Redstate

This bill would accomplish two things.

1) It would force the Dems to accept or reject their moonbat wing. This is why Kos was furious about seeing this brought forward. He learned something after the Lamont debaucle.

2) It would let us put Chuck Hagel, Gordon SMith and others of their ilk on the spot. If they think their own party acted immorally during the Iraq War, here's their opportunity to see how many of their primary voters actually agree. If Hagel wants to run a GOPeace campaign for The Whitehouse, this makes him get totally off the fence. If he can't willingly vote to impeach, he loses relevance with the Paul Craig Roberts antiwar right.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

He's a Senator, not a Representative.

De Opresso Liber

THAT was downright melodious.

I mean . . . who Knew . . .?

(Heh, Heh).

THAT was as good as visualizing Streiff doing the macarena down the Pentagon E-Ring!

they already booted her once and she managed to get reelected when her replacement got too big for her britches and thought she could be a senator.

There will be plenty of other dumb "D's" that will file in her place Articles of Impeachment against the President.

It would be political suicide to waste time trying to impeach President Bush. Not even the Dems are that dumb.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

It doesn't have the votes to pass, but I bet there are at least 50 votes for it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But I'm guessing you'd get more like 150 to 200 votes. It's a free shot at the Administration since it won't pass.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Reading the comments over at Kos are really funny. They're even angrier at Cynthia for doing this than we are. Talk about a Parthian Shot!

Clearly defending Democrats has addled your mind so much, you can't tell the difference between a two time (at least) Member of Congress, nominated by her party and accepted by her caucus (McKinney), and some bozo with a TV show who enver got elected to squat (Robertson).

Sickening? Give me a break.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Robertson swings a lot more weight, even today, in the national Republican party than McKinney ever swung in the Democratic party. That he never got elected perhaps has something to do with his only having run for one office, the Presidency. To say that means he was never an important Republican would be like saying that Mark Hannah was not an important Republican in his era because he didn't hold high office.

McKinney is a lunatic. Fortunately for us, she's a lunatic that has been a Democratic problem. That she's an embarrassment to the Democrats does not mean, however, that it's responsible or fair to the readers of this site to pretend that she acts on behalf of the incoming Democratic majority.

It doesn't do Redstate's credibility any good to play this like it's a real effort by the Dems to pursue impeachment. It's obviously not that, and credibility is lost when things like this are sensationalized up a level just to catch people's eyes.

Besides, it's funny enough when reported straight out, and the day may yet come when some important Democrat does go seriously after impeachment.

then bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Or let the Democratic Leadership kill it.

And by the way, there are no "important Democrat[s]", only fools holding important jobs.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I suggest that you go reread that Kos thread: there's enough people over there complaining about McKinney's timing and grandstanding - as opposed to her simply being wrong to call for impeachment; darn few if any are saying that - to make your claim that she isn't representative a bit... ah, disingenous.

Unless you want to make the claim that the netroots isn't truly representative of the Democratic Party, either. Which I would pay good money to see you do at dKos, firedoglake or HuffPo.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Does "bad idea" even need to be said? Every Democrat involved knows an impeachment attempt on Bush is either wrong or many other Democrats know it's wrong. Otherwise, there would be widespread support of McKinney in the hopes that in the next Congress the new Democratic majority can topple Bush.
Besides, without Bush, who can you use as your election platform?

I just think that using the blatant, insane last-minute attempts of an expelled congresswoman who was kicked out of her party for this kind of crazy behavior as a way to attack the whole party is a bad idea. I also probably should've used a better example than Pat Robertson. Maybe I should've used post-controversy pre-leadership-resignation Trent Lott being used as a representation of 2002 Republicans.

