« Arianna: MSM has ADD, Bloggers Have OCD | Main | How is News Consumed: Four Election Cycles »
A Modest Proposal: Reinstate Fair and Balanced Coverage
I would like to propose that Congress reinstate the Fairness Doctrine within the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine is something that I've heard of now and then, but I didn't realize that it was repealed under the Reagan Administration in 1987. It's one of those things I learn as an NPR-listening commuter.
I had heard now and again about the "equal time rule" or that news coverage needed to be "fair and balanced" and that is what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to guarantee. Yet the Fairness Doctrine is a thing of the past. It was abandoned with the proliferation of cable, leaving broadcasters little incentive to present fair coverage.
When Sinclair Broadcasting removed its offensive documentary during the 2004 election cycle, it wasn't because of the Fairness Doctrine, which no longer existed, but because its stock was tanking due to public outcry.
What was the Fairness Doctrine? Why was it repealed? Should it be reinstated? If so, why?
What was it?
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.It was established to acknowledge the fact that there are more people with opinions than there are broadcast licenses, and public access needs to be fair and balanced.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. How this was to be done was at the discretion of the station. This FCC rule held forth from 1949 until 1987.
Citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine to expand speech and debate by allowing input from both sides for ballot measures and it had the support of grassroots groups across the political spectrum. If one view received a lot of coverage in prime-time, response time would be allowed. It was up to listeners to notice imbalance but its existence encouraged their participation, as they had some recourse. Without the Fairness Doctrine, there is less of an organized route to get action when an issue is presented primarily by one side.
According to a report by the Center for American Progress entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, 91% of political talk radio was conservative last year. There was ten times as much conservative as progressive talk. 76% of news/talk radio in the Top Ten markets was conservative, while 24% was progressive.
Years before the onset of the Fairness Doctrine, some realized the need for fair and balanced coverage.
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
—- Rep. Luther Johnson (D-TX), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
—- U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Why was it repealed?
The FCC insisted the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.
After it was repealed, Congress attempted twice to restore the Fairness Doctrine but this was vetoed first by President Reagan and President H.W. Bush threatened a veto when resurrection was attempted again.
The "personal attack" rule remained in place until 200. Under this rule, stations were required to notify persons or small groups that were attacked within a week of the attack and send transcripts of what was said on the air, with opportunity to respond on the air.
The "political editorial" rule applied when editorials endorsing a candidate were broadcast. The candidates not endorsed were informed of the broadcast and invited to respond.
Should it be reinstated?
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) as well as Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) support legislation which would restore the Fairness Doctrine. Cable news, along with political talk radio, in their current state, are part of a growing trend to use the public airways as a megaphone, without an answering perspective.
Conservatives oppose restoration of the Fairness Doctrine as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or cutting their airtime in half. Many claim that liberals already dominate Hollywood, academia and mainstream media. Mainstream media would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine.
When the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine back in 1969, the decision said:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others. ... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be reapplied?
The Fairness Doctrine did not require that each program be balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. It didn’t require that a station’s program lineup be 50/50.
Rush Limbaugh has claimed that the Fairness Doctrine limits talk show hosts, yet the Fairness Doctrine never concerned itself with talk shows. The talk show format was created when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. No talk show hosts were muzzled.
Years before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed (and was upheld after being challenged), Supreme Court Justice Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.”
Under Reagan, the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairnesss Doctrine well before they formally repealed it. This allowed a high volume of unanswered conservative opinion and today virtually all of the leading political talk show hosts are rightwingers -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, North, Liddy, O'Reilly, Reagan etc.
---------------
Further reading: (Information reported above comes from NPR, Center for American Progress, FAIR and Common Dreams)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents, 1989.
Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California), October, 1994.
Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.
Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.
Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.
Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be reapplied?
Posted by slugbug at June 29, 2007 08:58 PM
Yes.
But the reality of that happening under a neoCon corporate-controlled censored media is remote, probably non-existent.
Even PBS is being affected by the reich-wing slant. Media Matters pointed out that the only "political analyst" they used for the Democratic debated hosted by Tavis Smiley last night was Luntz, the primary neoCon pundit who came up with so many red herring phrases that make corporate policies sound like the opposite of what they stand for. Luntz is the primary propaganda tool for the last political campaigns, too.
That's not even remotely "fair and balanced" on a network that gets lots of funds from the federal government. No one to counter Luntz and his propaganda. I didn't even bother to tune in to the "debates" with that kind of a lineup.
As a side note, one afternoon I paid attention to who funded children's shows on PBS... No Child Left Behind was one of the prominent funders....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/29/keith-olbermann-and-the-house-of-scandal/
Keith Olbermann And The House Of Scandal
At the end of this clip our Dynamic Duo touches on Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to defund Dick Cheney’s office. It fell just a few votes short of passing today in the House…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19491606/
House rejects proposal to defund Cheney
Vice president won’t lose his expense accounts
{{{Tsk, tsk, tsk. The House is still comprised of a bunch of cowards who continue to allow both Georgie and Dickie to hold themselves above the law, above the Constitution.... That gets us precisely nowhere in getting rid of the "leading" war criminals Georgie and/or Dickie and their criminal cabal. The vote was 217 to 209. Only eight votes kept funding for Dickie's office.... Interesting comments on the C&L site for the Olbermann video.}}}
Memo to Nancy Pelosi:
Will you AT LEAST entertain the idea of IMPEACHING Dick Cheney...? If you're too chicken to IMPEACH Georgie because you're afraid of being stuck with Dickie, why not consider getting rid of the sock-puppet master first...?
We'll bring the table.
Nothing can be accomplished domestically anyway, since practically all the money is tied up with Georgie's and Dickie's illegal war crime in Iraq, and most people are concentrating on the illegal war for the moment anyway (when they're not being entertained to death with reality TeeVee).
That map showing percentages of the bias in media in various states is frightening. I certainly hope that by next year it is far more balanced. What I'm seeing with your current administration is that the only people to be trusted are those who agree implicitly with your Prez. And this seems to be the top post with your media also.
And as far as the awful Rupert Murdoch goes, we've been known to render an unsavoury Australian citizen as stateless once that person's been gone long enough. Sorry you've got him. Most of us don't want him.
Marines Drop Case Against Anti-War Iraq Veteran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907R.shtml
The Marines have decided not to give Liam Madden, 22, an other-than-honorable discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve for his anti-war comments and for wearing part of his uniform in a protest, reported The Associated Press.
{{{Well, but they had to, didn't they? Giving publicity to ex-military (or currently serving) personnel - labeled 'heroes' by Lamestream Media and politicians alike - who oppose the Iraq war on war crimes grounds just makes people ask questions about the lies that got us into the commission of war crimes and the "leader's" approval of torture and illegal imprisonment.... Just like what happened to Lt. Watada. The less publicity, the fewer lies the neoCons have to dream up to explain away their crimes and their immoral, unethical, dishonorable, and unconstitutional activities.... And reich-wing Lamestream Media will comply quite nicely by not mentioning much of anything about this; they'd have to ask questions about war crimes otherwise....}}}
Supreme Court to Review Guantanamo Cases, Rejecting Bush's Arguments
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907S.shtml
Supreme Court justices reversed course on Friday in their decision to further review whether Guantanamo detainees can use civilian courts. The move was unexpected, given that the court turned down an identical request in April. The Bush administration says that civilian courts do not have jurisdiction to hear detainee cases, reported Pete Yost for the Associated Press.
http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2007/06/062907_iraq.html
Turning the Corner....
