Hey Senator Kennedy, thanks for nothin'

[pat_k]

Dear Pat,

Good work! Thanks to pressure from our online community and many others, we've learned that the Vice President's office "will not pursue the argument that he is separate from the executive branch."

Together we've stopped Dick Cheney from rewriting the Constitution to suit his own agenda.

yada, yada

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

. . .
To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.democraticmajority.com/unsubscribe">http://www.democraticmajority.com/unsubscribe

Unsubscribe comment:

I've had it. Claiming to have "stopped Cheney from re-writing the Constitution" is laughable -- or would be if it wasn't such a devastating lie. Bush and Cheney are violating the Constitution and U.S. Code in plain sight. They claim, and will continue to claim, to have absolute and unlimited "unitary" authoritarian power to do so -- an intolerable "re-write." Get back to me when Sen. Kennedy is ready to call on the House to impeach.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Yah, we really threw him in the clinker and lost the keys.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Nothing to add but...

:kick:

[Vincardog]

3. Does that mean that his offices will comply with the executive orders?

[pat_k]

17. Of course not.

Requests for access will go the same place they are putting the subpoenas (i.e., into the garbage).

They are proven outlaws. Why would any sane person expect them not to act like outlaws?

Until the Demcratic leadership takes up the fight to impeach and remove, Bush, Cheney, and their minions will just chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there I thought they were actually gonna Do Something."

[Fearless]

28. The next step

The next step is to find them in contempt.

[Vincardog]

34. OK CONGRESS TAKE THE NEXT STEP. NOW

[Fearless]

35. EXACTLY!

[Javaman]

74. I hope, however, I expect more thumbtwiddling. :(nt

[Fearless]

88. They've got a year and a half...

I should think that that's enough time. We'll see... Of course they can be charged afterwards as well...

[sinkingfeeling]

4. After today, with the immigration bill and how Hillary lied about her name and this, I wonder why

some people even are registered on DU. I'm beginning to think with the massive increase in users, that DU is failing me.

[pat_k]

9. To words "Primary Challengers". . .

Not all rank and file Democrats have fallen victim to the delusional group think of the DC establishment. It's up to us to either

1. Intervene and save them from themselves (consider it "tough love"); or
2. Recruit candidates who know the meaning of an oath to run against them in primaries. It's time for ultimatums, starting with Nancy "off the table" Pelosi: "Impeach or kiss your seat goodbye."

[puebloknot]

36. Getting right to the point!!!! We're not buying...

... a pig in a poke ever again!

[Fearless]

29. Mmm...

you've noticed.

[Bake]

50. I wouldn't say there was universal Democratic support for the immigration bill.

Nor would I make that a litmus test in any way.

Bake

[Fearless]

64. Some threads would attest to this.

[mdmc]

82. Ted Kennedy is one of the best dems we have

Bernie Sanders rules.

[pat_k]

211. So?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1223447

[Fearless]

217. So what?

You said it yourself, you think that he's old and out of touch. But based on the legislation that he's passed, some of us have chosen to disargree.

[pat_k]

227. I said no such thing.

[Joanne98]

5. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate too long... He's totally out-of-touch!

I think he should retire!

[ProSense]

6. Maybe he should take that old tired guy

Obama with him.

[Joanne98]

7. Maybe. The new Democratic Senators care more about working Americans

[ProSense]

8. ? n/t

[pat_k]

12. That's right. Hurry, hurry! Pass laws for the outlaws to violate.

Pass watered down bills that "the decider" will deign to sign.

And since Bush and Cheney have rendered every agency that actually serves the American people incapable of competent "execution" of anything even if they wanted to, better hurry up and pass laws they can f-up.

Impeachment is the only thing capable of stopping them. The fight to impeach is the only thing REAL. All else is sham. The American people can tell the difference (as evidenced by the fact that Congressional approval is now the lowest its been in a decade.)

The bushcheney steamroller will keep rolling whatever they do (short of impeachment). They will keep looking like wimps until they stand up and go after Bush and Cheney with the only "lethal" weapon in their Congressional arsenal.

The Democratic establishment is convinced that they're gonna win the White House. That assumption is actually in doubt if they keep proving they are wimps by failing to impeach, but given their confidence, it makes no sense for them waste their time trying to pass crappy law that "the decider" may deign to sign when they could wait and pass GOOD laws under a Democratic President that will actually execute them.

The sham is obvious. Appearance of "doing something" over actually Doing Something. They would do better to declare themselves on legislative strike as they seek to remove the biggest threat to our constitutional democracy in our lifetimes.

The nation is crisis. We're a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens. It is not time to keep up their "business as usual" pretense.

[ljm2002]

10. I think the whole damned lot of them should retire...

...and give some new blood a chance. The corrupting influence of the Beltway has never been clearer than in the last few years, and I do lump the Democrats along with the Republics in that group. Why? Because even if the Republics have been more active and more egregious in their actions, the Democrats have rolled over, often based on the "accepted wisdom" (e.g. Beltway insider bias) that to do anything else was to invite the Republics to attack them. Even though the Republics attacked them at every turn, constantly, they were afraid that they might "attack harder" or something. And they'd claim their constituents did not want strife in Washington. Funny, I've never actually heard anyone say that except the people who were refraining from standing up for what is right.

We see it now, with so many of our representatives and candidates running away from the idea of impeachment, even as evidence of crimes continues to surface.

Fools, don't they know that no one else can make you into a doormat, only you can do that for yourself, and far too many of our elected representatives have made themselves into doormats. And if you are a conflict avoider, then here's a bit of advice: politics may be the wrong profession for you. Certainly it will limit your usefulness.

[pat_k]

67. There are many reasons for hope.

The antidote to the shame is the knowledge that the American people have been WAY ahead of the impeachophobics on the Hill. Despite the relentless propaganda aimed at suppressing the will to impeach emanating from the DC establishment, just before the election, Newsweek found that 51% of Americans wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress. In January they found that 58% "personally want GWB's presidency over now." (And that is a question that cuts through the rationalizations and gets to the REAL level of support for impeachment.)

Beltway group think is powerful, but it is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=337814">built on a house of cards. As more of us challenge the rationalizations and self-defeating prophecies, the more likely impeachment becomes.

There is every reason for hope. More people are picking up a clue stick and whacking away at their excuses every day.

[Breeze54]

77. I think he should stay and that's why I voted for him - again!

I don't think he's out of touch and he's one of the few who was sane enough to vote against the IWR!!

[Fearless]

87. Agreed.

[Marrah_G]

100. And that's why it's great that no one's opinion but his constituates matter

I love Ted. He has served us well. He has always fought for the blue-collar middle class. I will vote for him until the day he chooses not to be on the ballot.

As far as I am concerned MA has two of the best.

I cannot believe even Ted isn't liberal enough for some people here. Oddly enough, probably the same people who worship Chavez and Castro.

:wtf:

[Fearless]

102. THANK YOU MASSACHUSETTS

It's about time someone else from MA shows up! I was getting frustrated! :grouphug: Cheers!

[Marrah_G]

104. Heh... Hiya!

Random thought: Weeks like this make me wish we could just build a wall from the Jersey Coast to Canada!

[Fearless]

106. Mmmm....

We SHOULD build a wall to keep them from crossing over our boarders. Is it a wonder that we started the American Revolution? Honestly.

[pat_k]

121. Or. .

consider http://january6th.org/borders.html

[Fearless]

126. Let me introduce you to sarcasm

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :grouphug:

[ryanmuegge]

97. He supported NCLB. Enough said. Toss the bum.

[Fearless]

98. He helped WRITE no child left behind

AND IT WOULD WORK IF PAID FOR! Or are you against holding schools to a standard? The only reason that it failed is because Bush decided to go to war instead of funding education, even cutting funds at points. IF it had been paid for properly, I repeat it would have worked. I suspect the only reason that you condemn him for it is because it was Bush Co backed. Let me remind you that one of Kennedy's GREATEST skills is cross-aisle negotiation.

[ryanmuegge]

113. There are a lot of things I find scary about it.

It's too punitive, schools are subject to private takeovers, it could lead to neglect of children that have special needs (or kids that aren't on the "bubble," as it relates to ability). The goals are unrealistic (are doctors expected to cure 100% of their patients?). Of course, it leads to teaching to the test over teaching critical thinking. I think this has had a devastating effect on the sciences in particular, since the tests emphasize math and reading. On top of all that, Bush underfunded the parts of the bill that provide help to troubled schools, leaving only a focus on punishment.

I'm not saying accountability is a bad thing, though, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

[Fearless]

129. Yes

it does have kinks to work out, like focusing on all subjects instead of just two. However, it was a good start and a great precident. And if funded, it wouldn't be seen nearly as badly as it is. I would like to speculate one thing... how many schools in rich neighborhoods are actually failing? It's schools that don't get funded, don't have enough teachers, don't provide materials necessary for child developement that are failing. We need to fund these poor neighborhoods better and then they will succeed. If I were in charge I would fund all schools equally. That's my idea. Fairness, seperate but equal is inherently unequal. Etc. However I wouldn't villify a man who made an attempt at trying something new and was able to get it passed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

238. So, now that Democrats control Congress and the power of the purse,

NCLB will now be fully funded?

