When Mr. Conyers says "the votes aren't there", he's not talking about Republicans.

[EFerrari]

This may already be obvious to some of you but it wasn't to me until I read some of the impeachment threads this morning.

Full disclosure: I have the deepest respect for John Conyers. And the whole time he's been backtracking on impeachment, the whiplash from the change of position has been punishing. Remember that he alone went to Ohio and held hearings on the 2004 election? When you put that fact together with his statement that we can impeach Bush at the polls in 2008, it just doesn't add up.

There was in particular one interview he did as a phoner on Amy Goodman's show. I remember thinking that his response to Amy's question about impeachment sounded just like Nancy Pelosi. Ding! It sounded just like Nancy Pelosi, looking back, because Mr. Conyers is a team player.

And I don't mean to say that Pelosi is the bad guy, but that there is a coordinated effort to manage this by the leadership -- all of them. (If anyone cares, I think Pelosi is a decent person doing what she thinks is the right thing and, I disagree with her.)

Anyway, this morning reading those threads, there was the thought that when he said, "we don't have the votes", he's not talking about Republicans -- because he isn't Miss Clio. They don't know how many Republican votes they might eventually muster. He was talking about the Democratic votes that he knew would not be there because the leadership has weighed in and in no uncertain terms.

All this time, he's just been telling the truth as he knows it and I haven't been able to decode it.

fwiw

[robinlynne]

1. You got it!!!!!!!!

[sam sarrha]

2. soooo.... what do you call good people doing bad things.. just for future reference

[EFerrari]

3. I'm not letting him or anyone off the hook. I'm just saying

I didn't understand what he meant. I thought he meant they couldn't get enough Republican votes when he really was saying, the leadership has said no.

[sam sarrha]

29. i say make em filibuster.. read the phone book till everyone see's them for what they are..

[EFerrari]

33. We need Gravel to conduct a workshop or something.

lol

[Poiuyt]

4. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are showing leadership on the issue

It's just that it's negative leadership. They are working hard to keep Bush/Cheney from being impeached. Quite a bit of difference between this and how Gingrich controlled things during the Clinton years.

[EFerrari]

5. Yes! They are leading! Could you say more about Newt

for those of us who weren't paying attention at the time? I was a single mom in grad school and thought things were in hand. Boy, was I wrong.

[Poiuyt]

28. Gingrich was the Speaker of the House during the Clinton impeachment trials

I wouldn't say that he was the driving force behind the impeachment. I would say that Bob Barr from Georgia and Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee were the ones who were really pushing for it. Gingrich, however, made it as easy as possible for them, and spurned all efforts from the Clinton Administration to compromise. Gingrich also focused the Republican campaign for the 1998 election on Clinton's perjury. There was tremendous unity among the House Republicans to impeach Clinton, and it started at the top. I'm also guessing that Tom DeLay, who was the House Majority Leader, did a considerable amount of arm-twisting.

BTW, Gingrich, DeLay, Barr, and Hyde all had had extra marital affairs. Gingrich was actually having an affair during the Impeachment proceedings.

[EFerrari]

34. That's about the only thing I do know about that time, Gingrich's affair.

I'll never figure out how the Republicans wound up being so aggressive while the Democrats seem to mostly have the brakes on.

[defendandprotect]

36. An overload of corporate and right-wing $$$$$ ---- pouring out of their pockets and eye sockets!!!

[defendandprotect]

37. Just for the record --- Gingrich used C-span evenings to propagandize endlessly ---

finally, Tip O'Neill had the C-span cameras move to show that there was no one there !!!

But, Gingrich was able to do a lot of damage --- he's a great propagandist ---
generally, IMO, a vile man.

He also had an organization -- GOPAC --- which filmed his talks, as I recall it ---

If I'm making this clear --- this was a huge propaganda campaign ---

If someone else knows more about this --- or better -- please take over !!!

[EFerrari]

38. That's amazing. I had no idea. Gingrich is a very successful

propagandist so it shouldn't be surprising but it is.

[defendandprotect]

40. Wish someone else would volunteer ---

take what I'm saying with a grain of salt cause I always disliked him and avoided watching him ---

but I think he used GOPAC films to propagandize students ---

The GOP has been very eager to "get 'em while they're young!" ---

It was a paying/monied system which finally got him into some trouble ---

They had somewhere their own TV channel ---

So he had quite a wide outlet for his propaganda ---

And he could really twist words and sound quite believable ---

I consider him actually evil ---

Bill Clinton said that Newt at some fairly recent point told him that, "yeah, they couldn't argue
honestly against the Dem leadership, including Bill because they would have lost."

