How Soon We Forget- The Leadership of John Conyers

[Guaranteed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

"In May, 2005, Conyers released What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election, which discusses the voting irregularities in the state of Ohio during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. The evidence offered of wrongdoing consists of statistical abnormalities in the differences between exit poll results and actual votes registered at those locations. The book also discusses reports of faulty electronic voting machines and the lack of credibility of those machines used to tally votes.

"He was one of the 31 who voted in the House to NOT count the electoral votes from Ohio in the United States presidential election, 2004."

Not to mention the fact that he was one of the few to attempt to block Bush's electoral votes in the House in 2000.


I remember how proud we were of him on this day, as well:



John Conyers delivering a petition with 540,000 re the Downing Street Memo to the White House.


I would also invite everyone to look at Conyers' voting history, here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers.htm

His consistency is actually kind of amazing, in this age of the spineless Democrat.
He is:

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Rated 100% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)

Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Rated 8% by the Christian Coalition: an "anti-family" voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 89% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)


Just days ago Conyers said that with the support of three more representatives, he would begin impeachment proceedings.
http://off2thetropics.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-conyers-three-more-congress.html

Of course, ONLY TODAY, we had this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2929708

He's brought contempt of Congress charges against 2 members of BushCo. Yes, apparently we forget things that happen the very same day, for some reason.

-----------------

I have to say that people who are hassling this guy are absolutely out of their MINDS. I researched even further than the above online and his record and history of leadership are nothing but sparkling. Superb.

This guy wants justice as much as anyone here, and he knows what he's doing. He knows what can be done and what can't be. People may be frustrated by the ongoing Bush crap, but no one has any right to take those frustrations out on him. Seriously, people need to leave him the fuck alone.

[mzmolly]

1. So glad to recommend.

G'Night BGL :hi:

[cynatnite]

2. I second that n/t

[Guaranteed]

4. Always glad to see ya, Mz.

:P

Sleep well!

[mzmolly]

69. Backatcha bub.

:hi: I slept great and was glad to be the first to recommend your kick ass thread. :toast:

[EFerrari]

3. No. John Conyers has suggested that he would start impeachment

proceedings and it's no big surprise that people who took him at his word are upset.

And all the more upset because of high esteem in which he was/is held.

Please.

[Guaranteed]

5. I'll say it again: He wants justice as much as anyone here,

PLUS, he knows what he's doing.

He has proven his leadership and principles over and over. Look at his voting record.

LEAVE HIM ALONE.

[EFerrari]

6. No. I hold people responsible for their behavior -- at a minimum.

John Conyers brought this on himself. I don't like it or want it but, that's what has happened.

You can't paper over something like that.

And, it's not my job to make excuses for the mistakes that politicians make, no matter how much or how little I admire them.

[madfloridian]

9. That attitude will hurt all of us.

An intractable frame of mind and a bad attitude toward the good guys will backfire on all of us because you want it all right now.

[EFerrari]

11. Intractable? Try, principled.

[madfloridian]

16. No, Cindy's group passed principled and is heading towad extreme.

So go ahead, I am so disgusted and so is my hubby and so are our friends here with the way she and her supporters are hurting Democrats.

[Marrah_G]

34. They don't care

They are to busy wallowing in their "this will show HIM for letting our savior be arrested" orgasmic circle jerk.

For 3 fucking days we have watched a really good man, who fought the good fight for us over and over get TRASHED on a fucking Democratic website by these people. When is enough enough?

[EFerrari]

44. I'm not speaking for anyone else. n/t

[EFerrari]

151. In the first place, that meeting was not "Cindy's group"

by any stretch of the imagination. So, it appears you don't even know who you are condemning.

And in the second place, this wasn't about Democrats, this was about people getting killed every day just as our Constitution is being killed every day by BushCo.

[Guaranteed]

17. I'm not seeing the principle.

Demanding and unreasonable? Yes. Principled? That's awfully generous.

[EFerrari]

42. It's not unreasonable to expect people to either keep their word

or admit that they can't, is it? :wtf:

[Marrah_G]

33. You have no problem with him being bashed and called a traitor?

This is John Conyers for goodness sake...............

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

41. But I didn't say that. And I do have a big problem with

that kind of rhetoric and especially because this is John Conyers!

[Marrah_G]

45. I'm not saying he is perfect but he does not deserve the bashing this week on this board

For goodness sake he was called a betrayer, a traitor and an uncle tom...........

[EFerrari]

46. That kind of stuff hasn't helped the situation at all, has it? n/t

[Marrah_G]

47. No it hasn't n/t

[EFerrari]

49. And yet, it's still happening on this thread and some of it has

been directed at me because I pointed out that Mr. Conyers has some responsibility in this situation.

[Marrah_G]

50. I think much of it is bashing overload

I've may have to just stop posting on the topic because I am so angry. It's been 3 days of nasty posts against this man on a Democratic website ever since the moment Cindy was arrested, flamed on by so called OP-Eds by her friends. I've almost just deleted DU from my favorites a number of times.

Maybe I should just stay off GD for a while because to be bluntly honest slowly but surely I have become just as angry at those portions of DU as I am at the people on FR and I am pretty sure my posts are showing that anger. I'm pretty sure I am not alone in feeling that way.

Think of it this way:

3 days of constant threads of "Betrayer, traitor, uncle tom, backstabber, liar, DINO, etc" at this civil rights and congressional leader... so when someone reasonable like yourself comes along and says "I'm pretty pissed he suugested he would impeach and now isn't" the automatic reaction is " ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH" from some us.

Does that make sense? Anyway if I said anything harsh or angry to you, I do apologize.

[EFerrari]

51. It's been flying fast in both directions and that's too bad.

People on both sides (who have taken a side) feel very much as you do. I know I have, and I feel for people on both sides of this conflict.

You know what's funny, when we went to the march in January, my mom said, "Look! There's Sean Penn!" and I said, "No, look! There's John Conyers!"

These misunderstandings and conflicts happen in every movement and this one has been really ugly. We'll get over it. :hi:

[bobbolink]

140. Did your attitude go bad again?

Did the preservative wear out?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

152. I'm fresh out of sweetener!

:rofl:

[puebloknot]

19. "Want it all right now"

If not now, when?

[EstimatedProphet]

75. How about when it will work?

Is that good for you?

If we don't have the votes, what is wrong with building a case that will get them? What is wrong with having investigations that reveal to the people who have been asleep what is going on, so that the votes can be gotten?

[EFerrari]

150. But that's not what Conyers told these people. He told them

it's not going to happen.

[bobbolink]

176. When in the hell are you going to learn....

.....not to confuse the issue with ...

FACTS!

Damn your hide!

:rofl:





have I gone over the edge yet? :hi:

[EFerrari]

181. See any dragons?

Besides me, anyway. lol

:hi:

[bobbolink]

182. Greetings, St. George!

:+

:evilgrin:

[bobbolink]

175. Aw, cumon, puebloknot.... your impatience is soooo very unseemly....

Take a lesson from the good Germans.... they had patience galore....

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

183. an off-topic p.s.