[Marrah_G]

99. He is my Senator.

He is a damn fine Senator and I will miss him when he does retire. He is far from out of touch and has spent a lifetime serving the people.

[pat_k]

207. How is that view incompatible with. . .

. . .with objecting to his claim that we "stopped Cheney from re-writing the Constitution?" (A statement that promotes the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false meme that something short of impeachment can "force" the outlaws in the WH to do Anything they don't want to?)

To be effective, impeachment advocates need to be willing to challenge people most likely to "get it." People like Conyers in the House. People like Kennedy or Feingold in the Senate. The same is true of any lobbying effort. You seek to get your "friends" on board first. If challenging and lobbying our heroes is off limits, we've got a very serious problem.

[Fearless]

216. Were you not the one

who said he was out of touch and should retire? She replied contrarywise. What's the problem?

[pat_k]

228. I did not.

And I was asking the question of the poster I replied to.

[L. Coyote]

184. I wish he were President. He is completely in-touch, and better than ever.

I don't know what we would do without him and his experience in the Senate. He is simple irreplaceable.

[pat_k]

204. Doing good exempts him from challenge when he's wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1218501

[Fearless]

218. And we keep telling you

that we disagree with your statement that he was wrong.

[pat_k]

231. Irrelevant to the question.

Still waiting for an anwer on that.

And, BTW, others who are attacking my challenge have NOT said a word about whether or not they agree with the content of it.

[wisteria]

195. Age discrimination? He seems perfectly capable and up to date on issues to me.

He is one of our most liberal and outspoken leaders. Age or years on the job should have nothing to do with anything.

[Fearless]

196. Agreed.

I see the only unfortunate thing about his service is that he is good justification for not having term limits, which otherwise I'd be a supporter of.

[Fearless]

11. You're all damn near insane.

Now he should retire because of an EMAIL. What the HELL are you complaining about this for! You just want quick ready-made solutions but politics doesn't work that way. He said what he said because we are on the road to stopping this. The email is targeted toward people to get them involved in politics, to show them that things are getting done. You nitpick about semantics as a means to railroad one of the country and its constitution's most ardent supporters.

Congratulations there guys, bravo. Now we're not only arguing about doing something or not doing something we're arguing about the strength of the message sent to constituents? You're worse than the lame duck Congress we've got right now. COME ON PEOPLE! Seriously, I hear the Ann Coulter threads are still open, how about you all move over there where the abuse is deserved and quit calling for the retirement of someone's who's looking out for this nation.

[pat_k]

13. It's desperately needed "tough love"

Their http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobia hasn't been responsive to simple truths and moral principles. It hasn't been responsive to countless calls and emails and visits. More extreme forms of treatment are obviously in order. Ridicule. Threats of primary challenge. Anything that might be a sufficiently big http://www.wordspy.com/words/cluestick.asp">Clue Sick to wake them up to reality.

Consider it "tough love."

I'm sure they don't actually WANT to keep confirming the public's perception that they are wimps.

I'm sure they don't actually WANT Congressional approval to be in free fall.

I'm sure they don't actually WANT to make another horrifying mistake like they did when they supported the Authoritization to Use Miliary Force.

I'm sure they don't actually WANT to be complicit in War Crmes.

They may not know it, but they WANT us to save them from themselves. And unless we want the USA to remain a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens, must do everything we can to save them from themselves.

[kikiek]

14. Holy Crap! You are right on. Kennedy is a saint. Sound like children I want it and I want it now!

[Fearless]

16. Here's the ACTUAL email in it's complete form

Dear XXXXX,

Good work! Thanks to pressure from our online community and
many others, we've learned that the Vice President's office
"will not pursue the argument that he is separate from the
executive branch."

Together we've stopped Dick Cheney from rewriting the
Constitution to suit his own agenda. But it's essential that
we continue to demand accountability from the Bush
Administration for the way it's been handling our most
important national challenges.

George Bush and Dick Cheney won't be in office after next
year's election -- and it's our job to make sure they're not
the only Republicans to leave. Only Democrats can provide
the leadership to end the war in Iraq and meet the host of
other major challenges facing America.

Contribute today! Support our efforts to hold the White
House accountable, to expand the Democratic majority in the
Senate and House in next year's election, and to restore the
power of our democracy to its rightful owners, Americans
like you.

http://www.democraticmajority.com/growthemajority

Two years ago, Vice President Cheney boasted that Iraq "will
be an enormous success story." He claimed the insurgency was
in its "last throes" and Republicans in Congress agreed.
Since then the situation in Iraq has continued to
deteriorate. Yet the White House refuses to change course
while our soldiers continue to suffer and die.

Like most Americans, I'm committed to bringing this
misguided war to an end as soon as possible. I'm also
committed to correcting the larger problem that got us here
in the first place -- the Republican rubber-stamp Congress
that refused to recognize reality.

The remedy is clear. We need to elect a filibuster-proof
majority of Democrats in Congress in 2008 that will start
solving our problems instead of making them worse. The
stakes have never been higher for a Democratic majority in
Washington, but with your help, we'll prevail.

Support the Committee for a Democratic Majority today:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/growthemajority

Dick Cheney may be withholding top secret documents, but
he's not the only Republican in Washington blocking
progress.

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the
Employee Free Choice Act -- legislation that I and other
Democrats proposed to make it easier for workers to fight
for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

Republicans also blocked legislation to implement the 9/11
Commission's recommendations to make our country safer. They
blocked long-overdue lobbying reforms to crack down on the
culture of corruption in Washington.

And that's just this week.

We know a Democratic majority across the country wants
progress on issues the American people care about,
especially ending the war in Iraq, making health care a
basic right, ensuring every child has a good education, and
treating working families with fairness and respect.

George Bush and Dick Cheney will be the first Republicans to
leave power next year. Make a contribution to the Committee
for a Democratic Majority now, and help us make sure that
many other Republicans will follow him out the door.

http://www.democraticmajority.com/growthemajority

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy



-----------------------------------------------------------
Me again, does this sound unreasonable to you?

[pat_k]

19. Yes.

"does this sound unreasonable to you?"

As should be clear from the OP, the answer to that is Yes.

Claiming to have "stopped Cheney from re-writing the Constitution" is irrational. Intentional or not, it is a devastating lie. Accept that lie, and you are living in a world illusion and sham that is enabling the fascist takeover.

[Fearless]

27. Arguing semantics

See #23 again.

[Fearless]

37. Do you understand what this means?

"Devestating lie" Mountains from molehills my friend.

[pat_k]

40. It's such "molehills" that enabled the fascist take over.

Living in denial is built on the lies we tell ourselves. "Little Lies" or "Big Lies," they are all Devastating Lies because they keep us from confronting reality.

For an addict living in denial can mean death.

So too for a nation living in denial.

[kikiek]

33. No and he is right. As frustrating as it is the energies should be directed at

bringing about real change. Not ripping apart the ones doing what they can. I appreciate you standing up and saying that.

[pat_k]

39. "Real change"?? Passing laws for "the decider" to violate?

How is that "Real Change"?!?

Although I suppose surrendering to fascism without a fight is "Real Change" of a sort. But I don't imagine it is the "Real Change" you are looking for.

[kikiek]

47. Aren't you melodramatic telling me what I really want. We all have a right to our

opinion. Your either you're with me or against me sounds eerily like someone else.

[pat_k]

49. Wnen it comes to turning Americans into torturers,

Members of Congress took an oath to "support and defend." They have a choice, Duty or Complicity.

Fight the torturers or give them cover.

Yeah. There are things in life that are that black and white.

Like those who chose to fight against slavery and those who claimed to "hate it" but enabled it with thier silence.

There are many such stark choices.

[Fearless]

56. Still confused...

What exactly does this email have to do with any of that?

[pat_k]

69. "Stopped Cheney from re-writing" promotes the pretense. . .

. . that something short of impeachment can "stop them." This is one of the insidious rationalizations our so-called "leaders" invoke to keep impeachment "off the table." It is a lie that pervades the DC establishment. Whether or not they actually believe the lie, it cannot go unchallenged.

The simple truth is that impeaching Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is the ONLY thing that declares torture to be abomination.

Impeaching them for claiming the "right" to literally re-write our laws with stroke of "the decider's" pen is the ONLY thing that declares that abuse of signing statements to be intolerable.

Impeaching them for claiming absolute "unitary" authoritarian power to violate law is the ONLY thing that declares that claim to be intolerable.

