"Uncompromising Freshman Dems" at Take Back America Conference say NO TO IMPEACHMENT!

[KoKo]

Take Back America 2007
Washington Hilton Hotel, June 18, 2007

Freshman Class Message: Don't Back Down
Jun 18, 2007 at 10:07 PM by Isaiah Poole

The three freshman progressive senators who participated in the "kitchen table" discussion at Take Back America Monday night all said they would support a strategy of not backing down from efforts to end the war in Iraq in the face of veto threats and political retaliation from President Bush.

What Democrats ought to do in the Senate is "keep pushing those votes," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., even though antiwar forces in the Senate might not have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.

-snip-

The three also strongly disagreed with a questioner who asked why the Democratic majority was, as he put it, neglecting their duty by not launching impeachment proceedings aginst President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Sanders said the one person who would want the Democrats to focus on impeachment more than anyone else would be White House political advisor Karl Rove, who would twist the impeachment proceedings into an effort to cast the Democrats as extremists squandering the mandate they received from the voters to get legislation moved through the Congress. The time is better spent, Sanders said, in exposing the wrongdoing of the administration and addressing the problems created by its policies.

Brown agreed that impeachment proceedings would be a distraction from sorely needed work, including ending the war in Iraq. "The country deserves to have these problems solved, and this is where our energy needs to be," he said.

The senators--half of the gang of six that put the Senate into Democratic hands in 2006--came off as smart, thoughtful and independent thinkers, a striking contast to a conservative movement that is dispirited, intellectually brankrupt and morally adrift.

more at.........
http://tba2007.confabb.com/conferences/tba2007/blog/85

[Larkspur]

1. Impeachment may be the only way to stop the war

Did that ever occur to them?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. So, Amy Klobuchar, why did you vote FOR the Iraq spending bill?

[Kelvin Mace]

3. The Vichy Democrats strike again

Time to find a new primary challenger for each. If you can't do what your job requires, you must be replaced.

[Dr.Phool]

20. Yeah, but their next election is over 5 years away.

And we'll all be dead by then.

[davidwparker]

4. I've heard Bernie Sanders make that "Karl Rove" claim before. On this,

I do not agree. If there are grounds for impeachment -- and there certainly is -- I feel it would poison the water for the Republicans politically. Also, the Constitution demands it. Not doing so sets a bad precedence for future Presidents.

It's more about looking out for the Constitution than it is election strategy.

[TahitiNut]

7. It's the same as "Osama bin Laden wants us to leave Iraq. If we leave, Osama wins."

It's the most obscene rhetoric of politics ... a codependent abandonment of principle and ethics.

[davidwparker]

15. agreed.

[driver8]

8. Constitution?? What's that?

Just a piece of paper, I guess.

The oath doesn't seem to mean much anymore...if it means anything at all.

[davidwparker]

14. "The oath doesn't seem to mean much anymore" - apparently not.

Both sides seem to ignore the oath when it becomes inconvenient for them.

[aquart]

18. Yeah. Sanders is wrong on this.

Nothing the unindicted Rove says should be a concern to us. Rove is against the prosecution of any Republican for any crime because he would be at the top of the list.

[KoKo]

33. ...

[EFerrari]

5. Right. Like letting these felons get off will solve anything.

Please, Democratic freshman, get a clue.

[TheWatcher]

39. Hate to say it.

Enablers. The lot of them. The will of the People? We don't matter. It's that simple.

[depakid]

6. 3 more cowardly Dems afraid to so their constutional duty.

That's the bottom line- and that's EXACTLY how it'll be remembered by historians.

[ShortnFiery]

10. I hope the door don't hit them in the ass when they find out they are not re-elected. n/t

[onenote]

17. Yep, Bernie is going to go down over this. Not.

Bernie Sanders is one of the most savvy politicians in the country, managing to get elected to the House 8 times as a democratic socialist and to the Senate. He got 65 percent of the vote. He has been steadfast in his opposition to the war and to his support for progressive values.

If you think he's going to lose if he runs in 2012 because he doesn't support the commencement of an impeachment process, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[rinsd]

21. Pay no attention to the shrieks and wails.

They're the political equivalent to a child holding their breathe.

[mmonk]

22. Or votes.

[depakid]

28. Just sayin how history will view it....

Under the circumstances, there really is no defense for their actions and inactions.

Given all that's happened- and keeps happening, I don't think it's possible to conclude anything different.

[onenote]

41. history will indeed tell

My bet is that history will show that Bernie served his constituents. How will we know? When they reelect him.

[ShortnFiery]

40. And a good evening to you too, rinsd.

It's a shame that you view INDIVIDUALs as the alpha and omega of the Congress. They are merely human beings like you and me. If they don't have the moral courage to do what's right, it don't matter if they are smart and nice guys, they should be ousted. :thumbsdown:

[ShortnFiery]

38. Nope, If Bernie is too chicken-shit to Impeach, I don't care if he's God's gift to

progressive democrats, we need people there with Moral Courage. That's precisely why our Senators should serve ONE term and then out: It's not a career clutch OR fraternity.