Thanks for Dick Cheney
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
When someone in high elected office shows the nation how vulnerable our Constitution is, we should be thankful for the wakeup call. Like many ruthless dictators, evil kings, and monster generals, Dick Cheney is the leading practitioner of the ends-justify-the-means mentality, where only his vision of the desired ends counts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17939.htm
{{{I don't think I'd go so far as to be "grateful" for Chinkster - but then if I imagine myself into an elected Congress Critter position, I like to believe I'd do the morally and ethically correct thing and slap Chinkster upside the head with a copy of the US Constitition and Bill of Rights and US law as it is currently written to knock some sense into him (a futile gesture; one cannot knock any sense into the brain of a psychopath) - and I know I would vote in favor of IMPEACHMENT. This out-of-control criminal cabal should have been stopped during their first appointed term in office, and every person with an IQ above the 28% approval rating knows it.}}}
Mcmansions, SUVs, Mega-Churches and the Baghdad Embassy:
Life Among Dim and Brutal Giants
By Phil Rockstroh
A massive emblem of the arrogance of power, the embassy is a testament to how the noxious vapors of cultural self-deception can be made manifest in reenforced concrete, armed watchtowers and razor wire.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17940.htm
{{{I think you will quite appreciate this essay a lot....}}}
Huh?
CNN reports, “Normally VIP visits to Iraq are kept under wraps, at least until the day of the trip. But Senator John McCain Friday night said he’s going to Iraq next week.” In April, the last time he visited in Iraq, McCain claimed Americans were “not getting the full picture” of the situation in Iraq. On that same visit, McCain was escorted through a Baghdad market with 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships.
http://thinkprogress.org
Bush Still Trying to Link Iraq and 9/11
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907A.shtml
President Bush continues to call al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, a claim rejected my his own administration's senior intelligence analyst, reports Jonathan S. Landay of the McClatchy Newspapers.
Told You So, UN Iraq Arms Inspectors' Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907H.shtml
"In a voluminous report detailing the history of Iraq's banned weapons programs and UN efforts to dismantle them, it said the episode had shown that on-the-ground inspections were better than intelligence assessments by individual countries," writes Patrick Worsnip for Reuters.
Thomas Powers | What Tenet Knew: Unanswered Questions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907D.shtml
Thomas Powers writes in the New York Review of Books, "Tenet's problem is that the intelligence and the war proceeded in lockstep: no intelligence, no war. Since Tenet delivered the (shockingly exaggerated) intelligence, and the President used it to go to war, how is Tenet to convince the world that he wasn't simply giving the boss what he wanted?"
Right-Wingers Defensive About Talk Radio Dominance
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907F.shtml
Joshua Holland, reporting for AlterNet, writes that a new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press on right-wing talk's domination of the airwaves is causing conservative talk radio commentators to be defensive.
It's the people vs. the government, new poll suggests
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- How do people think the Democratic Congress is doing after six months? Lousy. But better than the alternative.
It's midyear, and the Democratic Congress is taking a break. Well-deserved? No, say Republicans.
"We are now halfway through the first year of the 110th Congress," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said. "And there is no question that the failure on the part of the Democrats in terms of their midterm exam is really a letdown to the expectations of the American people.''
Democratic leaders are inclined to agree. "I'm not happy with Congress, either," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said.
And the American people? Look at the grades. President Bush is doing terribly -- an average of 30 percent job approval in six recent polls. Congress is doing worse -- 25 percent on the average in five polls.
Why the low marks? Democrats point to one issue where not much seems to be getting done. "The war in Iraq is dragging down people's confidence in what's going on in this country," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.
Republicans point to another issue. "One of the reasons that confidence is at an all-time low is because of the immigration bill," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said.
So, are voters ready to change horses again and go back to a Republican Congress? Nope.
A solid majority says it's good for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress. Even though they're doing a lousy job? Yes.
People think, OK, the Democrats aren't so great. But the Republicans are worse.
Just a bare majority of Americans now holds a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party (51 percent). But only 36 percent like the Republicans. That's the Republican Party's second-lowest rating in 15 years. Only in December 1998, when the Republican Congress voted to impeach President Clinton, were Republicans held in lower regard.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/29/schneider.angry.voters/index.html
Go Down Gambling
by Blood, Sweat & Tears
Born a natural loser, can't recall just where
Raised on pool and poker and a dollar here and there
Blackjack hand, dealer man, you'd better pay off that last debt
Two-bit hand, a 21 is all I ever get
Go down gambling, say it when you're running low
Go down gambling, you may never have to go
Down in a crap game, I've been losing at roulette
Cards are bound to break me, but I ain't busted yet
'Cause I've been called a natural lover by that lady over there
Honey, I'm just a natural gambler but I try to do my share
Go down gambling, say it when you're running low
Go down gambling, you may never have to go
Go down gambling, say it when you're running low
Go down gambling, you may never have to go
Go down gambling, say it when you're running low
Go down gambling, you may never have to go, no, no
No!
Needle Time
by Elvis Costello
I wish that I didn't hate you
Least not as much as I do
And squander all my contempt for
A little nothing like you
Liars like you are ten-a-penny
Women would slap you, if you knew any
Sometimes I feel just like committing a crime
I've got this suitcase of phony wisdom to dispense
These twenty-seven or so years
You'd think I would have made them some cents
Now they want me fingerprinted
Like I was smuggling drugs
While the government does deals with the most convenient thugs
Sometimes I feel just like committing a crime
It's Needle Time
I'm trying not to despise you with a passion that is hard to extinguish
Or maybe I really love you
Although it's hard to distinguish
I wish I could be
A little more like a saint is
Forgiving those who trespass against us
Sometimes I feel just like committing a crime
I started talking nonsense, just like I did to begin with
Around the time I tired of those sour English
Sometimes I feel just like committing a crime
It's Needle Time
THEY DO HAVE HER!!! THEY DID IT!! ITS HER!
HAHAHA! OMG! That just made my damn day.
Egypt Says Mummy Is Queen Hatshepsut
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070628/D8Q2361G0.html
And finally, her life is restored.
HAHAHA!!!
Welcome back Your Majesty.
That is fantastic.
Posted by: NonnyO at June 29, 2007 09:31 PM
NonnyO, please read this diary that is transcript of a conversation some bloggers had with Nancy Pelosi, specifically about the rule of law, impeachment, & what Congress can do & is doing. Hopefully, it will give you a little bit of understanding about why they are not going forward with impeachment...right now.
(BTW, you can also listen to the audio of the conversation, if you prefer.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541
I talked impeachment with Nancy Pelosi (audio)
Here's another diary RE: impeachment & some suggestions for action you can take this holiday weekend.
Updated - ACTION: Rumblings from the Hill (Impeachment)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/29/175128/423
Another thought about impeaching Cheney... It presents George with the opportunity to anoint someone else -- like (gasp) Fred Thompson -- as VP, thereby creating an advantage of incumbency in winning the WH in '08.
I say we de-bush our government in 2008.