Only impeachment is a declaration that "We cannot allow the massive power of the American presidency to remain in the hands of these outlaws"

When Congress refuses to impeach for violations we deem so grave that violators are subject to the penalty of death under Federal law, what could possibly lead us to believe that the leadership will suddenly stand up and impeach Bush and Cheney for laughing at Congressional subpoenas?

Anything less than impeachment is declaration that Bush and Cheney are NOT committing intolerable violations. "We'll impeach when (some condition is met)" is a declaration that their actions can be tolerated "for now." To claim the need for further "investigation" or a judicial ruling says "We don't have a case." That is a lie. The case that immediate removal is imperative couldn't be stronger. Bush and Cheney wrote the case against themselves with their public actions and statements.

The leadership's arbitrary and reprehensible declaration that impeachment is "off the table" gives the outlaws cover ("Bush and Cheney aren't violating the Constitution. If they were, the Democratic leadership wouldn't have taken impeachment "off the table."

Kennedy, like the vast majority of the Democratic establishment, has chosen the path of complicity. He could redeem himself tomorrow by calling for impeachment and making the case.

If we are to make impeachment a reality, we must help Sen. Kennedy and his colleagues (particularly the most Senior and powerful) realize that it is time to the American people the truth (truth I believe most of them already know) and do whatever they can to make impeachment a reality.

[Fearless]

198. Impeachment doesn't have to be what stops them

it need only be the end result along with adequate punishment for all involved. And I'm not talking about Scooter Libby, la dee da, punishment either.

[pat_k]

233. "End result?"

End result of what?

And what, short of impeachment, will stop them from doing as they please (as they have been doing for years, in violation of the Constitution and U.S. Code -- as outlined in other replies to you) ?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. K&R For This Post Alone.

[pat_k]

21. See post #13

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1205612">Post #13

[potone]

18. I agree about Kennedy.

He is one of the best senators that we have. The Senate would be a much better place if we had more senators like him.

[pat_k]

22. See post #13

[Fearless]

25. See #23

[Swamp Rat]

20. perhaps...

:D

Kennedy is ok by me.

He's one of the best supporters of the U.S. Constitution in the Senate today.

As for some of the others... :crazy:

[pat_k]

24. See post #13

[Fearless]

26. See #23

[Blue-Jay]

73. See #73

[Fearless]

86. I'm looking...

[Cameron27]

55. Thank you. Kennedy's one of our best senators.

[pat_k]

79. We shouldn't try to help the "best" of the impeachophobics. . .

. . .to overcome their denial of reality?

The best of them are precisely the people we must focus our energy on if we are to make impeachment a reality. They are the people we are more likely to get through to. And if we do, they are the people who are in a position help their colleagues see the light. As noted in post #76

Admirable as he may be, he is suffering an "illness" that is allowing the things that he, and so many of our other heroes, fought long and hard for.

Impeachophobia is heartbreaking. It's like watching a dear friend lose all they have spent a lifetime building because they are trapped in denial of their addiction.

[Fearless]

89. You simply don't understand politics my friend.

You must go through all the steps first. At this point it would be foolish to ask for impeachment, however when evidence or necessity dictates, it will come and he will support it.

[pat_k]

114. The evidence is in plain sight. . .

Torture, illegal spying, and assertion of blatantly unconstitutional power are all well documented in the public record. Their War Crimes have even been confirmed by SCOTUS.

The conclusion -- the bottom line -- is that enforcing the dictates of our constitution demands immediate impeachment for War Crimes, assertion of "unitary" authoritarian power, and abuse of signing statements. With the oath to "support and defend" we charged Members of Congress with the duty to enforce the dictates of our Constitution. We gave the the power to impeach to enable them to do so.

The proven charges have already been summarized in other responses to you. You have presented no fact-based logical case that challenges either the charges or the moral imperative of impeachment. You have not challenged the "bottom line." Should you wish to do so, I summarize the facts that lead to the conclusons.

Perhaps you will, but to date, I have yet to see a single person who argues that impeachment can't/won't/shouldn't immediately impeach has challenged the facts, logic,and moral principles. Rather than challenge the undeniable reality, the pervasive http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes are invoked.

Although it may not seem so, I am not singling you out. I am simply doing what must be done if we are to break though the denial that is keeping impeachment "off the table" (i.e., Challenging False Memes whenever possible.)

=======================================================
There is a reason that War Crimes are punishable by death. So that those with the power to commit such crimes don't go anywhere near "the line."

Geneva requires parties to the treaty to enact the conventions in domestic law, which we did under U.S. Code Title 18 section 2441 (War Crimes). Claiming the unconstitutional "right" to gut that law is in and of itself a War Crime, even if all their other willful and open violations of Title 18, section 2441 weren't so well documented.

It was ALWAYS well known that Geneva applied to Gitmo. Eventually even the SCOTUS couldn't escape that undeniable reality. By the time they finally confirmed it in Hamdan (after stonewalling for as long as possible) Bush and Cheney had already committed three years of War Crimes.

There is no "unringing the bell" on War Crimes. "We didn't know where the line was" is no a defense.
The crimes committed at Gitmo -- crimes that destroyed our moral authority to object when Americans are tortured by other parties to armed conflict -- are more than enough to impeach, but tragically, we have much more. The EU TDIP report did a fine job of documenting the facts related to their "extraordinary rendition" program and network of secret prisons where abductees are secret held and tortured.

Since Geneva requires parties to the treaty to enact the conventions in their own law, Bush's order declaring Gitmo a Geneva-free zone was an open attempt to gut that law, which in and of itself put the USA into breach of the conventions. An undeniably unconstitutional act (as SCOTUS confirmed) as well as a War Crime.

In addition to the War Crimes, we have the signing statements. They speak for themselves. Hundreds of them that are undeniably unconstitutional "re-writes" of both the intent and the letter of the provisions as passed.

The "poster" signing statement is the attempt to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment by fiat (an amendment passed by the Senate 90-9). Congress's attempt to bring Bush "within the law" by re-passing provisions that were already part of U.S. Code was of course completely unnecessary. Bush and Cheney were simply breaking existing law. Passing the same laws coudn't change that. But when Bush once again attempted to justify their violations by re-writing the law to exempting himself (and therefore rendering the law meaningless), he was once again openly putting us into violation of Geneva (since, as already noted, compliance requires the conventions to be encoded into our own law).

Because the conventions also call on those with the power to stop War Crimes to act -- and Congress has that power with the power to impeach -- Members of Congress failing to call for impeachment (i.e., all but 10 at the moment) are themselves violating the treaty.

There is absolutely nothing complex about the case for impeachment. There is nothing to "investigate." Nothing to do except present the case. Of the many crimes, they need only pick one and vote out articles. Staffers are more than capable of gathering the evidence required to present an indefensible case, and force the Republicans to choose: defend the indefensible and vote against removal; pressure Bush and Cheney to resign; or vote to remove.

[Fearless]

131. Please see my other post (130 I think)

If you want to see exactly why we can't do anything yet. If you still disagree, so be it, I am merely explaining the position of men who've been in politics longer than any of us have cared. If we could, I would love to see them impeached now, or three years ago, or never to have been appointed by the USSJC, but I also know that we have to be careful and must not go for the kill until we've sunk our teeth in far enough. Remember it's not just democrats that need to be convinced it's republicans, independants, and the rest of America. The masses may not like Bush now, but if the republican political war machine sets itself on vilifying impeachment as politicking and we go about it haphazardly and fail, then we will lose Congress and the Presidency in 2008. I am not willing to accept that.

[pat_k]

235. Doesn't say what's insufficient about what's already public record.

You only describe what you think is needed.

Until you make the case that Bush and Cheney are NOT clearly violating the Constitution and U.S. Code; until you describe why the existing record is insufficient to demonstrate their violations, you have not made a case that immediate impeachment is not a moral imperative.

[pat_k]

68. "On the road to stopping this" is just a rationale for "off the table"

It is http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">one of the false memes the impeachophobes on the Hill appeal to. It is just an excuse for failing to act now.

Bush and Cheney have been committing their crimes in plain sight for years -- i.e., war crimes at Gitmo (confirmed by SCOTUS in Hamdan); programs of abducting, indefinitely holding, and torturing in secret CIA prisons oversea; and program of spying without warrant. Both Bush and Cheney openly and repeatedly make the Unconstitutional and Un-American claim that "the decider" has absolute and unlimited "unitary" authoritarian power to commit those "to protect us" and to arbitrarily edit any law he signs (as he did with McCain's anti-torture amendment, which the Senate passed 90-9).

The reality of our national predicament demands emergency action. Given the horrible magnitude of the crimes committed in our name, widespread denial is unsurprising. But if we are to enforce the dictates of our Constitution and redeem our self-esteem as Americans, we must break through that denial.

[Fearless]

23. .

