Feingold to call for rare presidential censure

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8fulDaniel said: I wonder if you will want to retrieve any of those words if "fail" involves a genocide.

I say:
I am armed, I am stocked for any event, and I am not burdened with the feeling as though I have to save those to ignorant, or stupid to save themselves.

I would hate to see it Dan, but on the other hand, if it happens, there have been warnings since the 1900's that it was coming. I am but one man Dan, and I only carry the burden of myself, my loved ones and all those I care about. I don't support Genocide of any kind Dan, but if that's what the people want, who am I to stop them? I will stop them at my door, or die trying in the revolt once the sheeple have awakened to the very real threat we have been warning about for years. Sometimes people have to see the worst possibility, before they understand it.

I understand my right to keep and bear arms, and I do.

Daniel said: When a peaceful solution is possible. Democracy will work if we fight for voters rights and fair elections. And use the apparatus provided by the US Constitution.

I say:
I agree, but not while the BI-PARTISAN conspiracy is keeping all other parties out of the debates, and stopping that from happening. They have both been working against it for years Dan, they aren't going to change now.

Daniel said: Murder should be a very, very last resort

.

I say:
I agree, but I tire of trying to save people from their own naivete'.

Daniel said: We dont want to become what we hate, do we?

I say:
I never will Dan, thats why I don't vote for either major party. If you vote for them, you are part of the problem.

Dan said: You sound like you are chompin at the bit, there buddy.

I say:
I am, no matter what form it takes. There is only two ways to get there, and that is peacefully or non-peacefully, and only time and the supporters of the corrupt parties will tell the future.

I ain't holding my breath either way, I just roll with the punches Dan, and I won't sell out my beliefs down that road by voting AGAINST what I believe in.

[bishop]

i'm really failing to see any point here...

this all reads more like some macho chest-beating exercise. nobody's really impressed that you are an aspiring rambo, osborn, getting ready for the big war or whatever.. and you can talk high and mighty about your voting style/mentality, but the party you support has a snowball's chance in hell as of now (and as of the past several decades).. your rants do help solidify my impression of the LP's core supporters though - a group of people that i've liked just as much as the rabid bible thumpers and wannabe marxists...

dan doesn't win any points for being a die-hard dem either, especially when his party is nothing to be proud of at all... most of them supported bush on the patriot act, iraq, etc.. although, not everyone deserves ill-treatment - feingold for instance.


it seems there's always this mindless rush, to ignore the good work of individual politicians who happen to be members of one of the two main parties. good works don't matter apparently, only bashing the two major parties does - at least according to those who desperately crave support for their insignificant third parties. you win more flies with honey i say...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop it seems there's always this mindless rush, to ignore the good work of individual politicians who happen to be members of one of the two main parties. good works don't matter apparently, only bashing the two major parties does - at least according to those who desperately crave support for their insignificant third parties. you win more flies with honey i say...

I contend that that is precisely why the bipartisan monopoly has existed for over 150 years. While each of the constituents think they are sending the "right person" to do the job, they are unaware that to wear the Democrat, or Republican badge, you have to espouse thier core values.


Evidence for this lies with the constant division down party lines on the voting record, and the names of the people signing the pork barrel compromises that put us where we are. The experiment you advocate has been running for some time, and it's only getting worse. Why can't you people see that obvious fact?


Look, Democrats get money earmarked for Democrats, so where do you think their allegience truly lies? Same thing with Republicans.


We have to break the back of the monster through disrupting the money, or the uglier methods of which you do not approve.


You leave us little choice, bit the ugly ones if you refuse to see these seemingly obvious truths.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: i'm really failing to see any point here... this all reads more like some macho chest-beating exercise. nobody's really impressed that you are an aspiring rambo, osborn, getting ready for the big war or whatever.. and you can talk high and mighty about your voting style/mentality, but the party you support has a snowball's chance in hell as of now (and as of the past several decades).. your rants do help solidify my impression of the LP's core supporters though - a group of people that i've liked just as much as the rabid bible thumpers and wannabe marxists...