Yes, I know that Sanders has taken brave stances before but he's "jumped the shark" for being anti-impeachment. That is, I think he's lost his backbone. It's tragic but it happens and if he continues to back down from the opposition, he can and will be replaced.

These people are not GODS and they serve US. Despite the past, we are in a Constitutional Crisis right NOW. God knows there's plenty of evidence to file Articles of Impeachment against both Cheney and Gonzales.

Therefore, Congress? Do you damn jobs without "keeping your powder dry" because you're afraid of the next election. It's YOUR DUTY to file Articles of Impeachment when warranted, NOT just when "you think" it's safe. :grr:

[Solly Mack]

9. so you're gonna expose the torture policy, address the problems caused by the torture

policy but not hold him accountable for his torture policy?

Or...we just gonna ignore that America has a torture policy?

I know!

Let's just pretend Abu Ghraib was a fluke and it was just those "few bad apples" and they were all held accountable, so there is nothing more to investigate,

[mmonk]

11. To all that choose strategy over the constitution

and freedom and the rule of law, I detest for they throw away their oaths of office. Thereby, they are unfit.

[ThomWV]

12. Horseshit! They are afraid of Rove, that's all it is.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Oh my surprise, surprise ...

Karl Rove is still "magically" dictating our smarts, thoughts, and independent thinking.

Have you seen this?

The (White House)aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

http://www.ronsuskind.com/articles/000106.html

[Moochy]

19. Seen it?

For those who live in fear of the consequences of a failed impeachment, it's their manifesto. To claim ignorance while they cede the middle ground in all of these arguments.

[mmonk]

16. The bush administration cronies and criminals

are grateful. Their lies will live, justice for their many victims dies, and truth is buried as freedom takes her last breath.

[BuyingThyme]

23. You've already squandered everything, Mr. Sanders.

You have nothing left to lose.

IMPEACH!

[Warpy]

24. I have to agree to a point

because the impeachment would end all other hearings while it is going on and will undoubtedly fail in the Senate.

I would much rather see those hearings go on, exposing the administration as a bunch of thieves with nothing but contempt for the people, the constitution, and the rule of law. The hearings will continue to chip away at the cabal, isolating Stupid and Cheney more and more as they go on.

Of course, any normal government would impeach this whole crew very quickly. However, we have to realize that this is no ordinary government. This is a cult and these people are fanatics without reason and they still command enough votes to sell the country out.

I can see this changing only if Stupid authorizes the use of nuclear weapons, if he declares martial law and dissolves Congress, or if he goes completely haywire and just starts to veto everything that crosses his desk, effectively shutting government down.

I'm afraid his own party will have to impeach them, and barring drastic activity on his part, they will not.

[mmonk]

25. Why does he have to commit more crimes? Doesn't he hold

the record?

[KoKo]

26. DU's Bernie Weiner (Crisis Papers) might have Answer. "Writs of Mandamus!"

Dems' Timidity May Cost Them Dearly in 2008
Posted by CrisisPapers in Editorials & Other Articles
Tue Jun 19th 2007, 09:55 AM
| Bernard Weiner |
READ WHOLE ARTICLE HERE...It's Interesting Read!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/104

{Here's the KEY PART of what we CAN DO!)


3. FILE WRITS OF MANDAMUS

For instance, here's yet another inventive proposal, sent our way by Barbara G. Ellis of the progressive-activist Democracy for America chapter in Portland, Oregon:

Because the Congressional Democrats in the first half of the 110th Session have paid no attention to voters giving them a House majority and a mandate to end the Iraq occupation and the Bush administration - but all attention to Pelosi/Emanuel's frets about the 2008 election - a method exists to get their attention now, quickly, and easily that each impeachment group in all corners of this country can do.

It's to have a Writ of Mandamus arrive in each of their local offices on Monday, July 16, charging each with breaking their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and permitting the Bush Administration to overthrow the Constitution and our democratic form of three branches of government. And failing to apply the stipulated remedy - impeachment - designed by the Framers to prevent these high crimes.

They can prevent a court finding them in contempt by: Signing on ASAP to co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich's HR 333 to impeach Cheney; 2) Authoring a bill to impeach both Bush and Cheney and dropping it into the hopper; Compelling Rep. John Conyers, as chair of the House Judiciary committee, to bring HR 333 to a committee vote and, thence, to the House floor for a vote.

Mandamus is a tactic that can be used as quickly on a spineless representative just as quickly as a group in her/his district can get an attorney to file this action in the federal court. A court may quash it, but in the last two years several favorable rulings have been issued in 6 states (Texas, among them, on Houston city corruption).

The thrust here, however, is more to get the rep's attention that they are complicit in destroying the Constitution. If the courts grant mandamus, it's a big bonus. If Karl Rove terrifies them and the thoughts of losing big campaign funds terrifies them even more, let's terrify them with this 700-year-old (Edward II, 1311 AD) court order compelling public officials to do their sworn duties. (For more info on how to file the writ, write us here and we'll pass on your inquiries to the Oregon DFA chapter, whose website is not yet activated.)

