The "impeach Cheny" bill

[Neil D]

This may be off topic, but it's the first thing that came into my mind when reading this thread.

Two days ago I heard an AirAmerica talk show in which the host and all the callers were watching C-SPAN, doing a live broadcast of proceedings in Congress. A bill of impeachment against Cheney was being introduced, and it was voted by Congress to refer it to the Judiciary Committee - a required first step in an impeachment process. The AirAmerica people were ecstatic.

I haven't had access to newspapers or TV since then. Don't know what became of it.

This country is sick and tired of this administration and all it's doing to hurt the American people.

Sorry to "steal" this post and give it it's own thread, jeannie, but with such a good topic, I felt it deserved it's own thread. My appologies for allowing this to stand in another thread.

Having said that, I will say this...

I had heard that Kuchenic [sp] was going to do this last thursday. He did not expect it to get to chambers. It was supposed to get shot down, or that was the expectation by Dennis. Instead it is being mulled over in chambers AND it got national media coverage. I wonder what the public is saying to thier congressmen and Senators....I doubt that they are writing in "Impeach Cheny" or shouting on the phone " Go for it!! Get that 'less-than-desirable' VP out of office!!!"....not that it will get him out of office....

[Dr. Shane]

The bill to impeach Cheney was authored by Dennis Kucinich in a desperate attempt to cater to the far, left extremists in his party. His presidential bid is going no where so he needs to pull something out of his bag of tricks. The Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress are embarrassed by it and that is why they sent it to the Judiciary Committee which will prevent Kucinich from being able to grand stand on the House floor. The Democrat leadership wanted to kill it completely but Republicans wanted to keep it alive in order to shame the Democrats and that is why all the leadership could do is push it off into committee.

I suspect Air America didn't cover that part of the story... but I may be wrong. NRP is the closest I get to Air America down here. Remember... always remember... if we are going to listen to ideologues, we need to balance them off because they always employ selective reporting.

[olger]

Kucinich might be from our great state of Ohio, but he has a lot of San Francisco ideas.

olger

[Dr. Shane]

Our Adventist congresswoman supported the bill to impeach Chenney. Which, I don't want to pretend to know more than she does. Perhaps she knows something that isn't known by the general public, something that hasn't been released to the media. But given the information I have, the attempt is baseless.

[olger]

Adventist Congresswoman...

[Dr. Shane]

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

[olger]

Thanks. I've noticed that most US "Adventist politicians" are liberals. Might that be indicative of something? Curious.

oG

[Neil D]

Thanks. I've noticed that most US "Adventist politicians" are liberals. Might that be indicative of something? Curious.

oG

Indicative of something???...might it be that they are trying to do something in the world while using thier religion as a source of inspiration instead of parading it around as a "holier than thou" attitude? Might it be that thier understanding of SDA values has actually become a part of thier person and they are looking around to see what needs to be done? Might it be that the concept of "Worldliness" is an acusation that they are willing to risk in return for making the world a better place?

......there are times that I think that negitive thinking in SDA circles are far more self punitive because SDA people just don't know what to do with kindness...

[Neil D]

The bill to impeach Cheney was authored by Dennis Kucinich in a desperate attempt to cater to the far, left extremists in his party. His presidential bid is going no where so he needs to pull something out of his bag of tricks. The Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress are embarrassed by it and that is why they sent it to the Judiciary Committee which will prevent Kucinich from being able to grand stand on the House floor. The Democrat leadership wanted to kill it completely but Republicans wanted to keep it alive in order to shame the Democrats and that is why all the leadership could do is push it off into committee.

Hmmmmmm....so it is a political ploy, is it?

Wow, Shane, so what do you do with the July poll where 54% of all americans want Cheny impeached? And what about those 64% Vermont-ers who want Cheny out?

That doesn't seem like a "desparate attempt" on Dennis Kucinich's part...rather it seems to show that he is attempting to do something that the majority of Americans want...They want an official investigation into Cheney's dealings...after all, outing a CIA agent is a treasonable offence [iMHO], and deliberately seeking to manipulate the oppinions of the American people with dis-information on Iraq and a link between Alqada and Iraq, and the accompanying results from that deliberate course of action, all land at Cheney's door step.

So, Shane, I don't think that it's a desparate attempt for Kucinich political party...I think it is about justice...for the world.

[Dr. Shane]

If 54% of Americans actually wanted Chenney to impeached, the Democratic leadership would ride that horse into the 2008 election. The fact is, the only reason the bill survived to go to committee is because the Republicans want to force Democrats to ride that horse during the 2008 election season. It is a losing issue for Democrats. Only the far, left-wing fringe that reads moveon.org and media matters is supportive of it and those are the ones Kucinich is pandering to.

Quote:

I've noticed that most US "Adventist politicians" are liberals.

Congressman Barlett is a Republican from Maryland. Congressman Stump was a Republican from Arizona but has passed away. Shelia Jackson-Lee is the only Adventist Democrat I know that has been elected to Congress. What I draw from it is that Adventists can agree on doctrine and disagree on politics. I don't see that political differences translate into spiritual differences.

[olger]

John Street comes to mind.

[Neil D]

If 54% of Americans actually wanted Chenney to impeached, the Democratic leadership would ride that horse into the 2008 election. The fact is, the only reason the bill survived to go to committee is because the Republicans want to force Democrats to ride that horse during the 2008 election season. It is a losing issue for Democrats. Only the far, left-wing fringe that reads moveon.org and media matters is supportive of it and those are the ones Kucinich is pandering to.

Hmmmm...I was listening to the Ed Schultz Show on the radio, and he had some democrate senator saying that impeachment was not an option as it would detract from other issues...

in response to that, there were a awful lot of callers all across America who accused that dem Senator of being out of touch with america...They said that they had to work overtime to make ends meet, why not the legislators to get the work done that they were elected for...? And shane, these guys calling in, were hot...and twern't using the nice Sunday best conversation tones.....

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know much about Mayor John Street other than he appointed Gwen Foster as health czar and she was on Hope Channel's Really Living. However sounds like he is just another example of political diversity within the church.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know too much about Ed Schultz since he is not on he air where I live and I don't have XM radio. From what I know, he isn't a far-left, fringe liberal but that doesn't mean he doesn't have fringe elements listening to his program. Bill O'Reilly is not far-right, fringe but he gets fringe elements listening to his program. I think it a mistake to conclude the nation's temperature on an issue by opinions expressed by callers on an idealogical talk-show. And one needs to look at the internals of a poll and compare the results with other similar polls before giving too much weigh to any single poll.

Quote:

They said that they had to work overtime to make ends meet...

The economy is doing quite well. That is where Bush gets his highest marks. The deficit has even been coming down in recent years. Any callers that are complaining about economic conditions are revealing that they, themselves, are out of touch with what is going on economically.

[olger]

The dems are all about evil-for-evil since their golden boy was legitimately impeached. They are frothing to tack an impeachment on a republican so they can feel better about themselves.

Frankly, there is enough corruption to go around in both parties. Most Americans long for men who stand for the right though the heavens fall. I think Ellen identified that as the greatest need in our world, and she was right.

oG

[John317]

... Congressman Stump was a Republican from Arizona but has passed away.

Congressman Bob Stump of Arizona was so popular in his district that he usually ran unapposed. Even the Democrats were for him. He'd once been a Democrat. His brother was my uncle. He used to send me a congressional calender every year.

A funny thing about him was that during Clinton's impeachment in Congress, Bob Stump announced that Bob Hope had died. It was a few years premature! Someone had told him that Hope had died and he announced it without verification. Maybe they said, "Hope just died," but meant all hope died for Clinton.

Here's his bio:

Robert Lee (Bob) Stump (April 4, 1927 – June 20, 2003) was a U.S. Congressman from Arizona.

Stump was born in Phoenix and was a U.S. Navy World War II combat veteran, where he served on the USS Tulagi from 1943-1946. He graduated from Tolleson High School in 1947, and Arizona State University in 1951. For many years, he owned a cotton and grain farm in the Phoenix suburb of Tolleson.

He served four terms in the Arizona House of Representatives from 1959-1967, and five terms in the Arizona State Senate, from 1967 to 1976. He served as President of the Arizona State Senate from 1975 to 1976.

