Blue Dogs Hold Up Impeachment and an Obama Win

The light went completely on as to who is using these anti-impeachment arguments on the Democrats when I read this article.  Obama deserves a better party than this.  Rob Kall on HuffPo says:


It's time the Democrats in Congress did what the vast majority of democrats want, and the constitution demands-- impeachment hearings for Cheney and Bush.

I've had a chance, over the past few months, to get a feel for this. I commissioned a Zogby poll which found that a big majority of Democrats wanted impeachment. I've spoken at local democratic meetings and the support for impeachment is always close to unanimous. Even at the recent Obama unity even, when I asked the 25 people in attendance if they thought Bush and Cheney should be impeached, the response was unanimous.

But Nancy Pelosi won't put impeachment "on the table." And John Conyers has offered some pathetically weak arguments on why he should not hold impeachment hearings, including the shameful argument that it will produce and adverse reaction from the right wing.

The fact is, congress's ratings are at an all time single digit low-- a well deserved rating, primarily due to the hijacking of the Democratic party by it's bluedog wing. These right wing DINOs (Democrats in name only,) led by Stenny Hoyer, have sold out The "Dem" bluedogs have sold out the Democrats who voted for them again and again. Glenn Greenwald has written about what to do about them recently. Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot.

But meanwhile, I think the bluedogs are the reason Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers are refusing to act upon the evidence Dennis Kucinich and all the people who testified in front of the House Judiciary committee last Friday, at the pseudo impeachment hearings.

The brutal fact is, and I do believe it's a fact, impeachment hearings offer the Democrats the best chance they have of not only insuring Obama's victory, but also for taking 60 seats in the Senate.

First, I'm talking about hearings. There's no need to rush to a vote in the senate. The successful efforts to dump corrupt White house administration people never reached the senate. Both Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon were forced to resign because of HEARINGS.

The recent ruling that Harriet Meirs must testify before the House Judiciary Committee in September gives HJC Chairman Conyers the chance to do exactly what former congresswoman Liz Holtzman suggested in the near-impeachment hearings last month.  Holtzman back in the '70s was on Judiciary when they were impeaching Nixon.  Conyers would say, "this is an impeachment inquiry" which means there can be no pardons or claims of executive privilege.  To do so is automatically impeachable, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.  Bush claims Executive Privilege, there is only one way to vote.  Now you have Holtzman's "Twofer", both Bush and Cheney gone.  

This has always been a matter of political will.  The charges, crimes and evidence have always been there.  How long will this party's agenda, and talking points, be run by Democrats who should be registered Republicans, who are allowed to flout party-line votes continually without being disciplined by the leadership, without ever losing committee seats?  They should be given places of honor at the Republican convention taking place right now for all the wonderful things they have done for them.

Kall winds up:

Ask most of the Democratic party members of congress and you get a unified front -- the talking point that they don't want to waste the Congress' time. This is pure garbage -- an affront to the constitution they continue to allow to be violated by Bush and Cheney and their appointees, as the news demonstrates with new examples every day.It's time, and its the right, smart thing for the Dems to do.

But even beyond what Kall contends is an incorrect analysis by Blue Dogs of how impeachment would affect Democrats, there is a point where we must rise above the partisan politics and unite to defend what belongs to all of us, the Constitution and our constitutional rights.  Bruce Fein of the Reagan administration, in the July 25th hearings, said Bush and Cheney are eminently impeachable and that it could be swift.  Fein, a lifelong Republican, said he "never felt prouder to be an American" than when he saw Richard Nixon resign.  Fein called the Nixon impeachment "immensely unifying." Nixon broke the law, and the law applied equally to everyone.

Fein said this impeachment would differ because the Bush offenses are so "open and notorious," requiring little investigation.  

Let's face it, pro-choicers are never going to convince all pro-lifers to switch, and anti-illegal immigration activists are not going to agree with proponents of amnesty.  We Americans are a squabbling tribe, and we will always go back to being so.  But we can unite for this magic moment.  Impeachment will not divide, it will unite.  This is a holiday weekend.  Pick up the phone and leave a message at your congressman's office.  If nothing else, you can answer your grandchildren, far in the future, if things go bad and we live through endless wars against invisible enemies, lawless administrations which have seized upon the Bush precedent, when they ask:  Did you do anything to try to stop this?  Back when it was just beginning?  Did you try to stop the men who started doing these things?  At least you can tell your grandchildren, yes, it wasn't much, but I did call my congressman and said: "impeach them." It wasn't much, but I did it.

On Tuesday morning let the congressmen return from their vacations and conventions to find voice-mailboxes chock-full with renewed demands for democracy.  Chairman Conyers must not miss this opportunity.  Leave a message and say: "When Meirs testifies, as she must, declare this is a formal impeachment inquiry. Conyers must say the word." This closes the door to the administration's plan to blanket-pardon itself into the sunset, leaving 4200 fine Americans dead over lies, their families heartbroken and with children who will never know their fathers or mothers, unmeasured carnage among civilians who did not attack us, a spat-upon Constitution, and an economy broken for the benefit of the newly  rich at Halliburton.  Don't believe the Blue Dogs.  They are not on your side, nor on Obama's.

