In these two short months since an election that was supposed to have turned the country around, it has become increasingly clear that everybody got the message except George Bush.
Nancy Pelosi got the message so hard that she has bent over backward to let everyone know that "Impeachment is off the table."
Harry Reid got the message so confidently that he seems unfazed by the fact that his Dem-dominant Senate actually hangs on the balance of a maybe-with-us, maybe-not, brain-damaged Tim Johnson of South Dakota.
Both of those leadership figures seem so blissed out by their sudden change of fortunes (seemingly) that they've been doing curtseys to demonstrate their grace to a DISgraced power structure that didn't know what was expected of power when they had it.
It is all talk, so far . . . though it is NOT talk about impeachment, which should be the topic of the day.
Why? Because in point of clear fact, the Democrats have no power against a renegade, war-empowered administration that refuses to heed the message that everyone else seems to have gotten, on November 7th.
Bush is clearly determined to ram his plans through, in the pursuit of a dreamed-of victory in Iraq, come hell or high Congress. The ONLY card that Congress can legitimately play, against his dog-headedness, is the impeachment card.
This is precisely what that playing card is for, and the means are at hand to accomplish it. Everyone knows, very well, that Bush has been guilty of crimes for which he can be tried and impeached. It's quite true that we have no way of being sure that an impeachment will follow the trial . . . but isn't that what a trial is all about? We'll know when we get there. But we shall NEVER know if we don't get there.
Are trials normally avoided because we cannot be sure of guilt in advance?
What a quaint notion that is!
WE KNOW WHERE BUSH IS GOING, IF HE IS NOT IMPEACHED.
And from my perspective, that is precisely reason enough to pursue the impeachment.
www.irvthomas.com
Irv Thomas, ratrace escapee and cultural outsider for 35 years, editor of Black Bart Brigade during counter-culture days, hides out in Seattle. Presently putting out a sporadic pre-formatted email newsletter called Irv's Scrapbook, which can be had at no cost if you send me an email address for it.
Irv Thomas is inaccurate on two basic points. He writes that there is 'no way to be sure than an impeachment will follow a trial,' but impeachment is not a verdict, but the trial itself. The verdict, so to speak, is whether Congress votes in the end that the official impeached be removed from office or not. Impeachment also is not 'the only card' the Dems can play. They can cut off funding.
by
Kuzminski (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 7:48:01 AM
The longer Bush remains president, the more long time Republican voters flee the party. I watch C-SPAN's Washington Journal every morning and hear increasing numbers of callers say that they formerly voted Republican, but can no longer do so. Their only option (unfortunately, given the two party system) is to vote for Democrats. Bush is VERY GOOD for the Democratic party.
When the Republican Party wakes up to this reality (unlikely, since the current Republicans are not "reality-based"), they will want to pursue impeachment to get rid of the force that is destroying their party.
My remark is horribly cynical, and ignores the fact that Bush is destroying the country and is murdering hundreds of thousands of people. I apologize for the cynicism, but I can't help but wonder if the Democrats are smart enough to realize this, and thus have taken impeachment off the table.
by
KathyP (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 8:13:52 AM
For one thing, impeachment is not a trial. It is more like a Grand Jury (The House), which gathers evidence and does or does not, hand up articles of impeachment to be prosecuted in the Senate. The trial is in the Senate and it does determine whether or not high officials in our government have committed high crimes and misdemeanors and deserve to be removed from office. Then, if those high crimes and misdemeanors are worthy of prosecution in a criminal court, the former officials can be tried, with due process just like any other citizen.
In other words, impeachment by the House and trial be the Senate is the process given to the people to deal with scoundrels and other criminal types who find their way into high office and misuse and/or abuse the power with which we entrust them, and to remove them from office.
It is a process that should never be used by politicians of either party for purely political purposes, such as revenge, and, thus, trivialized. Nevertheless, it has been, not so very long ago.
Any move to impeach a sitting president or Vice President should come from the people, not the politicians, for the simple reason that they are elected by the people (or at least that's the theory). Of course, we are no longer so sure about the election part.
There is no doubt that the Dems are planning a ton of Hearings, right off the bat, looking into such crimes as war profiteering, sometimes called fraud, anything and everything about the Iraq war, as well as crimes against the Constitution, in the name of national security (which is usually the excuse); too many to even count by now, but the most intolerable one being the deep-sixing of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors will be gathered. How could it not be?
