The People's March for Peace, Equality, Jobs, and Justice on Saturday, August 25 in Newark, New Jersey brought thousands of impassioned pleas for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It also brought Congressman John Conyers to the stage to promote the very popular National Health Insurance Bill, H.R. 676.
While the discussion of health insurance for all and the great congressman from Michigan were well-received with cheers and applause, the cries for impeachment took center stage. In what has become routine now, Conyers fed into the momentum asking "What should we do?" "IMPEACH!" cried the crowd. "What should we do?" "IMPEACH!" and so it was repeated. The congressman went on to declare that we needed to bring back Rumsfeld and put him on trial and the big question was to decide who ought to go first. "Cheney!" shouted the crowd enthusiastically.
Cries for impeachment of the President and Vice President
Some knowing impeach activists in the crowd called the bluff asking "When are you going to act on this?" He replied that he was going to meet with impeachment activists. "When?!" they called. "Right after this march. Right here!" and he pointed back stage.
NJ impeachment activists, Stuart Hutchison (North), Cheryl Biren-Wright and Joanne O'Neill (South) as well as a representative from Central NJ positioned themselves behind stage to avoid getting the slip. After a few condescending and sarcastic assurances from the legislative aide that "Sure, sure, the congressman will meet you right here," they slowly maneuvered their way towards Rep. Conyers. By then, word had spread through the crowd that Conyers, not only was going to meet with impeachment supporters, but was going to sign onto H. Res. 333 on Monday. As the activists greeted the congressman, a warm exchange and introductions were made. "We're very pleased to hear that you've agreed to sign on to H. Res. 333 on Monday," announced Hutchison despite his doubt that this would actually be carried out. Conyers did not deny he said that, but replied "Well, you know I can't do it Monday, we're not in session." Biren-Wright interjected by pulling out a cell phone and suggested they could call Kucinich right there. Conyers proceeded, "...and, I can't do it on the 6th or the 13th...but I'll be back here in November." The NJ Impeach Group persisted and Conyers prepared to setup his next "deal." "Listen," he said, "You keep working here in New Jersey. You get one representative from New Jersey..." The members precipitously jumped in declaring, "We've got one!" Conyers was taken aback and shot a look at assistant, Joel Segal. "Who?" inquired Conyers. "Congressman Donald Payne who is on his way here right now," they replied.
Payne, New Jersey's only member of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus signed on to H. Res. 333 after a strong campaign by the NJ Impeach Groups and a sealing of the deal by David Swanson of afterdowningstreet.com last month. The congressman, who represents the city of Newark, was on his way to join Conyers in leading the march and addressing the crowd. Rep. Conyers struggled to respond to this unexpected news and suddenly his approach was less amicable and more direct. He searched each activist intently asking "Do you know what will happen if this moves forward and doesn't succeed? Do you have any idea?" as if the mere thought was too much to bear.
The representatives replied that they understood the consequences of not moving on it and that is where the real danger was. Despite the contentions of some critics, Conyers readily acknowledged that as chair of the judiciary, he holds the power to propel the impeachment process forward. However, he insisted that a campaign to impeach that was not successful would have dire consequences - presumably politically. The NJ Impeach Group explained that the success would be acquired through defending the Constitution and standing up to an administration that has committed a felony and grave abuses of power. They reiterated that this was the will of the people and that a growing number of democratic constituents are positioned to walk away from the party if the dems do not hold this administration accountable. Conyers stood firm in his position which begs the question of why he continues to urge crowds to support taking out Bush and Cheney before their term expires. The discussion was stuck in a stalemate when the South Jersey impeach leader asked what Conyers was going to suggest would happen if they were able to get a NJ congressman to sign on to impeach Cheney. Suddenly, Conyers looked longingly back at the stage and said he had to "get back up there." In the aftermath of Conyers telling a group of Progressive Democrats in July that if they could get just 3 more to sign on he would move on it and then failing to do so and now the suggestion that something would come to fruition if this group could get a NJ representative on board, they pressed the issue. Conyers began to move away from the group while pointing to the stage at an unseen force beckoning him, Biren-Wright respectfully, but firmly drew him back in and asked, "Sir, why do you keep upping the ante?" With a hint of apology, the Congressman responded simply that he had to go.
After descending from the stage a second time, Congressman Conyers was surrounded and confronted by an unrelenting group of protestors demanding that he begin impeachment proceedings. As a long-time admirer of this great statesman and feeling sentimental as a fellow Detroit native, this writer stood observing from a distance while the 78-year-old endured the near 100 degree heat of the day and the even more heated reaction from the crowd and felt an urge to reach in and pull him out of the smothering environment. We made eye contact a few times while he was being inundated with demands from the people and I wondered at what point would he realize that the consequences of not pursuing justice outweigh his fear of failure.
Later, as Congressman Donald Payne joined his colleague and friend, John Conyers, on the march for peace and justice, I approached Payne in the presence of Conyers, shook his hand and thanked him for his support of the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. With a wink and smile to John Conyers, I made my way back into the crowd and back to the drawing board.
Conyers continued on the march with great passion, commitment and leadership with respect to the other calls to march of ending the war, racial equality, healthcare for all, stopping the violence at home and abroad and other issues of social uplift. His presence on Saturday was inspiring and encouraging to the marchers and the citizens of Newark who cheered him on and stepped into formation when they saw they had the support of the man who has been one of the most powerful forces for social justice in our Congress. As Conyers, himself, wrote the book on impeachment - literally in The Constitution in Crisis: The High Crimes of the Bush Administration and a Blueprint for Impeachment and introduced in 2005, H. Res 635 that would create a select committee to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment, we hold out hope that he will choose to put justice and the future of our country before politics.
Writer/Photographer/Activist. An advocate for clean government, media integrity and civil liberties. Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter Impeachment Team and co-leader of the New Jersey Impeach Groups. Founder of the Strike08.com campaign. Working to end the war in Iraq and prevent one with Iran. Writer and editor for OpEdNews.com.
cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com
Its good to hear this sort of report here in Australia where it isn't really practical to get to those meetings and see what is going on on Conyers face as a hint to his mind.
Impeachment needs Conyers but Conyers knows that successful impeachment (ie. to get through the Senate without looking like its partisan politics) it needs (politically) to have a strong intellectual basis (which it has) AND be sufficiently important that enough people/voters/those-who-Congress-represents care about it as an issue, when it would, necessarily, focus the mind of the country.
But Cheryl, impeachment, if it includes the invasion of Iraq as one of its heads, isn't just for your country, its actually something that matters for confidence in the rule of law around the world.
This is because the whole world saw the United States (with some backers - the shamefully opportunistic and sycophantic John Howard of Australia, and Tony Blair) under Bush's order, invade the sovereign nation of Iraq AGAINST existing security council resolution 1441 which had unanumously afforded Iraq a "final opportunity". The whole world knows that China, Russia and France (3 permanent security council members) and a swag of the other then security council members did not want the invasion to occur as the weapons inspections were still going on. The whole world watched as with Spain and the UK, the Bush administration tried to get another security council resolution passed that would declare simply that Iraq's final opportunity had ended, passed, and failed.
Having tried and failed to his argument to go sooner rather than wait for the weapons inspections the whole world saw America with the so called coalition of the willing invade, then we saw no weapons of mass destruction found.
Meanwhile folks had been reading the writings of the Project For the New American Century written before 9-11, and later the Downing Street memo came out that shows that diplomats in the UK considered that in the US the "facts" were being made to "fit the policy".
The world needs to see justice. The world will accept and be greatful for American leadership when it is principled leadership and when America walks it talk, but when America doesn't, when America breaks its promises on treaties such as the United Nations Charter (which has been part of US law since before George W Bush was born, because it was ratified by the US Congress by a vote of 89 to 2, and so the US Constitution incorporates it under Article 6), the world, the people in the world, can't help but be anti-American and to wish to see the corruption of America corrected or America removed from its position of leadership.
Thanks again Cheryl, I think you are a true patriot for your efforts, but you may not realise that you are also, in my opinion, doing work that is in the interests of all humankind.
PS. Bush will be here in Australia for an APEC meeting in September. If I can get to Sydney, I'd like to be holding an Impeach Bush sign. It would be only the second time in my life I have protested - I'm 41 years old. The first was also about impeaching Bush at Melbourne University where some of the students had a mock trial of Wolfowitz (who happened to be in the country at the time).
I find I disagree with some of the reasons of many of the peace protesters especially perhaps some of the younger ones, but sometimes they get things dead right, and it is important I think in democracies to protest whilst we can, and as people to see that others give a damn too.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 610 comments)
on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 6:14:22 PM
Thanks for this report, how dare Conyers mislead people
Thanks for this excellent report that shows how Rep. Conyers is attempting to manipulate voters. Getting the crowd to chant "impeach, impeach" while all the while knowing he has not intention of moving forward in any timely way on this issue. Before getting majority power Conyers co-sponsored an impeachment bill, collected hundreds of thousands of email addresses supporting impeachment, and put out a report showing impeachible offenses. He also spoke at rallies where he excited the crowd with impeachment claims. Now he has the power and he is literally doing nothing.
Conyers is exactly what is wrong with the Dems. They need to know that they will be judged on their deeds not their words. It is not good enough to talk about ending the war, providing health care for all, holding Bush/Cheney accountable -- they need to do something with their majority power or many voters will stay home in November 08 and they will lose more in the election than they realize.
Kevin Director, DemcoracyRising.US Chair, VotersForPeace.US
by
Kevin Zeese (62 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:49:10 AM
One thing that may have slipped by all the members of Congress who fail to move for impeachment, is they took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as this administration. Dick Cheney and George Bush have done everything to nullify the Constitution. If no action is initiated on Impeachment it is silent approval and collusion of these lawless practices and has nothing to do with political party. It has to do with courage and the dedication, to this country of laws, for the people and by the people. As the rats desert a sinking ships they feel they are getting away with murder and they are. Perjury and malfeasance become the new law of the land.
by
cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 182 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 9:36:01 AM
Impeachment Agents... Between Iraq and a Hard Place
Well... Do We Have Any Idea What Would Happen?
I think the Honorable Mr. Conyers is trying to tell us something, but can't quite come out and say it because it can't be proved... yet.
What if the forces behind the Bush administration really are more like an organized "crime family" as some have said?
The consequences of a failed impeachment attempt could be far worse than mere political retribution. They could be very personal and even deadly. The feared consequences might even involve family members. Who among us, if faced with a credible and viscious threat to our persons or our families, would have the courage to be a key player in moving forward with an impeachment process if that were the case?
I don't think Mr. Conyers is a hypocrite. He only appears so because he's positioned "between Iraq and a hard place".
That said, if I ever became a member of Congress, I would hope I would see my duty as even more crucial than the duty of our members of the armed forces. I would hope that I would have the courage to do whatever it takes to defend our constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic-- even up to laying down my life, if necessary... because the alternative is that so many more die-- other peoples' sons and other peoples' daughters on the battlefields and toxic waste fields of Iraq.
When I look at Mr. Conyers past words and deeds and consider his more recent failings in the area of impeachment... well this is my best hypothesis for explaining the apparent disconnect. I sense and trust that Mr. Conyers wouldn't cop out for any light or transient reason.
Maybe those of us in the impeachment movement should aim to find out , I suppose through deniable back-channels to the key decision-makers concerning impeachment, if such heavy-handed threats are a factor in the current case. If so, maybe we should have a little more compassion for Mr. Conyers and maybe we should consider volunteering as Mr. Conyers' (and families') body guards?
by
Marcus B (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:54:22 AM
"The consequences of a failed impeachment attempt could be far worse than mere political retribution. They could be very personal and even deadly. The feared consequences might even involve family members. Who among us, if faced with a credible and viscious threat to our persons or our families, would have the courage to be a key player in moving forward with an impeachment process if that were the case?"
That's what they get the big bucks for -- and that's what they swore to do. If they are not willing to do the job, then resign and let someone else do it. Otherwise they are as bad as any of the gangsters, and traitors to the nation. What -- no one ever risked their lives (or honor or fortunes) for the nation before? Ask about that at the local veterans' group! Hell -- ask a firefighter!
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 3:41:56 PM
Do you have an idea what will happen if Bush isn't impeached
Consider the following -
Depending on what sources one credits (polls etc) there is either a slight majority or a significant minority of Americans that are in favour of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Foreigners are not being picked up in the polling because they don't vote in elections.
Now polls are done on samples of the population and not the whole population but when they are done well (professionally) there are excellent mathematical and statistical reasons, born out by experiential evidence, that polls do reflect the views of the population. So let me restate at least a significant minority of Americans think that Bush warrants impeachment.
Imagine what foreigners on the sharp end of your Presidents foreign policy blunders (such as the illegal immoral invasion of Iraq) think of your President.
I will be blunt - he is a one man terrorism creation program of the first order. He is the poster boy for generating anti-American sentiment. People like me who are non-religious, and live in countries like Australia, which share the values asserted by American, and respect the moral norms that are universals in all human societies are looking at Bush's America and thinking you know - maybe the terrorists had a point!
Terrorism is a desperate political act aimed at changing foreign policy. We foreigners are denied by Bush and his supporters almost all recourse to the law and Bush and his supporters pardon and grant themselves immunity from almost all their misdeeds that they can. And in large part American's let them.
If America does not impeach Bush you are going to find that you have legitimized terror against you by leaving rational decent people who care about other people and the state of the world they leave behind little choice but to oppose you - as you fall in behind even you most corrupt and incompetent wrecking ball Presidents because they are yours.
We all know that in desperate circumstances some people will do desperate things - mothers for children, firemen (as Blue Pilgrim notes below) will risk their lives. We know that men and women in the armed services of every country will sometimes lay down their lives for their values and for the sake of their family and friends. America doesn't want to be the bad guy against that heroic sentiment.
But fail to impeach Bush for the illegal immoral unconstitution un-Congressionally authorised invasion of Iraq (amongst other things) and you will find that those you think of as terrorists coming at you to modify your corrupt policies will be the sort of folk that you can't see coming because they will look like ordinary people - like you, and they will if anything have the quite courage and steady resolve of heros.
America must impeach Bush. Or terrorism against America will have become heroism against a corruption of universal human values and some will see it as morally legitimate.
Now my point is this - foreigners outnumber Americans by quite a lot. Foreigners that look like Europeans, and Canadians, and Aussies and Chineese and the whole human cornucopia. And if the sentiment against Bush's actions are so widely and reasonaby (in your view) held in America they will also be, because reason is reason, wildly held outside of America.
What will happen if the American system of checking and balancing rouge Presidents fails because the people don't demand of their representatives that they uphold their oath of office is that the foreigners (as well as increasingly large numbers of domestic discontents) will start to increasing choose force to make their point. And some of them will make mistakes harming innocents people and even like minded people as 'colateral damage' as they take the law into their own inexpert hands.
I write this as a one time friend of America that would be a friend of America again. I write this as a friendly warning and not as a threat.
Failure to uphold the rule of law and failure to uphold solemn oaths and failure to learn the bloody terrible lessons of past human mistakes through our long history of wars by a population of citizens is, at present, a real and dire threat to America.
I am not sure that Conyers even knows, though I am sure he is an intelligent man, the scale of the threat that Americans are brewing against themselves. The Bush Presidency, the opportunity to impeach and to repuduate him, is a ticking clock over not just Bush but over America.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 610 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:09:50 PM
This is a government of the people, for the people
by the people....why are the Democrats so afraid of what the rest of the Representatives and Senators (of the people) think...the people want impeachment....60% is a majority..its a fact, the people will not elect those who refuse to represent the peoples will...why can't these idiots see that?
by
Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 175 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 12:02:55 PM
I totally agree that the impeachment of this utterly crooked and warmongering administration is vital to the survival of the United States as a Constitutional Republic, and to prevent it's final, tragic transformation into a ravenous military-industrial Empire.