Your congressman/woman

Bruce Fein: Impeachment was "immensely unifying."

video which has footage of Bush Cheney etc. saying one thing at one time then exactly the opposite at another.

There's more...

Rep. Peter Welch speaks up about credit card fees

The credit card associations and the banks that support them have gotten away for too long without answering serious questions about their practices, and at long last, tomorrow there will be a hearing on Capitol Hill to consider the Credit Card Fair Fee Act - HR 5546. It hasn't had the same press as the Credit Card Bill of Rights but it is no less important, and I say that not just because I work with the merchant group that has done tons of work over the last couple years to bring the issue to this point.

One co-sponsor of the bill who speaking up on the issue is Vermont's Peter Welch, one of the best progressives we have in the House. Comments from Welch and more details via the Rutland Herald below:

There's more...

Cheney Impeachment: It's the Judiciary Committee, Stupid

At the end of this is a down and dirty list of phone numbers followed by fax numbers of each member of the House Judiciary Committee, which is sitting quietly trying to figure out if what happened last November 6th was just an abberation or if we were really serious.  A much cleaner list here. They didn't expect the flood of calls, faxes and emails that started pouring in once Kucinich was broadcast on CNN calling for a vote on the impeachment of Cheney, so plan "A", to drown it in the bathtub with a "table" vote, was suddenly not an option.

Then the fun really began, as a faction of Republican congressmen voted to debate the bill BEFORE the leadership gave the signal to the others to start switching votes to debate it, rather than send it to Judiciary.  Who are these congressmen, can anyone tell from watching the tape?  These are the guys who may have a little integrity (as well as pissed-off Republican constituents pointing out that Bush's spending like a drunken sailor on the Iraq war isn't very Republican, the way they understand the word, $1.3 trillion so far, about $16,500 for each family of four.)

This blog convinced me to focus on the Judiciary Committee, as well as my own congressman.  What he's saying is that these are the key races we start nationwide now PACs for.

Those Committee members are our targets by necessity. Take the fight to them. We have a manageable arena in which to wage this fight now and it would be a damned shame to screw up and have to start all over again.  I have read so many wrong assumption statement presented as fact today that I am ready to vomit. If you don't understand the procedural process and Parliamentary Rules that govern this situation; stop pontificating and speculating and get busy on those Committee members.

Every one of those members is up for reelection in November of 2008. That they understand; that is their vulnerability...The attack must come by phone, by email, by snail mail, in the local press letters to the editor and, last but not least, getting beyond on ourselves in cyber space and reaching locally, face-to-face, by phone, by whatever means, voters, who will as constituents of the Committee members, deliver the message that they must get on board or they will be actively opposed for reelection in every way possible.

I'll be damned, the guy is right.  This is a managable number of people.

So let's find those challengers and start those PACS.  As for direct action, here's a program (it costs a little) that turns your computer into a fax machine. Judiciary Committee members don't accept emails from outside their districts.

THE FIRST NUMBER AFTER THE CONGRESSMAN'S NAME IS ALWAYS THE PHONE NUMBER, THE SECOND IS ALWAYS THE FAX NUMBER, GO TO A PRETTIER LIST AND SAMPLE LETTER HERE