Funny, but when you get Congresspeople like McKinney - or Maxine Waters or John Conyers - seriously talking about impeachment, people tend to take them at their word. Particularly when the people that actually run the Democratic Party bend over backwards to avoid dealing with these people's lunacies. Put a shorter way: if, say, soon-to-be-Speaker Nancy Pelosi really does think that Cynthia McKinney and her buddies are loons, she really does need to say so. Assuming that she has the guts to do so, that is.

You may not like this, and I can't say that I blame you for not liking it, but I am not causing your problem, merely pointing it out.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

You know, I agree. I overreacted and used a bad choice of words.

By which I mean that I've been having that problem myself this last few days.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

...I was at the victory party of Hank Johnson, McKinney's victorious primary opponent, doing some live blogging. To say that Democrats expelled her from Congress would be very, very incorrect. It was very much a bipartisan effort, and without Republicans and independents crossing over and voting against her (yes, Georgia has open primaries, so you can vote in either party's primary election, regardless of affiliation), then she would have waltzed back into Congress, once again receiving over 60% of the vote.

So don't defend the Democrat party by giving them credit for the result of a combined effort of R, D, and I voters; McKinney still speaks, as she always has, for Democrats - and this introduction of impeachment articles reflects on them as much as on her.

McKinney wasn't booted from the party by the leadership or by the caucus, she was tossed by the voters in her district. The Democratic leadership, the caucus and the Black Caucus all supported her or at the very least didn't discipline her. Thank you for your perspective, but can the "expelled congresswoman" crap. Your party would have some credibility if they actually did expel some of the bad actors like McKinney and Jefferson.

After the last incident with the Capitol Police Officer, somebody put their arm around her in private and told her to apologize. She should have been publicly censured and charge by the Capitol Police, even if they let her plead to a misdemeanor.

She's been crazy and off the charts for years - remember the charge that Bush planned 911? Where was the Democratic leadership then? Let's see if Pelosi, who has publicly stated on more than one occasion that there will be no impeachment, has the guts to make McKinney pull this bill. Or if she demands it is immediately voted on and voted down.

Bottom line, McKinney is representative of your party's leadership. Get over it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'd first like to point out first that I am no Democrat. I abandoned that party the moment I realized they'd gone insane after 2002. The only reason I preferred the Democrats over the Republicans in '06 was because the Republicans had de-evolved into money-flinging fiscal liberals with a social agenda I do not like at all. I was forced with the disgusting choice of "worst of both worlds" and "50% bad", the latter of which would have been even worse if not for the fact that Bush would at least repeal something amazingly stupid. If I had a real choice in the matter, the Congress would be full of Independents. Sadly, that's impossible (for now, anyhow).

I'm not trying to give the Democrats credit for knocking down McKinney either. (If I accidentially said "the Democrats kicked her out", I didn't think and I retract that part of the statement. Wouldn't a Republican knocking down an idiot like McKinney be a bad decision for the Republicans, though?) I'm saying that McKinney is no longer an operational Democrat, with no need to stay with the Democratic party and no more Democrats to answer to. If this was any other functional Democrat, even Kerry, this would be a better generalization.

Now, knowing my luck, the Democrats will rally behind this impeachment and I'll wind up looking like an idiot (moreso than I likely do now).

Dem hatred for Bush runs deep. There are a lot of Dems who would like to file impeachment articles against Bush. They want payback for the Clinton impeachment, and they want to escalate their disagreements over Iraq to a Constitutional level.

McKinney is not, I agree, a typical Democrat, and she isn't acting for the incoming Dem majority. All the same, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone in the new Congress play to the bitter left by filing their own impeachment articles.

How much are we talking about? :)

she accused Bush of prior knowledge of 911 and letting it happen so his oil buddies would make more $$, and after begging for $$ from a saudi prince that Giuliani refused due to strings attached denouncing Israel. Yes, she lost the 2002 race, but won her seat back in 2004 before losing again in 2006.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I know you're using mild hyperbole, but "disgusting poor excuse for a human being" seems unnecessary. I'd use a word like "misguided".

