I haven't posted here in a while, but we had some debate long ago about Cindy Sheehan and my feelings that this was all for political gain and not for her son.

http://www.katu.com/news/national/8380497.html

Sure initially she may have felt her son died in vain, but I knew running for political office was coming after she saw she was popular. This isn't about her son anymore, this is about a vendetta against Bush and getting him removed from power. I may not agree with Bush, but for someone to promote peace and then open political warfare seems a bit morose.

Isn't political warfare rather peaceful, compared to wars and such?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure electing her would be in our best interests. Might be though. All depends on how she wants to resolve things.

Getting elected to help change things for the better is not a bad thing, right?

I'm not even gonna hide it. What the GOP and the extreme religious right have done to our nation is really bad. Bad enough to not pull all that many punches.

And I've a problem with that, but I'm also a realist. The reality is these clowns have no boundaries, meaning they've put it all on the table. This more or less forces anyone else to engage at that level, or deal.

They are the ones that lowered the bar far enough to make reasonable solutions difficult.

This dilemma is very troublesome for a lot of reasons. We really shouldn't be here because getting ugly is the only way out, unless we decide to just surrender a lot of core things and go from there.

I'm not up for that, and I'm clearly not alone.

Co-mingling peace, as in not violent, with not getting political is less than honest, IMHO. Inhibits solid discussion of the matter.

Oh I completely agree with you missing. I guess what the point I'm getting at is Sheehan had alterior motives for some time and we are seeing them now for what they are.

I also think her timing is idiotic at this juncture. She will be running for Pelosi's seat in 2008 because she wants Bush impeached and Pelosi isn't moving fast enough for her... When is everyone inagurated? Jan 2009 right? We are inagurating both a President and a new speaker should Sheehan win so what does she gain aside from a political office. You and I both know Missing this war was mishandled, but this is purely a power grab from a lady who claimed its all about her son. All she can do after a president has left office is call him in to speak to the public, where he has full 5th amendment rights and basically waste everyone's time seeking the answer SHE wants which is why did her son die. Maybe you see her son as a microchasm of this war and getting the answers for her son's death is representative and a generalization of every soldier, but to me this is pure selfishness and not a concern for every mother, for every soldier.

Sheehan's priorities changed long ago... This isn't about her son anymore, it is about her. That's what I'm getting at.

And a little addendum... You and I both know Pelosi won't present an impeachment article in 2 weeks time, so you can guarantee she will run.

I think it's gonna be messy. I also think she is not smart enough (Sheehan) to keep from being marginalized.

Likely to be a non-issue.

Might put some pressure on Pelosi though!

I don't quite see it being selfish to a degree that's bad though. One comes to the realization that change might involve actually getting into it at a higher level. Again, the realist in me knows there is some ego power required there. IMHO, non-issue.

Let's see if she can avoid being marginalized first.

All I can say about Sheehan is: who CARES? I've always thought she had the right to do everything she's done. That doesn't mean I have to like her or agree with her. Still, she's not someone I spend much time thinking about. If she wants to run against Nancy Pelosi (someone else I'm not a huge fan of, although I probably prefer Pelosi to Sheehan), let her. So what?

Cindy Sheehan is just another person. She doesn't represent the Democratic party.

Andrew

Ditto, Andrew.

Who gives a rip about her motives for running? Questioning people's motives for exercising their free speech rights is a right wing tactic. Watch to see who is getting the most riled up about her possible entry into politics, and you will see the group that has the most to lose by Sheehan winning. (It might be the Democratic establishment that is the most afraid of her right now.)

Give the women an Oscar.

Drchaps>>...January 2009... We are inagurating both a President and a new speaker should Sheehan win so what does she gain...

She would then become a one-issue politician making a moot point. Nothing more.

I agree Pelosi needs to go if she won't push to impeach, but I think Sheehan is running on pure emotion and doesn't have a clue.

Pelosi has it double tough. Impeachment comes with some risks. If it fails, then a very bad example has been set. I think we all lose in that scenario.

As the first woman speaker, she is also setting expectations for the future as well.

I've come to a place where I am seriously worried about how far our law and established rules of engagement have been bent. It's a real mess in that nearly any action has serious ramifications and those are enough to hit the courts. (I know impeachment is not in the courtroom privy. At least that's what our law says, but these courts and this administration flat our scare me right now.)

