Vermont Dems Continue on Impeachment Bandwagon

While Senator Russ Feingold's Censure resolution lingers in Congress, another movement seeks to unseat the President of the United States. Saturday, members of Vermont's Democratic Party decided to inquire impeachment proceedings for Bush, the American leader. Although the Vermont Republican Committee believes this move partisan, the opposing party calls for governmental reform.




I believe that the Vermont Democratic party's call for impeachment proceedings is another demonstration of dissent growing in the United States. It is natural for the Republic Party in the same state to oppose this move, simply because it undermines the President of the United States. What does everyone think about this story? Do you think that the calls of impeachment are growing closer?

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-4-2006 by UM_Gazz]

I think it is much to late for any impeachment movement to take hold. I mean, the various wanna-be presidents are already beginning to jockey for position, raising money, taking polls, whatever else is involved in setting ones self up for a run at the White House.

Vermont, and to a lesser extent, all the states you mentioned, are all notorious for being a little out on the limb politically. I simply do not think that there is sufficient time between now and the next presidential go 'round for it to take hold. Whether or not Mr. Bush did wrong is moot, no time.

The censure is something else entirely.

This doesn't surprise me at all.

First of all, they are from Vermont.

Second of all, they are Democrats.

Third of all, what else would democrats from Vermont do?

What would surprise me is if the dems could put together something called an international agenda or even a national one instead of the same Bush-hate argument we've been hearing since algore lost it in '00.

This article explains how this is going to backfire on Democrats. Karl Rove is drooling all over this!

But, ironically, it is Mr Bush's aides whose spirits have been lifted by what Vermonters see as their plucky stand. By contrast, most Democrats - torn between their desperation to appear tough on national security and a desire to lambast the President - seem to wish Vermont would pipe down.

But, ironically, it is Mr Bush's aides whose spirits have been lifted by what Vermonters see as their plucky stand. By contrast, most Democrats - torn between their desperation to appear tough on national security and a desire to lambast the President - seem to wish Vermont would pipe down.

"Censure? Impeachment? Is this the Democrats' plan?" the voiceover asks. Although Mr Bush's current poll ratings are poor, Mr Rove knows that nothing motivates the party faithful more than Democrat attacks on his hard line on security.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/04/09/wvermont09.xml

Seagull,

I don't think that impeachment is a moot point. As I go over the history of President Nixon's impeachment, there was plenty of time to exact the charges--all in a span of two years. I agree that it is moot now because it is an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. But let's just say that in November 2006, the tide of power changes toward the Democrats. That would mean that they still have until inauguration day January 2009 to hold proceedings. (this is going by the logic of the Nixon impeachment) I don't know how long impeachments run, but I would think that it could either be short or long. It all comes down to support and the means to implement it.

Secondly, Vermont was not the only state that passed the issue. New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin also passed it. And I can hardly say that North Carolina is a liberal state.

The other point is that when Mr. Nixon was elected, he was voted into office with 60 % of the popular vote. However, when the truth trickled out about his machinations, that support dwindled. I think it's rather interesting that in the House judiciary 17 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted to impeach him before Mr. Nixon resigned. This might look partisan, but if it were truly placed on an equally divided committee, not one Republican would have voted to impeach Mr. Nixon.

You can read more from historyplace.com for more info about the Nixon impeachment and its technicalities. Also on the site, it has the impeachment proceedings for Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as well.

I think, that if this is a grassroots effort, it might catch on to other states. After all, several cities have also passed resolutions to also impeach Mr. Bush. So, this issue has been lingering around for a long time. And I doubt it will die.

Carseller: You have a valid point. I'm sure that Karl Rove is rubbing his hands in delight with news of the impeachment. You cannot deny that he has singuarly implemented (legal or illegal) the media in terms of switching public opinion. But to rehabilitate Mr. Bush at this time would even be a Herculean task--even for him. But, I do not deny Mr. Rove's tactic. You will probably see him trying to issue a story to cloud over the effort that a segment of people are disgusted by the way things are run.

And with the Dems struggling to find a platform, I would not be surprised that this would be a way for the Republican party to strike. That's why I hope that they get their act together and put out a clear message before November.





[edit on 9-4-2006 by ceci2006]

who was the rep from Nevada, was it Sen. Harry?

If you need any help on that grass roots impeachement for Bush let me know, I ll try to help out, brother!

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally quoted by Low Orbit
who was the rep from Nevada, was it Sen. Harry?

That's right. I stand corrected, Low Orbit. I changed my post. It slipped my mind that Sen. Harry Reid is from Nevada.

And, it's sister to you, Mr. Orbit.

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by Low Orbit
who was the rep from Nevada, was it Sen. Harry?

That's right. I stand corrected, Low Orbit. I changed my post. It slipped my mind that Sen. Harry Reid is from Nevada.

