Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe move by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to open a House debate on the question of whether to impeach Vice President Cheney turned into a imbroglio for the Democratic leadership of the chamber Tuesday as mischievous Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in rejecting a move to table the resolution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had thwarted Kucinich's efforts to convince the Judiciary Committee to take up his proposal to hold the vice president to account for lying to Congress and the U.S. public in order to enter into a war in Iraq, and for trying to mislead again in order to start a war with Iran. So the Ohioan used a privileged resolution to bring the impeachment question up before the full House.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, then moved to table Kucinich's resolution. "Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," said Hoyer, echoing Pelosi's position that presidential accountability is "off the table."
That should have been the end of it. But it wasn't.
A combination of more than 80 Democrats who apparently sincerely favored taking action against Cheney and Republicans who thought that an impeachment debate would embarrass Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders blocked the motion to table.
Only 162 members -- 27 Republicans and 135 Democrats -- supported Hoyer's call to table the resolution. A total of 251 members -- 86 Democrats and 165 Republicans -- opposed it.
What followed was wrangling between Kucinich and Hoyer on whether to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The majority leader wanted to bury the articles of impeachment in committee, while Kucinich keep angling for a debate on the House floor.
That set up more votes, as Democratic leaders scrambled to block Kucinich's moves.
C-SPAN covered it all, with its anchors breathlessly trying to keep up with the vote switches and political intrigues.
It took two more roll calls before members completed the procedural business of sending Kucinich's articles to the Judiciary Committee -- on a final vote of 218-194. That was technically a "win" for Hoyer, but the day belonged to Kucinich. After all, the Ohio congressman and Democratic presidential contender had succeeded -- albeit briefly -- in getting impeachment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols is the author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
"Mr Kucinich Goes To Washington", Mr Nichols?
You know, it rarely plays out like a Frank Capra/Jimmy Stewart movie anymore. Democratic leadership in the House may not get what they want...but they're damn good at STOPPING what they don't want...despite Kucinich and same ol' 30 guys from the Progressive Caucus.
I said "one more 'impeachment is imminent' article" and I'd start to wonder as to your basis for continueing this.
Self-deception...or book sales?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:32pm
"Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," said Hoyer, echoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's stance that presidential accountability is "off the table."
Congress hasn't done a damn thing, so what higher priorities do they have? Handing more money over to Bush for his damned wars? Kucinich is asking Congress to do their jobs and all they want to do is sit around and act like they are doing something, but accomplish nothing.
I hope Hoyer, Pelosi and the rest of these idiots trying to table this realize that the American people are watching this and they don't look too good attempting to table this issue. They should bring it to a vote. Let the republicans block the proceedings, but those republicans will be held accountable at voting time the same as the dems who are cowering in the corner worrying about next elections outcome.
Pelosi and Hoyer are useless.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/06/2007 @ 4:41pm
Ronco Presents "John Nichols Sings His Favorite Hit"--
BLOG | Posted 12/20/2005 @ 1:57pm Raising the Issue of Impeachment --John Nichols (Oldest I found off the bat...maybe it goes back MORE than 2 years now)
BLOG | Posted 02/18/2006 @ 10:33am More Support for Impeachment Inquiry --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 03/10/2006 @ 11:44am Vermont Paper Embraces Impeachment Push --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 09/15/2006 @ 4:08pm Camp Democracy and the Genius of Impeachment --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 10/17/2006 @ 11:28pm Voting for Impeachment --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 12/09/2006 @ 09:10am A Closing Call for Impeachment --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 12/11/2006 @ 12:43pm 'Impeachment is Not Optional' --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 01/25/2007 @ 12:52pm Edging Impeachment Back Onto the Table --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 03/03/2007 @ 02:11am Vermont Puts Impeachment on the Table --John Nichols
HAGEL: PEACE AND IMPEACHMENT CANDIDATE? Posted by John Nichols at 03/12/2007 @ 08:50am (A personal favorite. How's that Chuck Hagel candidacy going?)
BLOG | Posted 04/25/2007 @ 12:05am Kucinich: Impeachment is the Right Response --John Nichols
comment | posted April 20, 2007 (May 7, 2007 issue) Impeachment Fever Rises --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 07/23/2007 @ 12:28pm Censure and Impeachment --John Nichols
BLOG | Posted 07/31/2007 @ 10:07pm "The President Cannot Ignore an Impeachment" --John Nichols (No, but apparently he doesn't HAVE to!)
Albums $12.95....cassettes $11.95...and 8 tracks $2.00! Order yours now!
Or is it all about...
John Nichols' new book is "THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism."
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:55pm
If Hillary is going to have pictures here could we at least have a less obnoxious one.
Posted by ZERO 11/06/2007 @ 4:32pm
IMPOSSIBLE!! I knew it was a trick question!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:55pm
I believe Nichols is a genuine idealist who believes that his activism through writing will someday make a difference. If he works his ass off writing these, and neither Bush or Cheney ever get impeached...so what? At least he fucking tried. As a fellow idealist, I commend his efforts. As a realist, I'm doubtful of their ability to bear any fruit.
An activist once said to me "sometimes banging on a pot in the street and screeming your head off will get more done than you'd think." Nichols is doing his version of this, applying his set of talents. Keep banging away Johnny!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 5:05pm
You would think these events would garner mentioning on MSM websites, but I haven't found it. The only reason I knew about it is my dad called me while watching it on C-SPAN. He was so excited about the possibility of impeachment, you'd think we was watching his home team win the World Series.
