It is to Laugh
This headline caused me to chuckle; read the full article if you like:
Some choice bits:
Absolutely, if by "everyone" the writer means "almost nobody".
If true, then impeachment's an impossibility, so why broach the subject at all ?
A massive Democratic Party effort to impeach Bush is #3 on the GOP's wish-list for '08, as it would effectively destroy the Dem Presidential nominee's ability to win the general election. Not waiting out this Presidency is a fool's game.
Underscoring the silliness of it all is this headline:
If the author of this thinks that a mere two million results are impressive, then they should try searching the phrase "free porn" - or even "free handbags".
Further, at 9:53 a.m. Monday July 23: Google Search Shows 2,040,000 Results under "Impeach Clinton", which is a strong 39,700 more mentions than the "Cheney Bush" search, and yet we all know how that turned out.
But what else can we expect from a moonbat who puts "Cheney" before "Bush" ?!
Clearly their understanding of the U.S. Constitution is a bit, um... Murky.
The Case for Not Waiting Out This Presidency
Some choice bits:
Impeachment, which is now on everyone’s table except Nancy Pelosi’s...
Absolutely, if by "everyone" the writer means "almost nobody".
Don't look to Congress for redress.
If true, then impeachment's an impossibility, so why broach the subject at all ?
A massive Democratic Party effort to impeach Bush is #3 on the GOP's wish-list for '08, as it would effectively destroy the Dem Presidential nominee's ability to win the general election. Not waiting out this Presidency is a fool's game.
Underscoring the silliness of it all is this headline:
At 8a.m. Monday July 23: Google Search Shows 2,000,300 Results under "Impeach Cheney Bush"
If the author of this thinks that a mere two million results are impressive, then they should try searching the phrase "free porn" - or even "free handbags".
Further, at 9:53 a.m. Monday July 23: Google Search Shows 2,040,000 Results under "Impeach Clinton", which is a strong 39,700 more mentions than the "Cheney Bush" search, and yet we all know how that turned out.
But what else can we expect from a moonbat who puts "Cheney" before "Bush" ?!
Clearly their understanding of the U.S. Constitution is a bit, um... Murky.
posted by Oroborous at 8:33 AM
10 Comments:
Don't they realize that impeaching Bush is the coup? That that has been the Halliburtonists plan all along? I mean, Bush gets impeached, then Cheney (the real mastermind) becomes President and before they can impeach him, it's martial law and gulags as far as the eye can see. Obviously, Bush is far too moronic to be part of the plot, he' just a stalking horse to identify the clueful who can then be easily swept up by Cheney's KILLITARY trained thugs once Cheney is in power.
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad
Reading the article was like a trip down memory lane of the excesses of past dem presidents starting with the first in my memory, Frankie and ending with Billy Boy and his motto coined by Stephanopoulos, turn of the hand > law of the land.
I hardly think these people represent very many Democrats, and no Democratic presidents.
They remind me most of the Republican partisans during their meltdown after the 1940 election when they began to suspect that they would never win another.
There's nothing particularly Democratic or Republican about these Savonarolas. I remember being told, quite seriously, that if Stevenson/Nixon/Kennedy/Johnson/Humphrey/Reagan were elected, there would never be another election.
This video shows Congressman Susan Davis (D, San Diego), dealing with a crowd of Truthers and assorted nuts. The line she has to walk in order to not say anything silly herself while catering to their delusions really demonstrates how the Dems are riding the tiger.
Plenty of tigers to go around this year, for all parties, I think.
Do the state primaries and caucuses make you think of the way the CP used to take over unions?
Not especially, no. If control of an organized movement were at stake, maybe, but the Dems pretty obviously aren't one at this point.
What I was getting at was the skewing of an organization's goals by what might be considered 'mechanical' means toward that of a small minority, when the whole organization, if it had a say, would settle on a considerably less extreme position.
A political Law of the Excluded Middle.
On the other point, if the Democratic organization is not worth anything, why are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to control it?
Nobody is going to even get to run in the general without the approbation of the party apparatus.
The party organizations have been declared dead every four years for as long as I can remember. They still count.
We realize all that, Harry. What I'm saying is that there are no goals to skew, no middle to exclude. There's no there there.
Well, American national elections notoriously are settled on domestic, not international, issues.
There aren't really any domestic issues out there; there might be a dime's worth of difference between the parties, but not a quarter's.
2008 conceivably could turn on an international issue. There might be four bits worth of difference there: between immediate and unconditional surrender and the long, lingering surrender by appeasement.
I suspect the electorate might go for something more robust, but it doesn't look like the primaries will give them the chance.
Post a Comment
<< Home