The P-I's website is kind enough to provide them a day early.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 24, 2007 12:43 PM | Email ThisI really hope they do go ahead. Even with the Democrat majorities in both houses, this exercise will guarantee a GOP victories in Congress and the White House in 2008.
These regressives never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: deadwood on November 24, 2007 12:56 PMBack in 2000, GW Bush beat Al Gore based on "a humble foreign policy of not policing the world." But what we got was just the opposite. 9/11 was used as a way to sell a bad war, that was only supposed to last a year or so.
Sitting Presidents usually enjoy huge advantages, but in 2004, Bush barely edged out Kerry, who had all the appeal of a prep-school robot. It should have been a cake-walk for Bush, but the war and his bad fiscal record made it a close one.
The damage that Bush and his administration has done to the Republican Party is huge, but most Republicans can't read the writing on the wall. Until they do, you can guarantee a Hillary Clinton Presidency in '08.
This would be a disaster of equal proportions, with socialized medicine, higher taxes and the economic slowdown that it would bring. I prefer Giuliani to Clinton, but like millions of Americans, I could not bring myself to vote for Giuliani. He does not represent my values. He does not represent real change. He can't appeal to the center to pry votes from the left as long as he is pro-war, and how can Giuliani paint himself as other than a hawk? The war on terror is his signature issue.
Face it, you need a fiscal conservative, who cares about the Constitution, and wants to bring the troops home. You need someone who the social conservatives can feel comfortable with; someone who is pro-life. You need someone who believes in the rule of law regarding illegal immigration. You need Ron Paul.
Nominate anyone else and you will have Hillary Clinton in the white house in 2009. And you may still even if you nominate Ron Paul, but my point is that no other candidate even has a chance. All the other candidates are doomed. The Republicans will be falling on their swords in defense of policies the public does not support. This is the same failed tactic the Libertarian Party has been using for years! Take it from us; it doesn't work!
You need to make a credible break from the neoconservatives who have lost power for the Republican Party. You need to return to your own conservative principles. You need a credible, political outsider. Republicans: clean house or the voters will.
And by the way, I agree with every point made in the article you link to. Instead of just calling it something out of the funny pages, which is just a smear or name calling, why don't you address even one issue brought up in the article? Or have you got any rational arguments on the other side? If you can't answer them, then impeachment really is the thing to do.
Is the Constitution important to you or not?
Isn't it great to see lefties defending the Constitution for a change? I see this as a huge positive in this whole story!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 01:34 PMI look forward to the vote to start impeachment proceedings. Will make the democrat congressional majority look as dumb as Ms. Boyd and the idiots who responded to her drivel.
Question: Why does every subject that is posted, get high jacked by the Ron Paul supporters? Even the PI blog had them. Should we all start sliding the discussion over to our favorite candidate? Ug.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 24, 2007 01:50 PMBut there is no hijacking if the topic is related to the election, and in this case, the topic of this thread is impeachment of the President. Ron Paul is relevant to this discussion because he is against all of the things that Bush and Cheny have been accused of doing in the article. Ron Paul is in favor of living up to the rule of law and the Constitution.
By the way, do YOU have any direct, logical argument against the points made in the PI article? I'd love to hear them, and to be able to respond to them in a civil manner. Every once in a while, even the "wack-job left" is right about one thing or another.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 02:59 PMCan you point out one accusation or point made in the PI article that is factually wrong? Why is it wrong?
If you can't then impeachment is a duty.
Look, I hated Clinton, but isn't what Bush and Cheney have done far worse? Isn't what they did worse than what Nixon did? If Clinton and Nixon (almost, I know Nixon resigned first) were impeached, then shouldn't Bush and Cheney be?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 03:05 PMNot a SINGLE "charge" listed in the PI is factually correct, nor provable, and most are NOT even close to being impeachable offenses.
You can't simply impeach because you don't like someone, a law must have been broken, and provably so.
Now a question for you and the other Paulians... Assume that somehow Ron does NOT get the nomination; will you support the actual Republican nominee? Or are you willing to cede the election to the Democrat nominee, who you admit will continue the "slide" you so vociferously oppose?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 24, 2007 04:26 PM2. The pictures are defamatory; good reason to have any inquest moved to another country!