I heard one opinion, from John Dean, which advises Congress to start with the small fish. As Mr. Dean says, Bush and Cheney did not commit the crimes we all think they have committed in a vacuum. Quite a few others either were complicit or have knowledge.
The problem with that is that, unless Bush and Cheney have their powers removed before they naturally leave office, Bush will simply pardon everyone, as was done by his father, and then the whole gang will be back in another 4 to 8 years, because the pardons will rob any attempt at prosecution of bigger fish. This administration is simply full to the brim with criminals from past Republican administrations, all the way back to Nixon, and they have tried to hire even more. Effing amazing to me, personally, but no one asked me.
I did learn something new to me, just the other day, because of Gerald Ford's death, and that is that if anyone decides to accept a presidential pardon, and no one is required to do so, it is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the law. No, said pardoned person will not go to jail, but they can never serve in any public office, which requires a security clearance, again. Unfortunately, Congress has still not passed a law that strips guilty public officials of their retirement or other perks, like secret service protection, for example. They should, ASAP.
Sometimes, I think that the crimes of this administration, enabled by some in Congress for 6 damned years, both Constitutional and International, are too big for impeachment.
I can't help but wonder what would happen, if the Dems stick to their word and simply hold Hearings and do their constitutional duty of over-sight, gathering evidence, all the while, which can easily be turned over to a federal prosecutor during the early weeks of a new administration. Neither Bush nor Cheney will have the power to pardon anyone, then. Libby may get a pardon, but he will be the only one.
My other thought is that there is less than two years until the next president takes office. Is there really time for impeachment and trial by the senate?
So, there are my out-loud thoughts. My concern is more with accountability than with the method by which it comes.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 10:16:44 AM
Thank you for your well-reasoned considerations, as well as your clarification of detail on what is popularly called just "impeachment". I don't think I really risked being misunderstood, however, on that initializing point.
I have gone back and forth, myself, on the wisdom of the direct attack versus the wisdom of the careful and methodical approach. As to that particular toss-up I still remain uncertain. What moves me to advocate direct action, however, is the fear of what can still be done, in two years time, by a pack of wolves so heedless of decency as this pack has proved itself to be.
Given their present head of steam, we could be facing a near-term future of a second pre-emptive attack, possibly nuclear, on Iran, justified under the blanket authorization by the prior Congress to pursue the threat of terrorism wherever it may lead. That is only the worst of a number of possible scenarios that could easily eventuate, given their penchant for running with whatever ball they can manage to hold onto.
I see this administration as far too dangerous, to our own country and to the world, to allow them the leeway of another two years without reining in their power as quickly and sharply as possible. And impeachment - ON the table - seems to me the most direct route to that end.
by
Irvthom (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 79 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 11:14:29 AM
...and in my heart and mind, I agree. There is no president or vice president in my life time (of 58 years) who has deserved impeachment and trial by the Senate more that these two and their little evil elves.
Believe me, I know how you feel. I want them all in prison, which is where they belong, with their assets frozen, if not confiscated. I want to see Lynne and Laura living in a trailer park in the deep south, along an old deserted highway, where divorce, economic stress and tornadoes do about the same amount of damage annually.
Still, my friend, I believe that we have to be smart about this, as well as passionate. As Gandhi once said, "there is no truth in passion." As Judith Broadus once said, "Gandhi was right, but it is the passion that motivates us to get off our butts, find truth and act on it."
I, for one, have been very concerned that Mr. Bush is not mentally fit to serve as president and neither is Cheney. But, alas, the 25th amendment won't work, because it takes the cabinet to kick off the process. What chance is there of that?
Still, we simply must be aware that the Crook-in-Chief is not all there; several bricks shy of a load, as my grandfather would have said.
Somehow, I don't think that our other elected officials are unaware of this. Whatever they are and however frustrated we may become with them, they are not stupid, and it does not take a mental health professional to see the danger.
Like I said before, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but something is. I can feel it.
Hope to see you in D.C., either in Jan. or in March. The people we elected cannot do what needs to be done without our obvious, massive, non-violent support. Bush is making that extremely obvious.
For all the protests that have gone before, and have been ignored, this is the year of the protest. Now is the time to throw down the gauntlet.
