IOKIYAR

[Lindsey]

Regarding Bush's Fourth of July gift^H^H^H^H FU to the rest of the country:

Bloomberg notes, “Bush has granted fewer pardons — 113 — than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997. In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a9Ky8sNLw1fw&refer=us), and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/02/breaking-bush-commutes-libby-sentence/

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

By Bush's reasoning, he owes Victor Rita (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-21-prisonrules_N.htm) a commutation. I'm not holding my breath. Victor Rita doesn't know where Cheney buried the bodies.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

By Bush's reasoning, he owes Victor Rita (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-21-prisonrules_N.htm) a commutation. I'm not holding my breath. Victor Rita doesn't know where Cheney buried the bodies.Interesting that he tried to cut the baby in half and grant a commutation and not a pardon... (yet...).

[Lindsey]

Interesting that he tried to cut the baby in half and grant a commutation and not a pardon... (yet...).
"Yet" indeed -- he and Tony Snow are declining to rule out that possibility.

And, of course, as it turns out, ol' Scooter may not have to do any probation time, either, since under federal law, the only provision for probation (or "supervised release" as I think they call it) is for people who are being released after actually serving time. No time, no probation.

Maybe we should change Scooter's nickname to "Skater".

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Interesting that he tried to cut the baby in half and grant a commutation and not a pardon... (yet...).
Oh, well, as for the commutation bit -- that, of course, still allows him to claim Fifth Amendment privilege if he's asked to testify about what was going on in the White House around Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. A full pardon quite possibly wouldn't. But avoiding prison was enough to keep him quiet until the end of the Boy King's term, and then he can grant a full pardon on his way out the door. (Dunno how he will justify it, given his reasoning for granting the commutation, but there's no requirement that he explain himself at all.)

What I am hoping for: Congress subpoenas Libby to testify regarding the pardon process. If he lies and they can show that (a very big "if," I'll grant you), then we can try him for perjury all over again. And maybe this time by the time the sentence comes down, Bush will be back in Crawford for good. (Hmmm, but trust him to grant a pre-emptive pardon. The little weasel.)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

"Yet" indeed -- he and Tony Snow are declining to rule out that possibility.... Maybe we should change Scooter's nickname to "Skater".Truth be told, though, he really is a scapegoat. You know it was Cheney who was behind it all.

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, well, as for the commutation bit -- that, of course, still allows him to claim Fifth Amendment privilege if he's asked to testify about what was going on in the White House around Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. A full pardon quite possibly wouldn't.I'm not sure he's entitled to claim the privilege after a commutation. (He could surely do it, and tie the issue up in the courts, but I'm not sure the claim would be upheld.)

[Lindsey]

Truth be told, though, he really is a scapegoat. You know it was Cheney who was behind it all.
He's a willing scapegoat. He chose to lie and try to protect his boss. I think there was a tacit understanding, if not an explicit agreement, that he would be "taken care of."

The Bush administration has often been compared to a Mafia family. And this is how the Mafia operates. Keep your mouth shut and you will be taken care of. Rat on us, and you will regret it.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

He's a willing scapegoat. No question. But scapegoat nonetheless. I wish there was some way to bring Cheney to task.

[Lindsey]

I wish there was some way to bring Cheney to task.
Well, there is always impeachment...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, there is always impeachment...Repeat after me: "removal from office requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate." Two-thirds! And there are how many Republicans?

[Lindsey]

Repeat after me: "removal from office requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate." Two-thirds! And there are how many Republicans?
You don't have to win the Senate vote to have a political impact.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You don't have to win the Senate vote to have a political impact.Quite right. But perhaps not quite the political impact you'd want. You could drive the moderate independents totally away by embroiling the country in what they would likely view as "another nasty impeachment mess" that would end without a removal from office. In my view it would essentially guarantee that one of the "moderate" Republicans (conservative wolves in moderate sheeps' clothing) would grab that part of the electorate and prove that this is in fact the Democrats' election to lose.