3. The whack job who wrote the article has been hacking off since April that the Democrats in congress were going to impeach. All the support she has gotten has been from the Extreme Left--not even from the Democrat Majority in congress.
4. She quotes the constitution, however the "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" falls short, as NONE have been charged, tried or convicted of even a parking ticket. Opinions not withstanding.
5. Ms. Boyd states: "After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law". All of the above has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The one item the court has over-ruled is no longer enforced. The left loves to throw mud, but it is not sticking with these comments.
6. "Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney". Which polls, popularity ones?
7. WMD's have were proven existed and removed because Bush gave Saddam too much time before he got Congress and the UN to give him the legal authority to enforce UN mandates. Guess the left has forgotten that.
8. Every item she itemized is a CRIME. But the prosecutors will not touch any; the congress has its Democrat attack dogs and they won't touch any, etc. Someday they may find an unscrupulous attorney to do so, but haven't yet. Psychologist say if you tell a kid he is worthless enough times, he will believe it. I think if you tell the people enough times that Bush lied, he's a crook, etc. they will (and are) believing it.
9. Illegal has become legal in this country, and we hear it from the left daily. Illegal immigration is an example of their spin and this whack job argues persons NOT abiding by the Geneva Convention (no uniforms, no country, etc) are captured legal solders? That is like the cops catching a guy with a pry bar in a store at 2 am and having to call him a plumber. Lets get real.
10. National effort to impeach IS Partisan. The few who are not Democrats are libertarians.
I grow tired of this and it will not change your mind anyway.
You come in here and throw rocks, blame someone else and try to get away with it. You play the middle--'Ron Paul is against everything the Democrats are against and for everything the Republicans are for'. But is he for everything the Democrats are for and against everything the Republicans are against? I don't think so. If it dresses like a Republican and walks like a Democrat it must be a Libertarian.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 24, 2007 04:40 PMThere is a dramatic rationale for focusing on Cheney first. One, it make sure he doesn't become president. Two, it makes a statement, yet at the same time doesn't create a presidential vacuum (i.e., if both were impeached). Three, it will most likely make Cheney resign, instead of facing an actual impeachment, and with only a few months left (by the time this gets rolling), the need for a strong replacement VP would be unnecessary. Finally, given the timetable, there would be no way both could be impeached.
OBTW, I don't (personally) think GW is impeachable, mainly because I think he was, in essence, out of the loop on most of Cheney's shenanigan's. I am sure Cheney made sure to protect him from the dirty work he was doing. Cheney is not dumb. Was GW complacent? Yes, but most of us knew that from the start. He was a figure head for the neocons (Cheney and Rumsfeld in the lead). While, he may had good intentions, his problem was Cheney from the start. Who picks a VP because that person couldn't find a better person than themselves for the position? There were plenty of good VP candidates. No, Cheney had every intention from the start to run roughshod over the constitution. He saw the Clintons do it and knew how to do it even better.
It is really scary if no action is taken, and especially if Hillary gets elected. You think Cheney's transgressions were bad, just wait for round 3 of this imperialistic presidency to continue. What's next after Hillary? Will it be Jeb's turn to run. We need someone else other than a Bush or Clinton running this country. Anyone, please!
Posted by: tc on November 24, 2007 04:49 PM1) It was on the editorial page, therefore up-front as opinion.
2) You are right on this one. Such pictures are a version of a personal attack.
3) Your comment is ad hominem, even if it is right. It does not address the issue.
4) During the impeachment process, we hope to find out if such crimes were committed.
5) If the Congress approved scrapping the Constitution, and making a dictatorship with Kucinich in charge, would that be OK? The Congress has been complicit in all this, and I wish we could impeach any and all members of congress who violated their oaths of office by voting for unconstitutional things. They were mislead. And I agree they want to duck their own responsibility for subverting the Constitution. They want to blame the Iraq war disaster on Bush, but they are also to blame, and we should hold them accountable as well. Every member of Congress who voted Bush the unconstitutional blank-check to wage war anywhere in the world should be held accountable for breaking his or her oath of office. Congress should have to declare war, not authorize force anywhere on earth. By the way, Ron Paul was one of the few to vote NO.
6) You are right, even if these polls are specifically about impeachment, popularity should not be the main driver: principle should. However, in a free country one would hope that impeaching an official who violated the Constitution would be a popular act.