I just finished a book titled "Indian Time" and thought it quite good. Have you read it?

See you at Santo Domingo on Aug 4th!

[LittleClarkie]

25. I call it the Veruca Salt effect

"Don't care how, I want it now"

Ever notice that the more you repeat that word, the more it loses meaning. I mean, now is, um, now. Right now. This very minute. It sounds like a child having a tantrum.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Calling the Oompah-Loompas!

We need a catchy song! :)

Your post was very clever!

[madfloridian]

7. Sometimes pushing good people too hard negates your cause.

Cindy has hurt herself by doing this.

[EFerrari]

8. Sometimes holding people accountable is a mistake?

Is that what you just said?

[madfloridian]

12. Bullshit. Go ahead and make me the bad guy. You hurt your cuase.

It hurts all of us.

Hey, I have a very tough hide. Make me the bad guy for standing up for good democrats.

[EFerrari]

14. My pleasure.

[bobbolink]

177. Okay, poof!

You're a bad guy.



Did that do it?





See what happens when I get sick again.....


Fever! Fever all through the night.....

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

40. I am a woman.

It is out of control here.

[madfloridian]

73. I am sorry you think I am "a joke".

Did you think I was a man? Is that what you meant by the namecalling?

"What a joke you are!! is what you said.

How do you get into the area of feminism on this topic. I am confused.

[Guaranteed]

13. Holding freaking JOHN CONYERS "accountable?"

Are you LISTENING to yourself?

There is no one out there showing stronger leadership than this guy. What you and these others are doing is ridiculously misguided and will only end in pushing our goals further away.

[EFerrari]

15. John Conyers is not accountable for what he says?

Are you listening to yourself?

[mzmolly]

57. Food for thought Sfexpat

1. Conyers has over 500 days to begin impeachment proceedings

2. What Conyers said and what people say he said, is debatable

3. Conyers isn't about to tell a very vocal group of people DEMANDING he do X NOW that he's planning to do jack shisa

4. I don't think it would be intelligent to "telgraph" his intent if he intends to impeachment. Aren't people more likely to be candid if they think we're not going to bother with impeachment?

:shrug:

I honestly think that this necessary movement has been co-opted by the wrong people. I think Cindy is being used by people who supported Nader in 2000 and others who are not supportive of Democrats and never have been.

Lastly, one does not go into a legislators office and demand he impeach within the week. It's totally absurd. You ask for a dialog, you ask to be heard and you keep your mouth shut about what was said.

I support impeachment, but as I've said previously I fear that if Conyers does impeach NOW, the media will refuse to take it seriously saying he caved to a group of "fringe leftists." THAT concerns me and should concern anyone who really wants to see justice.

Just my .02 sfexpat, I know your heart is in the right place, and I think mine is too. ;) :hi:

[EFerrari]

74. My hope is that everyone will heal up from this family fight

and remember what we are working for. :hug:

[mzmolly]

80. I hope so too sfexpat.

:hug: to you.

[Virginia Dare]

131. I saw what he said..

granted, I wasn't there but I read the transcript. What I read was a man who was rallying a crowd with political rhetoric. He knew it, and I'm sure the crowd knew it too.

His words are being taken and twisted into meaning something that they weren't.

John Conyers is helping this process, he's not obstructing it. Apparently things aren't moving quick enough for some people so they've resorted to attacking and smearing a good man. That is what people are upset about Pat.

[EFerrari]

142. I don't believe anyone has intentionally set out to tell lies

about John Conyers.

And that was a good speech, wasn't it? :)

[bobbolink]

178. So, that was *you*....

you're the one who moved those freaking goal posts during the night....




dang, you strong....

[Breeze54]

23. What are 'OUR" goals?

In your words.... :shrug:

[Marrah_G]

35. They do not care

This is all about Cindy getting arrested in his office. The bashfest started at that moment and hasn't let up. This has jack shit to do with anything except her followers wanting to punish him.

[EFerrari]

87. This isn't about Cindy. Many events have been about Cindy

but this one wasn't. And what you are calling a "bashfest" was the response of a coalition of progressive activists (who are also not Cindy) to a perceived or real betrayal. We don't know which it was because we aren't that group of people and we don't know what has been happening back channel and we weren't there.

/ack

[Marrah_G]

91. There may have been a few of you having a discussion

But there were a hell of alot of Bashes.

This is what brought me to the conclusion that it has to do with Cindy (not that she encouraged it): And I say it does have to do with her because the brunt of it happened right after she was arrested and was fueled by numerous posts from her co-protesters going completely over the top in articles saying some "very" nasty things. There were also a bunch of new posters that seemed to appear just to bash him and/or praise her, thereby fuel the fire beyond any sort of control.

Anyway, my two cents, just so you know where I am coming from.

[EFerrari]

92. I didn't notice the new posters, Marrah, but I can be dense sometimes.

Ray McGovern is not a Cindybot, neither is David. Neither is Medea, for that matter.

I think that is what concerns me most. They are all independent individuals with their own goals who have worked for progressive causes for a long time -- most of them before Cindy became active.

So, if this whole episode can be reduced to a Cindy event, it's a trifecta. The issue gets buried, the work of these people gets buried and Cindy is made to look like the Witch of the West.

I guess that's my take, anyway.

[Marrah_G]

96. At least two of them wrote nasty hit pieces.

Cindy bots or not, they are associated with her and the groups so they should not be shocked to be lumped together. Whether they are all together or not, the last three days has turned me away from anything they may have to say in the future. I am sure I am not alone. And that is a shame.

[EFerrari]

98. Three of them wrote pieces, to my knowledge -- Ray, David

and Medea.

And, yes, this whole episode has been a shame. I couldn't agree more. :(

[Marrah_G]

101. You give me hope though

You have this way of reminding us that this two will pass and we can still all work together, even if we sometimes fight.

[EFerrari]

103. It's always more painful and upsetting when people who care

about each other deeply fight.

We will get through this because we're stubborn as hell.

lol

:hug:

[Marrah_G]

105. yup

:hug:

[Virginia Dare]

132. Except there is no betrayal..

that is a perception by certain groups, not all, and certainly not by many people here. The process is moving, albeit too slowly for some people. The Democrats are not obstructing this process.

[EFerrari]

143. John Conyers didn't tell those people "We're working on."

Unless I'm mistaken, he told them it's not going to happen.

[Virginia Dare]

130. No, that's not what she said...n/t

[Cameron27]

24. When did he say that?

[EFerrari]

48. There were two times that I know of -- and you understand,

I don't follow John Conyers around, lol. In January in DC, he made the punchline of his speech "But we can fire him!" and got the whole crowd screaming "impeach". The other was in San Diego recently, when he made that remark about needing three more congress critters to proceed.

Maybe others can give other examples but these are the ones I know. I was present at one, and someone I trust relayed the other to me.

John Conyers, whether by design or by mistake, created the impression that he would pursue impeachment. This may be a flap about a communication problem. But, I understand why those activists were so upset.

[mzmolly]

59. He did not give a deadline.

We have over 500 days to impeach. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

68. No, he didn't a deadline that I know of, that's right.

I don't know what he's said or has not said in private to these people that have been working with him on impeachment. There's a lot here I don't know. :shrug:

[Cameron27]

63. From everything that I've read, Conyers always tempered

his remarks about impeachment with explanations of how it would be a methodical process and would take time. I think the *activists* chose to hear only what they wanted to hear, and now are using their own assumptions against him.

[EFerrari]

67. I don't believe that I represented that he signed a blood oath.

And that's why I said up thread, this seems to be in part a problem with miscommunication.

And, if you knew those people, you'd probably know that they all care about and respect John Conyers -- which is why this has been so painful all around.

[WilliamPitt]

29. "suggested"

[EFerrari]

53. There's something weird going on here because

John Conyers is about the most consistent and careful person in the House. I don't get it but I do get why those folks were in a blind rage after that meeting.

All I can think is, since the midterms, Mr. Conyers sounds much more like Nancy Pelosi (where that stands for the leadership not the individual) on this issue than he sounds like himself. :shrug:

[MichiganVote]

56. And Cindy Sheehan, whose cause I respect,sounds more like the same administration

she wants to bring down. Conyers is and has been a good representative. Why eat our own? Making statements that "suggest" Conyers has run out of time is not only silly, its just plain stupid. In Michigan we appreciate Conyers and C. Sheehan won't change that. Its not even her frickin' area of the country. As far as I'm concerned it appeared she wanted press for impeachment, she got it and she'll probably take down somebody else the next time.

[EFerrari]

58. This isn't about Cindy Sheehan and attacking her misses the

larger picture.

[MichiganVote]

64. Yup. Been hearing that kind of 'larger picture' stuff for the last six years too.

And for the record, the fact that people are critical of Sheehan's choice to corral Conyers does not mean she has been attacked. I don't name call the woman, deride her right to pursue her cause, or assume that she hasn't enough grief for ten people. Others may do that but I don't. Others may abuse the woman but I don't. But I'll say again, the rigidity with which she pursues her cause is reminiscent of the very administration she seeks to bring down.

If you or she can't stand the heat in the kitchen .....whining is for republicans.

[EFerrari]

66. Do you know who was at that meeting, Michigan? n/t

[MichiganVote]

128. Has it been reported on? Press release? Statements by participants?

[EFerrari]

147. Yep. It was not Cindy's event. n/t

[Marrah_G]

60. So rather then haviong any faith in a very good man they chose to trash the hell out of him

I mean honestly, did they expect him to share all his tactics so they could be broadcast to the world?

Instead of trusting one of the good ones, one who has fought hard for the working man and for equality they chose to write articles calling him names and accusing him of unfair things. Someone is giving them very BAD advice because all it accomplished is to feed a growing dislike of that entire bunch of people and create an even wider divide.

People need to have some trust in our Democratic leadership. It has been 6 months. It takes time to set the groundwork to go after these people. It takes planning ahead and keeping quiet about those plans.

All I ask is people have some faith in the people we elected.

[EFerrari]

62. But that's exactly my point. Those people were so upset

because they DID trust him. Seriously, who can you trust MORE than John Conyers? :shrug:

If it had been, say, Tom Delay that seemed to withdraw support for Project Whatever, no one would have blinked because that's just what you would expect.

[Virginia Dare]

133. Could it be, perhaps..

that the problem isn't John Conyers?

[EFerrari]

153. I in no way believe the problem is John Conyers. n/t

[The Doctor.]

10. Spoke with Slaughter's office today.

The Staffer was a very nice girl.

I said we need Louise to sign on to HR 333.

[ToeBot]

18. And I hear the MPAA and the RIAA rate him quite high as well, Yay Team!! nt

[Breeze54]

20. Maybe he forgot ..... 'US'?

:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Great post!

It is people like him who make me proud to be a Democrat!

[Az]

27. I am still proud to call him my representitive

I count myself lucky. I have both Levin brothers and Conyers representing the great state of Michigan.

[SharonRB]

193. He's not my rep -- Levin is

but I'm still proud of the fact that he's from my state and that I've had opportunities to talk to him in person. I feel very lucky that I have both Levins and Conyers representing our state. (And Stabenow, most of the time.)

[Silver Gaia]

28. Happy to K & R! Well-said. Thank you! n/t

[GeorgeGist]

30. Gone but not forgotten ...

Impeach Bush.

[ellacott]

31. In total agreement

I shake my head at my fellow Dems sometimes.

Cindy went over the line by telling Conyers that he has run out of time. Unfortunately this will not be on our timeframe.

I wish Cindy would also target the Republicans and other people would target their Republican representatives.

I hate when we turn on each other. I understand the impatience but we got to learn to fight smarter.

[mmonk]

32. I support the leg work for impeachable offenses he has done.

I support Cindy and the impeachment train giving him a visit (as anyone who wants something done would have done) where they probably thought there would be a sympathetic ear.

[Psyop Samurai]

89. seems simple enough...

...thanks for that little "island in the storm".

:toast:

[mmonk]

112. You're welcome.

I like Conyers and I'm not going to be hit over the head with this just because I support impeachment. We who have been supporting it long before this are in no mood to be marginalized or called names right now. If people want reasonable discussions on the matter, that's fine.
:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. He needs to do his fucking job

No, we won't leave him the fuck alone. Saint John Conyers he ain't. There is this little thing called the constitution he seems to be ignoring.

But go ahead and bow down to him. :eyes:

[MichiganVote]

54. We appreciate J. Conyers in Michigan and we're not likely to vote him out

If by following our constitutional right to vote for the candidate of our choice represents a bowing and scraping to you, its unfortunate. You take the good with the bad in a Democracy. As a politician he may have let you down. As a representative J. Conyers has been steadfast in Michigan.

[Fly by night]

37. Conyer's "What went wrong in Ohio" is the 21st century version of "Common Sense"

I support him wholeheartedly and wish that those who attack him would get a clue. The Smirking Chimp and his winged monkey minions are going down in flames and Conyers is leading the way toward that country-cleansing bonfire.

[noonwitch]

38. Conyers took some very unpopular, but principled stands on issues in Michigan

1. He got Janet Reno to get Justice to investigate civil and human rights abuses at the Wayne County Youth Home. As a result, a new, safer building has been completed, a new director was hired and the program is much better for the delinquent youth who pass through it.

2. Women being sexually assualted by male officers in the female prisons in Michigan, and other issues of health care in the women's facilities, which are smaller than the men's prisons and don't have a doctor on staff, for the most part.

At one of the prisons, some women were assualted, and some were involved in what would legally be called consensual relationships, but are extremely inappropriate relationships on the parts of the male staff. Nobody cared-not the public, certainly not the Engler administration. Conyers did care and pushed for federal intervention.

[MichiganVote]

55. Unfortunatly those principled stands are not even looked at by the criticizing crew

probably most of whom do not even live in Michigan. Go figure. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

70. This isn't about Michigan, either. n/t

[MichiganVote]

129. No, the incident is not about Michigan, but the man is.

[EFerrari]

141. He's also the chair of the House Judiciary Committee

and that's why those impeachment advocates went to his office. They didn't go there to give Michigan a black eye.

