The Constitution trumps party

[nadinbrzezinski]

I heard Randi say that and I almost screamed in glee (I was driving)

She's right

Not that our spineless leaders get it

By the way, got to listen to Stenny Hoyer today on the Schultz show

Every one of the talking points were present

We don't have the votes

They didn't in '73 either

We have more important things to do...

Like what, let the constitution become a piece of paper? By the way Stenny, them reps were able to walk and chew gum at the same time during Watergate, how 'bout them apples?

Oh and my favorite, the elections are in 18 months anyway...

Listen Stenny, same thing was said 'bout Reagan in '88, did I miss Dukakis being sworn in as President of the US?

[pinto]

1. I don't see a conflict between the Constitution and our elected party representatives.

I do see a conflict between the (R) Executive branch and the Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. She elaborated on why

those who are scfraeming for impeachment come from all walks of American Political life, except one quarter, the corporatist.

Take it as you may...

But some hard core Conservatives are screaming it as loudly as some hard core liberals, and both are hitting their head against the same wall

[Rainscents]

3. I am ready for new party at this point!

I am sick and tired of my party selling us out too!

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I have a feeling that this may happen

I know that I have told Howard Daen that if they don't do the right thing, they have lost all from me, including my vote

Oh I know some round these parts go, have a good day and don't let that door hit you in the rear,

But the only thing at stake at this point is the Republic, nothing much

[mod mom]

96. In '04 I worked my butt off for the Dems stepping away from my business to work

30+ hours/week starting in May for the Kerry campaign (He was not my first choice but I gained a lot of respect for him & John Edwards during the campaign). You name it I did it-canvassing, phone banking, hosting house parties, organizing visibility events, registering new voters (over 2 doz) rallies (even travelling for the field staff, organizing GOTV in my area where no existed previously. I was even in 3 commercials w my kids and drove a Kerry motorcade.

As it stands right now, I no longer have the enthusiasm for the party that I once did. I felt betrayed after the '04 election (I'm in Ohio and witnessed first hand the blatant disenfranchisement in the precincts that I canvassed) when the empty promises of making sure every vote would be counted were ignored. I figured though, that a new candidate would rise to incite my enthusiasm again but so far-I'm waiting. I woould definitely work for Al Gore whole heartedly and would also GOTV for Obama or Edwards, but less spirited at this point (where were they when we demanded investigation into our election), but I would not lift a finger, nor raise a cent for a DLC candidate.

I am progressive, ANTI-war, PRO-CONSTITUTION, anti Free Trade and am looking for someone in the party to stand up to these thugs who never even won in the first place.

I am no longer a straight party voter. It was the lack of spine in the Democratic Party that made me that way. Principles over party, although I would love to be wooed back into the fold.

[pinto]

13. They haven't sold me out, imho.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Yeah, tell us that when you are in a siberian dungeon without a lawyer.

I have to guess that you don't have an Arabic name,
that you haven't had your possessions gone through for a sneak and peak,
that you haven't been tortured,
that your children, wife, dad, or sibling is doing their 4th rotation in Iraq

Well you get my point, I hope.

Some people don't much care about the constitution, except in sorta a nostagic way. Some people think it can't happen here.

I feel like I've been sold out and more so with each passing day.

[truedelphi]

24. Sshh! Admins may be listening...

After all this is Democratic Underground not New Party Underground

[John Q. Citizen]

46. can I chuckle softly, under my breath?

[truedelphi]

91. I guess that would make for a new acronym

LOL would become CSUMB !!

[pinto]

9. I appreciate their calls for impeachment. And I can see making a case for it in Congress.

I guess my reaction to Randi's statement was that it was hyperbole. She does that well and effectively. I just don't think the battle is between the party and the Constitution.
I'd rather see a rant on the specifics of a case for impeachment, not the framing implied in that analogy.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You're right it is not between the party and

the COnstitution... but it is between the party leadership and the Constitution

This is a party leadership that is playing the same hand they played in '88, and you sure remember the result, don't you?

[pinto]

12. The convention and Dukakis?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. The Democratic leadership back then

decided aganst Impeachment over Iran Contra becuase the WH was sown in and gosh darn it, the people would surely elect a Democrat... because they were sick and tired of the crimes of Iran Contra. Hence, we should make no waves

Right now your leaders are playing the same stupid hand...

[pinto]

17. Ah, got you.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Did you watch the Bill Moyers show on impeachment? It's online and it

has a number of specifics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I need to watch it myself

;-)

[John Q. Citizen]

75. It's very powerful. I've seen it completely change minds, and overcome

99% of excess Dem leadership excuse residue. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. hmm in the midst of writing CDs for Comicon

I will see, bout posting a linkie

care to tell me why the base is so damned scared?

The leadership I get it, don't justify it, but get it (Anthrax and other issues... have had some fascinating conversations over the last few years), but the base

[John Q. Citizen]

81. The base is for it. The hero worshipers are following the leaders.

The ARG poll has something like 76% of Dems in favor of Impeaching cheney and of course cheney has to be first or they have to be simultaneous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Correct, you know I wish I could put some documents

on those CDs about this... but I have to keep that distance in a profesional way

[bobbolink]

11. It's "off the table". There's your conflict.

[pinto]

16. Impeachment is not the only avenue to the Constitutional balance of power,

and it's not mandated. It's one option available to the Congress, among others, to limit the power of the Executive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. That is why it is mentioned what at least six times

Yes, it is meant to be used

And Consitutional Lawyers disagree with you... in a situation like this, impeachment is not only the remedy, but required

[pinto]

22. Yes, it is meant to be used. And, Sen Feingold said recently it is not mandated.

It remains a Constitutional option, but not required.

[Usrename]

27. So what are these other options that Congress is using?

Harsh language?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And Constitutional Experts DON'T agree with Feingold

it is just used as cover by those who are afraid of doing their sworn duty

What you think censure will do anything to stop them?

If it was not meant to be used, they would have never put it in there....

By the way, it is only in modern times that Americans have gotten really skittish about it... but if you do some research you will find that it was used, often

[onenote]

66. link to a constitutional expert that thinks impeachment is mandated?

And don't bother with Bruce Fein since he never actually says that. (And, by the way, if you're going to swear by the infallabilitly of Bruce Fein, keep in mind that he was the General Counsel of the FCC in 1985 who was the architect of the argument that the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional).

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Mr Fein

he's said this already on the Thom Hartman Show and on PBS last week

Oh and Hartman, look for the first hour of the show on the 19th

Oh and I woudl be remiss if I did not mention both Dean and Tribe

[onenote]

70. I listened to Mr. Fein on Hartman's show and he did not say that

I'd quote for where he doesn't say it, but that would be impossible. You, on the other hand, should be able to go back, listen to the tape of the show and quote exactly where he says impeachment is mandated.

And how, by the way, would this "mandate" work -- does it mean that no member of the house is allowed to vote against impeachment or conviction -- that the courts can force members to carry out this supposed "mandate"? What exactly does it mean for the constitution to "mandate" something if there is no way to enforce that mandate? Or maybe, its just not a mandate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Ok if you say so... I guess they have to actually say the words

and not strongly imply it, for you to finally get it

I could also quote the founding fathers in the Federalists, but why bother?

You think they don't have to... fine, they don't

When the Constitution is finally suspended, officially that is, don't cry to me. I will not listen

[onenote]

78. Okay, Will you listen when I remind you that it was your con law "expert"

Mr. Fein that came up with the argument that the fairness doctrine is unconstitutional. Or does the demise of the FD not bother you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yes, and there are people on the left who are also for it

by the way, he is a conservative, not a neo con... he is a strict law and order guy

And fits the history of the CONSERVATIVES in the US

Historically, not that it mattes to you, the Conservaties, whether Whig or GOP, have pursued most of the impeachment events in the history of the nation

No, it wasn't Nixon the first time it was used...

And they have greatly benefited from it'

So think about it, you have a paleo con supporting it on law and order principles, knowing full well that if the Dems choose to do do it, it will benefit them

Why do you think is that?

Oh yes, the Constitution trumps party

[onenote]

83. Actually, suggesting that "conservatives" have pursued most impeachments is misleading

While that may be true of most of the impeachments in the 20th Century, its not true overall. Many of the early impeachments did not divide along such lines. For example

William Blount -- first impeachment in US history, a member of the "Democratic-Republican party" (i.e. the party founded by Jefferson), was impeached by a vote of 25-1.
John Pickering -- impeached at Jefferson's urging (and over Federalist objections)
Samuel Chase -- impeached at urging of Jeffersonians
West Humphreys - convicted on unanimous vote for calling for secession; served as confederate judge\
Andrew Johnson -- impeached at urging of republicans, who at that time, were not the conservatives we know today, but in fact were outraged at Johnson for, among other things, vetoing civil rights legislation
William Belknap -- cabinet secretary in repub administration of Ulysses S. Grant

That's pre 20th Century impeachments...doesn't really support your thesis. As noted, in the 20th Century there have been more Democrats or Democratic appointees impeached, although of the nine during that timeframe, two were appointees of Calvin Coolidge (a repub) and Nixon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. There are far more than just them

and you know it

But whatever

In my view the democrats are taking a shot gun, loading it with solid slug, and about to shoot their feet off....