Maybe this will force the moderators of the next debates to ask questions of Clinton, and the other Senators about how they would vote if the House handed them articles of impeachment.
Posted by BlueTexan at 11/06/2007 @ 5:14pm
And Bushfools and his merry band of fellow impeachment freaks are nowhere to be found on this thread
This is almost as funny as the left is in general.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/06/2007 @ 5:26pm
Hey ¬v¬, DU lover,
Some of us actually get paid to do other things than be on The Nation's blog 24/7.
Good for Kucinich. We all need to be reminded from time to time what congress used to be like before dic'tatorship philosophy took over our government.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 5:57pm
John Nichols' new book is "THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism."
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:55pm
MASK -- CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE JOHN NICHOLS ***SOME*** CREDIT FOR TRYING TO DO SOMETHING...
Besides just "promote his book." If Nichols is in favor of impeaching Bush/Cheney (as he clearly is), then writing articles in the Nation prompting and celebrating (when it occurs) the process is NOT NECESSARILY "promoting his book." I think attributing that kind of venal motive in this case to someone who is clearly an honest writer about the issue is itself venal, frankly.
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/06/2007 @ 5:59pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:55pm
Frita, you look hysterical.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 6:00pm
Again.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 6:03pm
Do we have a new third party emerging. Kucinich would definitely get my vote. bravo!!!
Posted by steve foster at 11/06/2007 @ 6:08pm
KUCINICH NOW HAS MY PRIMARY VOTE AGAIN...
I switched briefly to Edwards because Dennis let himself be tricked into giving an honest answer to a dishonest UFO question in the latest debate. But given this rare act of courage and determination, I've switched my vote back.
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/06/2007 @ 6:17pm
Kucinich with 40K votes moved to 1st place in the DFA pulse poll passing up Al Gore's 38K write in's:
http://democracyforamerica.com/
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 6:31pm
How about those wacky Republicans! Or "mischievous", as Mr. Nichols described them. They think that impeachment hearings will embarass the Democrats; perhaps so, in the case of 'New Democrats' like Hillary, Edwards, Kerry et al. who went along with the Repubs' war and the treasonous cover-up on behalf of the real enemy, the Saudis. But real Democrats like Dennis have nothing to fear from an inquiry that spotlights not only what wimps the Dem 'leaders' are, but what traitors the Repubs are.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/06/2007 @ 6:35pm
I think that all of us here, left and right, can support the Congressional debate on Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment, albeit for different reasons. Heh.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 7:32pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 11/06/2007 @ 5:59pm
At some point (like say when you're obviously being opposed by YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP), idealism becomes delusional obsession.
See: HSUBFOOLS
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:33pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 6:31pm
Then according to your OWN standard....Kucinich is going to beat Gore and the rest.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:34pm
Hey MASK...Jonah Goldberg posted this today in USA Today. Perhaps you can see how it backs up my point on why your polls are like tea leaves. Haven't heard you with the '29 percenter' stuff recently...perhaps this has sunk in already.
... Americans may not be as passionately opposed to the war as the polls have led Hollywood to believe. Left-wing bloggers, hyper-rich Democratic donors and anti-war activists hate the war with biblical fury. But many average Americans are depressed by the war because, until recently, it was going so badly. The polls don't capture this distinction very well.
This illuminates an under-discussed dynamic of our times. Americans are both anti-war and anti-anti-war. Polls show they are disgusted with Republicans and Democrats. Hollywood and the left generally have misread this political discontent thinking there's a mandate for their trite Vietnam-era nostalgia for mass protest and Joan Baez speechifying. But few Americans are eager to spend their money to listen to the Jane Fonda set say, "I told you so!" for two hours. Especially not when we've heard it all before. (Indeed, Redacted is essentially a remake of his Vietnam movie Casualties of War.)
By confusing the public's war-weariness with their own carefully cultivated rage they've badly overreached. Rage may be a good box office draw; exhaustion isn't. The late film critic Pauline Kael is reported to have said that Nixon couldn't have won because she didn't know anybody who voted for him. Similarly, maybe everyone Paul Haggis knows shares his hatred for the war, but he just doesn't know enough people to make a hit.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 7:36pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:32pm |
And PONTI is pointing out why (atleast the Dem leadership) many folks don't want it to happen.
They suspect (rightly) that the Repubs and cons will use the division in the Dem Party on impeachment (leadership vs bloggers) to paint the Dems as "torn by internal strife" or worse "controlled by their FRINGE groups".
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:36pm |
Well, no worries, PONTI...as you predicted, Iraq will "not be an issue in 2008" (plus we'll be "winning"). So sit back and relax and enjoy the 2nd "permanent GOP majority" in 2009!
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:38pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 7:37pm
"controlled by their FRINGE groups".
What..you mean they're not? There's going to be an awful lot of disappointed Nation posters when this gets out.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 7:41pm
Hey, you Gore voters still worried about global warming? Don't worry! The UN's on the case!