I say:
I understand your view Bishop, but I don't think there is much difference between you and I except I draw my line a little more defined than you seem to. We agree on many, if not most things, and the only part where we differ is where you say the Constitution is in need of overhaul.

I agree that it needs an overhaul, but it must be done correctly to have any meaning, any semblance of authority. I also don't trust the people who are there now, to decide on what gets changed, or how, because they have shown time and time again how they REFUSE to use the proper methods of change, or the only LEGAL method.

The biggest need for overhaul in my opinion is to describe a citizen oversight mechanism that has teeth, that can be pursued by any citizen with equal ability, and that mechanism should have direct contact with all three branches of the government, with full transparency.

In other words, I kind of gathered that you were accusing me too, of being a partisan loyalist? Not a chance. As soon as the Libertarian Party concedes on any infringement to my rights in the Bill of Rights, or attempts to marginalize or alter the Constitution in a non-legal manner, I will drop them like a hot potato, and lump them right into the other major parties. BUT, they haven't!

Bishop said: dan doesn't win any points for being a die-hard dem either, especially when his party is nothing to be proud of at all... most of them supported bush on the patriot act, iraq, etc.. although, not everyone deserves ill-treatment - feingold for instance.

I say:
I agree, and I have noted that there ARE good democrats AND republicans, but their parties will NEVER promote them above the level of Congressman or Senator. Ron Paul, John Conyers, Cynthia Mckinney, and many others are stand-up people, who are being stifled by the system they are in, and caught in the quicksand that make it up. McKinney had her words STRUCK from the record, and once she found out, she made noise, but who heard it? These people are as ineffective as third party canidates. Why? Because the people ACCEPT the parties leadership to select a "valid representative" of the party, instead of putting it to the people. They isolate the debates, they push their "valued" canidates long before the elections even start, using good and bad media to make the case of KEEPING them in the public mind. The party knows who is loyal, and they know the price of that loyalty. They go for the lowest bidder, for the highest loyalty to the agenda.

The Bi-Partisan Party leaders, play the "lesser of two evils" argument to their advantage also, since they every election pick "their version" of the lesser evil "to their cause" and promote only those for national party support. Their lesser evil, is our more evil.

Bishop said: it seems there's always this mindless rush, to ignore the good work of individual politicians who happen to be members of one of the two main parties. good works don't matter apparently, only bashing the two major parties does - at least according to those who desperately crave support for their insignificant third parties. you win more flies with honey i say...

I say:
What good is honey if it is all old and spoiled, and infested with maggots? I don't want to win my enemies support, only those who have been fooled into thinking there are "only two choices" to pick from.

I don't consider people an enemy until they have seen the facts, and chosen to ignore them or disregard them.

What facts?

That corporations sponsor the Presidential, and usually, party debates. By doing this they only INVITE those from the major parties, thereby keeping out "non-corporate friendly" canidates, or, third party canidates.

That the National Election Committees are RIDDLED with corruption, from the state to the federal level.

The lack of scrutiny over voting machines, and methods, for NO LOGICAL REASON.

The securiing of support and funding in law, by both parties in the H.R. 4694 bill to basicly effectively remove any third party threat from getting power.

The bi-partisan agreement (or seeming agreement since they are both exactly the same in action) to never, recognize on air, a third party or OTHER choice than republicans or democrats.

The media closeout of all third party canidates, except those who are carried as "possible spoilers" as they are designed to be, like Nader, Perot, etc. Designed failures to help marginalize the idea of third party inclusion into debates.

And the list could go on, and on.

[bishop]

dan should respond himself, but i think he's consistently supported democrats that aren't afraid to stand up for what they believe in.. and those members typically act independently rather than with their corrupt leadership.

my basic point is simple - if the representative is doing good work for the public/country, then it doesn't matter (to me at least) what party that representative belongs to.. if i had to choose between such a representative (be he/she democrat or republican) or some unknown third party candidate with no record, i would think that i'd go for the good one with the good record. and, i don't see much wrong in that... voting for corrupt/incompetent/duplicitous representatives, on the other hand, is a completely different story..

