Moyers invites a progressive and conservative to a round table discussion on impeachment - and both his guests agree that impeachment is...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/14/bill-moyers-roundtable-on-impeachment-o f-bush-cheney/

(click on the links at this site to watch the video)

The real question should be: Should Bush be impeached even though there is about zero chance he'd be removed in the Senate? Do you want to take the country's time and energy focusing on Impeachment which will lead to acquittal, so we can put a "black mark" on Bush's record?

I don't. I also fear it would give the Republicans just the rallying cry they need at this low point in their own party, when their president is at record low popularity levels and they've lost their majority in Congress, when their 2008 presidental candidates seem to inspire no one. I say - let them sink. Bush already has a black mark on his record regarding Iraq, in the same way Vietnam is on LBJ's.

Andrew

I'm totally split on this.

Completely agree on the black mark being a waste of energy bit. I also agree they will sink on their own accord. There is absolutely no way this won't happen, unless:

--there is another terror incident they can leverage

(and they would leverage the hell out of it, count on that!)

--others hand them something, which impeachment has a very high chance of doing.

But...

I'm worried about the expectations set over this whole mess. The legal system and the political system have been weakened significantly. I would feel a lot better about this aspect if we saw some strong statements aimed at correcting these things.

Say impeachment is off the table, but tell people why and tell them what's going to be done when this clown and his administration is out.

That leaves accountability off the table still, but I'm ok with history taking care of that. Don't like it, but it would be an acceptable balance, given assurances expectations would be reset back to a more solid state.

Had these clowns executed a bit better, we would still see a lot of boundary issues changed for the worse, but we wouldn't be so worried about it. I don't think that's healthy, unless done in the sphere of public discourse on the matter.

Another terrorist incident may have the opposite effect from what you describe; it may on the contrary rally people to dump Bush and Cheney after all. All this BS about "we're fighting the terrorists over there" would immediately be revealed to be empty.

Would voters in states with 18 Republican Senators compell their Senators to vote to remove during an impeachment in such a case? It's not out of the question. But for the moment, it's hypothetical.

Andrew

No matter what he says, Moyers is a radical leftist.

I would trust Hillary before I'd trust anything that extremist has to say.

Herb

Moyers is so far left he makes Missing KSKD look like a radical right winger. Nothing he says or does has any merit in the real world.

I fail to understand the obsession with impeachment and the chaos it would bring to the country. I guess Rush Limbaugh must be correct when he says the radical left wants to tear the country down and build it back in their viewpoint.

I think the current obsession with impeachment is something like the Republicans' obsession with impeachment of Clinton in 1998. You could say any political group, left or right, wants to "tear the country down and build it back in their viewpoint." Certainly true enough of the Republicans of the last decade. Of course, it only bothers you, Deane, when you think the lefties want to do it...

Andrew

Andrew, list what you think the Articles of Impeachment should be? Be specific.

DD, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to bother trying to write a legal Articles of Impeachment for you. But, two main reasons, both Iraq:

1. The way America was misled into the Iraq war. Don't tell me Democrats thought there were WMDs in Iraq too - that's not the point, we all did. But Democrats didn't take us to war in March 2003; even the Democrats who voted for authorization to use force in 2002 expected Bush to give the UN weapons inspectors time to do their jobs, to get a 2nd UN resolution, and to assemble a REAL coalition of nations against Iraq (like in 1991), and Bush did none of these.

The Bush administration used fear tactics to scare the hell out of the American people with rhetoric like "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" and suggesting that Saddam had been involved in the 9/11 attacks and had worked with al Qaeda, both of which were known to be NOT true even at that time. They selectively picked intelligence to support their case for war and disregarded other intelligence that disputed WMD claims in Iraq. When the military team charged with securing the supposed WMD sites starting going over the list prior to the 2003 invasion, they found the intelligence about them was extremely flimsy and not specific enough to prepare for. There were warning signs like this at that time all over the government but they were ignored or anyone raising them was intimidated into keeping quiet.

2. The actual execution of the Iraq war. The ignoring of military opinions about the number of troops needed to keep the peace and avoid an insurgency, the disasterous decisions to disarm Iraqi military in 2003 and exclude the Ba'ath Party members from any role in the new Iraqi government, the decision to send interns recruited from the Heritage Foundation to tackle important jobs in Iraq reconstruction - these all lead in part to the disaster we now have on our hands that is costing so many lives and billions of American dollars and weakening our national security.

Most of what eventually befell America in Iraq was predicted by smart people in the American government...who were ignored or shouted down. It's not a matter of "who could have predicted?" because most of it WAS predicted. It's all been documented - look it up. George H. W. Bush himself predicted as much in the late 90s in speeches before his son become president.

On those two grounds along, the president and VP should be removed by the Senate. There's absolutely no question in my mind. Any CEO of a company that was responsible for such incredible incompetence and mismanagement would not only have been fired years ago but would perhaps also be in jail with Bernie Ebbers.

Andrew

Good point Andrew.

Pretty high risk though. Not something any of us wants to see, that's for sure.

I want to see our process problems addressed. The rules of engagement are all hosed up and that's making a whole batch of things partisan that really shouldn't be. It's also forcing discussions like this one, we shouldn't be having.

It's just not a left or right matter, no matter how many times anyone tries to frame it as such.

(yeah, that's you Deane, Herb & DD.)