And, it's sister to you, Mr. Orbit.

Well, then I appologize, sister!

The national sentiment against the Bush regime is growing daily. It's their own fault. They had the nation, if not the world, in their hands after 911 and have fallen hard on their faces in every conceivable way. The public is beginning to awaken to the fact that 95% of what comes out of the mouths of anyone in this administration is hooey, political clap-trap. When someone calls them on it they simply play the blame game.

The US public has never been lied to as much in history about the motivations of policy choices and the gross ineptitude and abject failures to effectively see those poor choices through. The waste of treasure and goodwill is abominable and the public, while not understanding much of the details of the time-bomb like mess unfolding on us, has lost faith in Bush and his frat boy spiel.

Regarding impeachment, I agree that it will depend entirely upon the success of the non-Republicans at the midterm elections this fall. The Repub's in Congress have been well trained (for the most part) to heel. They know that to turn on their master will result in their demise, such is the penalty for individual thought within this party of strictly enforced homogeneity. They have sold their souls to the devil and cannot now escape the Faustian bargain. I imagine many of those who have not completely lost their souls anxiously await the demise of their master by hook or by crook.

If the dem's are smart they will push an agenda of honest government. The people (and even the sheeple) are tired of being repeatedly lied to about the most significant issues of our time. Were we to have an honest government which honored the rule of law, Bush and his cronies would end up in prison busting rocks. Screw impeachment. I'm for imprisonment.

Great post, btw, seattle law. If Mr. Bush and his cronies do get convicted, make it Huntsville prison along with DeLay. In Texas, not only will they be cracking rocks; they will also be in a chain gang all together in deep, dank cells. It would be a fitting punishment for the only governor in modern U.S. history to have as many executions under his belt. A lot of people think of him being a religious man, but his hypocrisy is appalling. After all, we know what happened to Karla Faye Tucker. And so does he:

Wikipedia.org

Karla Tucker and George W. Bush

Under Texas law, each death penalty case has one chance to be reprieved by a governor without the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board must recommend the second reprieve in order for it to be granted. All 18 members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles are appointed by the governor (Clark, 2000). Before Tucker was executed, there were appeals for clemency from Waly Bacre Ndiaye, the United Nations commissioner on summary and arbitrary executions, the World Council of Churches, Pope John Paul II, and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, among other world figures. Unusual appeals came from conservative American political figures such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, interceding on her behalf. Tucker did not ask for a pardon, only commutation of her death sentence to life in prison. Huntsville Prison's warden testified that she was a model prisoner and that, after 14 years on death row, she likely had been reformed. Despite these pleas, Bush signed her death warrant. In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

Bush denied that he had intended to make light of the issue.

This is one of Mr. Bush's early acts among others that gave me insight into his character. And with that realisation, sometimes I have to wonder about his capacities as President of the United States. And it also compels me to think about the impeachment issue--regardless of whether it is applicable or not.

I also think the media blatantly ignores the issues concerning impeachment as well as a Democratic agenda. If we had real reporters who went by the adage in journalism school of being "objective" in reporting, there would be an equality of stories from both sides of the aisle. Furthermore, the public would hear more about the calls for impeachment instead of having it buried in the last page of the paper. It is a shame that people who really keep up on the news have to dig for this information.

And then, I read the article from mediamatters. org concerning the coverage of the Dems. It serves to answer the question why people think that the Dems do not have an agenda. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read what CNN's Wolf Blitzer did:

During an April 4 interview, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, "Why are you, the Democrats, having such a hard -- tough time convincing Americans that you do have a set of policies for the country?"

Regrettably, Dean didn't answer, "Because of you, Wolf. Because we do have policies, and we do everything we can to draw attention to them, but you ignore it. Because on March 29, Democrats unveiled our new national security agenda -- and you, Wolf, you and your network virtually ignored it. You showed two minutes of House Democratic Leader Harry Reid speaking at the press conference -- and nearly two hours of President Bush speaking. We have a hard time 'convincing Americans' that we have 'a set of policies' because you, Wolf, ignore those policies -- then assert that we don't have any."

Later, Blitzer teased a replay of the interview by declaring: "Plus, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. He's also in The Situation Room. With the Republicans facing so much trouble, why does it seem that Democrats can't get their act together? I'll ask him."

The Dems are losing many opportunities to assert themselves because they get shut out by the media. Not only the Republicans have to obey their masters, the media sycophants do too.





[edit on 10-4-2006 by ceci2006]

I didn't mean to imply that all those states were liberal, sorry about that. What I meant to say was these states do seem to have a history of going their own way politically.

Impeachment calls aside, I don't think there is enough time left in his term. Not that it isn't important, it certainly is, again I apologize for implying otherwise.