This whole thread proves only one thing. When we've got the majority, when we've got the voice, we are not better than the representatives that we've elected. We're still squabbling about stupid little things just as they are. Perhaps we should stop blaming the people we've elected for infighting and start realizing that we're guilty of the same. Just look at the candidates threads. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole anymore. It's all attack attack attack with many of you people. Never once do you step back and realize that there are consequences for your actions and that perhaps what you want won't be completely fulfilled but that by opposing these actions for ones that are more like you and less likely to pass, you again lose to the Repubican minority.

[pat_k]

30. It's an attempt to rescue, not attack.

[Fearless]

How...

How do we rescue this nation from Bush Co whilist also trying to get the most senior supporter of impeachment to retire?

[pat_k]

41. When friends say "You're f'ing up. Straighten up or it's Goodbye". . .

. . . people often wake up to reality and "Straighten up."

[Fearless]

59. In my opinion

He's' not "f'ing" up.

[pat_k]

70. One of the symptoms of impeachophobia is the notion. . .

. . .that something short of impeachment can "stop them."

"We stopped Cheney. . ." feeds the denial of reality characteristic of the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobia that pervades the beltway. If we are to rescue the Constitution, we must make impeachment a reality. To make impeachment a reality, we must help the impeachophobes by challenging the beliefs that keep them trapped in their destructive "illness."

Every week that passes without impeachment the the fascists advance their agenda unchallenged. For many, allowing that to happen is a major and intolerable f'up. Challenging the things they say and do that keep them on the path of can help them turn them around.

[ProSense]

31. Kennedy was right there with Kerry opposing Alito.

Why don't these threads pop up to oust those in the Democratic party who consistently vote with Republicans and with the frequency they do to oust progressive Democrats?

There needs to be 10 more Democrats like Kennedy in the Senate. Period!

[Fearless]

32. THANK-YOU

I was beginning to think that Bush Co. has infiltrated this website and started a new propaganda machine here on our soil.

[pat_k]

71. Since failure to impeach exacerbates the Party's biggest problems. . .

. . .problems that impeaching Bush and Cheney can SOLVE, you may want to reconsider which side -- those lobbying for immediate impeachment or those promoting and defending the excuses for failing to impeach -- undermines the future of the Democratic Party.

The Number 1 problem destroying the Democratic Party is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.

The Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

[Fearless]

92. Hey...

Umm... so when in this email does it say that Kennedy will not seek their impeachment? Where does it say that he is doing any of which you've mentioned? It's an email. And whatever in your mind appears is your own opinion. Furthermore, if we were to try to impeach them NOW WITHOUT A CASE and rashly bumble through this NOT ONLY will we lose this battle but we will also lose in 08 and into the future. WE MUST MOVE WITH CAUTION AND WE MUST MOVE CAREFULLY! Jumping in and mucking about does nothing to support our cause. Calling Kennedy to retire is not helping. Forcing words into his mouth is not helping. And continuing to argue amongst ourselves is detrimental to our cause.

[pat_k]

119. He is not fighting to impeach for crimes already proven.

Crimes so grave they are punishable by the penalty of death. (Title 18, Sec 2441)

Failing to impeach for such grave crimes is a denial of reality. As is the claim that "we have stopped Cheney from rewriting the Constitution" when Cheney and Bush have been re-writing and are continuing to re-write the Constitution to suit themselves for years.

To claim some condition has yet to be met maintains the pretense that the crimes they are committing in plain sight do not demand emergency and immediate removal.

His failure is shared by the entire Democratic leadership. It is an intolerable failure that must be challenged.

Gee, he's our hero, doesn't exempt him from efforts to help him see his grave mistake.

[Fearless]

130. Do me a favor

Bring to me tangible evidence. NOT constitutional interpretation. And we'll call in US Marshalls and force them out of office. However, until there is physical evidence, we risk losing. There are two routes that may be taken here. Either impeach or federal charges. If they cite Bush Co with contempt for not handing over the subpoenas then the case is brought before the DC Attorney General, a non-senate approved Bush appointee, who has the final say as to whether there is legal basis for charges. He was approved during Senate recess and will remain in office until October (4 months from appt.). If this route is taken, politics will play a role and Bush Co will NOT BE CHARGED. The road to impeachment is the preferable means, however, it must only be taken when tangible evidence is uncovered. Congress historically has been successful when subpoena-ing information from the White House, this time will be no different. There are a great number of tactics that they can employ including cutting off funding and in short raise hell politically. This is their job, they all do it well, the subpoenas will be honored. Sen. Leahey has posted July 9th as the deadline before devisive actions will be taken. Regardless, the subpoenas will be honored and then we will have tangible evidence for impeachment of not only Bush, but Cheney, and federal charges against other cabinet members. Then and ONLY then will impeachment be put into action. It will be a one time deal. We cannot be made fools of so we must cover all bases.

[pat_k]

203. Sure. . .

Like what? What would be "tangible" enough for you id a Supreme Court (Hamdan) ruling and the well-known facts on which the ruling is based isn't "tangible" enough?

[Fearless]

219. I want the sworn statements of his cabinet and Cheney's cabinet

I want the missing emails. I want people in the administration to speak up as to the handling of confidential information. The Asst. AD has already made a statement concerning passing wire tapping programs. I want the rest. Then I want to analyze the testamonies of every member of the cabinets of Bush Co and Bush and Cheney themselves as well as aux. staff. I want pointed questions formed and then brought up to them under oath to defend against. Then, when we've built a case against the administration we take them down one by one. In particular order mind you, start with a few key mid-level members first, ones that would be willing to testify against the others in exchange for a lighter sentence. Then we move onto the big offices and purge them from there. Bush Co is impeached and the administration can be carted off to prison.

The important thing is to take the process one step at a time so that we don't fuck it up. As I've said before, we must pull in all the info we can first making sure to tie it all together (wiretappnig, mishandling of gov't secrets, the Iraq War, the attorney scandal, etc.) before we bring up charges that can be deflected, making us a laughing stock yet again.

And, I think we can both agree that we cannot afford to lose seats in the next election and we must win the presidency. We cannot be made fools of.

[pat_k]

232. You have yet to describe why their public record of war crimes

. . .(including a Supreme Court ruling on the subject), their claims to "unitary" authoritarian power, and the abuse of signing statements to re-write law (with the "poster child" being his attempt to render Congress powerless by nullifying McCain's anti-torture amendment, which they passed 90-0) is insufficiently "tangible" for immediate impeachment.

It is an answer we have yet to get from Members of Congress. (In fact, we have had a number of those who are refusing to impeach tell us that those crimes are violations of the Constitution that certainly pass the "impeachable" threshhold. They attempt to excuse their failure to take up the fight to defend the Constitution because they "don't have the votes" (or another of the knee jerk http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes).

[pat_k]

42. So? That's a "free pass" to surrender to fascists?

Doing the only thing that made any sense -- supporting the filibuster of Alito, gives him a "free pass" to refuse to "support and defend"?

If Kennedy has the brains I think he does, he knows Bush and Cheney are the biggest threat to our constitutional democracy we have faced in modern times. That knowledge demands action. And it is up to Members of Congress who know the truth to stand up and call on their colleagues in the House and Senate to take up the fight to impeach and remove.

The impeachophobia in our own ranks is a far bigger barrier to impeachment than the opposition. The fascists will do what fascists do. They aren't worth our energy. Our concern is doing what WE need to do to stop them. Job 1 is always to get as many "friends" on board as possible.

[ProSense]

43. What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about surrendering to fascist?

Did Kennedy's e-mail say surrender to fascist! Get a grip!

[pat_k]

44. Every Member who defends Pelosi's "off the table" edict. . .

. . .is waving the White Flag of surrender.

To say "We stopped Cheney from re-writing the Constitution," when the only thing that can stop Bush and Cheney and their "re-writes" is impeachment, is a sham.

[Fearless]

62. ..

The "WE" is not Congress, it's those subscribing to the email. So, to drag Pelosi into this is disingenuous. We not as in us (him and his senators), we as in his constituents. The road to impeachment BEGINS with this subpoena. We the people woke up, we the people prevented this from going unchecked. We will see it to completion.

[pat_k]

72. Given the egregious crimes committed in plain sight . . .

. . . impeachment has been a moral imperative for years. The notion that "the road to impeachment begins with this subpoena" is a denial of that reality, as described in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1212624">Post answer to #56.

[Fearless]

90. No evidence has been discovered.

Evidence must be concrete not theoretical. Yes he has defied the constitution but until some concrete evidence of malfecense or fraud or something else appears (via subpoena or federal charges) there is not enough real evidence to impeach either of them. Of course such evidence exists, but it needs to be found. This movement is in its infancy and it must progress orderly so as to not blow the whole thing.

[pat_k]

120. Are you joking?

If you are not, then you need to demonstrate how the facts on the public record are insufficient. You'll find some of those facts -- by no means all, but more than enough to make an indefensible case -- in the following post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1217633

In addition, since it is up to each member to determine the standard of proof they conder to be appropriate, probable cause to believe Bush and Cheney are subverting the Constitution would be sufficient. When the need to protect the sanctity of our Constitution is balanced against removal from office -- an office that is a privilege not a right -- using a low threshold of proof is reasonable.