I just linked a story here about our President declaring the person (does not matter what person) immune to a congressional subpoena.

Here's the takeaway. It's not the Bush and friends doing bad / wrong things. We all either support that or not. It's process corruption and a deliberate effort toward diminishing the law and how we address conflict resolution as a nation.

What should happen is that person appears in court, then makes their arguments to be decided. Either those have merit, or they don't. We then get new law, or we don't.

That's American checks and balances.

This ass is circumventing all of that, thus removing himself and his administration from any real accountabilty. So, there are no checks and balance can only be achieved post mortem.

Essentially, then it's a get elected, do all you can, then leave with no worries kind of deal.

This is harmful to everyone, regardless of partisanship, ideology, etc...

It's flat out un-American and not in line with how the business of the nation is supposed to get done.

DD, that's impeachable period. Why? Because these actions violate the intent of our law, pervert the spirit of it and largely diminish it. These things are in violation of the oath of office: "to defend and uphold the Constitution".

There are plenty of others, but that's not really the point, so I'll leave that to somebody else needing a little "Bush Sucks" thearapy.

As Americans, we all should be very worried about these developments. The move to consolidate executive power, combined with a concentrated bias of the courts to support that notion really is shifting how the nation actually works.

This is being done with no public debate. Heck, a significant fraction of the public isn't even aware of the ramifications. That is what our elected representatives are supposed to be there for, but that's all gone now with too many dollars in the system for it to work properly in this respect.

When I say I hate what Bush has done with the place, or that he sucks (and it does big time), it's not about the specific decisions as much as it is about how they are being made and the process changes (violations) that are empowering the whole mess.

At every turn this administration has flat out ignored any obligations to the public it is supposed to serve. Accountability is almost zero and given the legal issues before us, may never actually be in place!

I know it's petty, but when this guy says "I'm the Decider", he actually means it. No travesty of the law, perversion of the process, political attack to eliminate roadblocks, law, or anything else is out of bounds.

My plea here is to consider the greater ramifications of that. Let's say we get a Democratic sweep again. Like Andrew just posted, are you guys really gonna hold the line you are now, should somebody like Edwards or Hilary do the same things?

Would you accept a Hilary signing statement that puts her above congress and the law, free to do as she will? What if Edwards decided to leverage the government databases and attack his opponents to universal health care, then pardon a batch of people for the greater good?

I have to say, I would be happy about the health care result, but would not sleep well knowing how it got done.

Reverse the roles a bit and think about the longer term implications if we allow the expectations set by this administration to continue?

It's ugly no matter what side you are on, and that's the real harm done here.

Adding to what Andrew wrote about the obession with impeachment, what Clinton did was NOTHING, compared to what these guys have done. It's not even a viable comparison. And he was impeached!

For me, the biggest worry is the blatent bastardization of our established processes and disregard for the rule of law. The bad decisions and policy can be rectified.

The ballot box will handle that nicely enough.

Setting the expectation that any given administration can just do what it pleases, without being checked by the other branches of government, is the big problem.

Frankly, if that were rectified, half this shit wouldn't have even gotten started. A President Bush, being held accountable, being forced to justify his decisions (as any President should), would have still sucked, but would also have done far less damage.

Finally, the conservatives in general appear to seriously compartmentalize this matter. If it's going your way, it's almost all good. No boundaries, just get the stuff done.

When it's somebody else, you guys squeal like stuck pigs.

Call me what you want. Know I'm focusing on core matters here, not partisan bullshit. I, and many others, are Americans first and respect that. Partisanship, ideology and other things come after being American.

I'll take the mudslinging as a compliment too. That's usually what happens when people realize they are in a seriously losing position. Sling away, I continue to support my posts here in a solid way. Don't always take the point, but it's not for lack of trying.

Try it (you in particular DD), you will be better for it. ---or just continue to find ways to make the ends justify the means and cheat yourself in the longer term.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/13/ill-do-what-i-damn-well-please/

Yeah, he's a facist asshole.

See guys? (well, I know some of you do)

Without some solid boundaries, we get this shit. It's not good, and it's totally not worth seeing whatever pet issue you really want to see legislated, get legislated.

There is no free lunch.

To use my favorite cheney quote: we need to hit them. again and again. Ebbers, Lay. Bush, Cheney. 4 peas in a slimey pod.

Saw this bumpersticker for the first time today (obvously from pre-2005 era):

Bush, Dick, Colin
The Asses of Evil

Andrew

Love it!

Herb:"No matter what he says, Moyers is a radical leftist. I would trust Hillary before I'd trust anything that extremist has to say."

Deane:"Moyers is so far left he makes Missing KSKD look like a radical right winger. Nothing he says or does has any merit in the real world. "

I KNEW that when I put Moyers name in the thread title, a couple of you would dismiss it out of hand. But Moyers says almost nothing during the segment; John Nichols and Bruce Fein do almost all the talking. Please view the video link and bring your thoughts to the table about the *content* of their discussion. It is not about impeachment of Bush per se, but about impeachment in general, and I found it enlightening.

Wow!
Ignore the content and begin name calling.
Who could have seen that coming?

It's number one on the list of dodges seen here.

Most rational people will seek to marginalize a point of discussion on form, or a factual error.

Others decide to just try something like this, rather than do the work necessary to actually add any real value to the discussion.

This behavior is a very large part of the problems we face right now.

