"In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney announced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.* meanwhile, kos on impeachment (in full):
The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment."
"Bowers throws fuel on a fire that was simmering down and lists his argument against impeachment. I'll add further fuel with one more argument --There you go.
We have one year to make our case for 2008 to the American people. We need to show not just that we deserve to hold on the Congress, but that we should be given the White House as well.
2008 won't work, since as an election year, all meaningful legislative work will grind to a halt and the press will be focused on the horse race (as will we). So 2007 is it.
We can spend 2007 either pushing impeachment (which isn't as popular as Zogby claims, see Bowers' piece), or we can use it educating the American people about what a Democratic government would look like -- passing meaningful legislation that would improve their lives like the minimum wage, health care reform, ethics reform, stem cell research funding, policies that help families and the middle class.
Impeachment does none of that.
In a perfect world, we could do all of the above. But we don't live in a perfect world. And the second we start impeachment proceedings, the media will focus on that. Heck WE'LL focus on that, and the Democratic legislative agenda will fade into the background, ignored. A perfect opportunity to brand the Democratic Party in a positive light will be forever squandered.
So what is more important, proving that we can govern and making the case for future Democratic majorities? Or a high-profile vendetta campaign against Bush? It really is just one or the other.
It's an easy call.
Don't worry about Bush and company. Congress will pursue its oversight duties. Waxman and Slaughter and Conyers and the rest of those guys aren't about to take the next two years off. People will be held accountable. Impeachment isn't the old path to accountability.
And Bush? He's going down as the nation's Worst President Ever. We don't need "impeachment" to make that case, Bush has done a great job of it all by himself."
I also want to make note of this comment in the aforementioned AP article about McKinney:
McKinney, who has not discussed her future plans, has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.think about that for a minute.
She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath...
But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not wearing her member lapel pin.
A grand jury in Washington declined to indict McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before the House.
7 comments:
Honestly written (a stretch, I know) that line would have read, "it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that was accorded the most attention by slavering newsdrones and vacuous pundits on the instruction of their corporate pimps", but that would be too honest.
Two other notes:
- the very mention of potential Bush complicity in 9/11, after revelations on the August PDB not too long ago, is curious.
- the second para plants the idea of impeachment as a fixation of the 'liberal wing' of the Democratic party, while simultaneously placing Pelosi in opposition to/outside that wing. Intentional or not, it's a nice bit of literary contortionism.
don - you are totally right. i was gonna make some mention of 'she's got scary hair!!!!'
and yeah, you are also right that it's actually amazing that they even mention the possible complicity of bush/911 - how many times in the past have they even reported on that?
rimone - what rimone said.
David Swanson just posted a nice rip on AP's Ben Evans on Democratic Underground for this hack job that shouldn't really pass for journalism. He does note that another article by another AP writer, Matthew Daly, did a lot better at trying to put facts and not just feed the corporate media propaganda echo chamber.
oldschool: You can't imagine the fire which burns within me to see these guys put into the dock - be referred to as 'the Defendants"
wanna bet, dude? it nearly drove me crazy for almost five years but thank fuck, i have most of my mind on more fun things lately.
ps, keep sucking up, i love it, lol
calipendence - yuo already know what i think of the AP
oldschool - i agree that the case isn't cut & dried, and there are competing interests etc. here's a question - do you think that bushco should have been impeached 2 years ago? if so, for what reasons? and are those reasons still valid today?
my goal isnt 'impeachment' - but rather 'how do we stop these fuckers from doing any more damage in the short terms?' and 'how do we make sure they dont come back in 10 years time like the iranc-ontra criminals did?'
Luke,
I thought you'd enjoy that "critique" of the AP! I did.
As for your goal, it is the same as mine. If we can't get it done through impeachment that would put in the Dems in the White House, I still wonder if we can cut a deal with the Republicans that would allow them to retain control of the White House, but address the concerns that you and I have about having a constant and recycled criminal element that keeps invading every Republican administration.
Perhaps as part of a deal of not going after both Bush and Cheney at the same time (to get Pelosi president), the Republicans could be persuaded into joining together to have a supermajority of votes pass a constitutional ammendment to limit the powers of pardons by the president of previous administration officials. The devil here would be in the details on how this is done. There's a lof legal options here and potholes too. But if one could come up with something that wouldn't allow a Gerald Ford manouevre, that would allow us to prosecute folks like Nixon, Bush, Cheney, Rummsfeld, Negroponte, Elliott Abrahams, etc. so that we can permanently take them out of the system to avoid them infecting future administrations, I'd go along with that. I could live with a hobbled temporary Republican administration until 2008, as long as they aren't pardoning all of these criminals that need to have their asses handed to them. As some here noted, IN THE HAGUE!
Again, I think also the biggest concern, given the time involved is the handing out of pardons, and finding ways to prevent such.
I do believe that once a president is under articles of impeachment, that they can't hand out pardons in that instance. Someone correct me if they know the details here.
But perhaps impeachment might not be so much to actually impeach Bush, but, if timed right, limit his ability to pardon all of the criminals before he goes out.
As you note, that could also be a campaign slogan too, that the Dems won't pardon criminals if they get the presidency, and if the Dems do attain power in 2008, try their best to not be vindictive, but yet still go after the criminality that was going on, and punish it so that it doesn't happen again. If done right, that wouldn't have the public respond that they are practicing "dirty politics".
Post a Comment