Cindy Sheehan is Putting Impeachment on the Table

Does anyone seriously doubt that one of the reasons why a House Judiciary Committee hearing will at least discuss the "I" word on Friday is Cindy Sheehan's independent challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

Pelosi, famously, took impeachment "off the table" just before the 2006 election.

Then, this month, she edged it back on the menu – suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might take up the matter of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to impeach the president for using deception to draw the nation into an illegal and immoral war.

Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who has never made any secret of his desire to address the imperial reach of the Bush-Cheney presidency – especially on matters of war and peace – jumped at the chance to schedule the hearing. A two-hour session, at which the "i" word will be discussed openly by advocates such as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, is scheduled for Friday.

Though the hearing is unlikely to evolve into the full-fledged inquiry that many of us believe necessary, it is remarkable that in the summer of a presidential election year the key committee in a chamber where impeachment was supposed to be off the table will turn its attention to the tool that the founders afforded the legislative branch for constraining the executive.

Why is this happening now?

It is worth noting that this is petition-gathering season for independent candidates running in California. Sheehan, the mother of a slain Iraq War soldier who turned her grief into activism, and her supporters are busy collecting the 10,198 signatures that will be needed to get her name on the ballot.

Sheehan -- echoing the sentiments of the millions of Americans who believe that it if it is wrong for a Republican administration to abuse the Constitution then it is just as wrong for Democratic leaders to refuse to defend the document's principles -- has made presidential accountability a central issue of her independent campaign in a city that has already overwhelmingly endorsed an impeachment initiative.

Indeed, Sheehan announced that she would challenge the speaker after it became clear – after President Bush commuted White House aide Scooter Libby's prison sentence last summer -- that Pelosi was blocking consideration of impeachment by the House.

Local media has focused on Sheehan's advocacy for impeachment, noting this spring when she filed initial paperwork for her candidacy that the woman who has been referred to as "the Rose Parks of the anti-war movement" had decided to run because "seeing George Bush impeached would be a victory for humanity."

Sheehan is a realist. She admits that her candidacy is "an uphill battle."

But she has drawn significant television, radio and newspaper coverage in San Francisco, as well as endorsements from the local Green and Peace and Freedom parties and local officials such as the president of the city's school board and plan commission. She has raised more than $100,000 for the campaign, attracted an energetic team of volunteers. And, now, as those volunteers hit the streets to collect the signatures to put Sheehan's name on the ballot, Pelosi is suddenly showing some flexibility – the key word being "some" – with regard to the impeachment discussion.

No matter how many votes she gets in November, give Cindy Sheehan credit for opening up the debate – not just in San Francisco but in Washington.

Comments (48)

1. they can talk all they want.

   there is no way they will get the 2/3 majority in the senate to convict.

   the only impeaching will be done mr. karma.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:17pm

2. actually,

   your nation deserves to see bush et al. impeached.

   alas.................

   hey, let's go to the mall!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 11:00pm

3. It's people like Cindy Sheehan that we should be voting into office. What has Pelosi done so far except stand by and watch Bush butcher the Constitution and become more personally wealthy? Wake up, America. We're in serious trouble. Cindy Sheehan is not a "loon", she is not our problem. Repeatedly voting for people like Bush and Pelosi is our problem.

   Posted by 2PartyRegime at 07/24/2008 @ 12:30am

4. Hey, "2PartyRegime," did you know that San Francisco is one of the few cities in the USA that have Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)?

   They've already had three elections using IRV in San Francisco, with no problems. You'll notice that Cindy Sheehan's endorsements from her own home town look different from those that are likely to come from most other home towns. According to John Nichols, '[s]he has drawn significant television, radio and newspaper coverage in San Francisco, as well as endorsements from the local Green and Peace and Freedom parties.'