My view on all of this is that about 40% of voters would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running as a Republican and 40% of voters would vote for Vladimir Lenin if he were running as a Democrat, and so all important elections are controlled utterly by the 20% in the middle. The Democrats are already in serious danger of losing that 20% to the immigration issue (they just don't seem to understand the degree to which this is a hot-button item all around the country) and embroiling the country in another impeachment that's doomed to fail would just about guarantee the loss of those voters.

[Lindsey]

You could drive the moderate independents totally away by embroiling the country in what they would likely view as "another nasty impeachment mess" that would end without a removal from office. In my view it would essentially guarantee that one of the "moderate" Republicans (conservative wolves in moderate sheeps' clothing) would grab that part of the electorate and prove that this is in fact the Democrats' election to lose.
See, this is why the Democratic Party falters and loses elections. Too many Democratic policiticans are so afraid of offending someone and losing some block of voters that they hesitate to act boldly and do what needs to be done. And when they hesitate, they show themselves to be weak, and then they lose even larger blocks of voters.

The guiding line should always be "Do what your conscience tells you is right for the country." If you do that sincerely and earnestly, then you will never have anything that you need to apologize for. People will either follow you or they will not, but in the end, that should always be how an issue is judged.

The political outcome I seek here is not for the Democrats to score political points, but for the Congress to assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government and a check to executive power. I want the president -- not just this president (or vice-president), but any president, of any party -- put back in his box. I consider that an all-powerful president along the lines of this "unitary executive" idea that Bush and the neocons have been pushing to be a grave danger to liberty and equal justice and Constitutional government as we know it. The Judiciary can no longer be entirely counted on to slap these guys down when they overreach, and so it must fall to the Congress. Congress must act. The president and vice-president cannot be allowed to be a law unto themselves.

My view on all of this is that about 40% of voters would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running as a Republican and 40% of voters would vote for Vladimir Lenin if he were running as a Democrat, and so all important elections are controlled utterly by the 20% in the middle.
There may have been some truth to that in 2000, but not now. Actually, though, I think the true middle has been larger than that all along, it's just that since about 1980, the default vote -- the lever that people pull when they can't make up their minds -- has been for the Republicans. Not any more. The default is now leaning Democratic, I think.

Core Republican support is somewhere just under 30% -- those are the people that in spite of everything that has happened in the last few years still tell the pollsters that they think George Bush is doing a fine job. I'm not sure just what the size of the hard-core Democratic base is, and in any event, it tends to fracture, because a significant portion of the hard-core left is still in love with Ralph Nader and would prefer not to have anything to do with Democrats. But I would put independent voters closer to 40%, certainly at present. And odd though it may seem, the polls say that independents are much angrier about the Libby commutation than Democrats are. I would wager they are also pretty unhappy with the way the Justice Department (and the other departments as well) have been so deeply politicized under this president. And well they should be.

I can't tell you how many posts on political blogs I have seen in the last week saying, "You know, I wasn't in favor of this before, but I've now come to the conclusion that Bush and Cheney need to be impeached."

The Democrats are already in serious danger of losing that 20% to the immigration issue (they just don't seem to understand the degree to which this is a hot-button item all around the country)
That's not my take on it. Yes, most people in the country see the current immigration situation as untenable, but the Congress is seriously divided on the particulars because the country itself is divided. On the whole, though, more people are in line with the general approach taken by the recently defeated reform bill than with the more stringent approach favored by the Republican senators who brought it down. From a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/politics/25cnd-poll.html?ex=1184126400&en=6d219709eb5a88a1&ei=5070) in late May citing a NY Times / CBS News poll:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found.

...

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who have a good employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable four-year visa.

Many Republican lawmakers have rejected this plan, calling it amnesty that rewards immigrants who broke the law when they entered the United States. But the poll showed that differences are not great between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with 66 percent of Republicans in the poll favoring the legalization proposal, as well as 72 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.
The bill failed because Bush couldn't get his own party behind it. How is that the fault of the Democrats?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The political outcome I seek here is not for the Democrats to score political points, but for the Congress to assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government and a check to executive power. I want the president -- not just this president (or vice-president), but any president, of any party -- put back in his box. I consider that an all-powerful president along the lines of this "unitary executive" idea that Bush and the neocons have been pushing to be a grave danger to liberty and equal justice and Constitutional government as we know it. The Judiciary can no longer be entirely counted on to slap these guys down when they overreach, and so it must fall to the Congress. Congress must act. The president and vice-president cannot be allowed to be a law unto themselves.I agree with the aim but not with the methods. I simply don't think impeachment is achievable and when it fails it will leave us all in a far worse position than we are now.