As they say, timing is everything!
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 11:58:03 AM
Why waist time get a rope like they did in the old days.
If only those within his confidence were smart enough to do just that.
I don't think anyone would truly care, with the exception's of his daughters, Laura would probably have a celebration.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 363 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM
Chapter 55. GITMO (Get Impeachment to Move Onward!)
== Chapter 55. GITMO (Get Impeachment to Move Onward!) ==
By Larry W. Bryant
[Author's Note: For the year 2007, here are my candidates for the three most beautiful words in the English language: (1) impeachment, (2) impeachment, and (3) impeachment. Do you suppose that the Bu$ch-Cheezey junta has begun fielding a year-long infomercial to counter Amerika's growing impeachment movement? If so, how will that B-C contramercial deal with the energy and determination behind the several state legislatures' now being called upon to produce resolutions for B-C impeachment? A small group of citizens in New Jersey -- the latest such state solicited to join this grassroots effort to help free our republic from the tentacles of fascism -- have created a web site devoted to their cause: http://www.impeachthem.com . Birth place of colonial Amerika's superpatriot Tom Paine, the Garden State now renews its leadership legacy by helping us try to end the B-C madness and to bring all its perpetrators to account. The group's statement-of-purpose declares: "Don't believe talk radio types who say impeachment is a waste of time. YOU make it happen when patriots join to demand justice. We call for impeachment because it's the right thing to do." Also posted on the web site's blog report is the content of my Jan. 1, 2007, open letter to my delegate to the Virginia General Assembly, David L. Englin. Under the comment titled "Virginia Is on the Move!", my letter asks that Englin introduce an impeachment resolution in the upcoming session of that legislature. "By so acting," I explain, "you not only will have contributed to an historic Virginia effort to restore what's left of our republic; you also will have encouraged the quasi-[Patrick] Henrys and Paines of today not to relent in their resolve to uphold and protect the U. S. Constitution." As pro-impeachment activism intensifies at the state level, so, too, does the national version warm up the countryside in the dead of winter. On the lovely, springlike day of Jan 4, 2007, a citizens rally took place at noon near the U. S. Capitol, sponsored by a coalition of groups opposed to the current B-C foreign policy. That same evening, at the Washington, D. C.-based National Press Club, these same groups sponsored a public forum called "Voices for Impeachment." One of those voices -- that of The Nation magazine's Washington correspondent, John Nichols -- had a rousing effect on the nearly 300 attenders. His lead-off speech countered certain critics' conclusion that B-C impeachment would be a constitutional crisis; "it is a constitutional CURE," he said, for the wrongs committed by our imperial presidency. His battle cry to the audience brought them to their feet in applause: "Impeach the president; impeach the vice president! Change this administration! Redeem this republic!" The third speaker -- "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg -- compared the modus operandi of Germany's Third Reich with that of the B-C junta, noting that, in their final stage of seizing arbitrary control, the Nazis had suspended the privacy of the German postal system. And, sure enough: on or about Jan. 4, 2007, Herr Bu$ch had chosen to impose another of his infamous series of "signing statements" upon congressional legislation. This time, his arrogant defiance of congressional intent centered on a routine bill implementing some postal reform. By appending his (mis)interpretive "signing statement," he authorized himself (and his subpuppets of our looming police state) to conduct, in time of extreme emergency, any amount of warrantless opening of Americans' domestic mail. This development brings to mind the slightly less invasive practice by the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency during the 1950s--1960s -- i.e., intercepting certain mail for the purpose of performing on it a "mail cover." In my own case, this entailed the Agency's photocopying the envelopes of the several letters I'd sent to the listeners' feedback service of Radio Moscow (plus photocopying of the RM reply envelopes). The subject of my inquiries to Russia's Radio Moscow? The state of, and results from, various UFO-related research being conducted behind the Iron Curtain. You'll have to use your own imagination to figure out why the Agency bothered to keep track of that correspondence (without informing me). Years later, thanks to the U. S. Privacy Act, I succeeded in gaining access to the records pertaining to that particular CIA file on my research activities. But, to this day, I resent that degradation of my right to be let alone by officialdom. And you can bet I'd more than equally resent the B-C junta's intrusion into any snail-mail I might send to, say, Iran's deputy defense minister in charge of cataloguing UFO-encounter reports.]