Make it the it thing to do.
georgie 'de-bathh-ified' Iraq, now lets de-bushevik the USA on election day 2008 and 2010.
ANY AND ALL of georgies cronies, and war profiteers, no matter which party are ALL replaced. Let them know they can thank georgie.
Hope their souls well in hell and boot ALL off them the hell out of OUR government.
It is time to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and we are currently all out of bubble gum.
De-bush the USA. 2008 AND 2010.
Never again allow that bloodline to get anywhere near power. Make them the shame of history.
The de-bushing years.
I like it.
"De-bush the USA. 2008 AND 2010."
That should be on a bumper sticker.
Posted by: Christy at June 30, 2007 10:23 AM
Or...
"No More Bushes. Ever."
Woz
This is the Pew Report on where people get their news in America
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=200 and I think the problem is those who won't "dig" are spoonfed stuff from the right AND there has been an alliance between the formerly fringie right and this administration that is unprecedented.
FOCUS | Worst Three Months for US in Iraq Since War Began
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063007Z.shtml
A huge bomb explosion followed by a hail of gunfire and grenades killed five US soldiers, the military said Friday. The attack climaxed the deadliest three-month period for the Americans since the war began.
Simpsons 400th episode had to do with Fox and the link is in here. My son said it's good.
http://free--expression.blogspot.com/2007_06_24_archive.html
Also I was out doing karaoke with work people last night but my husband watched "Death of a President" (rental) and I saw the highlights when I got home. Has anyone seen it? It's interesting.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/
Plot: a committee is investigating (years after) the assassination of Bush.
..because we're not supposed to talk about beheadings any more as they make Americans uneasy.
Source: Reuters
US says report of 20 beheaded bodies in Iraq false
30 Jun 2007 09:11:22 GMT
BAGHDAD, June 30 (Reuters) - Media reports attributed to Iraqi
police of 20 decapitated bodies found south of Baghdad this
week were untrue and may have been planted by insurgents to
provoke revenge attacks, the U.S. military said on Saturday.
"Coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine
if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports
were false," the military said in a statement.
Local police, speaking off the record, said on Thursday that the
bodies had been found dumped on the banks of the Tigris River
near Salman Pak, about 30 km (19 miles) south of Baghdad.
But the Iraqi Interior Ministry later said that a team sent to the
location with U.S. forces had found nothing.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA029533.htm
(hat tip to Astrobuff whose blog is http://www.radrobin.com)
This site will use one of the photos that was on this site and it is interesting (as regards religion).
http://www.opentoyou.org
I guess know is interested in the question facing bloggers:
Our nation, our Congress Critters, have allowed psychopathic war criminals to tell us what to do, coerced people into committing war crimes on their behalf, all this time, and Lamestream Media has cheered them on.
When can we, as a nation (not just bloggers) call 'bull$h*te' on these war criminals "leading" us and say "Enough!"???
Posted by: NonnyO at June 28, 2007 03:32 AM
@@@@@@
How about this for an idea about "when" change will occur - when the bloggers figure out how to reach out beyond the blogosphere ghetto. I can tell you that in my blue-collar, economically declining, city, 85% of the people do not use the internet at all. Probably 80% to 90% do not read a newspaper daily. They get most of their information via television and radio.
Many of these people now know that Bush is bad but they are not quite sure why, and they are not quite sure what to do about it.
Posted by: Ralpheh at June 28, 2007 12:27 PM
Memo to Nancy Pelosi:
Will you AT LEAST entertain the idea of IMPEACHING Dick Cheney...? If you're too chicken to IMPEACH Georgie because you're afraid of being stuck with Dickie, why not consider getting rid of the sock-puppet master first...?
We'll bring the table.
Nothing can be accomplished domestically anyway, since practically all the money is tied up with Georgie's and Dickie's illegal war crime in Iraq, and most people are concentrating on the illegal war for the moment anyway (when they're not being entertained to death with reality TeeVee).
Posted by: NonnyO at June 29, 2007 09:37 PM
@@@@@@@
Posting a memo here at DCP is definitely not going to cause much of a stir.
Right now there is not much of a movement to impeach Cheney ( even after the 4 part series in the Washington Post on Cheney )
The Impeach Cheney website has only 70,000 signers (pathetically small number)... I think it is time to get outside the blogosphere and push this. The Impeach Cheney text messaging for cell phones is still out there - Impeach test message to #30644 - hopefully to attract some younger people.
I am writing post cards to Washington D.C - House of Reps - asking for support for House Resolution # 333.
"No More Bushes. Ever."
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 10:32 AM
The F*ck Stops Here
Impeach Cheney petition: Only 80,000 Signers
http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php
Impeach Gonzales petition: 79,000 signers
http://impeachgonzales.org/
THREE MORE REPS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT
McDermott to Cheney: ‘Resign or face impeachment’
By Chris Good
June 29, 2007
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told Vice President Dick Cheney to “resign or face impeachment” Thursday night as three more House Democrats lent their support to a plan to impeach the vice president.
“The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law,” McDermott said in a floor speech. “For the good of the nation, the vice president could leave office immediately.”
McDermott was one of three House Democrats to come out in favor of impeachment Thursday, along with Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.) and Hank Johnson (Ga.). Including the three lawmakers, seven members in June have shown new support for impeaching Cheney.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mcdermott-to-
cheney-resign-or-face-impeachment-2007-06-29.html
Ralpeh
Oh My God! On St. Patrick's Day we hung out with Congressman McDermott and begged and pleaded with him. He had talked to Reid and Pelosi and he said the Democrats had alot to accomplish and still tough odds (not having large enough majorities) and didn't want to slow things up. I have followed McDermott for years and he represents my district, with almost 90% support. I can not tell you how thrilled I am to hear that he is doing this. I was swayed by his logic but I respect his judgement more than I can possibly put into words. I feel safe with him the way we are supposed to with Head of the Fatherland Bush, Commander and Chief, Homeland Security and Imperial Leader Beer Buddy.
I will call his office immediately.
Have to pass on great video on micro lending
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM186917
Guy gets Pelosi's ear (transcript and audio)
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/3472-speaker-pelosi-on-the-war-impeachment-and-accountability
Juan Cole on Bush's inflammatory speech about turning Iraq into another Israel - guaranteed to keep war going for the foreseeable future
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/bush-turns-iraq-into-israelpalestine.html#comments
Posted by: not my president at June 30, 2007 03:22 PM
FYI, that's the same transcript & audio I posted earlier this morning from Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541
I talked impeachment with Nancy Pelosi (audio)
CNN: Britain raises its security alert level to critical -- the highest level -- indicating terror attacks are imminent.
What do you get if you cross Rush Limbaugh with Paris Hilton?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/print.asp?id=1611
Madame defarge
and thank you for posting same - it's not unusual to see same post 3x in the same thread, since some people scan, some read carefully, some vary, some read bottom to top, some veer off topic, and many do not read the complete thread, or open it
It's all good though.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 09:25 AM
Mike Stark: Speaker, when we do tell the public about it, they say one word. The say "IMPEACH". And I respectfully suggest that if you let this administration out of office without impeaching even Abu Gonzalez, er... Alberto Gonzalez, you will have set a precedent. The next republican administration that takes office will know that they can get away with anything they want because Democrats won’t stand up for the Constitution. That’s what millions of people are saying.