As for immigration, the point I think the Democrats are missing is the anger -- the amazing, deep-seated outrage of many people -- over what they see as the refusal of recent immigrants to let the Melting Pot meld them into the mainstream.

[Lindsey]

I agree with the aim but not with the methods.
Well, the only other option is to de-fund the Executive branch, but as that would hurt a good many civil service employees, not to mention the general public that they serve, that doesn't strike me as terribly palatable.

I think impeachment is most certainly possible, even if a conviction in the Senate is not, and I don't agree that not convicting in the Senate would leave us worse off than we are. Andrew Johnson was impeached but not removed from office, but after the impeachment trial, he ceased his attempts to obstruct the Congress's Reconstruction efforts.

As for immigration, the point I think the Democrats are missing is the anger -- the amazing, deep-seated outrage of many people -- over what they see as the refusal of recent immigrants to let the Melting Pot meld them into the mainstream.
Well, I'm sure you're not advocating that they pander to xenophobia, so what is it that you think they should be doing? I ask not to argue, but because I really want to know. I was undecided about the proposed immigration bill for a long time, because it's beyond dispute that the current situation is a mess and needs fixing, but I was bothered by some of the provisions of the bill. In the end, I was glad it didn't pass, because I ultimately decided that its flaws outweighed any benefit that would come from it.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't agree that not convicting in the Senate would leave us worse off than we are. Andrew Johnson was impeached but not removed from office, but after the impeachment trial, he ceased his attempts to obstruct the Congress's Reconstruction efforts.Andrew Johnson's impeachment didn't come on the heels of another impeachment of another President. That changes the way people think about it. He also obviously listened, and you can't seriously think this President is going to listen to anyone (other than maybe Cheney)!

Well, I'm sure you're not advocating that they pander to xenophobia, so what is it that you think they should be doing? I ask not to argue, but because I really want to know.I'm not sure what the solution is. But it's a political nightmare for the Democrats right now -- and unless they can come up with something to defuse it, the GOP has a tailor-made issue with which to whip up its base. Better, or at least as effective, as gay marriage was last time around.

[Lindsey]

Andrew Johnson's impeachment didn't come on the heels of another impeachment of another President. That changes the way people think about it.
Well, that's true, but there is much evidence that people are not seeing the issue of impeachment action against members of the Bush administration in the same way that they saw that against Bill Clinton. Most people seemed to understand that the impeachment charges against Clinton were politically motivated and were not at all related to the performance of his duties as president. That's not the case with Bush; everything stems from what he has done as president, and what others have done in his name.

He also obviously listened, and you can't seriously think this President is going to listen to anyone (other than maybe Cheney)!
But it may keep other people from listening to him, and that would be just as good in terms of keeping him in his box. And it would serve notice to any of his successors that they cannot run roughshod over Congress without inviting serious consequences.

I'm not sure what the solution is. But it's a political nightmare for the Democrats right now -- and unless they can come up with something to defuse it, the GOP has a tailor-made issue with which to whip up its base. Better, or at least as effective, as gay marriage was last time around.
Oh, I don't know; I have the impression that people are getting really tired of the fear- and hate-mongering they've been subjected to for the last 20 years or more. Let's face it, immigration is a tough problem and one that has been in the making for a very long time. There aren't going to be any easy, quick-fix, feel-good answers to it, and it's folly to expect the Democrats to come up with one. The best approach, it seems to me, is to be honest about that, to articulate the basic principals on which a policy should be built, be open to the concerns of all sides, and to appeal to peoples' better natures to come together to work out a detailed plan that addresses legitimate concerns without being cruel or overy punitive, and does not kick the can further down the road for someone else to address. Maybe that's loony idealism, but that's the approach I think is in the country's best interest.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, that's true, but there is much evidence that people are not seeing the issue of impeachment action against members of the Bush administration in the same way that they saw that against Bill Clinton.Some people, yes. Most people? I don't think so. The fact is that most people want political issues to be resolved at the ballot box, not in impeachments.

