Closing Windows

I'm so depressed by the latest revolting developments abetted by the Republocrats that I only have energy to point you to some very good blogging.

You know about that stupid NPR capitalist cheerleader, Marketplace, right?   Hate it.  Well, there's an antidote to it and it's Mick Arran's TrenchNews.   The last update he posted came in June.  It covered, among other things, stories about Wal-Mart's latest injustice to the wage earner, which just happens to be one of the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance; Maryland's living wage law - file that one under virtues/justice; and Circuit City firing its higher paid workers so that they could be re-hired at lower wages, see Heaven re: vengeance.  God bless America, fast!  Go visit Trenches - reward excellent behavior with some positive feedback.   Maybe we'll get a new installment.

Thomas wants a discussion of Congress' decision to cave yet again to Dear Leader because someone told them that something scary might happen and that they'll take the blame if they don't give Daddy what he wants.   All I can say is that if nothing I've written in defense of not proceeding with an official impeachment of the war criminals and traitors who run this sham of a government made my case, then the Dems' latest refusal to protect and defend the Constitution must.  That's because the impeachment charges that would be brought against Dear Leader and his cohorts would not be about the way they lied us into the disaster in Iraq and their prosecution of it - would not be about the malfeasance surrounding Katrina - would not be about anything that would be easy for Americans to get their heads around - but would involve the intricacies of FISA directly.  Let's wake up and see the character of the Democrats in Congress for what it truly is:  When faced with the possibility of being called weak - when looking down the road to guess how blocking the president and his coterie of Party-Over-Country enablers would play in the corporate media over the recess and beyond - when realizing what a  heavy lift that all would be, they didn't have the courage to block an unnecessary overhaul of FISA and fulfill their oaths of office.   Certainly they don't have the courage, fortitude or PR sense to endure an impeachment built around exactly the same issues.   

As I say, agitate for impeachment, but be glad that you'll never get one of this administration.  Halfway through it, you'd have Sen. Reid on the floor of the Senate weeping his way through an apology to the president, the country and our brave heroes on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for ever taking such a reckless step.

Avedon Carol, in a post that marvels over the fact that we who opposed the war are now still forced to defend our reasons why, has hit on the exact combination of twenty five words to remind bobble heads why pro-war pundits should not be listened to now and why the people who were right all along should:

[The war] was a stupid idea, it would kill lots of people, it would alienate world opinion, it would be bloody expensive, and it wouldn't work.

Mick caught Obama in the friendly confines of Yearly Kos remembering what the oath he would be taking as president would actually say and so Mr. Charisma joins Chris Dodd in the ranks of candidates who don't make me want to leave the country.  Too bad I haven't heard the Charismatic One talk so tough in front of a crowd outside the YK convention and of his own initiative instead of in response to a citizen who actually values our system of government.   But if Obama gets away with this babystep, can Edwards - ever the water-tester - be far behind?   Not if Mudcat is telling him that such obvious weakness and terrist-lovin' won't play well in the all-important South.  Maybe Hillary will see Obama get a favorable poll result and suddenly venture bravely onto the side of restoring our Democracy.   Then we'd be able to see what the corporate media does with the whole idea of Democratic candidates tacitly impeaching Dear Leader.   This leadership stuff is risky business when  you'd really rather follow. 

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

Thanks for your comment over at the discussion at my post, and for your more extensive answer here.

As I replied there re impeachment, I continue to disagree with you on that score -- starting with the definition of impeachment. At the risk of sounding pedantic, impeachment doesn't happen on the Senate floor, it happens in the House. I'd take the very same margin of defeat 227-183 as a victory in that respect.

Why? Because the leadership would have allowed that vote to happen -- just as it should *not* have allowed this one to happen. A 142-41 Democrat split for impeaching would be a good thing -- compared to a 0-0 vote, i.e., never even mentioning it.

I may stop mentioning this analysis, and I may not, it may become my "pro-war WaPo" type of thing. :)

Maybe I don't get your point exactly, but I think that impeachment about FISA would be (or would have been) potentially quite simple to understand. There was a law. Bush broke it. He lied about that. During his re-election campaign. So he should be impeached.

Anyway, thanks for such a detailed answer. And thanks for passing along Mick Arran's news item, that's been a little bright spot for the past couple of days.

[mick arran]

Mea culpa re TrenchNews. Your very gentle scolding will, we hope, act as a motivator. I hadn't intended to abandon it, but I've had very little time lately and gotten side-tracked by other things.

As for the Dems and the FISA vote, Glenn Greenwald helped me reach the conclusion that cowardice may well have nothing to do with it. Logic at this point dictates that their actions are deliberate, and we're going to have to face the fact that we can expect NOTHING from them in the way of Constitutional protection.

[eRobin S]

Thomas: Yes, I am rather like Cato on the pro-war WaPo thing. Of course they ARE the pro-war WaPo. You could start ending your posts with "this is my opinion. It is my further opinion that BushCo must be impeached."

I think that impeachment about FISA would be (or would have been) potentially quite simple to understand.

Ouch - I didn't consider how this capitulation undercuts the case for impeachment. Just when you think it can't get any worse.

But anyway - remembering that I'm always wrong, ask yourself how long it would be after impeachment proceeding began that we would have seen this headline: Democrats risk troop safety by impeaching president during wartime," sourced to "administration sources unwilling to be identified because they are not authorized to comment on the case." I figure it would be a matter of hours.

How long do you figure the American people, who scare so easily, would support any steps taken against the people who only want to keep evil-doers from killing their children in their beds by listening to the phone calls of The Terrists?

Mick: Yeah, you're probably right. The fact is that we have nobody in the halls of power looking out for our interests or for the interests of the republic. But the Dems most definitely are cowards.

This is my opinion. My further opinion is that the integrity of the American vote must be established free of corporate control.