[Scribbler1]

Slightly off-topic, but I just got tthe newsletter from The Progressive and it starts with this LINK:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gotta love that Molly Ivins!

[bishop]

definitely... i've been enjoying her op-eds at cnn's website lately.

[Osborn F Enready]

Hey Daniel, I thought you might like to see this letter I wrote and mailed to these people today:

Local Papers & Circulation:

The Blade 138,435
Sylvania Herald 24,000
The Monroe Evening News 21,728
The Press - Metro Edition 20,102

Regional Papers & Circulation

The Plain Dealer 373,137
Detroit Free Press 363,490
The Detroit News 233,085
The Metro Times 105,000

National Papers & Circulation

USA Today 2,602,556 229
The Wall Street Journal 1,820,600 109
The New York Times 1,130,740 169
Los Angeles Times 1,014,044 138
Washington Post 796,367


Here is a direct copy of the letter as I sent it.(I modified the one to the Washington Post to thank them for their C-Span ventures.)

Letter to the Editor: Feingold is right! I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican, nor is this a partisan issue. As a citizen first, Libertarian second. I despise both major parties, which seem alike to me, and the bias against third parties by media and government alike. At the same time, I also remember the words of Washington on the evils of party in general. I am not a partisan loyalist, and would turn my back on any party in a second the moment they moved to support the removal of my rights as a citizen. Even though, as a citizen, and Libertarian I have to support Feingold in his call for censure, hopefully in a move to advance the motions of impeachment. This is about government accountability for their actions, as representatives of the citizens of the United States. I as a citizen, am OUTRAGED to the point of talking of the validity of revolt in popular circles, over the overt illegal power grabs by this and past administrations, including Clintons, and most others for the last 75 years at least. These actions are a testament to the failure of strong central government theory, and a prelude to fascism under the guise of a gentler term called corporatism. The actions of every single Congressman and Senator, the days they PASSED the Patriot Act WITHOUT reading it, they all broke their oaths and obligations to every citizen of this nation to uphold and protect their rights, as "REPRESENTATIVES" of the citizens of these United States. The simple FACT that they held up re-instatement of this "law" due to its violations, is a testament of their failure on its original passing. Every single member of the Senate and Congress should be brought up for impeachment by the citizens of this nation, based on the limits of government as per the Constitution. I as a citizen, blame you the media, whose obligation it is to INFORM CITIZENS of these transgressions made upon their rights as citizens, by their own government. The people are waking up to the lies and propaganda that has been perpetrated upon them, by those in media and government, and I would like to take this moment to implore you to take your responsibility seriously, expose these and other violations by public officials at ALL LEVELS, regardless of party affiliation, or your own risk from corporate funding threats, up to and including the election fraud of Ohio in 2004. All of Congress should be standing with Senator Feingold to protect the rule of law, and the fact that they are dragging their feet exposes them and their character for exactly what they are. Enemies of the citizens of the United States. I think Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, and Ron Paul may be the last sane people on the federal elected level of representation.

I hope this clarifies my position in your eyes, and again I only intended to draw attention that while I may support Feingold, I am still all for impeaching anyone who supported the Patriot Act, no questions asked.

[rmnunez]

I suppose the distinction between censure and impeachment may be lost in some and that by magnifying the movement to censure into an impeachment issue Republicans could hope to garner some of the public opposition thereto (which 54 to 57% disapprove). It is a close call and foreseable Bushian antics likely would lead to diminution in opposition to impeachment. If this developed, motions for censure could evolve in a full-blown impeachment process, then with 50/50 public support.

But picture a censure process underway, predictable Iraqi bungles and further growth in Bushian negatives. Then sallivating Democrats would start urging to enhance their scope and authority, probably citing censure-related investigative disclosures revealing more perceived Bushian wrongdoings. Widespread, grass-roots (they love this expression) public support for something more serious than mere censure, will animate the Democrats to proceed towards impeachment and they likely would be advocating such a development on the campaign trail for midterm elections. It is a galvanizing issue and with that groundswell in support, they'd promise undertakings.