Oh, I don't know; I have the impression that people are getting really tired of the fear- and hate-mongering they've been subjected to for the last 20 years or more.I'm sure that's true -- note the growth of the independent voter. But even independents are leery of what they see as the Latinization of the country.

Let's face it, immigration is a tough problem and one that has been in the making for a very long time. There aren't going to be any easy, quick-fix, feel-good answers to it, and it's folly to expect the Democrats to come up with one.Sure, but they still are politicians and they need votes and they have got to learn to spin this issue their way at least as effectively as the Republicans will spin it theirs.

[Jeff]

I'm sure that's true -- note the growth of the independent voter. But even independents are leery of what they see as the Latinization of the country.


Where the dear wetbacks play...

Murder suspect appears for filing of charges
Previous gag order and order sealing case file remains in effect under case’s new judge

BY PETE FOWLER
Post Independent Staff
The suspect in the West Glenwood Springs fatal shooting appeared for formal filing of charges Wednesday.
Jesus Hernandez de Jesus, 33, was arrested in Clifton on June 26 on suspicion of first-degree murder and felony menacing. He appeared in a red jumpsuit and had court proceedings translated to him in Spanish by an interpreter using headset devices. Red jumpsuits are given to prisoners held in a maximum security part of the jail.

Here, of course, is one thousand miles north of the border, which that SOB shouldn't have crossed in the first place. But the majesty of US law will still accommodate that slime.

- Jeff

[ndebord]

Andrew Johnson's impeachment didn't come on the heels of another impeachment of another President. That changes the way people think about it. He also obviously listened, and you can't seriously think this President is going to listen to anyone (other than maybe Cheney)!

I'm not sure what the solution is. But it's a political nightmare for the Democrats right now -- and unless they can come up with something to defuse it, the GOP has a tailor-made issue with which to whip up its base. Better, or at least as effective, as gay marriage was last time around.

Judy,

You're partially correct. President Cheney very occasionally does listen to GWB.

;-)

[Judy G. Russell]

Here, of course, is one thousand miles north of the border, which that SOB shouldn't have crossed in the first place. But the majesty of US law will still accommodate that slime.Oh course, his victim wouldn't have felt one bit better if he'd been a legal immigrant, or even a plain ol' ordinary homegrown slime, either.

[Lindsey]

The fact is that most people want political issues to be resolved at the ballot box, not in impeachments.
Oh, I'd prefer that too. But there are two problems with that in the current context:

(1) It means that the opportunity to hold a president accountable only comes around one day every four years. That's not enough.

(2) One of the revelations from the US Attorney scandal is that this administration appears to be working actively to try to subvert the electoral system, so that they can retain power no matter what.

I happen to think most people also want their elected officials to be held accountable, and quadrennial elections are just not enough to contain an administration determined NOT to be held accountable.

But even independents are leery of what they see as the Latinization of the country.
Well, I hate to say it, but similar complaints have been made over the years about large influxes of Irish, Italian, Greek, Asian, Russian, Slavic, Catholic, and Jewish immigrants. All of those groups have made their mark on American culture, but I don't hear too many people complaining today about the prevalence of pizza parlors or Chinese restaurants, or of bagels in the grocery store, or Yiddish phrases in the American vocabulary.

they have got to learn to spin this issue their way at least as effectively as the Republicans will spin it theirs.
I'm not sure that would be so desirable. Republican spinmeisters are effective in part because they don't mind spinning to the point of telling bald-faced lies. I don't want to see the political dialog degraded along those lines any further than it already is.