7) My recollection was that the WMD had been removed even before Bush took office... I don't think there is any evidence of WMD existing after 2000. I was never convinced there were WMD, and I certainly was not convinced that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Nigerian yellow-cake? Puhlease! I think Collin Powell resigned because he knew he had been used and he had been tricked in to a dishonorable act. Good for him. I wish he could run as Ron Paul's running mate!
8) I agree that many D's are pushing this for partisan reasons, but there may also be principled reasons for impeachment. I'm a partisan L who usually thinks the R's are the lesser of two evils. I say let the trials begin, and the American people will find out. Just because they are partisan does not mean they are also wrong about what happened.
9) I agree with you, but this has nothing to do with impeachment. Just because a lot of the liberal attackers are being hypocritical, doesn't mean they are wrong about what Cheney did.
10) See 8) above.
Look, Ron Paul is:
Pro-Life
More fiscally conservative than you probably are
A stronger defender of the Constitution than most Republicans
A Baptist who has been married to the same woman for over 50 years
Wants the rule of law applied to illegal immigrants and wants stronger border defenses
I don't think of that as liberal. I think that big-government Republican RINO's who want to export Democracy are the real liberals. How did the liberals take over the Republican Party? Did you know that Neocons are liberals? Democrat Wilson was the one who wanted to export Democracy via force. The Wilsonians have taken over the Republican Party.
I think that Ron Paul is the true conservative. It was Reagan who said that libertarianism was the essence of what it was to be a conservative. Do you think the gipper was wrong?
I liken Ron Paul to Barry Goldwater; Mr. conservative himself! Did you know that there is talk in the Ron Paul campaign of making Barry Gooldwater jr. the running-mate? I think he'd be a great choice! :)
Any other questions?
First, the fact that Paul is a Baptist does not earn him extra points. (full disclosure...I'm a Baptist minister's son). Puhleese!
The article is just an absolute hoot! In December 2004, I was at a dinner party in Kirkland as the guest of my then lady friend. Once the meal began, the hostess's mother asked all the could hear if they could believe that W won the election. There were several murmurs. She then went on to declare that it was "those horrible Christians that did it." too.
I asked her if she meant those horrible people who bless their food, read their Bible's every day, and go to church on Sunday. As she was struggling to remove her remarkable foot from her mouth, I gave her a pass and informed her that I had a secret to share. (The group was already aware that I was from Dallas)
I let her know that we (from the South and Southwest) knew that the fine folks from the Pacific Northwest thought that we (from the South and Southwest) were a bunch of toothless, inbred, cross-burning, moonshine-drinking, NASCAR loving, Bible-thumping, Marlboro-smoking, gun-slinging, racist, hood-wearing, sister-breeding, double-wide-living, uneducated morons.
At that, everyone at the table had their mouths wide open in shock. I reassured them that there was no offense, though. BECAUSE, we would never do anything to try to persuade them to the contrary. Since as long as they believed that about us, we would kick their arses every time.
Obviously, the above applies to the majority of the readers of HA, PI, Times, etc., and those professional complainers at Evergroovy, UW, and in all the shelters and tent cities of Puget Sound. So, to all SP readers, hats off. To the rest......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Danny on November 24, 2007 06:22 PMAnd Bruce, why do you have to turn every posting into a commercial for Ron Paul? He is a loser, so I guess it's inevitable that "birds of a feather...."
Posted by: Saltherring on November 24, 2007 08:15 PM"Birds of a feather" is guilt by association. Not a valid, or even nice argument. It is also an ad hominem, personal attack. I know you are better than this, my friend.
Is the best you can do to label him a "loser?" Why not attack one of his positions? Or don't you have any arguments against those?
Lincoln lost campaigns many times. Was HE a loser? So what? Losers are often right, and losers sometimes win.
Sorry you are tired of my mentioning Ron Paul, but he IS relevant to this thread. I'm sure you would rather that Ron Paul and I just went away or that we were somehow censored.
Not going to happen, my friend.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 08:52 PMNo kidding... and every remark not to his liking he whines "ad hominem, 'ad hominem".
Every
Single
Time
Geez, it gets old. ... and Bruce, not all criticism is an ad hominem attack; disagreeing OPINIONS do not constitute ad hominem attacks, nor do inconvenient facts that you don't like, don't want to hear or don't fit your agenda.
