side, but not the same side of stupid.

[DeeDeeNY]

107. What you said -- Exactly right!

My thoughts exactly. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

[LWolf]

116. I don't believe there is anything

in the OP about holding Obama hostage to a statement about impeachment. I'll reread to be sure.

I do know that there is one post in here somewhere about holding everyone BUT Obama accountable, giving him a pass to make sure he's elected.

This really is not about the election. It's about the Constitution and the rule of law, which isn't, and shouldn't, be suspended for campaign purposes.

[Desertrose]

132. I was going to comment that its sad that the election

cannot be the same as supporting the constitution and speaking truth. But those days are long gone- if they ever existed at all.*sigh*




At this point, its all about good media so we can get a dem in office so shut up and don't give the *other side* any fodder for the media.

Gee, will some of us never learn?? :sarcasm:

:hi: LWolf:hug:
:loveya:DR

[LWolf]

136. Hi, friend!

I hope you are doing well. We are all doing well in most ways except for $$$.

For the Democratic Party these days, "winning" trumps everything, even when it is meaningless.

[Cleita]

74. He has. He was

interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He was very critical of the Democratic leadership in allowing these criminal behaviors by the White house to not be brought to a hearing for accountability. He said that it is the duty of Congress to hold the White House accountable and they aren't doing it. He's very right and I think every Democratic Representative who does not sign on to this is just as complicit in the criminality as George Bush and Dick Cheney. There's no need to mention the Republicans, they already have so much blood on their hands that it would be redundant.

[rhett o rick]

75. As usual kpete, I'm with you all the way. k&r. nm

[jonestonesusa]

78. What a great article and discussion.

I found this post and discussion to be full of insight. I have not yet read the articles of impeachment, despite their significance and despite the political courage of Dennis Kucinich. This has been a good reminder that I must read them, and it's a reminder of how easy it is to adopt a corporate media framework for how you react to news like this. Dismissal is exactly what the corporate media standpoint would encourage.

OTOH, since it's 2008 rather than 2005, I think it's fair to consider whether it's pragmatic for Obama and other Dem leaders to support an impeachment trial at this time. What matters is results - so what is the best method to implement more progressive politics, including openness in government and more control over moneyed interests by the population at large? I'm not certain if an impeachment trial in June 2008 gets better results than elections in November. If Obama runs a good campaign at the top of the ticket, given the state of the economy and foreign policy the Republicans will likely get their butts handed to them this election. Which is more likely to lead to political realignment in the months to come - an impeachment trial or an all out effort for a big win in the 2008 election campaign? I think the latter.

[Cleita]

80. It's important if we don't want the same criminals to resurface in eight

years with a new playbook for the same old crimes. If everyone had their day in court from the Watergate and Iran Contra days, most of these players would be in their cells doing time instead of being free to foster the next generation of crooks that we want to impeach today.

[LWolf]

117. Impeachment is not about the election.

It's about the Constitution and the rule of law. Those things can't be suspended for elections.

There will be no political realignment in the months to come if government knows it can violate the Constitution without consequence; if Democratic leadership continues to be complicit with the current criminal corruption.

[jonestonesusa]

119. To a point, I agree...of course the rule of law is important

but it still comes down to timing and results. The current impeachment action may not succeed, given that the House Speaker is against it, and the Dems have a bare majority in the Senate that includes Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Evan Bayh. Both success in elections and law enforcement are necessary to challenge corruption and criminal behavior by officeholders, contractors, etc.

I admire Kucinich's action, and because it educates the public about law violations under Bush, it certainly can contribute to challenging corruption whether it succeeds or not. But I still think it's fair for Obama to weigh the chances of success before supporting impeachment now. What if the result is to diminish the Democrats' chances in November? How would that be helpful toward ending corruption?

Also, on the Watergate example - the Democrats had a significant majority in the House and Senate at that time, and still the Watergate players keep popping up again. Given that even with the advantage of numbers, the Democrats still couldn't get enough criminal convictions, I do not see how those convictions are likely to happen now, five months before the presidential election.