I'm hoping his era is now ending ---
our country has been tortured enough by the Repugs ---

[EFerrari]

41. I think he's evil, too. The really evil people look like your grandfather

as far as I can tell.

As far as the student thing, that's the same thing they''re doing in Venezuela -- get 'em while they're young AND enjoy the cachet of the university students being on your side. Good PR.

Hate to be a wet blanket but I see no sign that this is over. The DLC still manages the party and everything they have done has only played into the hands of people like Gingrich. It makes me really anxious for my sons and for my nieces. I'm ashamed that we didn't do better than THIS.

[defendandprotect]

42. Yeah . . . I hate to tell you, but . . .

I didn't wake up until '88 --- so I voted for Reagan and Bush --- !!!

Really was not political ---
Sad, isn't it -- ???

But, then, woke up to it all --- including Global Warming ---

[EFerrari]

58. I was later than you. I had young kids and had gone back to school.

I bet a lot of us did that -- checked out because we expected things were going just fine.

What a mistake that was.

[Hidden Stillness]

45. A Few More Things About the Creepy Bastard

Gingrich has always been moral slime, on so many counts--it is hard to keep it all straight. Much bribery, corrupt steering of Government contracts--some of which were never done--to corporate friends and Republican political hacks, many many slander and destruction campaigns, etc. Gingrich came to prominance by destroying the career of former Speaker of the House Jim Wright, on minor irregularities of contract-awards (can't remember specifics) trumping it up to some phony "huge moral issue," and vowing to "clean up Government," then when they were destroyed, Republicans took over and began the complete installation of Republican-connected lobbyists in Government positions, etc. They began loyalty oaths and the firing of all Democrats in Federal agencies, etc. Gingrich railed aginst "pork" and "big Government," yet was the biggest taker of Federal tax funds (for defense contractors in Gingrich's district).

Gingrich was cheating on one wife, having a long-term affair with another woman, and had at least two sexual harassment-and-threat lawsuits from former staffers. The wife was in a hospital bed, very ill with cancer, Gingrich barged into her room, ordered her to sign divorce papers, "or else," then cut her and the kids off alimony and child support as she recovered from cancer surgery. They had nothing and were destitute, and so, after trying to survive on help from her family, finally when they could no longer survive on that, she went to their Church and asked them for help. They lived on donations from the Church, as Gingrich had cut them off cold. (This was while Gingrich was giving "Democrats are moral perverts" type speeches to the media.) When Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House by Republicans, two Democratic women in the House made speeches protesting that election; the speeches were censored by Republicans and removed from the Congressional record--I remember this. You will not find them anywhere, and I don't remember who they were, I'm sure Boxer would have been one of them.

Gingrich was always using corporate donations, PAC money, etc., etc., illegally, and for multiple purposes; Gingrich taught a "history" class at a college and illegally, with no permission, used segments from Ken Burns's "Civil War" documentary as part of it, never paid royalties. Burns threatened to sue, and it was stopped.

Gingrich's main mode of operation was to change the way the Congressional Parties acted, centralizing power. No longer were Committee seats earned by seniority, etc., but were given out, and taken away, by the Party leadership, leading to the current corruption and abuse of power by Republican leadership. On and on it goes: the main thing was that Gingrich (and DeLay, etc.) fucked up and dismantled the structure of the Congress, so that it was no longer an institution, but was/is now a concentrated, controlled weapon of the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Senate. This is about it--lies, threat, dismantling of protections, lobbyists, money, procedural obstruction, running to the media, etc. It worked so well for some years not because it was "brilliant," etc., but because it had not been done so criminally and completely, and so there were no legal provisions already in the code of rules to stop it. Like being bashed in the side of the head rather than from the front where you can see it--it worked because you were not prepared and by the time it happened, the damage was done and it was too late. This was this bastard's "contribution."

[EFerrari]

59. Thanks for this. I was awol that whole time. n/t

[defendandprotect]

66. Thank you for jumping in . . .. to tell the truth it still scares me that he's around . . ..

and even talking of running for President!!!

I think he still has the power to convince a lot of people ---
something about him registers "honest" --- while he is one of the most deceitful people around!!!

[rodeodance]

6. a concerted effort by House leadership would have helped--last NOV!

[bryant69]

7. Well said, and it makes sense to me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

26. We agree. Let's alert the media.

:)

[rodeodance]

8. wonder what she really thinks now- that bush has played hard ball

[EFerrari]

9. I imagine that Nancy has signed on to not make any waves

until 2008. They do not want another McGovern moment where they are right and lose. :shrug:

[mmonk]

10. Bingo.

The crux of my argument that we're not being served well (and from which those of us who are critical catch heck for). Hence my terminology of "Cheney democrats". We have the numbers but not the votes (only a simple majority is required which can be a ONE vote margin).

