Billmon:
Back to Main
November 11, 2006
WB: The Loser
Comments
So does anyone have knowledge of this? I read somewhere, (can’t remember where) that an impeached excecutive can’t be pardoned. Is this true? Does anyone know anything about that?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 11 2006 18:49 utc | 1
Aaagggghhhhhhhhh!
Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment
Wha…? If Conyers is putting the engine of justice into ‘Park,’ too, there must be a big strategic reason. There has to be, no?
Is having taken back Congress now leading to holding their breath to see what they can get out of 2008?
Right this minute people are being tortured with electric drills in Iraq. If they can just hang on a few more years, right?
This is just killing me.
Conyers is a complete surprise.
It is very disappointing to hear Conyers say this. I was really hoping he would come out swinging- at least him, if no one else. However, according to NYT, as quoted by Glenn Greenwald (article behind Times Select paywall) the Dems are promising investigations. Who knows where those will lead? But do we have time?
The Bush administration escalated its defense of the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program on Thursday, even as Democrats in Congress vowed to investigate the program aggressively once they assume power. . . .
But Democrats sounded impatient to begin getting more answers after what they characterized as 11 months of stonewalling by the administration since the program was publicly disclosed last December.
“This administration first hid its domestic spying program from Congress and Americans for years, and when it was discovered, has ducked and weaved on its legal justifications,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who is to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control.
Republicans have held out hope of getting such legislation approved by the full Congress during the lame-duck session, and Mr. Bush pushed anew on that front Thursday, calling passage an “important priority in the war on terror” . . . .
Emboldened by their electoral victory, Democrats said they believed it would be all but impossible for the Republicans to pass wiretapping legislation before the current Congress adjourns, or to win approval of separate legislation immunizing telephone companies from liability over their cooperation in wiretapping operations.
“There’s no chance of that happening,” predicted a senior Democratic aide for the House Judiciary Committee, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.
Indeed, rather than move to authorize the program, Democrats said they would push in January to investigate how the program had been run and would seek legislation to restrict or ban outright the use of wiretaps without warrants.
However, I don’t care so much about impeachment as I want war crime trials and arrests. However, taking into consideration my question at #1
does anyone else grep what I’m saying here????
In addition, here is something that else that surprised me knowing of Pelosi’s glowing comments about Israel:
As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was expected to become chairman of the powerful committee. But Ms. Pelosi is expected to pass over Ms. Harman for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence panel.
The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi’s decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.
“There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee,” Ms. Pelosi said. “The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people.”
The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.
“If Nancy Pelosi’s apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.
via
And Murtha is pressing for speakership is he not?
Even more to this conundrum… Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat’s Relationship with AIPAC
A new Department of Justice investigation of Jane Harman and her connection to the leaking of classified documents to agents of a foreign government was revealed by Time Magazine on Friday.
Dept. of Justice probe is latest blow for Jane Harman
Harman too obvious, too tainted with the investigation going on, blame it on the Black Caucus?
Of course, It’s the White thing to do…
This is some seriously fucked up shit.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 11 2006 19:37 utc | 2
In May 2006, Harris had Bush at 29%.
So while this may be Bush’s worst Newsweek poll, it’s not the worst approval rating of his Presidency.
@Uncle – a direct impeachemnt call now would fail – Conyers knows that – such things have to be build – I don’t thionk for a moment that he has lost it – he’ll check what the most promissing way to take is and will follow that path.
I don’t get it. Why would the Dems want to impeach Bush? I don’t mean ethically (more than enough justification), but strategically? Bush is the best present to Dem election chances they could have now. At best he is going to be stuck in Iraq in two years time, at worst, another Katrina.
After all, it wouldn’t get you out of Iraq. It wouldn’t fix the budget. It would just be deeply satisfying. Well, I have met people that I would have found it deeply satisfying to punch in the face, but I wouldn’t for strategic reasons. The Dems will do the same.
