DLC: "Whew! That was close!"

[sophiaserpentia]

We've been stunningly, brazenly betrayed twice by the Democrats in one day. First the advancement of the Mukasey nomination, virtually guaranteeing its passage. Then this, from bizarro world: Republicans voting to allow debate on the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and Democrats, terrified it will actually happen, vote against it:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq's ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution. Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

from Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

Comments

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

::foreheadpalm::

I don't know what to say, anymore.

[jimkeller.livejournal.com]

I must admit, it was a brilliant move by the Republicans. They effectively told the Democrats to put up or shut up, and they chose the latter.

It's a pity, because I think there's plenty of evidence for them to have gone with the former...

[lightvortex.livejournal.com]

It's strange how the repugs can accuse the Democrats of shirking their responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health care while wasting an afternoon on an impeachment vote when they did send a bill to expand CHIP, which Bush vetoed, while the repugs wasted time sensuring moveon.org for being impolite to a general. I do shake my head in wonder at the priorities of this congress, though, when they were elected to get us out of Iraq but keep voting to fund the war. Actually, I was at the Mass. Peace Action conference last winter, and someone mentioned someone in the Democratic leadership saying that they need the war to win in '08. So it wouldn't surprise me if the leadership was so focused on winning in '08 that they'll allow the war to go on, putting on the appearance of trying really hard to end it without actually taking any decisive action (like not supporting any bill to provide funding without a timetable for withdrawing).

It seems like organizations often become more interested in the perpetuation of the organization than in their original mission; perhaps politics is the same way.

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

There really are no words.

Well, actually, two spring to mind: Irretrievably broken.

[nationelectric.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[elphie.livejournal.com]

The removal of Cheney has zero chance of succeding in the current congress, so why should the Democrats want that to happen? It is just a Republican tactic to try to get the Democrats to waste time rather than work on stuff that actually has a chance of getting done (which is not much, but I'd rather them be doing that than performing empty symbolic acts)

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

The removal of Cheney has zero chance of succeding in the current congress, so why should the Democrats want that to happen?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because it would put them on the record as opposing blatant criminality rather than being seen to endorse it? It might get some grass-roots support for the party to shore up the current 11% support that congressional Dems have in the polls, mainly for *not* backing impeachment and troop withdrawals? It might help win the election for 'em? But them those are three things the Democrat leadership is determined NOT to do, as it works overtime to assure a Guiliani victory and the loss of the House next year.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

They should want it to happen because it's why they were elected in the first place. Maybe they should ask themselves why they are currently polling somewhere south of stepping in dog poo.

[orb2069.livejournal.com]

Does Double Jeopardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy) apply in this case? I could see somebody getting a bright idea about getting Cheney up, cleared and back down before the elections, but it taking some time to get cleared through the RNC.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

In an only slightly-more-perfect universe, drafting Articles of Impeachment would mean there was a clearly-delineated set of criminal allegations against Cheney (and there is - remember Valerie Plame, for starters, as well as massive private profits flowing into Cheney's pocket daily via his continued ownership of Halliburton stock). So they would of course vote against impeachment itself, which would leave the Democrat nominee free to bring up all of Cheney's criminality and the Republicans' cover-up of it.

Whereas now, we have the Dems refusing to allow Kucinich's resolution to be brought up at all, so the Republicans can go "we were gonna let them do it but the Dems knew Cheney was innocent so they refused to allow a debate on impeachment."

So who now wins this propaganda war? Pelosi is going out of her way to give more support to the Republicans, just so they don't have to give Kucinich any credibility. That's one of many reasons I hope and pray that Cindy Sheehan hands Pelosi her ass on a platter and becomes the new US Representative from the Bay Area.

Oh, and as far as the Dem leadership trying not to give Kucinich any props for having the guts to do this...oops, too late.

[orb2069.livejournal.com]

I thought the whole Valerie Plame thing resolved into a giant game of musical chairs with Scooter Libby being the last one standing? Not that I'm pleased about that, or anything, but that seems to be what happened.

I'm having a hard time visualizing how we land an impeachment on Halliburton: The only way the Rethugs managed to pull off the whole Lewinsky thing was through having sufficient control of the house AND senate to force the issue, on top of Clinton being dumb/naive/desperate enough to actually think they'd play somewhat fair with their 'investigation'. Trying to drag the VP into court (and getting the Famous Cheney Middle Finger in the process) without the percentages in the house and senate to back it up would just be more meat for FOX and the blogosphere to complain about how ineffective the democrats are, and that you should just stay home and let the right-wing make all the decisions.

I can see not wanting to help Kucinich out - No matter which republican gets elected, the RNC seems to wind up running the show. If Kucinich dosen't start his term by handing out lollypops with Presidental Pardons wrapped around them, the RNC will jerk his chain up nice and short: If there's anything to be learned from Nixon, it's that these folks will cover their own.

[dandycat.livejournal.com]

What. The. Hell.