However, Impeachment is a solemn matter, and should only be conducted with absolute clarity of purpose.
To my mind, that purpose is not revenge, or partisan pique, but to make way for the very serious and utterly vital policy reforms that are required to return America to it's people, and begin the urgent process of rebuilding our economy and international standing, as a beacon of hope and temple of liberty to the nations of the world who are struggling under the boot of globalization - the modern version of the slavery system for which our nation was founded to destroy.
Let us join together to complete the work of our glorious revolution, and remove those, like Bush, Cheney and the economic interests they represent, that would stand in the way of freedom and democracy in our troubled world.
by
RAL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 1:19:11 PM
Article ll, Section 4, of the Constitution reads; The President, Vice President and civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It reads "shall" not "may". The word "shall" makes impeachment a requirement. It is mention no fewer than six times in the Constitution.
To take Impeachment off the table is unconstitutional. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis and it is the sworn duty of our elected to resolve the crisis. Failing to do as they swore to do puts them in violation of their oath of office.
Seems Kucinich and those few who have signed on with his Impeachment bill are the only ones in office with any integrity and ethics.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 1:22:48 PM
You make an excellent point--one that is seldom examined in any forum, including the internet. We must remember that when the Democrats tried to stop the Patriot Act the two Congressional leaders of that effort were attacked with the most highly weaponized anthrax in the world. And that anthrax originated from an American lab. The average Congressman probably thinks that he signed up to legislate, not to forfeit his life impeaching a president who will be gone in eighteen months anyway. Americans should have been smarter than to originally elect the former head of our secret police, George H.W. Bush, as our Chief Executive Officer. Such is the way of banana republics and communist regimes, but not of democratic republics (at least those that want to remain so).
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 1:31:17 PM
Americans didn't "elect" Bush. The count was stopped and he was appointed by a supreme court judge... also there was the illegal caging of votes..so many illegally disenfranchised voters. Exit polls said the opposite. Also remember the corrupted machines..Republican corruption put him in office. The American people had better sense but we are so poorly represented no one fought hard enough against any of it. As usual the dems just rolled over.
Impeachment needs to happen. The elected may feel they would be targeted but where does that leave the people? Right where we are..in danger of losing what ever freedom we have left which is going down hill at a rapid pace..You think Bush and Cheney are not planning martial law? Didn't you read how the federal government is training the clergy in Louisiana to quell dissent during martial law? Haven't you read the Presidential directives and the last executive order? Secret stuff contained within that the reps can't get even get a look at...denied access to. Everything this admin does is always a secret..because it is illegal !
Do you really believe the saddist and his puppet are just going to walk off into the sunset when the term is up? I think we are the ones in danger. Much more so than the do nothings in the House and Congress. The majority of those are working hard all right..working hard trying to save their own behinds while we flap in the breeze. Time for them to stand up and take the heat instead of the people.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:17:50 PM
The "Consequences" of Impeachment without Conviction/Removal
There are three possible scenarios that Conyers may be referring to when he cites the "consequences" of not successfully taking an impeachment through to conviction and removal.
1. He may be talking the DNC/DCCC talking point that the failure would weaken Democrats in 2008. That's only if they don't successfully communicate that they are doing "THEIR JOBS" and "supporting and fighting for the Constitution of the United States of America, where the Administration is instead trying to destroy it."