But of course, we have WAY more than probable cause.

[Fearless]

135. See posts 130-133ish.

[pat_k]

236. Already addressed in #235

[Fearless]

38. .

Politics is about compromise and progress. It is not about crucifing supporters. If we got rid of every Senator and Representative that everyone didn't agree with, we'd have anarchy. If this is email is such a 'devestating lie' to you then by all means don't vote for him in 2012(?) But it won't stop me because this is small beans and you're making a circus out of it.

[pat_k]

45. If allowing the USA to become a War Criminal nation that illegally spies. . .

. . .its own citizens is "small beans" to you, so be it.

Those of us who think it's pretty "big beans" will keep working to persuade our so-called "leaders" to stand up and fight to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. And that includes our telling our "leaders" that they are flat wrong when they are flat wrong.

I find "support the Democratic leadership, right or wrong" to be a disturbingly akin to "support Bush, right or wrong" or "support America, right or wrong."

[ProSense]

46. Why not start one of these thread about Maria Landrieu?

Or are you hoping that by kicking all the progressive Democrats out of Congress will make it better?

[pat_k]

48. If I had gotten an asinine email like this from her. . .

. . .I would have posted the same thing.

But I doubt you are asking the question because you want an answer. When faced with the choice of replying to the content of a post, or evading by changing the subject, it appears you've chosen the latter.

[ProSense]

52. I have never seen a post by you about Landrieu or any of the Dems who

consistently vote with the Republicans. Did I miss that? There votes matter more than an e-mail that is asinine by interpretation.

[pat_k]

83. Yeah. You missed that.

First, targeting the people most likely to Wake Up and Act is the most effective use of energies. When lobbying, it always makes sense to identify and go after the "low fruit."

Second, no person on this thread has promoted the notion of "kicking Kennedy out."

Expressions of frustration, like "they should all retire" are simply that -- expressions of frustration. Members of Congress will hear more and more such expressions each week they refuse to impeach.

Your accusation "trying to kick people out" is a straw man that is irrelevant to the OP, which simply pointed out that Kennedy's email promoted a false meme that needed to be challenged, and showed the way I chose to challenge it (unsubscribe message).

Since Kennedy isn't a Member of Class II (those whose terms are up in 2009), he couldn't be a be a target for a primary challenge even if someone had proposed specifically going after him, As I pointed out above, Pelosi must be the first target for the ultimatum "Impeach or face the primary fight of your life."

Third, when called for -- when the "good guys" are already on board -- Dems like Landrieu become the targets (along with reasonable Repubs, although there aren't many of those left). I have targeted Landrieu and others on a number of occassions. Just to name a couple:

When we went to DC to lobby Senators to filibuster Alito, we looked for Louisianans we could represent when we visited her office (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=268175&mesg_id=268507">link). Got a slew of email, a number from Louisianans, in response to appeals through DU and other channels. It was enough to get a few minutes with a staffer.

Also, called Landrieu out as one of the "accessory after the fact" war criminals who voted for the War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2256361&mesg_id=2256446">link)

Landrieu's term is up in 2009. Mounting a challenge for her intolerable failures, failure to impeach among them, is a must. I trust that Louisianans who haven't been scattered across the country will see that she does. Mounting such a challenge is a priority, but it is not one that is high on the list of actions that can make impeachment a reality.

Fourth, one thing is clear. More and more frustrated Americans are completely giving up and opting out. We would certainly be better off if these people stayed in the game and got behind primary challengers. The more liberal districts and states who have sent "the best" in the past could elect people who prove to be more effective than even the "best" of the incumbents. Who knows. These dynamics aren't germane to the topic at hand.

Finally, whether or not I had ever targeted Landrieu is irrelevant to the fact that Sen. Kennedy sent an email promoting one of the false memes that are keeping impeachment "off the table." Challenging those false memes as we encounter them, whatever the source, is critical if we are to make impeachment a reality.

[Fearless]

91. I will only respond to one of these pieces, the rest is opinion

the first: I RESENT you describing the common man and grassroots organization as "LOW FRUIT". Quite obviously you've lost your mind.

[pat_k]

117. Since I wasn't responding to you. . .

I wouldn't have expected you to respond.

I will reply to you though.

First, I am using the term "low fruit" as in "easy pickings" -- Members identified as most persuadable. If this is somehow a slur, it was not intended (nor can I see how it would be).

Re: Labeling conclusions "Opinion"

When such conclusions (or as you term them "opinions") are backed by factual and logical cases, counter-argument is required to challenge the conclusions . Asserting "is not" is not a case. Since you challenge none of the supporting points, you haven't provided a basis for dismissing.

[Fearless]

166. Except that you've given no fact

just more opinion. It may be popular opinion, and it may be seen as generally right, but it is just opinion.

[pat_k]

237. You fail to identify the specific points you label "opinion"

Before I can reply, I need to know which of the points you consider "opinion" and which of the points you consider fact. I do not want to waste my time providing the specific examples and references on points that you accept as fact. So, for example,

Do you consider it to be "opinion" that SCOTUS ruled that Geneva applied to Gitmo in Hamdan?

Do you consider it to be "opinion" that the EO declaring Gitmo a Geneva-free zone constitutes a violation of Title 18, Sec 2441?

Do you consider it to be "opinion" that hundreds of Bush's signing statements are, on there face, re-writes of law?

Do you consider it to be "opinion" that both Bush and Cheney have made public statements and issued memos declaring the Office of the President a "unitary" authoritarian power that can break the law at will "to protect us."

Do you consider it "opinion" that their claim to "unitary" power is a violation of the Constitution. That is, do you view the assertion a "debatable" point? Or do you consider it to be akin to claims that intelligent design is "science"? Do you view the latter to be an "opinion"?

[tyedyeto]

51. Instead, Pres. * is rewriting what executive privilege means

All of the Executive Offices now claim the anything and everything they have ever done is exempted from any oversight because of 'Executive Privilege'.

They are claiming that they are no longer accountable to any other branch of government.

What a sad day we live in.

[Fearless]

53. Confused...

So what is this about exactly? Kennedy, fascists, immigration, Congressional oversight, an email? What? Seriously, every time someone refutes you change your argument to another topic. How does this email support fascism? How does this email do anything at all exactly?

Is it a lie that Cheney will no longer be tolerated in Constitution breaking? I don't think so, quite the opposite. I don't think it's possible to connect Ted Kennedy with fascists. Please clarify that.

Please don't tell me this is going to be your "mission accomplished". It's just irritating. We're all on the same side here.

[tyedyeto]

65. This is about the 'Executive branch' of our federal gov't saying fuck you

to Congress.

Our forefathers incorporated into The Constitution (you do know what that is, don't you?) a system of checks and balances, where one of the 3 branches of government can oversee any of the other 2. At this point, the Executive Branch has told Congress that they are no longer accountable to anyone and any subpeonas they issue will NOT be answered.

In other words, the Constitution of the United States of America is being ignored by the executive branch of this administration.

Which 'side' are you really on? I sense some hostility toward Democratic Senators in your post.

[Fearless]

66. Sigh...

Assuming makes an ass out of you and... well just you. I am not hostile towards democratic senators. If you had bothered to read the rest of this extensive thread I've been supporting Kennedy for hours now, fending off calls for his resignation left and right. I am quite knowledgeable about the Constitution. I understand checks and balances. I am aware what Bush Co has done to break this overview. I understand that they have rejected the subpoenas. HOWEVER! This is not the end. Now, Congress will have to pressure judicial action. If they don't crumble, as Cheney is seemingly ready to do and Bush not to do, then they will take legal action, holding Bush Co. in contempt of court. This is an impeachable offense, they will then be impeached, end of story. What about that haven't I been clear on?

For the record, I am a hardcore Kennedy-era democrat. And an irate one at those who wish to see him retire. Please read what I've written elsewhere.

[pat_k]

75. Cheney "crumble"? When Congress has allowed . . .

. . .Bush and him to get away with torture, claims to absolute power, and a Supreme Court ruling that declared them War Criminals?

Bush and Cheney have proven over, and over, and over, and over, and over that nothing short of impeachment can force them to stop or "crumble."

We gave Congress the impeachment trump card. "We've gotta wait for the Courts" is just another invalid excuse Members of Congress invoke to escape a duty that is theirs. Impeachment is the simple, swift, and certain^Note process we designed to defend against such blatant (and less blatant) attacks on the Constitution from within the Halls of power.

====================================
Note:

GQ, March 2007
The People v. Richard Cheney
Wil S. Hylton

When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an "impeachable offense" is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

[Fearless]

93. Just sit back and watch.

[pat_k]

116. As Congressional approval continues to drop while the bushcheney steamroller. . .

. . .keeps steamrolling Congress.