It also helps that they have an extensive media network that works as a giant echo chamber. Their messages get amplified, and those of their opponents are drowned out.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I happen to think most people also want their elected officials to be held accountable, and quadrennial elections are just not enough to contain an administration determined NOT to be held accountable.I think your view of "most people" is a bit skewed towards "most people who read The Nation."

Well, I hate to say it, but similar complaints have been made over the years about large influxes of Irish, Italian, Greek, Asian, Russian, Slavic, Catholic, and Jewish immigrants. All of those groups have made their mark on American culture, but I don't hear too many people complaining today about the prevalence of pizza parlors or Chinese restaurants, or of bagels in the grocery store, or Yiddish phrases in the American vocabulary.No doubt. And the presence of each group in the mix, in the blend, has greatly enriched the nation. What people object to now is what they perceive as an unwillingness to be part of a mix or blend but rather a permanent, separate and different culture within the American culture with its own language that is not only accepted but encouraged. Government offices in the past did not put up Yiddish signs, did not have Chinese language applications for jobs, etc. Whether the perception is true or not, it remains the perception and has to be addressed.

Republican spinmeisters are effective in part because they don't mind spinning to the point of telling bald-faced lies. I don't want to see the political dialog degraded along those lines any further than it already is.Agreed. But being able to spin something effectively and telling the truth isn't necessarily inconsistent. What it may require is simplifying an issue and presenting one piece of it more effectively (such as, for example, the "English only" aspect of the immigration reform bill: "anyone coming here has to learn English"!).

[fhaber]

A forteriori-

The new NYT ombudsman came out from behind his curtain a week early to chastise the Times for neither absorbing nor reporting the massive anger over the immigration bill, everywhere else but here.

I'm not saying it's a very noble position, but the era's over when you can just stay mum because the Right People think the position's ridiculous.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm not saying it's a very noble position, but the era's over when you can just stay mum because the Right People think the position's ridiculous.This is, IMO, setting up to be the Swift Boats-Gay Marriage issue of 2008. And if the Democrats don't come to grips with the very real feelings around the country, well, guess what eight more years of Republican rule will do...

[Jeff]

Oh course, his victim wouldn't have felt one bit better if he'd been a legal immigrant, or even a plain IL' ordinary homegrown slime, either.

No, but we both might feel better about murder one if our taxes weren't paying for an interpreter to interpret the wetback to and fro to the free public defender. I repeat, this hereabouts is not a border town. And it sure as hell will not become one. Now what did Frank say about the immigration reporting by the NYT?

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

No, but we both might feel better about murder one if our taxes weren't paying for an interpreter to interpret the wetback to and fro to the free public defender. I repeat, this hereabouts is not a border town. And it sure as hell will not become one.If he'd been a tourist, you'd have the same problem. If he'd been a tourist from the Netherlands, you'd have to be providing a Dutch interpreter. If he were a legal immigrant who spoke only Slovakian, you'd have an even bigger problem.

Now what did Frank say about the immigration reporting by the NYT?Basically that the Times isn't doing a good job of reporting the anger that exists in the anti-immigration crowd.

[Lindsey]

I think your view of "most people" is a bit skewed towards "most people who read The Nation."
You don't think most people want their elected officials held accountable? How then do you explain the outrage over the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina? If most people don't care, then why is George Bush's approval rating down at around 29%? And why are so many people upset with Congress as well? Don't try to tell me the notion that people in this country expect their government to be held accountable is some sort of liberal goofiness.

Government offices in the past did not put up Yiddish signs, did not have Chinese language applications for jobs, etc.
In the not-so-distant past, a lot of people couldn't read at all, so what language the signs were in was a moot point. A lot of businesses used symbols that were commonly understood, some of which are still in use today: the striped pole for the barber, for instance, or the three golden balls for the pawnbroker. And life was a lot simpler -- government was a lot less intrusive, and there weren't so darned many forms to file.

When they did have to deal with government business in English, the common pattern was that the eldest kids would serve as interpreters for their parents. In previous generations, like today, typically the immigrant parents spoke very limited English, their kids were bilingual, and their grandchildren spoke only English. If there are statistics (not anecdotes) to suggest that that pattern is no longer the general case, I am not aware of them. It's not so much that the adults learned English more willingly then, but that they depended more heavily on their kids to serve as their liason to the English-speaking world around them.

