Can Democrats Walk and Chew Gum At The Same Time?

[ThomWV]

It is the minimum mark of competence, to be able to do two things at the same time.

To put it in proper context, can Democrats Impeach members of a lawless Administration and pass laws at the same time?

Apparently not.

[ixion]

1. apparently not

and yet they hold positions of power. :crazy:

[glowing]

2. They should be able to...Apparantly during the Nixon saga, the

govt didn't come to a stand still and legislattion still passed. But I guess its more complex these days.

[Totally Committed]

8. There was no such thing as a DLC DINO in those days

to aid and abet the Republicans with the logjam.

Simple as that... it's not complex, we're just screwed.

TC

[CrownPrinceBandar]

3. But...but.... they don't have the votes to impeach........

:cry: :sarcasm:

I've always said that bringing up impeachment would not be a loser issue for Congress. However, many in the popular media as well as a very vocal contingent here believe that broaching the I-word will bring the Dems in Congress down. With Congress' approval ratings even lower than the president's, I really don't see they have a whole lot to lose. But I'm sure there will be someone here to tell me I'm wrong and put me in my place.

'sup Thom? :hi:

[BobRossi]

4. The current crop of Dems...

Look identical to the repubs of 2005.

[JDPriestly]

5. No -- They are too busy raising campaign funds.

That's the real reason they can't pass laws and impeach at the same time. That's also the reason they don't have time to read laws before they pass them. Money, money, money, that's what they want.

Amid the Republicans are much, much worse. Most of them are not bright enough to do any one thing at a time -- not well anyway.

[mmonk]

6. Yes, they are only pretending they can't.

Apparently it is working because there are people that are swallowing it.

[bigtree]

11. It's not like we don't have an example of what happens to the other functions of Congress

during an impeachment.

The 'pretending' is coming from those who insist impeachment:

1. would be a success, no matter what the outcome

2. would achieve all of the goals that couldn't be accomplished in normal legislative proceedings.

3. would end the occupation

4. won't interfere with all of the other functions of oversight that folks claim to be just as concerned with.

5. would cause the opposition to just crumble because 'public opinion' is irrevocably on our side.

I find most of the claims of proponents of some generic impeachment to be without any merit and containing little proof, if any at all, that ANY of the reasons for initiating proceedings would be successfully addressed by undertaking the extraordinary remedy.

The most ignored point is the stifling effect a proceeding would have on the myriad of other levers of accountability that are ALSO mandated by the constitution and their oath of office. It's as if folks think impeachment is the ONLY tool Congress has to address lawbreakers. We just witnessed and cheered on an outside investigation and prosecution of Libby, so it's just not true that crimes can only be challenged in an impeachment proceeding.

If anything, a congressional process may provide more cover for an accused, because after the politicians get done parsing everything, the end result will be a political judgment, more than any strict upholding of the law, especially given the balance of power. It's the fashion here to sneer at anyone who points out that VOTES are needed to effect ANYTHING in the political institution of Congress. But, you won't have an impeachment without the same politics which are obstructing progress right now, obstructing any verdict or outcome. To deny that is to deny the political air they breathe in Washington.

[mmonk]

13. We will disagree.

There is no common ground. Interesting though the take that holding them accounatble will give them cover. I've never heard that one before.

[bigtree]

14. How can you deny that Congress is able to manipulate evidence

in the proceeding; providing immunities, restricting witnesses, and providing political cover from the sympathetic party members?

You tell me how a political prosecution in an impeachment is superior to an outright conviction in a normal court setting.

[mmonk]

15. Show me where constitutional crimes

by those in charge will be dealt with in court and I will shut up. Also, not all breaches of the constitution are statutory.

[bigtree]

17. first of all, I've never asked you to 'shut up', so there's no need for all of that

If a case does emerge from one of the investigatory committees, I don't think the immediate call will be for impeachment. I believe any case which we hope to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law should be handled by a prosecutor who is operating outside of the congressional arena so that the process doesn't get tagged with partisanship and dismissed as a political witchhunt.

It's true that charges could still be pressed after such a proceeding, but I really don't see the value in allowing politicians to have their hands on it first, especially if we can see that the balance of power would likely deny any straightforward prosecution. The opposition would likely galvanize behind the accused and, I believe there would be a great chance that any 'evidence' would be tainted by the efforts to compel testimony which usually involve immunities and dealmaking. I prefer for any proceeding to be buttressed by an initial outside investigation and prosecution. That, of course doesn't preclude Congress' responsibility, but it would be a duplicitous and summary effort by the politicians if they did decide to step in. And, I can't help but feel that they'd muck it up to the point where guilt would be predicated on whatever political belief carries the day.

