Left In Lowell

Humiliating the Dems on Impeachment

12 Responses to “Humiliating the Dems on Impeachment”

1. Ryan Says:
   November 6th, 2007 at 10:00 pm

   Speaking of ‘not a real threat,’ read about Mukasey? Who needs Republicans in charge when you can have Democrats who cower in fear of their supreme in-the-minority lack of power.

   They could have done so much with this issue, even if it ended up with Mukasey in charge. The Republicans want Mukasey? Well, the Democrats want to make sure every child has health care. But, wait, no - that would involve pragmatic politicians representing our causes that had even an once of courage.

2. joe Says:
   November 6th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

   Once upon a time, it looked like Nancy Pelosi was going to have some stones.

   Oh, well.

3. waittilnextyr Says:
   November 6th, 2007 at 10:39 pm

   HR 3948 off to committee!

   It appears to be based on Patrick Murphy’s “Shared Sacrifice Act”, filed 5 days after the election of Oct 18th.

   The parameters of the tax is captured in the proposed legislation:
   If net income tax liability is:

   The surtax is:
   Not over $10,600
   2.5% of net income tax liability

   Over $10,600 but not over $22,600
   $265, plus 5% of the excess over $10,600

   Over $22,600 but not over $36,400
   $865, plus 11% of the excess over $22,600

   Over $36,400
   $2,383, plus 16% of the excess over $36,400

   It is progressive, and captures capital gains as well as earned income as it is calculated off the tax liability.

   Now let’s see how much guts the Democratic Congress has with this.

4. mikec01824 Says:
   November 7th, 2007 at 11:28 am

   The Mukasey vote underscores why it’s important to support Democrats who stand for something, and not to give the Democratic party a blank check.

   Speaking of blind support for Democrats…

   “Yea”, voting to bury impeachment:
   Olver, Neal, Frank, Tsongas, Markey, Lynch, Delahunt

   “Nay”, voting for impeachment:
   Tierney, Capuano

   “Zzz”, not voting:
   McGovern

   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.RES.799:

   I’m of two minds on impeachment, however. From a pragmatic POV, it seems too late to bother with this. From a constitutional POV, this seems essential.

   If the Dems were fighting hard and taking down the illegal acts of this administration on a day-to-day basis, impeachment wouldn’t matter as much.

   And since the Dems haven’t shown much spine on issues that are easier than impeachment, is there any point in pursuing it?

5. waittilnextyr Says:
   November 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

   WASHINGTON — Rep. Niki Tsongas revealed her views on impeaching the vice president, voting twice Tuesday to shelve an insurgent effort by Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich to prosecute Dick Cheney.

6. MOONLIGHT Says:
   November 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

   I am no fan of cheney but kucinich belongs in a

   strait-jacket or a co-staring role in close encounters

   of the third kind, please there are so many other things

   important in the congress

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   November 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

   If Kucinich belongs in a strait-jacket it can only be because he thinks he can succeed here. But I submit that may not be the case. If not, should we assume that he is wasting time? That would only be the case if there were no good that could come out of such a motion without having the item pass. The truth is there impeachment is exactly the forum for redress for the kinds of constitutional violations that Cheney is accused of. Not to mention that the majority of the American people think he should be impeached. The other factor to consider is the cost of not voicing an objection. It has been argued that the big mistake of letting Nixon resign and not bringing charges (even post-resignation) of impeachment is that there was never a precedent set that what he did was constitutionally unacceptable and actionable. The risk is similar with Bush and Cheney. Personally, I’m pessimistic that anything that should be done here will be, but I do think it is important that history show that, for at least some, what this administration has gotten away with is unacceptable. Not just from a popularity standpoint, but from a morally and constitutionally right/wrong standpoint.

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   November 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

   Price of oil Jan ‘01 = $27/barrel, Nov ‘07 = $97/barrel. Looks like his plan worked, but maybe that is cause for us to get rid of him.

   By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
   Washington Post Staff Writers
   Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01

   A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 — something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

   The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

9. grizzled veteran Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

   Hmmm. Can we fit Dick Cheney IN an oil barrel? That would end the need for this impeachment talk. On the other hand, he’s definitely NOT woth $100.

10. Shawn Says:
    November 10th, 2007 at 6:13 am

    Not to mention that the majority of the American people think he should be impeached

    The majority of people think OJ did it too.

    But when it comes to trial itself.. there’s a lot more required and it doesn’t always go the way of emotion.

    The Republicans made the point that they were willing to push this to get to trial if the Dems wanna play.. the Dems blinked first (and second)

    A long, press focused trial across the springtime, that ultimately finds the President and VP vindicated by the Supreme Court… that would work out pretty good for the election.

11. Mr. Lynne Says:
    November 10th, 2007 at 10:27 am

    But the party that goes for impeachment has always historically won. Not to mention that this particular case for impeachment is a slam dunk on the facts when compared to previous cases. The original articles debated for Nixon had to do with his refusal on a subpoena. On refusal to follow FISA alone you could drop a mountain of ‘nation of laws not men’ arguments on him.

    Seriously… I can’t think of a better way to embarrass Reublicans than putting them in the position of having to defend it. Right now they just have to defend against the idea of impeachment,… after hearings start they’d have to defend against the actual facts of the case… a much more, ahem…, ‘tortured’ thing to do for them.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/M8ApqiE7BBU&rel=1

12. E Says:
    December 12th, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Niki Tsongas voted to table the impeachment motion. Shame.

Leave a Reply