Checking Out the Bali Beachheads of UN Climate Change Climate Conferencing UN Style: The Westin Resort Tennis Courts at Nusa Dua, Bali
The would-be regulators of the world's climate (and your wallet) will be jetting to Bali this December for Ban Ki-Moon's next UN weather fest: "UN Climate Change Conference 2007." UN policy allows even the lowlier UN staffers to travel business class on long-haul flights (your tax dollars at work), the better to arrive wined, dined and ready to hit the ground …and the beaches … and the golf courses … and the tennis courts -- running. Apparently there is so much to discuss that the conference will run for a full fortnight, from Dec. 3-14, at Bali's seaside luxury resort of Nusa Dua.
For all those taxpayer mugs out there who have not had the experience of flying business class to spend a fortnight at Nusa Dua, check out the spectacular seaside photos of the Bali International Convention Center, with its slogan: "The Place…Where Business is a Pleasure." For more information, page through the Bali conference outline on the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change, or UNFCC, web site. This includes a handy list of pre/post conference tours, and a list of hotels (Nusa Dua Beach Hotel and Spa, and Melia Bali Villas and Spa Resort, already sold out) plus recreational facilities: sailing, fishing, snorkeling, ocean kayaking, and, of course, the shopping gallery. There, undistracted by the winter winds whipping past the UN's NY headquarters (now prepping for a $2 billion renovation), they will discuss the many ways in which the UN can collect fees and fund more conferences via taxes and productivity caps administered by the same UN system which refuses to open its own books to the public (where is that full and transparent accounting we were promised for the tsunami donations?).
Recall that the UN apparently rebuffed out of hand a recent invitation from Canada to move its headquarters north. One might just wonder -- would "climate change," be such an urgent UN issue were UN bureaucrats required to hold their meetings without availing themselves quite so amply of other people's money to enjoy their own convenient change of climate.
Quick Multiple Choice Quiz on the UN system: Will the UN release for the perusal of Joe-average taxpayer a detailed post-conference breakdown of staff expense accounts for Ban's bash on Bali?
A. Ha
B. Ha-ha
C. You've got to be kidding
D. In order to operate, the UN must preserve its confidentiality in such matters. Tennis, anyone?
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 7:44pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:41pm
Why should the Dems be any different from the Repubs?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:45pm
Mask,
Uh...I'm no math wiz, but 218-194 doesn't sound like the "same 30 guys." maybe angling for Darth Cheney has a broader appeal, as no one likes Dead-eye Dick.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2007 @ 7:47pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/06/2007 @ 7:47pm
Need to dig a bit deeper, LOC.
The Repubs WANT there to be an impeachment debate, so they voted for the resolution. That way the Dem leadership and the Proggies fight it out in Conyers' Committee (same Conyers by the way who told Cindy Sheehan "no" on impeachment, kicked her out, and called the fuzz on her).
They voted for it to embarass the Dems...IF (not "when" so much) the bills of impeachment came out of Committee, they'd vote no (along with a lot of Blue Dog Dems) and it would look like a collossal waste of time...and give the GOP an issue to run on in 2008 with the "Do Nothing But TRY To Impeach" Congress.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:52pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:36pm
I don't know much about Johah Goldberg, but the article has an obvious right-wing slant, and offers nothing to back it's claims about "Hollywood and the left...Joan Baez...Jane Fonda..etc". Furthermore, USA today is notoriously biased in favor of the right. It's an opinion piece, implying what, that Americans think this war was the right thing to do, or still is? I don't buy this particular rhetoric.
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 7:53pm
Posted by MATTMAN 11/06/2007 @ 7:53pm
I don't buy this particular rhetoric.
Well, now, I pretty much figured that out by the 'they don't agree with me, therefore they are a right wing whore' standard rant from a Nation poster. That's why I posted it for MASK.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 7:56pm
For LOC---Paul Kane--Washington Post
"Democratic leaders long ago rejected any consideration of impeaching Cheney and President Bush as an irresponsible move supported only by the far left, so they tried today to table Kucinich's impeachment resolution. After initially having more than enough votes to kill the resolution - the "yea" tally to table impeachment topped out at 291 - Republicans decided they had a chance to politically shame Democrats into a full debate on the sensitive issue. Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists.
More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January."
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:59pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:56pm
PONTI, if it doesn't agree with YOU it's "the damn Liberal Media"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 7:52pm
Pretty good, MASK. I'm sure the Congressional Republicans are considering the issuance of tasers to Democrats, especially Kerry's staff, for the hearings as well. But don't think that this is just for the enjoyment of the internecine struggle; it's also for the audience, the American people. We really need to give people like Kucinich as much public exposure as possible.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm
PONTI, if it doesn't agree with YOU it's "the damn Liberal Media"!
The only difference being, of course, that I have several well-known studies, including a recent one done at Harvard, which shows that most media employee party affiliation AND media coverage is skewed in favor of Democrats.
heheh
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 8:03pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm
A point I'd think we'd agree on. The impeachment guys are pretty naive if they think Republicans supported this and didn't figure PRETTY WELL that it would fail, but fail in a way that would be embarassing to the Dem leadership and possibly cause a rift in the Dem Party.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 8:03pm
Let me guess.... that study was referenced in "The Weekly Standard" and was discussed on "Fox News"????
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 8:08pm
God, I can see it now:
Kucinich: [30 minute rant on how 9/11 was an inside job, interrupted by Kerry handler with taser] 'Don't TASE me, bro!'
Kerry: There seems to be some disturbance here, don't worry, my staff will handle it. Yes, you in the front, you had a question?