However, I do not think Obama should speak out against it, and neither should Pelosi. I think they should allow Conyers and the House committee to do its work.

[LWolf]

120. It doesn't have to succeed.

The violations have been entered as part of the permanent record, so something has already been accomplished. I'd like to see the proceedings go forward, and Congress do their duty, regardless of the outcome.

I agree that Conyers should be allowed to move forward without any strong-arming on the part of party leaders.

[AuntPatsy]

90. Excellent op, kick and recommended...

[Triana]

95. YES. n/t

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

96. The important thing is to put Bush's crimes on record

As it stands right now, Bush's ability to stonewall even the slightest investigation into his actions has insured that the history of his Administration will be written by the same sort of people as those who produced "The Path to 9-11", which cast Clinton as villain and Bush as savior.

We may not get a "conviction" (in actuality, the only thing the Senate can do is remove the President from office; it doesn't impose criminal penalties), but we will get a legal record of every illegal action or inaction taken by Bush during his time in office. And that's important enough to move forward with impeachment.

I tend to agree with those who believe that Pelosi's extraordinary efforts to keep impeachment "off the table" suggests motives other than those she is willing to offer.

[lonestarnot]

165. Then impeach, then convict.

[Norrin Radd]

97. kr

[George II]

98. I'm voting for Al Franken

Thanks to the Green Party:

We have no World Trade Center or 3000 people who worked there
4000+ brave Americans are gone
Our environment has been raped by the bush administration
Gasoline prices have risen 300%
Taxes for average Americans are UP
The Supreme Court is stacked with neo-conservatives

need more?

[Orsino]

104. Yes, he has.

I'll still vote for any Dem (or even Lieberman) over any Republican, but goddamn it, the parties resemble each other too strongly these days.

[NorthCarolina]

114. Why is there little difference between the two parties?

Because the corporate conservative DLC has infiltrated the Democratic Party. If your Senator or Representative is identified with the DLC then vote to replace them with a real Democrat at every opportunity. I say, lets start a movement to eradicate the DLC.

[Two Americas]

135. attacking a label

What does "eradicate the DLC" mean? So what if there were no DLC? How would that change the way the politicians are operating? It isn't as though they are doing the bidding of the wealthy and powerful few because the DLC exists, it is the other way around. Why the need to make everything into a Hollywood melodrama? "The DLC - that is the evil secret society that must be eradicated!" How does that change the power relationships in the country? This need to find an easy way out, a simplistic scenario of good versus evil, just facilitates and promotes the avoidance of the truth and continued cowardice and paralysis and fantasizing. Corporate interests own our government, and will continue to own it no matter whether there is a DLC or not until and unless we are ready and willing to fight back.

[NorthCarolina]

139. It's not getting rid of a "label"

it's getting rid of regressive corporate-conservative influence within the Democrat Party, and returning the party to a progressive platform independent of that DLC influence. These DLC'ers should rightly be Republicans anyway.

[Two Americas]

140. how?

I agree with you that "getting rid of regressive corporate-conservative influence within the Democrat Party" is absolutely essential. I just don't think "DLC" has anything to do with that. The corporate influence over the party is pervasive, even here among the Dem activists and voters. This fake fight against the mythical "DLC" is scape goating - we place all of the evil on this "DLC" evil organization in lieu of looking at the bigger picture - that we are all owned by corporate power, all of our thinking is permeated and dominated by corporate propaganda, and that we can hardly even have a discussion here about that let alone reach any consensus that would even vaguely resemble the old New Deal program or anything that can be called politically "left wing" with a straight face.

As I said, of we are going to see the evil DLC as the problem, and "getting rid" of it - whatever that means - as the solution. we may as well blame the Illuminati or the Free Masons. That is a simple-minded and easy answer that costs nothing, that requires no risk, and that serves to disguise the extent of the problem and what would be needed to overcome it. Getting rid of the DLC is a feel-good nothing. About 1% of the people in the country even know what the DLC is, or why it would matter. It doesn't matter. It is a distraction, it is a way to feel like we are doing something or taking some kind of stand when we really are not; when we in fact are desperately avoiding facing the problem and taking any personal risk or making any sacrifice. Escapism, scape goating, denial and avoidance. That is what the fight against the DLC is about.