We don't need this bending and twisting to gain credence. I'm positive that's on Pelosis mind.

Missing, I continue to believe you think and worry too much.

Back to Cindy Sheehan. Some predictions:

It will be a real clown show.
She'll drag her son's body through the muck.
She'll run against Bush who isn't even running, instead of Nancy Polosi, her opponent.
The mainline Democrats will shun her.
She'll raise almost no money.
A few liberal kooks will embrace her.
She'll get attention from the media, but not the voters.
She will get nowhere.

I think you are close to the mark on Sheehan.

Re: Worrying.

There is no thinking too much. Period, end of story. In life, there is always time to do things right the first time. This involves thinking. It also involves process. The two combined, result in a generally ideal scenario where there is a nice balance of lessons learned and applied effort to avoid having to learn too many more of them the wrong and or costly way.

Am I just stupid, or is this not just a completely obvious thing?

When one fails to do this, it only goes a coupla ways:

-surrender the task at hand, having realized there is no hope,

-reconsider said task, in light of mistakes, and continue,

-reiterate said task, thus consuming the time otherwise spent thinking in the first place,

-pay somebody else, better able to think through the task, then either complete it, or let them do it.

There are other options, but these are the heavy hitters when one fails to fully consider the implications of what one is engaging in. My approach is a winner no matter where you argue from.

Where matters of law and policy are concerned, we need thinkers! Not having them, or having them focused on their interests instead of ours is exactly why we are here in this mess right now.

We could be so lucky to have our elected government, who does work for us, on our dime, do the same. Anything else is simply not defensible at the end of the day.

More specifically, the acts of this administration are pretty terrible. Those will pass. The means and methods employed to justify and empower those acts are the trouble. --big ass trouble and nobody, who has any understanding of the law at all, would disagree with me.

(And I'm just some guy who finds the law interesting enough to learn something about it.)

What our law says is one element of this worry. The decisions about it's applicability to events and people is another. Failure to fully consider the body of case law established to date, combined with flawed reasoning, leads to inconsistant law. Where we have this, the law is weakened and we all lose period.

I find it simply amazing that many conservatives will ignore these things, given a decision that advances their cause. All goes back to that "nothing else matters" and "anyting to win" bit, we've hashed out here before.

This is a boundary issue and it's important for all involved to respect it, or we risk chasing our tail for a few generations.

Either we honor, uphold and abide by our law, or we don't. Which is it?

If we don't, then it's all on the table, dig in, fight really dirty (dirtier than the other guy), no holds barred, and just go get what you want. Somehow, I just don't believe this was the intent upon which this nation was founded.

(I would love to hear a case made otherwise.)

Here's the rub, and I've gotta go for a while:

If we allow this crap to stand, we lower expectations for the future generations, leaving them to either continue to be diminished and devalued, or work hard to reset them and then manage them going forward.

Accepting this really means we are focused on our own selves, with no concern for our future. That's your "me" generation bit right there Deane.

I've had that "me" generation bit pushed my way a few times, then get this? The idea that we need to dumb things down, so we can get stuff done is ignorant, selfish and a bunch of other things --all not good.

What the fuck?

Either we are Americans and we deal with that and live by that, or we are something else!

Which is it Deane?

Or does answering that question require a bit too much thought?

IMHO, the too much thought meme comes up a lot. Know what I think drives that?

Fear.

Fear that if one actually starts thinking, one is gonna realize just how fucked up we are right now and how much longer term danger we are in. All of that will seriously undermine all the self-serving bits and the gratification that comes with seeing them being realized.

It's way easier to just advocate for others to not worry so much, fuck everything, and just go get what they can right?

Gotta go now, damn curious to hear what you all think of that one.

I think Deane hit it. And I'm glad. That's not the kind of person I want in any power right now.

Let's see ... they found a way to make Nancy Pelosi look like the moderate in the upcoming election. Sounds like a big win for Speaker Pelosi.

I couldn't see myself voting for Cindy Sheehan if I had the chance. If she were running against a Republican I HATED, maybe, but the Republican would have to be pretty awful.

Andrew

>>>"the Republican would have to be pretty awful."

I don't believe there are any of those.

I'm sure not voting. Differences in how much thinking is cool, I do agree with the points Deane made as well.

Flash in the pan, that's it.

I don't care for Pelosi. I think impeachment proceedings ought to be taken against Bush. Whether or not the House succeeds is only secondary to holding our leaders accountable to their dubious behavior. Like Clinton's presidency, an impeachment charge ensures the Bush presidency remains tainted long after he leaves office -- no amount of whitewashing by pro-Bush dollars can clean it up (rewrite history).

This doesn't mean I'd ever vote for Cindy tho.

While I think there are clearly grounds for impeachment, even if the House passes it the Senate isn't going to remove Bush or Cheney, the way things stand today. Just like I don't think a prosecutor should bring a case he is sure he can't win, the House shouldn't bring an impeachment it clearly cannot win.

I don't history will see the Republican impeachment of Clinton as accountability, I think history will view it as a petty political act. Simply impeaching Bush for the sake of impeaching him (without hope of removal) may be viewed the same way and set a bad precedent for the future relationship between Congress and the Presidency (impeach every president we disagree with?).

The way I see it, you impeach a president to remove him (or, her) from office, so that you stop the damage that president is doing to the country but also so you can hold him accountable under the legal system. I don't think a president can be criminally prosecuted while in office so the Senate would have to remove him after impeachment, first, so that a criminal prosecution could proceed. That's what the framers meant by "high crimes and misdameanors" I believe.

The way Bush and Cheney got America into war and the way they conducted it have been catostrophic for America, and they should be held accountable for it. Unless Bush pardons the both of them before leaving office, I believe it's not impossible for them to be prosecuted after once they leave office in 2009.

Andrew

And I think the Bush presidency will be clearly tainted by Iraq regardless of impeachment.

Andrew

Can a president pardon himself?

Probably, he cant block an impeachment that way, but there is nothing that would prevent a prsident from pardoning himself.

IMHO, we really should fix that. (If that is the case)

Set this joker aside and just think about the ramifications. If we allow that to occur, we really lose too much leverage, in terms of overall accountability.

You're way off target guys. Your weapon is the ballot box, not impeachment. This new thing of every time someone doesn't agree with what the President does, they start screaming impeachment is childish and ridiculous.

If you don't like what's happening, then get out and work for the candidates you believe in for the next election. You lost the last one, get over it.

Deane, exactly what would a president have to do in your eyes to be worthy of impeachment? Murder? Taking bribes? Getting America stuck in a catastrophe in Iraq, on false pretenses, doesn't count? The Iraq war is a disaster for this generation and we're all going to be paying the price for a long time to come. Impeachment seems a pretty light punishment for that.

I am not calling for impeachment, but if I thought there were 67 votes in the Senate I surely would - not because I disagree with Bush on abortion or his environmental policies or his record budget deficits or big tax cuts for the rich. Wouldn't impeach him for that stuff - that's just politics. Iraq is something entirely different, not merely "disagreeing" with him.

Andrew

The great Demo Kennedy started a war that killed 50,000 Americans, dont recall demos screaming for his impeachment, or for Trumans.

The iraqi war is an unfortunate necessity, without it thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans would be dying from lack of fuel caused by Saddams instability in the region.

And unlike Kennedy or Truman, President Bush has listened to his military advisors, which has kept American deaths low.

The great Demo Kennedy started a war that killed 50,000 Americans, dont recall demos screaming for his impeachment, or for Trumans.

Well, technically, Eisenhower really got us started, when he took over the US commitment from the French after they got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu - and then, by refusing to hold elections in Vietnam as we promised in the 1950s. Kennedy put military advisors in, but LBJ was really the one we ought to blame for the escallation in Vietnam.

I can assume there were calls for LBJ's impeachment given that so many in his own party turned against him by 1968. There were certainly grounds given the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other abuses of power that came out later. As for Truman, Republicans definitely tried to impeach him.

The iraqi war is an unfortunate necessity, without it thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans would be dying from lack of fuel caused by Saddams instability in the region.

Uhm...Bullshit!!!!

And unlike Kennedy or Truman, President Bush has listened to his military advisors, which has kept American deaths low.

Bullshit again! You obviously need to read Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco" to learn how badly Bush ignored his own commanders' advice. For example, Bush and Rumsfeld were told that far more troops were needed for the Iraq invasion and occupation than were finally used, advice that might have changed things dramatically in the early months after the invasion. Think of all the ammo dumps that weren't guarded, insurgencies that were allowed to arm, etc. because there weren't enough US troops.