[MichiganVote]

145. And that's what is not easy to understand. For you or for me.

[EFerrari]

146. I do understand it. Nancy is my representative. She wears

two hats.

[bobbolink]

184. I'm beginning to wonder if there are a couple more hats stashed somewhere.

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

39. Kick!! Keep up the good work Rep. Conyers

[bigtree]

43. right on

:patriot:

[xultar]

52. BRAVO!!!

[NeedleCast]

61. How quickly some turn

Here's a man who spent a lifetime fighting for progressive causes and has been on the front line longer than I've been alive.

However, one misdead (for those that think it is) is, apparently, enough to condem him. They're happy to throw away his lifetime of hard work because he wont get behind their pet crusade.

Makes me sad.

[mmonk]

65. You need to refer to my post earlier.

about understanding our passion. The problem is when it's made out different than reality. Keep beating people over the head with things politicians say or with actions they may take against others provides the smoke to cloud what we say or what we are for.

[NeedleCast]

71. I will never understand your passion for this

because I find it illogical. I hope you won't take that as an insult. It is not intended to be. However, I don't see what Cindy and those who are bashing Conyers hope to accomplish. It's like going on a nature walk and saying "this forest would be lovely except for all the trees blocking my view."

I think several of the most adamant impeachment supporters have turned a good idea into a witch hunt. Barks of McCarthy-ism to me. When people like me point out that maybe we shouldn't throw Conyers under the bus just yet the impeachment now supporters tell me that Conyers has gone back on his word because he wont wave his magical +2 Wand of Impeachment and make impeachment become reality instantly. Or they wave the Constitution around like Conyers is busy wiping his ass with it after taking a post enchilada dump while conveniently forgetting the fact that this man has been on our side a HELL of a lot longer than any of the current sacred cows we've constructed (Cindy, CodePink, et. al.)

Conyers position, to me, is a very logical one. We don't have the votes. For the impeachment crusaders, this doesn't seem to matter. Conyers has been in the trenches for our side for a very long time and to toss all that aside because he won't immediately get behind your crusade is...well, it seems selfish to me.

I understand your passion. I think you're aiming it at the wrong person.

[EFerrari]

72. The forrest that you're not seeing has been explained up thread.

Mr. Conyers encouraged the impeachment movement and since the midterms, is now retreating from his former position.

There is no "aiming at the wrong person" here. There is a profound feeling of betrayal at the hands of someone who enjoyed more trust and support than just about anyone in the House.

That's the situation and it needs to be bettered. Bashing Conyers OR bashing the impeachment movement is not the solution.

[madfloridian]

76. It's an attempt to hurt the Democratic party.

Period. Bottom line.

I have been called names here for 3 days for taking up for Conyers.

I was just told I was anti-feminist...go figure that one...I am a woman.

Cindy and her supporters are trying to hurt Democrats.

[EFerrari]

79. This isn't about the party just as it isn't about Cindy.

Hang onto that view if you need to, but it won't help heal the rupture in the progressive coalition that got Kerry elected.

You won't get any criticism from me for "taking up for Conyers". There's no one in the House I respect more.

[NeedleCast]

84. And I've read the explanation

and I disagree.

Even you say bashing conyers is not the solution but that hasn't stopped several of the protesters who were there from writing hit pieces on the man over the last few days. I don't know how else to define selfish. I have yet to hear Conyers say that he wouldn't begin the impeachment process if he had the support to make it successful and honestly, if I were in his shoes that's probably the position I'd take too. As to why he's backed away from his former position, I have no idea...maybe he thought there would be stronger support. Honestly, even if Conyers had looked at Cindy and said "Hey, bitch, get the fuck out of my office" I'd still weigh it against his very long history of supporing progressive values and say "well, that wasn't nice but I'm still not going to press my under-the-bus button yet.

I'm not an impeachment basher either. If that's your crusade, cool. No problem. Best of luck. You do impeachment, I'll be over here, championing my causes.

I'm also a bit worried about the fact that there's very recent history (Clinton) that shows an unsuccessful impeachment may actually raise G-Dubs popularity. Lots of people will support a winner and if we try to impeach and fail Bush will be bouncing around on a boner the size of a pogo stick and the Republicans will be riding a wave of success into 2008, and we end up with an average TV actor as president and so on and so forth....

[EFerrari]

86. As I've said ad nauseum, this isn't about Cindy.

And how hard is it to understand that people who feel betrayed will express that?

Comparing the Clinton impeachment to a Bush impeachment is just apples and oranges. Not to mention, the Republics didn't suffer an iota for that FAILED impeachment.

[NeedleCast]

94. Unfortunatly movements also have faces

and Cindy is part of that face in this scenario. Lemme say it one more again:

I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD FEEL BETRAYED.

okay?

Had I been there, had I been in their shoes I would have said "hmmmmm, that's not what I expected, and I'm disappointed in what happened today."

What I wouldn't have done was head to the closest live internet connection and write a long ass screed unloading a broad-side on Conyers because he didn't give me what I wanted this time. And that's what happened in the case of a few people who were there. I'm a political babe-in-the-woods compared to Conyers and I'd feel ashamed if I took it upon myself to effectivly say "your failure to support me on this issue negates all the good you've ever done."

Sfexpat, I hope we do get G-Dubs impeached. I do, I really do. However, I think it's unlikely. Thus, I will focus my energy on doing good where I think I can do good. If the impeachment crusaders succeed, I'll be jumping up and down right along with you and give you mad high-fivage and say holy shit you were right and I was wrong and I'll be happy as a pig in shit about saying it.

What I wont do is attack an allie any more than I'd attack a life-long friend who I disagreed with on something from time to time.

[EFerrari]

108. I'm sorry if I'm not listening very well. Long week.

And these last seven years of BushWorld have taken their toll on all of our energies and especially, on our patience.

All (I think) that I've been trying to say is, I understand why those people got so angry and published those pieces. And, I agree with the message of those pieces even if their tone is distressing. This conversation between Mr. Conyers and the impeachment movement has been a two way street.

Both sides made mistakes. That happens.

But, this level of hurt only happens when it occurs between people that have been closely allied.

[mmonk]

110. The Clinton impeachment was primarily a failure

because he was impeached for a non impeachable offense. Lying about a blowjob isn't what scholars call an impeachable offense but he was impeached anyway. Impeachable offenses are political crimes, not perjury over a personal matter.

[NeedleCast]

114. And, according to Conyers

right now, an attempt to impeach G-Dubs wouls also be a failure. Call me naive, but I tend to think he's a man of his word and there's a long trail of evidence to support this.

And I agree the Clinton impeachment was primarily a failure and right now an attempt to impeach Bush would also be a failure but it wouldn't stop the Republican Attack Machine(tm) from pounding it's chest King-Kong style and bashing the Dems for (insert a whole batch of stuff including political stunts, tying up congress, indirectly supporting terror (which America loves), etc. etc.) The Republican Attack Machine(tm) is very, very good at this and the Democratic defense mechanism has been a dismal failure in deflecting it in the past.

And monk, I don't want to have to come here in 2008 after a failed impeachment when we have another Republican in the white house fucking things up and pissing me off and say "you know what, I told you that shit would backfire."

So again, I'll wish you the best of luck in the impeachment crusade. I'm not going to hold ya back. I hope you get the SOB. I don't think you're going to. I think it's a lot more likely that it'll blow up in your face and Mit or Fred or Rudy will be in the white house and you'll be standing there with a smudged face going "this sucks."

And if I'm wrong, good!

[mmonk]

77. I don't their original intention was to bash Conyers.

They wouldn't have gone through a meeting. Personally, I wasn't there. I just support impeachment. I don't want politicians to make a mockery over a legitimate solution or request by blowing any smoke so those that hang onto their words turn on those active in the request.

[EFerrari]

88. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that anyone would think

that the intention was to bash Mr. Conyers. Of course that wasn't the intention. That should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has followed his career as a champion of the left. :crazy:

[Marrah_G]

93. Here is why:

Betrayer
Traitor
Uncle Tom
Dino
Pro-Bush

And those are just the ones that stuck in my head. The list is longer in actuality. I fail to see how those terms describing Rep Conyers could be anything but a bash.

Those pretty much scream "Bash" to me. If they don't to you then okay. But to alot of us this was WAY over the top. Those hit pieces were disgusting, IMHO.

[Cameron27]

95. You forgot one.....senile.

Screams bash to me too.

[EFerrari]

97. But those weren't hit pieces. They were the outcome of a failed meeting.

It's not like these people sat down and plotted how to bash Mr. Conyers. They were responding to an EVENT.

We probably won't agree and that's okay. I just hope that everyone directly involved will find a way to mend the damage done to the coalition we must maintain in order to elect progressive candidates. :(

[Marrah_G]

100. They were hit pieces

They were intend to HURT, they were intended to be nasty. For goodness sake they said his good (and dead) friend would be so ashamed of him she would drop dead. How the hell is that not a hit piece? Perhaps this is semantics. Replace "hit" with "mean, vicious attack".

Either way the effect was the same.

If they have any integrity they ought to post a damned apology for their choice of words.

[EFerrari]

102. Yes, they probably were intended to hurt. And they came out of

a profound sense of betrayal.

[Cameron27]

106. I hope you feel the same way about people

who've felt betrayed by some of Cindy's comments and have called her intentionally hurtful names. I'm not part of that group btw, but it goes both ways.

[EFerrari]

109. I agree. It goes both ways. No doubt about that, imho. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

135. Coming on the heels of calling the Democratic Party

slavery lovers and war mongerers, yeah they were hit pieces. Very well thought out hit pieces. This a strategic campaign to attack and smear Democrats. Sorry, I've been involved in Washington politics for too long. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise.

[EFerrari]

144. I'm referring to the pieces by David, Medea and Ray, who

do not speak for Cindy Sheehan. Did she also write something? I haven't seen it.

[mmonk]

99. I think the intention of the meeting was something different.

You are describing reactions. In the days leading up to when the impeachment tour reached his office, he mentioned he needed only three more reps to sign on and in another instance he mentioned how we were going to get them as people were talking impeachment. The tour had already gone through other states and other offices.

[EFerrari]

115. Agree. This was an unfortunate trainwreck,

But, stuff happens.

[Virginia Dare]

136. No, more like a crash course derby...n/t

[jpgray]

78. Great post. And welcome to DU!

:toast:

[asthmaticeog]

81. In a better world, yours would be the last word on this subject.

Great post, and thank you.

[mzmolly]

82. You spoke my mind

but in a much more colorful way.

An "ass"ide, I'm glad I'm not having Mexican tonight. ;)

[Cameron27]

83. Great post, thank you.

[XNASA]

107. I might decide to start donating to DU again......

If there were more DU'ers who were as rational as you.

Welcome to DU.

[Psyop Samurai]

85. Thank you for the reminder...

Though I believe most here haven't forgotten, perhaps some have, and could benefit from review. No doubt some newer folks can be helped up to speed - there's so much background we take for granted, it can be mystifying and intimidating to the newcomer. Reminders are good.

I do feel, however, that the recent and (in my view) inevitable conflicts have been blown out of proportion.

I would, for example, take exception to your characterization of protesters who targeted the Chairman as "absolutely out of their MINDS". I would, in all sincerity, invite you to consider a more benign interpretation of their seeming misdeeds (as I suspect Chairman Conyers himself has). I understand that many sincere people believe that the activists' priorities have been misplaced. It seems that the "other side" feels much the same.

I suspect that the activist groups are not all that attuned to the day-to-day goings on in the Justice committee, or wherever, and I suspect, as many have asserted, that their strategy could use a little..., uh..., how shall we say?... "fine tuning".

On the whole, I would characterize the activists and their sympathizers as less trusting. If indeed, as we are constantly scolded by loyalists, more trust is warranted, I would ask, again in all sincerity, "how do you build that trust"? It's obvious that all the condescension in the world won't do it. Perhaps there's a better-serving approach that, if not foolproof, could at least take steps to minimize the downside.

[NeedleCast]

90. I'll go on the record and say

that I'm not Anti-Cindy/CodePink/anyone-else-who-was-there. I'm not a supporter either. I'm kinda Cindy'ed out. One of the problems I have with some of her strongest supporters is that they see anyone who is not cheering Cindy as being anti-Cindy. I'm not anti-Cindy. I'm anti-bad ideas, and while I think it's fine to address Conyers on this issue, I don't support the hit pieces that some seem to think are A-Okay. I didn't mean to characterize them as out of their minds and hope it wasn't seen that way.

I'll admit that I'm small scale. I work locally. I pressure my local politicos. I plant trees. I help scoop trash out of the tidal basin in D.C. I call and E-mail my house rep when I feel the urge. I'm not a national scene player. I don't want to be.

I'll also say that if it were some first term democrat that was getting ripped for this, I might have more sympathy with the attacks. I'd drive the bus that they're ready to throw him under. Not Conyers. His track record of standing with...nay, LEADING the "good guys" is long. Real long.

[mmonk]

104. You need to quit reducing the impeachment movement to Cindy.

I know it makes it an easier position on which to attack or discredit the constitutional remedy to this but you shouldn't yield to the temptation. I will remind you that impeachment only reuires a simple majority of the House of Representatives. I'll take my chances on the senate trial once all the information is out in the public and the senators can't hide.

[Marrah_G]

111. You know you are right we shouldn't reduce it to just her

But we are told almost daily here that she "is" the anti-war movement, that they wouldn't be anywhere without her (not that I believe that). So it is easy to start seeing them as one lump group. Thank you for the reminder.

[mmonk]

116. No problem.

She has now latched onto the impeachment thing harder but many of us out here were pushing that angle while she was primarily the face of the anti-war movement. I don't like being hit over the head with Conyers, who I respect and admire, as if I am his enemy. But I think we're really being marginalized right now so maybe my work on that here is done. I'll just keep up with events, promote the idea Sibel needs to be heard, and bump meaningful threads on occasion.

peace

[Marrah_G]

118. Actually you should be talking

You have managed to discuss and talk without being a jerk. You've even made some points that have made others think about something in a different light (like me). If rational people don't stick around it will just get worse.