Posted by: Rafar | Nov 11 2006 20:38 utc | 5
Looking at the history of impeachment in this country—it has happened twice, both Presidents A. Johnson and Clinton were acquitted, and their chief prosecutors badly wounded by the backlash—it is easy to see why the Dems would shy away from it initially. Pelosi’s approach quoted above (investigate and see where it leads) seems like the reasonable one.
Posted by: heatkernel | Nov 11 2006 21:04 utc | 6
Reasons not to impeach Bush:
With all of the attention focused on impeachment proceedings, it will be impossible to establish and promote a positive track record of Democratic legislative achievements prior to 2008.
Once impeached, the impetus for further investigations into the regime’s misdeeds diminishes substantially.
Cheney can’t pardon Bush if he completes his term.
Bottom line: Impeachment is too kind. Better a death of a thousand investigative cuts than simply lopping off Bush’ head in one fell impeachment swoop.
Harman too obvious, too tainted with the investigation going on, blame it on the Black Caucus?
i don’t see where you find this. i don’t find her too obvious, i find her to conniving i think pelosi is laying claim to her power and not about to let anyone, not even aipac chose so important a position. as for jefferson pelosi called for him stepping down because she did not want to taint the impression that dems stood for ethics by not condeming one of their own. plus, what was he doin w/all that money in his freezer.
But Ms. Pelosi is expected to pass over Ms. Harman for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas…
The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings..
i don’t see how the black caucus is getting blamed here.
although i don’t like hearing about pelosi’s support for israel i do have faith in her cut throat abilitites and as she says in he 60 min interview she hasn’t stepped away from any of her past positions. i come from pelosis district tho i don’t live there now. there in one primary reason she is in the position she is in now. she is a fighter.
pelosi fighting for habeas she has a reputation as a drill sergeant
oversite
don’t underestimate pelosi
watch from 50 seconds in, check out her eyelids when she says “this isn’t personal” watch her eyelids when she responds to the “he’s incompetent” quote, when she says “well i think he is”. she’s going for the jugular.
the bay area is no slouch when i comes to liberals. pelosi has the advantage of being a small slight woman w/an attractive non threatening face, those kinds of women have a way of disarming their opponents because they are underestimated, non theatening, but they can be quite leathal. she always brings in grandchildren thing and mother bla bla, but she didn’t rise to the top because people just like her, she’s cunning, very. remember, she’s not speaker yet so the less they know about the plans, the better. in the interview i post she emphasizes she is making a clear distinction between the parties, don’t think this won’t be a huge goal during pre 08. they plan on demolishing the rethugs. whether they can do it is another story. the chances of her making nice w/republicans to make america warm and fuzzy towards dems and get alot accomplished.. zilch. she’ll be leaving carcasses in her wake.
Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2006 21:30 utc | 8
Remember the last two year’s of Reagan’s presidency when he not only lost the house but could no longer count on a Republican Senate to back him? He was forced to abandon his domestic agenda and his Central American policy; all he could do effectively was to sit down and deal with the Soviet Union, a course of action that led to the end of Cold War.
But unfortunately (talk about damning through faint damnation) Bush is no Reagan…
Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 11 2006 22:02 utc | 9
If Nancy Pelosi’s apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.”
this sounds like “race code”.
Pelosi’s reason for denying Harman the chairmanship because of Harman’s performance seems pretty clear and valid. And just how competent does Thompson think the current Republican “rubber-stamp” Congress has been ?
Talk about double-standards.
Seems like we can expect the Repubs to see opportunity in the race & gender make-up of the new House leadership.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 11 2006 22:34 utc | 10
Reasons to impeach Bush:
1)Lies
2)Breaking the law
3)Criminal incompetence leading to deaths of thousands
All of which could reasonably be summed up as “high crimes and misdemeanors”. (Alas, no extramarital blowjob….)
