If we censure Bush can we impeach him after that? Can we pleeeeeze??!!
Feingold Story Link

It's about time, but nothing is going to happen so long as the Republicans, who live in fear of Karl Rove, remain in control of the Senate. He openly bullied them into not investigating the illegal warrantless wiretapping (if it were legal, what would be the problem with a Senate committee looking into it? They're elected to govern and pass laws, aren't they?), and sure enough, even the "moderates" like Olympia Snowe caved in.

Their about-face came after John McCain, Chuck Hagel and others had stated on the record that they were not convinced what George W. and the NSA had authorized was legal. But all of a sudden after a Rove threat, there you go--everything gets swept under the rug.

Censure is far too mild a response. There needs to be a full investigation, and if it turns out that W's actions are illegal and that the scope of what he and his adminstration have been up to was illegal, he should be impeached. Since Cheney is basically running the government, what's wrong with him holding control even if temporarily (since he'd probably be impeached too). Hastert, Stevens, the rest of the folks in line of succession...none of them could be any worse at this point.

[ March 12, 2006, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I caught part of the Frist response on World News Now this morning. Frist said he of course thought Feingold is "flat out wrong", and it does not appear this issue is even going to be brought up in Congress, of course.

It sounds to me like Feingold is giving some serious thought to running in '08. I think he has been mentioned before, right? Personally I have been in agreement with most of what he has been saying.

He would probably have my vote after this. But I would like to know his views on the Middle East in general and not just the domestic spying issue.

Go Russ Go!!!

Somebody finally has the nerve to say what has needed to be said all along. We must have change starting in November. Because if we don't, I fear where this country maybe going.

I am currently home in VT recovering from a recent Op. I am headed back to India this week. Forgive me if this is a repeat, since I have not been 'in the loop' much over the last two weeks here.

I have not seen this posted anywhere else, so I am not sure if anyone has been paying attention to what is happening in VT.

Last Tuesday was Town Meeting day for many VT towns. Five Towns voted positively on resolutions for Impeachment of the President of the United States.

This is an EXTREMELY serious matter in VT.

VT may soon lead the nation in compelling its Rep. to call for impeachment from the floor of the House.

"The Nation
Fri Mar 10, 11:44 AM ET

The Nation -- When five Vermont towns voted for resolutions urging Congress to impeach President Bush, there were many in the media who dismissed the move as purely symbolic. But the local daily newspaper in southeastern Vermont, the 130-year-old Brattleboro Reformer, takes a different view.

"In a place where elections can't be stolen and the spinmeisters have no effect, people in five Vermont towns stood up and said, "Enough!" the Reformer editorialized, adding that, "This nation can't take another three years of failed policies, reckless wars and a pervasive culture of corruption and cronyism. Vermont has led the way in the past. We can do it again. We hope Tuesday marks the beginning of a nationwide debate over the continued legitimacy of the Bush presidency."

Here's the entire editorial:

In Vermont, we take great pride in our tradition of direct democracy and how we can have a say not just in how things are run in our towns, but also on bigger issues like war and peace. Last year, more than 40 towns across Vermont approved a nonbinding referendum regarding the deployment of the Vermont National Guard in Iraq.

In doing so, Vermont became the first state to debate the deployment of the National Guard.

This year, five Vermont towns went beyond the Iraq war to take on the architect of it -- George W. Bush.

In Newfane, Marlboro, Putney and Dummerston, as well as the central Vermont town of Brookfield, town meeting voters approved a measure to demand that our Congressman, independent Bernard Sanders, file articles of impeachement to remove Bush from office.

That isn't surprising, considering the state's tradition of using Town Meeting Day to consider issues beyond road repair and school funding.

In 1974, several Vermont towns had town meeting votes calling for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. In the early 1980s, Vermont gave the nuclear freeze movement a kick-start with town meeting votes that eventually inspired other states to debate the need for more nuclear weapons. The vote on impeachment Tuesday follows this pattern of voting locally to act globally.

As Dan DeWalt, the Newfane Selectboard member who started this whole process by getting an impeachment article on Newfane's town meeting warrant, told reporters Tuesday, "In the U.S. presently, there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation."

In a place where elections can't be stolen and the spinmeisters have no effect, people in five Vermont towns stood up and said, "Enough!"

Sadly, Sanders won't be introducing articles of impeachment. He said Tuesday that Republican control of Congress makes it "impractical to talk about impeachment."

We disagree. More than two dozen House members have co-sponsored a resolution calling for the formation of a select committee that would make recommendations regarding impeachment. Sanders ought to join that group and forcefully push for impeachment proceedings to begin.

This nation can't take another three years of failed policies, reckless wars and a pervasive culture of corruption and cronyism. Vermont has led the way in the past. We can do it again. We hope Tuesday marks the beginning of a nationwide debate over the continued legitimacy of the Bush presidency."

Many people consider Vt flaky. It is the hardcore bed of the NE wing of the Rep Party, as well as the hotbed of New Deal Liberalism: all mixed together with a fiscal conservatism that can make a penny squeal like a stuck pig.