Last name     First name     Party     State     District     Committee     phone     fax
Conyers, Jr.     John     D     Michigan     14th     Chair, Judiciary     202-225-5126      202-225-0072
Smith     Lamar     R     Texas     21st     Ranking Member, Judiciary     202-225-4236      202-225-8628
Davis     Artur     D     Alabama      7th     Judiciary     202-225-2665      202-226-9567
Franks     Trent     R     Arizona     2nd     Judiciary     202-225-4576      202-225-6328
Lofgren     Zoe     D California     16th     Judiciary
202-225-3072
202-225-3336
Gallegly     Elton     R     California     24th     Judiciary     202-225-3065      202-225-1100
Sherman     Brad     D     California     27th     Judiciary     202-225-5911      202-225-5879
Berman     Howard     D     California     28th     Judiciary     202-225-4695     202-225-3196
Schiff     Adam     D     California     29th     Judiciary     202-225-4176      202-225-5828
Waters     Maxine     D     California     35th     Judiciary    
202-225-2201
    202-225-7854
S�nchez     Linda     D     California     39th     Judiciary     202-225-6676      202-226-1012
Lungren     Daniel     R     California     3rd     Judiciary     202-225-5716     202-226-1298
Issa     Darrell     R     California     49th     Judiciary     202-225-3906     202-225-3303
Wexler     Robert     D     Florida     19th     Judiciary     202-225-3001      202-225-5974
Feeney     Tom     R     Florida     24th     Judiciary     202-225-2706      202.226.6299
Keller     Ric     R     Florida     8th     Judiciary     202-225-2176      202-225-0999
Wasserman Schultz     Debbie     D     Florida, 20th     20th     Judiciary     202-225-7931      202-226-2052
Johnson     Hank     D     Georgia     4th     Judiciary     202-225-1605      202-226-0691
Gutierrez     Luis     D     Illinois     4th     Judiciary     202-225-8203     202-225-7810
Pence     Mike     R     Indiana     6th     Judiciary     202-225-3021      202-225-3382
King     Steve     R     Iowa     5th     Judiciary     202-225-4426      202.225.3193
Delahunt     William     D     Massachusetts     10th     Judiciary     202-225-3111      202-225-5658
Ellison     Keith     D     Minnesota     5th     Judiciary     202-225-4755      202-225-4886
Nadler     Jerrold     D     New York     8th     Judiciary     202-225-5635     202-225-6923
Weiner     Anthony     D     New York     9th     Judiciary     202-225-6616      202-226-7253
Watt     Melvin     D     North Carolina     12th     Judiciary     202-225-1510     202-225-1512
Coble     Howard     R     North Carolina     6th     Judiciary     202-225-3065      202-225-8611
Sutton     Betty     D     Ohio     13th     Judiciary    
202-225-3401
    202-225-2266
Chabot     Steve     R     Ohio     1st     Judiciary     22-225-2216      202-225-3012
Jordan     Jim     R     Ohio     4th     Judiciary     202-225-2676      202-226-0577
Cohen     Steve     D     Tennessee     9th     Judiciary     202-225-3265      202-225-5663
Jackson Lee     Sheila     D     Texas     18th     Judiciary     202-225-3816     202-225-3317
Gohmert     Louie     R     Texas     1st     Judiciary     202-225-3035     202-226-1230
Cannon     Chris     R     Utah     3rd     Judiciary     202-225-7751      202-225-5629
Scott     Robert     D     Virginia     3rd     Judiciary    
202-225-8351
    202-225-8354
Forbes     J. Randy     R     Virginia     4th     Judiciary     202-225-6365      202-226-1170
Goodlatte     Bob     R     Virginia     6th     Judiciary     202-225-5431      202-225-9681
Boucher     Rick      D     Virginia     9th     Judiciary    
202-225-3861
    202-225-0442
Baldwin     Tammy     D     Wisconsin     2nd     Judiciary     202-225-2906      202-225-6942
Sensenbrenner Jr.     James     R     Wisconsin     5th     Judiciary     202-225-5101      202-225-3190

There's more...

Squishy House Dems to Sell Us Out on Internet Freedom?

Last week was a big week for the internet freedom folks.  We won a vote in the Judiciary Committee for the Sensenbrenner-Conyers Bill (HR5417) to preserve internet freedom.  For those who haven't been following, the basic gist of the issue is that the government has always set basic rules for the wires that carry internet traffic.  These rules don't let the telcos that manage those wires block anyone's traffic, and we want to keep it that way.  The telcos want to be able to block traffic and web sites so they can favor some services over others, so they want to strip the FCC of the authority they have to enforce these rules.  The business and political case is clear.  Senior telco execs have publicly discussed slowing down Google's web site if Yahoo pays them, for instance.  There are political implications as well; a Canadian ISP have blocked the web site of a union striking against them.  Telcos have always hated the internet, and now that they see the opportunity to put up tollbooths everywhere and make the internet work as clunkily as cell phone service, they are trying to seize it through their massive political leverage.  

Ok, so we won on the vote last week with nearly all Democrats voting for the bill and 5 Repulicans coming to our side.  HR5417 now goes to the Rules Committee, which determines when and whether bills go to the floor.  The Rules Committee is a small and corrupt body controlled by Republican leadership, and rarely allows bill to the floor that the Republican leaders don't like.  And Hastert is whipping hard against internet freedom, and the Rules Committee is more his turf than it is Sensenbrenner's.

The danger here is that the conflict between the Rules Committee and the Judiciary Committee produces a meaningless substitute bill, and some squishy Dem like Bill Delahunt sells us out and cosponsors it (Weiner is another possibility since he had reservations about the bill).  That bill can then go to the floor and House Democrats will then vote for it while whimpering that it's the only pro-net neutrality legislation they had the opportunity to vote for.

This is where we are now.  Of course, we never expected to be able to put up a fight in the House period, so this is exceptional.  But be aware that we could be sold out on this.

The telcos are desperate to get something through Congress this year, because they are watching the growing list of candidates who are running on this issue.  They never expected this to be a voting issue.  I've created a special web page for 'internet freedom' candidates, and I've added Linda Stender in New Jersey's seventh Congressional district.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on Al Wynn in Maryland's 4th district, and his primary challenger Donna Edwards.  Wynn is a seriously bad guy, and Edwards is very well-respected.

There's more...

Sham hearings, sham government

Monday wasn't a good day for democracy.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did anything but, revealing the proceedings to be as big a sham as the government he was protecting. When he wasn't avoiding tough questions, Gonzales spent the day giving Senators - and America - a glimpse into this administration's reckless, above-the-law attitude.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------