Bush should definitely be impeached by the House and tried and found guilty by the Senate and given a great big national boot in the ass by the public. That said, it is absolutely correct that this cours has to be pursued from the bottom up starting with hearings. I don’t know if Conyers et al will have sufficient time in the two mercifully short years remaining to get to the point of presenting articles of impeachment.
But let’s remember that Nixon didn’t have to be impeached to get rid of him. Once it became clear after months of hearings that that was where it was all headed, he split. Of course, Dick Cheney ain’t no Gerald Ford. (Our long national nightmare would just be beginning.)
Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 11 2006 22:54 utc | 11
Of course, Dick Cheney ain’t no Gerald Ford. (Our long national nightmare would just be beginning.)
they will both be taken out, possibly in simultaneous motion. this is why i listen to wayne madsens prediction they were going to try to get rid of cheney and replace him w/mc cain or someone prime to run in 08. either way, if both of them were out, guess who would be in line for the presidency?
The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.
keep in mind the headline for this article
“Pelosi aims to block Democratic hawks from key posts”
“Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline,” a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. “If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you’re not going to be given an important chair in the next session.”
i smell the beginning of a catfight. i wonder if her support of aipac is just posturing?
She said her California constituents want her to be on the House Intelligence Committee. “House Intelligence Committee activities are directly relevant to the major concerns of my constituents,” Ms. Harman said.
boo hoo ms harman, i think nancys constituents are the one’s she’s responsible for, those damn liberals in the bay area.
Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2006 23:03 utc | 12
Good points, Annie. Anything is possible at this point, and it will (hopefully) be rewarding to watch the infighting in the White House and republican establishment and see who does what to whom. Nancy Pelosi as President is an incredibly wonderful image for me. But if their infighting and scheming proves to be as incompetent as their campaign support in the mid-term elections, that will leave us looking at a series of House hearings that will – maybe – build towards impeachment articles and subsequent impeachment hearings, which would then have to be followed by a Senate trial. A lot to accomplish in two years when the targets of your investigations stonewall every step of the way and force you to resort to time-consuming litigation, potentially before a very uncertain Supreme Court.
My hope is that if they survive the long knives from their own brethren, the hearings themselves will be sufficient to force resignation.
Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 11 2006 23:33 utc | 13
if they survive the long knives from their own brethren, the hearings themselves will be sufficient to force resignation.
let’s hope maxcrat
Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2006 23:42 utc | 14
If she came to fight, I got her back 100%, but if she genuflect’s before the ‘chosen people’ aka the Israeli government (not it’s average citizens) and their counterparts in the AIPAC and their lackey lobbies then I will fight against her and any dem whom supports them or this demonic ME policy as much as I have the thugs.
Truth of the matter is, as much as I want to believe, I just don’t.
I quit drinking pop, over a decade ago, I have a great loathing for both pepsi or coke. This romantic ideal that there is a difference between the two parties, you go out and vote tweedledee in to replace tweedledum when he isnt doing a good job, when tweedledee doesnt quite meet your expectations its back to tweedledum we go. There is ZERO difference between the two parties, once you accept this and stop expecting them to actually change things then you can get well and begin to live a more healthy mentally stable life.
Watch/listen to the news very closely and you will see them pointing out that the new democrats most recently elected are of a new breed. It has actually been said countless times since the election on tuesday that this new breed of democrat could very easily be mistaken as a republican on the issues. We have been hoodwinked, tricked, decieved and lied to time and again BY BOTH PARTIES. Lucy and the football charlie brown…
if you stand back and view it from 10 or 15 paces, and 10 or 20 years you will see the bifurcation game.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 11 2006 23:52 utc | 15
There is ZERO difference between the two parties
well, i’ll be the first to admit they are all peas from the same pod but i do think there are some differences. beginning w/the minimum wage.
as for your first paragraph uncle, i couldn’t improve on it and agree completely.
Posted by: annie | Nov 12 2006 0:17 utc | 16
Uncle $cam,
I hear you and well, the Dems have a chance now.
I did’nt know zilch about Pelosi until a few days ago. Since then she seems to really know what she’s doing. She has the likes of Murtha covering her back, she’s tough on ethics & she has party discipline going better than any House Leader in 50 years.
Pelosi may be the real deal. Among her best qualities are she has the fearless instincts of a fighter and she reads people very well (big plus in snake-pit politics).
She may go with the flow on some controversial issues but she is well capable of countering or compensating from the blind side as she did with Murtha on his call for withdrawal.
If theres cause for hope, Pelosi for now is a big part of it.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 12 2006 0:44 utc | 18
jony_b_cool
Seems like we can expect the Repubs to see opportunity in the race & gender make-up of the new House leadership.
i’d love nothing more from that than have it come back and bite them in the ass. they’re the ones who’ve forced white representatives in many districts out of the dem party by drawing district lines down thru the center of their home base. the anticipation being that white americans were so racist they wouldn’t want to be in a party that looks rainbow. i would love to see hasting and conyers make them eat crow.
Posted by: annie | Nov 12 2006 0:52 utc | 19
If anyone sees jonku please tell him I replied to her/him/it/they 🙂 in the thread that he/it/she/they asked the question about our voting system. Thanks, g’night folks.
Posted by: markfromireland | Nov 12 2006 0:52 utc | 20
PS: Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds the stern companion of mediocrity and is attainable by using the editor’s preview …..
mfi
Posted by: markfromireland | Nov 12 2006 0:55 utc | 21
well, i’ll be the first to admit they are all peas from the same pod but i do think there are some differences. beginning w/the minimum wage.
Even if all politicians are self-aggrandizing, scum-sucking pig-dogs, I’ll take the Democrats. To paraphrase FDR’s comment, They may be bitches and sons of bitches, but they’re our bitches and sons of bitches.
Plus, social realities are more likely to at least be admitted to in a Democratic environment. What they do about those realities is another question.
This is an almost miracle situation for Democratic leaders of whatever stripe to live up to the votes their candidates received, which were in large part votes of ‘no confidence’ more than expressions of loyalty for the Democratic Party. I truly hope they’ll do it, for all our sakes.
That, and I want to see Fat Karl and The Dick do the Perp Waddle.
Posted by: Austin Cooper | Nov 12 2006 1:10 utc | 22
Talk about losers. McCain and Leiberman on Press the Meat.
How sad is that?
Posted by: beq | Nov 12 2006 1:32 utc | 23
PR: Good point! I forgot about Jeffie. Ha Ha – maybe that is what they’ll end up impeaching him for.
Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 12 2006 2:09 utc | 25
It’s too late for impeachment. Aside from the fact that you’d just get Pres. McCain, we’ve already had a defacto change of president. Sonny’s 6-yr. Oedipal Spasm/Presidency is over & Daddy is taking over. Sonny can’t stand up to Cheney, so they’d like to get him out of there & put McCain in anyway. And don’t forget that w/Daddy having all those connections in the Intel. community, he can blackmail all the xDems. into silence.
xDems. more interested in covering Repugs w/shit for 2 yrs to position themselves to win in ’08. Beyond that they share a common agenda. The fantasy of the Last Imperial Superpower Has Died period. The reign of military supremacy is gone. Now the Wall St. Predator Wing is taking over & world will be ruled multilaterally by the Pirates. Daddy always stood for that. So, this is a 2-yr. grace period to repair international relations & domestic ones – it’s soothing feathers time. They’ll try to keep the seriously bad news from coming out for 2 yrs.
Rather than concentrating on Impeachment, we should realize that they’re asking us what We Want. If we can’t have imeachment, I suggest we settle for Repeal of the Bush Administration. Wipe every law off the books. And Toss Out the Judges. Beginning w/all the Police State Bullshit. Plus Demand that Economic & Corporate Elites created the Deficit. They Must Pay it Off.
