In response to my call for Bush/Cheney impeachment

[Blue_In_AK]

I received the exact same letter from "Don Young, Congressman for All Alaska" that I did the last time I complained to him about the president. God, he's like talking to a brick wall. Of course, with the Senate calling for a Justice Department investigation of his earmarks, and his $1 million+ legal fees, Dear Don probably has other things on his mind. What a scumbag.

Here it is in all its glory.

April 18, 2008

Dear Blue_in_AK,

Thank you for writing to me to express your views on President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts.

President Bush is a strong leader who has faced unprecedented challenges during his five years in office. I was proud to support his candidacies in 2000 and 2004 and continue to support his work in The White House. While President Bush and I do not agree on every issue, I respect his integrity and am proud to stand behind him on the major issues affecting the American people and Alaskans in particular.

The President and I have worked together on a number of important legislative priorities for Alaska, including the Highway Reauthorization bill, adjusting the No Child Left Behind program for Alaska's circumstance, opening ANWR and protecting our fishing and timber industries. I am confident that he will continue to serve our Nation well during the remainder of his term.

I hope you find this information useful and please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG


Congressman for All Alaska




:puke:

[Solly Mack]

1. Let's see. Having integrity and implementing a torture policy. Nope

Not seeing it.

[babylonsister]

2. What, no mention of earmarks for a certain FL highway?

Maybe he's too busy to attend to his constituents' concerns. :evilgrin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3174742&mesg_id=3174742

[warren pease]

3. "... a strong leader who has faced unprecedented challenges during his five years in office."

Who would have thought that Don believes so strongly in recycling?


wp

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Yeah, I noticed that, too.

When he wrote to me before, it had already been six years. He thinks we won't notice -- or actually it's more like he doesn't give a shit if we notice or not. He has already said that his constituents are only the people who voted for him, so that cuts out the 40% of us here who voted for Diane Benson in 2006, not to mention the people who didn't vote at all. He is one of the most arrogant Congress critters down there, and I hope the Justice Dept. nails his ass GOOD. Barbara Boxer, according to an article yesterday, wants to see him in jail.

[Dr Fate]

5. Meet Pelosi/DLC's ideological soulmate. n/t

n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Did you see the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial for climate change last night?

I almost fell over... it was like the one with Al Sharpton & Pat Buchanan...

[canoeist52]

6. My reply from Congressman Frank

I am writing to explain why I do not believe that initiating formal impeachment procedures in the House against President Bush and Vice President Cheney will help our effort to reverse the disastrous foreign and domestic policies that they have inflicted on the country. The first fact that must be acknowledged is that there is no chance that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict either man, which means that they will remain in office for the rest of their terms - thankfully now only about a year - whether we initiate impeachment or not.

Beyond that, I do not think it is certain that we could get a majority in the House for an impeachment resolution even to send it to the Senate. I do not believe there is a single Republican who would vote for impeachment. Even the handful of Republicans in the House who have been willing to join us in opposition to the war - a disappointingly small number - are beginning to back away because they face primary opposition in a number of cases from the right wing of their own party, and this has led them back into a more supportive position of the President - or at least a substantial diminution of their opposition. In fact, the refusal of all but a very small number of Republicans to join us in any significant opposition to this war in Iraq is the major reason that we have been unable to act on the clear desire in the country to begin the process of a complete withdrawal.

We have been able to hold the Democratic majority in the House to do this, but the requirement of 60 Senate votes combined with this Republican reluctance has doomed the effort. But while we have been able to hold enough Democrats to get a House majority for binding legislation to begin the total withdrawal from Iraq, I do not believe that the same votes would be there for an impeachment resolution. We have a majority of 18 in the House - and there are more than 18 Democrats who represent very conservative districts where George Bush got large majorities in 2004 who are reluctant to vote for impeachment. We have, as I said, worked hard with them to get their opposition to many of the Bush policies. But pressing them to vote with us on impeachment would, in my judgment fall short of the majority, and even more damaging, it would lessen our ability to get them to vote with us on such important issues as providing civil liberties safeguards in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, opposing the abolition of habeas corpus for detainees, and reinstating funding for important domestic economic programs. So the question is whether it would be a good idea to go ahead with impeachment with a substantial likelihood that the resolution would not even pass the House. The problem is that I believe that would be taken as vindication of President Bush and Vice President Cheney - as an "acquittal" of them on the charges against them. Those who wonder why we are not able to get a single Republican vote should note that a part of the problem there - politically - is that it does not make sense to argue for impeaching either the President or the Vice President without including both. But that would mean that Nancy Pelosi would then become the President. The relevance of that is that Republicans contemplating voting for impeachment would be assailed for their willingness to install a Democrat as President without an intervening election.

I realize that this is not an argument for abstaining from impeachment to many who strongly favor it, but I can guarantee you that it would in fact be persuasive with every single Republican Member of the House and Senate, which is why we would be in the political situation with regard to any chance of success that I mention. I wish things were different but the fact is that there are, as I said, a number of Democrats from conservative parts of the country representing districts that George Bush carried heavily - and which are likely to vote Republican again for the presidency - who will neither vote for an impeachment resolution (nor agree to withhold all funding for the war.) I am very frustrated by this, and the only way to change it is through the electoral process. The elections of 2006 gave us a House ready to insist on withdrawal from Iraq, and a majority of those Senators elected in 2006 are in a similar frame of mind. But under our Constitution, we only elect one-third of the Senate every two years, and two-thirds of the Senate still consists of people elected in 2002 and 2004 when the war in Iraq was a popular issue. I will continue to do everything I can in the domestic and international areas, as I said, to oppose the Bush/Cheney policies. But I do not think that an unsuccessful impeachment would add in any way to our ability to do this, and in fact while I have been disappointed at our inability to get more Republicans to join us in opposing Bush policies, I believe that if impeachment became the central issue, it would substantially diminish our ability even to hold onto those Republican supporters we now have on these issues.

BARNEY FRANK

[Blue_In_AK]

7. At least that's a reasoned argument,

not a "fuck off."