2. He may fear for his life as another comment explained.
3. He may fear that if pushed, Bush will invoke the many Executive Orders he has put in place and simply "go Dictator" on us. If he's really THAT scared of that possibility, it makes Impeachment that much more important.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 586 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 1:43:19 PM
CyberChas said: "He may fear that if pushed, Bush will invoke the many Executive Orders he has put in place and simply "go Dictator" on us. If he's really THAT scared of that possibility, it makes Impeachment that much more important. "
That could be it, in a nutshell! But what in the devil does he think will happen if we DON'T impeach?? Those secret Executive Orders will still be ready to be called into play!
I also believe that BOTH the Party Machines are complicit, and BOTH neo-Zionists and Dem-Zionists want the SAME thing: American Dictatorship. We "voters" are nothing but the numbers those Party Machines use to calculate the $'s in their warchests - if it wasn't for our taxes, those of us who object would be exterminated as nothing but the worthless pests we are to them.
You have to remember that NO politician will be willing to VOLUNTARILY give up any of the POWER they inherit in the next "election". That -all by itself- makes Impeachment IMPERATIVE!
=================================================
We have a NEW worry, now--- Bush will be replacing one crony with another crony, which may be going from bad to Worse: we need to inform 'our' Congress about Chertoff! (They pretend not to know things unless we rub their noses in it)
New Jersey and Terrorism... New Jersey and Terrorism...Perfect Together; terrorism is operating in NJ unchecked, and Bush's Justice Dept knows about it. a four part series By Allan P. Duncan September 2, 2004
Introduction
Between the Fall of 1998 and June 2001, a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey is caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. Three years after the operation ended, all of the people involved in the deal are free.
Federal agents who worked on the case were frustrated because it was handled as a criminal case instead of a counterterrorism case. In an in depth look at Operation Diamondback I reveal that one of the suspects who was accused of skimming millions of dollars from a fraudulent HMO to offshore accounts where the money allegedly went to finance terrorism, was defended in the HMO case by a lawyer who later became the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, under John Ashcroft. The lawyer, Michael Chertoff, was in his position as Assistant Attorney General when Operation Diamondback ended and his client was never arrested even though an intelligence document claimed he and his brother in Egypt had links to Osama Bin Laden."
READ THE ARTICLE! CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN !!
by
mary-ann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 3:29:50 PM
we start with Nancy Pelosi, she is afraid to do her elected job as speaker. Conyers is afraid of George Bush. ( the democrats cut and run ). trouble is all our elected officals are there in Washington for one thing. MONEY. they all are corrupt. BOTH PARTIES. these politicans only now you and me by our VOTE. then they screw all of us every witch way possible. SPECIAL INTEREST CONTROLS ALL POLITICANS IN D.C. we the peole will never take back our government with out CLEANING OUT WASHINGTON COMPLETELY. that means getting rid of all special interest groups. now the reason why the democrats will not impeach these bastards in the whitw house. BECAUSE THEY HAVE INVESTMENTS IN THE WEALTHY OIL CORPORATIONS LIKE GEORGE BUSH AND HIS FAMILY DO. complete control of the middle east is there thinking and all the oil fields in the middle east. that is way George Bush will never get out of Iraq. and he will start something with IRAN. THE TERRIORIST IS IN WASHINGTON. Bush started all this by going to war with Iraq. THIS DICTATOR will not stop until he has control of the middle east. America is sleeping. she better wake up. IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY WAY OUT. and then a complete clean up of Washington. and put all special interest behind Bars WERE THEY BELONG.
by
vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:27:14 PM
Conyers change of heart is hard to puzzle out, but there's something we're not understanding about it. So I think maybe demonizing him is not quite right.
Impeaching Clinton was a brilliant move. It turned impeachment into a weapon of revenge. Now, it's almost impossible for the Dems to impeach anyone -- whether he deserves it or not -- without half the country believing that it's merely payback. I think this might have something to do with Conyers backing off.
by
delia (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 11:32:12 PM
are planning to steal the next election for a clean sweep -- after all, with the accusations of the last two stolen by the Republicans how could they accuse the Dems of it without sounding like they were just trying to do the old bounce of rubber sticks to glue routine? The trick to this game is make the first move and ruin it for the other gang.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 1:01:42 AM