Not sure if this is you? Play it safe, take a quick visit to http://www.criticalthinking.org

They've a set of mini-books, for only about $60, that will sort this out right quick.

If the Reverend Fred Phelps who without any compassion-says dreadful and inflammatory things about gays-were brought up in this discussion, little would need to be said about the man.

More to the point, those who did not distance themselves from him make a statement by not doing so.

Same thing with Mr. Moyers. He is a bomb-thrower and a radical leftist.

Herb

And still no comment on content.

Only name calling.

You still don't get it.

Herb

Nope.

Herb-
On another thread recently I asked you about Alan Keyes and you graciously answered my questions. You then posted a link to the Rev. Peterson, whom I had no knowledge of. I went to that link and researched about him because you liked him.

Although I disagree with their politics and religious stance I took the time to read about people important to you. Even though, and honestly, I knew I would probably disagree with them because you like them.

All I ask is that you show some of the same respect. Like Edselehr stated: Moyers actually gets few words in and is corrected on an assumption as well.

Fair point, Chris.

I guess my reason for not yet having read it is because Mr. Moyers has made his positions quite clear over the decades, all the way back to his work with the LBJ white house.

Perhaps most of all, I've simply seen Mr. Moyers as having evil intent. By their fruits ye shall know them. Plus the guy's a partisan hack. But Chris, your point is well taken.

Herb

So Herb, are you going to watch the clip objectively and comment on it or not?

Andrew

I watched it.

No surprise, either. Three self-important leftists babbling on about the 'benefits of impeachment' and how it's 'the cure.'

Funny how their spin stops when it comes to their guy Clinton.

But I was wrong in my previous post, for saying Moyers is a hack is far too kind. In fact, Moyers is a twisted leftist who would do and say virtually anything to promote his socialist agenda. This pathetic excuse for a liberal makes someone like David Sarasohn actually look reasonable for once.

The sniveling fellow travelers on Moyer's video don't have the votes to impeach, so all they can do is dream about it. Well dream on.

I hope these lily-livered pinkos continue to hand-wring well into 2008. By then, it'll be too late for them to actually further their cause, because by then we'll have a conservative in the White House.

Let me know if you want to know how I really feel and I'll be a little more feisty about it.

Herb

So you're saying you don't care for Bill Moyers then?

Andrew

There are plenty of reasonable liberals who make sense.

Mr. Moyers is neither. Instead, he's a devious, duplicitous, socialist bomb-thrower.

But other than that, sure-he's a fine guy.

Herb

And still no discussion about the content, how and why it's an issue.

Moyers could be the biggest ass there ever was. Refute the content of the program, or just admit you've got nothing and move on. To just dismiss things out of hand like this is grade school stuff.

Read my post.

It's whine-fest time 24/7 with this guy, a virtual dead end.

The votes aren't there, so end of story. Unless you enjoy re-arranging the deck chairs on the democrat Titanic. Are your candidates so poor that you must rub your hands together when a lame duck is dissed?

Why not talk about how Mr. Castro will become a capitalist, or how Hitler was kind to animals?

In other words: Pointless. The votes aren't there, and all he can do is bring on liberals who hate the president. Mr. Bush wasn't my actual preference for office and even I end up liking him more after watching a BIASED three to ZERO discussion about the guy.

AND YOU THINK FOX NEWS IS BIASED? Try bringing that hypocritical, pathetic argument up here again.

Herb

A bit snippy aren't we Herb. At least you WATCHED the video. Not totally surprised by your reaction.

I have been against impeachment but I am beginning to change my mind. I was already changing my mind well before this video.

You and Deane can call it a waste of time but the American public deserves to be lead by actual human beings who give damn.

No need to further the truth with facts because you'll blow it off as liberal crap when in actuality the crap has been hitting the American public for over 6 years.

To borrow your over used phrase..."get a grip."

I won the FOX discussion, and bias was not the key point. Accuracy and clarity was, along with their running lie; namely, "Fair and Balanced".

Did you watch the program? If so, what points are a problem and why? It's not hard.

I think we should just nail him, exercise the inherent contempt power of Congress to lock some clowns up and force the matter. I'm beginning to think the political risks are being way overstated. The most hard line GOP loyal members of my family just got done expressing their fear we may lose the republic over this mess.

That's a wake up call for sure. Guess what? They also didn't put impeachment off the table either. It's part of the process, ignored for political reasons, far too long.

The sooner a larger number of people wake up to the clear and present danger this administration and it's complete disregard for the law and value of oversight, the better. Might get ugly, but it also might get fixed that much quicker.

See the common ground thread for why. Everybody has a threshold where rational thought becomes worth more than not engaging in it currently is, for those so inclined.

"You and Deane can call it a waste of time but the American public deserves to be lead by actual human beings who give damn" Absolutely agreed.

Herb, you are worth keeping around, just for entertainment value. Here's your joke of the day from earlier:

"No surprise, either. Three self-important leftists babbling on about the 'benefits of impeachment' and how it's 'the cure.' "

Well, one of these "leftists" is Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda and Heritage Foundation. He also served in the FCC under Reagan. He is strongly in favor of striking down Roe v. Wade, supported strongly Alito's appointment to SCOTUS, and stood in favor of Clinton's impeachment. (all biographical data courtesy of 'the Google'). If he's a leftist, then you're a leftist Herb.

