On whether it matters or not if we "have the votes."

[rateyes]

A couple or three weeks ago, during one of the Democratic Presidential Debates, the discussion centered around why those on the stage--especially the sitting Senators who remained silent before casting their vote to write the blank check (Biden) and those who voted against the blank check (Clinton, Obama)---Dodd voted against it, too, but he came out quickly against it---why they voted the way they did.

Dennis Kucinich made a point that I've been trying to make for a while. As usual, Dennis didn't get much play, but he was right on target. The discussion turned to why the "blank check" legislation passed (this is the legislation that had "minimum wage" and "war funding" tied together in order to give the Dems some political cover.)

Everyone was talking about how it passed because "we didn't have the votes to stop it." Dennis Kucinich said something to the effect of..."Then why the hell did the leadership BRING IT UP FOR A DAMNED VOTE?"

I think that was a damned good question. As we are learning from the impeachment debate, when the leadership doesn't want a vote on a matter, they don't have to bring it to the floor for a vote.

You see, WE DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE AGENDA. The Democratic Leadership in Congress DID NOT HAVE TO EVEN HAVE A VOTE TO WRITE THE BLANK CHECK THAT THE CONGRESS WROTE. They didn't have to bring it up. It wouldn't have mattered if "they had the votes" on the floor to defeat it, IF THEY HADN'T ALLOWED THE VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE LEADERSHIP...Pelosi, Hoyers, et al...had enough votes to keep that bill from passing, for theirs were the only votes required. They ENSURED its passage by bringing it up. One can make the argument that, since they knew it would pass, by bringing it up and then voting against it, they could ensure passage and still go home and say, "We did all we could." But, you see, they didn't do all they could.

Back to impeachment. In my not-so humble opinion, the reason impeachment isn't on the table has nothing to do with "we don't have the votes." The reason it's not on the table is because the leadership doesn't want it on the table. They DO NOT WANT TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH. They want to keep this loser who has approval ratings that are swirling around in the toilet in office in order to use him as a punching bag for the 2008 elections.

Nevermind that the POTUS, VP, and Attorney General have committed high crimes. Nevermind that our constitutional freedoms go unprotected as the POTUS abuses due process, denies habeas corpus, conducts illegal searches and seizures, et al.

It's all about POLITICS and how to more easily hold on to political power. And, that's OK, if that's all you care about. But, here's the thing. THEY SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT IT.

Nancy & John...I love you both. I really do, but please don't tell us "we don't have the votes." The truth is, you won't even START THE DAMNED HEARINGS to see if you can build a case in order to get the votes. You've taken it "off the table," and there's NOTHING Bush can do from here on out to make you put impeachment back on the table. NOTHING. If lying us into this damned war in Iraq, spying on American citizens without warrants, torturing people, et al won't get it on the table, then NOTHING will. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

So, I would just as soon you quit insulting our intelligence with the "we don't have the votes" mantra. YOU CONTROL THE AGENDA. One thing is for sure...you won't have the votes if you never put it to a vote. And, we know now that you never will.

Except of course, when you want to write another blank check.

[bonito]

1. K&R n/t

[rateyes]

9. Thanks.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

2. K & R'ed

[rateyes]

10. Thank you.

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

3. That's a fact. (well more than one fact actually) n/t

[rateyes]

4. I certainly think so. Thanks. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Containment isn't all bad.

A strong case can be made that he's not being contained, but I can see the point. I want the term conservative to be radioactive for generations to come. Will the damage that Bush can do in the next year and a half be more than the next Republican?

I want the war to end now, and I want Bush impeached, but I also want to avoid the next war - started by the Republican who wins in 2012.

I'm not saying that I don't want them to vote on impeachment and ending the war. I'm just saying that we're in this for the long haul.

[rateyes]

6. I just hope that by November 2008...

it's not too late.

[puebloknot]

7. They control the agenda, and We the Dems control our votes...

... in 2008. I hope that John and Nancy will have a study session together and figure out that mathematical relationship. They're counting on us to vote for the lesser evil. They're morphing into faux Democrats.

Won't you come home, John Conyers, won't you come home?

[rateyes]

8. It's called taking the base for granted. Not...

a smart thing to do.

[Nunyabiz]

11. I have been saying this for quite awhile

sadly most here don't seem to get it. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of Young Earth Creationist or something.

[rateyes]

12. Well, it's really just sinking in for me...

I guess "hope" blinded me.

[Usrename]

13. The same thing could be said about the Senate.

The last time DU was in upheaval was during the Alito confirmation.

A filibuster was called.

Only 41 votes were needed to halt his confirmation.

42 Senators voted that they believe he is absolutely unfit for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Yet there he sits.

Perhaps the general public can be fooled, but on a political board where the members are supposed to be sophisticated, it's a shame that so many resort to magical thinking to explain why the party leadership behaves the way it does.