Agreed. But being able to spin something effectively and telling the truth isn't necessarily inconsistent.
Sure, communication skills and being able to frame an issue effectively are important. But you're never going to be able to out-spin people who have absolutely no respect for the truth.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You don't think most people want their elected officials held accountable? How then do you explain the outrage over the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina? If most people don't care, then why is George Bush's approval rating down at around 29%? And why are so many people upset with Congress as well? Don't try to tell me the notion that people in this country expect their government to be held accountable is some sort of liberal goofiness..No. It's the notion that the way to hold officials accountable is to proceed with an impeachment process that cannot succeed that would be liberal goofiness.

[Lindsey]

No. It's the notion that the way to hold officials accountable is to proceed with an impeachment process that cannot succeed that would be liberal goofiness.
Ah. Well, I would settle for anything that would work. But just as you have more diplomatic clout when you can back it up with the threat of force if the diplomacy fails, I think it's important to keep impeachment alive as a viable option. Not just for this president -- for all presidents. If you allow one president to get away with acting like an absolute monarch, you're going to have a very hard time keeping subsequent presidents from doing the same thing.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

just as you have more diplomatic clout when you can back it up with the threat of force if the diplomacy fails, I think it's important to keep impeachment alive as a viable option. Not just for this president -- for all presidents. If you allow one president to get away with acting like an absolute monarch, you're going to have a very hard time keeping subsequent presidents from doing the same thing.I agree... but the operative word there is "viable." It isn't viable if you don't have the votes.

[Jeff]

Basically that the Times isn't doing a good job of reporting the anger that exists in the anti-immigration crowd.

Out here, where it's right up and in your face, it's the anti-wetback crowd. "Immigration" has nothing to do with it, nor should it. What's going on is a very different and very dangerous issue.

A variation on a previously well known "south-of-the-border" theme: wetback go home!

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

A variation on a previously well known "south-of-the-border" theme: wetback go home!The fact is, you are never going to come up with a system to return twelve million people to their countries of origin. So just saying "wetback go home" isn't going to cut it. Something else has to be figured out.

[ktinkel]

It seems to me that attempting to tackle a complex problem like illegal immigation — which also seems to be tied into immigration in general — in one huge piece of compromise legislation is doomed from the start.

I heard an opponent of one of the current bills the other day who said he understood it would take years (decades, maybe) to return the many illegals here to their home countries. That was probably realistic, but not what most of his compatriates are thinking.

The root problem is that so many employers want these people to be here. They claim our citizens will not do the work; is that true? Or are we talking about decent wages?

Such a complex subject deserves a complex (long-term) plan.

[Lindsey]

I agree... but the operative word there is "viable." It isn't viable if you don't have the votes.
It's certainly not going to be a viable option if any thought of it is automatically dismissed.

There was a series of interviews with three members of the House in the July/August issue of Tikkun (http://www.tikkun.org/) (article not available online, unfortunately) that touched on (among other things) the subject of impeachment. One of the interviewees was Jim Moran, of Virginia's 8th district (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County & Falls Church). His answer has a lot in common with where I am coming from on this, too. He is a co-sponsor of Kucinich's resolution to impeach the vice president, and of Conyers's resolution to impeach of the president. At the same time, he is not pushing to proceed with either measure.

TIKKUN: Let me ask you about the resolution that Dennis Kucinich introduced to impeach the vice president. So, is putting impeachment back on the table an important part of the dynamic of shifting the public discourse around the war?