He was first elected to the 95th Congress on November 2, 1976, originally as a Democrat from the 3rd Congressional District. The district took in the entire northwestern part of the state, but most of its vote was cast in its share of Phoenix and its fast-growing suburbs. Despite his Democratic affiliation, he considered himself a "Pinto," or rural, Democrat and his voting record was very conservative. He voted for Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981. Shortly after that vote, he announced he would become a Republican when Congress reconvened in January 1982. Regardless of his party affiliation, he never faced serious competition at the ballot box. He briefly considered running for the Senate in 1986 after Barry Goldwater decided to retire.

In his 26 years in the House, he became a noted member of the House Armed Services Committee, serving as chairman from 2001 to 2003. He was also well-known for taking good care of his constituents, frequently answering the phone himself at his Washington office.

He decided in 2002 not to run for re-election due to declining health and died June 20, 2003.

There was some controversy over the fact that he seldom traveled to Arizona from Washington. Shortly before his retirement, reports surfaced that his permanent residence was actually in a part of Phoenix outside the 3rd District.

Quote:

Shelia Jackson-Lee is the only Adventist Democrat I know that has been elected to Congress. What I draw from it is that Adventists can agree on doctrine and disagree on politics. I don't see that political differences translate into spiritual differences.

Had you ever heard of Jerry Pettis? He was a former SDA evangelist who served as a Republican in the US Congress back in the middle 60s through the early 70s. His district was Southern California, and he lived near Loma Linda. He helped aquire the land for the Jerry Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital located there. He was killed in a plane accident.

I didn't realize Sheila Jackson Lee was an Adventist. I don't often find myself in agreement with her politically, although I used to be a registered Democrat and far to the left of her.

[Dr. Shane]

Tension between the parties goes back to the Washington Administration. However the modern conflict goes back to the election of Reagan. When Reagan was elected, Speaker of the House O'Neil announced that he Democrats were the opposition party.

Let's stop and think about that for a moment. Where in the Constitution does it mention the role of an opposition party? Where does this idea come from? Why does either party have to be an opposition party? Why can't the parties work together for the best interests of the country?

The major spear-in-the-side of Republicans was when the Democrats (as the opposition party) refused to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. That is what set this entire tit-for-tat conflict going. They tried it again with Clarance Thomas. Republicans got back at them with the impeachment of Clinton. Now that the Democrats have some power back again, some what to get their revenge for Clinton's impeachment.

[Neil D]

The major spear-in-the-side of Republicans was when the Democrats (as the opposition party) refused to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. That is what set this entire tit-for-tat conflict going. They tried it again with Clarance Thomas. Republicans got back at them with the impeachment of Clinton. Now that the Democrats have some power back again, some what to get their revenge for Clinton's impeachment.

What the heck are you talking about, Shane and Olger?

Obviously, you have not read the early papers of various early founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, or Madison, or John Adams or John Quincy Adams...You have never heard these founding fathers talk about the opposition?

Obviously, the dems only want revenge as their golden boy Clinton got impeached...OOooh, yeah, this conspiracy is right up that alley...Never mind that Cheney may have pushed Scooter to arrange the leak of one of our own CIA agents, Never mind that he was pushing the link between Iraq and Osama...Never mind that there are some pretty weird associations and relationships with Halliburton..Never mind that this administration has forgotten the Vets of this and past wars for health services and the like, never mind that this country's financial institutions are ruined thru various schemes to cheat the average man his retirement fund, never mind the allowing the CEO to get away scott free from the likes of poor management, pilfered retirement funds and high severance pays, never mind that the USofA is bankrupted in influence, beholden to china for finances, and the threat of inflation....Yeah, it can't be that sort of stuff....

[/tic]

[Dr. Shane]

Historians divide history into segments. This segment of history is what I am talking about. I think I qualified that already. Political bickering certainly goes back to the beginning. George Washington is the only President that didn't belong to a political party. In viewing recent history, some historians will take it back to the Nixon years, others take it back to the Reagan era.

Those that listened to talk-radio during the 1990s will remember all the conspiracy theories that circulated about Clinton. I can honestly say I cannot remember them all. There were just too many. They came out of the extreme wing of the Republican party. Similar conspiracy-type theories have been spread across the internet and left-wing circles about the present Administration.

If someone wants to believe these far-fetched and radical conspiracies, they are free to do so. I didn't believe them about Clinton and I don't believe them about Bush. I think the fact the Democratic leadership can't get far enough away from this impeachment bill and it has taken Republicans (wanting to shame Democrats) to keep it alive tells us how little they believe in these conspiracy theories.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Historians divide history into segments. This segment of history is what I am talking about. I think I qualified that already. Political bickering certainly goes back to the beginning. George Washington is the only President that didn't belong to a political party. In viewing recent history, some historians will take it back to the Nixon years, others take it back to the Reagan era.