Speaker Pelosi: I appreciate your point. I think that the Gonzalez vote of confidence, as you saw, did not carry. But uhm... yeah, I understand your point, but it’s a choice that has to be made, that is to say "what is the price they are paying for the exposure?"... Look, nobody knew any of these things about Gonzalez. Let’s remember how we got to where we are – and that was by the oversight activities of the Congress of the United States. I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do... If he were at the beginning of his term, people may think of it differently, but he’s at the end of his terms. The first two years of his term, if we came in as the majority, there might be time to do it all...
Mike Stark: Respectfully, that’s not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.
Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed. But I think that we are, in asserting the checks and balances that were missing, are honoring the Constitution. I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress. (unint) Our Democratic Congress is their worst nightmare because of the power of subpoena. I think that the President’s credibility now, whether its immigration – whatever it is – is so low because of a great deal of the oversight that we have done. But we are in disagreement – I’m not going to try to budge you on that – on whether the President should have been impeached. That’s a different question from "Are there grounds for impeachment?" But should he have been impeached? Should we have gone down that road? I don’t think it would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would have – in a campaign that would have resulted in a Democratic victory that would (unint) the oversight that we have now that will build the record that will allow us to get rid of them in a major way. So I believe that we are on the verge of an election that will be a decision for greatness...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above excerpt is from the dkos printed transcript (I notice the list of comments is heading toward 700).
IMHO, Pelosi is stunningly unaware of public opinion about whether or not the House "should" start impeachment proceedings. Like other bloggers, I have noted the absence of an impeachment question in polls, which leads me to believe Congress Critters who pay attention to polls just simply do not want to know their constituents DO want impeachment. This quote just blew me away: "I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say? The President isn’t worth it... he’s not worth impeaching."
Bush, who has LIED to us virtually daily, who has committed war crimes and atrocities in our names isn't "worth impeaching"?!?!?!?!? Pelosi "made the decision" - who died and made Pelosi dictator of the House?!? What about the other House members who might be more in touch with their constituents?!? Didn't Pelosi see her own constituents make the word "IMPEACH" on the beach in her own district (we all saw the video)??? WTF?!?!? Of course Bush is worth impeaching, and so is Cheney!!! If the House members and Senators are too chickensh*t to act after all the emails and phone calls they've received favoring impeachment, then it's high time we voted them out of office as co-conspirators of Bush-Cheney war crimes.
The criminal activities of this administration are well known to bloggers (and ALL of the rest of the world who are far more politically aware than most of the people of this country!) and it's way past time their criminal activities were highlighted in American Lamestream Media. The only way that can be accomplished is if the House starts the impeachment process for at least Cheney, if not Bush (it might, only might, wake up the bobbleheads who will be forced to talk about the lies and the war crimes and stop being the administration's propaganda teleprompter readers), and it may as well start with Dickie, since he (and Turd Blossom when Dickie's out of town) are the puppet-masters. Right now the reich-wingers have a chokehold on every communication medium... except the internet (and they're going after that, too), so censorship is rife, if only by the sin of silence (not to mention the endless sound bytes they keep repeating where well-known LIES are still repeated). As is, "silence is complicity" and the lack of mention in Lamestream Media regarding the LIES and war crimes and the criminal activities of this administration amounts to "silence as the sin of omission."
The groundwork for the case for impeachment has already been done (Conyers, now Kucinich, et al.); books have already been written about it, so the groundwork has already been done. There is recent precedent for impeaching a president for LYING. The LIES of the administration that got Congress to "approve" the illegal Iraq war and fund it, as well as "approve" of the war crimes of torture and illegally detaining prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere (all public knowledge at this point, 'cuz even Lamestream Media has talked about the LIES and the illegal torture), are, in and of themselves, grounds for impeachment, and the rest can be added on in the discovery process of a trial (how many times do we have to put up with "I can't remember" and "I don't recall" statements? - they're either LYING or they are in stages of early senility, both reasons to get them out of office). The process of committees, investigation, subpoenas for all of these other 'side issues' can add to the case for impeachment because it reinforces what we (well, at least we bloggers) have know about for many years and have written about endlessly (crimes, also, which can be added on to reasons for impeachment, but wire tapping and illegally firing prosecuting attorneys are only part of a very long list of crimes to add to war crimes). Everything congressional investigative committees throws at the criminal cabal with long deadlines to accomplish whatever they're refusing to give to Congress to complete their investigations, and then more "process" just runs out the clock on the criminal cabal leading this country. The hubris surrounding "executive privilege" is codswallop, and every person not in the 28% approval rating for Georgie and Dickie KNOWS it! We are drowning in delaying tactics and stonewalling and more LIES while they continue to commit war crimes and other high crimes and misdemeanors in their de facto dictatorship (with, it seems, Congressional approval!). Enough already!
Georgie and Dickie (and their criminal cabal) have LIED to Congress and the American people REPEATEDLY, and LYING is grounds for IMPEACHMENT...!!! Additional charges of war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors can be added on to the perjury charges in the discovery process during an impeachment trial, but the starting point must, of necessity, start with the LIES that led to war crimes.
If Pelosi can't grasp that essential fact (LYING is grounds for IMPEACHMENT, and we all know both Georgie and Dickie have LIED REPEATEDLY to Congress and to the American people and to the rest of the world), then she needs to step down as Speaker of the House. To do otherwise makes her part of the problem, not part of the solution to end this criminal cabal's de facto dictatorship as well as the continuing commission of war crimes.
To leave Georgie and Dickie in office after all their blatant LIES invites the charge of Democratic complicity and approval of their LIES that have led to war crimes, and additionally invites the charge of Democrats being complicit in their war crimes (against the US Constitution, against the Geneva Conventions, against the Bill of Rights, and US law, Title 18).
If our "leaders" can't live up to their oath of office to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' then they need to either resign or be voted out of office....
I see nmp's McDermott has now added his voice to the call for impeachment, and I congratulate him. I've written to my rep in the past, asking him to back impeachment (he did sign on to Conyers' bill before the '06 election, but seems to have changed his mind since then - 'flip-flopper!'), and the last email I got in response to yet another plea to back impeachment, he cited "Republican Backlash" as a reason to not favor impeachment now. (I posted something about that when it happened.) I believe the Dem reps and senators need to be afraid of "Voter Backlash" in '08 if they do not impeach, per the will of the people they represent. I am writing my rep (again!) about at least impeaching Dickie, if not impeaching Georgie. [While Ellison is from my state, I don't live in his district.]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mcdermott-to-cheney-resign-or-face-impeachment-2007-06-29.html
{I notice the link Ralpheh was broken; above is the unbroken link.}
Another McDermott quote from the same article:
“The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law,” McDermott said in a floor speech. “For the good of the nation, the vice president could leave office immediately.”
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2007 04:17 PM
You certainly have a right to your opinion, which we have read many times here. And I disagree with you on many points.
Yes, there are many, many reasons to impeach but first of all, it's a process that requires airtight evidence, as well as enough support in Congress to make it happen. What if they proceed with impeachment, but it fails? I believe that would cause more harm to our country & the chance for a Democratic president in '08.
Undoing the mess that this administration has made for the last 6 1/2 years is going to take time & a very strategic process. As much as I'd love to see them out of office yesterday, I also have my eyes on the big prize: a Democratic president elected & in office in '08. I also don't think it's time for the Dems to start eating their own, especially now that many moderates are starting to see that the Dems can & will run a better government than the clowns that are in office now.