MORAN: Well, the Speaker thinks it may be a distraction from other things we can actually accomplish, and we are unlikely to accomplish the impeachment. On the other hand, this Administration has been violating habeas corpus, a fundamental right that is defining of America. The right for people to know what they're charged with and to be able to defend themselves [in] court is being violated every day. We have violated that right in 772 cases now, so I think that's something important that the judiciary committee should be working on. And there are any number of other issues that are important to our body of laws that this Administration violates. I think that if we got into impeachment it would be all-consuming: it would attract all the attention and distract us from the need to limit the war in Iraq, the need to invest money in human infrastructure in this country, the need to bring abut a more sane budgetary policy where we don't leave trillions of dollars of debt to future generations, the need to develop an environmental policy. ...
He goes on to say that he doesn't think that the president or vice president would take impeachment seriously anyway, and that it would hand the Republicans a club to beat Congressional Democrats over the head with. I agree with him on the first point, disagree on the second (they're going to do that anyway, regardless of what the Democrats do), and while I agree that there are a lot of issues the Congress needs to get resolved, I disagree with him that there is any real possibility of getting much serious legislation on controversial issues out of this Congress. What Senate Republicans don't filibuster, the president is going to veto.

Anyway, at a later point in the interview:

TIKKUN: Why did you personally sign on to these impeachment bills if you don't think they are "going to go anyplace?"

MORAN: I signed on out of principle. I think this president should have been impeached. I think that if the Congress could consider impeaching a president for his private consensual acts with another person -- even though she was very young, he wasn't doing anything a lot of other legislators haven't done at one time or another in terms of yielding to personal temptation. I didn't consider that an impeachable act, and if Congress is willing to impeach for reasons like that then why not impeach a president and vice president who have sent us to war which caused the death of thousands of American soldiers, the severe wounding of tens of thousands, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about a president and vice president who have violated our Constitution in terms of unwarranted surveillance of our phone calls, who have looked into personal privacy records, ignored the concept of habeas corpus, and illegally detained people and tortured them. They both have violated the rule of law in a great many ways -- such a president and vice president should be held accountable. That's why I think the impreachment process would be healing for the nation. ...
Actually, as far as I am concerned, George Bush, Richard Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales deserve impeachment all on their own without any reference to Bill Clinton, but other than that, that's pretty much where I'm coming from, too.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

It seems to me that attempting to tackle a complex problem like illegal immigation — which also seems to be tied into immigration in general — in one huge piece of compromise legislation is doomed from the start.
Those big huge let's-tackle-every-single-issue-related-to-this-subject-in-one-go bills are almost always bad legislation. They're designed simply to get a bill through the legislature and past the president so that everybody can go back home and claim they have addressed the issues, when in the end all they've really done is to slap a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I agree -- this needs a complex long-term plan, probably addressed in several stages, as was done with civil rights legislation. And there's not going to be anything of that kind coming out of this Congress.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The root problem is that so many employers want these people to be here. They claim our citizens will not do the work; is that true? Or are we talking about decent wages?My guess is that a lot of it is true. We have raised two full generations now on the idea that college was the be-all and end-all, the one and only ticket to a good life. And now we want people to get their hands dirty? Heavens...

[Judy G. Russell]

It's certainly not going to be a viable option if any thought of it is automatically dismissed.Bottom line: where are the votes? If the Senate Democrats can't get one decent piece of legislation through with a veto-proof majority, where are the votes for impeachment?

[Lindsey]

That's what I was trying to address in the rest of that message.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That's what I was trying to address in the rest of that message.But it doesn't answer it. Even that Congressman, who co-sponsored the impeachment resolution, doesn't believe it can be done, nor that it would be worth it given the political realities.

[Lindsey]

But it doesn't answer it. Even that Congressman, who co-sponsored the impeachment resolution, doesn't believe it can be done, nor that it would be worth it given the political realities.
And yet, as he says, they should be impeached, and the process would be healthy for the country.

It's important that someone in the Congress stands up and says for the record, "This administration's behavior is not acceptable."

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

And yet, as he says, they should be impeached, and the process would be healthy for the country.He says, inconsistently, that it would be "healing" and that it would "distract us from the need to limit the war in Iraq, the need to invest money in human infrastructure in this country, the need to bring abut a more sane budgetary policy where we don't leave trillions of dollars of debt to future generations, the need to develop an environmental policy. ..."

It's important that someone in the Congress stands up and says for the record, "This administration's behavior is not acceptable."Now there we can all agree.