Expensive political campaigns do not do well here, while local, state, and national politics are discussed at the coffee counter with a passion I have seldom seen anywhere else in the world - including in Washington DC.

VT's current Rep is currently neutral, and has even expressed his disinclination to press the issue on the floor; But under VT law if enough towns back the resolutions it would have to be taken up in the Statehouse in Montpelier. A Positive vote there could COMPEL B Sanders to bring the issue to the floor of the H of Rep's.

This is a GROWING movement. The Reformer carries a lot of weight in VT politics. The Burlington Free Press (The largest, most widely read paper in the state) may shortly endorse the issue - there have already been several favorable editorials that stopped just short of the subject.

In VT you could just as easily replace the state motto with 'Don't Tread On Me'. The state only narrowly avoided a negative binding resolution on the deployment of the VT National Guard to Iraq; the recent election of NG officers here was certainly influenced by that topic. The recent military funerals in VT have further galvanized a belief that we should not be participating in "...foreign adventurism on behalf of multi national businesses...".

Both N Hampshire and Maine have similar budding movements. If this movement grows fast enough, it may not bring a call for impeachment, but VT WILL cause big trouble for the current Admin and the national Republican party.

R

[ March 13, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

John Conyers has already called for impeachment, I believe. It ain't going nowhere so long as the Republicans control the House.

In the Senate, most of the Democrats refused to endorse Feingold's censure resolution, BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID, and Cheney, gallivanting in Wisconsin, Feingold's home state, even went so far as to claim it was an attack on the president.

George W. Bush is permitted to get away with whatever criminal acts he wants, whether the American people agree with them or not. Not one Republican, even in states where Bush's approval ratings have plummeted to the mid and low 40s, are going to speak up for their constituents on this warrantless domestic wiretapping issue, and as I said before, Rove THREATENED the Republican Senators on the committee supposedly looking into it, so Sanders can actually do his job all he wants. But he won't get very far, unfortunately.

Agreed - But Vt politics are absolutely unique for starting grass roots political movements. I do not see impeachment ahead, but I do see a HUGE amount of political trouble if the Republicans continue to ingnore this.

R

As much as I'd like to see Bush out of office, I don't think there is any chance or much merit for an impeachment attempt. However, I did get completely irate when the administration's response to Feingold was that attacking the president helps our enemies! Great geebers, are they really still trying to use that line of non-sense!?!?!

As explained in the Washington Post today:

As usual the Kool Aid drinkers here get all emotional over this, thinking not with their brains but their emotions. Be careful what you wish for, guys. This is a stupid ploy by a presidential nominee wannabe whose bluff may be called. The last thing Democrats want or need right now is to actually vote on this.

Remember when American voters turned out several Republicans because of the GOP's impeachment actions against Clinton? The GOP suffered in the congressional elections. The Democrats look like they haven't learned this lesson.

Feingold and the Sounds of Silence

The president's approval ratings, across a series of polls, average to less than 40% (one as low as 34%, including the re-weighted one that had Republican and Democratic voter parity, and a majority of independents), and ARE STILL FALLING. Several other polls show that a majority of Americans, when they're told of the extent of the warrantless domestic spying, agree that there should be more investigation and that it may be illegal. But the Republicans refuse to do anything but protect their president. So Feingold has to take this step to stir the waters.

The Democrats really have nothing to lose. They already control nothing; not Congress, not the White, not the judiciary. On the whole, if not individually, they come off as weak and lacking in any principles except to get elected. They ignore their base as well as the majority of independent voters who've had enough of the Republicans. So why not censure the president? Hell, 20 of them censured Bill Clinton for a consensual sexual affair, which was hardly a danger to our civil rights and freedoms. Bush has lied again and again, and it seems every month, new and extremely disturbing information about this warrantless domestic spying and other government spying keeps coming out. S

o if the Republicans refuse to do anything but protect their party leader, then the Democrats should take this step, and just deal with the fallout. If as Wayne Allard claimed, Feingold's actions are "treasonous," then lodge those charges and deal with the fallout. Because then maybe we might get some discovery and the real truth about what the Bush administration has been up to.

The public supported the Democrats on Schiavo, it supported them on the filibuster, it supported them on the Social Security boondoggle, it has supported them whenever they take a stand, even the more liberal ones, but not when they flipflop and play timid. They cannot keep rolling over and playing dead, or licking George Bush's deeply unpopular ass, like Joe Lieberman, or trying to play both sides, like Hillary Clinton. Everytime I hear Jay Rockefeller's pathetic whines--he's a Rockefeller, he has very high approval ratings in West Virginia, he is not going to be voted out of office--about how the Republicans have traduced and betrayed him, I want to scream, "Get some backbone!"

Feingold did, just as he did with the initial vote on the Patriot Act and on the renewal vote. The public will end up appreciating that he did in the long run.

[ March 15, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]