[Fearless]

197. Eternal optimist aren't you.

I'm telling you, just watch. If you look back over the history of our nation, and indeed the world, liberals always win eventually. Just wait, Bush Co will get it's comeuppance.

[pat_k]

202. Of course they can win; IF they fight. They are refusing.

And the most frequent excuse is "We can't win" ("We don't have the votes.")

Can't win; won't fight is one of the most insidious of all the rationalizations for inaction. It has kept the DC Dems them from fighting many a "good fight."

[Fearless]

220. Best case senario

is an impeachment that both dems and reps believe is necessary. If we pool all the information together as I've mentioned above, I think this is at least moderately possible.

[Marrah_G]

101. Fortunately their opinions amount to jack

He is our Senator. We know his record. We are proud of him.

And most importantly WE decide if he stays, because he represents US.

Let them worry about their own representatives. We have VERY good ones.

[Fearless]

103. Hear that...

That's the sound of me groveling at your feet. THANKS AGAIN!

[Marrah_G]

105. Hehe... none of that, the nieghbors might talk!

[Fearless]

107. Haha

I'm just glad that someone else showed up. Don't underestimate how much these other 'liberals' were irritating me.

:argh:

[pat_k]

213. Your high opinion of him precludes objection when he's wrong?

(BTW, the accusation that people are calling for his head in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1223596">is a straw man)

[Fearless]

221. No

My high opinion of him is based on the ever-changing job that he is doing. You may disagree, but that's just your opinion as mine is mine.

[pat_k]

226. Where would you get the idea. . .

. . .that I don't think highly of Kennedy? He's one of our heroes, as I have noted in a number of responses. If I didn't think highly of him he wouldn't be a high priority target to lobby on impeachment. As I noted in an earlier reply, job #1 in any effort to make something a reality is seeking to get your "friends" on board (i.e., the good guys; the most likely to respond.)

We elect people to serve us -- "We the People" -- not the other way around.

If so many ready to jump all over anyone who challenges the "good guys," we've got some serious problems.

[SaveElmer]

54. This place is off its rocker...attacking Ted Kennedy now...nt

[Cameron27]

57. No fucking kidding.

[Fearless]

58. .

I'm beginning to suspect right-wing infiltration myself. :(

[0007]

60. ....somthin' to what your saying!

[Fearless]

63. .

:grouphug:

[pat_k]

78. A "." subject line generally indicates no content. . .

"." posts are typically "kicks" Such replies tend to get ignored when they appear on the "My DU" list. Unless you intend your answers to be missed by the person you are replying to, you may want to put content in the subject line of posts with content.

[Breeze54]

80. !.!

Not on DU! ... It's used a lot.

[pat_k]

81. "dot" posts with content are new to me.

I've been around on and off for years and clicked on a lot of "." replies in the "My DU" topic list before I stopped bothering because they never had any content.

Guess I need to start looking more closely.

[Fearless]

96. . . . . . . .

Guesss so.

[Forkboy]

61. We need more like him.

You're smoking some good shit to think otherwise.

[pat_k]

76. Sure, if he can conquer his impeachophobia. . .

Otherwise, as admirable as he may be, he is suffering an "illness" that is allowing the things that he, and so many of our other heroes, fought long and hard for.

Impeachophobia is heartbreaking. It's like watching a dear friend lose all they have spent a lifetime building because they are trapped in denial of their addiction.

[Fearless]

95. If

If you honestly believe that provided evidence and a strong case and a proper time he will not want him impeached raise your hand.

[pat_k]

115. The "proper time" is past. . .

As already demonstrated. The charges are proven in the public record. You have not challenged the charges. You have not challenged the fact that War Crimes are well known or that they openly assert unconstitutional "unitary" authoritarian power.

You have not challenged the point -- already presented to you -- that asserting the need for further investigation is a lie because it is effectively a statement that we do not yet have the indefensible case that we have.

If you do not believe their war crimes are proven; if you do not believe their assertion of "unitary" authoritarian power is an intolerable attempt to subvert our Constitution; if you do not believe their signing statements are an unconsitutional abrogation of legislative power, then you need to make the case.

[Fearless]

133. I don't need to challenge these things

As I've said before, they are not concrete. When the subpoenas are honored, come hell or high water, we will have concrete evidence not just personal constitutional interpretations. We must be careful to gather ALL the evidence before pouncing or we will be made fools of and lose the next election.

[pat_k]

239. Replied to this in #237

[politicasista]

84. Uncle Ted bashing. Wow

Go figure.

[stanwyck]

85. Are we eating our own now? I thought that

was more the domain of the right. Why the cannibalism? Kennedy has been a strong voice for liberals for decades. Quit being such a spoiled brat, get off the sofa, and do some of the heavy lifting yourself.

[Fearless]

94. .

Some of us are insane. :grouphug: It's clear to me now that the conservative agenda has infiltrated this forum. How much longer will we be able to find it useful?

[Octafish]

111. Here's something to useful to know, remember and spread...

Ted Kennedy had just flown aboard Paul Wellstone's Plane and Initially Was Believed to Have Been a Victim of that Tragedy

[Fearless]

199. I like this one personally...

[Octafish]

108. Ted Kennedy, as a U.S. Senator, has fought the good fight for 45 years.

That's a lot longer than many, if not most, people on this thread, have been alive.

I'll side with Ted over most people's counsel -- save my father's and my own.

Edit: 45 years. His brothers weren't bad leaders, either.

[Fearless]

109. Thank you

for proving that I didn't all the sudden fall into another world where Ted Kennedy wasn't one of the most respected and prolific Senators in history. By the looks of the people in this thread I was starting to wonder.

[Octafish]

110. You're welcome, nothingtoofear.

Don't worry about the meltdowns and the piling-on. The majority here know who's who and what's what.

Like his brothers, Sen. Kennedy has worked to keep the peace and make life better for all Americans since his first day in the U.S. Senate.

BTW: A most hearty welcome to DU, nothingtoofear! I'm proud to be a Kennedy Democrat.

Idit: I can spel

[Fearless]

112. I've been around for a while

but only started writing in the past month or so. So thanks. And I agree completely about the Kennedy's. They're amongst the few politicians I'd ever trust with my life.

A George Carlin observation that I'm butchering... Mass murderers, fascist dictators, child rapists, NO. Abraham Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK... It's those who tell us to live peacefully and coexist that get assassinated.

[pat_k]

118. If challenging our leaders is forbidden, we might as well pack it in.

He is making a mistake. Pointing out that he is one of the best doesn't dispute that. When our leaders -- no matter how admirable and respected -- are making a mistake, they should be challenged.

Or, as the subject says, we might as well pack it in.

[pat_k]

122. Agreed. That makes him exempt when he's wrong?

[mondo joe]

123. No - but if you can not see him for his WHOLE rather than the 1 thing that

sticks in your craw - well, that's out of whack.

[pat_k]

124. Who's doing that?

The OP is a response to the pretense that "We stopped Cheney from re-writing the Constitution" when Bush and Cheney have been re-writing the Constitution and will continue to do so. Such claims are part and parcel of the establishment's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1217633">denial of reality, and as such must be challenged, whatever the source.

The OP demonstrated a small act of challenge. Unsubscribing with a comment.

Where in ANY of that is a rejection of the good things Kennedy has fought for?

As I said above, the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobia that pervades the beltway is heartbreaking. To see our heroes fall victim is particularly so. It's like watching a dear friend lose all they have spent a lifetime building because they are trapped in denial of their addiction.

I think it's tragic to watch them allow Bush and Cheney undo the work of lifetimes -- to surrender to fascism without a fight. (Which is what "off the table" is.) I believe we must do everything in our power to save "our friends."

[Fearless]

125. You're the one asking him to retire based on an email sentence you disliked. You tell us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. Ted Kennedy Isn't Retiring...

Sheesh

[Marrah_G]

134. Actually he has said he doesn't plan to run again

I hope he changes his mind, but I can understand him wanting to retire.

[Fearless]

137. He means retire now during his term.

But he's also said he wasn't running again before last time as well, we'll see. If there's a need, he will be there of that I'm certain.

[pat_k]

164. No. Responded to that straw man accusation in #83

[Fearless]

168. Was this thread not created to voice your opinon on Kennedy?

Did you not then change the subject to impeachment and American fascism? Am I supposed to continue to respond if you won't stick to the topic you began with? I don't make a habit of sitting at my computer all day mindlessly switching from one topic to another because the mood suits me. I was trying to tell you why I think you're wrong, but as you seem not to care to defend your original point, then don't be offended if I keep trying to get you to.

[pat_k]

186. What do you think the subject is?

I thought it was pretty clear from the OP.

[Fearless]

193. Yet you keep on tangenting

Take a look at the rest of the thread.