[NorthCarolina]

147. The DLC espouses conservative values, the DLC has great influence in the Democratic Party

a way to start is to begin to reject the anti-populist, pro-corporate positions held by the DLC by rejecting their members as they come up to vote. Is this all we need to do? No. Is it a start in the right direction, and will it send the right message to our legislators? Yes.

[Two Americas]

163. other way around

The DLC reflects the corruption of the party by corporate interests and the libertarianism of modern liberalism, it does not cause it.

"Getting rid of the DLC" is a superficial and cosmetic change.

[Voltaire99]

111. Yes he has, but Dem complicity has other markers, too.

Such as voting for war appropriations.

For Bush tax cuts.

For Homeland Security.

That's the way the duopoly works: "two cozily-fused buttocks of the same giant derriere."

[wurzel]

123. Dems are complicit because they knew Bush was lying.

They had to know he was lying because it was manifestly impossible for Iraq to have the weapons Bush said they had. We had gone through the country ten years previously with our own military. Since that time we were spying on them 24/7. Anyone who has ever seen Hanwell, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, a Dupont chemical plant, or a Martin Lockheed factory would know that you can't make military chemical weapons or nuclear missiles in a basement.

[tomp]

125. i support kucinich...

...because there is nothing more important than the education of the american people. we should get the people used to the idea of impeachment because it is the tool of last resort in a time of last resort. the more frequently we use impeachment the sharper the tool becomes and we can excise corruption when necesary. i would be joyously surprised if we were to acutally convict in the senate (senate dems are complicit, too) but i still want to go through with the exercise. win or lose the crimes will be exposed.

as for obama, i demand either solid support for impeachment or solid support for criminal trials. i'll take both if he is willing but neither is a deal-breaker. this is my #1 issue. if obama doesn't come through...

[Zorra]

133. IMO, Barack is wise to stay out of this. However, every other Dem has no excuse.

If impeachment clears the House, and the House produces indisputable evidence that Bu*h has committed crimes, then Senator Obama will have no option except to vote for conviction in a Senate trial.

[karynnj]

189. If the House in the next month or so does all that,

Obama and every Senator will vote on it. I'm not holding my breath - because the time is just not there.

[earth mom]

149. Yes, Yes, and Yes! And we can assume they have something to hide!

:grr:

[Wapsie B]

150. Yup.

[Radical Activist]

170. What self indulgent bullshit.

Now is the time to get a new liberal Democrat in the White House and that's Barack Obama. This is not the time to start derailing his message with childish temper tantrums that he speak about impeachment "or else!"

The marginalization of Kucinich is inexcusable. Tim Russert was one of the worst and he did it deliberately. But you now, Dennis makes himself an easy target. Impeachment would get farther if someone else were carrying the banner.

[Raksha]

180. How does Dennis "make himself an easy target"?

By insisting that people take him seriously even though he's short? By having big ears? By not being able to get past the conspiracy of silence that either ignores him or ridicules him?

Re Dennis makes himself an easy target. Impeachment would get farther if someone else were carrying the banner.

I agree that impeachment would get further if someone TALLER were carrying the banner, someone who couldn't be written off as "the Keebler elf." But what the hell...you start with the congressional backbone you have, even if you wish said backbone were longer.

God, what a superficial country the corporate media have turned us into!

[Radical Activist]

187. By working harder, being better organized, hiring better staff and not saying he saw a UFO.

And he needs to keep the goofy new age spiritualism shit to himself.

[Runcible Spoon]

193. I don't believe in teh Christian god but you don't see me going on about an invisible man in the sky

why can't you show someone else's beliefs the same courtesy?

