itmfa

Impeachment news round-up:

Buy A T-Shirt and drink to impeachment.

Buy a book and give a gift. Buy a copy of The Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, for your US Congressperson and Melville House will pay the postage.

In case you missed it, in the April issue of Rolling Stone magazine, historian Sean Wilentz wondered if Moron is The Worst President in History?. Author Andrew Bard Schmookler says the question has been answered.

On the "why Moron may be unimpeachable" front, Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive reminds us that leading Democrat Nancy Pelosi is against it! With an opposition party [cough, cough] like this, who needs Republicans?

And, just for fun, we have:
VoteToImpeach.org
Veterans For Peace Case For Impeachment
Law Professor Francis Boyle's Case For Impeachment
Attorney, former Congressperson, and excellent feminist Elizabeth Holtzman's Case For Impeachment
The ImpeachBush Online Petition
Another Impeachment Petition
ImpeachBush.tv (Hey, let's impeach him on TV!)
AfterDowningStreet's impeachment news and action page
and
Parting Gifts for The Worst President Ever

Posts like this inevitably draw cynical do-nothings out of lurkdom. In answer to your predictable questions: No, I do not think impeaching President Moron will solve all the US's problems. But hot damn, wouldn't it be awesome???




Don't know what the title of this post means? Go here.

Comments

  1. allan20 May 2006 at 07:19

    it'll put Cheney in charge.

    Ummm ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. laura k20 May 2006 at 07:30

    My thoughts exactly. Since Cheney is already in charge, and has been throughout, impeachment can't make things any worse. It would have tremendous symbolic value.

    That's all impeachment is, anyway - a potent symbol. Impeachment is separate from removal from office.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crabbi20 May 2006 at 08:33

    I'm thinking if Bush is impeached (goddess willing), that Cheney will be, too. And yes, that would be awesome.

    I absolutely disagree with Pelosi, but if she starts talking impeachment, Rove will use that as a campaign issue. "Do you want your country torn apart by partisan bickering? Can we afford that when we're fighting the war on terror? Code orange. Code red. Blah, blah, blah." Not justifying her stance, but that may be what's behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. allan20 May 2006 at 09:08

    inevitably draw cynical do-nothings out of lurkdom

    Hello.

    ReplyDelete
  5. laura k20 May 2006 at 09:37

    inevitably draw cynical do-nothings out of lurkdom

    Hello.

    You are not a do-nothing and you don't lurk!

    Not justifying her stance, but that may be what's behind it.

    Perhaps. How amazingly effective Rove & Co are! Not unlike terrorists, in that fear of their handiwork causes people to change their behaviour...

    Also, good point re Cheney.

    ReplyDelete
  6. melusina20 May 2006 at 18:40

    How easy is it to impeach the whole durn administration? We need full impeachment and a new vote. I don't think it can wait two and a half years.

    But yea, it would be awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Granny20 May 2006 at 19:44

    I keep going back and forth on this one. I lean toward impeachment I think. At least it would send a message.

    I don't think it will happen although I have hopes for the states who are pushing their own legislation through.

    I'm not clear on the law but if a state asks for hearings, the House has to go along. CA is doing it along with a few other states.

    Something to do with that pesky Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Cho20 May 2006 at 22:30

    If Nancy Pelosi goes that route after Rove gets indicted (whatever happened to that?), I am not sure if there will be any cohesive leadership in the GOP to put up a fight like that. Rove's indictment will drastically change the political landscape.

    ReplyDelete
  9. laura k22 May 2006 at 05:22

    All fixed. I put the links in a new way, and apparently it didn't work that well! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t
Read more

observation

This is something I've noticed throughout my Canadian odyssey, from our earliest trips to Toronto to today. I've waited a long time to mention it, to make sure I wasn't drawing a hasty generalization. Canadians seem very careful with money. Frugal. Cheap. Of course no generalization is absolute. But on the whole, people here seem very concerned with how much things cost, and with saving money. I'm not talking about people who simply can't afford things. I've been poor. I know what it is when your basic expenses outstrip your income, how wearing that is, the stress it puts you under. So we'll leave that aside. I'm talking about an attitude. A concern with spending the least amount of money possible, about avoiding or reducing costs if at all possible. An unwillingness to part with money. Phone bills. Parking. Cable TV. The garbage tags I blogged about yesterday. In the US, charging an extra dollar for garbage tags would not create an incentive to put out
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't
Read more