Kucinich: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 8:09pm
Even Alcee Hastings (D-LA, Bribery and Disgrace) commented today that Kucinich was seeing flying saucers. Heh. You Dems sure are a colorful bunch.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 8:11pm
Here it is, MASK. Oh, wait, the story is by IBD. So I guess you can ignore it. Funny, I couldn't find any stories on it on the pages of the Nation or Mother Jones, so I guess the study doesn't exist.
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Related Topics: Media & Culture
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy - hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy - found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.
The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story - onethat can't be edited or spiked.
Posted by pontificus at 11/06/2007 @ 8:16pm
that was actually pretty close...
good work citizen kucinich!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/06/2007 @ 9:41pm
Accountability of elected officials is always "on the table", ultimately at the polls (assuming the polls are not rigged). Thank you to Kucinich for getting this into the public/congressional conversation. I'll be damned if I will give another penny to the Democratic party until they grow a spine and start to call for accountability. I will support progressive candidates who have the courage to speak up and take a stand for the principles this country was founded upon. This was close, a 13 vote swing would have shifted the majority. This is less than 3% of the house.
Posted by Tamberlaine at 11/06/2007 @ 9:46pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 7:59pm
Could easily turn to bite them though. Easy to point out they were the ones who actually decided to waste time for political purposes when they could have stopped it. Hopefully the public-at-large ain't that stupid on average.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2007 @ 10:20pm
You've got to give Kucinich credit for trying.
Posted by Will C. at 11/06/2007 @ 10:52pm
Even Harvard? Harvard is very conservative.
Posted by Waltz at 11/06/2007 @ 10:56pm
Keith Olbermann thinks there's a case for impeachment if not imprisonment as do the Wilsons. I do too. Assuming the laws are not just paper sort of obscure and vague guidelines but actually law.
Posted by Waltz at 11/06/2007 @ 11:01pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 8:11pm
ha ha. its fun and funny to defend and abide evil!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/06/2007 @ 11:10pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/06/2007 @ 11:10pm
Imagine what it must be like to be a hamster ibble. Always wrong and always pissed of the media is biased toward the just and decent thing.
It must be hell living in hamserland
Posted by Will C. at 11/06/2007 @ 11:18pm
At least it is still in committee and Conyers has not ruled out addressing it. Democrats can say that there is BIPARTISON support to address impeachment at some level. It's was mainly Republicans that sent it to committee. I think we need to put pressure on Dem leadership to take an intial step to investigate the charges. Let's give some encouragement to the American people that impeachment is seriously being considered (finally). Then we can get a better sense of the will of the people.
Email your Representative and Pelosi (AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Posted by Buffalogaze at 11/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:56pm
Well, now, I pretty much figured that out by the 'they don't agree with me, therefore they are a right wing whore' standard rant from a Nation poster.
I suppose, to your way of thinking, the fact that Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large for the National Review is irrelevant to the assessment. But, you focused on the publication USA Today and tried to spin it as if this were a neutral journalist rather than editorial by a right wing hack. Rather interesting you took that route, don't you think?
Posted by srjenkins at 11/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/06/2007 @ 11:18pm
once yer far enough down that road to perdition...might as well keep on driving...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/06/2007 @ 11:35pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 8:16pm
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period.
Maybe you should actually read the report.
"Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical."
"Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband."
Let's see - any alternative explanations? First real female and black contenders in a Presidential race? Check. Human interest story about candidate who is running despite his wife's cancer? A Republican candidate who is very easy to hate? Check.
Yeah, that all adds up to "liberal" media bias. You continue drinking that Kool-Aid Ponti.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 11/06/2007 @ 11:50pm
now who could possibly imagine that people might be more excited about Barrack Obama running for president rather than John McCain?
But what's really funny is that McCain isn't getting much play hamsterland either.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:01am
I wonder what other business do Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership have that is more important than preserving our Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances. If the current administration can so eggregriously abuse their power without any serious challenge from Congress, then future administrations will justifiably be emboldened to do the same or even worse. In the long run, placing limits on executive power will trump any other policy issues, no matter how worthy they may be. This seems so self evident that it is difficult to believe that Pelose et. al. do not recognize it. So what game are they playing? My own guess is that they were persuaded some time ago by excessively cautious political consultants that an impeachment effort would be unpopular. Now, finding that to be incorrect, they do not know how to reverse themselves gracefully.
Posted by robgo2 at 11/07/2007 @ 12:12am
Keith Olbermann thinks there's a case for impeachment if not imprisonment as do the Wilsons. I do too. Assuming the laws are not just paper sort of obscure and vague guidelines but actually law.
Posted by WALTZ 11/06/2007 @ 11:01pm
Walt,
Ah, but you've hit the nail on the head. Bush and his administration remind me of the evil captain off Pirates of the Carribean when he talks about "the code". He says, their more like guidelines. Sounds like W and crowd. Or, what did Hitler say, "Laws are made to be broken". W is in with a friendly crowd to say the least.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/07/2007 @ 06:52am
Fine work SR, remember to also ask PONTIFICUS about his year long claim about the "democratic" witch hunt that involved no democrats. Facts are irrelevant to him, as we all know. Lets take his "liberal media " claim along with this thread. If, as Mr. FLOGIC claims, the media is "liberal", then this story about impeachment should have been on every nightly news cast, on every front page. But it isn't is it?