Many wish to believe that Joe Lieberman is a unique case among the party leadership. All of the evidence points to the fact that he's only the tip of the iceberg. There are many who are just like him that control the party. That's how torture, tax-cuts for the rich, and the preemptive war come to pass.

The party leadership does not really ever produce any effective opposition to the whole Bush Doctrine. The simplest reason is that they privately believe in it and support it. The only difference is that Lieberman has been ousted.

[rateyes]

15. You are right about that. Aren't you glad we kept the

powder dry?

[rateyes]

14. It's getting late here on the east coast...

I'll leave it to you all out west. See you in the morning.

[BlooInBloo]

16. On winning and losing: it doesn't matter; it's how you play the game...

... On playing the game: play to win!

The wisest Jr. High Locker Room Wall Sticker EVAH!!

[onenote]

17. Have you actually counted the votes?

You believe that the failure to call for a vote on impeachment is not because the votes aren't there. That's rather presumptuous given that all of 13 members have bothered to put their names on the resolution to impeach cheney.

To start the process, before hearings commence, the practice is for the full House to pass a resolution authorizing and directing Judiciary to hold hearings. That's how it was done for Nixon, that's how it was done for Clinton and that's the only way it will happen for Chimpy and Cheney. And if you look at the facts in the cold light of reality, you have to recognize that there are several dozen blue dog Democrats who, based on their voting patterns, records, and districts, are not likely to support a resolution to commence an impeachment process if there are no repubs on board. These members shy away from purely partisan divides and will do so on impeachment for no other reason than the fact that both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments were commenced with votes in which there was at least a modicum of bi-partisan support.

Reality bites, but it tends to win out over fantasy most of the time.

And as for the idea that Pelosi and Hoyer could've ended the war by simply not allowing a vote on a funding bill -- again, you ignore the reality -- taking that stance would've put the Democratic majority at risk. Pelosi and HOyer's roles are not to be dictators, but to work at achieving consensus within the Democratic consensus. A significant number of Democrats -- again, mostly Blue DOgs -- wanted, and indeed, needed to vote for a funding bill. The polls indicated that the public as a whole wasn't in favor of an immediate cut off and you can be assured that the sentiment against such a move was even higher in the blue dogs districts. Those blue dogs, like it or not, provide the Democrats with the margin that gives us the majority. Again, reality can be a cold hard thing, but its all that there is.

[Usrename]

18. You sound too smart to believe yourself.

Remember when Murtha's bill to redeploy was coming to the floor, and how the Republicans torpedoed it? Remember how they did it? They substituted an amendment that even the author of the substitute bill could not stomach, he voted against his own bill, IIRC.

Are you really saying that the leadership could not put forward a bill so disgusting that it failed to pass?

Remember, they had already passed a funding bill that was vetoed. Many concessions were made, from all quarters, to get it passed.

So who does the party choose to screw after Bush gets out his veto pen? Not the Republicans... but the anti-war Democrats.

I'm not buying your argument at all. Can you tell? I'd use stronger language, but it is not allowed.

[rateyes]

22. Sorry we disagree. nt

[OneBlueSky]

19. and because it's all about politics, time is fast running out . . .

if Congressional Democrats are simply waiting Bush out, they're making a mistake of historic proportions . . .

whether they have the votes to impeach doesn't matter . . . it really doesn't . . . the votes weren't there when the Select Committee on Impeachment began considering the Nixon case, either . . . the point is that the Congress has a responsibility to impeach if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are suspected . . . and in BushCo's case, they are not merely suspected, they are in plain sight . . . the evidence for many is in the public record and is, in fact, prima facie . . .

but most importantly, time may well be running out . . . Bush is not issuing all of these draconian Executive Orders for the possible benefit of some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . he fully intends to activate them at the earliest possible time -- even if he and his co-conspirators have to orchestrate a national crisis as a trigger . . .

when that happens, it will be too late . . . the Constitution, and the powers of Congress, will be "suspended" in the interest of national security . . . they won't be ABLE to impeach . . . and those who dare to question the dictatorship may well find themselves in "re-education" camps -- with no habeus corpus . . . websites like DU will be shut down . . .

the problem with Congress is that they're more afraid of Bush/Cheney than they are of losing their country -- a state of affairs I find both baffling and thoroughly disgusting . . . future generations -- if there are any -- will shake their heads and ask "Why didn't they stop them?" . . .

[snappyturtle]

20. K&R Excellent......it is all politics, in the end. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

21. Tip-o-the-Hat

Another thing is: All Democrats believe that they DO have the votes to PREVENT Impeachment. So if it was brought up for a vote, those Democrats opposed to Impeachment would have to stand UP and be counted. Which of course, might jeopardize their chance for re-election; especially if they're blindsided by defections.

[rateyes]

23. You've got that right....

At this moment, political cover is being provided to DINO's like my Representative, Jim Marshall. Put them on record, and hold them accountable for their votes. That's what democracy is all about.