Either of the political parties are going to have a rough row to hoe trying to utilize an honesty in government platform. Neither party, IMHO, are exactly sterling examples of honesty and straight shooting. I will grant you that the democrats would have an easier time of it than the GOP. But that's not saying a whole lot.

You're on it Ceci.

But the reason the "liberal" media is actually biased against liberals and dems is that there's a 'top down' atmosphere which either ignores or punishes reporters who give lip service to matters which are either critical of Bush and his cronies or supportive of the opposition. Perhaps it's because of the Murdoch type neocon cheerleaders who head up these corporate Goliaths. For exampl, GE is one of the largest defense contractors so why should NBC bother to spin against this war or any other war? It's simply not in their pecuniary interests and since increasing share value is the sine qua non of coroprate motivation there is actually solid incentive to push for increase in war.

And we know from Ceci's example that Bush may never have developed empathy.

...psychopaths are seemingly able to demonstrate the appearance of sensing the emotions of others with such a theory of mind, often demonstrating care and friendship in a convincing manner, and can use this ability to charm or manipulate, but they crucially lack the sympathy or compassion that empathy often leads to. Empathy certainly does not guarantee benevolence. The same ability may underlie schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the pain of another entity) and sadism (being sexually gratified through the infliction of pain or humiliation on another person).

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by seattlelaw
You're on it Ceci.

But the reason the "liberal" media is actually biased against liberals and dems is that there's a 'top down' atmosphere which either ignores or punishes reporters who give lip service to matters which are either critical of Bush and his cronies or supportive of the opposition. Perhaps it's because of the Murdoch type neocon cheerleaders who head up these corporate Goliaths. For exampl, GE is one of the largest defense contractors so why should NBC bother to spin against this war or any other war? It's simply not in their pecuniary interests and since increasing share value is the sine qua non of coroprate motivation there is actually solid incentive to push for increase in war.

And we know from Ceci's example that Bush may never have developed empathy.

...psychopaths are seemingly able to demonstrate the appearance of sensing the emotions of others with such a theory of mind, often demonstrating care and friendship in a convincing manner, and can use this ability to charm or manipulate, but they crucially lack the sympathy or compassion that empathy often leads to. Empathy certainly does not guarantee benevolence. The same ability may underlie schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the pain of another entity) and sadism (being sexually gratified through the infliction of pain or humiliation on another person).

en.wikipedia.org...

seattlelaw, I hope you aren't practicing law with that intellect, nbc not liberal. Come back to reality!!! Name A conservative show on nbc or msnbc besides the bow-tied bandito?(tucker C)

Originally posted by Low Orbit

seattlelaw, I hope you aren't practicing law with that intellect, nbc not liberal. Come back to reality!!! Name A conservative show on nbc or msnbc besides the bow-tied bandito?(tucker C)

TC is enough for any network. However I don't refer to the character of 'shows' per se. I don't watch them anymore. They bore me. But from what I recall when I used to watch them I am speaking of the failure of the networks to challenge this administration's policies by objectively addressing the hypocrisy exhibited by the contrast between asserted goals and actual practices. The universal focus of the networks is either infotainment or the regurgitation of the talking points issued by the mouth of the administration.

The shut down of any dialogue diverging from the jingoism required by the Bushies following 911 continues to this day. Open dialogue and debate with interested journalists digging for stories is dead. Those few journalists willing to challenge the status quo since 911 are either dead or pushing brooms. The retaliation for suggesting this administration has made any mistakes is breathtaking. If 911 or Katrina and the ridiculous responses to those disasters had taken place under a democrat he/she would be hanging from the White House flag pole by now.

The amount of dissent out there is limited to democracynow.org, "The Nation" and a few other small publications. Oh, and Jon Stewart. That's right, we're now relying on comedians to point out the hypocrisy of our 'leaders'.

The terms 'neocon' and 'reality' are mutually exclusive because the neocons are living in their own made up reality where up is down and black is white (unless it's people). Any news broadcast which shows the naked emperor pissing in the wind is risking open warfare with this administration. Major broadcast journalists have lost their careers over challenging these people. Many journalists have lost their lives for reporting on the war.

Believe what you will. I prefer reality.

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by Low Orbit

seattlelaw, I hope you aren't practicing law with that intellect, nbc not liberal. Come back to reality!!! Name A conservative show on nbc or msnbc besides the bow-tied bandito?(tucker C)

TC is enough for any network. However I don't refer to the character of 'shows' per se. I don't watch them anymore. They bore me. But from what I recall when I used to watch them I am speaking of the failure of the networks to challenge this administration's policies by objectively addressing the hypocrisy exhibited by the contrast between asserted goals and actual practices. The universal focus of the networks is either infotainment or the regurgitation of the talking points issued by the mouth of the administration.