I drove a hundred miles an hour down the highway the other day, no cop pulled me over, and no judge gave me a fine, so I guess it is not illegal !!!!! (in FLOGIC world, where logic gets pummeled into unconsciousness with dead carp)
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 07:57am
More theory hits the harsh world of reality for the cons:
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 7, 12:06 AM ET WASHINGTON - Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."
"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.
...The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates" including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.
None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.
Myths, the foundation of the neo-conservative movement. If the propaganda arm of the guvt tells them enough times to believe, the sheep believe.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 08:01am
So, if you want fewer abortions, teach our children about sex, and all of it's inherent dangers. If you want more abortions, teach abstinence only, aka the ChimpCo Plan.
ooohhh, what a neo-conumdrum!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 08:03am
We have war to prevent terrorism, which leads to an increase in terrorism.
We have abstinence only plans which lead to more pregnancies and more abortions.
We have a drug war which leads to more crime and cheap drugs.
We have a drug war that fills our prisons with low level criminals, helping to turn them into hardened criminals.
What should we call this ideology? the GWP, the Grossly Wrong Party?
but wait, Bill Clinton did something....so it is all ok.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 08:08am
Chief members of the GWP, the Chair Bourne Finger Fighters of America, hell bent on sending others to bring economic freedom to the brown people of the world, but only if they can profit too.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 08:12am
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
!!!
Posted by drhammer at 11/07/2007 @ 08:38am
At least it is still in committee and Conyers has not ruled out addressing it. ----Posted by BUFFALOGAZE 11/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
Did you forget about Conyers' meeting with Cindy Sheehan? If so...re-read this [consortiumnews.com].
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 09:17am
Did you forget about Conyers' meeting with Cindy Sheehan? If so...re-read this [consortiumnews.com].
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:17am
That's right, Conyers met with Cindy Sheehan. Oh my god, how could we forget that?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:23am
When I voted in the November elections one of the main things I wanted was the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the many crimes they have committed. The honour of the nation is at stake. The very meaning of the Constitution is called to question if we do not take legal action against Bush and Cheney for not upholding the Constitution as required by their oath of office. I have written letters to my congressmen and Speaker Pelosi about this with only unrelated form letters in return. Does anyone read our letters in congress? What do we have to do to get their attention?
Posted by BillWilliam at 11/07/2007 @ 09:24am
Does anyone read our letters in congress? What do we have to do to get their attention?
Posted by BILLWILLIAM 11/07/2007 @ 09:24am
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2007 @ 09:36am
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 09:23am
Speaking of remembering people's views on impeachment.....
BLOG | Posted 05/16/2007 @ 1:45pm Comments for "The Iraq Memoir Industry" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
I don't think we should waste our time with impeachment. Let the chimp and the resrt of the hamster caln serve out their terms and when they are over, collect the them up and send the over to the International Court of Justice to face charges of crimes against peace. ----Posted by WILL C. 05/16/2007 @ 10:56pm
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 09:47am
but I didn't meet with Cindy Sheehan cumbuckets. We can't forget that now can we?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:55am
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 09:55am
Sorry, WILL, so you support impeachment now and think you were wrong back in May?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 10:03am
what makes you believe I've changed my mind cumbuckets? Perhaps your insatiable desire to make shit up?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 10:05am
So, you know they aren't on our side. Money and power rule, the government by, for and of the people can rot in hell. Wish I could say they are digging their own graves, but that media army of ass kissers is always advising the majority that they represent the fringe consensus.
Posted by Lil at 11/07/2007 @ 10:12am
It is time for the Democrats to do something, to show they have some courage. Whether it's strong action or strong words - that they don't apologize for 2 minutes later. People do not generally respect cowards, pushovers, supplicants, and suck-ups - particularly when the man you're sucking up to is called The Idiot George Bush.
If you must confirm Torturer Mukasey, swear him in on a copy of Malleus Maleficarum instead of the Bible - or something. But then, for God's sake, DON'T apologize for it no matter what!!!!!
Posted by conshame at 11/07/2007 @ 10:39am
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 10:05am
Oh, my bad, WILL. You still oppose impeachment then?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 12:38pm
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 7, 12:06 AM ET WASHINGTON - Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.
Myths, the foundation of the neo-conservative movement. If the propaganda arm of the guvt tells them enough times to believe, the sheep believe.
Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2007 @ 08:01am
Crab,
You need to research further than using resources like ETR which promotes so-called "safe safe" programs in schools.
And the laughable statement that there is no evidence that abstinence programs work ignores the serious studies that have been ongoing in this country.
In fact, the national studies conducted by youthandreligion.org show a far better response to abstinence by teens who are regular members of a church and especially those in conservative protestant churches who attend church regularly. Less than 20% of all Protestant teens (including those in liberal protestant churches) have engaged in sexual intercourse.
This number is still way too high but much better than the anything goes attitude towards teen sex by the left.
I conduct a pretty open dialogue with our youth in the church and their friends on a consistent basis. While no program is guaranteed to be 100% successful, we feel quite confident that our teens are listening and making good moral choices.
http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/PortraitsProtTeens.pdf
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/07/2007 @ 12:42pm
you're the only one living in the murk cumbuckets. And to top it of it's a self imposed murk.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 12:42pm
lvliberty-No one has a clue as to how many of these kids are virgins.I don't know one person on the left who taught their kids that anything goes when it comes to sex.Most of us taught our kids the same things that conservatives taught theirs.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/07/2007 @ 1:08pm
The Dims will make sure that Bush/Cheney stay in office.They have nothing to worry about.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/07/2007 @ 1:09pm
Most of us taught our kids the same things that conservatives taught theirs.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/07/2007 @ 1:08pm
minus the booger man
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 12:42pm
No, no...quite clear now.