   Support from third parties like these may not seem like much in most cities, but in San Francisco, any one of these parties has a fair chance to defeat Democrats and Republicans. Is there a Green, Peace, or Freedom Party near you? Does it have any chance to win in local elections? It DOES in San Francisco! It also does in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of Harvard University, where they've been quietly using IRV for years. IRV is also being implemented in Minneapolis, MN, and my dear home of Saint Paul may not be far behind.

   Of course, there's no IRV in elections for our House of Representatives, which means that Sheehan is taking a big risk running against Pelosi. With IRV, there'd be no risk at all, only pure added political competition, which would force triangulating Democrats like Pelosi to learn some higher geometry.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/24/2008 @ 01:28am

5. san francisco is indeed an area third partiers could work on and possibly take. third parties, if they are serious and dedicated enough should absolutely forget about the presidency any time soon. at the best all it serves them for is to get some publicity.

   some day a dedicated few third partiers will put it together and take some localities...i guess...

   but...

   i gotta say...

   yeah there are indeed some systemic issues that conspire against third parties (including the two major parties) but there is also the fact that many third partiers are some combination of slack, wack, coffee shop, bong smoke, prophet philosophers who love to talk and complain and bitch a HELL of a lot more than they love busting their asses to actually accomplish something.

   but look...

   i hate it, but...

   no impeachment. no problem with the rabid crusading boy scout, denny, and friends pushing it, keeping it on the table. thats fine with me. in fact, i hope they keep it up, til inaugeration day if they want.

   and good luck to cindy. pelosi is definately one of the dems who could use a fire under her ass so...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 02:06am

6. Reality check: Cindy Sheehan is a bitter old woman, and impeachment doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

   You may now go back to your regularly scheduled kool-aid swilling.

   Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:23am

7. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled kool-aid swilling.

   Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

   well i'm sure not swillin any of your brand of shroom kool-aid.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 03:03am

8. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 10:34pm |

   1: Reagans Legal counsel is a loon? Interesting. I thought Reagan was some ind of hero to you cons, surely he would not have hired Fein if he was a lefty loon.

   2: Think back to your youth, before hearings were held on Nixons crimes, "only the loons" thought he was impeachable. Eventually even your boy Phred Thompson had to come around to the truth.

   3: What do you have against holding hearings where everyone will get their day in sunshine? If they have nothing to fear...?

   -------

   Pontificus writing of Kool-aid is akin to Saddam Hussein talking about the crimes of Iran. Ponti, do you have any more "experts" to rely on, say someone without the facts who just "knows" that Libby didn't break any laws, but was convicted by a democratic witch hunt lead by republican appointees?

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 03:47am

9. Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 03:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

   is it just me or is that "koolaid" non-sequiter crap really getting on your nerves too?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 03:53am

10. Loons...

    [Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Contributing Editor of National Review, writes:

    The Democrats could easily impeach both Bush and Dick Cheney in the House, as impeachment only requires a majority vote. They could not convict in the Senate without Republican support, as conviction requires ratification by two-thirds of senators present. Nevertheless, a House vote for impeachment would take the wind out of the sails of war, save countless lives and perhaps even save humanity from nuclear holocaust.]

    [BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want -- I don't need to consult any other branches -- that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

    NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.]

    Bush admitted he broke the law, got congress to create a retroactive clause granting immunity to companies that broke the law, when will the "law and order" conservatives realize that breaking the law is against the law, and a violation of bush's oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION?

    Or, does ideology trump the constitution for those that believe in a static constitution?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 03:56am

11. Cindy Shehan's bitterness is not the issue. Bush and Cheney are not the issue. The issue is whether or not there are enough people with the courage to stand up and stop our slide toward totalitarian government before it's too late. Impeachment would be the best means to put the brakes on this imperial presidency that's been developing for a long time. If this isn't at least seriously discussed we should reasonably expect to have an ever more authoritarian government until all of our basic inherent rights are usurped by ever more powerful government officials. Wake up and read the writing on the walls.