[mmonk]

120. Thanks much but sometimes

one must regroup. I didn't see it coming, you know. Kind of hits the whole rally around the constitution thing. I'll think for awhile. I'm currently working on two other things. Thank you for the reply and kind words.

[Psyop Samurai]

122. Thanks for your response...

Your regard for Conyers is duly noted and given serious weight. It seems we're in basic agreement, as you feel it's fine to address him on the issue, but not to trash him, (though I may have a higher threshold on what constitutes a "hit piece").

Obviously the activists are not without fault, nor above criticism.

What troubles me is the deliberate making a mountain out of a molehill and mean-spirited fanning of flames that has met their alleged indiscretions. Also, the unwarranted disregard for a DUer like sfexpat2000 (who's practically a saint), by refusing to concede basic facts because their priorities are different, or feel that they've been offended in some way.

I would only ask DUers, before you hit that "Post message" button, are you being fully honest with yourself, or are you trying to score points?

:toast:

[Marrah_G]

149. With all due respect it wasn't a mountain out of a molehill

It was pretty damn nasty yesterday. Conyers was called a betrayer, a traitor, treasonous, pro-bush, an Uncle Tom and then one so called op ed even said his close friend (who is DEAD) would be so ashamed of him she would drop dead.

There have been more then a dozen nasty threads trashing him as well as some pretty viscous so called op eds designed to do nothing but hurt him.

Now I understand that people want impeachment now, but to slander one of the best congress we have is in my opinion almost unforgivable. He is owed an apology by these people.

They didn't say " we disagree with this" or "we are really upset that he isn't doing XYZ" They attacked him on a very personal level in a VERY nasty way.

It turned ALOT of stomachs here and these people have probably lost alot of respect with alot of people.

[EFerrari]

155. And, I'm no saint.

:rofl:

[Marrah_G]

162. St, Sfexpat2000- sounds like some bizzare Catholic Prayer-Bot

The Saint Sfexpat2000 for when you just have to have that Miracle!

[EFerrari]

164. LOL! Pieces of my wardrobe are available

for good luck on ebay!

lol

[Psyop Samurai]

191. I appreciate the distinction...

...and your taking the time to clarify it.

Though I identified with the activists, I've come to a better understanding, and hope that they will too.

:toast:

[pat_k]

113. Tragically, by refusing to impeach, he is UNDOING his hard won. . .

. . .victories.

If he fails to become a champion of impeachment, kiss the government transparency won through the impeachment of Nixon goodbye.

Say Hello to a nation devoid of moral authority because "the Voice of the People" stood by, mute and complicit, as Bush and Cheney turned Americans in to torturers and waged war on our Constitution -- and Won.

The devastating effects of surrendering the nation to fascists without a fight will take decades to repair. Allowing the principle of consent to be nullified, the principle on which all other dictates and principles rests, could prove to be irreparable.

The devastating effect of telling the American people to shut up and get their noses out of "politics" they don't understand is incalculable. But that is precisely what our Hero did in the meeting with Cindy et al.

Cutting the American people out of the loop destroys the reason for the existence of government.

May he wake up and do the right thing soon. Or I fear he will come to regret his failure for the rest of his days.

[EFerrari]

117. Yes, that's what he did. And I'm not at all sure that was his

preference but more his marching orders. :(

[Marrah_G]

119. Or perhaps he is going about things in a different manner

[pat_k]

124. Any excuse for delay denies the magnitude of the crisis.

We are in a crisis that demands immediate action. That we could come to the state we have come to was unimaginable 7 years ago. With each passing week, Bush and Cheney are taking over more and more of OUR Constitutional "territory." The price of their refusal to impeach to date is mounting.

Just as "I'll quite tomorrow" can cost a addict their life, the cost of "I'll impeach tomorrow" could be higher than any of us can imagine.

It is LONG past time for those who see the advance of the enemy to sound a public "Call to Arms." We are the stakeholders. The is OUR country.

Conyers knows that our Constitution is under attack. I don't think there are many who would dispute this.

The Constitution calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans -- in "We the People." If our leaders refuse to bring the case to us, how can they claim to stand for American principle?

If the Dems are maneuvering toward impeachment "behind the scene" then they are treating us with an arrogant disdain that is reminiscent of the disdain we see from the White House. They are treating us as subjects, not fellow parties to common contract.

The Democrats may firmly believe they are acting in our best interests, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions or not, Pelosi's "off the table" edict, and the Democratic caucus's submission to it, is keeping the USA on the road to a fascist hell.

[Marrah_G]

126. I can tell you what I think the difference is

It is the difference between a Prosecutor that rushes to trail and blows it and a prosecutor that makes sure everything is in place before going to trial to ensure a victory. I understand some people want it done yesterday, as the saying goes. But I am willing to wait and make sure it is done right. I trust Conyers, I trust Leahy. If it can be done they will get it done. Washington does nothing quickly, which is a positive thing most of the time.

I understand your side and I hope you understand mine and that we can keep things friendly down this rocky road.

[pat_k]

186. Unlike "a Prosecutor that rushes to trail and blows it". . .

. . .the House can vote out the same charges, or some variation thereof, as many times as they wish.

Even if that weren't the case, the notion that impeaching Bush and Cheney right now (or even the day they convened in January) would be "rushing it" is a notion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny on any level. I don't mean to single you out. You're invoking one of the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes that enable their dereliction -- false memes that must be challenged whenever possible.

Bush and Cheney turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens in plain sight. The case is simple, compelling, and complete. Bush and Cheney made the case against themselves with public statements, public actions, and executive orders.

No Member has described the evidence they've considered, and then explained why that evidence is somehow insufficient. More than a few have done the opposite. They've described the intolerable violations of the Constitution, declared them intolerable, and then declared their intent keep the ONLY weapon capable of enforcing the dictates of the Constitution "off the table."

There was never any doubt that Geneva applied to Gitmo. The SCOTUS ruling in Hamdan was a declaration that three years of War Crimes has already occurred. (There's a reason War Crimes are subject to the penalty of death. So that those with the power to commit such crimes have a powerful motive to stay far away from "the line." There is no "unringing" the bell. "I didn't know where the line was" is not a legitimate defense.)

When the need to protect the sanctity of the Constitution is weighed against the privilege of remaining in office, the threshold must be a low one. As the following quote from Madison demonstrates, suspicion is more than enough.

If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found
guilty...

By any reasonable definition, we passed the "impeachable" threshold long ago. It's been adjudicated all the way up to the Supreme Court.

It is impossible to imagine how any Member of the House or Senate could possible defend the belief that the public record is "not enough." Particularly when people who otherwise defend the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power have concluded that:

. . .we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881_pf.html">War Crimes and the White House
By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Washington Post, July 26, 2007

Even if Members of Congress think the powerful case they have isn't "enough," the widespread belief that our President and Vice President are War Criminals is itself an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy. Their oath to defend demands that they seek to remove the War Criminals, or seek to assure the public that Bush and Cheney are not war criminals.

If the articles they vote out go down because there is some "hole," all they need to do it plug the "hole" and vote out another set of articles. As noted at the outset, unlike a criminal prosecution, they can impeach on the same charges, or variations thereof, as many times as they please.

If the Senate fails to remove because too many fascist minions render a decision that is at odds with the obvious facts, impeachment in and of itself is our only means to shed the bonds of complicity. It is an unequivocal rejection of bushncheneyism. It forces the people we send to the House and Senate to choose -- American Principle or Fascist Principle. And we will judge the choice in next election. If our Congressional leaders deny us that opportunity, they expose their own fascist tendencies and their disdain and distrust of the electorate.

In http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881_pf.html">War Crimes and the White House, Kelly and Turner issue the following warning:

Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

In other words, Members of Congress themselves are vulnerable to trial for war crimes. Members of the 109th Congress who voted for the War Criminals Protection Act made themselves direct parties to the White House war crimes. Any of those 193 countries could conclude that Members of the 110th Congress are party to the torture that continued while they used their power to keep impeachment "off the table."

If a Member won't demand impeachment to rescue the Constitution, perhaps they will to ensure that they can travel without fear that some other country will pick them up and put them on trial as an accomplice to war crimes.

[Virginia Dare]

137. If Conyers, Pelosi, Leahy et. al. do not feel the time is right..

then that is good enough for me. I not only want impeachment, I want conviction. I don't want to settle for anything less. They are going to go after these bastards hard. There's no guarantee they'll get them, but I want it done RIGHT. Not RIGHT NOW.

[pat_k]

188. They aren't telling us the "time isn't right"

They are telling us they aren't gonna do it. They tell us they don't have time; or that it'll be a political loser (which is the opposite of reality); or some other http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false meme.

As I pointed out in the post you replied to:

The Constitution calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans -- in "We the People." If our leaders refuse to bring the case to us, how can they claim to stand for American principle?

If, while telling us they are not, the Dems are maneuvering toward impeachment "behind the scenes" then they are treating us with an arrogant disdain that is reminiscent of the disdain we see from the White House. They are treating us as subjects, not fellow parties to common contract. . .

The "time is not right" notion doesn't stand up on any level, as decribed in my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1439360&mesg_id=1453460">reply to Marrah_G.

Each day our so-called "leaders" delay, Bush and Cheney advance their fascist agenda.

Each day they delay they -- and we -- are complicit in more torture.

Each day they delay they give cover to the war criminals in the White House ("We aren't doing anything wrong. Dems are just fishing. If they ACTUALLY believed we were violating the Constitution, the Democrats would certainly impeach.")

[NeedleCast]

121. The Right Thing to Do

We had this saying back when I was in the military:

"Setting yourself up for failure."

The folk that went to Conery's office earlier this week did exactly that. Set themselves up for failure. I guess, because of things Conyers has suggested in the past, they thought they'd walk into his office and say "let's impeach" and Conyers would say "cool" and he'd walk down to the floor, stand before the podium and then Bush would be Impeached and Cheney would be all like "Aaarrghhhhh!" and implode in a flash of brimstone and Pelosi (who went from everyone's favorite person in the world ZOMG to DINO in the space of six months) would be President and we'd all fart rainbows and poop jello pudding pops and the clouds would part and flowers would smell better, and I'd write more huge run-on sentences that make people chuckle even if they don't want to...

*breath*

But that didn't happen, and thus, the protesters had set themselves up for failure.

Because Conyers didn't ever say "Hey, come over for tea and sandwiches and lets get to some 'peachment!" but that's what the group acted like they expected. They didn't get it.

Now, as a long time fan of Conyers, if I had been there (like I said upthread) I would have gone "well, that didn't go off like I expected so maybe we can open some new dialogue with Big-C and find out what's the haps (because I talk cool like that) and get his take on this and find out what we can do to help."

But that's now what they did. Instead, they chose to attack (and if you don't think attack is the rigth word, okay, but they stuff that said wasn't what you say to a person who's on your team), marginalize Conyers VERY long string of accomplishments and deeds out of (what seemed to me) a very childish sense of "what have you done for me lately, and by lately I mean within the last 24 hours...and all the rest of that civil rights shit and progressive works, well you can cram it with walnuts buddy because you're not willing to do what I want you to do right now."

And now...Happy Hour. Good luck with Impeachment. Hopefully Bush is gone when I drag my ass out of bed tomorrow because I'd save a lot of money on jello pudding pops.

[EFerrari]

125. You can't fail by acting on what your conscience dictates.

On the contrary. You fail if you don't.

[Virginia Dare]

138. How do you know they aren't acting on conscience...

perhaps they are. As I said, I haven't lost faith, perhaps some have, or perhaps they just want others to lose it. As you say, there are many things we don't know.

[EFerrari]

139. I was responding to the poster's remark about the protestors. nt

[pat_k]

127. They accomplished at least 4 key things.

Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution in plain sight. They have been for years. Citizens have been calling on Conyers to act since he took the Chairman's gavel. They've been calling on him to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney and to make the case to the public for years. Those demands have been bouncing off the irrational rationalizations for dereliction of duty that have pervaded the Democratic establishment for years.

Our so-called leaders are in denial. That denial is defended by the system of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator">false memes they have built. The denial and the bogus excuses are akin to what we see in an addict.

If your family is being destroyed by the downward spiral of an addicted spouse, do you pussy-foot around "until the time is right"? Or do you take action on as many fronts as you can save them from themselves? While you might hope a single act will bring about transformation, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect it. When you directly confront resistance, you almost NEVER see someone "give in" on the spot. Time, and multiple interactions, are usually required to bring someone "around."

I haven't spoken to them, but I seriously doubt that Cindy, Ray, David, Medea, or anyone else expected Conyers or Pelosi, or any other Member of Congress hundreds who joined them visited to suddenly abdandon Pelosi's "off the table" edict.

Whatever they may have expected, they accomplished at least four key things:

1. They confronted Conyers and key staff "up close and personal." (There's a reason corporations hire lobbyists to lobby in person -- it is the MOST effective means to persuade.)


2. Many of those who joined them visited their own Representatives and other Members of the Judiciary Committeed and confronted staffers or Members face-to-face.


3. They got media attention and prompted insiders like Dana Milbank to report on it. Impeachment has been off the media "table." (Until about three weeks ago not even Olbermann had uttered the word in a broadcast.) The event helped to put it on the "table."


4. The reports from the participants tell other impeachment advocates what we are up against -- and how truly flimsy their excuses are.

Impeachment is gaining attention within the beltway -- and with attention, it is gaining momentum. It is absolutely the right time to start confronting those who can make impeachment a reality face-to-face. Any of us can do it-- we can FAX a meeting request and follow up until we get a meeting scheduled. But few of us find ourselves in the Media spotlight. Events like this, that bring the spotlight, are useful.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. I Haven't Forgotten. Course, I Haven't Lost My Mind And All Sense Of Reasoning Either.

I'm still in absolute shock and awe as to the events of this week, and how far off the brink of sanity the extremists have now fallen. I knew they were headed there, but I'm amazed at how rapidly this week they took the plunge. I just couldn't even imagine having the lack of reasoning it would take to attack John the way some have and actually be convinced throughout that my position was the right one. I mean holy cow. John Conyers? The enemy to some here? :crazy:

[illinoisprogressive]

134. I think Conyers is great. I have no bad things to say.

[bread_and_roses]

148. One can admire Conyers and still criticize him. One can honor what he's done and still

be disappointed in a current stance/action. And we can't leave him (or Pelosi, or our own Reps) alone. The only way we can proceed is to keep up the pressure, make it constant, public, so unremitting and so broad that he and the others have the cover to say, "my constituents demand this."

In fact, the more we admire him, the more urgent it is to critisize. Why should he care what his detractors say/want? It is when you're supporters/admirers speak up that you listen.

(someone else has probably written this above - normally I read an entire thread before posting, but I'm just too tired tonight)

[Marrah_G]

154. It wasn't criticism

It was downright nasty attacks on one of our best congressmen. In over a dozen threads he has been called a traitor, accused of treason, called a Pro-bush Dino and an Uncle Tom among other things. He was told his good friend (who is dead) would be so ashamed of him she would drop dead. These are not the words of allies or supporters. They are vicous and cruel remarks leveled at someone who garners a huge respect here. A backlash against those posts should have been expected on a Democratic message board, but perhaps division was the goal of some of the posters. Beyond the nasty so called op-eds there was a rush of low count posters who seemed to appear just to sling mudd at Rep. Conyers. After the events of today in DC they have mysteriously vanished.

[BlooInBloo]

156. Cmon. Between Saint Cindy and beholden-to-reality Conyers? You know how DU will rule.

DUers simply hate Democrats. It's bizarre but true.

[EFerrari]

157. St. Cindy? Nice. This isn't about Cindy no matter how hard people try

to package it that way. And DUers do not hate Democrats.

You guys can try to shake this off as extremists and trolls but that isn't what is happening here. If it were, Ray McGovern would have nothing to do with it, for example. I might, but not Ray. lol

This was a flat out family fight between people who have worked closely together for years. It was painful and it was ugly and it was real.

I wish it was only extremists and trolls. That would be so much easier to surf.

[BlooInBloo]

158. I thought it rolled off the toungue much better than the "Saint Conyers" upthread.

[EFerrari]

159. . . .

:spank:

[BlooInBloo]

160. I got as much right to strawman hyperbole as the next guy! yah!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

161. LOL!

This is GD after all! :toast:

[Marrah_G]

163. Noooo I hope it was trolls

Because I put like 40 people on ignore in the last few days.........

[EFerrari]

165. I know. It's been a rough time.

[Marrah_G]

168. Pssst

Troll alert below.

low post count, angry at Sheehan's arrest, bashes Conyers. I couldn't have asked for a better example of what I was talking about earlier.

[waldo_evans]

166. what did this 'leadership' really

accomplish? Nothing, really. Bush is still in power. Cheney is still in power and we're still in Iraq.

Conyers could've shown some honesty and leadership a couple of days for sure, but he chose to arrest Sheehan instead. Conyers, another Bush enabler.

[Marrah_G]

167. And here comes another troll!

Welcome to DU! Somehow I doubt you will stay long.

Thank you for being a perfect example.

[waldo_evans]

169. do you call people you can't

argue with names?

[Marrah_G]

170. Nope, I call a troll a troll

I'm done arguing the topic. You came here for one reason, to still shit and cause trouble. You will vanish from DU in short order and you will vanish from my screen in a matter of seconds.

[waldo_evans]

172. no I will not vanish, fool

your problem is that you can't handle the truth.

If I get banned, I will return in exactly 4 minutes.

[bigtree]

174. truth is

he disrupted poorly

This is a classic (amazingly ridiculous) attempt to foment despair about, and dissent from the Democratic party. I can't believe people spend their time and effort on this. It's a sickness, to be sure.

[NanceGreggs]

171. Kicked & Rec'd ...

... and thanks for posting this. Conyers is one of the best there is.

[SharonRB]

190. Yes, he is, Nance.

[MessiahRp]

173. I like John Conyers... A LOT... but he's wrong on impeachment.

As the DOJ just made public, they will not act on Contempt of Congress. The Solicitor General is a loyal Bushbot who will not follow through on Perjury requests made by the Senate Judiciary Committee. All the investigations are blocked from proceding further and everybody was aware of how Bush would play it from day one.

Now Impeachment is the only recourse and he still has not publicly supported the notion.

I admire his body of work for the American people but that was those topics and this is a separate one. On this one subject he is wrong and needs to push for impeachment NOW. We have reached a probable end game with these investigations with Bush winning via executive privilege and obstructionism. Now there is no question what we must do to protect our Constitution and the laws of our country from this menace and his thugs.

Rp

[JNelson6563]

179. Off with his head!

He's not nearly hysterical enough for some therefore he doesn't pass the litmus test. He wastes time thinking, working within the rules and coming up with strategy! He's a traitor!

:sarcasm:

Isn't it the epitome of absurdity how some on the tubes have been carrying on?

Julie

[SharonRB]

195. You're so right, Julie!

:hi:

[mmonk]

180. Since this thread is probably going to keep going

like Skinner's "In case there's any confusion" thread, I thought I'd post this which I did in that thread:


Sung to the tune of Never Ending Love

I have a never ending thread for you
I really hope it's ok with you
I really can't tell you what to do
But I hope you read the rules at DU

[SharonRB]

185. Thanks for writing this.

It needed to be said. It drives me nuts when one incident or one issue can turn people against someone who does so much good. We can't possibly agree with everyone on everything all the time. If we insisted on that, we'd never be happy with any elected official.

[EFerrari]

187. Or with any activist or with each other.

You make a good point. :)

[SharonRB]

189. Thanks, sfexpat!

:hi:

Sometimes people just need to step back for a minute and assess the whole picture. There's so much needless argument going on -- it's a waste of energy that could be used so much more productively.

[EFerrari]

192. Thank you for your clear thinking.

:hi:

[SharonRB]

194. Please see the journal entry I wrote in December after hearing Conyers speak

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/SharonRB/17

It's a summary of what he said at a town hall held at the University of Detroit shortly after the election. Pay special attention to what he says about impeachment:

"On impeachment: It is not practical right now. It will never succeed, as they don't have the votes. They would just tie up the legislative process for 4-6 months if they got bogged down in impeachment and they wouldn't get anything done. Then, of course, people would say they didn't get anything done and throw them out.

On the other hand, they will be issuing subpoenas to get answers on things they haven't been able to get answers on before -- the DSM, etc. If, after investigations, they start getting bipartisan support for impeachment, then who knows. Maybe enough pressure could be exerted from both sides that we'd have another Nixon situation and Bush would step down. (He did not specifically say this, but this was the jist of it.)

They're going to challenge the Patriot Act, wireless wiretapping. They will rewrite laws, hold hearings and correct defects."

I think he's been doing exactly what he said at that time -- subpoenas, investigations, etc. It's a long, painful process, but ultimately the truth will prevail.