What, Then, From Newfane?

posted by John Nichols on 03/07/2006 @ 1:27pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (97)

Subscribe Now

It is appropriate indeed that the first time voters will be offered an opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether to impeach President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors is at a New England town meeting in a community chartered two years before the Declaration of Independence was drafted.

After all, in a country founded on the principle that executives -- be they kings or presidents -- must be accountable to the people, patriots have always known that, as George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, told the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?"

In Newfane, Vermont, Dan DeWalt, who serves as an elected member of the town's Select Board, has answered that question as Mason intended. "We have an immoral government operating illegally," DeWalt explained, when he proposed that today's annual town meeting vote on articles of impeachment.

DeWalt gathered the necessary signatures to qualify the measure for consideration by the residents of Newfane, who were set to gather today in the southeast Vermont community's 174-year-old Union Hall to consider more than two dozen issues, most of which involve local taxes.

It is Article 29, proposed by DeWalt, that will draw national attention for the first time to the town meetings that have been held each march since 1774 in Newfane.

That article declares:

We the voters of Newfane would like Town Meeting, March 2006, to consider the following resolution:

Whereas George W. Bush has:

1. Misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;

2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda;

3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;

4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and

5. Has directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.

The defenders of the current regime have already ridiculed DeWalt for his audacious proposal, just as they have ridiculed the voters of Newfane for considering it -- and the state of Vermont for being home to so rebellious a community. "Why should the most powerful man in the world worry about what Vermont voters say at a town meeting?" they ask, in mocking tones. "Who do these profaners from Newfane think they are?"

But mockey and condemnation have always been the portion served up to those patriots who dare to challenge the corruptions of empire.

It was not easy to challenge a King George 230.

It is not easy to challenge a King George today.

But even the most conservative of the founders, Gouverneur Morris, told the Constitutional Convention during the debate on impeachment that a president must always be conscious of his secondary role in the scheme of the new Republic.

"This Magistrate is not the King," explained Morris. "The people are the King."

Today, the people of Newfane are King. As such, they are well suited to judge the high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush, and to propose his prosecution by the authorities who were charged by the founders with the task of checking and balancing the executive branch of governnment and its excesses.

Comments (97)

Today, it must be said, the corporations are king. it is their bidding that is done in the halls of congress and the white house. the will of the people is thwarted. the corporations spread money around and their reps are now writing legislation that would regulate them. everything else is just nostalgia

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/07/2006 @ 1:32pm
Power to the Peoples Republic of Vermont, why child rapists are given refuge and light sentences and socialists can be make a strong run for the Senate.

Silly Vermonters.

On a related subject, i was able to catch some of the C-SPAN broadcast on "Impeachment Fourum of Bush."

I will admit it was hilarious to see the FAR Left panel, ie REP Conyers, Nation writer Holtzman, and John Dean from Watergate fame, spar and become agitated with their audience who were on the FAR, FAR, FAR, Left.

All is well in the Land of the Liberal OZ.

As the de facto spokesmen for the LEFT, Clooney, says:

"I am proud to be out of touch!"

Posted by CPT at 03/07/2006 @ 1:52pm
why for Where

Posted by CPT at 03/07/2006 @ 1:53pm
Only in Vermont! Yes, it's sadly amusing to read about these feeble attempts at upholding the rule of law and the rules of democracy. However brave this attempt at preserving some kind of political decency might be, it has already failed. This president will never be impeached. He would sooner declare martial law and crown himself emperor than be held to account for his crimes.

Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/07/2006 @ 1:55pm
What does Mr Nichols hope to accomplish with these articles....first San Fran, now Newfane, VT?!?!?!?

Yet it was noted in his first article on how the San Francisco City Council pushed an impeachment resolution through...that NANCY PELOSI backed away from it.

Now...if Dems win the US House (where bills of impeachment must orginate, as we all remember from the LAST time)....who would be Speaker of the House?

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 2:03pm
Four posts and no quip from MASK yet?

Tell you what MASK, I'll save you the effort:

"So ... if the resolutions of Madison, Wisconsin and the San Francisco City Council did not scare the White House, I am SURE that SE Vermont's impeachment demand is sending shockwaves ... and no doubt will lead to ANOTHER unofficial hearing in the basement led by Rep. Conyers ... with a TOTAL of 10 members of Congress attending."

hehe

;)

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm
Oops, 2 minutes too late

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm
The nation's independence began with a small 'tea party" for King George of 230 years ago.

Perhaps the nation's new independence movement will begin with the small impeachment resolutions passed in San Francisco, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

The responses of Mask and CPT reflect their fear of the coming impeachment of George W. Bush. But before impeachment, we must rid the nation of the Republican public policy prostitutes working in the U.S. Congress; they are selling themselves and U.S. public policy to the highest bidder.

Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/07/2006 @ 2:33pm
Or, as the conservawonks will happily put it in no ironic terms... "Who would've thought that democratic actions could occur in a democracy?"

Posted by Megido at 03/07/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

Seems we're BOTH a little slow today....hehe.

But your mockery of my mockery aside, what GOOD does this do?...really?

Pelosi's back-pedalling away from the SF City Council resolution should be pretty telling (if her constant avoidance of John Conyers infamous "hearings" weren't). She and Reid aren't going to WASTE TIME on impeachment (a bomb for Republicans in 1999, and would be similiarly for Dems), when they have less than 18 months to prove to the American people that they can be "trusted with power again after 12 years".