Posted by: jj | Nov 12 2006 2:42 utc | 26
Nancy Pelosi’s political education started long before she arrived in San Francisco with her husband after college. She grew up in Little Italy in Baltimore, the daughter of Tommy D’Alessandro, one of the most popular ever mayors of Baltimore, who had a long career in Maryland Democratic politics. In those days, the harbor was busy, the forges of the steel mills burned constantly, and the Baltimore Democratic machine was intact. As was the Mafia.
Little Itally is a small, safe, tight neighborhood of modest rowhouses clustered around St Leo’s. On summer evenings the neighborhood bocce leagues gather to play bocce on the bocce ball court in the middle of the neighborhood. Everyone knows each other.
Her mother helped persuade her father to let his daughter go forty miles to college. For such a close family, going to live across the continent with her husband was a bold move.
I’d guess Pelosi had a good grasp of political craft well before she became the San Francisco mother of five.
Posted by: small coke | Nov 12 2006 3:06 utc | 27
@19
“i’d love nothing more from that than have it come back and bite them in the ass.”
and it will. we already know.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 12 2006 3:07 utc | 28
@small coke, whatever Pelosi didn’t know when she left home, she learned as the longtime understudy of the Burtons, whose seat she was handed upon their death. They were Master Operators on the best side of everything in the House.
Posted by: jj | Nov 12 2006 4:30 utc | 29
@jj, I do recollect Phil Burton as one of the good guys, but nothing specific.
So I found a couple reviews of a biography by John Jacobs (hmmm?).
“What really surprised me as I made initial inquiries about Burton was that he was a towering figure in Washington, D.C., in ways his own constituents had no idea.”
“People couldn’t stand up to him. And there are few people in the history of American politics who intimidate from the left,” said Jacobs. “Burton was a champion of the dispossessed and the under-represented. He was their advocate.” He didn’t take money from anyone and died very nearly broke.
Burton’s superior knowledge and command of details gave him enormous power. In a chapter entitled “Park Barrel” Jacobs describes how Burton assembled the many pieces of his omnibus parks bill of 1978 by drawing upon his encyclopedic knowledge of America’s parks, forests, lakes, rivers, trails, and wilderness areas–information computed not only in units of acres and miles but, critically, in terms of location and impacts on his colleagues’ congressional districts. Jacobs also shows how Burton used his detailed knowledge of voting patterns and demographic trends to gerrymander legislative district lines to achieve maximum partisan advantage. Quipping that his odd-shaped boundary maps were his “contribution to modern art”. . .
link
A tough legacy. Pelosi has a tough and delicate course to steer, between Scylla and Charybdis, AIPAC and the Baker boys, the IEDS of the Republican gang aiming to share the shame of their debacles, and all the corporatists, the beguilements of lobbyists, and divergent ambitions of her own party.
Posted by: small coke | Nov 12 2006 6:02 utc | 30
Phillip Burton was born in 1936, in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was elected the youngest member of the California State Assembly, 1956. Descriptions of Phil Burton reveal that he was a “good-doer” who had no patience for “do-gooders” who settled for glorious defeats. He loved to win, knew how to win, and expected to win. Phil was a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fought for workers’ rights, the underprivileged, farmers and coal miners, the aged, and the “little guy.” He knew how to forge coalitions of idealists and pragmatists, conservatives and liberals, amateurs and professionals. He was the consummate vote counter who always knew exactly where he stood and what it took to win.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Phil Burton set an unprecedented record for establishing and protecting parks, wilderness areas, trails, and wild and scenic rivers. His now famous National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 has been called the most sweeping piece of environmental legislation ever to pass the Congress. The national trails system was tripled with the addition of five new trails, including a new category of historic trails; the national wild and scenic rivers system was nearly doubled with eight new river designations and the addition of 17 new study rivers; wilderness acreage in the national park system more than doubled with the addition of nearly 2 million acres of wilderness. The measure also added 14 new units to the system; established a $725 million program to renovate urban recreational facilities; and authorized the purchase of concession interests of the Yellowstone Park Company, the largest single buyout of its kind.