    Posted by louisrue at 07/24/2008 @ 03:58am

12. Now if Chimpy had lied about sex, or hid some travel documents, then the cons would be up in arms just like they were when Clinton was a war criminal.

    I mean really! Lying about sex is so much more dangerous to us than the president using the national security machinery to spy on Quakers, kidnapping people and having them tortured by Syria, running secret gulags in Romania and running up a trillion dollar tab with communist regimes.

    What's the point of being a patriot if you don't let your king do whatever he wants?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 08:03am

13. Posted by louisrue at 07/24/2008 @ 03:58am

    If President Obama wants to wiretap Right to Life, he will be able to. If he wants to detain Dobson, he will be able to.

    So say the neo-cons.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 08:06am

14. good points CRAB.

    i wish the dems had at least given it a shot. but most had naught of the nads...

    this feels like discussing for years the big game your favorite sports team lost because of a lamebrained coaching call and blew the championship...

    its just not happening and i guess there is indeed merit in weeping and gnashing of teeth, but...

    still no impeachment.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 08:08am

15. Yeah, sorry Mr Nichols to sound like the right-wingers or even my buddy FROSTY but...

    give it up already.

    Cindy Sheehan has NOTHING to do with Pelosi throwing some "red meat" to guys like you FOUR MONTHS BEFORE the 2008 election, in the form of a "Judiciary Committee hearing".

    She's ALSO said she will STILL not put impeachment on the table. It's just about "catalogueing the offenses of this Administration"....in other words, just some fodder for the election, but that's it.

    As for Sheehan and her bid for Pelosi's seat....who cares?

    She'll pick up a few points, but Pelosi will still win by 60-65% over her and her Republican challenger.

    Then in 2010, Sheehan's cause will be gone and Pelosi will win by 65-70%....and Pelosi knows all that.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:05am

16. I'm a democrat.----Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 09:17am

    So who, as a "democrat" are you voting for for President?

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 09:21am

    Keith Olberman merely pulled the UN-edited interview with McCain and Katie Couric, where McCain said Colonel (now General) McFarlane said the Anbar Awakening occured AFTER the surge...it didn't and McFarlane said it didn't.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:32am

17. BTW, FRANK....

    heard any good jokes lately?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:33am

18. Impeachment - versus - Dic'tatorship

    Impeachment happens-- dic'tatorship over. No impeachment, we've got a dic'tatorship.

    Uhmmmm.

    The GOP new con repubs 'were' hoping that Obama would pull a 'Fred Thompson'-- only to be dismayed to learn that it's McCave doing one 'worse' than a "Thompson". McCave is now pulling "McCaves"... can't even remember his lines.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 09:49am

19. I'm a democrat.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 09:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now please, let's talk about something more important like how Barack Obama disrespects our troops and refuses to give them credit for their success with the surge.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

    how in heaven hell or gods green earth can you say obama disrespects the troops? you say you are a democrat but sound EXACTLY like a republican.

    how exactly is obama disrespecting the troops?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 10:15am

20. the SURGE indeed APPEARS to have helped. yay! just as mr obama said, surely more troops on the ground, well led, will result in more/better security.

    but the claim that the surge alone is responsible for the relative improvements is not a non sequiter statement of undeniable veracity.

    apparantly other outside actors have been at work here. perhaps the iraqis are weary of this hell. perhaps most of them want us out so bad they are settling down some in hope that we go home and elect not to make them our protectorate for the next 50 years.

    if iraq is incapable of avoiding chaos and disaster without 150,000 US troops...

    well i'm sorry - we still shouldn't be there. thats not nation building - thats occupation and imperialism.

    not MY war, not MY president, not in the mood to have my tax money poored into the black hole of baghdad for anything remotely resembling forever.

    here's how we "lose". we continue trying to fix our fuckup until we screw it up even more and become little more than an imperialistic occupying resource grubbing foreign bully.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2008 @ 10:41am

21. It's been 7 years of Shock and Awe. shock at seeing Bush elected, selected. Awe and depression with all that has followed. How has all of this happened to us? I know there was a great deal of uncertainty, and fear of the unknown after 911. I know that people tend to cower for mental comfort in times of stress. So who is to blame? If you are looking for the reason why things have gotten so out of control concerning our Constitution and the collapse of the Rule of Law in America you need only look in the mirror. We have allowed this to happen because the majority are afraid to stand up and say what they know in their hearts of justice and right and wrong. We listen daily to the lies and hate mongering called news and entertainment. Those who divide us with their daily syndicated routines of official talking points and scape goating do so because we allow them to. Political correctness has silenced the spontaneous reactions which in the past has served the nation so well. Now you think, before you speak, how whatever you may have to say will reflect on your own image. While not being willing to labels others for what they are, you also shun any labeling of yourself for fear of reprisal. While you demand change you are a coward to be pointed out as a trouble maker. remaining silent instead and hoping another will do what you should have, or could be doing. Cindy Sheehan has lost everything, her son, her marriage, her privacy, but she has her dignity, she has the knowledge that what she is fighting for is worth the effort. Raise her up ! Elect her ! There will come a time when everyone will know that the action required is at hand. when that time comes let us all stand together and do what is necessary to Save this Republic and the Constitution that was meant to guide it.

    Posted by VeeVendetta at 07/24/2008 @ 11:14am

22. What time is Conyer's hearing tomorrow? What TV channel? TIA for info....

    Posted by SecondOpinion at 07/24/2008 @ 11:35am

23. At that point, the Democrats discarded her like a used Presidential intern/sperm receptacle.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 09:03am

    Or a "fat" first wife who was injured in a car accident?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 11:55am

24. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/24/2008 @ 11:04am

    Well, less racist than the ones FG comes up with...but just as un-funny.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 11:56am

25. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new poll released Thursday shows overwhelming support from Latinos for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters, the nationwide Pew Hispanic Center poll found, is at 66 percent versus 23 percent favoring McCain.

    Obama's "strong showing in this survey represents a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries, when Obama lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton by a margin of nearly 2-to-1," according to Pew Hispanic Center associate director Mark Hugo Lopez. Obama's favorability among Latinos is slightly up from a Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May, which showed Obama with 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain.

    On Super Tuesday, Obama received only 38 percent of the Latino vote, while former rival Sen. Clinton received 58 percent, according to CNN exit polling.

    Only 8 percent said they are likely to vote for the presumptive GOP presidential candidate.

    "He now appears to be even more popular than Hillary Clinton among Latinos," Lopez said.

    http://tinyurl.com/55rs9x

    Doesn't that mean that 15% of the Latino's that like McCave-- won't ever vote for McCave!?!?!

    Wow, now that gots to hurt.

    Apparently Latinos appreciate real good articulation...

    And GOP new con repubs depreciate real good articles of impeachment...

    I see the symmetry.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:35pm

26. BTW, been a while...how about a Classic FRANK Prediction From the Past (and Tooting His Own Horn Post as well)?

    "Sorry, but I'm looking ahead to the contest of Clinton vs. McCain. That is the way this is going to play out. If you knew what I know, you'd agree."--------Posted by frankgrits at 02/07/2008 @ 3:28pm

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 1:05pm

27. When the nixon hearings started quite a few people thought there was nothing there either,but they were proved wrong. I wonder who would be todays "deep throat"

    Posted by eniobob at 07/24/2008 @ 1:26pm

28. Apparently Latinos appreciate real good articulation.....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 12:35 pm

    That should be: really good articulation...... save the adverb

    Posted by zeotrope at 07/24/2008 @ 1:43pm

29. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Actually some are saying the opposite. Just like JFK, Raygun, etc., once the electorate get to know Obama better like they do McCave, BAM-- a massive turn to Obama.

    Four other polls:

    "With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters, (add hispanic here too) Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 - 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today. "

    NBC/WSJ: "Obama 47, McCain 41"

    "Democrat Barack Obama has a 7-point lead on Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race, and holds a small edge on the crucial question of who would best manage the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday."

    CBS/NY TIMES: "Democrat Barack Obama now holds a six-point edge over his Republican rival John McCain, leading 45% to 39%. But more voters now than last month are undecided, and more than one in four who express a candidate choice could still change their minds."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:59pm

30. Posted by zeotrope at 07/24/2008 @ 1:43pm

    Not obviously ironic enough-- huh.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 2:03pm

31. I wonder who would be todays "deep throat"

    Posted by eniobob at 07/24/2008 @ 1:26pm

    Monica Lewinsky?

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 2:03pm

    Ok, like this is way way too easy to ridicule...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 2:06pm

32. MaBrBr could've said someone somewhat more current like maybe Jeff Gannon or Larry Craig-- but no, true to form as to where a happier today is for an avoidance ridden new con repub...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 2:15pm

33. Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 2:14pm

    It be interesting to look at the polls for JFK and Raygun leading up to their November. Or even Jimmy C., 1st Bill C.; I'd gather it'd be the same type trend if it's a non-familiar face versus an established one. Close lead, then trounce.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 2:22pm

34. Impeachment will never happen.

    What I think is interesting though is, most of the right on this site are so absolutely sure that Bush is innocent. Yet when the concept of impeachment comes up they get all up in arms saying he shouldn't have to do it. If he is innocent. Then he will be found innocent. He has nothing to worry about being brought in front of a court. At most the only thing that will happen is Congress will find out that he is not guilty of anything and that everything was to code. So, nothing to worry about right? Right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 2:32pm

35. He should have a much bigger lead by now.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 2:28pm

    True no internet, but also back then there wasn't a bigger lock on the mass woos media, no Faux Woos.

    Bottom line-- Obama 'is' ahead. In a month Obama should be further ahead.

    By November if Obama isn't beating McCave by a larger margin, then one might have a point.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 2:56pm

36. He should have a much bigger lead by now. Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 2:28pm

    Why?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 2:59pm

37. Don'y worry. If Hillary isn't given the VP spot, B.O. is toast, (not a racist remark, Mask. Don't cry).

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 1:46pm

    FRANK, neither is true....and if you knew what I knew, you'd agree!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 3:34pm

38. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 3:31pm

    The reason I don't trust that, if you have been paying attention this election cycle when have the pundits EVER been right. They are like weathermen locked in a building with no windows and no doppler. They have been consistently wrong this whole election cycle. So why now does their opinion matter?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:06pm

39. Oh remember. These are the same pundits who said Hillary was inevitably going to be President.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:07pm

40. An Error -

    As of July 22, 2008, Dede Miller, sister of Cindy Sheehan, told me that the campaign had earned $250,000 (not $100K as this piece says).

    For more details, please see my Interview with Cindy Sheehan published July 23, 2008

    First Featured story at:

    www.axisoflogic.com

    or direct link: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_27718.shtml

    Cathy Garger

    Posted by CathyGarger at 07/24/2008 @ 5:38pm

41. Well, I think Susan Estrich is someone with real credibility since she was campaign manager for Michael Dukakis. I would think that makes her someone with fairly good insights into a campaign. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:37pm

    Yeah but it's not credibility I am judging on. I think they just aren't able to predict this one. Since the beginning this whole campaign cycle has been unpredictable. Everyone thought it would be Hillary versus Guliani. Now it is Obama vs. McCain.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:06pm

42. Well, that's true, if they are captured on foreign soil bearing arms against US troops with other terrorists and illegal combatants. And I'm 100% in favor of those efforts if they are. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 08:46am |

    One day you'll start paying attention. Chimpy admitted spying on thousands of American citizens, illegally. Are you saying all of those thousand are terrorists? Or are they guilty till proven innocent?

    do you remember a dude called Eric Rudolph?