She's not a mainstream politician. She's much more comfortable with outlets like GNN than, say, MoveOn. Just a short while ago, she had a movie from them detailing her campaign and how the Bush regime fought her campaign tooth and nail with all sorts of dirty tricks. She believes her own propaganda, and in a McKinneyWorld where the President conspired with bin Laden and tried to suppress black vote everywhere in every election, why not impeach him?

She is a committed racist and anti-semite just for starters. That is enough to place her in that "disgusting poor excuse of a human being" category the previous poster put her in. There's nothing misguided about her. A 20 year old college student fresh from moonbat indoctrination 101 can be "misguided." There's nothing "misguided" about McKinney.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

She is a committed racist and anti-semite just for starters. That is enough to place her in that "disgusting poor excuse of a human being" category the previous poster put her in. There's nothing misguided about her. A 20 year old college student fresh from moonbat indoctrination 101 can be "misguided." There's nothing "misguided" about McKinney.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

zukio is absolutely right. The woman is a viscous anti-Semite, right up there with Jimmy Carter. She's been honing her act for years, she absolutely believes what she says and she is absolutely not misguided.

And she's also a mainstream Democrat. If she wasn't the party leadership would have publicly rebuked her. They have never made a public comment about any of McKinney's racist, anti-semitic, anti-American commentary. She's one of them.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

to understand the arguments that have been refuted to death over the past four years. Your TalkingPoints™ and KnownFacts™ are too tiresome to bother with. And since you will be gone in the next 35 minutes...I will end it here!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

I think I can speak for all of the RedState Regualars when I say that we have had it up the nose with the TalkingPoints™ and KnownFacts™. Just take them and go away.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

'cause you aren't likely to be here long.

1. Please provide documentation, like a link to a reputable news source or an Administration press release or speech, where Iraq was ever referred to as an IMMINENT THREAT.
2. With respect to CBW, please explain why the UNSC was concerned enough about Iraqi CBW to keep the sanctions program in place in an effort to force Iraqi compliance with previous UN resolutions.
3. Please explain which "Domestic Surveillance" program you are referring to. Please provide a news link. And the NSA intercept program targeting INTERNATIONAL communications doesn't count.
4. If the war wasn't necessary in 2003, would you please explain the rationale for the Clinton Administration supporting and the Democrats in Congress voting for Iraq Regime Change.

Cover those issues and then we can talk about impeachment.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

1.

2. Bush lied. It's all about the oil. Downing Street Memo!

3. I can't believe you're so casual about us losing our liberties. If they can spy on Muslims just for being Muslims, then don't you know once the Democrats get relected again, Hillary Clinton is going to spy on you and take your guns? Why don't you sheeple, er, I mean conservatives see it?

4. Bush lied. It's all about the oil. This all goes back to the first George Bush you know. The Bushes go back a long way with the Saudis, just like Bin Laden.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I keep forgetting we're on HTML all the time now.

1. [Insert 20 quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, The Weekly Standard, and anyone else outside the administration, plus a couple the cuff out of context quote by VP Cheney and Wolfowitz, all pasted from some DUers post. Certainly nothing from the 2003 State of the Union address.]

--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Thanks Neil, now I'll have time to do my "holiday" shopping and get my wife a gift. No more wasted time, exposing my ignorance here at RedState.

Whew.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

...that we'd not bother with theories that depend on the secret Reptoid threat.

And now, we grant you your secret desire.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

my questions. Don't let me suffer with just a stinging rebuke from Neil. Come on. Please...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

This is how Calpundit went bad; humoring the lunatics in their delusion that they're just like normal people has no real point to it. Just kick 'em out the door and move, as they say, on. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Most Americans do not hold extreme positions and they are turned off by people who are rabid in their advocacy.

Claiming that the president should be impeached for conducting foreign policy is way over the top. Its especially problematic if the only points they can present are those that only other rabid people agree with.

no specifics to refute.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com