Posted by: annie | Nov 12 2006 9:24 utc | 31
netroots played a significant role in the Dem victory. Not just in terms of the boost it gave to many Dem candidates, many of whom were virtually ignored by the party establishment. But theres also the factor that netroots from the Dem side seems to have had a lot more impact than the Republican equivalent.
And now the netrooters have tasted blood, thwy will be an even bigger factor in 2008. We can expect to see candidates pay more attention to the wealth of support, money, news, strategy, advocacy, deconstruction of Repub spin/attacks, damage-control … that netroots provides. Also, we may see more netroots type efforts emerge, more diversitty & more specialization and more features.
Harold Ford might have prevailed in Tennnessee with a little more supportt from netroots. He hurt himself in certain ways but if he had gotten as much of a reaction and boost from netroots to the racist ads run by his opponent Bob Corker, as Webb (VA) received from Allens offensive comments, he may possibly have have made it through. Especially since local papers in Tennessee mostly ignored the race-ad story.
The netroots guys also need to get over the tendency to knock down or ignore Dem candidates they dislike or are not very fond of. Because on the long view, candidates who benefit from netroots support are more likely to consider modifying or tempering whatever particular views the netroots community may object to. Plus the party wins. Plus the opponent is denied.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 12 2006 15:58 utc | 33
we are all Librarians now
more like,
we are all palestinians now…
Under one big panopticon sexual BDSM voyeur prison under the eager protection of the warden watcher, the Gaze of the Magus, the nun raping Negroponte types.
One big loving national security state more like, patty hearst falling in love with her captors, or how the per-verbial (pun intended)victim that loves and feels sorry for their abusers…
As fauxreal said, either the neo-cons or the Iran/Contra crew. Your choice of tit clamps and spanking/hot wax or the harder stuff, erotic asphyxia i.e strangulation during sex, nerco sex w/the dead, w/children, bears, or snuff sex, stuck between a mafia and a cabal. Both ruthless, both dangerous both deadly criminal both soul sick;but if you even suggest this you’re called a conspiracy nut.
Where denial is not only a river in Washington, but the whole of America, ‘The Hospital of incuribles’ as Octavio Paz wrote in ‘An Erotic Beyond: Sade’.
Throw the Jews down the well…..so our country may be free…..
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 12 2006 16:12 utc | 34
i don’t see where you find this. i don’t find her too obvious, i find her to conniving i think pelosi is laying claim to her power and not about to let anyone, not even aipac chose so important a position. wrote Annie
I read it that way too. Those steely slim tailored grannies also tend to have personal issues that no-one can read very well. Much more so than men, who are more transparent and collaborative, even if they can be fiercely competitive in an open, agressive, occasionally blustering way. Pelosi won’t bluster ! 😉
Seen from a distance: Pelosi said impeachment was off the table (or whatever expression she used), and she will have calculated that and will stick to it unless others bring her down, which doens’t look likely.
Moreover – iraq, the economy, terrorism, and internal matters – are so serious, that the Democrat role as saviors or the clean-up team would seem to prevent them from witch-hunting in a blatant way, as more divisiveness will perceived as shirking, avoidance, incompetence, petty revenge to no good purpose, etc. Americans have short memories – sometimes a good thing – what is done is done now it is time to get on with the job…that is how the Democrats will parse the general mood of the electorate. ‘Unity’ Gvmts. facing a 50/50 split in a House, Parliament (etc.) always do that – they don’t have much choice.
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 12 2006 16:25 utc | 35
No one has yet to parse my question in #1.
I guess this has merely been just a bad, bad dream, a nightmare, but at last we have awoken in sweat soaked sheets, we move on with the day. Forget, move on…
Only thing is, perhaps we are only dreaming that we have awoken, that it’s over, only to find out…
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 12 2006 16:50 utc | 36
wow, Uncle. that was quite a rant.