[pat_k]

201. Tangents off what subject?

If I don't know what you think the subject is, how can I know what you would consider "tangents"?

[pat_k]

210. No I didn't

[antigop]

136. All due respect, Octafish, but Ted hasn't been on our side lately

Take a look at the awful Pension "Protection" Act that Ted helped negotiate (HELP committee).

He also thinks H-1b visa limits should be increased when thousands of US engineers and programmers have lost their jobs.

Perhaps it's time for Ted to retire.

[Fearless]

138. You'll find that there are perfectly good reasons for why he supports what he does

Perhaps if you look hard enough you'll find it. Furthermore, with visas and immigration he has been true to his beliefs that this country was founded on the basis of the poor and weak and huddled masses yearning for freedom. This country is not a club, it's a nation and if upstanding men and women want to make their lives better by coming here then they shouldn't be turned away. Besides, to compete with China on the world stage in the next century, we are going to need more not fewer people. Just based on population odds alone for every 1 inventor, writer, genius, thinker, etc, that we have they will have 10. This is why we will sink from a world power without doing something now. US engineers or foreign workers, so long as they work here its quite irrelevent to the welfare of the nation in the grand scheme. Life isn't fair. We cannot create a shelter like we did for car companies pre the Japanese invasion. We became lazy and we destroyed the car industry in the US. This will happen to every other non-service industry soon if we try to shelter them from the world.

[antigop]

139. Nope, I follow these issues very closely === he has sold us out n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. I Like Immigrants

I dislike xenophobes....

[antigop]

141. I like immigrants, too -- but Ted has sold us out n/t

[Fearless]

142. I'm sorry you think that

But I disagree.

[antigop]

144. And it shows that you haven't followed the issues. n/t

[Fearless]

151. I've found it myself

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=2203223F-4872-43F5-AEDC-C03B54A002D9

[Fearless]

152. And here

http://kennedy.senate.gov/search_results.cfm?q=pension&site=kennedy&num=10&filter=0

[Fearless]

153. AND here

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-125

[Fearless]

154. I'll look for the actual bill text now if anyone's interested.

[antigop]

157. And that's the problem -- he supported this POS bill

As well as help negotiate it.

[Fearless]

170. I'll reserve judgement on the bill itself until I see the text

but I firmly believe that Kennedy is looking out for our good and have not seen anything to prove otherwise. If this thread is still active when the bill text (S.3715) appears online then I will add my two cents. Otherwise, I will continue to defend Kennedy based upon past legislation that I can cite.

[antigop]

173. ANd I can cite past legislation -- the POS Pension "Protection" Act that he negotiated n/t

[Fearless]

180. Cite Away... Here's the bill

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-125

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. Sold Us Out To Who?

He has been a consistent liberal voice in the United States Senate since 1962...

[antigop]

146. Nope -- he has sold the American worker out to the corporations lately n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. To The Corporations Who Always Fund His Opponents?

eom

[antigop]

160. The corporations also contribute to the Dems n/t

[Fearless]

149. If you would provide a bill number I will refute, otherwise you're proving you're just giving your

opinion.

[Fearless]

156. See 151-154 for links to information on Pension Reform Bill

I love the Internet.

[antigop]

158. And you don't understand what a POS this bill is n/t

[Fearless]

165. The bill text of the Pension Reform bill

has yet to be posted online, it will be a couple of days. If interested, it will be able to be accessed at http://thomas.loc.gov/ under the name "S 3715" soon. Then if you wish to continue arguing, I will read it and comply, otherwise, your opinion is yours and mine is mine. To call something a piece of shit or excellent without evidence is ignorant so I will not partake. I have vouched for Kennedy's voting record eariler and will direct all other comments on such to that post.

[antigop]

174. Ask anyone who has a corporate pension how they feel about the Pension "Protection" Act

They'll tell you what a POS bill it is.

[Fearless]

179. Ask someone in corporate America?

Of course they'll say that it was a piece of shit! Which part of the following is it that you think is bad...

"H.R. 4 would increase the funding requirements for single-employer pension plans, reform the funding rules for multi-employer defined benefit plans, increase termination fees and other restrictions for plans turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), enhance financial disclosure requirements for pension sponsors, provide financially troubled plans special provisions to meet their pension obligations, allow firms to provide investment advice, expand retirement savings options, and address concerns pertaining to women, spouses, survivors, and older workers. The bill also includes trade tariff provisions and addresses the tax treatment of charitable organizations and charitable contributions. "

The only reason I see that you could disagree with this motion is that corporations now have to pay more to employees' pensions. I'm afraid I'd rather see the working class afford retirement than the second summer home for corporate Americans. Need before want.

Or is it the part that says that when companies go into bankruptcy that underfunded (that is unable to be funded b/c of bankruptcy) pensions are frozen so that they can't be defaulted on and cancelled entirely? Bad as a pension freeze and/or eventual decrease will be (b/c of bankruptcy), it's a far better alternative than having the pension terminated completely.

If you'd like to point something else out in specific http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-2-125 I'll continue arguing.

[antigop]

176. Yes, it is a piece of shit --anyone who knows anything about pensions knows it's a POS

ANd it's NOT the Pension Reform bill -- it's the Pension Protection Act.

[Fearless]

178. The most dangerous words in the English language are absolutes

anything, everything, nothing, won't... These words are more often used wrong than right.

[Fearless]

147. Agreed,

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. I'm A Kennedyphile...

I shook RFK's hand when I was six years old...

[Fearless]

155. .

:toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. He Was Campaigning For the U S Senate in 1964...

In Queens, New York...

America would be a very different place if him, Martin and John were still with us..

[Fearless]

163. Mmm...

Likely Reagan wouldn't have won in 1980... sigh.

[Fearless]

145. If you could provide a bill number then I would gladly tell you why he hasn't

[Fearless]

159. Perhaps a look at the legislation that he sponsored recently would help

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110Q4SuAU::

[Octafish]

167. Hiya, antigop! I understand where you're coming from...

...I want my fellow citizens to get the good jobs that are being, um, reconfigured into lower-paying jobs open to foreign engineers.

I don't know why Ted would support such stuff, as he's done more than almost anyone to use the power fo government to make ours a better nation for ALL citizens.

Now, my guess is that he wants to get as many brains into the country ASAP. We're going to need them all to help us get out of the jam created by the BFEE since 22 November 1963.

For that reason alone, I'll stand with the guy.

PS: Please never worry about stating an opinion or correcting what I post, antigop. You and I are longtime DU colleagues. Even when we disagree, I respect your ideas and you as a person.

[Fearless]

169. FYI

The bill number is S 3715 and will eventually be available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/

[antigop]

175. No, Octafish! That's the problem -- we have plenty of "Brains" right now

Look at all of the thousands of US engineers and tech workers who have been shown the door and replaced with H-1B visa holders.

We have lots of talent right here -- US citizens -- that are being kicked out of corporations.

Don't believe the "We are lacking talent and have to import foreign workers" story.

Ted should know better.

[Fearless]

177. Protectionist ideas

leave nations weak.

[antigop]

189. Go read Dorgan's book-- you obviously need education n/t

[Fearless]

191. No, to me the path is clear as daylight

Protectionism does not work. However, unbalanced free trade does not work either. And China will not voluntarily change. So we must exert our will on them to change BEFORE they gain a population that is wealthy enough so that their business interests do not need us anymore to buy their things.

Furthermore I make a great point not to read political dribble from any side. I see with my eyes and think with my brain, I don't need anyone trying to forcefeed ideology down my throat in the purpose of booksales.

Know this, I take comfort in knowing that I'm right because my understanding is based in logic not politics. I am not afraid to change my mind, flip-flopping (misnamed as it is, as that would mean returning back to an idea disposed of) is an asset, if I find that I am wrong. But here and now, I am right. We are not a people above the rest of the world. We cannot survive into the next century as a superpower without the power of our democratic ideals and without egalitarian respect for our neighbors and co-dependants.

If you have a reason why I should be reading this book, that is a particular point that you wish to refute, do so, but generalizations and slant suggestions are not helpful to the learning process. Teach me. Please.

[Fearless]

181. It's not about talent, it's about cheaper talent

If you want to argue the failings of the invisible hand of capitalism I'd gladly agree to what you're saying about that, but to say that Kennedy isn't working for the average American is ignorant. The biggest reason for being 'kicked out' of corporations is not because Kennedy wants fair wage or safe pensions for the working and middle classes. It is because of laws in other nations. Places like China and India have unfair working conditions compared to us. They are able to work overseas for far less than we do here, so thats what companies do, they move overseas. And if you are trying to blame that on Kennedy you're more ignorant than any republican I've ever met. What needs to happen is the creation of a fair playing field. China needs to stop devaluing it's currancy. It needs to enact workers rights, unions, and a minimum wage comparable to the US. Then outsourcing of jobs will end. Only then will we remain competitive AND have industry return to this country. Minimum wage, workers rights, unions, that sounds an awful lot like KENNEDY to me.

