If anyone has been following the Jeff Flake story on his oppostion to his party (R) on earmarks.. it just got uglier.

He lost his committee seat over it...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-flake17jan17,0,3569971.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

With 58 hours still to go, maybe the Demos should have broadened their horizons a bit. Like...impeachment, maybe?

no to impeachment, you might as well hang a banner that says 'Cheney 07' and Rice would be your new VP

Cheney '07? What race would that be for? Whatever it is, I got $100 on the opponent.

I shoulda put a smiley in there...
:-)

House Bill H.R. 508 the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 is gaining popularity.

It now has 24 cosponsors, including Congressman John Lewis.

The bill calls for withdrawal of American troops within the next 6 months. Additionally it appropriates funding for helping Iraq recover, compensating for civilian casualties, and also American veteran health care.

Read more at http://www.desperatelyobvious.com

Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim...do you REALLY believe that Cheney wants to air all that Haliburton dirty laundry in public? What do you think the odds are that the Democrats (as dysfunctional as they may be right now) will let that one go by again? I, for one, am pretty sure that Cheney wants to let the whole Haliburton/Iraq "sleeping dog" continue to lie (no pun intended LOL)

Do not forget that we cannot Impeach bush for the same reason that the GOP couldn't get rid of Clinton in 1999. The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority to convict and remove from office. With 49 Republicans in the Senate, there's no effin' way to get Bush out, no matter how much he deserves it.

All it would do is make us look like stupid, petty partisans for wasting the country's time like the GOP did in 1998-99.

wholeheartedly 2nd jac1975. We're on a positive, forward motion in DC. Here's to hoping they keep moving forward and not move into impeachment. Dems need to make the 2008 election the bigger impeachment.

Petty partisans? Are you whacked out of your skull?

100 pages by Waxman on grounds for impeachment *from public sources,* let alone the stuff you have to subpoena for.

Compare blow job to:

-Twisting of nation's security apparatus to start illegal war
-Trashing the Constitution in every way possible
-Knowingly illegal uses of Presidential authority (NSA spying, abbrogation of powers to define the law not given to him)

Only Fox News would call the above "petty" to be grounds from removal from office.

Nixon should never have been pardoned, Reagan should have been impeached over Iran-Contra, and W definitely deserves impeachment.

Until the law is enforced, we will continue to have people willingly break it.

Or do you guys want to continue to be soft on crime?

Actually, I think that might be Conyers on second thought. One of those guys planning to take names.

This is destined to be an open wound no matter which way we, as Democrats, go with it. I am not saying that I am in favor of impeachment of Bush, but I can certainly see valid arguments for proceeding down that path. This is one of those issues which require us to debate, publicly, then accept what concensus comes from that discussion (more on that later). The good thing is that, if we choose the impeachment path, the gathering of evidence will not be anywhere as expensive (or difficult) as it was with Mr. Clinton.

I'm kinda' with you odinseye, but I don't think it should be approached with the goal being "impeachemnt", or any other particular goal. Do the investigations and see what happens. If we find out that somebody pulled the guys out of Afghanistan and rushed into Iraq because Exxon/Mobil was worried about Elf/Fina getting all the primo oil reserves, what would people think?
Breaking treaties, signing statements, habeus corpus, paying journalists to write propaganda, lying to Congress... investigations could go down many paths.

Since there's no Monday open thread--glad to see metro atlanta get THIS warm bit of publicity:

Clarkston bans soccer in the park
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/us/21fugees.html?ex=1327035600&en=2134226adcd18953&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

“There will be nothing but baseball and football down there as long as I am mayor,” Lee Swaney, a retired owner of a heating and air-conditioning business, told the local paper. “Those fields weren’t made for soccer.”

In Clarkston, soccer means something different than in most places. As many as half the residents are refugees from war-torn countries around the world. Placed by resettlement agencies in a once mostly white town, they receive 90 days of assistance from the government and then are left to fend for themselves. Soccer is their game.

But to many longtime residents, soccer is a sign of unwanted change, as unfamiliar and threatening as the hijabs worn by the Muslim women in town. It’s not football. It’s not baseball. The fields weren’t made for it. Mayor Swaney even has a name for the sort of folks who play the game: "the soccer people."

JP, we should organize a soccer ball drop-off drive at the Clarkston City Hall. Everyone should drop off soccer balls to the mayor. what a clueless wonder!

No Smitty, I say we organize a Muslim baseball team and a Mexican football (American version) team. Hey, the asshat only said he didn't want anyone playing soccer. He specifically pointed out that baseball and football are A-OK.

what about a nice game of rugby. I'm sure the rugby cleats will do wonders on that field.

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)