"qualified that"? with sweeping statements like that, you might make it into the over generalization arguements...

Perhaps the academeia on this board might give the veiw that history is NOT divided into segments...History is...end of statement..And besides, you are the one who brought in the arguement from the Regan era to the Constitution ...You dont need to 'clarify' with "segments"...unless you want to spread rumor and conspiricy theorys....

And that opposition arguement along with the constitution, is just plain bogus...Thomas Jefferson and Adams were known opposition leaders...And Washington was known to be conscious of his place in history....

As for all those "talk-radio during the 1990s", they were overwhelmingly CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN...which may color your rememberance of history....

As for the impeachment bill, those conservatives in the west are in shock, as there are impeach Bush signs all over the west coast. And we, in the west, are less inclined to listen to conspiracy theoriest than those in the south and mid-west. And I have been to both places this past year....

[Bravus]

There's plenty of excellent grounds on which to impeach Cheney without it having to be vengeance.

[Dr. Shane]

My comment was in response to Olger's comment:

Quote:

The dems are all about evil-for-evil since their golden boy was legitimately impeached.

I was pointing out that it goes back further than the Clinton impeachment and the Clinton impeachment was actually part of the tit-for-tat policy of the two political parties.

When Reagan was elected, it was in the shadow of Watergate. The Democrats had not been poked in the ribs by the Republicans. In fact, Watergate proved to be a big victory for the Democrats. They won the White House in 1976 because of it. In 1981 they were simply angry at the Republicans because President Carter's re-election bid had been defeated. So they decided to try and undermine President Reagan by being the "opposition" party. Of course President Reagan was very successful, was re-elected in one of the greatest landslide victories ever and left office with the highest approval ratings of any President before or since. However the Democrats were successful in thwarting his appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and that set the ball in motion for the Republicans to get revenge - which they did with the impeachment of Clinton.

Was Clinton's impeachment legitimate? Yes, of course it was. But it was a minor issues in political terms. By that I mean that many politicians get away with much worse. Of course, being a friend of truth and justice, I supported the impeachment because the law should be applied equally to all citizens.

Is an impeachment of Chenney justified? Perhaps it is. I have seen nothing but conspiracy theories to justify it so with the information I have I would have to conclude it is not. However if more information came to light, I could easily be persuaded otherwise.

[Bravus]

The notion of an opposition part is inherent to the Westminster system of government on which the US system is based. Hey, in Canada they're even officially called the Loyal Opposition (which is a nice idea, actually - loyal to the country, but in opposition to the current government to keep them honest). I think there's definitely room for civility and for not letting 'win at all costs' partisanship get in the way of running the country, but the role of the party in opposition is to keep the governing party accountable. If the Dems win next year I hope the Republicans will do so, but focusing, as Shane said, on the needs of the country rather than just on bickering.

The Bush Administration *needed* to be opposed on torture, on domestic spying, on detention without charge and on a large number of other issues. Objecting to that is objecting to the entire system of government.

[Dr. Shane]

The problem with trying to impeach on "torture, on domestic spying, on detention without charge" is that several previous Presidents did this and thus set a precedent in so doing. Personally, I am opposed to torture and detention without charge. I think domestic spying is a good thing if, and only if, a judge's permission is granted first or in emergency cases, within 72 hours. However it is unfair of me to support impeachment for these offenses when previous administrations have done them.

In Clinton's case, previous Presidents had not been allowed to purger themselves, solicit purgery, obstruct justice and misuse the Secrete Service. President Nixon committed similar crimes and was forced to resign. Remember, Nixon's original crime was minor but it was the cover up that got him - just like Clinton.

So if we are going to impeach the President or Vice-President for a crime, it shouldn't be something that previous Presidents were allowed to do with impunity.

[there buster]

There are NO grounds for impeaching Cheney.

He has committed neither "high crimes nor misdemeanors." That some in the blogosphere have flights of fancy concerning the constitution is one thing; that people unfamiliar with the constitution and legal precedents should agree is not surprising. None of that actually changes the facts of the case.