And my thesis is also the thesis of John Nichols...

Oh I forgot he's probably another conservative RIGHT?

(No, not really, he writes for the Nation, but whatever)

[onenote]

86. delete dupe

[onenote]

87. Really, Give me a for instance since you know it and I seem not to.

Actual impeachments that occurred.

And if we're just talking about impeachment resolutions being introduced, its hardly one sided. For example, resolutions were introduced to impeach Bush I in the 102nd congressand Rumsfeld in the 108th.

[bobbolink]

23. You know, I'm so tired of all this. We've all explained it endlessly, but fear prevails.

I'm coming to the point where I think we need to switch tactics.

These fearful people can't understand the need for impeachment even at a time like this, then let's start campaigning to get it removed from the Consitution.

Use it or lose it.

Yes, that's how dire it is.

Put it right out there in their faces, and then maybe there'll be some thinking processes going on, instead of fear.

[pinto]

25. I'm not afraid. I think we are laying the groundwork to retake the government from this gang.

It may very well lead to impeachment. If so, I'm all for it. If not, I think we will do well to dismantle the (R) federal junta from the bottom up, which is how it has been established.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. As I said above, they used the same tactic in '88

it worked great back then, didn't it?

They are bout to make the same error... and step in the same hole.. the stakes were high during Iran Contra, right now it's only the Republic.

[bobbolink]

33. Given that people don't want to see the obvious lesson in the history you present,

it's clear that their fear is higher priority than savng this nation.

It's all very clear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Fear is a very powerful motivator, and these idiots

on both sides, have used it expertly

[bobbolink]

51. They will know REAL fear when they've completely destroyed the Constitution!

Do any of these people remember that ALL our elected representatives took a damned OATH???

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. A similar oath to the one I took

but indeed they did

They are in a better place to act on it

Me... I will do all in my little power to protect and defend it, even if that gets me booted from site, my phone calls monitored, et al

And trust me, I know they have been listening since 2002 (one of the joyful benefits of having lived in Military housing)... and I don't expect that to have stopped

hell I am shocked that I am not on the no flight list yet

[pinto]

36. I think the public perceptions of Reagan and Bush are vastly different.

As are the political perceptions. This is not '88, imho.

It may be the political result of the Reagan revolution, but the tide has turned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. And I think the Dems are making a huge mistake

and the election of 2008 have already been lost

Why?

People are PISSED now at both parties

[pinto]

48. I disagree. I think we will win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I hope you are right

but the anger I hear, I don't think so

[pinto]

58. Thanks for meeting me half way, nadinbrezinski, I really hope we can turn this around.

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. It is not about meeting you half way

I just believe they are not acting as proscribed by their oath of office, and they are making the same mistake they made in 1988

I just hope I am wrong on both counts, but History is a cruel mistress

[pinto]

62. Yeah, I see your point.

[bobbolink]

63. There's no way to "turn it around" when people are too afraid to do so.

[bobbolink]

53. Win what?

What will be left when the last of the Constitution is shredded, and the nation is destroyed?

Big winnings.

THEY TOOK AN OATH!

Fear be damned, THEY TOOK AN OATH!

[bobbolink]

32. And when you find out that that "groundwork" is all underwritten by the corporations,

I hope you have the inner integrity to let us all know that you misjudged the seriousness of this whole mess.

Regardless of your statement, it's FEAR that's holding us back.

Nothing but FEAR.

[truedelphi]

26. Thanks Nadine. I'm tired of the "It's not mandatory" meme n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Constitutiional Lawyers don't agree with them either

it is amazing to me... but party is far more important to some folks than country, and I don't care at this point what party

[bobbolink]

21. Back to protecting the party, rather than the nation.

You and I will never agree, and it's no use poounding the issue.

All I can say is the day will come when people will regret not having done all they could to save this nation.

Learning that the nation must come first before party is going to be a very painful lesson.