[EFerrari]

11. "Cheney democrats"

:(

[elocs]

12. So many "assumed" that the Democratic votes would be there,

both in the House and the Senate. Impeachment without conviction rings hollow. There are many big time criminals who are much more concerned about being convicted than they are about being indicted. My guess is that there are more than a few DAs across the land who would not indict a big name criminal if they believed there was no hope of conviction.

Yes, reality is a harsh mistress and so many seem to live in a non-reality alternate universe where just because something is just and noble and right, and you really, really want it to happen that it will magically come to pass. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The reality is that unless something radically changes, Bush will not be impeached (I hope the wishers want Cheney not only impeached, but convicted first because who wants a President Cheney?). Politicians in general are probably not so noble as those of us at DU and they worry a lot about being reelected. That's reality and sometimes otherwise good people do not do the right thing every time. How many here always do the right thing every time?

[EFerrari]

17. If the public good doesn't trump political consideration

there's no point in participating, is there? Why should we bother.

And that's exactly the crisis that the Democratic leadership is avoiding here.

Reality, my granny. The reality is the Democratic leadership want my support and want to ignore my needs. My "reality" is that I don't agree with them, and more, that it's my responsibility not to agree with them as efficiently as I can. Not agreeing with self appointed party "leadership" is democratic in the best sense.

And this isn't about magic. This is about engagement and standing up.

[onenote]

19. many assumed it, but I could never figure why

Virtually no Democrat running for election in 2006 made impeachment a part of their campaign platform. ANd of the few that did, most lost.

Why anyone would assume impeachment would be high on their priority list when neither they nor the voters were making it an issue in 2006 is something I've never understood.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I think you're wrong on the cause-and-effect.

You say the votes aren't there because Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

I say Pelosi took impeachment off the table because the votes aren't there.

[orleans]

15. i say they are all assholes who are turning a blind eye and enabling

criminal behavior and they should all be removed from office!

[onenote]

16. exactly

The leadership is responding to the members, not the other way around. ANd the members have made it clear that they aren't interested in pursuing an impeachment fight. They didn't campaign on it. Their constituents (apart from a vocal minority) aren't pushing for it in any substantial way. And pushing it and losing would hand chimpy and the repubs a huge victory.

In fact, it is most telling that when the opportunity to put impeachment to a vote presented itself (DK's attempt to get a vote on his Cheney impeachment resolution), virtually all Democrats, including most of DK's co-sponsors, opted to support referral rather than risk an up/down vote that would have lost, big time.

[EFerrari]

21. And, that would not be my point.

Forget that. You'll never know what the leadership is responding to because our media is bought and because the movement is censored.

Hello? You think the Democratic leadership responds to us? Frankly, if I could believe that, I'd be a much happier individual.

[EFerrari]

18. No, I didn't say that. n/t

[onenote]

20. Then I also misunderstood what you were saying

YOu said: "He was talking about the Democratic votes that he knew would not be there because the leadership has weighed in and in no uncertain terms."

I interpreted that sentence as meaning that you thought Conyers knew Democratic votes wouldn't be there for impeachment because the leadership had weighed in against impeachment in no uncertain terms and thus dissuaded Democratic members otherwise favorably disposed towards impeachment from supporting it. If that's not what you meant, maybe you could clarify.

[EFerrari]

22. It seems to be a circular argument and I don't mean to be onery.

I really only meant that this whole time I thought Mr. Conyers was referring to garnering Republican votes, he wasn't.

The whole issue of the Democrats being risk adverse (after McGovern ?) is another issue.

I don't think this is about Pelosi but about a consensus in the leadership.

[xultar]

14. Frankly it is fucking STUPID to think otherwise...and for those who did. YOU'RE IGNORANT!

[EFerrari]

23. Thank you for your input!

lol

[xultar]

44. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the idiots you had to say it to.

[EFerrari]

55. The really real truth is, *I* am one of those idiots or maybe, the main one.

Because I couldn't figure out what Mr. Conyers was saying. It just didn't make sense to me.

But, that's okay. I've been an idiot before, lol, and I'll be one again I'm sure! :hi:

[Karenina]

24. Arthur Silber called it.

"Democrats don't object and they completely fail to mount serious opposition to our inevitable course toward widening war and an attack on Iran, not because they are cowards, not because they're afraid of being portrayed as 'weak' in the fight against terrorism, and not because of any of the other excuses that are regularly offered by their defenders.