As far as impeaching Cheney, be careful what you ask for. As I said earlier, that could be the perfect set-up to provide the Republic Party with the opportunity to elect the incumbent. I'm not willing to take that chance.
If Pelosi can't grasp that essential fact (LYING is grounds for IMPEACHMENT, and we all know both Georgie and Dickie have LIED REPEATEDLY to Congress and to the American people and to the rest of the world), then she needs to step down as Speaker of the House. To do otherwise makes her part of the problem, not part of the solution to end this criminal cabal's de facto dictatorship as well as the continuing commission of war crimes.
To leave Georgie and Dickie in office after all their blatant LIES invites the charge of Democratic complicity and approval of their LIES that have led to war crimes, and additionally invites the charge of Democrats being complicit in their war crimes (against the US Constitution, against the Geneva Conventions, against the Bill of Rights, and US law, Title 18).
If our "leaders" can't live up to their oath of office to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' then they need to either resign or be voted out of office....
Posted by: NonnyO at June 30, 2007 04:17 PM
@@@@@@@@
Why isn't there traction on either the Impeach Gonzales or the IMpeach Cheney activities???
Now they are trying Impeach Cheney head gear:
GET YOUR OWN CUSTOM EMBROIDERED "IMPEACH CHENEY?" CAP
As votes in the impeachment poll sail past 80,000, and as National
Cheney Impeachment Summer starts to heat up, wouldn't it be neat to
have your very own snappy "IMPEACH CHENEY?" cap, so that everyone you
meet asks themselves (and you), "Should Vice President Cheney Be
Impeached?" In a moment we'll tell you how to get one with no
donation required (unless you want to make one).
But first, has there been any more courageous leader on the
impeachment issue than Dennis Kucinich, who stepped forward when
nobody else would even raise their hand, and who has inspired three
more members of the House to sign on as co-sponsors of H.Res. 333
(for a total now of 11) just this last week? Since today just happens
to be the last day of the fund raising quarter wouldn't this be a
GREAT time for you to thank him for standing so strong on this issue?
KUCINICH DONATIONS: http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php
OK, now . . . what we're doing is first thing Monday, July 2nd, we
are placing an order for as many "IMPEACH CHENEY?" caps as you will
wear. There is no donation required unless you want to help with the
production costs, so that we can get one to every dedicated activist
who wants one. All we ask is that you have voted in the National
Cheney Impeachment Poll yourself (which if you are the original
recipient of this alert you HAVE done), and that you promise you will
help to encourage more people to speak out in the poll. Submit this
form to get your very own custom embroidered cap.
IMPEACH CHENEY CAPS: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_cap.php
If you CAN make a donation when you order your cap it will ALSO help
us to keep running ads in at least a dozen of the most heavily
visited progressive blogs, like Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Talking
Points Memo, Democratic Underground and so many more, to continue to
publicize the progress of the poll. But even if you can't make a
donation just go ahead and submit the form anyway and we will send
you one for NO CHARGE, not even shipping.
These caps are sure to be treasured collector's items in the future,
that will demonstrate you were one of the valiant activists in the
SUCCESSFUL movement to impeach Dick Cheney in 2007. What a perfect
thing for you to wear when you are out collecting more votes for the
poll!
GET YOUR VOTE GATHERING SHEETS TO USE WHILE WEARING YOUR NEW CAP
The best thing about the new "IMPEACH CHENEY?" caps is they are
perfect conversation starters. People will respond to the question on
the front, and ask YOU why Cheney should be impeached. And you will
tell them, won't you? Then you can ask them to cast a vote on one of
the vote gathering sheets we have created especially for the National
Cheney Impeachment Poll. So if you can't wait to get started, or if
you need to print out more sheets for your own canvassing, go to this
page.
VOTE GATHERING SHEETS: http://www.usalone.com/cheney_votesheet.php
And if there were not enough reasons already to impeach Cheney, more
and more keep piling up like dead fish, literally. We now learn that
Cheney was the primary villain in wiping out the Coho salmon run, by
diverting water to buy the support of a couple rich ranchers in
Oregon to swing a race in the Senate there. For your debating
illumination, one of our own participants, Professor of Law Emeritus
Leonard R. Jaffee, has produced an extensive analysis of grounds for
Cheney impeachment which you can read for yourself at
JAFFEE ON IMPEACHMENT:
http://www.usalone.com/jaffee_on_impeachment2.htm
In the third section of this piece Professor Jaffee goes through each
and every ground for impeachment of Dick Cheney we can already prove,
including the latest scandals, so that you can be better prepared to
respond to any questions someone might throw at you. We would not
worry too much though, because of ALL votes in the National Cheney
Impeachment Polls so far, 99.19 percent have been Yes to impeach. All
we have to do is get everyone to speak out who has an opinion, and
Congress will change gears even faster than they did on the
immigration bill this week, which proves, if nothing else, that if we
the people speak out in sufficient numbers, they absolutely WILL act.
Help to build those numbers every way you can.
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
Sorry about the Kucinich fund raising above -
forgot about the ban on campaign fund-raising at DCP , sorry...
As far as impeaching Cheney, be careful what you ask for. As I said earlier, that could be the perfect set-up to provide the Republic Party with the opportunity to elect the incumbent. I'm not willing to take that chance.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 05:22 PM
@@@@@@@
Cheney is so awful a Vice President that the Democrats and the Congress MUST impeach him - they MUST do the right thing.
Frankly, I don't think any of the Republican presidential candidates is going anywhere in 2008 and it doesn't matter who replaces Cheney.
Are you really afraid of actor, Washington insider, big-time lobbyist Fred Thompson?? I'm not. I don't care who they stuff into the Vice President position after Cheney.
Posted by: Ralpheh at June 30, 2007 05:41 PM
No, I'm not afraid of a two-bit actor who once held a senator seat. I'm afraid of the number of stupid Americans who will fall for more Republican crap & propaganda.
BTW, there are a plethora of diaries up at Daily Kos about impeachment today. Seems to be on everyone's mind. Here's another one that I found particularly good, interesting, & comprehensive.
Why Impeachment Isn't Happening: It's Not What You Think
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/153229/058
No, I'm not afraid of a two-bit actor who once held a senator seat. I'm afraid of the number of stupid Americans who will fall for more Republican crap & propaganda.
@@@@@
They aren't - the President's approval rating is somewhere between 26% and 28%
Cheney's approval rating is even worse - in the teens.
And the Democrats in Congress can't impeach Gonzales or Cheney or at least "put it on the table"???? It is frightening how politically timid the Democrats are?? So the impeachment bill dies in the Senate? The Democrats just say "We Tried America...."
Bush and Cheney have flushed the constitution down the toilet and all the Dems can do is calculate about Hillary winning the next election....
all the Dems can do is calculate about Hillary winning the next election....
Posted by: Ralpheh at June 30, 2007 06:43 PM
Wrong.
And, BTW, here's another thought:
Nixon was impeached, but was also pardoned for evermore by his replacement, who was hand picked by the GOP to pardon him. Don't think it won't happen again. Cheney was in the Nixon Administration & part of Ford's transition team as well as ultimately his chief of staff.