[mmonk]

29. I've actually looked at the Writ as a way

to force our "democratic" governor into acting in stopping the torture flights out of my state (since it is considered a crime). But like so many things, it won't work when the system is allowed to fail.

[KoKo]

31. I posted on Bernie's thread asking how many it takes to do this...

and given that activists in states are trying to get Impeach Cheney through the Legislature...would Writ be a way of doing a "short cut?"

I worry sometimes that as hard as folks try...there are always "road blocks" in the way of "THE PEOPLE"...when they have HOPE they are cut off at the knees by something that wasn't apparent at first in the law.

:shrug:

[onenote]

45. dumbest idea yet

clearly proposed by someone who (a) doesn't know anything about the practice of the courts with regard to writs of mandamus and (b) doesn't know anything about the legal obligations of a member of Congress.

To the extent that the oath of office creates an enforceable legal obligation of any sort -- a dubious proposition -- it certainly doesn't mandate any specific course of action by which a member of congress defends and upholds the constitution. Impeachment may be one way. It is by no means the only way. And the idea that the judiciary would dictate to the legislative branch how they are to uphold their oath of office shows a lack of understanding of how the courts have treated political questions that is startling.

Most importantly, the Constitution is clear: the House shall have the "sole power" of impeachment -- which means that it is committed to the discretion of the House and thus is absolutely cannot be the subject of mandamus.

The silly mandamus project will accomplish nothing other than make impeachment supporters look foolish.

Impeachment can happen, but not through silly,meaningless stunts that suggest a lack of understanding of the law and constitution on the parat of its supporters.

[mmonk]

47. Then was is the use of it for?

Clearly having the sole power of impeachment is not an impediment to uphold the constitution by using it. If the oath to protect and defend the constitution is optional, what use is there in having the oath? Just adding words to ceremony?

[Warpy]

27. "cult"

You are expecting this government to be made up of normal, reasonable adults.

Half of it is not.

[immoderate]

30. I don't think failure in the Senate is a given...

They will have to vote after the evidence has been debated. If the case is presented well, it might be difficult for some to say, in the face of the OBVIOUS, that there are no high crimes and misdemeanors there. Their wrong vote, in the face of the evidence, will be their legacy. It happened for Nixon. When the Watergate hearings started, all the Republicans defended Nixon. At the end, it was only Charles Sandman.

--IMM

[Warpy]

35. The difference between then and now

is that the Republic Party has devolved into a CULT. They honestly believed Delay and Rove and the permanent GOP majority and they are loath to let go of that dream. Their loyalty is to party and president and loyalty to law and nation doesn't occur to most of them because they don't realize they are separate things.

You are expecting the sane and reasonable party of the pre Reagan years. That is a big mistake. The cultists will not vote to remove the cult leaders unless enough outrageous events happen that their very existence is threatened.

[onenote]

46. I don't think success in the House is a given

All it takes is 16 House Democrats not to support articles. There are probably at least that many Blue Dog members from red-leaning districts whose constituents are not as enamored of impeachment as we would like them to be. We should be pushing the Democrats to turn up the heat through the investigations and oversight process with the goal of building more across-the-board support for impeachment.

[VP505]

32. I don't believe

for a second what Sanders said: "the one person who would want the Democrats to focus on impeachment more than anyone else would be White House political advisor Karl Rove, who would twist the impeachment proceedings into an effort to cast the Democrats as extremists squandering the mandate they received from the voters to get legislation moved through the Congress." In my mind that's nothing but a weak EXCUSE to avoid the hard work and some of the lumps they will surly get from the RePukes. There is enough evidence available that they could render Rove impotent quite quickly and eliminate that sorry excuse for ever if the will was there!

[KoKo]

34. That statement rung hollow with me, also. Just doesn't make sense.

Especially coming from Bernie Sanders. I wondered what was up with that. :shrug:

[MisterHowdy]

36. Or maybe Karl Rove wants dems to think that Karl Rove will twist the impeachment proceedings.

And this way, the Dems won't push a case to impeach
so the world won't see what crimes have been commited.

[walldude]

37. So lemme get this straight.. They aren't going to impeach because

Karl Rove might call them extremists? Or is it because Impeachment might be a distraction from "sorely needed work" like re-funding the FUCKING WAR FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS?? You know what, fuck this... I'm done. When people are willing to send soldiers to their deaths because they are afraid of what Karl Rove might call them, they don't deserve or need my support.

[Truth2Tell]

44. So so so so Sad

to hear Bernie Sanders, of all people, express FEAR of KKKarl Rove.

So low we have sunk. So so low.

[Rex]

42. So they went to a 'kitchen table' event.

wow.

[dysfunctional press]

43. so- they're admitting that they're scared shitless by the likes of kkkarl rove...?

what a pathetic bunch.