    [ "Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American terrorist[2][3][4][5][6][improper synthesis?][neutrality disputed] who committed a series of bombings across the southern United States which killed three people and injured at least 150 others. He declared that his bombings were part of a guerrilla campaign against abortion and what he describes as "the homosexual agenda." He spent years as the FBI's most wanted criminal fugitive, but was eventually caught. In 2005 Rudolph pleaded guilty to numerous federal and state homicide charges and accepted five consecutive life sentences in exchange for avoiding a trial and the death penalty. Rudolph was connected with the Christian Identity movement;[3] today, he self-identifies as a Catholic, and although he has denied that his crimes were religiously or racially motivated[7], Rudolph has also called himself a Roman Catholic at war over abortion[5]."]

    so, according to your paranoia, abortion opponents, Catholics and CI adherents should be wiretapped. This could be broadened to anybody that has any connection to racists and anybody that has made racist statements. Any members of militia groups should be under surveillance. Even anybody that has a grudge and turns in someone for a bounty. These are similar connections to what you have allowed.

    People have been killed for being associated with abortion providers, that is terrorism. By YOUR standards associates of anti-abortion groups should be wiretapped and if found on foreign soil, detained and subject to harsh interrogation. We are at war, all over the world, 9/11 changed everything, as did Oklahoma and the death of Matthew Shepherd.

    this is the slippery slope you are lathering up.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 9:39pm

43. {According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.

    ...The first letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting, and since then, there have been a total of 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers.

    According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[8] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.]

    Wikipedia

    Looks like duck, waddles like duck, bottom feeds like duck, might be terrorism.

    best to err on the side of caution, and utilize the powers of the Unitary Executive to wiretap any that have connections to suspect organizations. Right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2008 @ 9:45pm

44. That should be: really good articulation...... save the adverb

    Posted by zeotrope at 07/24/2008 @ 1:43pm

    poor adverb; dying so fastly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/24/2008 @ 10:56pm

45. "Local media has focused on Sheehan's advocacy for impeachment, noting this spring when she filed initial paperwork for her candidacy that the woman who has been referred to as 'the Rose Parks of the anti-war movement'"

    Ummm ... who's "Rose" Parks? Any relation to RosA Parks?

    Posted by blf112761 at 07/24/2008 @ 11:41pm

46. But the question was, "who would be today's 'deep throat'?"

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 2:59pm

    And you said Monica L.

    Now how much stupider is that.

    I'd say by about twice, at least.

    BTW, you seem to have a lot of, er, intimate knowledge of specific positions and preferences of Larry and Jeff...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 12:24am

47. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). July 18-21, 2008. N=1,003 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all registered voters).

    "If the next election for president were held today, and John McCain were the Republican candidate and Barack Obama were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?"

    Date______McCain__Obama__Other/Unsure

    7/18-21/08 ____ 41_____47______12

    4/25-28/08____43_____46______11

    And that isn't the widest margin:

    "Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 - 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today." 7/8-13/08

    So I'm still very suspicious of the new MSM spin that McCave is even with Obama. I think the MSM want to create entertainment woos.

    It'll be another 3-5 days to record polling on how well Obama's tour played in the states.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 12:39am

48. Vee Vendetta, congratulations! Finally, it is starting to dawn on people how destructive so-called "political correctness" is to society. It started in an effort to hold down the vicious use of cruel names that are demeaning - the B, C, S, and N words come to mind, as well as common adjectives, e.g. "fat," "dumb," "retarded," and "crippled." But in a classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, political correctness has been used quite effectively by malefactors to avoid the sharp arrows of truth that may be delivered in blunt language. It is now considered crude and antisocial to seem overly judgmental. The press has been cowed to the point of treating every dispute as a "he said, she said" controversy in a ridiculous effort at "fairness." Let's hope someday plain speaking can return.

    Posted by jsens at 07/26/2008 @ 11:54am