Andrew

Since we're moving off topic anyway, the real question now should be "What to do about Iran?"

Herb

>>>"Deane, exactly what would a president have to do in your eyes to be worthy of impeachment? Murder? Taking bribes?"

Something like that.

>>>"The Iraq war is a disaster for this generation and we're all going to be paying the price for a long time to come. Impeachment seems a pretty light punishment for that."

Maybe so, but the way we punish politicians for what judgment we don't agree with is at the ballot box. This is still about the 2000 election. Get over it.

Liberals have sucked themselves into a swamp of unrealistic BS. They are so convinced that they are preordained to be in power, they'll tear down the institutions of America just to get at power.

With 20/20 hindsight, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we should probably get out now, but the Democrats constant whining about Bush and getting even is sickening. I assume they have nothing else to offer, certainly no ideas for the future other than more taxes, more aborted babies, and more welfare.

IMHO, this is more than a disagreement.

Political decisions are decided at the ballot box. No question.

Violations of the law, are decided in a stronger fashion.

Sorry, but the actions of this administration are just a bit more than political.

There is a solid field of candidates --far more solid than anybody the GOP has lined up. The two stars are Ron Paul and another actor...

Ideas abound, as does support, funding and a host of other things.

To be really clear, it's not getting even with me. It's about bringing our expectations back in line with some reality, undoing bad changes to the law, and insuring future administrations are not gonna be able to just get up there and do what they want, sans accountability.

What happens to Bush over that just happens. It's his watch, should be his accountability. This is different than getting even. Equating these things is not all that honest.

Deane writes:
the way we punish politicians for what judgment we don't agree with is at the ballot box.

This is not some simple error of judgement - this is a colossal serious of terrible decisions that are going to have enormous consequences for America. We can't vote the guy out now - sorry, there's no way to recall a president (but you can be fairly certain that if we could, Bush would have already been recalled).

Honestly the biggest reason to impeach the guy now is to prevent him from doing any more damage to the country, not just because we want to punish him.

Liberals have sucked themselves into a swamp of unrealistic BS. They are so convinced that they are preordained to be in power, they'll tear down the institutions of America just to get at power.

But it's the conservatives who have actually tried to "tear down" the institutions. Republicans in the 90s went after Clinton with a vengeance and finally impeached him over a sex scandal. Bush himself hasn't been too kind to the Constitution.

With 20/20 hindsight, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we should probably get out now, but the Democrats constant whining about Bush and getting even is sickening. I assume they have nothing else to offer, certainly no ideas for the future other than more taxes, more aborted babies, and more welfare.

Uh, the more aborted babies would be under Bush, not Clinton; abortions went down significantly during his time in office. If you want more abortions, keep pushing that abstinence-only sex ed that works so well.

And no one on the left is talking about "getting even" or "more welfare" - just more right-wing talk radio wet dreams.

Andrew

Deane said - "They are so convinced that they are preordained to be in power, they'll tear down the institutions of America just to get at power."

Man, Deane. What the Hell are we going to do about that? I mean, honestly. That is one of the more articulate ways of putting how I feel about Republicans. And then very fact that I feel that way - and so do you - means we have GOT to try and do something to fix it. Somehow just leave the Politicians out of it and fix it. It's like we are bothered by each other for the exact same reasons. How did we get here?

You and me buddy. Let's fix it.

Got any suggestions? ( Besides " move to Canada " ).

CJ, we got here because of the extremists on both sides. Until the voters wake up, we're stuck with it.

I'm no more happy with the Republicans than I am with the Democrats. I think we'd be much better off if Bush weren't President right now, but I'd rather tough it out than destroy the system that has served us well for more than 2 centuries.

What the libs are forgetting is that they do no better in Washington than the Republicans. They are, however, more astute at one thing....pissing and moaning.

How is impeachment "destroying the system that has served us well for more than 2 centuries"?

Impeachment procedures are PART of the system.

And, Deane, were you against it when it was Clinton's time?

It's amazing that rather than focus on winning the next election, the democrats are still focused on the last one.

Herb

>>>"Impeachment procedures are PART of the system."

Impeachment was never intended to be a procedure to remove a President every time the opposition didn't agree with him.

>>>"And, Deane, were you against it when it was Clinton's time?"

I have repeatedly posted on this forum that I was and remain so.