SCHMOE [reviewing a transcript from a Faux Network interview of a pro-impeachment demonstrator at the Upper Senate Park, across from the Capitol]: Look here, guys: it says that the usual suspects are gathering for another feel-good session, over there at the National Press Club -- the Cindy Sheehan crowd, the "worldcantwait.org" organizers, et al. Take this fool being interviewed here -- and I quote: "The Bu$ch-Cheezey junta has led us down a dangerous, dark alley of destruction abroad and repression at home -- out of which we have no easy exit. Impeachment seems to be our only hope."
CHEEZEY: Yeah, and in another newscast, I noticed a relatively big crop of media folks covering that rally in the park. Does this mean that the mainstreamers are swallowing more and more of that divisive propaganda drooling forth from Sheehan, Swanson, McGovern, McKinney, Ratner, and others of their seditious ilk?
TROVE: That certainly could be the case, Dick. That's why we've got to engage in more editorial-board sessions with our "partners" in medialand. We've got to disabuse 'em of some of that "pack journalism" tendency they've grown used to. You know, even I was gettin' a bit jaded with all that redundant coverage of Gerald Ford's funeral.
BU$CH: Same here. It was enough to make me want to return to the ranch for some challenging bike-ridin'. Anyway, I guess y'all know about one possible reason why there may be a slow-building shift in how the media view our administration.
CHEEZEY: And that would be what, exactly, Herr Bu$ch?
BU$CH: Oh, cut the German-mockery crap, Dick! This is serious. The media seem to be feeding off recent citizens petitions and various state-house lobbying toward placing impeachment on the states' tables of action.
TROVE: Well, we know that that effort will be just about as effective as that hopeless grand-jury-impanelment project down there in Muskogee, Okla., don't we?
SCHMOE: My staff has resumed tracking of this phenomenon, guys. Besides the recent entry of some New Jerseyans into the movement to have various state legislatures adopt resolutions-of-impeachment, there's speculation that the movement soon will spread to New Mexico. And guess what: now, thanks to the continued antics of Muskogee-project cheerleader Larry W. Bryant, the commonwealth of Virginia has been targeted for pressure. Brainless Bryant has sent (and posted in various places on the Internet, I might add) an open letter to his state delegate, and . . ..
CHEEZEY [burping as if in a moment of acid reflux]: Don't tell us -- a letter asking for the delegate to introduce an impeachment resolution in the Virginia legislature?
SCHMOE: Not only that -- but he's also sent the letter to one or two local weekly newspapers for publication as a letter-to-editor.
BU$CH [scratching his neck with both hands]: How do we know that, about the newspapers, Tony?
SCHMOE: The Critical-Mass Mail-Opening Program has confirmed that little transaction. You know, Dubya -- the program we've been operating for a few years now and finally have managed to codify with completion of your recent, under-the-radar CMMOP signing statement.
BU$CH [sheepishly looking at the floor and feigning a golf-putter swing]: Oh, yeah -- right, THAT program.
SCHMOE: Yep. It's the same tidy, but ever-so effective, tool that we used some months ago to detect and dispose of a few packages of IMPEACH HIM buttons that Alan McConnell had shipped to other activists around the country. See -- I told y'all to quit squirmin'. Let the damned Democraps keep focusing on winning one-party rule via the 2008 presidential election. By then, we'll all be safely outa here -- and most of us Paraguay-bound!
[As the Supreme Federal Foursome heads out for lunch, none of its members seems to be dwelling on a pivotal variation of the "I" word: impeach, indict, and imprison.]
As much as he is horrible, and evil, and incompetent, or whatever...nobody ever seems to care, or think what is best for that man. (And don't misunderstand me, I don't love, or support Bush)
But usually, if something is not good for you, it is also not good for anyone else. You have to think about Bush, and not just about him. You have to try to understand his mindset, and look behind his words.
And if any of us really cared about Him, we would know that he is dying to be taken out of his misery, and impeached. Don't you get it? That's what he wants.
What he is doing, is not only destructive, but self-destructive. he will escalate until we 'get it'.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 525 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 7:49:30 PM
It's an interesting theory. But I've got a better one, and have had it all along.
