WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

I have not heard or seen one American wondering about the priorities of Congress. I have seen quite a few question the priorities of another governmental branch (or two).

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Is it me or does the Democratic party look weaker and weaker every day? I mean you can't even get unified party support to impeach a guy with a 11% approval rating??? And the same day two of your Senators on the judiciary commitee side with the Republicans because they are afraid of what GEORGE FRIGGIN BUSH may do if they vote against Mukasey? Its almost like the Republicans toy with the Democrats.

Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

I liked this Lou Dobbs article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/06/Dobbs.Nov7/index.html

Warszawa wrote:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

I have not heard or seen one American wondering about the priorities of Congress. I have seen quite a few question the priorities of another governmental branch (or two).

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Is it me or does the Democratic party look weaker and weaker every day? I mean you can't even get unified party support to impeach a guy with a 11% approval rating??? And the same day two of your Senators on the judiciary commitee side with the Republicans because they are afraid of what GEORGE FRIGGIN BUSH may do if they vote against Mukasey? Its almost like the Republicans toy with the Democrats.

What Americans wonder about Congress is why the new blood they just voted in for the sake of checks and balances, getting us out of Iraq, etc. just roll over into a fetal position when it comes to actually standing up to the administration/GOP status quo.

While I can understand some concern that GWB would appoint a lackey as a recess appointment for interim AG (interim basically meaning the rest of GWB's term), point still stands that the Democrats in Washington are spineless wussies.

If the Washington Democrats had any spine (or brain), they'd realize that the Republicans' "surprise maneuver" would actually open the door to real on-the-record investigations and hearings into Cheney and the yellowcake Wilson Plame scandal, and maybe even uncover the real motives for Iraq-apalooza. But again, they're probably afraid of which GOP prez candidate would get Bush's nomination for VP if Cheney were to be impeached and removed.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

I have not heard or seen one American wondering about the priorities of Congress. I have seen quite a few question the priorities of another governmental branch (or two).

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader St

eny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Is it me or does the Democratic party look weaker and weaker every day? I mean you can't even get unified party support to impeach a guy with a 11% approval rating??? And the same day two of your Senators on the judiciary commitee side with the Republicans because they are afraid of what GEORGE FRIGGIN BUSH may do if they vote against Mukasey? Its almost like the Republicans toy with the Democrats.

What Americans wonder about Congress is why the new blood they just voted in for the sake of checks and balances, getting us out of Iraq, etc. just roll over into a fetal position when it comes to actually standing up to the administration/GOP status quo.

While I can understand some concern that GWB would appoint a lackey as a recess appointment for interim AG (interim basically meaning the rest of GWB's term), point still stands that the Democrats in Washington are spineless wussies.

If the Washington Democrats had any spine (or brain), they'd realize that the Republicans' "surprise maneuver" would actually open the door to real on-the-record investigations and hearings into Cheney and the yellowcake Wilson Plame scandal, and maybe even uncover the real motives for Iraq-apalooza. But again, they're probably afraid of which GOP prez candidate would get Bush's nomination for VP if Cheney were to be impeached and removed.

It would be stupid for the Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings at this point. Bush will be gone in 14 months. Impeachment would appear to most people as petty and vindictive. It would be costly in terms of political capital, and accomplish exactly nothing.

The true believers of politics who populate the blogosphere on Redstate and Daily Kos and similar sites are less in touch with normal Americans than even our elected DC insiders. They need to get out of their asylum like echo chambers and begin confronting some version of reality.

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

I haven't looked at Kucinich's bill, and I'm not generally inclined to take him seriously... but I'd assume the articles of impeachment are for violations of the Constitution rather than "low approval ratings."

FWIW (nothing), I think Cheney has been instrumental in a lot of lawbreaking, and that his activities merit removal from office. Even making the effort and failing might be worthwhile in a Constitutional sense (the main way I think about politics these days), as it would show there are some consequences to figuratively tearing up the document. But evidently people in Washington, on both sides, think the political advantage would be to the Republicans... I guess because when the DeLay pearl-clutchers went after Clinton, it worked to the Democrats' advantage.

Vulture seems to see it this way as well, and I bow to his superior poli sci kung fu. But I do think it's a little sad that the public likely would equate getting a BJ in the Oval to pushing torture, illegal surveillance, falsifying intelligence and the many lesser manifestations of the Unitary Executive.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

I haven't looked at Kucinich's bill, and I'm not generally inclined to take him seriously... but I'd assume the articles of impeachment are for violations of the Constitution rather than "low approval ratings."

FWIW (nothing), I think Cheney has been instrumental in a lot of lawbreaking, and that his activities merit removal from office. Even making the effort and failing might be worthwhile in a Constitutional sense (the main way I think about politics these days), as it would show there are some consequences to figuratively tearing up the document. But evidently people in Washington, on both sides, think the political advantage would be to the Republicans... I guess because when the DeLay pearl-clutchers went after Clinton, it worked to the Democrats' advantage.

It's not really clear that impeachment even makes sense in "defense of the constitution" way. The real problem, in my opinion, lies with the way Congress failed to provide oversight while this stuff was going on. It's hard to say the executive branch overstepped its authority when the legislative branch was at a minimum giving tacit approval.

I also think that impeachment is in the end a political tool, and therefore, one must consider the political consequences of deploying that tool. As far as I can see, they are all negative for the Democrats, and quite possibly, negative for whatever slim prospects this country has anyway.

I get what you're saying, but we both know the difference is Congress as an institution vs. Congress as a political actor. It's unfortunate but true that, at least on one side and probably on both sides, party prerogatives now trump institutional prerogatives.

For all that liberals complain right now about the Dem Congress lying down for Bush, I still don't think they would have acquiesced to anywhere near the extent that DeLay/Frist did.

Putting it the other way, it could be very interesting to see if a Dem Congress is (even) as aggressive in conducting oversight during a Hillary administration as they've been for Bush's lame-duck years. I think Waxman is a man of integrity, but who knows.

(Of course, if Lieberman remains chair of the Senate Oversight committee, he'd probably be much more aggressive toward a Democratic president...)

dajafi wrote:I get what you're saying, but we both know the difference is Congress as an institution vs. Congress as a political actor. It's unfortunate but true that, at least on one side and probably on both sides, party prerogatives now trump institutional prerogatives.

For all that liberals complain right now about the Dem Congress lying down for Bush, I still don't think they would have acquiesced to anywhere near the extent that DeLay/Frist did.

Putting it the other way, it could be very interesting to see if a Dem Congress is (even) as aggressive in conducting oversight during a Hillary administration as they've been for Bush's lame-duck years. I think Waxman is a man of integrity, but who knows.

(Of course, if Lieberman remains chair of the Senate Oversight committee, he'd probably be much more aggressive toward a Democratic president...)

I could have sworn it was you who recommended The Broken Branch to me. Anyway, one of the saddest points of that book is the way people of seeming integrity sold out during the Bush years.

The problem is oversight isn't nearly as much fun as pork. Even if there were an impeachment, it would not be, in my opinion, conducted in a serious fashion. It would be grandstanding and pandering of the worst sort.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

I have not heard or seen one American wondering about the priorities of Congress. I have seen quite a few question the priorities of another governmental branch (or two).

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader St

eny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Is it me or does the Democratic party look weaker and weaker every day? I mean you can't even get unified party support to impeach a guy with a 11% approval rating??? And the same day two of your Senators on the judiciary commitee side with the Republicans because they are afraid of what GEORGE FRIGGIN BUSH may do if they vote against Mukasey? Its almost like the Republicans toy with the Democrats.

What Americans wonder about Congress is why the new blood they just voted in for the sake of checks and balances, getting us out of Iraq, etc. just roll over into a fetal position when it comes to actually standing up to the administration/GOP status quo.