You oppose impeachment...as you did back in May. Gotcha!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:21pm
I drove a hundred miles an hour down the highway the other day, no cop pulled me over, and no judge gave me a fine, so I guess it is not illegal !!!!! (in FLOGIC world, where logic gets pummeled into unconsciousness with dead carp) Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2007 @ 07:57am | ignore this person
You and SRJenkins are spot on. The whole ‘Liberal Media' conspiracy or fable is tiresome. First, journalists working for the leading news organizations (the Times, Post, Wall Street Journal, etc.) constitute a significantly higher economic demographic than the average American, thus inspiring divergent economic goals and initiatives from the unwashed masses. The typical journalist when surveyed actually leans more conservative than the majority of Americans on non-social wedge issues, such as trade policy, corporate reform, taxation, national health care proposals, Social Security and Medicare cuts, etc. Second, while waving their trite and tattered falsehoods over seemingly infinite sources of media outlets, these sanctimonious custodians of integrity fail to explicate just how the hell journalist and low-level staff members out-muscle the institutional, hierarchical structures of the corporations which employ them; would any sane-minded person look to the assembly-line worker when analyzing the corporate ideology and decision making apparatus of General Motors? Amusingly relevant during the 2004 presidential election was how these Pontificus types were playing gotcha with CBS and Dan Rather, while the CEO of that news organization's parent company, Sumner Redstone, was acknowledging cold,clear American business candor in admitting "Republican administration are better for media companies like Viacom. And I'm voting for Viacom."
Posted by Oustbush at 11/07/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2007 @ 12:42pm
youthandreligion.org being a non-partisan, secular scientific study group that just happens to be at a predominantly Catholic school (Notre Dame) and funded by the Lilly Endowment which funds several religious studies and donates to the conservative Hudson Institute....right?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:26pm
The Redstone quote should read "The policies of Republican administration..."
Posted by Oustbush at 11/07/2007 @ 1:27pm
excellent work by Dennis, despite not making much progress.
i think it's cute how the Repubs jump in and vote for the resolution just to get the Demopubs' jumpy & nervous & upset, and to try & make them look bad. i'm not sure the Demopubs' would do something similar in a reverse situation....they generally don't have the same kind of sense of humor, or sense of style, much to the world's chagrin (and their own ridiculous notions of power).
Pelosi will have to live with the fact that her FIRST decision as House Speaker was to take impeachment "off the table". Nice. As the first act of the first female House Speaker in the history of the country, she slices off a sizeable piece of the Constitutional pie, dictatorial-style.
I don't think I'd want to be known for that when it all gets right down to it, especially in these troubled times. Maybe history will redeem her. Maybe she won't need redeeming. Mabye she won't even be redeemable. Either way, I thank Mr. Nichols for keeping us informed. Haven't read too much about this in many other sites...
Posted by Scrub at 11/07/2007 @ 1:28pm
You oppose impeachment...as you did back in May. Gotcha!
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 1:21pm
good for you cumbuckets. and remember, but for you, you could have avoided all your confusion
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
youthandreligion.org being a non-partisan, secular scientific study group that just happens to be at a predominantly Catholic school (Notre Dame) and funded by the Lilly Endowment which funds several religious studies and donates to the conservative Hudson Institute....right?
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 1:26pm
You ought to read more closely. The researchers are a pair of sociologists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Also, so what if the Lilly Foundation, formed in 1937 gave to the Hudson Institute. So did John and Teresa Kerry through donations from Heinz.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/07/2007 @ 1:40pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
Oh, this is a frabjous day, WILL. Both in the fact that you are sticking with your anti-impeachment stance AND...
the fact you defended a neo-Nazi who thought the Holocaust was "bright moment"...from me!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2007 @ 1:40pm
And if a study from an endowment that gave to NOW and Planned Parenthood sponsored a differing study, you'd accept it as "gospel"?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 1:52pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 1:51pm
Oh, this is a frabjous day, WILL. Both in the fact that you are sticking with your anti-impeachment stance AND...
it was only ever a question in your mind cumbuckets
the fact you defended a neo-Nazi who thought the Holocaust was "bright moment"...from me!
that's really funny, you took my mentioning your basic unoriginality as some sort of defense
LOL!
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/06/2007 @ 11:50pm
Actually, IBD printed a series of articles on media bias 2-3 years ago. It focused on the elections since 2000, not including the current one (obviously). The results were fairly consistent with the Harvard study printed above. I actually pasted them here some time ago (with the usual reaction from the left). (If I recall correctly, one astounding little fact from that series was that Dan Rather did not do one story on the swift-boat veterans during that entire episode. Whatever your beliefs on the issue, it was a huge story and he didn't cover it.)
Posted by usc1 at 11/07/2007 @ 2:06pm
a bunch of guys in combat on boats driving around all over a river firing at the enemy still had time to keep an eye ball on John Kerry and chronicle his every move.