And I've seen NO time-line, chronology, or scenario yet that lays out EXACTLY HOW Bush will be impeached....without a Senate (which just re-enacted the Patriot Act 94-5, passed on an Alito filibuster, and has been dubbed by liberals HERE as 50% "Republican-lite" on the Democratic side) having a TRIAL!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 2:37pm
Posted by ORAIBI1952 03/07/2006 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person

As noted above, ORAIB

Please lay out a general time-line for post-November on how and WHEN a "Democratic US House" impeaches George W. Bush and he is removed from office by the US Senate by impeachment trial?

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 2:38pm
Hey a group of my buddies are going to get together and vote to remove every democrat in Congress---Will that get an article from Johnny Nichols? Our vote has exactly the same meaning as the vote in Newfane, San Francisco, and Madison---NONE.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 2:39pm
Mask:

SF, Madison, Newfane ... everyone is just doing what they can, doing what they think is right, without maybe regarding how it will "play out" in the end, or trying to be results oriented. Maybe it is just small steps in your mind, with little consequence, but at some point all of these little steps add up to a broader consensus.

Given the poll numbers on how the public feels about a possible impeachment (more than 50%-pro in the latest Zogby poll on both the spying issue and Iraq), it's disingenuine to call this "extremist" or "fringe." If we get a Dem House in 2006 but GOP Senate, maybe the Senate will not convict if the House brings impeachment proceedings - but that is not the House's hunt. Sure, everyone wants to be aligned with a winner, but someone has to step up and be first.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 2:59pm
HMAN

Two points from your own post...

1. "a possible impeachment (more than 50%-pro in the latest Zogby poll on both the spying issue and Iraq)....key phrase "possible" and based on Zogby asking loaded questions that ASSUME a preponderous of evidence (not easily refuted by Bush, his legal counsels, and Right Wing Media) can prove him guilty to that "50%+".

2. "maybe the Senate will not convict if the House brings impeachment proceedings". Then it's not about "removing Bush from office", just "bills of impeachment", is it?----Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

Yet, the claim by those engaging in this preposterous fantasy is ...that Bush will be REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

Getting impeached, as everybody old enough to remember 1999, doesn't MEAN a whole lot if the Senate doesn't find you guilty at the impeachment trial (presided over by....John Roberts!).

Believe it or not....a President can get impeached...and his friends can spin a not-guilty from the Senate as "evidence it was all a partisan witch-hunt and an attempt to over-turn the election".....

I saw it done once!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 3:05pm
MASK:

I guess you missed my point. Nobody is making any predictions of the outcome (i.e. Bush is removed). People here may support it, but if we still have a GOP Senate after 2006, I think many suspect it won't play out like that. Does that mean San Fran and the rest should not waste their time with such resolutions? or the House should not bring articles of impeachment? or the public should not demand it if they wish it? You say no, I say yes.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 3:13pm
Mask,

We've been around this block before and no doubt we'll go around a few more times. You constantly refer to an impeachment proceeding as a bad political move by democrats as a way to spend their political capital from 2006 to 2008.

You base this on the fact that during the time of the last impeachment the House of Reps got virtually nothing else accomplished.

First, a sample size of one previous impeachment is not exactly scientific. Just because the House was unable to get much of substance done does not mean that it has to be like that every time there is an impeachment proceeding.

Second, you've argued that it is political suicide but the Republican's gained in every election since then so I fail to see it (unless you are arging that they would have gained even more had they not spernt time impeaching).

Third, the voting public could give a rats ass about the sexual picadillo's of Clinton, but a MAJORITY of American's want to see the current criminal impeached. It's sort of an American thing where we like to have the punishment fit the crime!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2006 @ 3:19pm
What happened with Clinton just shows the impeachment in his case was b.s., not that one for Bush would turn out the same way. Clinton is irrelevant - different facts different charges. Even if there is a GOP majority in the Senate who is to say in advance how they would vote for sure? Your view is like being a prosecutor who never tries a murder case because he remembers that someone else before him actually lost one of those at trial.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 3:19pm
RIO:

Yeah, what a mockery of democracy - taking a vote on a resolution. Such a radical departure.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 3:20pm
HMAN

Did you just ADMIT that it was a "waste of time"...or not?

"Does that mean San Fran and the rest should not waste their time with such resolutions? or the House should not bring articles of impeachment? or the public should not demand it if they wish it? You say no, I say yes."

Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person

And so far, this is all you've REALLY got....San Fran and Newfane, and TWENTY-FIVE members of the House Black & Progressive Caucuses....one leading Zogby poll, with NO other polling to substantiate it....and the potential "Speaker", Ms Pelosi, backing away as fast as she can from the SF Council resolution.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 3:21pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/07/2006 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person

Clinton's impeachment was driven by the Hard Right who hated him, wanted him gone from day one, and used a blatent lie to a grand jury as a means of rallying a powerful House majority into enacting bills of impeachment with almost no hearing, given that Clinton virtually admitted to it on television.

The Dems have HALF of that....a Hard Left base that loathes George Bush and wants him out. They would HAVE TO have hearings (first deciding which of the numerous "Bush scandals" to go after....NSA?....Iraq intell?....Katrina?....no SINGLE issue like "grand jury perjury", nor any ADMITTED to by Bush).