Sorry to invoke such ideas… the thought of Cheney in a tit clamp is really too much for my simple mind…
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 12 2006 16:53 utc | 37
Watch/listen to the news very closely and you will see them pointing out that the new democrats most recently elected are of a new breed. It has actually been said countless times since the election on tuesday that this new breed of democrat could very easily be mistaken as a republican on the issues.
You’ve been hoodwinked unc. Here’s a tip: If the conglomerate news media says something countless times then it is more likely false than true.
And for all you deep thinking exposers of “The Lobby” out there, AIPAC has weighed in, on command, to support the Bolton nomination. Despite their unbounded power, often noted by the clear eyed analysts here, it don’t seem to be going anywhere. Geez, maybe the Pyramid at the Masonic Lodge isn’t functioning properly.
Posted by: citizen k | Nov 12 2006 16:55 utc | 38
Bush, from W to L. I’m going to start calling him George L from now on and hope that it starts sticking. However I don’t really get around much so feel free to do the same. Hopefully some graphics artist can come up with something in the same vein.
Posted by: rapier | Nov 12 2006 16:56 utc | 39
and in response to your impeachment question- this is what I come up with-
impeachment begins in the house, who recommends for impeachement. The measure then moves to the Senate, which is the body with the authority to try the case for impeachment.
In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote “Guilty” on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 12 2006 17:02 utc | 40
uncle #1:
The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Posted by: citizen k | Nov 12 2006 17:06 utc | 41
Ahhh, thanks faux, ck…
Treasongate
However, in researching the issue, I was pleasantly surprised to discover an obscure Constitutional device which insulates certain convictions/indictments from the broad pardon power granted to the president. This never before tested Constitutional process requires the House of Representatives to Impeach and the Senate to convict “civil Officers of the United States” so that pardons of those Officers pertaining to criminal prosecutions flowing from “Cases of Impeachment” can be voided.
The power to Impeach granted to Congress is essential to our Republican system of checks and balances. For what good are checks and balances if they are not employed to maintain the laws of the nation? If Fitzgerald’s investigation properly alleges criminal activity by Government Officers involved with Treasongate offenses, Congress must begin Impeachment proceedings to remove those Officers.
The coming Supreme Court battle has never, in the history of American jurisprudence, been tested before. The question presented:
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 12 2006 17:26 utc | 42
You’ve been hoodwinked unc. Here’s a tip: If the conglomerate news media says something countless times then it is more likely false than true.
for your reference uncle JFL provides the evidence. these are just the dlcer’s laying claim to the victory which they don’t deserve. they can’t stand the netroots
one of the bizarro things about this ‘claiming the glory’ is this behind the scenes bickering w/in the party has been going on thruout the election and now by claiming the mantel of responsibility they are trying to stab dean in the back. but they can’t oust him. only the state party chairs can do that and why should they? his 50 state stradegy put $$ directly in their pockets so they can run whoever they want and aren’t beholden to the big guns @ dlc. the masses aren’t getting more conservative, they are moving left. that was the message of the election, the anti war message. whenever they come out in lockstep w/the same message IMMEDIATELY, its bs.
Posted by: annie | Nov 12 2006 19:02 utc | 43
I was wondering why Bush has dropped again in the polls. Then I surfed some mil-blogs (usually those are quite right wing) and found disgust with decision to fire Rummsfeld – I haven’t checked that poll’s data, but a drop to 31% has to be serious discontent by the “base”.
b #44: Bush now looks weak and loses authoritarian cred. This is good.
Posted by: citizen k | Nov 12 2006 21:33 utc | 45
The NYT has a great interactive on the election (don’t know if it’s firewalled).
I’d love to know the story behind Ohio Congressional District 18. It moved from +32% Republican votes in 2004 to +24% Democratic in 2006… This seems almost impossible. A Diebold malfunction?
The overall house map is incredible as well. Not one pickup for the repubs.
Posted by: PeeDee | Nov 12 2006 22:48 utc | 46