But back to impeachment. I found it strange that Fein stood with the "leftist" Nichols (again, Moyers largely sat on the sidelines of this segment) on impeachment being a possible "cure" for constitutional crises. What is the crisis that both men saw happening and agreed might need correction through impeachment? It's the power grab - the blatent, dismissive, "I'll do what I damned please and history will vindicate me" power grab that this White House has performed. Look at their latest ballsy maneuver - telling Congress that Harriet Miers will not be complying with the congressional subpenoa given to her. This is unprecedented - for the president to tell Congress that he has given Miers permission not to appear. He doesn't have that power!! No one has that power! Miers doesn't have to testify, she can claim executive privilege, or the 5th amendment, all day long, but she HAS TO APPEAR. This presidency is renegade and out of control, and something has to be done.

Again, why are Nichols and Fein in agreement that this situation requires movement toward impeachment, even though Fein is is an ideological brethern to Bush? Because both men are thinking of the future. Despite Karl Rove's assertion that the 2000 election would herald a neverending era of the Permanent Republican Majority, it is clear that power shifts back and forth. It's arguable, but odds are right now in favor of a Democratic takeover of the White House in '08. Fein sees this possibility, and is scared to death to think of a Hillary, a Gore, or (gasp!) an Edwards, with the powers that Bush has tried to claim for the presidency. Imagine Hillary with signing statements, or the power to conduct unwarranted suveillance, or the ability to start preemptive war - or the ability to ignore Congressional oversight.

Farsighted constitutional scholars from many points of the political spectrum are very concerned about leaving the deeds of this president unaddressed, because if impeachment is tabled for any reason, the precedent will have been set: presidents may do the things Bush has done and will continue to do, and impeachment is not an option.

Imagine something bare minimum Hillary might do that you would consider impeachable. How does it compare to the worst of Bush's actions? How would you make the argument that she (or any future president, for that matter) should be impeached? If Bush is allowed to slide to the end of his presidency without being called on his misdeeds, the bar will have been permanently lowered for all future presidents.

THAT is what the video was talking about - neither left or right, but constitutional or unconstitutional.

Nice summary, Mr. Ford, but I think the troll is too busy working on his next post (aka "Today's Chuckle") to care about what you're saying.

"Well, one of these "leftists" is Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda and Heritage Foundation. He also served in the FCC under Reagan. He is strongly in favor of striking down Roe v. Wade, supported strongly Alito's appointment to SCOTUS, and stood in favor of Clinton's impeachment. (all biographical data courtesy of 'the Google'). If he's a leftist, then you're a leftist Herb."

Fair enough. On that I stand corrected.

But on the subject of Mr. Moyers, even a cursory review of his history confirms the guy's a hard leftist.

And to the liberals who insist that "...we may lose the republic.." because of Mr. Bush and his policies, I have to laugh.

Welcome to the world of obsessive president-hating. And you people were incensed when similar charges were leveled against your guy Mr Clinton. At least Mr. Bush isn't selling classified intelligence to our enemies. Now THAT, along with the moral rot of abortion, are the kinds of things that WILL cause us to lose the republic.

Herb

Welcome to the world of obsessive Moyers hating.

Clinton committed a personal moral trangression and lied about it. He did not put the Republic in danger.

Bush is grabbing executive power well beyond what the Framers intended, and executing a foreign war in such a manner that our soldiers are dying by the dozen almost every day, while creating more enemies to America.

If I had to choose a president to impeach, guess who it would be?

"He did not put the Republic in danger."

Deft manoevre in ignoring Mr. Clinton's selling our defense secrets.

Why else would Sandy Burglar try to leave with highly classified intelligence in his socks?

In danger, indeed.

Herb

Sandy Burger was convicted of taking classified documents in 2005. Please, please explain to me how this equates to "Mr. Clinton selling our defense secrets". And please be clear in your explanation, because I cannot see any direct relationship between the two.

Here you go:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/berger.pdf

Proof positive of Bill Clinton signing a letter authorizing former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's access to classified documents that later came up missing.

But wait, there's more. Plenty more.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199907/ai_n8874625

Herb

This put the security of the Republic in to some danger.

It isn't the same as tearing the fabric of the Republic itself.

"Clinton did it too" does not work this time.

"SOME danger?"

Whatever Mr. Bush has done can be undone.

Try undoing multiple nuclear warheads raining down on us, courtesy of Mr. Clinton.

Downplaying the sale of classified intelligence does not work this time.

Herb

So it's all about Clinton's actions being so much more horrible that we can just ignore what is happening today?

You go and tell that to the surviviors of the dead --the whole big pile of them all stinking on the (P)residents watch. I'm sure they really appreciate their early ticket to discovering if their faith rings true.

Sure seems to me, some secrets getting out does pose a problem. That information is available from multiple sources as well. It's not like others couldn't build nukes if that didn't happen. So it's bad, but not the same kind of known, in your face, as in, "look at that big ass pile of dead people" kind of bad.

Ed, welcome to the madness. I like your characterization of "entertainment value", sure keeps me sane.

Saw an article the other day, "Clinton: The First Neo Con President" There are no bounds where trying to disassociate Bush from the GOP. None.

DJ said>>>
I guess Rush Limbaugh must be correct when he says the radical left wants to tear the country down and build it back in their viewpoint.

Nothing LimBLAH says or does has any merit in the real world.

How quickly Herb uses his classic "Clinton did it" routine when totally forgetting how Reagan upended the law with the Iran-Contra affair.

Geez Herb, Edselehr gives a great commentary on the reason of the Moyers video and your best response is "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton."

Who needs the reality check now!? Get a grip!

But Chris, Reagan was a REPUBLICAN. Don't you know they never do anything wrong?

This "Clinton sold secrets" BS is just another Republican conspiracy fantasy, like the long-disproved idea that Vince Foster was murdered because she was having an affair with Hillary...

Andrew

"But Chris, Reagan was a REPUBLICAN."

So was I until recently.

That's why I like to get into it with Herb. The more he explains himself, the more he marginalizes himself.

But Herb, I love you man. You are so wrong on so many things, but I love you. If it weren't for your out-of-context, overspun, FOXified comments, all us liberals would be here just having a big sticky hugfest. You truly keep us on our toes.

Hope you see the light soon, though.

Great discussion -- Thanks Edselehr!

"Should Bush be impeached even though there is about zero chance he'd be removed in the Senate?"

Yes, Andrew, he should, after Cheney.

If the GOP has a chance to get away from these assholes, they will in a split second. They are intimidated as hell -- like a wife who has been beaten for years -- but I am willing to bet that given a chance, they leave them both on the beach. Cut out the cancer, and you may save the party.

>>>""But Chris, Reagan was a REPUBLICAN."

So was I until recently."

It's interesting Chris, that you gave up your core values. I haven't. I still believe in the same things.

Just because we have some butt holes in Washington who have run as Republicans, doesn't change what I believe in.

If you get a bad minister at your church, do you stop believing in Jesus Christ and join Satan. I hope not.

If you get a "bad minister" at your church and you see that everyone else in the congregation seems to be following him and agreeing with him, what do you do? I guess you can be like Deane and be in denial and pretend nothing has changed, just a few bad apples, or you can be realistic and seek out a different church that still seems to support the values you've always believed in.

Andrew

>>>"seek out a different church that still seems to support the values you've always believed in."

And which would that be?

Ask Chris. Apparently, he felt that was no longer the Republican Party.

Andrew

Go here: http://pollingreport.com/institut2.htm, and check out this poll about the need for a 3rd party.

Less than 4 years ago, 40% felt the need for a 3rd party ... now, practically 60% think the Dems and GOP ain't enough.

There is being independant, or Democratic. The Democratic party would welcome you Deane, but it's not likely a good fit.

A good friend of mine is largely a Libertarian, though he does register for one of the other parties to place primary votes.

Maybe you don't have a party right now Deane. Deep down, I suspect you know this anyway.

Go Independant. I'm thinking about it after this next cycle. I switched from GOP to Democrat. Given the corruption issues, mentioned on the Lessig thread, I may well go Independant and encourage others to help make parties smaller.

(not sure we need them)

If there were more Independant voters, there would be less divisive politics in general. The mess we are in, with bizzare positions on nearly everything that matters, staked out in partisan terms is not in our best interests.

The majority of us are far more complex than this. Parties limit the scope of that discussion, diminish the importance of ideas and reinforce dogma.

Seriously. Do it. Heck, if you do it, I'll join you. How about that?

I totally switched because of the GOP enabling Bush to just do what he will. I'm betting the majority of them did it, either out of fear, or to get some issues legislated.

We are rapidly reaching the point where the price is too high.

Yeah, I'll do it with you. The more I think about it, the better this sounds actually. From that position, we then talk about things as Americans, who happen to maybe lean left here, lean right there, etc... Anyone else?

I think it's time I revisit Ron Paul. I know some of us have deal breakers - Herb, for instance, would likely not vote for anyone who smacked of Pro Choice ( I'm nto putting words into your mouth Herb. Just knew that that was a big issue for you ) so I will look for one in him. Absent that, I like his brain and his heart. Good combo.

But my brain keeps coming back to Paul if I want to see the kind of change I am hoping for.

That's just me.

Yeah, Ron Paul WILL NOT get my vote. Period. I simply don't support his libertarian positions e.g. on public education.

American can't support a viable third party without changing our current election system, which is a de facto two party system. We have a long history of third parties in American politics, due to repeated disgust with the Democrats and the Republicans. They never get the same footing as the maintstream parties and are eventually absorbed into one of the two main parties or die off or both.

It's nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win in a presidental election, because of our voting system. If a 3rd party candidate split the nation's electoral votes, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives to be decided there. Due to this fact and the electoral college system, people would be "throwing their votes away" by voting for the 3rd party candidate.

We should junk the electoral college for sure, move to popular elections of presidental candidates, and require a top-two run-off if no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, so people could support any 3rd party they wanted but know they could vote again on the top two.

Andrew

I'm not for Ron Paul for the same reasons.

I do however, love the attention he is getting where it puts pressure on the GOP for their bizzare positions. Unelectable otherwise.

Run Ralph, Run!

Herb

Nader may well run again but he's never going to approach the support level he had in 2000. A whole lot of people who supported Ralph in 2000 would never do so again after Bush barely squeaked in. I say if he runs again he will be inconsequential.

Andrew

Andrew, Nader only got 2.9 million votes in 2000. You say "Nader may well run again but he's never going to approach the support level he had in 2000."

Are you trying to be funny?

