« Exxon sockpuppet sends the IRS after Greenpeace | Main | Why They Want to Regulate the Blogs »

March 25, 2006


"Impeachment Whisper's Growing"
Nothing particularly new in the WaPooh's article, but it is relevant that they used the "I" word. I suspect this will get their polling hack, I mean expert, Richard Morin to poll impeachment. This also moves Feingold's Censure resolution to something that "moderates" will gravitate to.

Doctor-patient, lawyer-client; what about priest-parishioner? Time for some pious Democrat (not you, Joe) to begin taking back the cloak of religious faith from the right. It's the Republican DoJ out there hiding mics in confessional booths, and it will fall to card-carrying members of civil liberties groups to defend your religious freedoms.

Lots of thoughts -- as I commented at Greenwald's blog, what we are dealing with here confirms Newtonian physics: "an object at rests tends to remain at rest..." That's the Dems in a nut shell. The more hopeful corollary is that if we can ever get them rolling, they might keep moving. But a heck of a lot of initial force, from outside their closed little world, is going to be required to get them moving. And we'll have to be be the ones to apply it -- the President's actions aren't what moves them.

How to get Dems rolling: guess since we can't get them moving in DC, we have to make it very difficult for them to come home and rest (noisy outside those mansions.) Unfortunately that is going to take a quality of political organization not currently extant. Is Move-On on with impeachment? If not, why not?

Re Barney: sure, hell of a smart political guy, but one who too often goes along to get along. I've thought so ever since he stuck up for Bill Clinton over "don't ask, don't tell." When you are willing to pacify your own, you've fallen over an integrity cliff as far as I am concerned.

My third paragraph illustrates the problem of having a political memory. :-)

Answered my own question -- Move-On seems to be doing censure. Good start. Important to go do that, plus everything else we can think of.

I completely agree emptypockets. Xtianity has a long tradition of social justice, dating back to the scriptures. Roman Catholic priests were at the forefront of "Liberation Theology" in Central and South American. The Reformed tradition, in Xtianity led by Dr. King, led the non-violent Civil Rights War of the 20th Century and played a very significant role in ending the Vietnam War. (IMO, Roman Catholicism is crippled by male supremacy and mandatory celibacy in its hierarchy. Over the centuries the quality of leadership has degraded into church mice. They are preoccupied with hiding the latest assault on an altar boy. I am afraid RC's won't be much help in this latest fight, at least wrt to leadership from their priestly class.)


...in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch...

"The unitary executive branch" is the key to all of this - this is the philosophy that basically states the Divine Right of Bush, and is held by nearly all the advisors to both Bush and Cheney. This pernicious doctrine, which has no basis in constitutional scholarship other than some word-parsing by far right traitors, is the real war that is going on in this country, the war the Congress -Republicans and Democrats alike - don't see or understand, that the public has no knowledge of. This is the coup d'etat planned by the Right through the presidency of Bush.

If we don't start fighting it now, and get the artillery to start pounding them with in November, there won't be a constitutional republic by 2008, elections or no elections.

I know I'm sounding extreme here, but this is the point where the Old Roman Republic confronted the Caesars.

This is when I wish we had a Democratic Noise Machine. And not just a popular media driven one either.

In a well organized Democratic environment, we wouldn't rely on elected Democrats to carry the weight here. We'd have a mirror of Cato that would publish a big ass case. We'd have emissaries making that case to editors and producers long before any elected Democrat breathed a word of it, so that when a Durbin finally did say something, the editors would know exactly what he's talking about and how to understand it, and wouldn't run with a "Democrats are high on moonbeams" story. Simultaneously, we'd have an innernet equivalent of Rush Limbaugh pumping up the base, so that Durbin would be met with press-noteworthy enthusiasm from that corner when he finally said something. And we'd have a Fox News prepping the apolitical middle, so that voters weren't shocked when elected Dems went live.

Asking people who have to win 51% to lead you seems like asking for cowardice and heartbreak. Granted, we do have 20 secure senators, but then they're looking at trying to win 51% as a caucus -- in other words, at Ohio and Montana and Missouri. I'm not actually old enough to have observed this stuff longitudinally, so maybe even with these constraints, elected Dems used to practice leadership. But without ever having seen that myself, it seems that asking people who have to be greatly concerned with positioning -- where are they relative to 51% -- to also lead is dumping too many roles on them. Their proper job is to finesse, look purty, get elected, and then implement our crap. But if their job is to implement extreme government and then smile as if they're a lovable common-sense moderate, they need to know ahead of time that whatever partisan move we want them to make won't explode in their face. They need to know the ground is prepared, the editors are clued in, and the press will be such that no large voting population will move the wrong way. And setting the stage seems to be the job of a Democratic establishment, or, since we dont seem to have one, maybe a souped-up version of us.

This is a slightly negative meta-analysis, and for that reason I wonder if it's appropriate to be dropping into this thread. If it's an unhelpful distraction, please feel free to delete it, because I support what you're doing. I'm also aware that you have been leading on this issue in exactly the way I'm talking about. If I had anything negative-constructive to say about that, it would be that your visible efforts seem to be focused on getting elected officials to do things, which would have to be one part of a strategy for the elected-officials-are-appropriately-cowards reasons above. (Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Clemons focuses on getting former appointed officials to do things, and Marshall focuses on educating journalists.)

At any rate, I'm certainly convinced (by you) that we're in some flavor of Constitutional Crisis. I'm not all that surprised that elected officials are afraid to lead on that subject, even when the Senators are probably fully aware and are seeing their own prerogatives destroyed. (Actually, on second read, it looks like you think they aren't fully aware, which is much more interesting.) It seems like there's lots of things that need to be done to help them, including making sure that whenever any elected official says something, the press coverage is informed and positive. I've now run out of useful things to say -- if in fact I ever had any -- so I'm going to quit telling you how to do your project, and get back to work on mine. But it sure is fun to drop by, I hope I'm not being rude, and as always, your stuff is interesting and informative. Thanks.

so the presnit could superseed the 2nd amendment and sieze all the firearms in the country

has anybody told the freepi about this ???

God, that's a good observation, e-pockets.

"God!" Get it?

MoveOn.org? They've got to be about censure, no? Weren't they founded on the premise of "Censure and move on?"

How to get Dems moving in DC? From their home states, of course. Pass impeachment resolutions locally, and they'll come along. The last several cosponsors of Conyers' resolution did.

"I know I'm sounding extreme here, but this is the point where the Old Roman Republic confronted the Caesars."

If I remember my history, Caesar won.

"If I remember my history, Caesar won."

Shhhh... Please don't interrupt the folks who want to feel good about themselves by venting.

Everyone knows that civil liberties is a winning campaign issue.

If only those 44 cowardly Democrats in the Senate were to stand strongly in a symbolic defeat for civil liberties, the republic would be saved, and the left would win huge victories in November. Everyone knows that.

I have now lost my posting privileges at DailyKos for the sin of confronting DHinMI's bullying.

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!

For the troll visitors, KX said Caesars in the plural. There was more history than the conquest of Gaul, though in modern times it remains curiously arguable whether life in the land managed by the Franks is a better existence than one passed in the Apennine lands. Check the June 25, 2006 thread for the modernization of our comments.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad