| Author | Message | ||
     Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3229 Registered: 9-2001  |
Kendalbill: What I meant to say is that every president since Johnson has used his discretion to decide to declassify (or, in some cases with Bush, reclassify) intelligence information. Clinton made many errors and missteps--gays in the military as his first major policy push (that is what you do the first day of your second term); the health care fiasco, as you point out. But he was a far more accomplished president than either Bush pere or fils, and the country did well under his stewardship. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4695 Registered: 5-2001 |
still spinning. Wilson's "nonsense" turned out to be true. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 186 Registered: 12-2005 |
Wilson's "nonsense" and "attempted slander"??!! Moron. What Wilson said was true. Instead of our president being incredibly angry that he was given bogus intelligence and made incorrect statements to the US and the world based on that intelligence-he seeks to discredit a man who dared question him by leaking classified information. What an upstanding and moral maneuver. But totally legal so it's no big deal, right? Maybe Bush didn't get angry because he knew it was bogus before he proclaimed it to the world. It's time to stop the work of the Senate again, and demand that we be updated on the progress of the investigatioon into the use of pre-war intelligence. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5512 Registered: 8-2003 |
Alley -- you seem to want to impeach a president because of an opinion, but you don't want to impeach a president when he breaks the law. Bush can't be impeached simply because you don't like him, what he says, you think he's lying, etc. Clinton, however, was not impeached for having sex or lying to the American people. And I think you know this -- Clinton was impeached for lying in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case (which he settled out of court) about his past sexual history to a judge. He was disbarred over it at the Supreme Court level and I believe in his home state of AR where he was licensed. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 40 Registered: 2-2006  |
First of all, I want to agree with those who say they weren't embarrassed by Clinton's behavior, and that's right, he did not sleep with her. Clinton's enemies, led among others by Tom Delay, spent in the neighborhood of seventy million dollars (remember it's your money) to get nothing of substance and essentially catch Clinton in a perjury trap, or whatever. Except for the finger wagging incident, I'm not sure if he really lied, much less committed perjury. All this was being orchestrated by congressmen who were banging their interns like cheap gongs and as you recall, Livingston's tenure as speaker was about as long as the life of a mayfly for the same reason he was impeaching the president. Henry Home Wrecker Hyde anyone? Around the time of the impeachment I was talking to a Brazilian friend who said "in Brazil we would be worried if the president wasn't having an affair". As for saying that this is the worst since Nixon, I think the current situation is far worse. Nixon was a paranoid guy who basically, I believe, loved his country. He subverted Democracy and committed crimes against the Constitution, but Vietnam was already in full swing. The cold war atmosphere made leaving Vietnam a little different than leaving Iraq. Nixon pulled a Howard Hughes and lost touch with reality, and profoundly screwed up. In the current situation, we seem to have a president that loves the country like someone would love a piece of real estate. He clearly doesn't love the Constitution, or the American experience of immigration and assimilation. He considers himself part of the ruling class, and he's never had to clean up a mess he's made before in his life and has stated openly that he will leave his (failed) policies to be cleaned up by other presidents. At what point does it become a matter of record that this administration lied us into a horrible war, among other lies? We're not their yet, but we're close. I'm most interested to see how it's handled by the press. So far this president is Teflon because of the great protection he's received from the media. What happens when his crimes are irrefutable? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4697 Registered: 5-2001 |
The impeachment process was practically tailor-made for the situation we're in now. A president with a personal vendetta dragging the country into war on blatantly false pretenses, along the way violating several laws including warrantless searches and revealing state secrets. The "misdemeanors" would certainly covering bald-faced lying to Congress and the U.N., as well as the ruination of the Federal treasury. This is a little more serious than an "opinion." An "opinion" is what Bush had in early '03. Now we have a debacle. If Hamilton were to come back from the dead and you laid out a multi-year war racking up trillion dollars in debt under these circumstances and asked "would impeachment cover this?", I think he'd say "hell yes." The nation's principles are being undermined. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13480 Registered: 1-2003  |
If you are interested in the topic of impeachment of Bush, I would refer you to Michael Ratner, his book Articles Of Impeachment Against George W Bush, and the radio interview of him by Brian Lehrer. I heard the interview, and Ratner's thoughts are very well laid out and expressed. If you don't want to read the book, I highly recommend listening to the interview at the above link. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1626 Registered: 10-2004 |
I might be wrong here but I thought the Downing Street Memos prove that Bush lied about the war. There is proof and evidence but people don't want to open their eyes, nor do they want to to have their precious political party to look bad. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13482 Registered: 1-2003 |
Alleygater, you will enjoy the interview with Ratner, I promise. I still have the mp3 if you (or anyone else) wants it. The case, as he lays it out, is clear. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1629 Registered: 10-2004 |
I did like the interview a lot. Thanks. Now if we could only get the momentum going and get the job done. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 880 Registered: 2-2004 |
I love this. Good luck Alley in your Bush hunting. When they are dedicating his library maybe you can show up and protest. I just can't wait to see what the big issue is next week. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 42 Registered: 2-2006 |
Southerner- I'm sure it'll be issuing out of a bull and you'll be sharing it with us. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1636 Registered: 10-2004 |
AE: When you say bull, do you actually mean •••? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3393 Registered: 3-2004 |
There does seem to be garbage every week, doesn't there? It's amazing how much daily mess we have to deal with, and keep functioning despite it, as Americans, as family members, as workers. Give us a break. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13489 Registered: 1-2003 |
Southerner, you're right in that this issue may not take wings. So Bush is a reprehensible SOB. So what. And everyone is partisan so no one has a clear view of what's bad and what's inconsequential. Fine. But listen to the interview of Ratner. That's real stuff. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1103 Registered: 9-2004 |
I was wondering....... If Bush declassified the identity of Valerie, why doesn't he just say that he did it? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 883 Registered: 2-2004 |
Tom, All your stuff is real stuff. All my stuff is real stuff. Every poster on this board has real stuff. To think one persons real stuff is better than someone else's is normal human behavior. I have no doubt that you truly believe the intellectuals you constantly promote on this board are upstanding, good intentioned people. However, I don't and this is where we disagree on a philosophical level. Why don't we let each side put forth their philosophy and see who wins. If, as you believe, the Repubs are so worthless and the Dems so much better then I suspect they will be swept into power if enough people believe this. I have no problem with democracy and the end results. If my conservative side loses then we lost fair and square and I won't come out with overplayed conspiracy theories. I realize you and others have a deep seated hatred towards Bush and Republicans. No problem. I, and many others, feel the same way about the Democrats. You guys are on offense and we are on defense and it's a lot easier playing offense when you have nothing to lose. As we get closer to the true political season, I say, good luck and may the American people vote for the candidates they believe in. I will abide by the results and move forward. Sure, I'd like the Repubs to hold power, but if they lose, and Bush is impeached then I can see 2008 as being a great year for Republicans. Nothing energizes a base more than getting their butts kicked. The energy and tenacity you libs have been showing recently is proof of that. On a non-partisan note, I have reviewed the close races and the historically close districts and I just don't see the Dems winning enough seats to take back control. Now granted, if the libs are energized as they currently are, and the conservatives show apathy on election day, then the Dems could win enough seats. I just see the Repubs using the normal, winning strategy they have used in the past. Yes, they will trot out gay marriage, higher taxes, the defense issue, and many other typical points. And I fully expect the Dems to continue using the class warfare issue and the war. It's almost election season and it's going to be entertaining. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1104 Registered: 9-2004 |
Dems only need 15 seats. Lets look at NJ. The 5th, 7th, & 11th CDs are shaping up to be the battlegrounds. I think we can win 2 of those, if not all 3. If NJ sends 3 more DEMs to DC. How many seats does that leave? Wheres your list, there, Southerner? I'd say there are about 23-24 races that look to be shoe ins for DEMs to take out Repubs. KOS did a overview in Nov. '05: 1. Iowa 01 (Prev. rank: 1) (Dix/Whalen/Kennedy (R) vs. Braley/Gluba/Dickinson (D) 2. Colorado 07 (2) (O'Donnell/Paschall (R) vs. Perlmutter/Lamm (D)) This open seat is a classic swing district. 3. Indiana 09 (3) (Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) vs. Former Rep. Baron Hill (D)) 4. Connecticut 04 (5) (Rep. Chris Shays (R) vs. Westport Selectwoman & '04 Nominee Diane Farrell (D)) Shays barely escaped the first matchup between the two. In a Dem year, Farrell looks poised to finally oust Shays and capture this Dem-leaning district. 5. New Mexico 01 (16) (Rep. Heather Wilson (R) vs. New Mexico Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid (D)) 6. Pennsylvania 06 (9) (Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) vs. '04 Nominee Lois Murphy (D)) Murphy has already raised $433,000 and has $350,000 on hand-nov. '05. 7. Connecticut 02 (7) (Rep. Rob Simmons (R) vs. Former State Rep. and '02 Nominee Joe Courtney (D)) 8. Illinois 06 (6) (State Sen. Peter Roskam (R) vs. Tammy Duckworth (D)) The Chicago suburbs are trending hard Dem. 9. Washington 08 (4) (Rep. Dave Reichert (R) vs. Burner/Gordon (D)) Still, you gotta figure that this one will be tight when all is said and done. 10. Wisconsin 08 (10) (Gard/McCormick/Lawrie (R) vs. Kagen/Wall/Nusbaum/Langan (D)) This open seat race is to replace Rep. Mark Green, who is running for Gov. This Green Bay district is traditionally GOP, but the Dems won it the last time it was open, in 1996. The fact that it's a Dem year will help. . 11. Pennsylvania 08 (8) (Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) vs. Murphy/Lang/Warren (D)) 12. California 50 (14) (One of 8 GOPers vs. '04 Nominee Francine Busby (D)) 13. Minnesota 06 (15) (Krinkie/Knoblauch/Bachmann/Esmay (R) vs. Tinklenberg/Mortensen (D)) 14. North Carolina 11 (20) (Rep. Charles Taylor (R) vs. Former NFL Quarterback Heath Shuler (D)) In addition to being something of a celebrity, Shuler is looking like a pretty damn good candidate against an incumbent with baggage who we came somewhat close to defeating the last few times. Plus, Dems did very well in Asheville (biggest city in the district) yesterday. Shuler has nearly caught Taylor in fundraising and actually has a rare challenger cash-on-hand advantage. 15. Indiana 08 (42) (Rep. John Hostettler (R) vs. Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth (D)) 16. Texas 22 (59) (Rep. Tom DeLay (R) vs. Former Rep. Nick Lampson (D)) Lampson wins. 17. Florida 09 (12) (State Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R) vs. Rublee/Mitchell/Busansky/Taylor (D)) 18. Iowa 02 (13) (Rep. Jim Leach (R) vs. College Professor David Loebsack (D)) 19. Florida 22 (35) (Rep. Clay Shaw (R) vs. State Sen. Ron Klein (D)) 20. Ohio 18 (23) (Rep. Bob Ney (R) vs. Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer (D)) This race may jump up much higher depending on what happens with the Abramoff investigation; Ney is in it with Abramoff up to his eyeballs. Even if nothing changes, Sulzer is a strong candidate (the only top-tier challenger the Dems have in Ohio as of this writing). 21. Connecticut 05 (19) (Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) vs. State Sen. Chris Murphy or Waterbury Bd. of Alderman Pres. Paul Vance (D)) Although this is the most Republican seat in Connecticut, it still leans Dem overall. While Johnson is a strong incumbent without any real baggage, Murphy (assuming he gets the nom) is the strongest candidate she's ever faced other than Rep. Jim Maloney in 2002. Murphy has already raised $253,000 and has $234,000 on hand. 22. Colorado 04 (27) (Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) vs. State Rep. Angie Paccione (D)) Musgrave is a lightning rod for controversy who has narrowly won what should be a GOP seat. Can she survive in a non-GOP year? The Dems recruited a strong challenger for the third time in a row, and the signs are that funding will not be a problem this time. 23. New York 29 (Rep. Randy Kuhl (R) vs. Former Navy Officer Eric Massa (D)) Kuhl won an open seat contest in 2004 in this upstate district which is arguably the most GOP in the state (which isn't saying that much). Kuhl has a lot of baggage, and Massa is a much better candidate than Sam Barend, the '04 nominee. The upset in the Corning mayor's race by a Dem that Massa publicly supported is a good sign. Massa's fundraising has been fairly impressive ($96,000). 24. Nevada 02 (24) (Gibbons/Heller/Angle (R) vs. State University System Regent Jill Derby (D)) This is the district that's basically all of Nevada except Las Vegas and its suburbs. This race is as high as it is because Derby is a strong recruit and because open seats tend to go to the party with the national wind at their back. Nonetheless, the GOP has a top notch field here--Gibbons and Angle are state Reps. And Heller is the Secretary of State. Additionally, Gibbons is the wife of outgoing Rep. (and Gov. candidate) Jim Gibbons. 25. Indiana 02 (29) (Rep. Chris Chocola (R) vs. '04 Nominee Joe Donnelley (D)) This is a swing district formerly represented by Dem Tim Roemer. Donnelley did respectably in the GOP year (especially in Indiana) of 2004 and is positioned to give Chocola a tougher rematch. He's raised $186,000 and has $160,000 on hand. 26. New Hampshire 02 (22) (Rep. Charles Bass (R) vs. '04 Nominee Paul Hodes (D)) This is another swing district trending Dem, and Hodes has the name rec built up in his initial run. His fundraising has been so-so so far. 27. North Carolina 08 (25) (Rep. Robin Hayes (R) vs. Iraq War vet Tim Dunn (D)) This race could move up if the "fighting Dem" thing takes off. Thus far, Dunn seems like a decent candidate, but the fundraising numbers were low. The Dems held this seat until Hayes won it in 1998. He beat back strong challenges in 2000 and '02. The jury is still out on Dunn, but a strong campaign could bring down Hayes in a Dem year. 28. Michigan 11 (38) (Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R) vs. Radio Talk Show Host Tony Trupiano (D)) The entry of Trupiano has Dems excited about taking the most winnable GOP-held seat in Michigan. While this gerrymandered district will present a challenge, McCotter has never seen a strong opponent. This is exactly the type of race we can win with a tide. 29. California 48 (18) (special election 12/6/05: State Sen. John Campbell (R) vs. Attorney Steve Young (D) vs. Minuteman Jim Gilchrist (I)) This race dropped following Young's lackluster showing in the open primary; he almost failed to force a runoff. Still, if he can pick up moderate GOPer Marilyn Brewer's support and Gilchrist can cut into Campbell's right flank, Young could pull the upset in this heavily Republican Orange County district. 30. Florida 13 (40) (Buchanan/Hudson/Detert (R) vs. Jennings/Schneider/LaFevers (D)) This is Katherine Harris' seat (she's off to get trounced by Sen. Bill Nelson). Unlike many, I don't attribute the Dems' strong showing here solely to an anybody-but-Harris phenomenon; I think we can actually win with her out. The GOP has noone who stands out, and we have Christine Jennings, who is well-funded (although not as well as Buchanan or Hudson) or Jan Scneider, the '02 and '04 nominee. Still an uphill battle, but doable. 31. Arizona 01 (33) (Rep. Rick Renzi (R) vs. Jackson/Caccioppoli/McKerlie (D)) Though the 1st was drawn to be a swing seat, Renzi has had two easy wins courtesy of Dem blundering. This year, the Dems hope to reverse that with (most likely) Jack Jackson (the State Indian Affairs Commissioner). This is a winnable seat, but Renzi is tough. 32. West Virginia 02 (55) (Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) vs. former State Environmental Protection Secretary Mike Callaghan (D)) Callaghan looks to be a strong candidate for a seat the Dems held continuously until 2000. His candidacy is a new one, so we'll see how it progresses. This one could move a lot in either direction. 33. Minnesota 02 (43) (Rep. John Kline vs. Former FBI Agent Colleen Rowley (D)) Rowley is an intriguing candidate in this lean-GOP suburban seat. She's got a story to tell and has had decent fundraising. This one could move either way depending on whether Rowley catches on and on how her whistleblower role plays. 34. Virginia 02 (44) (Rep. Thelma Drake (R) vs. Iraq War Vet and '04 Nominee David Ashe or business consultant Troy Farlow (D)) This is a likely rematch of a hard fought open seat contest between Drake and Ashe. Ashe's problem then is his problem now: lack of funding; his fundraising has been poor so far. Still, Gov.-elect Tim Kaine's strong showing in Virginia Beach bodes well for the Dems here. 35. Michigan 09 (34) (Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R) vs. Attorney Rhonda Ross (D) or '04 Nominee Steve Reifman (D)) It remains to be seen how strong our candidates are here. What I do know is that this wealthy suburban Oakland County district is trending Dem, and that our top of the ticket in Michigan should do pretty well. 36. Pennsylvania 07 (45) (Rep. Curt Weldon (R) vs. Doctor and '04 Nominee Paul Scoles or Iraq War Vet Brian Lentz (D)) Weldon is an entrenched GOPer in an increasingly blue district. Dems look be in very strong shape in the Delaware Valley generally, so the upswell in support for Rendell, Casey, and the 6th and 8th District challengers should help here as well. 37. Florida 08 (67) (Rep. Ric Keller (R) vs. Stuart/Hartage/Murray (D)) This race moved a lot because of the quality of the Dems. Homer Hartage is an Orange County Commissioner, and Charlie Stuart (a marketing consultant) has outraised the incumbent. This is a winnable district; it was extremely close as an open seat in 2000. 38. Ohio 15 (36) (Rep. Deborah Pryce (R) vs. Attorney Mark Losey (D)) The crushing defeat of the RON measures means that 1) we don't get a more favorable map; 2) that the Dems are still an ineffectual disorganized lot; and 3) the GOP state scandals have not generally soured the electorate on the GOP (as opposed to hurting various individual politicians). None are good news for Losey, whose fundraising has been anemic. Still, this is Columbus and Columbus is trending our way. 39. New York 26 (37) (Rep. Tom Reynolds (R) vs. Businessman Jack Davis (D) This is a rematch of an unexpectedly close 2004 contest. With Spitzer and Clinton at the top of the ticket, Davis may have a shot. It remains to be seen whether he will self-fund as aggressively as last time. 40. Illinois 11 (50) (Rep. Jerry Weller (R) vs. Attorney John Pavich (D)) This southwest suburban/exurban seat is winnable for Dems. Pavich is lesser known, but is off to a good fundraising start ($147,000 raised/$110,000 on hand). 41. Minnesota 01 (62) (Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) vs. Veteran Tim Walz or '04 Nominee Leigh Pomeroy (D) Walz is another "fighting Dem" with a shot in 2006. His fundraising has been fairly good; Pomeroy's has been nonexistent. This is a winnable lean-GOP district. 42. Virginia 11 (48) (Rep. Tom Davis (R) vs. Attorney Andy Hurst or '04 Nominee Ken Longmyer (D)) With Dems' strong showing in Northern Virginia, Davis has to be running a bit scared. It remains to be seen whether either of these candidates can be competitive against him. I wonder if there's any chance Leslie Byrne would want to make a comeback challenge for this week after her near-Lt. Gov. miss; Byrne won this district 55-45 in that race. 43. Illinois 10 (49) (Rep. Mark Kirk (R) vs. Winnetka Park Board member Zane Smith (D)) Smith is a wealthy Dem whose profile fits this suburban district that has gone Dem in ever Presidential election since 1988. It remains to be seen how competitive he is against Kirk. 44. Montana at Large (not rated) (Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) vs. State Rep. Monica Lindeen (D)) Lindeen is a very strong challenger for a statewide seat in a state that has been trending our way. She has already raised $101,000 and Dems will be energized because of the Senate race. 45. California 11 (53) (Rep. Richard Pombo (R) vs. Filson/McNerney/Chacon (D)) Pombo has a carefully gerrymandered Northern Cali district that is winnable for the Dems on a good day. Veteran Steve Filson appears to present our best chance; he's raised $105,000 and has $101,000 on hand. 46. Pennsylvania 18 (51) (Rep. Tim Murphy (R) vs. Veteran Tom Kovach (D)) This is a lean-GOP seat outside of Pittsburgh. The Dems looked to have top tier candidate Barbara Hafer, but she backed out. Kovach has strong potential, but he is a new candidate; we'll know more about how competitive he makes this race as time goes on. 47. Florida 24 (not rated) (Rep. Tom Feeney (R) vs. Veterinarian Andy Michaud (D)) This is a gerrymandered district in central Florida that just leans GOP. Feeney drew it for himself and won it in '02 and '04. Michaud looks to be a strong candidate. He has raised $120,000 so far and could be poised for an upset. 48. New Jersey 05 (57) (Rep. Scott Garrett (R) vs. '04 Nominee Anne Wolfe or Consultant Paul Aronsohn (D)) This is a GOP seat, but it is New Jersey. The Dems have had some decent showings here. Wolfe's fundraising is so-so. 49. Pennsylvania 10 (61) (Rep. Don Sherwood (R) vs. Veteran Chris Carney (D)) This is a heavily GOP seat, but Sherwood has some baggage; he just settled a civil lawsuit for alleged assault against his much junior former mistress. It remains to be seen whether Carney can win over moderates and conservatives with his military background. 50. Pennsylvania 04 (69) (Rep. Melissa Hart (R) vs. Maufacturing Exec. Georgia Berner or Ex-Hospital Exec. Jason Altmire (D)) This is a GOP seat, but both Berner and Altmire are off to good fundraising starts. Dem Ron Klink held substantially the same seat until he left to run for the Senate in 2000. 51. New York 19 (not rated) (Rep. Sue Kelly or Log Cabin GOP Official Jeff Cook (R) vs. Aydelott/Rigger/Shuldiner (D)) Attorney Aydelott's strong fundraising ($185,000), with teacher Shuldiner at a respectable level as well, propelled this suburban and exurban New York district onto the list. Kelly's primary challenge can't help her much, either. 52. California 45 (not rated) (Rep. Mary Bono (R) vs. David Roth (D)) Roth looks like a decent challenger in a district that just missed the original list. He's raised $94,000. 53. New York 20 (not rated) (Rep. John Sweeney vs. Attorney Kirsten Gillibrand or Stockbroker Morris Guller (D)) Gillibrand was another challenger that looks strong in a district that just missed my list. There are no safe GOP districts in New York. 54. Pennsylvania 03 (47) (Rep. Phil English (R) vs. '04 Nominee Steve Porter (D)) English has held this lean-GOP seat comfortably since a close scare in 1996. Porter has had almost no fundraising. 55. Ohio 03 (52) (Rep. Mike Turner (R) vs. Veteran David Fierst (D)) This is one of the Ohio seats that could be competitive, but the jury is still out whether the underfunded Fierst can make it so. 56. Ohio 04 (73) (?) Rep. Mike Oxley's retirement announcement will generate activity on both sides. This is the most GOP district in the state, however, so a win here would be a longshot. 57. Ohio 14 (71) (Rep. Steve LaTourette (R) vs. Meteorologist Palmer Peterson (D)) See analysis for Ohio 03. 58. Wisconsin 05 (not rated) (Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R) vs. '04 Nominee Bryan Kennedy (D)) This is the longest of longshots in a district I wouldn't wish on anyone, but Kennedy is aggressive and Sensenbrenner has made numerous missteps. Still, a win here would be the biggest upset in modern political history and would signify the absolute demise of the GOP as we know it. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1105 Registered: 9-2004 |
back on topic, here is a paper that gives a great overview of the whole Plame affair. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1639 Registered: 10-2004 |
Foj, is there a link there? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1111 Registered: 9-2004 |
-its from Daily Kos, back in Nov, '05. Sorry no link, I failed to save the link when I saved the post in WORD. My bad. My own estimates are about 24 seats in the House should go DEM in Nov. Souhterner has an opportunity to make his case. I'll give him some time to do the research. But if he doesnt come up with something, then his upthread post means nothing. Midterms typically swing to the party not in the White House. Ferguson (R) from the 7th CD, seems to have taken all the photos of him & Bush off his web site. Ferguson recieved probably the most money from Tom Delay of any congressperson in NJ. Garrett (R) in the 5th, is farther to the right than even Ferguson. Considering Nye, Delay, Cunningham, are all out(3 seats). The 15 seats we need dont look all that hard to find. Duckworth in Illinios should win (1 seat). 3 in NJ I just mentioned, that looks like 7 seats right there. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 885 Registered: 2-2004 |
Foj, Good analysis. If you are waiting for me to spend a few hours on MOL to do a counterpoint then you will be waiting awhile. I don't see where we disagree on this. You believe there are a lot more seats to be had by the Dems than I do. This isn't some contest between us. The answer will be revealed in November and then if I'm wrong you can slam me. If you are wrong then you will hear from me. Again, good analysis on your part. I just think you are doing a ton of wishful believing in many of those races. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1115 Registered: 9-2004 |
Southerner- DUDE-- you just said it would take a you a few HOURS ???? You might want to try GOOGLE. Or go to a repub blog with a search engine: And input "midterm predictions" | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2656 Registered: 6-2002 |
Back to topic. If information is declassified, why does it have to be leaked? Can't Scott McClellan just hand it out at a news conference? If Libby was just giving Judy Miller information that was "in the public domaine" because it had been declassified, why did she spend so many weeks in jail for refusing to reveal her source? Why didn't Libby "bail her out"? Can someone explain this to me in terms that I, as dumb as I am, can understand? | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 160 Registered: 1-2006 |
I think Scooter is just trying the I-was-only-following-orders-defense to save his own hide. Even if President Bush did authorize the release of the info, the issue is too murky to get the public riled up and calling for impeachment. The Jack Abramoff thing is much more dangerous, everyone understands corruption. If you read the Federalist, the framers did not see impeachment as such a big deal. Maybe if we impeached Presidents more often they'd behave a little better. Cheers | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1646 Registered: 10-2004 |
3ringale: Why do you think that revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity (which is against the law) for political purposes is not worthy of impeachment? If that isn't a serious enough offense, both the President and Vice President lied about having done it... CONTINUALLY. This is the opportunity. Impeach the bastard. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14907 Registered: 10-2001  |
Not impeachable. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13539 Registered: 1-2003 |
sbenois, what's your rationale for saying that? Do you think uncovering a spy working on key intelligence doesn't endanger us? And while I don't feel all lies are equally bad (e.g. lying about one's private sexual affairs is not as bad as lying about state secrets), some feel that lying about anything at all is impeachable. But now they don't? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11170 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bush has the power to declassify information, even if he doesn't get around to telling the CIA, DIA, etc. about it. So, apparently, does Cheney. Kind of like the fraternity being on "Super secret probation" in the original Animal House movie.  If the President just announced he had done this because he thought it was important for the American people to know all the facts (at least his version of the facts) there never would have been any controversy to mention. Sometimes this Administration is really dumb. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1077 Registered: 10-2004  |
But dont get it confused BoBK. What the president 'leaked' was already debunked by the CIA and his advisors. There was no uranium being sold to Iraq and Saddam. This weekend Niger has admitted forging those documents. Therefore the president knew that the information he 'leaked' to the press was false and thus was done only to support his position to bring the US to war with Iraq. If lying to the public and bringing us to war is not an impeachable offense then there is no impeachable offense. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3247 Registered: 9-2001 |
Hoops and Tom: The problem lies in the fact that impeaching the Executive is by its very nature a political and partisan act, given that the Constitution is not clear on the grounds for impeachment. It is used for "those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". One could try to stretch lieing to go to war to be treason, but most see it as "high crimes and misdemeanors". Probably every president has lied to some extent, or withheld vital information, regarding going to war. This is not morally correct, and does not excuse the lies, but the public (I think) sort of expects it to some degree. This does not excuse Bush from purposefully misleading us into a poorly conceived war, while almost totally ignoring Al Qaeda in the process. But I am not sure it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors status for most Americans at this stage of the information we see. I know it does to you, and it certainly galls me, but impeachment is not on the horizon. Simply put, unless the public gets riled enough to force the GOP-led House to vote on articles of impeachment, and the GOP-led Senate to convict on those articles, it ain't gonna happen. That is politics. That does not mean that Dems should not bring the articles up for a vote in the House, or at least keep the issue alive in the public's mind, because it could stoke anti-GOP sentiment in the midterm elections. That is politics, also. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11174 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hoops I was concentrating on the leaking of Ms. Plame's identity, not the Niger deal per see. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1648 Registered: 10-2004 |
ESL, I'm BEYONE RILED UP!!! My question is why aren't you? You want this schlock meister of a president to continue driving our country into the gutters? Like I said, let's seize the opportunity while we have it. And ESL I don't feel like this is the only body of evidence of Bush deceiving the people. The spying on citizens was ALSO illegal and an impeachable offense. Personally I feel like outing Plame is illegal and reprehensible because it was done for political reasons to punish her husband for speaking out against the administration's desire for uneccessary war. But to be honest it isn't a fraction as bad as the fact that Bush openly lied and fabricated a war that didn't exist and now our budget is shot to hell, loads of innocent people are dead, and Al Qaeda is as strong as ever (nothing was accomplished). THAT IS THE REASON WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BE PISSED OFF ENOUGH TO IMPEACH HIM. The reason for impeachment, I couldn't care less, as long as it's done. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 161 Registered: 1-2006 |
Alleygater, I'm not saying that the President should not be impeached, but the issue of the President's authority to declassify information probably makes it too "iffy" as grounds for impeachment. I would have no objection to an impeachment, but the Dems will have to retake the House and Senate first. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, however, so I have mixed feelings about all of this. Cheers | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1649 Registered: 10-2004 |
Why do the Democrats need to re-take the House and Senate? Don't the Republicans want honesty and good strong leadership in their president? Heck, I gotta tell ya, I would be happy to get rid of Bush and have any other Republican as a president. That would be better than what we have now. I'm not sure we could do worse? | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3248 Registered: 9-2001 |
Because that is politics. When enough American voters get upset at Bush et al to either vote in Dems, or push elected GOP folks to act, you will see some action. Go forth and prosletyze--make the case, loud and clear, and move the tide of public opinion. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 891 Registered: 2-2004 |
Alley, I can't wait to read your reaction after the midterms. You are quickly reaching Foj and Themp like levels of frustration. I hope all of you libs get that worked up. It will make the reading all the more fun. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1663 Registered: 10-2004 |
Southerner: Ughhhh... I don't think I could ever be as disappointed with how I felt in 2004. It was like Straw had come to my house, brought you and SLK to hold me down while he blew a fart in my face. I seriously almost lost my lunch. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4714 Registered: 5-2001 |
If there aren't any changes after the midterm election, I think the country has some serious soul-searching to do. Here's what I mean: right now, Congress is polling even lower then the President. The majority of voters in surveys want some kind of change. What will it mean if there's a national election and we're left with the status quo? There's a couple of possible explanations, and most of them are bad: 1) The Dems couldn't do any better. This is depressing because the electorate isn't getting the choice they need. 2) Somebody cheated. Enough said. 3) Too many "safe" districts. Noncompetitive elections based on hard-core gerrymandering can only increase cynicism about politics and government, which isn't good for democracy. 4) People lied to pollsters. See "cynicism," above. 5) Something happens between now and then to raise the Republicans' favorable ratings. Can be something good or something terrible. Again, this isn't just because I want it to be so. Polls all over show that people don't like the direction the country is going in, and want a change. If the election doesn't reflect that in some way, something is broken. You might think, "boo hoo, we won so I don't care." But remember that there was a near riot in DC the day of Bush's first inaugural. It's possible that citizens of this country will just roll over and take it; it's also possible that they will take to the streets. If an immigration bill can do it, a blatantly stolen election can do it too. You won't be laughing quite so hard if massive civil unrest lowers the value of your portfolio. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13574 Registered: 1-2003 |
Another possibility is a fairly old problem: Ask the man in the street what he thinks of Congress. "They're a bunch of clowns." Then ask him what he thinks of his congressman. "Oh, he's a good guy." Sorry for my use of masculine pronouns. It's just a convenience. |