Well at some point I guess that given the choice to put my money where my mouth is and vote my conscience or ONCE AGAIN pick some lesser of two evils - dang man - where does that latter ever get me?

If I throw my vote away then so be it. Honestly, does it matter more for me to vote for him or to try and stimulate some thought behind the idea gaining some momentum towards real change in our system. Heck, I'm young enough to maybe see it come to fruition.

It's gotta start somewhere. I'm not saying that my thought of voting for Paul is some kind of mind-control/influential statement. ( As evidenced by Andrew and Missing's reaction. To say nothing of my tangible lack of influence ). I'm just wondering at what point I DO make that choice for myself. Instead of, you know, having it made for me - again. I think I would FEEL better knowing I voted for whom I wanted to win. And it may be Ron Paul.

I will acknowledge that being able to even consider it, while knowing others will vote otherwise is a luxury that our system affords.

I'm about 98% sure on this, but I can't believe anybody has mentioned that if Bush was impeached, the new President would be Dick Cheney. Although my understanding is he would have no senate vote in the matter due to the obvious succession conflict of interest.

I figured it would be a package deal.

Has to be.

They've both earned being able to make history.

I assume you guys are joking. You can't impeach a President and VP at the same time...or can you??? That one I don't have an answer for.

I actually was not joking. At least about what I would like to see, I was not. The liklihood is absurdly low.

"If you get a bad minister at your church, do you stop believing in Jesus Christ and join Satan. I hope not."

Interesting analogy Deane since our church just hired (actually it's a "calling") a new pastor. But through proper channels and not by having a bad previous pastor.

I switched to Independent after 30 years of being a Republican. It was two things really.

1) Bush/Cheney.
2) Those that continue to hold onto Bush/Cheney

However and quite honestly the Dems aren't tickling my fancy that much. I recently saw some video of the Dems debates on the question of energy and Richardson impressed me the most. The others played it safe and stayed within the old dogma of solutions and ideas. So right now my leanings are on him.

Nobody in the GOP race gives me any reason to think they will hold the White House in 2009. I give credit to Ron Paul for speaking his mind and shaking things up, however he is unelectable and will eventually drop out due to financial reasons I believe.

I can always choose to change my affiliation again if I feel I need too.

Chris, did ever vote for a Republican? If you did, was it more than once?

Yeppers.

Not just Presidents but Senators and those running for Congress, both at the state/local and national level.

But I voted for whom I felt was going to get the job done so I did cross party lines. I have never been a GOP or die kind of guy.

Did you actually for Reagan? That would be hard to believe.

I didn't vote for Reagan. But I would have.

DD writes:
Chris, did ever vote for a Republican? If you did, was it more than once?

DD, don't ask the man that in a public forum! There may be LAW ENFORCEMENT people reading! Voting more than once is a felony, you know. (Or it ought to be!)

Hey Chris, I dropped my registration as a Democrat a year ago, so I'm an independent, too. There are a lot of things about the Democratic Party I don't care for, although at least they don't SCARE me the way the Republicans do. One pet peeve with the Dems is the way they seem to be a bunch of special interest groups. During the presidental campaigns I've volunteered for, there are always two dozen bumper stickers:

Veterans for Kerry
African-Americans for Kerry
Women for Kerry
People of Faith for Kerry
Dog Catchers for Kerry
etc.

You don't see that on the Republican side...

Through 2006 I rarely considered voting for anyone but a D, but now that the Dems are back in power that may change, on a case by case basis. In a two party race in 2008 I'll most likely support the Democrat, even Hillary if I must. I don't put a whole lot of faith in any of the speeches these people make, anyway - it's all politics, it's what they have to do. I like to read between the lines and ask, "What would this person do in office as president?"

Andrew

DD- I voted for Reagan for his second term when he soundly defeated Dukakis. Was never impressed with Michael Dukakis.

Hard to believe eh?

You mean you voted for Reagan over Mondale, or you voted for Bush I over Dukakis? :-)

Andrew

Oh Geez my age is catching up to me Andrew. Bush I over Dukakis.

Thanks for catching that Andrew. What a brain fart.

DD you are correct I did not vote for Reagan. Though I did think about it.

Andrew - I saw a lot of "Sportsmen for Bush" this last election ... which makes me wonder WHY, because if Bush had his way, there would be no land or water left for the outdoorsmen to enjoy their craft.

God bless the NRA!

Dont forget, people that dont know how to fill out a ballot, for Kerry.

"We should junk the electoral college for sure, move to popular elections of presidental candidates, and require a top-two run-off if no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, so people could support any 3rd party they wanted but know they could vote again on the top two. "

Sounds great to me, but wouldn't that require a constitutional convention? I can't see ANYONE (even the GOP) trusting today's bunch of A-holes with rewriting the constitution.

I really feel stuck. Back in 2000 I had had it up to here with both parties, and had vowed to not vote for either of them anymore. Look what that got us... Worst pResident EVER.

Very bad idea, you would give control to the 8 or 10 largest states. The current system forces all candidates to achieve a wider base.

You don't need a constitutional convention just to amend the constitution, although that is one way to do it (in theory - I don't think it's ever been tried). A more practical way is to have the Congress approve a constitutional amendment switching the US to popular vote presidental elections and giving Congress the authority to mandate a "50% 2-candidate runoff" if they desire.