[Runcible Spoon]

192. try to explain to me how you reconcile having Che up there with that sentiment!

I'm so sick of the reasoning that pushing to uphold the Constitution and holding felons responsible for heinous acts against humanity somehow interferes with Obama's campaign. Obama is NOT entitled to the presidency, as is ANY other candidate regardless of their political orientation! It's a sad day when we have to work for the interests of the candidates instead of the candidates working for US..our laws, our people, our future. I get nauseous every time Obama is given a free pass to chicken out on this one.

And then to pin your dismay on some dubious character smear of Kucinich is just absolutely mind boggling!

[Radical Activist]

195. Oh. You're still on DU?

I wonder how many people gave Dennis a free pass we he DIDN'T call for impeachment of Bush during either of his two Presidential campaigns? Maybe even Dennis had enough political savvy to know that it distracts from a positive, hopeful discussion of the issues.

And I know enough about Kucinich to realize that his biggest obstacles to succeeding are not external. This is not about a character smear. The bill should be in the hands of someone who has a demonstrated ability to work with allies and build enough support for a bill to pass it through Congress. That isn't Dennis.

[Solon]

201. When did Barack Obama turn into a liberal?

Look, if you wish to redefine the center as the "new liberal" that's your business, but all you are accomplishing is making the label "liberal" meaningless.

[Radical Activist]

211. He's the first left wing movement activist to become the Democratic nominee.

He became a liberal many years ago and his career record shows he stayed one. Are you familiar with Project Vote and ACORN? If you want to redefine Obama as a moderate that's fine but all you're accomplishing is promoting cynicism with the same broken record attacks we heard with Gore and Kerry.

[Solon]

213. And can you point to any of his policy positions that are anything approaching the left wing?

Really, I would love to see it, links to his website are welcome.

[Smear Talk Express]

183. ewww

Pelosi's a wimp...She reminds me of those social democrats from post-WW1 Germany who sent right-wing Freikorps after genuine progressives.

[Radical Activist]

196. Kucinich didn't speak out for impeachment either time he ran for President.

The op-ed is hypocritical.

[Fireweed247]

206. He promised Impeachment while running for president

but he did wait over a year to actually do it since he has been talking about it.

[slipslidingaway]

209. Video... April 2007 Democratic debate

WHO HERE SUPPORTS THE KUCINICH PLAN TO IMPEACH DICK CHENEY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBS4SWC-BY8


Democrats Debate In Philly: Kucinich Calls For Impeachment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZQK3hh0KE

DENNIS KUCINICH DEMANDS IMPEACHMENT NOW! DURING DEBATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGwwovW_t4s


He spoke of impeachment many times during this last run and also why he introduced Articles of Impeachment against Cheney first.

I am sure it is one reason MSNBC changed the qualifying rules for the debate in January 2008, include single-payer health care, pushing back against the Iran war drums, reducing military spending to take care of people here in the US instead etc. etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_333

"House Resolution 333 (H.Res. 333) is a resolution proposed in the House of Representatives on April 24, 2007 by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the 110th United States Congress which, if passed, would impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on three charges. If the House approves an article of impeachment, it then moves to the Senate, which has constitutional authority to try, and with a two-thirds vote, remove a person from office.

After six months without a debate or vote on H Res 333 (either in a committee or on the floor of the House), Kucinich re-introduced its identical content as a new resolution, H.Res. 799, on November 6, 2007. Like H Res 333, the new resolution was also referred to the Judiciary Committee..."

[Radical Activist]

210. Dick Cheney is not George Bush.

Why is Obama a coward and Kucinich a hero for both doing the same thing?

[slipslidingaway]

212. It's about the crimes of the Bush administration which includes

both Cheney and Bush. He speaks of both during this debate which is why Kucinich concludes with "Impeach THEM now"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGwwovW_t4s

Obama and Kucinich have different views on many topics and have not done the same thing. Kucinich has never voted to fund this invasion and has consistently spoken of the need to hold this administration accountable.

Not sure who called Obama a coward, but it was not me.