I don't think he's his own man. I don't think he ever was, because I don't think he has the brains for it. He's given indication, on many occasions, that he is only a front man, doing what someone is directing from behind. Most likely, that behind person is Cheney. A perfect set-up: if anything happens to Bush, Cheney takes over, and the process doesn't lose a beat.
by
Irvthom (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 79 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 10:26:59 PM
We need to think, and take into consideration, all of those evil people, and rich people, and abusive, narcissistic minds. Not one of them is happy, and not all of them want to be stuck where they are. They need our help, our actions, and for us to free them from themselves. They have lost control, and not everyone involved is 'evil'...they are stuck, and proud. (like an addict often is) in the beginning all is good and better, but that changes.....
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 525 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 10:34:43 PM
They will kill each other before anyone else does, and Bush is naturally Nr.1 on the list. Homicide/suicide. He matters the least, and he is not much longer useful. And once he is through, they will make sure he can't talk, and blame it all on him.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 525 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 3:14:13 AM
Don't want to impeach Bush. Don't want him to go away. Want to drag every right wing supporter of his before Congressional Committees under oath so the American public will get to hear every sordid detail of the last six years.
Impeach him and he goes away. Impeach him without Impeaching Cheney and Cheney gets to be big dog. I would take Bush any day.
Impeach Bush and the story is over. The Mellon Scaithe clowns and Norquist rabid dogs and Halliburton and the drug monopolies and the medical industry and the media corporations get a free ride if Bush goes and it will just be a matter of time before they bring in another Bush alike. They got the money honey and the American people don't have the time to dig out the dirt.
I care not one wit for this battle at all, and if we try to impeach him we will lose. Let us make a two year war with many battles. I want to see Hillary and Dennis in action with Dick and Ted and Joe holding their feet to the fire with daily interrogations. I want to see Orin Hatch's hatchet face as the truth smacks him down time and time again. He already knows the truth. He just does not want the American public to have a clue. Impeach Bush, not hardly. The Republicans will want to throw him to the lions, but I hope we do not let them. Say in a year and six months, I hope we can throw all of them to the lions. In fact I do not care if we ever Impeach him. I want to Impeach Corporate America. Now that is a war worth fighting. Bush has done his damage. This last election declawed him and made him toothless as well.
I do not hate them. I just hate what they do to so many powerless people. Hate is petty. We need to be big in our war against them.
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 945 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 9:42:31 PM
It will never happen but Bush and Cheney need to be charged with Treason. Both took oaths to preserve ,protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ,twice. They are guilty of criminal acts and impeachment is just a form of censure. They have had a 6 year run at usurping the provisions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and altering the intent of the law without Congressional oversight or judicial review. The Constitution is very clear about Treason. Intentional harm or destruction of the Republic is punishable by death. We need to get serious about these violations of the tenants by which we have existed with for over 200 years. I know they both think the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper, but we can not let them wipe their arses on it.
by
cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 1:14:19 AM
A statement so well known with "how" is not much use. You can do so much better. The creed of a good journalist is: it is my job to, inform the citizens, to tell them the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth using all 5 senses, from what I hear, see, smell, touch and know, because only so can a nation hope to reach for democracy of the people, by the people....But a critique a remedy is unfinished.
But Kucinich is willing! But he says the way to do it is to stop the funding. Will you back that? All of you readers. Kucinich is the instrument. He asks all of us to STOP THE FUNDING. Did you listen to him today. Tomorrow on CNN.
by
emily horswill (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 1:54:17 AM
Okay Stop Appeasement & Impeach Bush & Cheney Here & Now!
Okay Lets stop the gutless cowardly Appeasement of another
World Class Mad Man,George W Bush And Vice Mad Man Dick
Cheney and Remove them from office,since it is clear to
an ever growing number of us that this brand of Democrat
Cowardice,coupled with Republican Bush Buttkissing,total
Appeasement isnot going to work or end the War in Iraq,
anymore then it did stop Adolf Hitler before WW2 when
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried it!
Nor,will sending toothless,empty,San Francisco Sunday
Society Ladies Tea Party Invitation Letters of yours here
you gutless wonder,liberal looney toons,mental midget
coward Nancy Pelosi and Senate Flunky Harebrain Harry Reid
so just shut up and end your stupid endless Cornation
Queen Nancy The Gutless and Prince Consort Airhead Harry
and go get off your lazy butts and do your job,and Impeach
both New Nazi Mad Men George W Bush & Dick Cheney or get
the Hell out of Congress here and now! As that is the Will
of the American People Who Want Bush & Cheney Out & Their
Insane War in Iraq Ended Immediately Here & Now!