And you believed them
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 2:12pm
yup.... huge story
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 2:12pm
that's really funny, you took my mentioning your basic unoriginality as some sort of defense LOL!---Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
Oh, no, young WILLIAM. I took THIS as defense after you ACTUALLY READ what MARKHIMMLER has posted and STILL thought it might be "out of context" or I was "selectively editing" his support of the HOLOCAUST!!!!---
Five Questions for Clinton---Posted by Ari Berman at 11/06/2007 @ 3:12pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 09:11am
Uh, WILL....this is a post from MARKCANYON. Please tell us what he's saying?
BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 5:23pm Prison Reformers Finally Set Free by Matthew Blake
"For one bright moment that came to view well enough in Europe when there were no people of color to confuse the picture. Then the right people, for once, were locked up, and put on Death Row, and sent to gas chamber. For a short moment the picture was clear and honest folks knew what to do."----Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 1:15pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:39am
What thread is the whole post on cumbuckets. We can't have you selectively editing other peoples words as just another way to make them up now can we?-----Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 09:59am
Congrats, WILL...in your zeal to oppose EVERYTHING I post...you've just cut some slack for....a Nazi!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/06/2007 @ 7:36pm
Jonah Goldberg is the bastard child of a publicity mongering whore.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/07/2007 @ 2:51pm
Poor LUVVY, he must attack the source at all times. Too bad the group in question is capitalist in nature and does not have any 70 year old links to the American Socialist movement, or he really could have gone to town.
Abstinence education doesn't work: report Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:53pm BST
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Rueters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only education programs meant to teach children to avoid sex until marriage failed to control their sexual behavior, according to a U.S. government report.
Teenagers who took part in the programs as elementary and middle school students were just as likely to have sex as those who did not take part in them, the survey found.
The report, ordered by Congress, was not released by the Health and Human Services Department, but by activists and by California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's office. An HHS spokeswoman did not answer a request for a comment.
The report revived the debate on government abstinence-only education programs, which are strongly supported by the administration of President George W. Bush.
"For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years," says the report, available on the Internet at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/index.htm.
and...
updated 8:53 a.m. PT, Tues., July. 5, 2005 CHICAGO - A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.
The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics' updated teen pregnancy policy.
"Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy," said Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the academy committee that wrote the new recommendations.
Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said counseling only abstinence, preferably until marriage, is the best approach because it sends a clear, consistent message. Teenagers who are sexually active should have access to contraception, but making birth control available to teens who aren't sends a contradictory message, he said.
Which means the advice given by the head of HHS in 05 is contradicted by a study done by the same guvt in 2007, yet, for some reason, withheld from the public. Now, why oh why would they do that?
economist.com:
Last month Dr Underhill published a review of 13 trials involving 16,000 young people in America. The trials compared the sexual behaviour of those given an abstinence-only education with that of those who were provided with no information at all or with whatever their schools normally taught. Pregnancies were as numerous in both groups. Sexually transmitted diseases were as widespread. The number of sexual partners was equally high and unprotected sex just as common.
Having thus discredited abstinence-only teaching, Dr Underhill and her colleagues decided to evaluate the slightly more complicated message of "abstinence-plus" using 39 trials that involved 38,000-odd young people from the United States, Canada and the Bahamas. Their results are published in the current issue of Public Library of Science Medicine.
This tuition--compared, as before, with whatever biology classes and playgrounds provide--reduced the number of pregnancies in three out of seven trials (the remaining four recorded no difference). Four out of 13 trials found that abstinence-plus-educated teenagers had fewer sexual partners, while the remainder showed no change. Fourteen studies reported that it increased condom use; 12 others reported no difference. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, abstinence-plus participants knew more about AIDS and HIV (the virus that causes the disease) than their peers did. And the tuition often reduced the frequency of anal sex (which brings a greater chance of passing on HIV than the vaginal option). In contrast to the fears of the protagonists of abstinence-only education, not one of the trials found that teenagers behaved in a riskier fashion in either the long or the short term after receiving abstinence-plus instruction
that's your money going to yet another failed program, cons.
go figure.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 11/07/2007 @ 2:51pm
but he is not blinded by any ideology, like the people at AP.
(snicker, guffaw)
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 3:19pm
Mask you cannot see the forest for the trees. I am sure Will wouldn't have minded impeaching Bush/Cheney back in May. He was being facetious or realist or who knows. You are just nit picking. It is apparently pretty entertaining for you though so it's all good.
LVLib: the church population is not representative of society as a whole. That's great that kids who are into God and religion are less likely to have sex at an early age according to the stats. How about the rest of the country? Here's a good idea! Let's teach abstinence only in Africa!
Posted by Waltz at 11/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by WALTZ 11/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
WALTZ....WILL is sticking to his guns on impeachment---
"really, like how how you thought I was suddenly for impeachment LOL!"----Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 4:05pm
Hmm. That must be on a different thread. Touche.
Posted by Waltz at 11/07/2007 @ 4:11pm
Posted by WALTZ 11/07/2007 @ 4:11pm
Well, you've got to understand...WILL has quantifiers and "issues" that tend to work against him-
1. His youth. Not much out of his teens. He's like Beavis AND Butt-head on this blog.
2. His tendency to fire off his mouth (i.e. hit Submit) and not with typos, but with comments that come back to bite him in the butt like "Hillary is a liberal after all" (Posted by WILL C. 02/24/2007 @ 11:17am) or "Voting for war is part of the Liberal Agenda" (Posted by WILL C. 04/02/2007 @ 12:03am) as defense of HRC.