My point is that all of the talk about upholding the rule of law assumes that there would be a focus on the crimes which would mirror a normal prosecution. I think that by allowing the political effort to proceed before a standard legal effort invites a biased judgment, rather than the clear focus on the law that an outside prosecution would provide. I never underestimate the ability of Congress to muck up anything they touch.

[mmonk]

19. My saying I will shut up was not accusatory.

I merely mean I won't keep talking about it or pushing the issue. You aren't the type of person that tells people to shut up for expressing their position.

[bigtree]

24. I'll say this

I'm also the type to firmly support such an action if it comes. You won't hear any second-guessing from me. We work with what we have available, and I trust our Democratic legislators to do what's right, even if their efforts fall short of or deviate from my own expectations. I trust them because I've witnessed most of them in service and action. If we do manage an impeachment out of some committee or the other I'll help to make it as successful as possible.

I do have my own overriding concern, though. That is to end the Iraq occupation. I just don't think that concern will be well served by a half-cocked proceeding presented in a strictly partisan manner. I'm working for and expecting all of the legislators to begin to reconcile their differences and sign on to legislation which intends to begin to bring our troops home. I want much more than that, but that is what I expect I have the best chance of realizing. I think an impeachment would potentially squash that chance of a compromise, leaving the question of their withdrawal until January 2009. That's where I'm coming from. I just don't believe that a dubious impeachment effort would move Bush. Maybe one targeted to Iraq, but it would have to track the issue at a different angle than what's being argued right now for there to be a different result in this Congress.

So, views on this can be complex, not one-dimensional . . . no?

[mmonk]

33. They can.

I just believe our problems are now fundamental and go beyond questions of war.

[mmonk]

34. Dupe

[Toots]

7. Democrats Impeach this Administration

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. It's the bills that they're passing too. Screwing the Iraqi people out of the oil?

Screwing us in the long run by ordering biometrics for immigrant cards? Once they do that, they will want all of us to line up and have our retinas scanned.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. No, and why should they? I'm shocked, shocked that...

politicians are acting like politicians.

Congress is and always has been a largely uncontrollable mob, almost as though it was designed that way. Makes no difference who's in it or who has the majority, it's who's pulling the strings. Study the inner workings of Congress under the handling of guys like Lyndon Johnson, Tom DeLay, and some of the more powerful Speakers and you get the idea. Study the armtwisting and effectiveness of the White House and lobbyists to get an even better idea.

Impeach Shrub and it's a repeat of the incredible waste of time over Clinton unless enough Republicans go along. Nixon left because he saw the writing on the wall from his own party, and that's what is needed to get rid of Shrub.

Impeachment now is just a sad whining with the beating of tiny fists on the doors to the halls of real power.

[KharmaTrain]

12. 60 and 67 Votes

You can't make up votes you don't have. Unless some Repugnicans with common sense (I don't believe any exist) or scrupples crosses over, any attempt to remove anyone from this regime will not make it to the floor of the Senate and then won't have the votes for conviction. That would be portrayed by the corporate media as a "great loss". Look at how there were 55 votes against Gonzo in the last vote and that, somehow, was considered a defeat. Keep the pressure and investigating and I suspect the 60 votes may materialize, but I doubt there'll be 67. This isn't a Democratic Party problem, but a Repugnican one...and we must keep that in mind.

Majority control doesn't mean rubber stamp...especially without the "bully pulpit" of the Executive. Removing someone isn't like passing a "spitting on the sidewalk" bill...a simple majority doesn't cut it...and if the shoe were on the other foot (like Clinton), those rules, when used properly, prevent a political lynching or vendetta.

The problem are the Repugnicans...it has been, it is, and it will be. They're the ones who won't let investigations proceede, don't want the truth to come out and are putting their party ahead of country. Our jobs are to make them pay next year...getting the seats needed to prevent Repugnicans from blocking Democratic investigations and motions and win the White House and set a positive agenda for this country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. No. They "don't have the votes". But, they'll do something some day.

[bigtree]

18. That's right, they will, when folks elect a veto-proof majority of Democrats

It's nice to pretend though, that they can actually exert more influence than the number of votes they have by bandying around unsupported proposals and initiatives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. You forget the efficacy of withholding votes.

They could have not passed the funding bills by voting against all of them. They could refuse to pass any bill supports the war by not voting for it. The "we don't have the votes" is a phony excuse for inaction.

[bigtree]

22. that would assume that they believe that 'withholding funding bills' would end the occupation

You want accuse them of being disingenuous when they say they need votes, but you must be discounting that you could be wrong that 'withholding funds' would cause Bush to end his occupation.

Also, you may be discounting that some members don't feel it's proper or right to use funds as a bargaining chip which are intended to, primarily, go to the troops already deployed or on the way. I personally question the strategy of expecting Bush to notice or care enough about the funding to end his occupation. He hasn't noticed the shortfalls so far, so I expect him to be just as ignorant of them as he presses our troops forward. So, I think it's a mistake to assume that Bush will properly manage the needs and care of our soldiers with whatever money he has available. These are not just republican priorities in the budget. There are Democratic priorities for our troops contained in these budgets as well.

There is no proof at all that withholding the funds from Bush would end the occupation, just the assumption. I just don't believe it would work, and a majority of our legislators appear to have rejected that strategy as well.

Instead of accepting that there can be a disagreement as to the efficacy of 'withholding funds,' some are arguing that there's some political motive which rises to the level of actual support for continuing. I just don't believe that is the case with the majority of our legislators who are still committed and ready to vote for legislation containing an exit date. I just don't think they're convinced that sitting on their hands - directing Bush to do nothing at all by their action - and refusing to vote for funding bills would have the effect claimed by the proponents.

Calling them phonies completely ignores that you could be dead wrong. I also think the majority of our legislators should be allowed the respect of their own argument, instead of just supposing one for them and labeling them with it; a judgment I'm certain others would expect of their own differing argument.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Funding the continuing occupation is supporting it.

The idea that Bush would be indifferent to non-funding flies in the face of reality. He, and his Republican and Blue-dog allies pressed hard to pass the funding bill. The Democratic "leaders" caved because they thought they needed to pander to the Blue Dogs. Or, do you have some other explanation? If they are truly against the occupation, they could defund it by not voting for the funding. The rest is excuses.

Wars and occupations are expensive. Bush could attempt to rob other programs to fund it. But, there's a catch. Congress controls the purse strings. If he attempted to raid SS or even other "defense" budgets, he'd still have to go through congress.

Their pathetic rationales have large holes in them. "We don't have the votes" is nonsense.

[bigtree]

25. I don't buy that Bush gave a damn about the funding

I think he thought he could embarrass the Democrats off of the timetable bill. I just can't imagine Bush sitting somewhere parsing out funding issues. He was playing politics and it backfired. The timetables still stand.

And I refuse to by the bullcrap that 'Blue dogs', republicans, or anyone else owns concern for troops. The majority of the public, firmly opposed to the occupation, also said they were opposed to using the funds as a lever. Are you just as prepared to label them with your 'republican, Blue dog' smear?

I think what's amazing is how folks can take an issue like this and reduce EVERYONE to some craven, opportunistic level, instead of affording people the respect of accepting that they may well have acted out of the conviction of their beliefs. But, some just can't see beyond some campaign they're waging, and I don't mean the politicians. It is possible, despite the crap that flies around here, for someone to sincerely reject the strategy of using funds designated for the troops in the field as leverage for a political debate, or for a bargaining chip. Most Americans polled rejected the strategy.

I also, personally, don't believe that for the period the Democratic funding bill covers, Bush would have been compelled to end it. I don't believe that this summer, or even this year, Bush would have been so restrained by the lack of the one supplemental to come off of his occupation. Kucinich admits that the 70 billion Congress passed in October is still "in the pipeline", and the GAO has said that there are sufficient funds for Bush to limp out troops along until next year.

And, it's not like Congress is standing still. If folks are serious about continuing to confront Bush then we should join Congress in holding him up to the promised action by Pelosi and Reid at the end of this month. Congress hasn't gone anywhere and the question on timetables still stands with the majority of our Democratic legislators ready to vote for them, and the leadership still prepared to attach them to legislation.

But the 'defunding' scheme is a dubious one which, on its face, intends to affect the soldiers in the field in some manner (be honest) and hopes Bush will notice or care enough to end it. I'm not buying it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Most of the public still wanted "peace with honor" in Vietnam.

I'm not "smearing" anyone. The Democrats may be "sincere" in wanting to get out of Iraq. Big deal. Everyone wanted to "get out" of Vietnam by 1972 but they kept the killing going in hope that some sort of miracle would occur and we could escape without "losing".

The unavoidable fact is that the war/occupation is lost and irretrievable. To continue to fund it, under the CYA cover of "supporting" the troops is facile, at best. The Republicans, Blue Dogs, and the leadership that panders to them IS using the funding as a bargaining chip. They have the power, now, to end the occupation but they refuse to because of the feared political backlash that they "lost Iraq".

They are putting off the inevitable in favor of playing politics. As for the $70bn "already in the pipeline" that should cover nicely the costs of getting the troops out and home.

[bigtree]

27. same argument, you think you're right so everyone else is caving or pandering

it fits your bias against the funds. I don't care who supported the funding, withholding it was not going to bring the troops home this year, and I think it's just misleading to keep insisting it would. There's nothing but the proponent's word that Bush would notice or care.

And you can't convince anyone with a brain that every item in the funding bill furthers the occupation, and I would challenge you, if you cared at all, to show me what part you think does that. Some things in the bill may well support the mission, but there's no evidence that troops would be moved out of harm's way just because those funds were withheld. None at all. It's just a guess, a longshot, I think. You not only base your entire fight to end the occupation on that strategy, you knock down all other opposition as enabling or complicit in the occupation's continuing. But it is the withholding of support for legislation containing a timetable for withdrawal which is allowing the occupation to continue. How ridiculous to suggest the money is holding them there when one veto-proof vote would bring the troops home, money and all.

And the $70 billion? If it can be used for a withdrawal, then Bush can well afford himself of it to stay. That's what makes the argument that the one supplemental was so critical, unbelievable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. If the "timelines" are so important why did they remove them?

And, if it miraculously occurs that congress decides to hold Bush to the "timelines" how will they do so? Pass another bill with no teeth that he will veto? What will move the troops "out of harms way"?

If Bush runs out of money to continue the killing, what then? Will the Republicans and Blue Dogs then decide that they'll cut the funding? Or that the "leadership" will stop caving in favor of "supporting the troops"?

No, "every item" in the funding bill doesn't further the occupation. But, the overwhelming majority of it does. The troops need ammunition, food, bombs, planes, and a host of other items that sustain the occupation. If they don't have them, they come home.

[bigtree]

29. they removed them because they had made the promise that the funds would not be held hostage

to their effort to end the occupation. The leadership said that from the beginning.

Not a great plan to take the ammo the troops are using to defend themselves and hold that back. There is an active resistance determined to kill them. Outrageous that someone would consider withholding money for food. Do you really think ANYONE in any position in our government would cut off food money?

The timelines will be presented again in legislation and, if passed with a veto-proof majority, Bush will be challenged to adhere to them or directly ignore the legislative will of Congress. You must realize that such a legislative confrontation would isolate Bush to a degree that merely voting no on some funding bill would not. Bush ignoring a shortage or lack of funds isn't a crime. But, ignoring legislation mandating a withdrawal is fully actionable in court.

It's not 'Blue dogs' who are standing in the way of a timetable for withdrawal, so I don't know why they should be singled out for criticism or attention. It's the republicans who won't produce a veto-busting margin of support for an exit date. The 'Blue dogs' and the rest of the majority of Democrats are ready and willing to vote for timetable legislation, so I think it's a mistake to try an drive a wedge between them and any other vote we have for an exit date. These folks are working toward that end, and one vote for one supplemental hasn't changed that support.

In the end, Bush has to end the occupation, and Congress is following their constitutional responsibility to mandate that end legislatively. That's a far sight more than just voting 'no' on a funding bill and expecting Bush to notice or care.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. No, I don't. That's why I mentioned it.

As you have pointed out, there is money in the pipeline to give the troops money for food and ammo. If future funding had been cut off then Bush and the rest of the enablers would be forced to bring the troops home.

If the Blue Dogs aren't standing in the way, then why the need to pander to them by watering down the previous bills? They were the one's fretting about being seen as not "supporting the troops". It's helluva lot easier to "ignore the legislative will of congress" then trying to run a war without money. And, your argument rests on a lot of "ifs". If a veto proof majority passes a strong bill. Where's the "veto proof" majority? They refused to do so before, what's changed? When will the "veto proof" majority pass such a bill? If Bush refuses to cave, what then?

If Bush runs out of money to fund the war, what does he do then? If congress is as anti-war as you aver, and they control the purse-strings, then the answer is that they have to come home for the very reason you cited. No money, no ammo, no food, no bombs, no war.

[bigtree]

32. I just don't but the argument, and neither do enough legislators to carry that off

you can call that caving or pandering, but I think folks have a perfect right to disagree that just withholding funds would end the occupation, or, more importantly, disagree that it's the right thing to do to leverage the end of the occupation by squeezing funds intended for the troops already deployed and expecting Bush to notice or care. Until Congress manages a veto-proof rebuke, Bush still controls the deployment.

I just believe the defunding scheme is reckless and relies on Bush to either provide for the troops or stop his occupation. I just don't think he cares enough about the troops to notice or care that there's some funding shortfall. The only way I think he'll come off of his occupation is when his republican enablers are pressured into coming off of their support. That's where I think the pressure should be exerted, not in some defunding gesture which expects and requires Bush to notice or care and directs him to do NOTHING. Legislation would provide the clear mandate for Bush to withdraw, not like some cryptic gesture of voting 'no' on some funding bill which doesn't tell him a thing and isn't really actionable at all is he doesn't bend the way we think he should. It's that lack of direction that I suspect legislators are thinking of when they reject the 'defunding' option.

[cooolandrew]

21. Would make a nice change if they did really.

[TorchTheWitch]

30. I'm begining to feel like they can't do either separately

let alone at the same time.