Translation please: When a Dem says "impeachment is a distraction" - what are they really saying?

[RiverStone]

No sarcasm here.

I'm absolutely clueless why any true Dem would want to shy away from the debate.

We have a VP that has achieved an historic high in unpopular. By consistent polling majorities, the American people want to proceed with the debate.

So when any elected Dem suggests that the impeachment debate will "distract from other more important business," what are they really saying? :shrug:

[elehhhhna]

1. The mean "Dick will personally send me ANATHRAX for Christmas."

Which, let's admit, WOULD be a distraction.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. Considering everything, I can easily imagine that being a possibility.

The former AT&T employee testified that ALL COMMUNICATIONS WERE TAKEN by this administration AT SAN FRAN!!!

Imagine. EVERY personal moment you ever shared with ANY body being "documented". Even the least threatening of concerns expressed could be exaggerated into a destruction of, not just your life but also all those close to you: your children or friends or parents.

Under the circumstances, I simply can not bring myself to believe that good people like Nancy Pelosi and Steve Hoyer would buckle in such a way without having swords hung over their lives.

I just CAN'T believe it.

What I CAN BELIEVE is that, this administration would use ANY means possible to exact power and revenge. I do not just believe it,...I fucking KNOW IT!!!

[Atman]

50. I think you nailed that one.

Nobody is looking for that kind of white Christmas.

.

[Vincardog]

2. The impeachment debate will "distract from" carrying out their Corporate masters agenda

[Truth2Tell]

3. It means that, if successful, it would

distract from their ability to use the Bush Regime as a foil, and therefore derail the 08 election strategy.

[gilpo]

8. Ding! I think we have a winner.

[AllyCat]

43. Why on earth do we continue to run campaigns that just say:

"We're anti-Bush!". God, can't they get a real strategy? Bush isn't even running in '08. For God's sake get a freakin' platform you stupid Dem wussies! Why can't they stand for something?

[Individualist]

4. He or she is saying "I obey DLC".

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[mmonk]

5. You tell me and we will both know.

Maybe there are democrats that don't want to operate under the rule of law and the constitution as well. Hate to say that but really, what else could it be?

[AnneD]

6. We've been listening to consultants inside the beltway......

they said if we impeach Cheney and Bush it will distract us from the more important business of collecting checks from lobbists and limiting people's rights.

[rudy23]

7. They mean its a distraction from the Republicanization of our party

We want to show all those Red Staters who are the real Americans, that we can be good Republicans, too!

That's really key, in a year where voters continue to show more and more dissatisfaction with the Republican platform!

Besides, we wouldn't want to impeach a popular figure like Cheney, who the GOP will just rally around.

[RiverStone]

9. Damn, you may be just right..

And your not being sarcastic either.

Must have something to do with all those little corporations out there.

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

39. Most likely, they used the "UNpatriot Act" to gather personal information on,...

,...ANY one threatening their power.

Think about it.

What if they documented a phone call from your daughter. She talked to her good friend about the possibility of being pregnant. They threaten to DESTROY your daughter's life with that phone call.

THAT IS HOW THESE FUCKERS OPERATE!!! They are willing to engage in such criminal behavior, asserting complete power over the "fourth" branch (the media) and ultimate manipulation over the third (the judiciary). They play to win without morals or ethics or honor or respect of our laws or our constitution.

Why these fuckers' SOPs aren't being more readily acknowledged is what confuses me most about the BASH BASH BASH DEMOCRATS threads.

Why aren't the BARBARIANS being BASHED?

WHY?

[mitchtv]

10. they have pictures of me

A) sucking someone off
B) Taking an envelope of cash from someone
C) I'm only a Dem on election day
D) All of the above

[VP505]

11. What business do they

have that's more important than protecting the Constitution and Country from a domestic enemy operating under the color of law as a President and his VP?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. It means it's a fucking distractrion-- just like...

Clinton's impeachment was a distraction. All sound and fury, millions got spent, and nothing got done. All a waste.

Lessee, there's a budget to deal with, health care, Social Secutity, farm subsidies, a new tax law, immigration, a war that's not working out too well, the entire House is up for re=election next year...

Why is it so important to some people that either piece of shit in the White House is impeached? Why should WE be the big wasters of time and money in a fool's errand to try to impeach ANYONE when there are too few votes in the Senate?

To make a point, you say?

Bullshit-- nobody cares about "points" but a few pundits and bloggers in their ivory towers on the extreme left and right. Everyone who actually works for a living wants Congress to pass legislation that solves problms. Not creates them.

Just who is it who sez the "American people" want the sideshow of an impeachment just because their opnion of the schmuck is so low?

I'm an American people, and a Democrat, and I don't think so. Nor do most of the people I actually know out here in meatspace.

[Fierce]

13. I agree.

If they have the wherewithal to impeach, then let's use that wherewithal to get something done -- solve the health care crisis, balance the budget, etc.

[pberq]

14. So in other words, you're in favor of giving the green light

to any future administration to lie their way into a war that costs thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars?

What could be more important than holding these criminals accountable?

[RiverStone]

15. Absolutely agree - why give a green light to criminals!?

Future history students need to read that some folks way back in 2007 voted to hold the most corrupt administration on record accountable for crimes against the Constitution and subsequent lies and manipulations.

Most polls I've seen clearly indicate Americans are in fact, comfortable and wanting this debate! Proceed with impeachment!!!

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Running the country, or one thing,and...

trying to undo the crap that's been passed over the past 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, they even managed a veto override today.

[redqueen]

29. You can't seriously think that an override on THAT issue

means that any seriously contentious issue is going to get handled properly.

Do you?

We're seeing the dem leadership and leading candidates right now hemming and hawwing about those tax loopholes that benefit hedge fund investors. Just this week they collaborated with the GOP to defeat Fair Trade amdemdents.

What's it going to take before people realize that some Dems are in fact complicit?

[TreasonousBastard]

36. No, but for over 200 years that's the way it's worked, and...

Democrats have never had much party discipline since the party started. It's probably a lot better now than it was when the party was split between Midwest farmers, Southern segregationists, and big-city machines,

And they're working closer now than they did when Reagan was President and they were almost totally powerless. Or does everyone forget those days?

Or does everyone forget that when Johnson was President before Viet Nam he bulldozed loads of legislation through. But that stuff was GOOD legislation, eh?

Democratic leadership now is as good as it gets, and if you're not happy with them, you're never gona be happy with any.

[redqueen]

44. That's bull.

They're more cooperative with the GOP now than ever.

[mmonk]

16. So what are they gonna pass?

They overrode him on WATER. My grandma could have done that blindfolded. But are you going to get him to quit Iraq? Hell no. Know the difference in what a waste of time is. He doesn't go by what the democrats do or what is lawful or what the people want. He doesn't play ball with democrats. The democrats only play ball with him. And of course, the day the constitution, rule of law, checks and balances are over, so is this nation no matter how many bills they get through to be vetoed.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. NOBODY CAN FORCE HIM TO QUIT IRAQ!!!!! If that's...

all anybody cares about, then go find an opium den for a while.

No Congress EVER has been able to control a President. It just doesn't work that way. When Gingrich couldn't control Clinton, we thought that was great, didn't we? They managed to slow him down, but never managed to nail him.

When Tip O'Neill couldn't stop Reagan's worst excesses, did everyone scream about sorry-ass Democratic leadership and demand they all step down?

[RiverStone]

33. So if the outcome is in doubt, your saying the effort is not worth it?

Ultimately it matters not to this voter what the odds are for success or what historical precedents may exist - the act of trying alone tells the world at large that we are willing to hold a corrupt administration accountable for high crimes.

If your a football coach, and your team is picked to lose (as an underdog) by a wide margin - don't you still tell them to give it their all? It is just as much about the effort as it is the outcome!

People will remember....some tried.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. This is not a football game, and...

their job description, such as it is, does not include wasting time on such things as impeachment just because you think it's a good idea.

They are actually trying to pass decent legislation and, as is the way of democracy, if they get half of what they go for, it's a good deal.

[RiverStone]

40. Do you believe Shooter is guilty of impeachable offenses?

Yes or no?

[pberq]

49. That's BS

- as Dennis Kucinich has said repeatedly, Congress has the power of the purse, and all they have to do is not bring up any more spending bills for the war, forcing the administration to use the money that is already there to bring the troops home.

[Mme. Defarge]

18. Excusez-moi?

"Everyone who actually works for a living wants Congress to pass legislation that solves problems."

I work for a living, and, frankly, I'm so distracted and distressed by the indisputable fact that this administration has broken laws, and considers itself above the law, it's a miracle I haven't lost my job!

You would toss out our Constitution because it's all about your immediate, short-term needs? Is all of this just about social programs and entitlements? Are you saying that you don't care if you live under a dictatorship as long as you have your creature comforts?

As for "fools errands," isn't it a fools errand to our Democratic congressmen to keep drafting legislation they know will be ultimately vetoed? Or is that part of the strategy?

[redqueen]

28. Well said. (nt)

[TreasonousBastard]

31. And YOU would toss the Constiuition because YOU havet...

decided that the only thing worth worrying about now is punishing the President-like-object?

I haven't heard any great groundswell over impeachment amongst the flesh ane blood Democrats (or anyone else) living around here-- just on leftwing blogs and websites. In fact, the local election just saw a massive Republican sweep because most people around here just didn't like the Democratic candidates. Nothing to do with Washington at all, just thought the local candidates were assholes.

Hardly anyone calls our liberal Democratic rep about impeachment. Most of the calls are about dredging permits or low helicopter flights.

Real people don't seem to think impeachment, or any other Washington games, are big deal.

[Mme. Defarge]

47. If this is the case,

then the old addage that a democracy gets the government that it deserves is, sadly, true.

May God have mercy on us.

[backscatter712]

41. How much did Carville pay you to come here?

This is typical astroturf.

[me b zola]

17. They are really saying

That they need to be defeated in the next primary election.

Uphold the Constitution or be replaced by someone who will do the job.

[Megahurtz]

19. They Are Saying That

it will distract from their $$$$$$$A.I.P.A.C.-backed agenda$$$$$$$ which is to bomb Iran.
With Cheney going through Impeachment proceedings that can't be done, can it? :think:

[DemGa]

20. It means they can't withstand the counterattack

And that's because they are unprepared, due to their inexplicable reticence in investigating the Bush regime.

[leftchick]

22. It means "I am committing collusion"

"Leave me alone to enjoy the status quo. I work for corporations. Fuck you".

[soothsayer]

24. It means "we're too busy giving in to whatever shrubby wants"

[lateo]

25. "I am being paid by some Lobby to say this."

That is what it means.

[Chovexani]

27. Bawk. Bawk. Bawk.

[EstimatedProphet]

30. It means they are Republican moles!

It means that they are on the corporate payroll and they are trying to underhandedly destroy the US and put all of us in concentration camps! Didn't you know that?

[Chovexani]

38. Where's Jack Bauer where you need him?!

:scared:

[Bright Eyes]

32. "I scared!"

Yes, those words exactly!

[spanone]

35. they should be castigating ALL the thugs for cheney....he's evil to the core & they propped him up.

[debbierlus]

42. We are afraid of Darth Cheney

[blm]

45. They don't agree with open government accountable TO the people.

Simple as that.

[stirlingsliver]

46. "We Know Better Than You Do, Dear"

What they are really saying is this:

"We're better than you, dear, and we know better than you do, dear. Now just go back to doing whatever it is you do and leave us alone. Oh, and trust us. Because we are better than you are, dear."

[rasputin1952]

48. If you can't get the #'s in the Senate to convict, it is a distraction.

Look at what happened w/the Clinton impeachment/trial. He was exonerated, in the mean time, everything came to an abrupt halt. No legislation, no accountability, nothing.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to investigate hi, for nothing. The R's "proved their point", and the GOP leadership was ousted. The "point" is merely a footnote in history, and a lesson on the futility of just pushing limits that are more powerful than can be tackled. If we had 67 Senators that could possibly vote conviction, fine, but the #'s are not there...hence, the entire situation is moot.

Want to really prove a point...get out in your districts and push for the election of D's! We started the trend last election, now we need to build on that foundation.

FWIW, once bush is out of office, he is liable, just as any other citizen to be sued, tried for crimes or anything else any citizen is subject to. Build cases now, so he can be tried and tossed into jail later, both him and cheney. But impeachment and trial...it can't go anywhere, so why even move in that direction?