The shut down of any dialogue diverging from the jingoism required by the Bushies following 911 continues to this day. Open dialogue and debate with interested journalists digging for stories is dead. Those few journalists willing to challenge the status quo since 911 are either dead or pushing brooms. The retaliation for suggesting this administration has made any mistakes is breathtaking. If 911 or Katrina and the ridiculous responses to those disasters had taken place under a democrat he/she would be hanging from the White House flag pole by now.

The amount of dissent out there is limited to democracynow.org, "The Nation" and a few other small publications. Oh, and Jon Stewart. That's right, we're now relying on comedians to point out the hypocrisy of our 'leaders'.

The terms 'neocon' and 'reality' are mutually exclusive because the neocons are living in their own made up reality where up is down and black is white (unless it's people). Any news broadcast which shows the naked emperor pissing in the wind is risking open warfare with this administration. Major broadcast journalists have lost their careers over challenging these people. Many journalists have lost their lives for reporting on the war.

Believe what you will. I prefer reality.

You are an idiot, the reality you are talking about you have no basis for since you dont watch anymore....

If you don't know what you are writing about you might not want to write anything at all. They'll teach you that in law school.

Your question: Why are there so few news sources for me besides cnn, newsweek, NY Times, the nation, airamerica, jon stewart, in the liberal media.

Answer: Because there are only so many ways to impeach Bush. And since that has been the only item on the dems agenda the last 6 years its no wonder they are getting WORKED by the conservative media.

For those who have seen UHF, it is the same reason why we don't have hundreds of Spatula City's across the U.S.,... NO ONE CARES!

Look at the amount of papers the NY Times has sold the last several years. No conservative wants to read that garbage, thus the reason why the national review and fox news are DOMINATING!

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Guess I struck a nerve there eh? Heh-heh. You knee-jerk neocon lovers are so predictable. Why don't you present an argument rather than more ranting diatribe? I can see your mouth foaming over your keyboard. Turn down the volume on your TV for a minute. Those FOX corporatists always repeat themselves anyhow. You can hear everything they say again in another 10 minutes.

Let me save you a few moments of mindless mental inactivity and tell you, it will be about how Clinton caused 911 and Katrina and how Hilary is a really a vampiress in disguise. Then they'll trumpet how only 19 more US servicemen were killed today in the Godly Fight for Freedom. Hurrah! More blood for oil for the rich oligarchs who control the nation. Remember, you're either with us or you're a ... a... communist. No, wait, that was last time. You're either with us or you're ... uh ... AGAINST US! Yeah, that's it.

You think Bush and his cronies are conservative? That's pathetic. These jokers have done more damage to our national debt than all the dem's in history. They're laughing all the way to the bank while you rah-rah jingoists give them a moronic thumbs up. You think I'm an idiot? Pal, you've gotta expand your horizons beyond jingoism and abject hatred of other people. Pull your head out of the miasma of the neocon con machine.

BTW, here's some more fuel for you angst. Enjoy!

April 10, 2006 — President Bush's job approval rating is at a career low in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll amid continued broad public skepticism about the Iraq war.

I suppose the pollers are also liberal? Keep playing the blame game. It's always good for some sympathy somewhere.

I say fire the bum.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
BTW, here's some more fuel for you angst. Enjoy!

April 10, 2006 — President Bush's job approval rating is at a career low in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll amid continued broad public skepticism about the Iraq war.

I suppose the pollers are also liberal? Keep playing the blame game. It's always good for some sympathy somewhere.

I say fire the bum.

Probably not as liberal as you. Only the ankless Hillary is there with you.

Seagull, it's okay. I know what you mean. Both parties need to be accountable for their actions. However, if impeachment isn't the way to hold Bush accountable, what will?

Originally quoted by Low Orbit
Name A conservative show on nbc or msnbc besides the bow-tied bandito?(tucker C)[/url]

Chris Matthews' "Hardball" for starters. "Scarborough Country" is yet another one. Read this mediamatters.org report about RNC talking points. On the other hand, "The Abrams Report" and "Countdown With Keith Olberman" sit on the fence, I think.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Probably not as liberal as you. Only the ankless Hillary is there with you.

She has as much flex in her ankles as Laura Bush, for whatever it's worth. Heck, they probably went to the same sorority. These are all Ivy leaguers man. Don't you get it? You are not one of any of them and never will be. Take sides, I don't care. It's not about party affiliation for me. Clinton did plenty of bad things while in office. Just less bad than the present momma's boy, silver spooner, draft dodging, awolling, DWIing, business wrecking, just barely passing, mass murdering cheerleader.

And thanks for calling me a liberal! It's a label I wear proudly. Do you even know what it means?

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic (e.g. France, Germany and India) or a constitutional monarchy (e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth realm), with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what are you in favor of? Despotism I suppose.