The amendment would then have to be approved by 2/3 of the state legislatures to become effective. I suppose it might be hard to get 2/3 because the smaller states would probably see it as a loss of power.

Some states have flirted with the idea of awarding their electoral votes proportionally rather than the "winner take all" method used now. So if candidate wins 50.5% of a state's vote, he/she only gets 51% (rounded, say) of the electoral votes. Very close to having popular vote election of the president, without requiring a US consitutional amendment. I'd still like to see a 50% run-off thing and that's going to be hard to do without a direct popular vote election.

Andrew

Constitutional amendment takes 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states.

OK, but the process is the same.

Andrew

If your for changing presidential elections to popular vote, how about the senate, alaska with only about 600,000 people has the same amount of votes in the Senate as california with about 36,000,000. almost 60 to 1 population ratio.

Bruce Fein is one of the participants in this discussion.

From Wikipedia:
Bruce Fein is a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Under President Ronald Reagan, Fein served as an associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission.

Notable published writings by Fein include articles advocating the impeachment of former U.S. president Bill Clinton and the current U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney.

This guy is far from being a left wing bomb thrower.

This is a very long URL. I hope it works as a link.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/pod cast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/Nat%20Show%20hr%201%207-18-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PO RTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_K POJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide

Listen to what he has to say.

Please resist the temptation to dismiss him simply because he is a guest on Thom Hartmann.

"Don[']t forget, people that don[']t know how to fill out a ballot, for Kerry."

Um, did you mean the folks who waited in the cold in Ohio? Eight hours in line for voting machines that either did not work, were not available, or shit all of their data when the polls closed on election night? There was a massive -- and probably calculated -- failure of electronic voting, not dangling chads.

Or do you mean 2000, when, oddly enough, only Jewish and Black people in certain parts of Florida could not seem to find the handle. These were the ones that were not on the racially profiled "no vote" list. They were brave enough to make it past the fist waving mobs and into the polls, so apparently, they had to stopped somehow.

Like I said, get Cheney first. Go after him hard. If cornered, he will just put on a crooked grin, hop the same airline the Bin Ladens did in the days after 9/11, and spend the rest of his days in sunny Dubai. Fine. Either way, he is gone.

Of course, there is an easier way. Just have a photo op on the south lawn that includes an old fashioned sack race. Between the clumsiness of the shrub, and Dick's weak ticker, there is a good chance that all of the due process will not be necessary. Who wins? The American People.

You'd think the guy who according to Hartmann WROTE the articles of impeachment against Clinton (did I hear that right???) would have some sort of clout when he now calls for impeaching Bush and Cheney...

Andrew

And those precients in Ohio had demo local officials, that didn't spend the money they had on training or enough machines.

The reason more black people were denied the right to vote in certain florida precients, was because there were more convicted felons living there.

If they had kept their address up to date with the election office, as your supposed to, they would have got the registered letter showing the problem, in plenty of time to correct it.

You seem to have an answer for everything, yet you are wrong about 90% of the time.

>>>"yet you are wrong about 90% of the time."

I assume that's in your opinion. Vitalogy, what is your background and what are your credentials for making these judgements?

Well....he is "Edward Louis Severson III"

Commonly known as Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam!

Ya, right. And I'm Paris Hilton's secret lover.

Hey....you mean people lie on their profile's in here......NO WAY!

BTW....Hope you use protection there man.....you have no idea were that has been!

For sheer mileage considerations, you might be better off with Perez Hilton.

YEP....to many people have checked the oil on Paris for sure. You may lose your dipstick if you are not careful!

I love the name of her porn film, "One Night in Paris".

Though it is their specialty -- and they have been at it for years -- Otto's Kitchen has no doubt pumped less sausage than Paris Hilton. Luckily, for the dimwits in charge, her delight in all things phallic and meaty is far more important than real news. After all, she came up in a discussion about impeaching the top figures in a criminal administration. Fox wouldn't have it any other way.

ENOUGH....NO MORE PARIS. Can't believe I fell into a P@#$% conversation! Let's get back to the "Peachy" topic at hand! (No that was not a pun on the prior discussion)

Yes, I agree. Returning to topic is an "impeachy" keen idea.

"I assume that's in your opinion. Vitalogy, what is your background and what are your credentials for making these judgements?"

He pulls this fairly regularly Vitalogy. Ignore it, and continue on. You are doing fine and welcome to PDXRadio.com

Anus said>>>>
Wow!
Ignore the content and begin name calling.
Who could have seen that coming?

Kettle meet pot....

Do we really want to establish the precedent of repeatedly having one side win the presidency, and letting the other side use impeachment to get in the way?

It was bad enough that Clinton got impeached, it would not be good for us to do it to two chief executives in a row.

I am constantly appalled and outraged at Bush and his cronies in his administration. So ..... the Democrats need to use their congressional powers to shine light in every little nook and cranny of the White House, not start impeachment proceedings. Those investigations would be a complete focus-buster for any action the Bushies wanted to take between now and 1/20/09.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that you can figure out how to adapt Bush's actions to sound like "high crimes and misdemeanors." He's been an absolutely horrible president, but it's time for someone to be the grown-ups.

The three branches of government are there for a reason, and it's to theoretically get something done by focusing on the people, not their own political aims.

I say forget impeachment. Let him serve out his time in disgrace so he can solidify his legacy as the worst president ever.