Then we get a new legislature populated with reinvigorated Democrats full of promises of impeachment, with lots of public support. Impeachment might be their first order of business, they'd set up their committees and chairs, presidential counsel is engaged, the attorney general gets compartmentalized, documents are generated, attendance rosters, accountings, inventories are demanded, redacted, edited, corrected and all sorts of speculations will arise over whatever the legislature thinks Bush is trying to hide (remember Whitewater, Castle Grande, the travel agency referals, Lincoln Bedroom arrangements with Clinton). How long will this take? A few months, the better part of a year, maybe even more? If Bush likely would get impeached, as this becomes more readily apparent, he is sure to obfuscate and delay, string things along.

Then the presidential campaign heats up and gets underway. Now we'd have candidates from both parties, the Democrat a leader of the party which in the middle of the election, and while the nation is at war, is trying to oust the other party's leader from the presidency.

I think many will then see Democrats as a bunch of slow and incompetent fools, their politicians full of pure hot air, no better than their nemesis. At that juncture, Democrats advocating impeachment will be seen by many as endangering national security in a futile effort at political gain based on partisan interests. This will diminish the appeal of their candidate.

[Milton Bradley]

I guess the reason the censure is such a big deal is it gives the prosecution the ability to go after the criminals after they leave office.

[rmnunez]

That could be a big deal, if Bushian malfeasance rises to criminal levels, and that is of subjective regard. Of course, any resistance to censure will be depicted by Democrats and assorted critical lefties as evidence of criminally prosecutable wrongdoing. Those in Bush's cabinet who believe Democrat and critical lefty hot-air could fear for their liberty and property post-censure/impeachment and try to slow down the process.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: rmnunez That could be a big deal, if Bushian malfeasance rises to criminal levels, and that is of subjective regard. Of course, any resistance to censure will be depicted by Democrats and assorted critical lefties as evidence of criminally prosecutable wrongdoing. Those in Bush's cabinet who believe Democrat and critical lefty hot-air could fear for their liberty and property post-censure/impeachment and try to slow down the process.

That is precisely the reason I wonder how they have the stones to even attempt such a thing. They must assume that once in power, ( like in the past ) they will be able to quell any attempts made by the opposition about their complicty in the events surrounding 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the Bush Presidency in general. I see the whole house of cards coming down in cloud of smoke.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Hey Daniel, I thought you might like to see this letter I wrote and mailed to these people today: Local Papers & Circulation: The Blade 138,435 Sylvania Herald 24,000 The Monroe Evening News 21,728 The Press - Metro Edition 20,102 Regional Papers & Circulation The Plain Dealer 373,137 Detroit Free Press 363,490 The Detroit News 233,085 The Metro Times 105,000 National Papers & Circulation USA Today 2,602,556 229 The Wall Street Journal 1,820,600 109 The New York Times 1,130,740 169 Los Angeles Times 1,014,044 138 Washington Post 796,367 Here is a direct copy of the letter as I sent it.(I modified the one to the Washington Post to thank them for their C-Span ventures.) I hope this clarifies my position in your eyes, and again I only intended to draw attention that while I may support Feingold, I am still all for impeaching anyone who supported the Patriot Act, no questions asked.

I'm going to keep an eye out for the letter in some of those papers. But, as someone who routinely sends letters to my local rag, they will more than likely butcher it. It's probably too long and when they edit these things they do the worst possible job.

I can recall twice they started my letter with "I read the article in the Journal..." Not only did I not write that, of COURSE I read it in the paper. Why the hell would I be sending THEM a letter if I hadn't? They have the power to make you look like an idiot. Not to say they WILL, just that they CAN, so be warned. :)

[Osborn F Enready]

Heh, on a lighter note Scrib....

Maybe that is their goal to conspiracy complexity? Make it so complex not even the most skilled wordsmith could competently address an issue in 150 words or less so as not to be heard by anyone who does actually take the time to read "viewer" or "citizen" mail. ( Politicians to Media editors, Celebrities to Scholars)

LOL

[bishop]

i'd be interested in seeing the good members of both parties (those who have shown that their allegiance lies with the public) break off and form their own third party..

as we've seen here, people with a variety of viewpoints can still agree and "work together" (insofar as a debate can be productive).. a party need not have a singular perspective so long as its principles are agreed to by all members.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Heh, on a lighter note Scrib.... Maybe that is their goal to conspiracy complexity? Make it so complex not even the most skilled wordsmith could competently address an issue in 150 words or less so as not to be heard by anyone who does actually take the time to read "viewer" or "citizen" mail. ( Politicians to Media editors, Celebrities to Scholars) LOL

People around here DO read the letters. That's why I get so upset because I know a lot of people are going to think me a semi-literate boob after the editorial department gets through with my letters.

I have a thing about people screwing with my words.



But I agree, and have been saying that one thing that allows the government to get away with what it does is the fact that the average Joe can't get his head around more than one or two topics. A couple of little scandals are not enough for Mom and Pop Sheeple to get angry enough to drive down to DC with the old shootin' iron. The dozens of scandals are more than enough to stir even the sheep but it's just too damned many to focus on.

Unlike the brainy people who post here, of course.

[rmnunez]

a party need not have a singular perspective so long as its principles are agreed to by all members

I disagree, what is the point of affiliating oneself to a political party if not for the ideals it propugnates? Adherence to a political party involves subscription to the perspective of that party. I'm sure there must be of plenty of Republicans and Democrats who don't completely subscribe to everything these parties represent, but these are a minority.

This notion party policy is flexible and of optional endorsement helps increase rosters of registered party members with individualized agendas. Thus we get Democrats whose top priority is jobs and a sound economy, others who would sacrifice even the economy for a sensible foreign policy. Under their all-encompassing big tent there are others who find environmental practices, a sensible energy policy or advocacy for human rights are the most important concerns. So we find every interest group with an agenda finds fit within an amorphous party which endorses them all but doesn't prioritize in a way that satisfies any of them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: i'd be interested in seeing the good members of both parties (those who have shown that their allegiance lies with the public) break off and form their own third party..

I say:
It could be interesting, but I would bet that would be one of the shortest "government created" lists in history.

From the voting records I have looked at, out the 435 members of Congress, I would bet there are 30 at best that are worth a chance. But, I am a cynic, or maybe still becoming one.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop i'd be interested in seeing the good members of both parties (those who have shown that their allegiance lies with the public) break off and form their own third party.. as we've seen here, people with a variety of viewpoints can still agree and "work together" (insofar as a debate can be productive).. a party need not have a singular perspective so long as its principles are agreed to by all members.

Now your talking. That is a philosophy I can support.


I just hope people would want to see something like that happen.

[bishop]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It could be interesting, but I would bet that would be one of the shortest "government created" lists in history. From the voting records I have looked at, out the 435 members of Congress, I would bet there are 30 at best that are worth a chance. But, I am a cynic, or maybe still becoming one.

that may very well be the case - i'm not sure how all of congress has voted in the past. i'd be willing to overlook individual votes that would seem questionable so long as the representative's overall voting pattern is one that consistently shows support for the public over special interests. also, if these people were brave enough to break away and form their own party, they would definitely be able to acquire new party members to run for office.

it may be a pipe dream, but i think that the chances of a 3rd party made up of existing representatives stands a much better chance of creating real change than any of the existing 3rd parties currently pose. as it is, 3rd parties have performed horribly in all recent elections (failing to attain even 1% of the popular vote).. by that analysis, hoping to see 3rd parties such as the LP improve is a pipe dream as well.

to see representatives break away and form their own party would require great courage of course.. they would certainly be scapegoated by members of their original parties, and smeared to hell and back by the major media.. but, and this is a big but, if the public supports their move then it's inconsequential what the media/parties say. (i'd even wager that if the public supports it, the media won't be able to smear them so easily.) we already know that the public strongly disapproves of congress's behavior - their opinion poll ratings are even lower than bush's..