3. His ODD determination (by means that ONLY WILL knows and won't reveal) that I am a female and that female-oriented put-downs are the way to go with his ad hominems.
and of course, 4. He has only ONE joke...conservatives are "hamsters". Which was funny the first 2500 times...heheh.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 4:37pm
So what game are they playing? My own guess is that they were persuaded some time ago by excessively cautious political consultants that an impeachment effort would be unpopular. Now, finding that to be incorrect, they do not know how to reverse themselves gracefully.
Posted by ROBGO2 11/07/2007 @ 12:12am | ignore this person
How about this premise. We don't give a shit about the Constitution, what we care about is getting the executive branch in 2009 so we can redistribute taxpayers' wealth to our buddies. The constant reminder of Bush and Cheney (remember Hillary and Nancy keep bitching but do nothing) will ensure that the Dem candidate looks more favorable. Of course don't forget the old adage: "there go I but for the grace of God."
Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2007 @ 6:07pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 4:37pm
Well, you've got to understand...WILL has quantifiers and "issues" that tend to work against him-
1. His youth. Not much out of his teens. He's like Beavis AND Butt-head on this blog.
ah, the credibilty of cumbuckets.. I'm 45
2. His tendency to fire off his mouth (i.e. hit Submit) and not with typos, but with comments that come back to bite him in the butt like "Hillary is a liberal after all" (Posted by WILL C. 02/24/2007 @ 11:17am) or "Voting for war is part of the Liberal Agenda" (Posted by WILL C. 04/02/2007 @ 12:03am) as defense of HRC.
and again on the credibility of cumbuckets. My positions are consistent. As is her confusion about them
3. His ODD determination (by means that ONLY WILL knows and won't reveal) that I am a female and that female-oriented put-downs are the way to go with his ad hominems.
cumbuckets, you're a girl.. at least physically. Though I'm starting to think that there might be other personalities floating around in your skull.
and of course, 4. He has only ONE joke...conservatives are "hamsters". Which was funny the first 2500 times...heheh.
a termite entered a bar, looked around for a moment and shouted out, where's the bar tender
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 6:16pm
I love this shit
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 6:16pm
Congrats, WILL...in your zeal to oppose EVERYTHING I post...you've just cut some slack for....a Nazi!
LOL!
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 2:22pm
Canyon never said anything about national socialism or adolf hitler cumbuckets. Why is he a neo-nazi again? He's got a problem with jews?
That criteria would make the entire evangelic church neo-nazi
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 6:36pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 6:36pm
How about calling the Holocaust "a bright moment", WILL?
Or do you think he's a Stalinist with Nazi sympathies?
Either way....you had to stand up for him against ...me, huh?
BTW....you're 45?!?!!!?!? Geez, I guess you only SEEM like you're just out of your teens, huh?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 7:31pm
ITMFA!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 8:20pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:31pm
and you only seem like you are a teenage girl playing "telephone".
"JOMA, Frank likes hillary, what are you going to make out of that!!".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/07/2007 @ 8:23pm
Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2007 @ 8:23pm
Well, I'm not popping off Granny Crab from the life-support, to pay for my universal health care plan!
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 9:23pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 7:31pm
How about calling the Holocaust "a bright moment", WILL?
it's anti-semetic
Or do you think he's a Stalinist with Nazi sympathies?
no, I think he's anti-semetic
Either way....you had to stand up for him against ...me, huh?
you were full of shit... as usual
BTW....you're 45?!?!!!?!? Geez, I guess you only SEEM like you're just out of your teens, huh?
cool, another example of how you're a pathological liar. You make this way too easy for me cumbuckets.
heheh
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 11:03pm
Posted by USC1 11/07/2007 @ 2:06pm
Actually, IBD printed a series of articles on media bias 2-3 years ago. It focused on the elections since 2000, not including the current one (obviously). The results were fairly consistent with the Harvard study printed above.
The IBD articles were editorial. They cited studies with much different methodologies than the one above - such as polling journalists regarding their voting behavior, a study regarding media coverage of think tanks and the number of mentions of those same think tanks in Congress, among others.
Each of these studies are deeply flawed. The two above for instance assume that journalists have significant control over the stories they cover and the second is built on a number of dubious assumptions, like this correlation is not only statistically significant but is useful in measuring bias.
What I personally find interesting is that IBD didn't bother to address the 800 pound gorilla that is the book called Manufacturing Consent. You'll recall that the general thesis of that book is that: media is heavily dependent upon establishment, government sources of information; media is run by corporations that have incentives to put profits over information quality; selection bias is introduced by advertising being the major funding behind the media; influences of the powerful to shape the discourse by agenda setting and discrediting (see Plame as an example) that make it very difficult to levy particular kinds of criticism; and fear introduced in the form of anti-X (where X is some scary ideology such as communism, drugs, terrorism, petty dictators, Islamo-fascists or what have you).
This is perhaps the seminal book on media studies - and IBD doesn't bring it into the discussion? Why is that you think?
Maybe think about the propaganda model - Who owns IBD? Who are its advertisers? Where are they getting their information from? Why did they fail to mention important studies counter to their thesis?
I think you'll find, if you honestly evaluate it, that it is a great example of the very problems the propaganda model predicts.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/07/2007 @ 11:57pm
Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 9:23pm
Gran doesn't mind. She barely struggled.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2007 @ 08:00am