Damn right! Best way to let him go out! DISGRACE!
kind of like Nixon.....

God bless Richard Nixon.
Now with Mr. Bush in office, even some of you lefties will agree.

Herbert Milhous

For those who did not hear it on Thom Hartmann today, here is another Republican with credentials from the Reagan Administration, coming out for Impeachment.

Paul Craig Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/pod cast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/Nat%20Show%20hr%201%207-19-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PO RTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_K POJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide

And one more thing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAH3AeFy0SY

Paul Craig Roberts is a nut job. He has no credibility.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21704

Roberts on how President Bush will develop his “pretext” to nuke Tehran:

"a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a U.S. port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the U.S. media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation."

Never heard of the guy, but if he served under Reagan, nut job or not, he's one of your nut jobs.

To be honest, after a quick scan through his biography, he seems like a straight shooter. A guy that tells it like it is with no sugar on top. And I like people like that, because I'm the same way. And he's telling it like it is with Bush. He's the worst ever. Only idiots still defend Bush.

DD, I think you and I agree about once a year on anything. Today's the day.

I heard this guy on the Hartmann show today too, and after listening to him for a few minutes, I was like, "Wow, what a KOOK!"

Andrew

I can see the logic in keeping the shrub in the hotseat, but Dick has got to go for an abundance of crimes against our nation.

Beyond all the obvious reasons -- his lies under oath, his leaks of secrets, his gravy bibbed cronies, his absolute disregard for law, his overt fetish for torture, his public disdain for our Constitution, his private disloyalty to our troops, his utter disrespect for civil liberties, his redefinition of the Geneva Conventions, his trashing of Habeas Corpus, oh, and his drunken hunting trips -- it has to be done to send a message to future Veeps:

It will no longer be acceptable to pair a populist dimwitted doofus with rich parents and a sneaky corporate lapdog who lives behind a curtain with his levers.

No more Oz.

Before I posted that, i did a bit of research on Mr.Roberts.
And "nutjob" is the exact word they use on him in the various rightwing forums & blogs.

Let's assemble a list of all the other "Republican nutjobs" that have become critical of Bush & Co.

Richard Clarke
John Dean
Paul O'Neill
Scott Ritter

There is a start..

Well, I don't think I have a big history here of supporting the Bush administration or siding with right-wingers. But Roberts struck me as nutty. Truly. Just what I felt, listening to him. He seemed to be full of conspiracy stuff, which I usually don't go for.

Andrew

I just re-listened to the first part of the interview. Hartmann quotes Roberts in a new piece in which Roberts says that unless we impeach Bush and Cheney immediately, in a year America will be a police state dictatorship which will be at war with Iran. Sorry, as bad as things are, I don't buy into that kind of paranoid conspiracy crap.

Look at some of these crazy predictions that never came to pass. Hartmann himself and many others predicted before the 2006 elections that the Republicans were going to rig them to win. Some of the more looney were guaranteeing it. Others guaranteed we'd be at war with Iran by last summer. Can we call people on theses failed wacky predictions that they make and not take them so seriously in the future when they continue to predict such nonsense?

Andrew

vit sez: "I say forget impeachment. Let him serve out his time in disgrace so he can solidify his legacy as the worst president ever."

I disagree. Why bother baking a cake if you're not gonna put icing on it.

Andrew,

I re-listened to the interview also, and while I agree that some of the claims sound far fetched, I keep coming back to some basic points:

1. The guy worked in government, in the Reagan Administartion. He knows Cheney, he knows Rumsfeld. He knows what they are capable of.

2. The fact that the Republicans did not win the 2006 elections does not mean that predictions that they would due to rigging were wacky. It worked very well for them in 2000 & 2004.

3. If someone would have predicted in 2000 that in just 7 years we would be where we are now, they would have been called a wacky conspiracy theorist.

Well, Amus, I guess the fact that the guy worked for Reagan and worked with Cheney and Rumsfeld 20+ years ago doesn't mean much to me. Not sure on what basis he could say they are "capable" of things like suspending elections and creating a "police state" in America next year, if they couldn't even prevent a Democratic take-over of the House and Senate in 2006 or prevent Cheney's own guy (Libby) from being convicted by a Bush-appointed prosecutor (Fitzgerald). Just because Cheney is a powerful guy doesn't mean he's THAT powerful.

The fact that some people claim that Republicans "rigged" the elections in 2000, 2004, and 2006 doesn't make it true. There is definitely evidence of some sleazy behavior such as expunging some voters in Florida form the voter rolls in 2000, but that doesn't mean it was orchestrated by some high-level Republican conspiracy. On the contrary, I consider it a sort of "do whatever we can get away with for our side" dirty politics which should be prosecuted if laws were broken. Unfortunately, as we know, whether people get prosecuted often depends who is in charge.

Given what has occurred in America's past - the Red Scare after World War I, the McCarthyism and black lists of the 1950s - the era of fear following 9/11 and the resulting restrictions in freedom (which aren't nearly so bad as what happened in those previous eras) isn't that surprising. A lot of people assumed Bush would handle Iraq one way or another; an invasion shouldn't surprise anyone given that so many people Bush brought into his government in 2001 had been part of the "Project for the New American Century" which advocated invading Iraq.

Andrew

Three more and Conyers will pull the trigger!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24962

After this latest breech of law, I'm doing my phone calls for sure.