[pinto]

47. I don't mean to protect the party over the nation. I don't see it that way, at all.

Yes, the party has done us well. And it has done the nation well. And it has faults.

Is the current administration - a Republican administration - the end of the nation? Nah.

It's going to take time, but I think we will get back to the basics.

I guess my point, here, is that there aren't instant results to a long term undermining of the federal bureaucracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. They thought they were free

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[bobbolink]

57. We realize you don't see it that way. We GOT it.

The German people thought they had plenty of time to get back to basics.

The Romans, etc.

It's all there in history.

FEAR is doing us in.

I hope when you are forced to realize there was a lesson to be learned from history, that you face us all and admit it.

[pinto]

64. OK.

[wiggs]

15. If you haven't already, give some time to Bill Moyer's impeachment episode...

...they spend almost an hour on the need to defend the constitution and balance of power. DC dems are an important part of the process....

[bvar22]

98. Our represenatives are OBLIGATED by their oath to Impeach.

Go here. Read transcript or watch video:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

If Bush* is not impeached, there will precident for future abuses of power.
Not impeaching bush SANCTIONS the criminal abuses.

Some Democrats are rubbing their hands in anticipation of a Pro BIG BUSINESS Democratic Unitary Executive, but I am not.
I want a return to a Balance of Powers, and a Carved in Stone Bill of Rights.

[Individualist]

5. Unfortunately, too many of our "leaders" let Corporatocracy trump the Constitution

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Well I fear this failure will lead to the

end of the republic, and quite possibly to parties, by the time the dust settles

[H2O Man]

6. Nominated.

Very good post. I enjoyed the whole thing, but your ending was the icing on the cake. Thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Thank you, I intend to send another one of my

why bother letters to congress critter

I am sure at this time they have me in the cook file

:-)

Proud to be in the cook file, btw

[mmonk]

19. Yes it does but so far we have two parties with leaders that don't think so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. There are days I need to reach for the tin foil

if you know what I mean... but then Conspiracy... we have a real one going... and historians will be able to discover it in oh fifty years from now

[WillyT]

31. Big K & R !!!

:kick::patriot::kick:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. November 08. Two Parties. That's It. Choose Your Side And Vote.

You can cast all the idealistic premises you want. But on that day, only a member of one of two parties will be elected. You can either help it be the Democrat or the Republican. If you actually care about the constitution rather than using it merely as a backdrop to your idealistic sentiments, then it would be my hope you'd vote for and support the former. The choice is yours.

I know it's all nice and stuff to talk about all the things that could be and imagine this super perfect candidate that brings together the masses in harmony, but no matter how much nuanced discussions of grey areas you desire in order to preach some idealistic and unrealistic premise of how neither party is optimal etcetera etcetera, you will still be faced with the unsurmountable reality that on election day either a Democrat or a republican will be the victor. Which one do you desire the victor to be? Democrat or republican? See, ya can't answer neither, cause your idealistic desire will not be recognized. It will certainly be one of them. You can answer that you don't care, because they're both the same anyway, in which case my opinion is shame on you. Have you not paid attention the last 6+ years? You can answer the republican, in which case I say shame on you as well, for the same reason. Or you can answer the Democrat, in which case I'd say thank you for coming to your senses.

See, it's not about the constitution trumping party. It's merely about the Democrats trumping the republicans. And besides, we're really not nearly as bad as you or others are dramatically making us out to be anyway.

[Nunyabiz]

39. There should be at least 5 parties

Since the electoral college which should have been abolished at least 75+ years ago takes my vote and throws it in the toilet every election I usually vote for whom is the best candidate, the past several elections that has been Green Party candidates.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. ...

:boring:

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. I will vote for those who defend and protect the

constution against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC

And I am hearing this more and more

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. If That's Someone Other Than The Dem, Ya Might As Well Vote For Mickey Mouse.

You'd fool yourself into thinking you did something beneficial of which you could raise your head high, but you really would've done nothing more than assist in some small way the potential for republican victory, in which case you should hang your head in shame.

That is all. Bye now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. If Mickey Mouse is the one who gets it, then he gets my vote

By the way, if you assist in the destruction of the Republic and the Constitution, you should hang your head in shame, since you have joined those INTERNAL enemies

Have a good imperial life... and say hi to the Emperor for me... that is what you are enabling

[messiah2012]

55. You are under the assumption that your vote actually counts.

the power elite thinks that cute. '08 has been bought and paid for and the only party that matters is the Havemores Party. And oh yeah, you ain't invited to the party.

[Junkdrawer]

97. OMC may not be invited, but he'll be working as a bouncer...

Does that count?

[truedelphi]

43. Well given that we have only two choices I hope it is

Dennis Kucinich for the Dems and Ron Paul for the Republicans$

Every single other candidate is simply a slave to the Council on Foreign Relations

[mmonk]

49. It's a regularly scheduled friggin election.

That does not rectify a damn thing.

[Junkdrawer]

95. Ever hear of the Whig Party?

America changes it's two-party lineup from time-to-time.

Not often, but it does happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Yep

I have also heard of other parites that have come close

(Grangers anyone)

[Jax]

38. Kick for nadin recognizing it IS about the Constitution

and for reminding all of us.

No more wiping their noses, butts or anything else with our Constitution. That MUST end now.

Very well said. Many thanks.

Alyce

[bobbolink]

59. The Constitution. Taking an OATH to protect it.

[onenote]

65. "they didn't in 1973 either" -- wrong.

That, of course, is a bit of revisionist history.

The vote in Congress in Feb 1974 to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to commence an impeachment inquiry was 410-4. The vote in the Senate to authorize the Ervin committee in Feb 73 was 77-0

How close to that do you think a vote tomorrow would get? Would it even pass?

You need the votes to start the process. There is no sign that we have them.

Sorry that reality bites.


edited to add reference to ervin committee and correct dates

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Sorry that reality bites

they only got them votes after quite a bit of the process went down

Major difference, they were willing to go down with the process... not now and taking it off the table was SOOOPID

[onenote]

69. Wrong again

None of the impeachment process had "gone down" before the vote in February 1974. What had gone down was the Ervin Committee hearings, which were not part of any impeachment process -- and which themselves were started with a vote of 77-0 --- again, a vote that we are nowhere near reacahing today.

And that 77-0 vote in the Senate -- among the things that hadn't yet gone down -- the Saturday Night Massacre and the revelation of the 18 minute gap.

Facts are facts.


edited to correct reference from House to Senate vote

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. And any body with any historical training will tell you

that officially the committee was not part of the process, if you look at it from the POV of how the process was written by the founding fathers

But that committee did the investigations

So wrong again

Sorry... if historical analysis eludes many of you folks, but the Irwin committee is part of the timeline and the investigations... alas that is process

[onenote]

72. which part of the 77-0 vote did you miss?

Assuming that you're right that the Ervin committee was part of the process -- the vote to authorize it was 77-0.

By the way, let's get back to your original statement that the votes weren't there in 1973-- when the vote to authorize the Ervin Committee was 77-0.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Which part of it was part of the process that led to the

resignation of Richard Milhaus Nixon did you miss?

[onenote]

77. you keep changing the subject don't you

You stated that the argument that the votes aren't there isn't a justification for not starting an impeachment proceeding today, claiming that the votes weren't there in 1973 either. Yet, as pointed out, the vote to commence the Ervin Committee investigation (which you characterize as a part of the impeachment process, albeit not formally) was 77-0, which doesn't really fit with "the votes weren't there" analysis. Its a lot more votes than we could get now to start the impeachment process.

After the ervin committee started its investigation, nixon continued to shoot himself in the foot -- the revelation of the taping system, the Saturday night Massacre, etc. -- but it still took until Feb 1974 for the House to vote to commence Judiciary Committee hearings -- a vote of 410-4.

Each piece of the puzzle, culminating with the smoking gun revelation led to Nixon's resignation. But the process itself, as you acknowledge, began with a bi-partisan vote of 77-0 and that is an important historical fact to keep in mind when its argued that somehow the situation today is analogous to the Nixon impeachment. Its not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. No I have not

but the reality is that lack of votes is not a justification

But whatever trips your triggger

Mine, is the Constitution. Yes, it is that damn simple

[onenote]

88. still haven't got an answer for that 77-0 vote do you.

Doesn't fit your "they didn't have the votes in 73 claim" so now you're just going to pretend you never said it. Okay. But you better move quick to delete the post your pretending doesn't exist before your editing time expires.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. I gave it to you

and if you don't like the answer that is fine

As far as I am concerned, I will never agree with those who put political calcuslus (and wrong headed one at that) before their oaths of office, or their followers for that matter

[onenote]

90. you really can't change facts, as much as you seem to want to

The answer you gave was that lot of process had gone down before vote in 73 -- a vote that was 77-0. That's simply not true. THere was no "process" before the Ervin Committee vote. None. So, I think there is a pretty good reason to like your answer.