Then they'd have to turn that ONE Zogby Poll into ...Gallup, NY Times, Rasmussen, etc. and show RED STATE Dems that it was "safe" to vote for it without facing a public who....like with Clinton's...feels that it's all partisanship.

As for it NOT hurting the Republicans in elections....true....but 2000 wasn't a major gain for the GOP in Congress, in fact, given Gore carried the popular vote, it made it much tighter.

Plus, again, the Dems don't have that luxury....they've gone ONE, just one term in office 2007-2008 to prove that they can GOVERN....and if they waste it on a futile effort to oust Bush (which will be WELL-established in the Media as "futile" if the GOP controls the Senate), then all they've shown is "We're as partisan when it comes to impeachment as the Republicans"...

and "We don't REALLY care about all that 'health care', 'education', 'environment', 'minimum wage' stuff....we just want to make 'Move On' and 'The Nation' readers happy!"

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 3:28pm
Mask,

Maybe I should have quoted "waste of time." It was meant to mean your characterization, not mine.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 3:31pm
Mask,

By your logic then the ability to impeach should be removed from Congress as it's not about the rule of Law it's always about politic's and it always backfires so we should always let criminals stay in power.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2006 @ 3:33pm
Well, Mask, it is certainly a different picture than a year ago. How will it look in 6 months? a year? I don't know. You seem to think you know, but you don't. Maybe some other shit will surface. I'll continue to support impeachment personally and hope others take up the charge.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 3:38pm
Posted by CPT 03/07/2006 @ 1:52pm what?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 3:58pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/07/2006 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

Sounds VERY familiar FREE.....Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage in 1998-1999, for instance!

Remember what THEY said, when the Clinton people would throw up polls showing no support for impeachment..."RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!"

I know, I know "Zogby shows 50%+ would support an impeachment....if....if....and if". But that's familiar to me too.

Want to REALLY destroy Bush? ...let him stay in office. His poll numbers won't reach the high 30s again before 2008 and his policies will be ostracized by ANY Republican running...and every Democrat will be able to call EVERYTHING he did a failure, with little "come-back" from the GOP.

But....if we go through ANOTHER round of "impeachment so the base will be happy"....Bush gains martyr status (maybe not on a "par" with Clinton, but close), Dems now seen as "just as partisan and vindictive as Republicans", and any policy that Bush had that failed, can be blamed on "Democrats undermining it from the beginning....so they could use it for their little impeachment SHOW!"

And if you doubt that it can get spun that way by Karl Rove (likely STILL not "in an orange jumpsuit" in 2007)....I'll ask you "What are the odds that the excellent war record of a VN War hero like John Kerry could be tarnished?"

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 4:02pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person

HMAN.....Did you think in March of 2004....that Bush would get re-elcted?

Same principle applies the OTHER way too!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 4:03pm
I thought Bush would lose. What is your point - because I turned out to be wrong, I shouldn't have voted for Kerry? Or shouldn't support a move to impeach?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 4:10pm
I said from the outset of this phony war that our troops were being sent into an indefensible position where the ultimate result was destined to be chaos. They were sent there to be trapped there. Their equipment is wearing out - as has their welcome.

This is quite literally a no win situation - by design.

I was told by someone in a position to know that a quagmire had always been planned for, and that the reason there was no exit strategy was that there was never ANY intention to exit...EVER.

Permanent Bases means just that...permanent.

Consider this:

Vice President Cheney spoke before a huge audience of Jewish Americans today at the annual AIPAC Convention.

While his approval rating among the general population is a mere 18%, fully 100% of those in attendance greeted Cheney with a rousing 3-plus minute standing ovation.

Why would 100% of those attending an AIPAC Conference be so appreciative of this Vice President? What has he done for them that he has not done for the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of his performance?

Anybody?

Was the AIPAC audience so appreciative of Cheney for this?

"A day or two after Pincus's article was published in the Post, a meeting took place in Cheney's office to coordinate a response to the charges. In attendance were Libby, Cheney, and several other senior aides to the vice president as well as officials from the State Department, and the National Security Council.

It was then that Cheney decided the only way to counter Wilson's criticism was by having Libby leak portions of the NIE to a select group of reporters whose previous work in their respective publications had advanced the White House's political agenda.

For an administration that despises leaks, the decision by Cheney to declassify highly sensitive portions of the NIE and have his most trusted aide leak it to reporters in order to attack the former ambassador's credibility shows how personal the Wilson issue had become for the vice president.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the timing of an executive order signed by President Bush supposedly granting Cheney the authority to declassify such national security intelligence fits nicely into the time frame when he and his senior aides spearheaded a campaign to discredit Wilson.

The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030606Z.shtml

After all - the Iraq war is a war fought based solely on lies (90% of US soldiers in Iraq have been brainwashed to believe that they are there to avenge the attacks of 9/11) and fought solely to the benefit of Israel.

Perhaps this is why Vice President Cheney is a champion of those within the American Jewish Community who choose to support the activities of AIPAC (a foreign spy organization) at the expense of the rest of us.

Posted by plunger at 03/07/2006 @ 4:14pm
Mask,

You want spin? How about going with your scenario, which is probably against the will of the majority of Americans. Then come the 2008 campaign and the Democrats have not done anything to remove or even censure the criminal in chief (when they had a chance). Don't you think the pro republican corporate media is going to paint the Democrats as soft on crime?