[antigop]

187. Bull shit pure bullshit

You are the one who doesn't understand.

Please, do yourself a favor, and read Sen. Dorgan's "Take this Job and Ship It".

Give a copy to Ted as well. He obviously needs it.

[Fearless]

194. Why don't you cite something in the bill that you don't like

instead of recanting your idol's politicking. The link is above somewhere. "Cite away..." or something like that.

[antigop]

188. And you are confusing outsourcing with H-1b Visas....

So you don't even know what you are talking about.

So go ahead continue to idolize your idol.

Those of us who actually work on labor issues know what Kennedy has done to the American worker.

[Fearless]

192. No I am not confusing the two

They do the same thing don't they. Give jobs that were Americans to non-citizens? And capitalism dictates that jobs will tend towards the person willing to do the job adequately but for the least pay. The visa holding non-citizen or the outsourced-to nation.

And don't patronize me. It's the last ditch effort of a fool. Very unbecoming and unprofessional. You say something, I refute it, you re-refute, I press, you patronize? Clever, I'd have expected something better from someone who "actually work(s) on labor issues." You know, works with them, not the person that lives with them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. Did Somebody Mention Challenging Ted Kennedy In The Massachusetts Democratic Primary?

LOL

[Fearless]

132. No he's NOT retiring

And no no one is opposing him, well Andy Card??? But he's an asshat so it won't matter. He hasn't even had to "run" persay in over a decade. He just says he's running again and people vote for him. He doesn't spend money on it. Nuff said.

Some people here, from out of state mind you, have taken it upon themselves to do the republicans' job for them and vilify a great Senator and leader because of a single line in an email that they didn't like. I've been trying to point out how foolish this is for three days.

[pat_k]

209. Expressions of frustration, like "they should all retire" are simply that

-- expressions of frustration. Members of the House and Senate will hear more and more such expressions each week they get steamrolled by Bush and Cheney because they refuse to impeach.

Mounting a primary challenge -- and making it clear that failure to act will result in a challenge -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1205405">is proposed as a means to move an elected official when it becomes clear that less drastic methods fail to move them. This is certainly not a new idea.

Other methods have failed to move Nancy "off the table" Pelosi. As the Speaker, she constitutes the most effective target, as proposed.

Since Kennedy isn't a Member of Class II (those whose terms are up in 2009), he couldn't be a be a target for a primary challenge even if someone had proposed specifically going after him, As I pointed out above, Pelosi must be the first target for the ultimatum "Impeach or face the primary fight of your life."

[Fearless]

222. I've given my views on impeachment elsewhere

however, you views are as you said just that, and ours are just ours. So what's the problem. Can you have views and I have to be quiet?

[pat_k]

240. And BTW, #209 was not a reply to you.

[L. Coyote]

162. Thank you Sen. Kennedy for years and years of service, dedication, and hard work.

The minimum wage workers of America owe you a special debt.

Fortunately, a few people pretending to be Dems won't influence the coure of history. We thank you for your impact on American history, and look forward to several decades of continued effort, hopefully. I would rather you were our President right now, or Vice-President.

One last word, I wish your lost brothers were still with us working like you are. We must honor their memories by restoring the Presidency to one of integrity.

[Fearless]

171. Well said!

[Forkboy]

172. Chaching!

:thumbsup:

[pat_k]

208. Do you object to challenging when they are wrong, as well as applauding

. . . when they are right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1223447

[Forkboy]

212. No,I object to people telling him "Thanks for nothing" when he's done a lot to help my state.

I also object to people who link back to same OP they started this inanity with. :eyes:

[pat_k]

214. If the specificity of the OP was not clear enough. . .

. . .I would have hoped the numerous responses acknowledging him as one of our heroes would have clarified.

[L. Coyote]

215. No. Silly question.

[pat_k]

234. In what way?

Given that you have not commented on the content of the OP, it might be assumed that your response constituted an objection to challenging Kennedy in and of itself. The question, and your answer, tells me that this is not the case.

[Nutmegger]

182. Sad thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36B9mBHdLA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicFn8rqPPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCAulj5Pmzw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlCXXZTTh8

[L. Coyote]

183. Thank you for the links. This perspective needed here.

Senator Kennedy is an extraordinary American. He has what it takes to tell it to the Republicans like it is.

We need more brave Americans like the respected Senator. We need better education for those who do not understand this man.

[Fearless]

185. So who's in charge??

This is a picture from the signing of the Universal Healthcare bill in MA. Now tell me, who's in charge here.

:kick:

[Fearless]

190. Very sad

but there are a few of us here who know what we're talking about. We needn't go further than this thread to realize the influence of the republican party on our country; to insult such a champion of working class and middle class America is a crime against the core values of the Democratic Party.

[pat_k]

205. So, we can't challenge leaders we respect when their wrong?

We can't challenge the "best" and, and therefore the most likely to see and act on the truth?

[Fearless]

225. You're way way off base now.

I've told you that we don't think he's acted wrong. Not only your view counts you know.

[pat_k]

230. The question is a generral one.

I am far from alone in thinking that Members of Congress -- the "good guys" included -- are making a horrible mistake by defending Pelosi's "off the table" edict and refusing to call for immediate impeachment.

Most of the attackers have not said a word about the content of the OP, so I have no idea what they think about Congress's failure to impeach. Without clarification, I can only assume they were promoted to attack simply because I challenged a hero of ours. I asked for clarification by asking if challenging a leader we respect when we've concluded they are making a mistake is off limits. Since none have provided an affirmative or negative response, I have yet to get clarification on the reason for the attacks.

[depakid]

200. That was actually an insulting letter- no idea why people think it's bashing

to simply point that out.

Hell, I'd unsubscribe too if I received an empty platitude like that....

[pat_k]

206. As a simple example of one of the pervasive false memes. . .

. . -- http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes that even our heroes are promoting -- I too find the number of defensive and accusatory responses surprising.

It tells us a lot about the power of group think in an insular world when we see even our heroes promoting the notion that something short of impeachment can "force" this outlaw WH to do ANYTHING they don't want. (An insidious meme right up there with "we don't have the votes.)

The fact that "the best" of the people we have elected to the House and Senate are promoting messages that evade and distract from the truth is something I considered important to highlight. To be effective, impeachment advocates need to be willing to challenge people most likely to "get it." People like Conyers in the House. People like Kennedy or Feingold in the Senate.

Given the response to the OP, I can see that it will important to take time to address resistance to "going after" our "friends." (Something I consider "tough love. I don't think they actually WANT to fail the country as they did when the leadership failed to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force. I think, or at least hope, that many of them regret that failure and are paying a personal price for it.)

Few of the accusatory replies actually include a judgment of either the content of Kennedy's letter or my response to it, so it's unclear whether they would have the same objection if the letter had come from a different source. I don't feel like bothering to find out, but I do hope that they would count themselves among the 51% who wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress and the 58% who want GWB's presidency over now. The latter finding reflects the REAL level of support for impeachment because it cuts through all the excuses and rationales. Impeachment is a political and personal judgment based the vision of each of us -- and each Member of Congress - has of what it means to be a True America.

[Fearless]

224. I have to ask if you're ignoring everything I'm saying

I DID NOT, repeat, I DID NOT say that impeachment was off the table. I said that we must do it slowly and correctly because we don't have a second shot. Kennedy is of course going to say that he's against it if he doesn't want to rush into it. What, is he going to say, yes yes I'm for it, that would raise awareness amongst Bush Co. We must not reveal our hand before we have a case built against them. This takes TIME. WE MUST PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

[pat_k]

229. 1) Pelosi declared impeachment of Bush "off the table."

2) Every member asked defends the edict and makes a varirty of excuses, none of which are "we're working on it." ("We can't win; won't fight," "We'll get Cheney," "The Republicans will jump all over us").

3) When lobbying to make something a reality, it is generally a bad idea to assume they are lying to us.

4) We are lobbying for immediate impeachment on grave crimes committed in plain sight.

Re: Your assertion that I am ignoring what you are saying.

I have directly answered your posts (even when you reply to posts not directed to you). I have provided point-by-point cases to back up my conclusions -- cases you dismiss without challenging any of the supporting points. I have asked direct questions you have evaded answering. You repeatedly assert that they are working toward impeachment, but have provided no evidence that they are doing so. You have made no case challenging the facts that make immediate impeachment for war crimes, assertion of unconstitution "unitary" power, and abuse of signing statements a moral imperative.

[Fearless]

223. Well then you're a fool

[depakid]

241. Why? because I don't like being fed a lot of horseshit?

Because that's what the contents of the letter in the OP amounted to.

Who the fuck does the staffer think they are sending out crap like that? That's my reaction, given the current state of affairs with Cheney, et al.

The man's not been held accountable for anything and saying that he has is dishonest and insulting.