The reality is that the Nixon impeachment led to nothing because his replacement was as corrupt & ideological as he was. That was back in "the day" when there actually were some decent Republicans, but they got the loyal guy Ford on the job.
Barry Goldwater was NOT being patriotic when he asked Nixon to resign. He was being smart & helping Nixon avoid jail & saving the Republican Party at the same time.
And what happens after impeachment? Impeachment may actually help Bush & Cheney more than it would ever hurt them because they would be pardoned (by some republican president down the line). Without a pardon -- when they leave office -- they can be prosecuted for their crimes. Pelosi may actually be preserving our right to justice rather than denying it as so many seem to believe.
There is more and more support for some kind of impeachment attempt at DKOS. And people are thinking very seriously and critically about it, which is great. Here is an excerpt:
QUOTE:
If we want impeachment to work, we have to throw the book at these people in a way that is not currently being done at the highest levels. If we want the public to understand that impeachment is a necessary duty to hold Bush and his allies accountable for deeply criminal actions rather than a cheap political ploy, our legislators must not be afraid to accuse them of deeply criminal action. We must make it clear to the American people that we are not defending some idealistic notion of the defense of Constitutional Principles, but rather opposing an Administration responsible for villainy and criminality unprecedented in modern American History. The Articles of Impeachment themselves must look less like Fitzgerald's case against Scooter Libby, and more like Thomas Jefferson's case against King George III.
Most importantly, our legislators must be made to see not only the necessity of impeachment itself, but of not mincing their words when it comes to describing Administration activities. They must not be afraid to use the words "liars", "blatantly illegal and unconstitutional", "criminal activity", "unprecedented abuses of power", or even "treason". Until we see our legislators actually using these sorts of words and phrases, we will know that they do not consider the state of affairs in America desperate enough to require impeachment. More importantly, the public will not be inclined to see the Bush Administration as dangerous enough to our way of life to merit the necessity of impeachment as a means of national self-defense, rather than as a petty partisan tool.
The hard work is just beginning. If we want to defend our Constitution and our country, the political discourse is going to have to get worse before it gets better. If we want our legislators and the American People to see impeachment not as a partisan move for naked political power but as a bold move for freedom, we must first convince them of its sheer necessity through some fairly ugly (if painfully accurate) words. If impeachment is to become extraordinary again rather than banal, we must convince the people that the times themselves are extraordinary.
forgot about the ban on campaign fund-raising at DCP, sorry...
Posted by: Ralpheh at June 30, 2007 05:35 PM
---------------
Hmm. You say that like it's the first time you've made such an error here, which it certainly is not. And calling that a "ban" makes it sound arbitrary and Draconian, which it is not; it's a necessary element of the 501(c)3 charter under which the DCP operates this website as a non-partisan educational and informative incorporated institution.
You already know this, of course. You also know about the "fair use" principle that applies when reposting material from other sources -- hint, the relevant info for that is included at the bottom of each page right below the 'post a comment" link.
"Fair use" comes into play when reposting non-original material such as emails that are sent out by various organizations, news stories, press releases, etc. that should not be copied and pasted in here at full length and/or without proper links and attribution included at the time they are reproduced on other websites without prior permission of the copyright holder.
There's a certain amount of leeway involved in how strictly websites tend to interpret the "fair use" provisions when it comes to duplicating outside material. There's less leeway involved in how strictly organizations such as the DCP must adhere to the legal requirements of their incorporation status.
It's very important to be aware of these factors and to not play so fast and loose with the rules so frequently as you have been known to do, Ralpheh. This is not to single you out per se -- other regulars have been known to get pretty lax about these things as well -- but as you implied in the comment referenced above, you do recognize that you've pushed that envelope pretty far in your posts from time to time. (Please stop doing that.)
So, then... while I might be replying to a particular Ralpheh remark in this comment, I want to emphasize that I am now addressing *all* members and guests of the Democracy Cell Project community when I underscore the following points:
First, the DCP is an incorporated entity that is subject to legislative rules and regulations by nature of its status as a non-profit educational corporation. It provides this website as a public service to the progressive online community, and makes no prior restriction on who may come here and post or what those posters have to say in their comments here -- with the significant exception of posts that might serve to endanger the charter under which the DCP operates this service;
Second, while the DCP encourages open discussion of any and all topics and subjects, as an organization it does not and will not campaign for any particular candidate nor will it advocate or solicit donations for any particular group, cause, or movement;
Third, the DCP does not condone and will not permit its website to be used for hate speech, threats of violence or insurrection, gratuitous ad hominem attacks, and/or deliberate libel, slander, or character assassination. This does not just apply to the thread headers, forum posts, and web content that is produced by DCP team members, but also to any and all posts made by the community members and guests to this website;
Fourth, by its nature and according to its mission statements the DCP organization and the website it offers as a public service are dedicated to fostering small-d democracy at the level of individual citizens and ad hoc small groups at the local level. It advocates active involvement in the political process and it encourages active and healthy debate of issues, opinions, and personal interpretations of current events and the news of the day;
Fifth -- and this is something that is essential for *all* of us to remember at *all* times -- even though it's not encoded in the regulations that affect the DCP's organizational charter, in the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, in the group's mission statement, or anything else that's written in stone, there are basically two core principles that apply to any, all, and each of us who post here whenever we post here:
[1] ASSUME GOOD WILL -- i.e., give posters the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean well when they say things, even if you might disagree with what they have to say.
[2] DON'T BE A JERKHOLE -- i.e., don't be a jerkhole.
(Imho, everything else that matters follows logically from those two core principles as far as the DCP and its website are concerned.)
I could go ahead and look up the specific legal language that applies and cite it as a formal instruction by way of a thread header, but I'd prefer not to go to all that trouble on a holiday weekend nor do I want to clutter up the top of the page with what should be common-sense awareness on the part of all of us (myself included, ahem).
So I reckon as how this in-line comment ought to be enough to address the issue and to leave it at that. But just imagine, if you will, how much better things would be if everyone in Washington -- or, for that matter, everyone at home and at work and in school and everywhere else we spend time when we're not all glued to the fringes of the political blogosphere, too -- would follow those two simple rules in everything they said and did:
[1] ASSUME GOOD WILL.
[2] DON'T BE A JERKHOLE.
'nuff said then y'all,
Rick
(Note: yes, all that also applies when one is quoting parts of somebody else's Daily Kos post without bothering to provide links or attribution info, too. It's not just MSM sources that are covered by intellectual property rules, you know.)
[1] ASSUME GOOD WILL.
[2] DON'T BE A JERKHOLE.
'nuff said then y'all,
Rick
Posted by: Rick Albertson at June 30, 2007 07:13 PM
@@@@@
Hey, thanks!!!!
Beat me with a wet noodle - 60 lashes if you must...
1) I don't support the Kucinich campaign
2) I cut and pasted an email in which the subject was the impeachment of Dick Cheney not the Kucinich campaign. NOTE THE TITLE: GET YOUR OWN CUSTOM EMBROIDERED "IMPEACH CHENEY?" CAP
3) LET'S ALL TRY NOT TO BE JERKS OR JERKHOLES...
Thanks for understanding....