While I can understand some concern that GWB would appoint a lackey as a recess appointment for interim AG (interim basically meaning the rest of GWB's term), point still stands that the Democrats in Washington are spineless wussies.

If the Washington Democrats had any spine (or brain), they'd realize that the Republicans' "surprise maneuver" would actually open the door to real on-the-record investigations and hearings into Cheney and the yellowcake Wilson Plame scandal, and maybe even uncover the real motives for Iraq-apalooza. But again, they're probably afraid of which GOP prez candidate would get Bush's nomination for VP if Cheney were to be impeached and removed.

It would be stupid for the Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings at this point. Bush will be gone in 14 months. Impeachment would appear to most people as petty and vindictive. It would be costly in terms of political capital, and accomplish exactly nothing.

The true believers of politics who populate the blogosphere on Redstate and Daily Kos and similar sites are less in touch with normal Americans than even our elected DC insiders. They need to get out of their asylum like echo chambers and begin confronting some version of reality.

In my opinion it would not appear petty and vindictive based on the fact that so few people support Dick Cheney, and a large number of people downright hate and despise him. Holding Cheney responsible for his part in deceiving Congress and the American people would be the first step in showing that they are in fact the party of change and that its not just a campaign slogan. IMO doing nothing makes the democrats complicit in the unconstitutional policies of the current White House, despite all their rhetoric. It shouldn't be a mattter of politics but a matter of what is right and wrong. If we can't start there the democratic process is in serious trouble.

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

Why not? If everyone hates him and doesn't want him as vice president, what BETTER reason is there?

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

Why not? If everyone hates him and doesn't want him president, what BETTER reason is there?

Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Like getting a Blow-J in the Oval Office.

It's just like TV: we'll tolerate almost any degree of extreme violence, but you better not show a boobie!

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Because you don't impeach people for having low approval ratings?

Why not? If everyone hates him and doesn't want him president, what BETTER reason is there?

Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Like getting a Blow-J in the Oval Office.

But if the people still like him, does it matter? I mean, isn't that what a democracy is all about?

dajafi wrote:It's just like TV: we'll tolerate almost any degree of extreme violence, but you better not show a boobie!

Don't get me started on "sex and violence". I might have to kill someone, and then have sex with them, though, maybe not in that order.

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's just like TV: we'll tolerate almost any degree of extreme violence, but you better not show a boobie!

Don't get me started on "sex and violence". I might have to kill someone, and then have sex with them, though, maybe not in that order.

Aren't you The World's Angriest Pacifist?

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's just like TV: we'll tolerate almost any degree of extreme violence, but you better not show a boobie!

Don't get me started on "sex and violence". I might have to kill someone, and then have sex with them, though, maybe not in that order.

Aren't you The World's Angriest Pacifist?

Well, I am not a donmoney kinda pacifist. If someone is kicking my ass, I believe in taking a cheap shot and running away.

However, I was more commenting on the fact that one of the best things in life is grouped together with one of the worst things in life, as if they are somehow on the same level.

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's just like TV: we'll tolerate almost any degree of extreme violence, but you better not show a boobie!

Don't get me started on "sex and violence". I might have to kill someone, and then have sex with them, though, maybe not in that order.

Aren't you The World's Angriest Pacifist?

Well, I am not a donmoney kinda pacifist. If someone is kicking my ass, I believe in taking a cheap shot and running away.

However, I was more commenting on the fact that one of the best things in life is grouped together with one of the worst things in life, as if they are somehow on the same level.

I didn't think I was grouping together--I thought I was pointing up a contradictory (and I think I won some kind of internet contest by becoming the 100 millionth person to do so).

whatever happened to donmoney anyway

What does a BJ in the Oval Office constitute, a high crime or a misdemeanor?

In Georgia, I think oral sex is still a felony (even with a spouse).