If you find something wrong headed about factual accuracy, that strikes me as being more your problem than mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. And you really don't get it

really don't

Nor will ever get it

Look we will not agree on this... and the division is palpable

But as far as I am concerned the history of this country is replete with examples of what happens when a party FAILS to do its duty

You may choose not to pay attention to those lessons

but Santayan was clear on this

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it

You take from that what you want

After all Mr. Santayan was also a radical... I am sure

[onenote]

99. I prefer my history lessons from someone who actually recognizes history

rather than makes it up.

You said that the votes weren't there in 1973. I pointed out that the vote to authorize the Ervin Committee investigation (which you characterized as part of the impeachment process) was 77-0, which directly contradicts your statement. You said that there was a lot of process before the vote in 1973. I pointed out that there was no process before the Ervin Committee.

I have facts, you don't, but you are criticizing my knowledge of history.

Well, you've got chutzpah if nothing else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Whatever trips your trigger

I have not made it up... Just used standard historical analysis

but what would I know of dong that?

I only hold a masters in the stuff, and have written history.

Not made it up, WRITTEN IT

And if you cannot understand that the hearings were part of a long drawn process, that is not my fault.

No hearings, no vote, Nixon ends his term, that simple

[onenote]

105. What you wrote is there for all to see.. But you have been completely unable to back it up

Not surprising since the historical record contradicts your suggestion that the votes weren't there to start an impeachment process in 1973.

The "long process" you refer to started with the Ervin hearings in 1973, authorized by a vote of
77-0 and proceeded to a vote in 1974 to authorize House Judiciary impeachment hearings, which was approved 410-4.

You seem to think that situation is analogous to the present situation. Unless you know of a lot of repubs that would vote for starting an investigation or authorizing hearings, history contradicts you.

Since you claim to be the historian, how come I'm the only citing actual, hard cold facts here with respect to your claim about the level of Congressional support for starting the impeachment process in the Nixon situation as compared to the level of support for starting the process today? (Let me guess at your answer -- it still won't discuss the vote in 1973, which is what you first referred to).

[JVS]

80. yup

[dkofos]

93. You would never know it listening to politicians and some of the people here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Agreed

[NuttyFluffers]

100. my tarot reading says we are doomed, btw

ends with knight of swords reversed - destruction through extravagance and greed. i thought it was rather appropriate. do not expect impeachment; america needs to learn a difficult lesson -- on both sides of the aisle. the great choice is coming, the republic is dying, and what comes next will consume our decision making. if we're organized we might get a dissolved state transformed into a new republic w/ a strong senate and an abolished executive. if we fail, dictatorship and subsequent fall of empire of a magnitude that the world has never seen before. but the actual choice is not here yet; there's still greater forces being played before that final curtain. but, what do i know, they're just cards. it's probably gonna turn up all roses around december 2008, right? if all goes well, i'll be wrong!
:D
:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Well my knowledge of history tells me that

this will end up in a VERY NASTY HOT CIVIL WAR, and the dissolution of the country into anywhere from three to five successor states.

(Anybody who ever played battle tech will realize why that five is funny)

But anyhow on a serious natter, not tarot

All civil wars (including ours) are preceded by anywhere from 10 to 20 years of verbal hell. In modern times ten is the average (perhaps due to the acceleration of the media), but if nothing is done to stop the process, sooner, rather than later, you have a hot civil war.

The US Civil war truly started in the early 1850s, and some some serious proxy wars in kansas during those years.

This civil war started in 1996... it is 2007...

That does not mean I have truly and fully given up on the Republic... but I might as well do... I wasn't born here, and those who were, apparently don't care, so why should I?

;-)

[NuttyFluffers]

104. ooh, someone who knows battletech! :D

i always loved the inner sphere over the clans. they cracked me up with their abuses against clan honor. makes me think of probably the most chilling and pleasing quote from another game: "diplomacy, deceit, destruction" - vampire the eternal struggle, camarilla edition. in fact, i think of it often lately whenever we get nothing but talk from the capitol and nothing but evil actions from the white house.

but what makes you say 1996? i'm trying to remember when/what/how the dialogue became irreconcilably ugly then. jerry springer? ricki lake?