They don't object because – they don't object. That is: they agree – they agree that the United States is the 'indispensable' nation, that we have the 'right' to tell every other country how it is 'permitted' to act, that we must pursuer a policy of aggressive interventionism supported by an empire of military bases.

They agree about all of it; moreover, in most critical respects, they devised these policies in the first instance, and they implemented and defended them more vigorously and more consistently than Republicans, with the exception of the criminal now residing in the White House."

[EFerrari]

25. I have to believe they do better than that. n/t

[Karenina]

27. They don't.

:cry:

[OzarkDem]

30. Its also a false argument

There are enough votes to begin an impeachment investigation. They can begin counting votes for passage AFTER the investigation.

I'm sick and tired of Dem leaders in Congress insulting our intelligence by repeating right wing talking points about impeachment.

Its time for Dem leadership to get off their lazy asses and start twisting arms to get the votes they need.

That's what leaders are supposed to do.

I'm sick of being insulted by these assholes.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. They can investigate now

it doesn't need to be an "impeachment investigation".

[onenote]

35. there are only enough votes to start an impeachment investigation

if there are enough Democrats who support doing so. ANd at the moment, my guess is that there are easily 20 or so conservative/moderate Democrats from red-leaning districts who probably don't feel much pressure from their constituents to support such a resolution.

[KoKo]

31. Oh...I understand what you are saying....but..........Let's Cut through the Dem Crap Spin!

where does that leave us out here who feel "some folks" should be held accountable before they go off into the Sunset of BIG MONEY...CUSHY JOBS and the rest that the DC Beltway bestows on those who "KEEP THE SILENCE?"

I don't think Conyers is amongst that group...but where are the VOTING REFORMS we were promised...and yes Nancy might be imprisoned in her beautiful Spider Web....(and she has kids that are making their way in the world she doesn't want to get trashed by the "PTB") and maybe Harry Reid's kids are in the same "web."

BUT...WHEN AND WHERE are the ACCOUNTABILITY we WERE PROMISED?

[EFerrari]

39. I don't know how to answer that. We're not getting it

and if the leadership has their way, we won't.

Without being too tiresome to live, that's the problem I've always had with a "leadership" that is also acccountable to no one.

[H2O Man]

43. You are right.

As I've noted before, Speaker Pelosi actively discourages democrats from pushing for impeachment.

[EFerrari]

47. I think what Mr. Conyers is saying is a little more expansive.

If it were only Pelosi, maybe he wouldn't be using the plural "votes". If it were only Pelosi, a challenge could be mounted?

It seems that he's saying that the party leadership will not go there.

[H2O Man]

67. Now that's

an interesting thing to consider: if speaker Pelosi were to advocate impeaching VP Cheney, would other democratic leaders support her? Or not?

[unblock]

46. it's not that they won't vote for impeachment it's that they don't WANT to have to VOTE at all

if forced to vote for impeachment, they WILL vote to impeach. they will HAVE to vote to impeach.

those who say they oppose impeachment don't mean when the vote comes up, they will support the chimp-in-chief. if their hand is forced, they know they will have to vote for impeachment.

they believe they can coast to a big victory in 2008 by doing NOTHING. they don't want to risk anything by upsetting the apple cart. they don't want to be accused of being petty or during it all into payback for clinton; certainly not of trying to make a democrat president by impeaching elected republicans. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE LABELLED AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT CROWD. that doesn't mean they don't want bush/cheney to go, that doesn't mean they'll vote against it. they just don't want to be seen WANTING it.

some of them will be overwhelmed by the media coverage and have to vote for impeachment.

some of them will "agonize" over the decision and "reluctantly" vote for impeachment.

some of them will "be convinced by the evidence" that comes out during the process and vote for impeachment.

some of them will be "surprised to learn the ugly truth" and vote for impeachment.



just because the votes aren't there NOW, doesn't mean that the votes won't be there when it's actually time for the vote.

[EFerrari]

50. I think you are exactly right. Meanwhile, BushCo helped Pakistan capture

MEDEA BENJAMIN of Code Pink in Lahore, while Mullah Omar is sitting in Quetta. Pakistan is about to explode but they picked up the PACIFIST.

BushCo is still pushing to attack Iran, a peaceful nation that has reached out to us many times.

BushCo spent millions of dollars to subvert an election in peaceful, orderly VENEZUELA while Putin was subverting democracy in Russia.

This list can go on forever.

The Democratic leadership is wrong. I want to be able to support them so much, but how is it possible to support the leadership that is coasting while BushCo is making the world more dangerous every day AND sacking the treasury? I am close to being at a complete loss. Again.