But, go ahead and impeach him. I believe Dick Cheney then becomes President. I guess I missed the fact you libs were so gung-ho for Cheney.

That is a dodge to an otherwise solid question Herb. Can't you contribute to a decent idea boiling up here? It's not a bad place to be, all things considered.

Your issues will still be there, as will ours.

CJ & Deane, I'm there too, for what it's worth.

The dilemma for me is limiting the damage. Sadly, it's not over just yet and the right events could potentially make this discussion moot. This should be quite worrysome to everyone here.

Part of this is exactly why I am focused on the legal aspects. Right now, this administration does not really honor the law at all. They've perverted it, twisted it to a point where leveraging it for it's intended purpose is largely futile. It's a mere framing tool for them and that's just not how we are supposed to be playing ball, no matter what the goal is.

It's our law that applies to everyone, or no one, period, end of story. Violate that and it all goes to pot real quick. This is happening right now.

No matter what is done, we really cannot let this stand, ballot box or no. Though it's not a bad idea to see who's gonna do a good job on the boundary issues and vote accordingly. I've also more or less reached the point where I do not support people, only ideas.

Going forward, reaching consensus on core ideas we all have in common seems the only reasonable way forward. The law is one of these. Addressing the corruption in our system, both in terms of bribery and access channels of information is another.

two eg:

I'm not vocal about FOX because I'm worried about their bias winning out. I'm vocal because they are dishonest and not all that accurate. This harms all of us. Crossing that boundary has diminished the state of our public discourse and is harming all of us. It shouldn't have been crossed for money, because the ramifications just are not worth it in the longer term.

A solid, well presented position should be aired and the facts that support it should be clearly reported and differentiated. That's as close to the core idea I'm trying to get at as I can get right now. IMHO, this just isn't a partisan thing. It's an American thing and forgetting that is causing us Americans pretty big and growing problems.

In other words, a common idea we all can agree upon, get established, then squabble over the ideological issues, secure in the rules of engagement helping all of us forward, however that may be. Love to talk about good ways to get that health care done with you guys. Don't want to have to clarify differences between political actions and illegal ones, or perverted (in terms of the law) ones. Can't we somehow get there?

(not a focus on FOX to distract, but to illustrate something everybody here could agree is a solid boundary to respect. Having lowered it, and having accepted that, we've got a growing problem media wide, not just FOX.)

Warner has a solid point, and one I completely agree with. We've a means to address these problems. What is destroyed by engaging it? Why is it there then. Has time somehow made our founding ideals somehow quaint. They expire, thus we just get to do whatever we can afford to fight for now? Somehow I don't see that as valid.

FYI: I think the same has happened to elections. Since 2000, an awful lot of them have ended up in the courts. This is another boundary issue that's slipping pretty huge.

Had we actually just stopped, counted the votes according to the law of the land, we would have arrived at a decision. This actually was what the Florida Supreme Court said must be done. They knew better than to insert themselves into what is the peoples process.

In short, we should have just made the people do it, however ugly that got.

Instead, we had groups leveraging that weakness to win power. Screw the process, let's just battle our way through and sort it all out later. I don't think that's how it is all supposed to work.

The cost then was a loss of trust and credence in the process as a whole because people took advantage for their own ends, instead of respecting core things common to all of us. IMHO, elections matter. They should matter enough that people fear jail, or the impact of letting their guard down.

Look at this mess. It's really because our guard was down. If consequenses can be just manupulated away, it's an every man for himself kind of culture going forward and I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE DEAL.

So, I get to say "Selected, not Elected Resident President", and sadly I've got an excellent case for that.

I shouldn't have that case, nor should anyone else, had we worked hard at process instead of fighting for results.

Maybe a President Bush, having won through a solid election process, might have been somewhat different. Perhaps writing out important laws, circumventing courts, lying, manupulating, would not be on the table so often, if we honored our process and our law well enough to give it the teeth necessary to actually serve as the deterrent it is supposed to be, not the tool it is today.

IMHO, with these boundary issues badly out of whack, a move to Impeach is risky. People can say it's just to get even. (they would be right for a whole lotta people too)

The actual process could end up being a big squabble, with folks spending money to leverage it the same way they did (and do) elections!

We could end up with a crisis, or worse, failure to achieve anything meaningful.

From there, what I knew as America really is gone. That's pretty ugly. I'm not sure I want to go there. Again, not because my views might lose, or my favorite people might lose, but for what might be lost in the doing. There is a difference there, and it's that difference that somehow needs to be articulated and acted upon.

So it's kind of a chicken and egg thing, right?

Thinking a bit more, the only resolution I see is somehow bringing people together as Americans first, reiterating what that means to all of us, then working with ideas that build from there.

>>>"So it's kind of a chicken and egg thing, right?"

I knew there was a reason we had the chickenjugller on this forum.

"That is a dodge to an otherwise solid question Herb."

No dodge. Just an observation. I say if Mr. Bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, then impeach him. But given that congress has lower popularity numbers than the president, it's clear they won't.

For once, how about explaining that if Mr. Bush is so bad, why do the American people find the democrat-controlled congress even worse? I won't hold my breath, because the honest answer wouldn't fit in with the spin cycle here.

It's hot, so just keep drinking your Kool-Aide™.

Herb

As discussed before, you can't compare Congressional approval ratings to presidental approval ratings. They are not the same thing. You are comparing a rating of 535 people (Democrats and Republicans plus a few independents) as a group to one individual. You might as well compare the score in a baseball game to the score in a basketball game and say the baseball team isn't as good because they scored so much lower

Congress NEVER has a high approval rating. I think the highest they've ever had is like 50% (this poll hasn't been taken for many years) but a rating of 25% to 30% is actually quite good. Yes, today's approval rating of Congress is pretty low - but it's not "lower than Bush's rating" - or higher, because you can't compare them.

Andrew

Now THAT sounds like a dodge.

Herb

Herb, anything you disagree with here is either a dodge or spin. How do you make up your mind which is which?

Andrew

Herb has a different reality Andrew.

I tend to look at the facts:

1)

Bush said Saddam has WMDs. We invade Iraq. None found. Iraq is now the midst of the Mother of all F*ck Ups as a results of Bush's uneducated decision. A mistake of Biblical porportions. An impeachable offense? Yes. Otherwise a precent is set for the next president to also make bad gut decisions.

2)

Cheney circumvents previous laws set in place to help Klamath River salmon to help humans with finacial problems. Result: assive salmon die-off of Biblical porportions.

Again, actions against Cheney should have been taken to prevent a precenet from being set.

3)

Clinton lies to grand jury. Gets impeached. Next president probably will never lie to a grand jury again.

I disagree with Pelosi, Deane and Andrew. I'd like accounatabily, now. while they're in office. It worked nicely for Tom DeLay. So lets put Bush and Cheney under the microscope.

Herb:"But given that congress has lower popularity numbers than the president, it's clear they won't."

No, what is clear is that you like to pull observations like this out of your ass. Weren't you conscious in 1998? Here's a reminder:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/poll/

Clinton's approval rating stayed solidly above 60% throughout the House's impeachment of him. I couldn't find 1998 Congressional "approval ratings" (I Google so you don't have to)(or can't) (or won't) but the above article cites approval of impeachment at about 30% or lower throughout that fall and winter.

Summary:

1) low popularity numbers didn't stop the 105th Congress from impeaching Clinton - why should it stop the current Congress - Especially since they almost match Bush's anyway.

2) Clinton's impeachment should not set the standard for impeachable offenses, but it is hypocritical to view the actions of this president as less worthy of impeachment proceedings.

3) Given the low poll numbers in favor of impeachment in 1998 and the high unlikelihood of conviction in the Senate, why did the Republicans proceed with impeachment? Clearly to hobble Clinton's ability to govern and to put a black mark on his legacy. If Bush's impeachment does no more than that, I'm in favor of it. If it does more, all the better.

I actually think it would be good for the Republicans to have the left squander what little political capital they have left on a lame duck.

Impeach away.

Herb

And pray tell what capital does the GOP have?

I am deeply disappointed in what the Dems have attempted, however the leader of the free world hasn't exactly been a help.

Oh for those good old days of a matriarchal society.

"I actually think it would be good for the Republicans to have the left squander what little political capital they have left on a lame duck. Impeach away."

That's the spirit, Herb! It's a left/right, win/win! Each side sees the incredible potential harm that could happen to the other. What's not to like about impeachment?

I actually feel pity for Sheehan. Channeling the grief of her son's loss in this way. As long as she doesn't stop her one-woman anti-everyone crusade, she can keep the grief at bay.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.