I'd agree that a bit more polling should be done to develop the correct political strategy, but I think it's more dangerous to not listen to the will of the majority than it is to listen to you and Pelosi!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2006 @ 4:20pm
Completely irrelevant, but kinda funny nonetheless. Stumbled across it while reading something else earlier, thought some of you might enjoy it: Republican Beliefs [stallman.org]

Posted by thejman at 03/07/2006 @ 4:29pm
Sorry but this one is priceless:

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

And this one too:

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Posted by thejman at 03/07/2006 @ 4:32pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person

Voted for Kerry myself....but my point is how this FANTASY of a Democratic House (which in itself is still not certain) impeaching Bush....and then it "working out" politically AGAINST Bush, or more importantly, FOR Democrats...is an exercise in either futility....or self-destruction.

A THIRD-rate Karl Rove, which he isn't, will easily spin this into "Democrats being vindictive and trying to over-turn the 2004 election"...and it will BLOW UP in those who are pushing its faces.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 4:41pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/07/2006 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person

You're making a point....that you won't like.

"criminal-in-chief"....this idea of impeaching Bush isn't about his "crimes"....it's about HIM.

The Hard Left has loathed the man since he "stole Florida and 2000" and hasn't let go of that ever. Just like the Hard Right who hated Clinton as the "hippie who became President on 43% of the vote".

Unlike Michael Corleone taking out 'The Turk', this IS "personal, not business"...and that's why it can be EASILY used against those who want it!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 4:44pm
except its not personal if it is the will of the majority is it? It's kind of along the lines of a Representative Democracy being smart enough to realize that they need an impeachment clause in the Constitution to safeguard the Constitution from criminal leadership..

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2006 @ 4:53pm
MASK:

The Clinton impeachment blew up in the faces of the Rebuplicans because a majority of people NEVER agreed with it (with or without Carville's spin).

(Assuming a few things here) With Bush, I know all we have in the Zogby poll for now (but there are no others I know of that show a majority do NOT support impeachment); assuming of course that more polls show majority support in the future, how does an impeachment brought by a Dem House (even if it fails in a GOP Senate) come back to bite Dems in 2008? Isn't it more likely that, if a majority of the public think Bush should have been booted, it will be Republicans in the Senate who look like the bad guys and the Democrats the good ones, who even in failure, at least tried to do what they agreed with? If Rove tries to spin against public opinion, he could actually do more harm than good.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 5:01pm
I know it is easy to try and guess what would happen by looking at Clinton, but the landscape and facts were much different. Clinton was enjoying popular poll numbers, Bush is at historic lows. The charges brought against Clinton dealt with conduct outside his duties in office; the allegations against Bush concern violations of law, the Constitution, and the Iraq War.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 5:04pm
I should have added at the end ... "while Bush was performing official duties in office" (obviously Clinton's charges dealt with violations of law)

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 5:06pm
Sadly, incompetence isn't impeachable....the Katrina video shows Dubya was told of the potentials of the storm and either didn't care, or wasn't aware as to the meaning of the words flailing futily at his eardrums. Illegal domestic espionage. Targeting of anti-war groups for harrassment. Political appointees that can't do their jobs. Advisors up on corruption charges.

Who are any of us to decry the democratic prerogatives of a goup of the citizenry, regardless of our individual opinion? Sure, while at the national level, the actions of the Newfane may be political masturbation. But let us not forget that jerkin' the gherkin just feels good sometimes!

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/07/2006 @ 5:12pm
LEFTOCENTER

Did you see the tape of GOV Blanco, saying, "The levees are good" the day AFTER Katrina first hit?

Probably not, Bush the ominipotent, should have known.

Posted by CPT at 03/07/2006 @ 5:42pm
This is annoying, but I'm afraid I agree with MASK. Instead of focusing all this energy now on impeaching Bush, the right thing is to try to win back Congress and stop his legislative and judical appointment program.

Note to MASK: Are you kdding that you voted for Kerry? If so, why are you so actively pro-Bush on this website?

Posted by trabaris at 03/07/2006 @ 5:57pm
I am constantly amazed that every time I check into this blog (every 7-14 days perhaps) I find response after response from several extremely conservative bloggers (e.g Mask and CPT) who seem to have endless time to spout on and on in defense of the indefensible, fascist Bush Administration. It's like they have nothing else going on in their lives. And, amazingly, their responses sound like they came straight out of Karl Rove's handbook. Hmmm.... So I ask myself (kg I say) could these bloggers really be so stupid as to believe all of their crazy posts in defense of this deceitful and criminal Administration? And could such stupidity really possess such wealth that they did not need to worry about holding a regular job? Nearly everyone has learned by now that this Administration has budgeted very large sums of money to publish propoganda throughout this and other countries. So Mask and CPT, is blogging your day job? Does it pay well? Say hi to Karl for me. Please tell him that we hope to see him soon in San Quentin.

Posted by KLG at 03/07/2006 @ 6:15pm
Our biggest block to success is cynicism. It's only by acting as some of the people in this little town in Vermont are doing that we can move the mountain. If we get cynical and give up, we hand success to Bush and company. The best way to stand tall and proud is to speak out on what we believe is right, even if we are the only one doing it.

Posted by tsnell at 03/07/2006 @ 6:16pm
CBS just reported:

The [Vt. impeachment] article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

Posted by KLG at 03/07/2006 @ 6:30pm
Four posts and no quip from MASK yet? Tell you what MASK, I'll save you the effort: Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

Hman23,

Hey, you are good! You may have been slow on the draw this time, but you hit the target. You out masked Mask.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/07/2006 @ 6:32pm
Clearly what is going on here with the town meetings is people are filling in the gap between their irresolute representation in congress and their resolve to make their opinions about this corrupt and incompetent administration known.

The bill of indictment this time, as opposed to 230 years ago, is much longer.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/07/2006 @ 6:43pm
Hey a group of my buddies are going to get together and vote to remove every democrat in Congress---Will that get an article from Johnny Nichols? Our vote has exactly the same meaning as the vote in Newfane, San Francisco, and Madison---NONE.

Except George Bush has committed (very possibly) impeachable crimes, and those Dems have not.

A small (but crucial) detail you left out.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 6:52pm
Maybe there should be some sort of rule, in which people have to stop and actually THINK about their posts (whether they make sense or not, etc), before officially posting them?

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 6:53pm
Listen. We are not going to impeach Bush. Bush probably should NOT be impeached even. But that isn't the point of these things. The point is to make a statement. If that town votes to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush, it will SAY something. Something that NEEDS to be said. And that is, that we the people are not going to let this (up till now) utterly unaccountable Administration get away with ANYTHING. They LIED to us. They broke the law (both national and international). They are dangerous. We must fight them, we must (as Martin Luther King put it) speak truth to power. Just as Reverend Lowry did at Coretta Scott King's funeral. It is our duty.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 7:00pm
And I've seen NO time-line, chronology, or scenario yet that lays out EXACTLY HOW Bush will be impeached....without a Senate (which just re-enacted the Patriot Act 94-5, passed on an Alito filibuster, and has been dubbed by liberals HERE as 50% "Republican-lite" on the Democratic side) having a TRIAL! Posted by MASK 03/07/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

Mask,

I won't argue the facts you present here. Objectively, the numbers in the Senate aren't there, as you point out. However, here is a possible scenario: the country populates the House with a Democrat majority. The Conyers' hearings move from the basement to center stage. Testimony by various witnesses start getting attention and the public starts thinking and talking. Momentum for impeachment starts building. The House indicts. Impeachment is now Topic A on every news broadcast and in every newspaper in this country (and around the world.) The spotlight and pressure are on the Senate. Bush and Cheney are politically critically wounded. They need the Senate more than the members need them. Remember why Nixon said he resigned? Because he lost his base of support in the Senate. It could all come down to momentum controlling the zeitgeist.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/07/2006 @ 7:07pm
Frank Thomas---First of all Frank sorry to hear about the terrible split between you and the White Sox, but good luck with the A's. Now Frank I hope you know that members of the House and Senate are not subject to the impeachment/removal process--the rules are different. Some of the democrats in the House and Senate are involved in the Abramoff scandal---they could be censured but there is no real chance of removal. My point was that the vote from Vermont has no meaning or importance. Just as my group of friends sitting down having a cold beverage and griping about the danged democrats have no importance either. I guess you might need to sit down and think a little longer, or better yet take a quick civics lesson before you post.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 7:25pm
Vermont has given the nation alot to laugh at the last few years, begininng with their Governor, then Jeffords as the "Independent";), and now this...maybe Ben and Jerry will name a new ice cream after the vote..

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 7:30pm
Hey Frank---One more thing. I live in a community where if someone tried to do what that town in Vermont did they would be laughed out of the room and probably out of town. I guess that would also be the people expressing themselves and fighting for what they believe wouldn't it.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 7:30pm
And I like their syrup, altho Wisconsin syrup is better...is any of this relevant?...No?.....Kinda like the vote..

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 7:31pm
Posted by KLG at 03/07/2006 @ 7:41pm
Len Mosse wrote:

"Some of the democrats in the House and Senate are involved in the Abramoff scandal---they could be censured but there is no real chance of removal."

Oh really? Who might that be? When you say democrats are "involved" do you mean as in taking Abramoff money for votes like the Republicans ala Cunningham? I sure would like you to name names. Even politicians can sue for slander. Or do you actually mean something else? Something else I suspect.

Hey, Len Mosee, John Maasch, CPT and Mask, your crazy Bushie rhetoric sure sounds similar. I suppose all of you voted for John Kerry. Are maybe all of you actually paid by Karl Rove? Or maybe you are actually but one person, using multiple e-mail accounts to look like several Repubs. Hmmmm.....

Posted by KLG at 03/07/2006 @ 7:51pm
KLg,

I vote Bush but prefered a liberterian and would have vote for anybody but K and would do so again.ERRY...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 8:19pm
sorry, Kerry.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 8:19pm
KLG----Just for you darlin---by the way we must all be one person ---I mean there just can't be that many republicans can there??

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf. But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators. Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 8:29pm
KLG----By the way Cunningham did not take Abramoff money---get your scandals straight.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 8:30pm
Interesting to read how "meaningless" and "irrelevant" and otherwise 'crazy' this one town's vote is and then look down at all the heat (volcanic) and light (a thin shaft) it has already generated here. It's pretty obviously not so irrelevant to quite a few people. That's the power of the people's voice in action--and why tyrants and those who support them want so desperately to justify distaining and suppressing that voice. Enough said.

Posted by NBMcEachron at 03/07/2006 @ 8:31pm
Maybe there should be some sort of rule, in which people have to stop and actually THINK about their posts (whether they make sense or not, etc), before officially posting them?

Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/07/2006 @ 6:53pm

NO!!! i like posting here.

Seriously, pragmatism is all well and good. But, do you believe this statement: "Bush probably should NOT be impeached even" ?

OR did I misinterperate?

For what it's worth, alot of you sound like people in a bad nieghborhood, who don't call the police, "Because it doesn't do any good."

Of course, he will probably, not only not be impeached. And he will walk scott free for his crimes.

But what good is impeachment, if not used now? (Or fillibuster, or voting your conscience?) Are these things fairy tales from Americas past?

"Our biggest block to success is cynicism. It's only by acting as some of the people in this little town in Vermont are doing that we can move the mountain. If we get cynical and give up, we hand success to Bush and company. The best way to stand tall and proud is to speak out on what we believe is right, even if we are the only one doing it."

Posted by TSNELL 03/07/2006 @ 6:16pm

That should be self evident, to any rational person. But many here (left and right) seem resigned to virtual apathy, spun into "political reality".

Political reality is, of course, what we make it to be.

There may be no change, due to SF, vermont etc.

But, there is definately a point. And it needs to be made.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/07/2006 @ 8:43pm
Thomas Jefferson said "whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

The Bush administration has tried everything in their power to keep us from being well-informed. But things on their watch have gone so far wrong that they cannot fail to attract our notice.

If our representatives will not, it is up to us to set things to rights. The people in Newfam are upholding the grandest tradition of American democracy. And I respect them for that. Even more because there's so little chance for success. People did not give our fledgling republic much of a chance for survival either. But ideals often triumph over power. It has happened before. It can happen again if only those who know right from wrong do not despair.

As for the Clinton impeachment, the lesson it teaches me is that that sort of constant harrassment can completely hamstring a presidency. Even if we can't really oust Dubya from office, keeping him from doing more damage as he defends himself from one charge after another seems a sufficient reason to keep the pressure on. Chris in Santa Cruz

Posted by cfinnie at 03/07/2006 @ 9:10pm
As for the Clinton impeachment, the lesson it teaches me is that that sort of constant harrassment can completely hamstring a presidency. Even if we can't really oust Dubya from office, keeping him from doing more damage as he defends himself from one charge after another seems a sufficient reason to keep the pressure on. Chris in Santa Cruz

Posted by CFINNIE 03/07/2006 @ 9:10pm |

yeah - that was exactly the point of the whole thing, the clinton witch hunt. the initial prosecutor (an honorable republican...my what a depressingly rare breed these days) refused to prosecute the $$$ wasting abomination...

of course all these bastards really do is lie and obfuscate the function of our own government - oh, and enrich themselves with taxpayer money...anything that obstructs that is fine with me...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 9:27pm
I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by tharri34 at 03/07/2006 @ 9:27pm
"By the rude bridge that arched the flood", etc. Now that's what I'm talking about. Such a small gesture, but the spearheading of something we have in ourselves that is far more significant then just voting for a republican or a democrat. This is the sort of thing it will take. It's a small beginning, but a fair little storm warning just the same.

Posted by Legba at 03/07/2006 @ 9:36pm
tired of preaching to the choir? wanna have some illicit fun? check this website out and look for peanut gallery hoots and jeers from u know who...but always come back here...

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 9:39pm
My favorite story about the American revolution was one that Burroughs and Wallace tell in Gotham, their history of NYC. When the British Grenadiers first came over the the United States, they sailed down the Hudson in a fleet of something like 200 ships, each carrying something like a couple hundred men. Over on the banks of the Hudson, the Sons of Liberty were firing away, so far out of range that the British officers could actually sit up on the decks and drink tea. We all know who won that one. The crazies of 1775 were the victors of 1783. And so it goes.

Posted by Legba at 03/07/2006 @ 9:43pm
Four posts and no quip from MASK yet?

Tell you what MASK, I'll save you the effort:

"So ... if the resolutions of Madison, Wisconsin and the San Francisco City Council did not scare the White House, I am SURE that SE Vermont's impeachment demand is sending shockwaves ... and no doubt will lead to ANOTHER unofficial hearing in the basement led by Rep. Conyers ... with a TOTAL of 10 members of Congress attending."

hehe

;)

Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm

Oops, 2 minutes too late

Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2006 @ 2:05pm

Stop pretending, HMAN23- we know you're MASK's brain implant. Har, har.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2006 @ 9:52pm
And I've seen NO time-line, chronology, or scenario yet that lays out EXACTLY HOW Bush will be impeached....without a Senate (which just re-enacted the Patriot Act 94-5, passed on an Alito filibuster, and has been dubbed by liberals HERE as 50% "Republican-lite" on the Democratic side) having a TRIAL!

Posted by MASK 03/07/2006 @ 2:37pm

When are you ever going to get a clue, MASK? When did right-wing anti-abortionists ever outlaw abortion yet they can waltz into the White house on a host of other issues whenever they want now.

Now.

You're pretending, right?

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2006 @ 9:58pm
NBMCEACHRON------Interesting to read how "meaningless" and "irrelevant" and otherwise 'crazy' this one town's vote is and then look down at all the heat (volcanic) and light (a thin shaft) it has already generated here.

If you think this message board is representative of how Mainstreet America feels you are sadly mistaken. San Francisco, Madison, and this town in Vermont arem't exactly representative of America either.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:02pm
blame it on the democrats. blame EVERYTHING on the democrats. they've had opportunity after opportunity to resist bush, to set bush back and, now, to impeach bush. they've done NOTHING.

Posted by ZERO 03/07/2006 @ 9:53pm

Realistically, a Republican Congress will not impeach Bush no matter how un-American his behavior.

But you're right. Not nearly enough Democrats have stood up to be counted publicly and a lot of Americans are noticing it. That's good.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2006 @ 10:05pm
Interesting to read how "meaningless" and "irrelevant" and otherwise 'crazy' this one town's vote is and then look down at all the heat (volcanic) and light (a thin shaft) it has already generated here.

If you think this message board is representative of how Mainstreet America feels you are sadly mistaken. San Francisco, Madison, and this town in Vermont arem't exactly representative of America either.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/07/2006 @ 10:02pm

I'm ignoring you because anyone who incessantly repeats the same mindless babble is intensely uninteresting.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2006 @ 10:07pm
FROMREDBIRD-----Gosh---I'm cut to the quick. I don't see how I can go on. Now tell the truth now---your condemnation couldn't be because I pointed out that the actions of San Francisco, Madison, and that town in Vermont are worse than irrelevant they are "mindless babble", could it????????

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:12pm
maybe Ben and Jerry will name a new ice cream after the vote..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2006 @ 7:30pm

ooooooooo ... I've got one ...

"MMMMMM-Peach-Apple"

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:19pm
Zero----Government by polls--is that where you really want to go? Remember Harry Truman had a 23% approval rating 5th or 6th year of his Presidency. I guess what we will do in the future is just take polls and when the numbers get low enough we will attempt to impeach the President and remove him/her. Of course numbers needed for this can be accomplished easily depending on how the question is asked. I have had enough conversations with you to know where you stand politically and I will put my political ideas up against yours anytime when it comes to determing which are mainstream.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:20pm
Have to agree with ZERO's last few posts.

And, the Demo leadership aren't wimps- they're simply a constituent component of the problem. Let them be unmasked along with the Republicans.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2006 @ 10:23pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/07/2006 @ 8:43pm | ignore this person

Eric, you may have a point there. To some extent, we of course create reality; it doesn't just "happen." Chairman Mao once said: "a journey of a thousand miles beings with a single step." (Don't worry, I haven't become a Maoist, rather, I merely like that quote.) That is, who's to say that a third party can't actually WIN an election? Or that we can't have natonal health? I think your point is (it's a good one) that while we don't know if we CAN ever have national health, we definitely will NOT ever have it if we don't TRY to get it. That defeatism is not the answer; that (to use an old cliche), we must never give up?

Does George Bush deserve to be impeached? I don't know. Do his crimes constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I'm not sure; I am open to that possibility. I think we need to investigate it, yes.

But Eric, it is a balancing act. Yes, we should not be cynical and defeatist. (Because it guarantees defeat.) On the other hand, there is such a thing as being TOO idealistic too. That is, we don't want to turn into Don Quixote either. Like one college Professor I know who who sits around writing manifestos entitled "Life after Capitalism." (As if socialism isn't dead, as if capitalism is going to go away anytime soon! Maybe he has hopes of "overthrowing" gravity as well?)

IN any case, yes, the town can maie its statement, which is a good thing to do, I believe. I agree George Bush will likely not be impeached. Should we (against all hope) believe that this could be the beginning of a process that actually removes him from office? I don't know. That might be unrealistic, though, as you point out, "unrealistic" things do happen (such as America leaving Vietnam, or Jim Crow being overthrown in the South).

I don't know.

Eroc, on the other hand

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 10:25pm
Zero----Just finishing a thought before going to bed---I agree with you that the democrats don't have the stomach for an impeachment push. I think that when both parties feel that way that is a reflection of what mainstream America actually feels. I believe you wish/hope that America feels differently and cling to dubious poll numbers in hopes of seeing a swing your way. I realize that you are not happy with democrats, and obviously not with the republicans. To me--that is more evidence of just how far out of touch with mainstream America you are---however, still a nice guy to have a conversation with.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:25pm
Mao quote should read: "begins with a single step."

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 10:26pm
Apologies for sloppiness (typos, etc) of last posts.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 10:28pm
"Of course numbers needed for this can be accomplished easily depending on how the question is asked."

Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/07/2006 @ 10:20pm

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

"Overall, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the job?"

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

Sure, Len Mosse, very manipulative, confusing, and leading questions

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:30pm
Zero---Now you kept me up past my bedtime, shame on you. I do not believe that your displaying some poll numbers shows anything about mainstream support for impeachment. My point was do you want to go down the road of government by polls when they can be easily manipulated? The poll that you sighted is obviously slanted when it ask would you support impeachment if it can shown that the President is a criminal---I would vote yes for that. In your arguement you presume that everyone will agree that he is---not so fast my friend. I know from our past discussions that you are more than smart enough to know that you can prove just about anything you want with polls--it's all in how you ask the question.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:43pm
SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF A MINORITY. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE.

Well said Zero. Powerful stuff. Part of how we have been brainwashed is that many of us (progressives even) still fall into this trap, this falsehood, of thinking that those who oppose Bush are the "minority." As you point out, we are not anymore! (I'm not even sure we were BEFORE the election.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/07/2006 @ 10:45pm
Hey Maasch, I've got a flavor for you. How about a nice big slobbering bite of "Flabby Fascists 'n' Cream"? (I'll bet it would be lovely after that frozen pizza you wankers consume nightly).