Somebody with guts needs to shake Chuck Schumer upside down until some blood flows to his BRAIN. How could it hurt to have an impeachment proceeding REPEATING Bush's FAILURES every day from now until the election? Are the Democrats so media impaired that they can't see the opportunity?

:shrug:

(end of meltdown. sorry)

[Gregorian]

48. Am I wrong about this? Conviction is unimportant?

I have been under the impression that impeachment would begin a process of hearings that would transcend "ordinary" hearings. Those hearings we've had that have amounted to little or nothing.

If I'm wrong about that, then impeachment is a waste of time. But if impeachment hearings prohibit executive privilege, then maybe conviction is not even of any real significance.

[EFerrari]

51. I've always thought that if these hearings could slow down these felons

it would be worth it. Make them spend some resources. Forget that they're criminals, make them WORK to counter impeachment.

Too bad I don't run the country. :)

[Dr Fate]

49. Exactly. The rest of the party is covering for the DLC cowards who would vote to protect Bush.

When elected DEMS and their excuse makers say "we" dont have the votes they really mean the "we" part.

Pelosi et al does not want the base to see just how Pro Bush the DLC traitors really are- especially in an election year.

[EFerrari]

52. And, our good friend, John Conyers, is caught in the middle.

His office has stopped only saying they don't have the votes, per a DUer who met with them. They are now saying the leadership will not impeach.

As much as anything, I wanted to figure out what this man was saying because while he does have to play ball with the DLC, I'm pretty sure he's mad as hell about it.

[Dr Fate]

53. A tactic of the DLCers is to pretend that he agrees with the DLC, not us. n/t

n/t

[EFerrari]

56. That's right. Cutting both him AND us off at the knees.

Divide and conquer.

[ClayZ]

54. It is no different than,

being a witness to murder, and not speaking up to the police. Then seeing the culprit murder again, and still remain silent....again and again and again.

This acceptance of criminal behavior, by Congress and the news media has happened so many times that those of us who are watching have shock fatigue. Those of us who are not watching, just go on pretending everything is fine.

Maybe we could get the Gucci company to make Nancy Pelosi some designer BULLSHIT PROTECTORS for her ears. Then she could invite all those children to come up to the podium and speak the truth to the world. Including 777 children of Dead US troops.

The 3 million homeless people (US citizens all) would give her a open air standing ovation. The wounded soldiers, would finally know the sound of ONE HAND CLAPPING, and my Grandson would again want to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Four million displaced Iraqi people would take the long road home. Construction would begin to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq that our "gain fully employed, Military Industrial Complex", shocked and awed with so many tons of explosives that our continent probably rose a couple inches from the lightened load. Kabooooom! Kabooom! Kabooooom!

Nancy Pelosi's daughter could interview bu$h after 3 moths in prison, and present her final video to PBS. Dick Cheney could become the new BIRD MAN OF alcatraz.

Bullshit Protectors by GUCCI. My wish for Nancy Pelosi for Christmas.

[EFerrari]

57. I've never been so disappointed in a politician in my life.

It's a very bitter pill.

I don't want to go on and on, but my God, Pelosi went to the extreme of disowning her own constituents like me who want impeachment. I have to conclude her constituency matters as little to her as her oath of office.

I have held off actively working against her because I'm an idiot optimist and I'd much rather mend fences every time. It's harder and harder to hold onto that position. :(

[ClayZ]

60. What would Cindy Sheehan do?

Like you, I want to believe these people can understand the consequences of their non-action. I keep hoping, but see no evidence of it.

Nothing changes, except for the worse. Our Country has gone from shinola to shit. They have the steering wheel and refuse to turn around. On we go.

The definition of Insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect differ nt results.

How many of us are insane?

[EFerrari]

63. How much more horrible does everything have to get?

These criminals will be at the helm for another year.

If they don't blow up the world before then, the Democrats will skate into power.

Maybe there's something wrong with me but I can't see leaving these suicidal felons in office and taking the risk they won't get us all killed for a year on the bet that the Democrats will sweep.

[ClayZ]

64. It is beyond my understanding.

Try as I might to see from their point of view.

I can't sleep well watching them. They must have good meds! They look so refreshed and purposeful every day. And those smiles... those smiles as thought they have done the will of the people they represent.

The whole world was watching...now they chortle, heads shaking in disgust.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You got it Girl!! :hi:

[EFerrari]

62. I feel like the anti- Radar O'Reilly because he's been telegraphing this

for a long time and I just got it. Duh!

[ClayZ]

65. K and R