Otherwise Nancy Pelosi And Harry Reid,your as big of a
part of the problem along with your gutless fellow Democrat
Losers,as both George W Bush & Dick Cheney & their Band
of Neo Con Nut Republicans in Congress! So Hear This Good
Pelosi And Reid You Too Can Be Replaced If You Fail To Act!
by
Ralph (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 2:09:35 AM
I was watching one of the news broadcasts the other night. The topic was impeachment and one of the guests said that, from the Democrat point-of-view, impeachment is something they DO NOT want to touch. Why? Because there is the possibility that the process would polarize the voting public and have a negative effect on the '08 elections. In short, we're in for a lot of posturing, a lot of verbiage and some ripples, but not waves.
This man is a criminal. This administration is peopled with criminals.
The administration has placed itself "above the law", and to allow it to finish its term unscathed is to accept it. Our prisons are populated with people whose crimes are far less than those of Bush-43.
What "We The People" have to ask ourselves is whether or not we are willing to learn the truth and take those truths to a conclusion.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 159 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 8:43:29 AM
I am glad Rob Kall let you post this because IMHO, he lied when he said that he wanted Bush impeached but.... that we just need to be patient with the democrats - only to (just a week or so) later say that seeking impeachment for bush was the wrong thing to do. In fact, I responded to his "patience" post that I would support his position as long as he was being honest in that he wanted to push the democrats for impeachment but to temporarily hold off to give them a little time to get in position first. He assured me that-that was his position. But it wasn't...
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 352 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 1:31:00 PM
.....when he said that third party candidates like the Greens shouldn't run because it "hurts the left."
What he means is that it hurts the Democrats. The Democrats are not "the left" and they don't pretend to be. Many third party candidates are. And it doesn't hurt the left when people who are on the left run for office, it hurts the right, the Democrats and Republicans, because it weakens the strangle-hold of the corrupt, corporate two-party system on U.S. politics.
As the late Walter Karp explained in his book, "Indispensable Enemies," which every progressive should read, the job of the Republicans is to further the corporate agenda, and the job of their Democratic colleagues is to co-opt the left so as to prevent any real opposition to the corporate agenda.
Left gatekeeper sites like this one are set up with that precise purpose in mind. They try to attract liberals, progressives, and people on the left, and once they've lured them in, they attempt to co-opt them for the Democratic Party by telling them that they're hurting "the left" if they pursue humanitarian goals, when the only ones they are hurting are the corporatists on the right who totally dominate both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The Democrats have a very clever game going on in Congress right now. First they put impeachment "off the table." Then they can pretend that they are pushing for national health care, higher wages, more funding for education, and many other things, knowing full well that Bush will veto them and they can blame Bush, not the fact that they refused to impeach Bush, for their failure to get anything done. If they were to impeach Bush, they would have nobody but themselves to blame for not getting anything done, and they'd lose all those nice liberals they co-opted by pretending to be progressive.
When you look at a site that claims to be progressive, check to see if it has anything that would be offensive to feminists, like pictures of nude females. If it does, it isn't progressive.
If you went to a site that claimed to be progressive and it had something racist, homophobic, or demeaning to the elderly, the disabled, or various religions or ethnicities, you'd know immediately that it wasn't a progressive site. So why are there still people who can look at overt sexism and think a site is progressive?
The multi-billion dollar porn industry isn't suffering from censorship. The ad agencies use female bodies to sell products in the mainstream media. And Rob needs a certain amount of sexist material to jack up his readership statistics so that he can compete with other left gatekeeper sites. There's nothing wrong with being competitive and successful at it. There's nothing wrong with exploiting other people for profit. That's what neoliberalism is all about.
But it isn't progressive and it isn't "on the left." It is the so-called "lesser evil," that NEEDS, as Walter Karp explained in the book I referenced above, the greater evil to be as evil as possible, because otherwise it couldn't look good in comparison. Of course the Democrats don't want to impeach Bush. He's their biggest moneymaker. Without him, they're not