Bon appetit,

bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 03/07/2006 @ 10:47pm
HMAN23----Get with the program---we were discussing impeachment polls.

Zero----The only poll that matters is the one on election day--in that one I was in the majority. My party has been in control of the Congress for 12 years,---my party controls my city council,my party controls 2 out of the three statewide elected executive offices, and my party controls my state legislature--I'm doing pretty well for being in the minority --huh.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:51pm
LEN MOSSE:

Really, so those Truman figures were about impeachment polls? Didn't know the issue came up with him.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:54pm
LEN MOSSE:

And I am sure you would NEVER point to Jimmy Carter's dismal poll numbers as evidence that the majority of poeple thought HE was a failure.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:56pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/07/2006 @ 8:29pm | ignore this person 1. The Native Americans have been giving $ to the Dems for a long time, long before Jack Abramoff. Maybe, they feel the Dems have helped them and share similar beliefs. 2. Are there any indictments against the Dems? 3. "The Washington Post", I suppose for balance you watch Fox News? 4. Fromredbird is correct. Maybe if you stopped laughing long enough to listen to the truth you might come to a different conclusion.

Posted by gauche in NY at 03/07/2006 @ 10:56pm
HMAN23----It seems that you have come late to a conversation. It happens often on this board. We were discussimg polls in general and then impeachment polls specifically. My comment was that I did not believe that the poll cited by Zero concerning impeachment was usable as evidence that mainstream America wanted to impeach Bush. I pointed out to him that the way the question was asked was biased. By the way, there were some rumblings of impeachment of Truman when he took over the coal mines.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 10:59pm
Zero---I rooting for ya buddy---take the democrats out to left field---Go Go Go---Just a little raz on my way to bed. Good night and Good Luck

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/07/2006 @ 11:06pm
Why would Americans, of any political stripe, have a problem with an investigation? Yes, they always get partisan in nature. But there are only two possible outcomes.

1.) Bush is shown to be criminal and removed, making progressives feel redeemed and conservatives in denial and secretly grateful their country was saved. Even if they were wrong.

2.) Bush is within the law and not guilty. The the right will feel vindicated and the left will be politically destroyed. Ostensibly, because they were wrong.

It's win/win for everybody, even though (understandably) some would be loathe to admit it.

Further, some have stipulated (like mask) that attempts to impeach bush, will make the dems. look petty and partisan. Some will no doubt say it is unpatriotic to question the president.

Both are wrong. No matter what you believe, a significant portion of the populace disagrees. This is the very definition of debate. It is congresses job to investigate said debate. And everyones patriotic duty to encourage this debate.

No matter which side prevails, the debate itself, would be the most "American" thing congress has done and would at least define where our leaders want to take America. For better or worse, Americans deserve to know the truth.

(Thanks to everybody who resisted the urge to point out, I've spelled 'partisan' wrong for months.Finally looked it up.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/08/2006 @ 12:11am
Ibble,

Thanks for the link to oxymorons.com.

But, even the wingnuts (Well most of 'em) are more articulate and entertaining here. Some of what I read, made no sense. Not just in my own context, but literally. Were there nation posters there, that I missed?

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/08/2006 @ 12:27am
CPT

re: info "the day AFTER Katrina"

So that somehow retroactively excuses Dubya &/or Chertoff for not acting on information they had days earlier?

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/08/2006 @ 08:21am
"we've all GOT to quit voting for democrats, before they make the national problems any worse."

this is just bone headed. it's the Tories who are making problems worse, not the dems. and pray tell whom would you like to vote for if NOT the dems?

you can start by not painting the dems with so broad a brush. support the ones who are speaking out, Murtha, Dean, Conyers etc

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/08/2006 @ 09:58am
you can start by not painting the dems with so broad a brush. support the ones who are speaking out, Murtha, Dean, Conyers etc

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/08/2006 @ 09:58am

Yes, even liberals seem to buy into the GOPs machinations. (Painting dean as crazy, for pulling a yell out of context etc)

But, vote for CANDIDATES. Not PARTIES. A 50/50 mix of both parties would keep them at each others throats, long enough for a third or fourth party to join in.

Two parties, neither of whom represent anybody, is destroying America. (Or was, until bushco usurped them. Which I guess, was your point. But let's keep our eyes on the prize: America, by the people, for the people.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/08/2006 @ 2:39pm
First of all, who are these nay sayers that are posting on this site. They seem like Right Wingers who just want to undermine the Liberal agenda by speaking of our causes as if they were silly. @#$& you!

Yea for Vermont. I hope we are as obstinate and have as much tunnel vision as Kenneth Starr. Down with Bush.

Posted by punkyjo at 03/08/2006 @ 5:42pm
I agree with those that say impeachment will never happen, and many, no doubt, say why should we bother to try. The fact that we make our intentions known is what is important. When people marched against the Vietnam war, I'm sure no one was expecting that at that moment the war would suddenly end, but it was the culmination of protests that had an impact. We didn't end up here in a day, and it will take a long time to undue the damage this administration has done, but to do nothing would be far worse. The comments made by the right wing need to be taken with a grain of salt and we need to keep in mind that although they sound smug and cockey, they are worried about 06, and they should be.

Posted by PATM at 03/09/2006 @ 1:48pm