Once more thing...the words ad hominem are not and cannot be used as a NOUN. They are an ADJECTIVE or an ADVERB. They cannot stand alone and are used solely to modify nouns or verbs... as in ad hominem ATTACK. The lesson is over and the grammar sheriff has signed off.
**
As disappointing as he has been Bush sure has been RIGHT a whole damned bunch:
He was RIGHT about the tax cuts;
He was RIGHT about the "surge" turning things around in Iraq, albeit slowly;
And, most recently, best of all, he was RIGHT about embryonic stem cells.
Of course, it also appears that he sorta somehow endorsed Whorabillary: President Bush Supports Hillary Clinton?....HUH??!?
***
On a better note, Mark Steyn once again explains that the GOP looks like the party of diverse ideas while the "Democrats have got a woman, a black, a Hispanic and a preening metrosexual - and they all think exactly the same."
I'll be glad when the primaries are over.
Lighten up, dudes.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 24, 2007 09:00 PMI hope that you don't equate winning congressional races with competence. Otherwise Jim McDermott might look OK.
Posted by: Seabecker on November 24, 2007 10:31 PMSticks and stones and all...
Please tell me one instance in which I called a comment ad hominem when it was not. Oh, and I have only been using "ad hominem" as an adjective. If I used it as a noun I was indeed mistaken, but I can't find an instance of that in my words above...
I guess I just think of liberals as more likely to use personal attacks, and I think of conservatives as more civil. But perhaps that is just a stereotype on my part.
You are probably right about the lack of intellectual diversity within the Democratic Party, but you and I are on the outside looking in. It is easy to underestimate the complexity within a system or group of which we have little direct experience.
You are right that Bush's tiny tax cuts helped the economy, but his deficit spending is hurting it much more in the long run.
He was right about embryonic stem cell research, but for the wrong reasons. We should not fund ANY scientific research with taxpayer money.
And I don't think the surge will have any long-term impact. The rats will come back out of the woodwork as soon as the surge has passed. Long term, our occupation of Iraq will have no positive effect. I think the long term effects will be negative for the US.
Do you like "post hoc ergo propter hoc?" There are many other reasons why death rates may be down in Iraq. Correlation is not causation.
By the way, the "poll" you link to @ 22 is just another form of name calling. I would use the latin term for that, but you seem to be tired of it.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
And while I am at it: "sic semper tyrannis."
Oh, and semper ubi sub ubi as well! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 10:41 PMI have other reasons for thinking of Dr. Ron Paul as competant, but I'm guessing you don't want to hear them right now!
And your point about McDermott is well taken! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 10:47 PMBut at the end of the day, the reason impeachment is not only not on the table, but nowhere near the table is quite simple: They have no case.
You and the rest of the left may WISH they had a case; but there is no case. And the scrutiny of Impeachment would put the democrats under scrutiny that frankly, they can't afford.
The "opinion" of that whack job is just that: her opinion. No better then mine or yours.
That Pravda on the Sound printed it makes as much since as the al qaida gazette running with it.
Posted by: Hinton on November 24, 2007 10:54 PMHere's a great one from Edmonds Dan:
"You can't simply impeach because you don't like someone, a law must have been broken, and provably so."
I hate to point out the extremely obvious, but at the time the Constitution was written, there were no laws. There was only the Constitution. Hopefully the posters on this board can at least acknowledge that the Constitution was written prior to the rest of our laws.
So if you like having your phones tapped, your homes searched randomly, your email being read, your neigbhors being dragged away secretly to be tortured in foreign countries, then by all means oppose impeachment.
And if you really want to show how much you despise the Constitution, do what Eric Earling did and refer to the topic of impeachment as the Sunday funnies. It just happens to be a constitutional protection, Eric. I guess you must think freedom of religion and free speech are pretty much a joke too huh??
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 25, 2007 01:11 AMWhere is Ron Sims on this? Will Gregoire and Sims join with Eric Oemig to offically support impeachment publicly? How about Pelz? How about Burner? For it or against it? A real simple question in this election year.
Posted by: Huh? on November 25, 2007 07:23 AMYeah, because each and every one of those things are happening.
Now, if you and your neighbors are being subjected to these things, then what does that make you?
Posted by: jimg on November 25, 2007 09:10 AMI must laugh at all the people who fell for the UFO comments by Dennis. These debates have left Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer looking like a couple of complete idiots. Russert targets Kucinich with an absurd UFO question and Kucinich responds with a completely absurd answer, including saying he's going to move his campaign HQ to Area 51. It was a complete poke in the eye to the stupidity of asking such a infantile question. Looks like you fell for it too. The joke's on you.
Then during the most recent Democratic debate, CNN censored and pre-approved the questions because American voters are too stupid to formulate questions themselves. I'm surprised they didn't have some guy pose a question like asking Hillary what's her bra size. Maybe during the Republican debates they'll ask Mitt if he's ever lusted after another man. Because these are the serious policy questions that need answering aren't they?
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 25, 2007 01:36 PMSo far, there's been nothing. There's a lot of hate, and a lot of "we shouldn't do this or that" but so far no actual charge of crimes. That's kind of the basis for impeachment, isn't it?
Barring your desire to see the President removed, what would you charge the administration with?
Oh, and Bruce, if Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination, will you at least vote for the Republican nominee? Haven't answered that question yet...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 25, 2007 01:42 PMForget Property Taxes, Mr. Borkowski says he has proof that his neighbors are being taken to far off lands for torture by the Federal Government. Tick tock, why aren't you protesting in Olympia for allowing these outrages to be visted upon the people of Washington?
The voters have a right to know why their representatives are not taking action right Mr. Borkowski? Is David Postman a coward? Joanie Balter a Bush sympathizer? Joel Connelly in lock step with the Brown Shirted Neo-Cons?
Posted by: Huh? on November 25, 2007 02:08 PMThe short answer is, no, if Ron Paul is not nominated by the R's, then I will almost certainly vote for the partisan Libertarian candidate. Many other Ron Paul supporters will either not vote, or will vote for D's. Few will vote for the other R's. What this means is that Ron Paul is bringing in a lot of new people to the Republican Party. You should thank him for that! A lot of his supporters are independents and the formerly apathetic. These are swing voters, and the key to winning in November!
But the opposite is not true. If Ron Pual IS nominated, fiscal and social conservatives will still vote for him (he's a tax cutter and pro-life). And who will the neocon, big government hawks vote for? Hillary? She DID support the war, and wants bigger government just like they do... No, I think the hawks will still support Dr. Ron Paul because he was a flight surgeon and is serious about defending US borders. They also hate Hillary.
And I think that in November YOU would also vote for a cockerspaniel if it had an R painted on it! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 02:27 PMI admired Ron Paul when he stuck to his libertarian views. Now he is just caught up in his ego. Be sure to send him lots of your money.
Posted by: janet s on November 25, 2007 04:51 PMKeep the legislators bottled up fighting amongst themselves so they can't pass tax increases or burden us with more foolish legislation.
Remember Newt Gingrich's shutting down government in the '80's?
Gridlock is good!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 05:19 PMThey aren't interested in changing directions, slowing or stopping a bad trend or getting much of what they want. If they can't have their entire loaf, Libertarians'll make sure everyone else won't even get crumbs, just to teach us ignorant morons a lesson. Libertarians are the Cargo Cult of politics.
Better yet, if things get worse because of the part they play, somehow they've pursuaded themselves that next time we'll beg them to be our saviors. They've been playing this whole schtick since I voted for Ed Clark in '80, and it ain't worked yet.
You're calling out Bruce Guthrie for supporting Ron Paul? Have you watched any of the Republican debates? Ron Paul seems to be the only one who isn't completely crazed and hell-bent on more war. These same crazies profess to be Christians who believe in love and peace on earth.
During one of the R debates, several of the candidates were referring to Jack Bauer and the show '24' as if it were real. It's fiction!!! It's a TV show made in Hollywood. And your Presidential candidates are quoting from it.
And you call Ron Paul's supporters wacko? Got any good quotes from Captain Kirk? Maybe Mitt should try to get his endorsement. After all, even though he works in space, Captain Kirk is from Iowa. It might help him win the Iowa caucuses.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 25, 2007 05:35 PMI have similar problems with the D's. Socialized medicine will make us all worse off, higher taxes and spending will wreck the economy and hurt the poor, as will raising the min. wage. Welfare creates dependency, and racial interest group politics divides us and keeps minorities down. I can't stand their creeping socialism, so I can't vote D either!
What's a liberty lover to do?
Look, if Ron Paul doesn't get the R nomination, and I vote Libertarian, I don't think that helps Hillary. There is less chance that I would vote for her than I would vote for Giuliani. And the R's do not own my vote. Furthermore, my single vote will not determine the outcome of the election! Voting is mostly just an act of free speech.
Ron Paul won't run third party, so there is no threat he will siphon off R votes in November.
By voting Libertarian, I tell the system just what it has to do to earn my vote. I register my position. By compromising, and voting for the lesser of two evils R, I only send the message that I approve of all of their positions! I sell my vote cheap, and tell the R's they don't need to do anything different in order to get my support. It is lesser-of-two-evils thinking that has gotten us in to the situation we are in now!
So tell me, given my libertarian views, what should I do? What is rational?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 05:59 PMBe honest. All you for Ron Paul are really just anti-war fanatics. You really do believe that Bush was in on 9/11. Paul has just about stated as much in several debates. That is far scarier than anything any of the other candidates say about Iraq.
Posted by: janet s on November 25, 2007 06:43 PMFor one, don't attempt to lead others to believe you are conservative.
Your type of hell-bent vote purity is what gave usClinton I. If RP and his Paulbearers are such adamant libertarians why isn't he honest enough to RUN as one? Oh, because he would be ignored instead of a headline craving disrupter, a spoiler. I believe that makes him a coward, not the Republican he tries to claim to be.
When Clinton II does take, office DO NOT DARE complain, whine or comment because it is you Paulbearers who will have put her there.
If you are starved and someone offers you a hot dog instead of a steak and you turn it down waiting for that steak, you deserve to starve when you turn your nose at what's offered.
There is no prime steak candidate, there never has been one and there never will be one. I'd rather have the hot dog of my choosing than starve because I ended up with dog meat on my plate.
You Paulbearers should start being honest with yourselves, about your intentions, about the cowardice and deception of your candidate running as something he's not and the likely predictable consequences of his despicable deception.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2007 06:45 PMThe problem I see is that liberals have taken over the Republican Party.
How is the medicare drug benefit conservative?
Deficit spending?
No Child Left Behind?
Nation-building is Wilsonian, and Wilson was a Democrat!
I see myself as a Barry Goldwater conservative.
And Ragnar, this is not about starvation. This is about principle. Don't you think the problem is that there are too few principled people in politics? Well, the reason that is, is that people don't value principle highly enough! They pick the lesser of evils. I think that is at the root of our problem. And no, I'm not talking about being 100% principled. I disagree with about 5% of Ron Paul's positions. But I disagree with 50% (Giuliani) to 90% (Huckabee) of the other Republicans' positions!
The question is HOW MUCH do you want to compromise your principles. 95% I can stomach, but 50%? No way.
Janet, I absolutely don't care if the candidate I vote for has any chance of winning or not. Here is why: I can't vote to put someone in office. My vote will not make the difference between winning or losing the Presidency! All my vote can do is signal to the system what my values are. All it can do is put my moral stamp of approval on a candidate. If my candidate is elected, then I share partial responsibility for each and every decision or vote that person makes! If you hold your nose and vote for Giuliani, and he puts a pro-choice judge on the Supreme Court, then you may have some of the blood of aborted fetuses on your hands.
If I vote for Giuliani, who I definitely think is the lesser of two evils compared to Hillary, then I have the Iraq war on my conscience. I just can't do it. I'd rather vote for Ron Paul, EVEN IF HE LOSES. I might even write him in if I don't like the partisan Libertarian candidate.
Look, this is no High School popularity contest. I don't want to vote for the winner, just so I can brag to my friends that I was on the winning side, or that I could predict who would win. I vote so that when I am sitting by myself in my room, and thinking about what I did, that I know I did the right thing. I know that I stood up for my values. Voting for Ron Paul or a good Libertarian candidate feels good and right to me!
I voted for Bush Sr. just before he broke his "read my lips" word on taxes. I'll never hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils again. I vote for candidates with principles, who are honest. Ron Paul fits the bill very nicely!
I'm proud to support underdogs. It takes no guts to fall in line behind a frontrunner. It is easy to swim downstream or go with the heard. But I am an individualist. If the heard is going my way, as it is on the Iraq war, I'm happy. But if the heard is going the wrong way, I get out, and forge my own trail. I am proud to think for myself.
I'll say this again, since it came up: neither Ron Paul, nor I, is a 9/11 truther. Neither of us believe that Bush or anyone in his administration planned or even knew about the horrific attacks of that day before they happened. Ron Paul can not control the fact that some 9/11 truthers support Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said that if people who disagree with him are silly enough to send him money, Ron Paul is happy to use that money against the contributors interests! To smear Ron Paul with the 9/11 truthers is another form of guilt by association. It is an invalid argument. It is just an attempt to smear him. Let's stick to the positions and arguments of the candidate himself, not of a tiny minority of his supporters, OK?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 08:48 PMI don't have any comrades in elected office. And I don't view them as leaders. They're not elected to lead me. They're elected to represent me. The reason they haven't all called for impeachment is because the people they represent have not demanded it. In my district, Jim McDermott refused to call for impeachment for quite a while. But as people here in the district became more vocal about supporting the impeachment of Cheney for his fraudulent path to war, McDermott came around to support the views of the district he represents. That's the way it's supposed to work. If you're waiting for people in government to protect your Constitution, you're going to be disappointed. I know I am.
If you think everything is going hunky-dorey in government today, then I don't suspect you're going to be supporting impeachment. I support impeachment and my Representative supports it too.
As far as reasons for impeachment, take a look at the video below.....
http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html
Root for the underdog... but don't be stupid about it. Rooting for the Cougs over the Huskies is legitimate. Wasting your time with a candidate who has absolutely no chance in a party that he really doesn't belong then vowing to vote for someone else who has no chance of winning is not only a total waste but a vote for the opposition party.
You may be able to smugly look yourself in the mirror and sing "I did it my way" on election day but I'd hate to be you when you have to examine your conscience every night of a Hillary socialist America and the years of a lost country that will follow.
If you truly believe your vote won't matter a whit, why do you bother? Why are you here? Why be involved at all. Sorry dude, that doesn't wash.
That mine or nothing attitude is exactly as that of a spoiled 4yr old who would rather break a toy than share it.
And no, it is NO popularity contest: it's who MOST fits the ideals we have for a candidate, leader that is VIABLE and capable of winning. I think Joe Schmoe would make a great President, VP, Senator, Congressman, Governor... but Joe Schmoe can't win... and neither can RP or any other "losertarian".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2007 09:31 PMSo do you also think we should impeach half of Congress as over half voted to support the "illegal war", including those on the intelligence commitee who would have had access to the same classified materials as the President?
The problem the "impeach Bush" crowd has is proving he knowingly lied. If he simply relayed information given to him that was false- that is wrong, but NOT a lie. If he knew it was a lie and knowingly relayed the information- That is a lie. Clear so far?
Since every other intelligence agency in the world agreed exactly with what the President and Vice-President said, I find it hard to believe that they were lying- unless you also believe that they fabricated the intelligence and were able to fool all the other intelligence agencies into believing it. Good luck proving that...
You must have missed my statement that a libertarian is a kind of conservative, and therefore a Republican. There is talk of Ron Paul choosing Barry Goldwater Jr. as his running mate if nominated. Yes, that is the son of Mr. Conservative, himself. The Republican Party is a coalition of religious/social conservatives, business special interests, libertarians, and foreign policy hawks. Libertarians are one segment in the coalition. The libertarians are the limited government, free market types. Am I wrong?
My dad has been a Cubs fan for decades. Hasn't stopped him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with rooting for underdogs. I don't get your objection. In fact, it is often admirable to stick up for underdogs on principle, don't you think? The founders were underdogs in 1776.
And like I said, my one vote CAN'T keep Hillary out of office. What are the odds that the Presidential race will come down to Washington State's electoral college votes, and one popular vote will tip the scales? Danged near Nil! So if I vote for an L, and Hillary is elected, my vote will almost certainly not be the cause! I have a clear conscience! But if you vote for Giuliani, and he wins and does one bad thing, you share in that blame! You put your moral stamp of approval on the candidate you vote for, so you share in the blame and the credit for his or her actions. I won't risk it because I do want to be able to sleep at night. I do want a clear conscience. Voting Libertarian or for Ron Paul does that for me! If Ron Paul wins, I am reasonably certain that he won't do much of anything I will have to feel guilty about. Not so for Giuliani.
And I don't care if Ron Paul "can't win." Voting for him sends a message about my values to the system. It puts my stamp of moral approval on him, and denies it to all others. That's all my vote can do. That's all anyone's vote can do. All else is vanity, and a striving for wind.
I think it is acting more like a spoiled kid to vote for a candidate who you don't really like, in order to attempt to deny the office to someone you like less. And have I mentioned that YOUR ONE VOTE ALMOST CERTAINLY CAN'T DO THAT? The election will probably not be decided by one vote! Washington State's electoral college votes will almost certainly go to Hillary, regardless of how you or I vote. You and I are therefore free to vote for anyone we like!
Exactly what about this line of reasoning is incorrect? I'd love to know.
Honestly, did you read my post @ 47 at all? You don't seem to have addressed any of my points.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 11:11 PMDanged dictators. None of them give a whit for our rights. None of them care about the Constitutions they swore to uphold. All they care about is their power.
Well, I'm for bi-partisan impeachment!
Throw all the bums out!
OMG with respect to the politician flipping out on this post. Shows he is not fit for office.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2007 07:10 AMTimes are different. More and more people on the left and the right see that the federal government is out of control. This was much less the case in the 60's, when state, federal and local government soaked up less than 20% of GDP. Now it soaks up about 35%, and everyone sees our civil liberties eroded. Every time we fly, send an e-mail, deposit a check, make an overseas phone call, see the doctor, etc. we get searched without a warrant. Habeas corpus and free speech have been eroded via the Military Commissions Act and McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, and the IRS and NSA see everything we do.
No, America is a lot more willing to listen to the libertarian message these days than they were when Mr. conservative, Barry Goldwater was running for President as a Republican.
The libertarian camp has always felt more comfortable with the right, but even the ACLU has people on the left calling themselves "civil libertarians!" When conservative, limited government ideas invade the Democratic party, we see that the issue has moved to the center. When that happens, there is an opportunity for a candidate who espouses those views to win.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 26, 2007 06:16 PMOnly if you take their card.
Posted by: RBW on November 27, 2007 09:43 AMYou're worried about the IRS and NSA seeing everything you do, when even Safeway, if you shop there, knows more about you and your lifestyle than they possibly could.
Perhaps true. But Safeway isn't going to snatch you and take you away out of some paranoia that every dark person is a terrorist.
Richard: And how do you know Safeway isn't going to snatch you and take you away? Maybe they have some dark paranoia, or maybe it's you who has a dark paranoia about the current administration, more familiarly known as BSD? You still have not answered several folks' questions about naming names, dates, places where people were miraculously "snatched" and whisked off to be tortured, etc. Do you actually know someone whose calls have been surveilled? In fact, I would think my phone calls have been listened to, or scanned for catch phrases, as we call often to Croatia to talk to family. But you know what? I don't care. Let them listen. That way, I'm off their interest charts because there's nothing to hear. I really, really like it when they do catch the bad guys, though. How about you?
Posted by: katomar on November 27, 2007 10:06 AMActually I do know of someone who was surveilled on the phone. She's a local woman who was talking to a transportation planner in Australia. They were joking about Obama being called Osama bin Laden when the phone clicked. This woman came on the line and asked for the woman's social security number. The woman essentially told her to get lost, and the line clicked again, and they continued to talk.
If you're ok with the government listening in on your phone calls, then good for you. Other Americans like me will continue to view that as unConstitutional as it was in the Nixon era. But that was before the Republican party disintegrated into standing for nothing like it does today.
And I'm not falling for your stupid, mindless choice of being wiretapped or catching 'bad guys'. Methinks you watch too many hours of Fox Faux News and '24'.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 27, 2007 11:49 AMJust go back to your life and listen to what Daddy Government tells you to do. Remember, people with backpacks are most likely carrying bombs to blow you up. So feel free to shoot them and ask questions later.
And if you have a cabby who has a white rag on his head, beat the shit out of him like that moron from Kent did.
And if someone in a car cuts you off, shoot 'em too. They're probably liberal and they deserve to be killed anyway don't they? Keep reciting the Republican mantra, "Road Rage is cool"
After all, violence is what the Republicans are all about. Lots of gratuitous violence.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on November 29, 2007 12:29 PM