Hmm. You say that like it's the first time you've made such an error here, which it certainly is not. And calling that a "ban" makes it sound arbitrary and Draconian, which it is not; it's a necessary element of the 501(c)3 charter under which the DCP operates this website as a non-partisan educational and informative incorporated institution.
@@@@@
One other thing
hmmm, How many times has this happened in the last year?? Just curious about the seriousness of my transgressions.
And, BTW, here's another thought:
Nixon was impeached, but was also pardoned for evermore by his replacement, who was hand picked by the GOP to pardon him. Don't think it won't happen again. Cheney was in the Nixon Administration & part of Ford's transition team as well as ultimately his chief of staff.
The reality is that the Nixon impeachment led to nothing because his replacement was as corrupt & ideological as he was. That was back in "the day" when there actually were some decent Republicans, but they got the loyal guy Ford on the job.
@@@@@@@@@
What are you saying???
That Cheney will be impeached; Bush will make a deal with the new, appointed Vice President; Bush will then resign the presidency becoming only the second president in American history to resign; hypothetical Vice President becomes President; new unelected President pardons everyone.
It was such a huge relief and a burden lifted when Richard Nixon resigned - resigned in disgrace. That is the biggest punishment you can mete out for a political figure - remove his power and station.
Most people look back at the Nixon impeachment and resignation as a victory for constitutional and orderly government.
Go for it rick!!!
(Note: yes, all that also applies when one is quoting parts of somebody else's Daily Kos post without bothering to provide links or attribution info, too. It's not just MSM sources that are covered by intellectual property rules, you know.)
Posted by: Rick Albertson at June 30, 2007 07:25 PM
@@@@@@
Really,
is all the stuff at Kos covered by intellectual property rights??? or not??
Maybe we need a lawyer here..
K, Ralpheh, NP, we're all cool then, thanks.
But what *is* the source URL for that dKos diary you quoted at 7:15 pm? It sounds like something I'd like to read the rest of.
Yes, the stuff at dKos is also covered by intellectual property rights rules (in both directions, when quoting in posts there and when quoting from posts made there) -- as, for that matter, is stuff at DU, FDL, and even here (which means that if somebody rips off some original content you've written in a DCP post and pubs it elsewhere without giving credit where credit is due, you can sue their butts for doing so )...
Rick,
I will answer my own question regarding DKos website:
It is not copyrighted. This was at the bottom of the page -
************
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
************
This is the DKos article, I was quoting from:
Why Impeachment Isn't Happening: It's Not What You Think
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/153229/058
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 05:56 PM
And what happens after impeachment? Impeachment may actually help Bush & Cheney more than it would ever hurt them because they would be pardoned (by some republican president down the line). Without a pardon -- when they leave office -- they can be prosecuted for their crimes. Pelosi may actually be preserving our right to justice rather than denying it as so many seem to believe.
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 07:00 PM
That's something I've never thought of. I seriously hope you're right.
Nixon was impeached, but was also pardoned for evermore by his replacement, who was hand picked by the GOP to pardon him. Don't think it won't happen again. Cheney was in the Nixon Administration & part of Ford's transition team as well as ultimately his chief of staff.
The reality is that the Nixon impeachment led to nothing because his replacement was as corrupt & ideological as he was. That was back in "the day" when there actually were some decent Republicans, but they got the loyal guy Ford on the job.
Barry Goldwater was NOT being patriotic when he asked Nixon to resign. He was being smart & helping Nixon avoid jail & saving the Republican Party at the same time.
@@@@@@@
I am really having a hard time understanding your Nixon argument.
Are you saying that:
1) Nixon should not have been impeached?
2) Nixon should not have resigned?
3) Nixon's crimes did not warrant impeachment?
4) The Democrats and the country suffered more because Nixon did not finish his term in office?
Madame -
Here's a not-so-great thought though. It seems that there will be a way to pardon W and Cheney, even if they are indicted after leaving office.
Indicting an ex-leader of a nation is not easy, no matter how much of a crook he was while in office.
As people know here, I always make examples of the South Korean fascists. The fascists were indeed prosecuted for their crimes during the coup that led to their power, and while in office. The ex-president was sentenced to death, and his accomplice (and successor) to life in prison. They both got pardoned though, due to "cooler heads" prevailing.
People often seem to think an ex-leader of a nation deserves respect. Even if he masterminded a Tian An Men-style massacre (as in the Korean fascist). Even if he dismantles the beloved legal institutions of the country (as in W).
Just a thought...
Posted by: Ralpheh at June 30, 2007 08:04 PM
I'm saying that Nixon was pardoned for his crimes, which was obviously the plan when he resigned in August 1974. Nixon was never impeached.
Of course his crimes were worthy of impeachment. He was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html
Posted by: Ally McRepuke in Arizona at June 30, 2007 08:29 PM
Good thought, Ally. Let me mull on that for a bit.
I'm not saying I'm against impeachment. I do think these clowns are worthy of being impeached. But I'd much rather see the Dems put every effort into ending the war, solving the health care crisis, & getting a Democratic president in '08...
People often seem to think an ex-leader of a nation deserves respect.
Posted by: Ally McRepuke in Arizona at June 30, 2007 08:29 PM
Just to be crystal clear, I have never, EVER, respected that demented little dickwad that is sitting in the Ovaltine Orifice, and I never EVER will.
Death takes a holiday.
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2007 09:19 PM
Are you sure?
Just askin'
Say, hey!
Hear the sound of the falling rain
Coming down like an Armageddon flame
(Hey!)
The shame
The ones who died without a name
Hear the dogs howling out of key
To a hymn called "Faith and Misery"
(Hey!)
And bleed
The company lost the war today
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday
Hear the drum pounding out of time
Another protester has crossed the line
(Hey!)
To find
The money's on the other side
Can I get another Amen?
(Amen!)
There's a flag wrapped around a score of men (Hey!)
A gag, a plastic bag on a monument
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday
(Hey!)
(Say, hey!)
(3,4)
"The representative from California has the floor"
Sieg Heil to the president Gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we're outlaws Yeah!
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
This is our lives on holiday
---------------
have a green day,
Otter
Busted
by Johnny Cash
My bills are all due and the babies need shoes,
But I'm Busted
Cotton's gone down to a quarter a pound
And I'm Busted
I got a cow that's gone dry
And a hen that won't lay
A big stack of bills
Getting bigger each day
The county's gonna haul my belongings away,
But I'm Busted
So I called on my brother to ask for a loan
'Cause I was Busted
I hate to beg like a dog for a bone,
But I'm Busted
My brother said, "there's not a thing I can do,
My wife and my kids
Are all down with the flu
And I was just thinkin' about callin' on you,
'Cause I'M Busted."
Lord, I ain't no thief, but a man can go wrong,
When he's Busted
The food that we canned last summer is gone,
But I'm Busted
Now the fields are all bare
And the cotton won't grow
Me and my family's gotta pack up and go
But I'll make a living, just where, I don't know
'Cause I'm Busted
Posted by: madame defarge at June 30, 2007 09:27 PM
Rarely have I ever been more sure of anything in my life.
But I could be wrong, I mean, look how well everything is going ...
If we don't impeach, what are we suppossed to tell our kids?
We are confronted with a man none of us doubt is a murdering thug. The Worst President. Ever.
