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.

[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)

[dandycat.livejournal.com]

What. The. Hell.