Little Debbie's Junk Food (Wasserman Schultz)

[babylonsister]

Little Debbie's Junk Food
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-11-11 17:12. Impeachment

By Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA


Ed Schultz' interview last week with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz concerning Kucinich's HR 333 (now HR 799) was like listening to a head-on collision between the voice of ethos and the voice of political machination. What is it that's turned even some of our normally lucid and principled Congress members into lockstep shills of Pelosi? Ed's relentless passion was totally refreshing. I just wish he was a little more knowledgeable so that he could have shredded every point of her argument right there on the spot.

Not just Debbie, but almost all the Congress members keep referring to the polls and "what's important to the American people." How often do you see polls that include impeachment (especially stated in straightforward terms)? They're almost non-existent. If she's getting her information from Democratic Committee mailings, have you every seen a question about impeachment in them? They ask us to rank pre-selected issues in order of importance, but impeachment is ALWAYS mysteriously omitted from the choices. Have the individual Congress members been brave enough to actually go out and ask their constituents how they feel about impeachment? They spend all their time clamping a lid on any discussion of this topic. How hypocritical of them!

And Debbie kept bringing out how the Dems are conducting all these wonderful investigations. They get nowhere with them because Bush refuses to release any information and blocks witnesses from testifying. But the Dems are afraid to pursue ANYTHING to an ultimate showdown. If I'm not mistaken, the Dems have not followed through with even ONE of their threats regarding testimony or documents they've "demanded." (In impeachment investigations, the information cannot be withheld--at least according to the Constitution. But I wouldn't put it past Bush to refuse anyway. To him, the Constitution went the way of the Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus, and the intent of the FISA courts.)

And, again, from Debbie's lips we get that old and worn reference to "the dark days" of the Clinton Impeachment proceedings. Do their collective memories go back only that far? Do they have no memory whatsoever of what happened once Nixon's impeachment became an imminent reality? It's always CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON. Why not NIXON, NIXON NIXON? That's the parallel to draw on. (Ironically, it was the very law Congress put into place in 1978 to prevent a president's misuse of our agencies of government to conduct warrantless spying on American citizens that Bush violated with his secret NSA program.) When the Nixon model is invoked, the outcome of impeachment proceedings takes an entirely different turn--one that would apparently be politically inconvenient for the Dems, at least according to Pelosi. Don't think for a moment the Repubs wouldn't start scrambling to get 9%-approval-rated Cheney out (resigning due to "health reasons") if impeachment investigations start probing into dark corners. And Debbie's assertion that if Bush and Cheney were taken out, Rice would be elevated the Presidency is absurd. Facts emerging from the investigations would place Condi out of the running--if not behind bars.

And her statement that the public has no interest in impeachment, while at the same time claiming impeachment proceedings would "block out the sun" seems a bit contradictory. If there's no interest in it, then it won't get much media play, right? But her big problem is that it might compete with or overshadow election campaign coverage. Well, given the fact that it's been the media rather than the people that has shown disinterest in impeachment, it would be a good thing to use that media attention to shed a little light on what's been going on behind the locked doors of our government. And this actually might result in bringing a new level of scrutiny and discourse to the election debates. Maybe the public would have a little better idea as to what they're really looking for in their "leaders" and watch the campaigning with more intensity. The candidates would also know a little more about how the public expects them to conduct themselves in office. And you know what, Debbie--and Nancy? I think the Dems would win by a colossal landslide.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28614

[pscot]

1. It's disappointing to find her shilling for Pelosi and Hoyer

on this. I thought she was one of the good ones. It's getting harder to know who your friends are.

[babylonsister]

2. I agree! I used to think highly of her, too. Now, not so much. nt

[VenusRising]

3. A supposed 30-Something Dem shilling for the leadership?

That's seriously messed up. I used to watch the 30-Somethings on the House floor at 3-4 in the morning just trying to hold the administration accountable. Now that the opportunity has come, she is going with the leadership?

How sad. She lost some of my respect today. :(

[Gregorian]

5. Isn't that the truth.

I've had your post in my mind for the last few days. Thanks for speaking it. It's hard to remain hopeful. But at least we know now.

[Cha]

4. That's right...Debbie

Tell us what we think, cause we really need someone like you to let us know that we really don't want IMPEACHMENT.

Fucking NO..I mean YES, We Want Impeachment! And who are you working for?

[bbgrunt]

6. she's a real heartbreaker . repukes aren't the only one's

who turn into zombies with talking points.

[mod mom]

7. I remember when big eddie had her on a pedestal. I'm glad he fought her on this.

[sandyd921]

8. What will it take for her

and others in Congress to get it and to realize that the vast majority of the public who are paying attention desperately want impeachment in order to get some measure of accountability and to restore faith in the system?

[babylonsister]

9. All I can figure is there is severe pressure from the high-ranking

Dems to not even go there. If that's the case, and if there is a really valid reason, fine. But tell us what that might be!

[dougolat]

10. HEARD IT TWICE, CALLED HER OFFICE

IT WAS BIZARRE, She thinks she needs to protect their precious 11% approval rating by not making waves before the next election. "we can't detract from our important work" (of funding war-crimes for profiteers, and complicity with subverting the Constitution) No recognition of contempt for Congressional subpoenas, 'lost' e-mails, and overall stonewalling (itself impeachable!) Her office person said "why don't you call your own Congressman?" I said I have, almost daily, and he knows that only impeachment can block a barrage of Presidential pardons that would derail future investigations and accountability, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz , on the Judicial Committee, just spoke out against impeachment on national radio, and that warranted a call. Office person: "She's not against impeachment." Me: "No, I HEARD her." end of conversation.