If we let him walk away from this, to die of a heart attack in his sleep 20 years from now, every single one of us will regret it. Why? Because we all know damn good and well he should be locked in a cage for the rest of his life and given the exact same treatment he designed for toturing other people with.
If we do NOT make an example of him, seriously, what do we tell the children? That we were too worried about dem chances in 08 or 2010 we allowed the biggest criminals any of us has ever seen in a lifetime...just walk away...?
What about the next georgie? If HE gets away with it, why can't some other person who wants to play president get away with it too...? What if that one kills even more even more blatantly?
Can we all afford to pretend it will not happen again ?
If georgie leaves office, untouched by his crimes, I personally hope the dems do not win it either. Why would I want dems to have it when they can not even do their jobs now and protect our Constitution, and if they let him pass into history unscathed then all that we thought we were has failed.
Do you know what I will have to teach my kids? Not to follow the laws of the USA.
If our law would imprison and torture them for nothing, but yet let a war criminal openly lie and mass murder people, then our laws are no longer worth a damn.
Instead of teaching them the US Constitution I will instead teach them how to steal billions of dollars at a time. I will teach them to lie as much as they want and let whomever they want die for it. 1 killing makes them a murderer, 600,000 murders makes you a patriot.
Because that is just the way it is now and the way it will remain until we start throwing peoples asses in jail.
What happens after impeachment..? How about a good old fashioned trial followed by a decent hanging?
What worries me more is the thought there will be no impeachment and all these people died for no other reason than to amuse and enrich georgie and his thugs.
All of the soldiers he has gotten killed, their deaths will CERTAINLY be in vain if georgie is allowed to escape any accountability for what he did to them.
What if we do not impeach georgie, then what...? We just sit here in the mess he left us in while another American born tyrant lines up to take his place?
That is absolutely unacceptable.
It is time to hold dear to what we all believe in.
In. God. We. Trust.
Impeachment is the right thing to do. Even if we are afraid and weary, we can not allow this to continue.
Impeach the bastards, and trust in God.
Or, don't impeach and the devil will reign whenever the hell he likes, and get away with it too.
It is time to set a precedent in this nation.
One so blatant and obvious all men and women who seek that office will know they can and will be held responsible for the crimes they commit against us and others.
What after impeachment...? Ready a WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL. All American, for Americans.
And let our kids know they will have more tools to fight with than we did.
Even if we fail, we still tried. We can at least tell our kids we tried.
Watching some television here in Page, Arizona...
My choices: Fox News alerts from Glasgow, or religious nationalist fascist displays from SoCal's Crystal Cathedral.
Not very appetizing.
Posted by: monkey at June 30, 2007 09:36 PM
Monkey - those words could have come from the majority of the early white settlers in Australia. A child was sentenced in Britain to 7 years transportation for stealing a loaf of bread. A 7 year old sentenced to travel 7 months on a crowded wooden boat and work his guts out for 7 years without hope of seeing his family - ever again. Those words are apt for people all over the world. Still.
Amazing isn't it that the unlimited funds of the politicos are poured into the militaries to secure world domination.
Car bomb hits Glasgow airport
Glasgow
July 1, 2007 - 11:30AM
Three terrorist suspects are in police custody - and a fourth man under guard in hospital - following attacks that saw a flaming jeep crash into a Scottish airport and two car bomb plots foiled in central London.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/car-bomb-hits-glasgow-airport/2007/07/01/1183228931518.html
There's trouble on the streets tonight, I can feel it in my bones
I had a premonition, that he should not go alone
I knew the gun was loaded, but I didn't think he'd kill
Everything exploded and the blood began to spill
So baby, here's your ticket, put the suitcase in your hand
Here's a little money now, do it just the way we planned
You be cool for twenty hours and I'll pay you twenty grand
I'm sorry it went down like this,
And someone had to lose,
It's the nature of the business,
It's the smuggler's blues
Smuggler's blues
The sailors and pilots, the soldiers and the law,
The pay-offs and the rip-offs, and the things nobody saw
No matter if it's heroin, cocaine, or hash,
You've got to carry weapons 'cause you always carry cash
There's lots of shady characters, lots of dirty deals
Every name's an alias in case somebody squeals
It's the lure of easy money, it's got a very strong appeal
Perhaps you'd understand it better
Standin' in my shoes
It's the ultimate enticement,
It's the smuggler's blues
Smuggler's blues
See it in the headlines, you hear it every day
They say they're gonna stop it but it doesn't go away
They move it through Miami, sell it in L.A.
They hide it up in Telluride, I mean it's here to stay
It's propping up the governments in Columbia and Peru,
You ask any DEA man, he'll say, "There's nothin' we can do"
From the office of the President, right down to me and you, me and you
It's a losing proposition,
But one you can't refuse
It's the politics of contraband,
It's the smuggler's blues
Smuggler's blues
I sent out an email about McDermott endorsing the Cheney thing in Congress, then took a nap. I had replies including one person who replied to his site and when they asked for a topic, she chose "crime."
The nap was so I can go to Iranian Disco, which is a benefit for the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Men will dance with men and women will dance with women and they will all be hot. It's not really a gay bar though. We probably did it that way at one time in our culture, but we didn't have as much oil.
I went to the initial part because a friend was bellydancing there. The Kormeh Sabzi I'd been craving was being served, with shishkabob and my mouth was watering but the line was way too long. I am uploading some photos of dance, New Years table, rugs, art and can't convey the music or motion but I was in heaven. It had been quite awhile before I was immersed in Persian culture so I was very happy.
One of my dashed dreams is to go to Iran, and it was so very much more secular back in the day. In my dream during my nap just now, I suddenly realized that a road I often take in the country actually goes through part of Syria. I was surprised in the dream, but not shocked.
I had a dream like that once, walking up a familiar dirt road and found myself at the gates of Babylon. It was completely intact the way it was in ancient paintings.
Funny how in dreams the impossible can feel so real. We are very strange animals, indeed.
Christy
Click on my name - you may like some of the art. The one of the man is based on an ancient one and is done by a guy from Vancouver BC. Check out the hand movements of the women, even in a still static photograph.
The funny thing in the dream - I was going to keep the secret route to myself as it would be alot easier to enter via that road (which was in the country close to here) than by air, with visa and all!
Even the little girl has already learned the sensuous arm movements.
A must read.
Incredible.
Undercover, under fire
The Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.
By Ken Silverstein
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city's most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country's image.
I didn't mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn't care. As I explained in this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little information in their public disclosure forms.
Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.
That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.
"No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects."
I can't say I was utterly surprised by Kurtz's criticism. Some major media organizations allow, in principle, undercover journalism — assuming the story in question is deemed vital to the public interest and could not have been obtained through more conventional means — but very few practice it anymore. And that's unfortunate, because there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.
Today, however, it's almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That's partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.
The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.
Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
In my case, I was able to gain an inside glimpse into a secretive culture of professional spinners only by lying myself. I disclosed my deceptions clearly in the piece I wrote (whereas the lobbyists I met boasted of how they were able to fly under the radar screen in seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy). If readers feel uncomfortable with my methods, they're free to dismiss my findings.
Yes, undercover reporting should be used sparingly, and there are legitimate arguments to be had about when it is fair or appropriate. But I'm confident my use of it in this case was legitimate. There was a significant public interest involved, particularly given Congress' as-yet-unfulfilled promise to crack down on lobbyists in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal.