"Representative" Murtha is a good argument for bringing back the practice of tarring and feathering politicians -- and then running them out of town on a rail.
Even I think this impeachment notion is nuts. Forget about it being completely out of line and unwarranted, but does America really want President Dick Cheney? Yikes. Anyway, making bad decisions is obviosuly not cause for impeachment. And Murtha knows that. Like you suggest he's just trying to play a card here. But it won't work. And would probably only backfire if given a real chance. That's why I'm sure his old pal Nancy has already given him a stern talking to, if not cracked the whip as Crankyprof mentioned. Yes, Grandma Nancy appears with some whips, chains, lots of leather, and a dog collar too -- now that would be a site. Still, I bet she'd look better in them than Rosie O'Donnell did!
Jeff, Your visions are the stuff of nightmares.
W/r to "backfires," I suppose that it is that which I find so surprising about the manner in which the Dems have assumed power. The GOP overplayed its card with Monica Lewinsky and was punished for it. Had they concentrated on the lying under oath, taken the quick shot, held a FEW hearings, and moved on, they would have derived benefit without cost. In a like manner, the Dems could hold a FEW hearings (everyone already thinks the Bush folks did something wrong and hearings ad naseum is tiersome) and MOVE ON.
A Dem sweep in 2008 will come from the bills that they put on Bush's desk, not the hearings that they hold. If they want to keep the pressure up, force the Administration to exercise that Veto or accept "popular" bills like wage and earnings concerns, health care concerns, changes to Social Security, and Public Education issues. Again, these bills need not be and probably ought not be significant, there just needs to be a good faith effort to address domestic affairs. Such a course virtually guarantees a Dem victory in 2008.
Instead, Dem leadership is wasting its time on IRAQ. They don't seem to grasp that it is perceived, by the public, to be BUSH's war.
If you leave the war intact through the 2008 election, no Republican presidential candidate has a chance and any representative not in the most secure of seats is doomed.
Good points, G-Veg. Especially about the need to move on to substantive legislation and putting bills on the president's desk. I do disagree somewhat in that I don't think this charade (and, yes, it has been made that by BOTH sides) is a waste of time. It's the legislative process.
In this modern age of blogs, leaks, and talking heads, it's tempting to streamline the whole process and save everyone's time. But I still think there's something to the notion of making Bush actually veto the bill. It's especially powerful given that it will only be his 2nd veto in 7 years (granted he has had a GOP Congress but they didn't much act like it afterall).
And you do have a point about the perception that it's already Bush's war. But, remember, Dems voted overwhelmingly for the war too. Ask Hillary. That vote is killing her in the primary with the base. So they think this is the only way to make a clean break and officially make it Bush's war.
And maybe it is. If the Dems don't compromise after the veto happens and then get a passable war spending bill through, I will agree and see it as a mistake and that they're going down a dangerous path. But if they force Bush to make the veto and then move on (and in the process hand the GOP running for office in 2008 100% ownership lock-stock-and-barrel of the continuation of this war into '08 and beyond) I think it's a shrewd political move. And though it's war, both sides have already proved it's always still politics.
debt reduction need help paying debt debt reduction need help paying debt debt reduction need help paying debt. compulsive gambling compulsive gambling compulsive gambling.
Commenting by HaloScan
