Thank you, BuzzFlash

click image for larger version

Well, this is pretty cool.

I learned last night that I have won BuzzFlash.com's "Wings of Justice Award" for this week. They said some very nice things about me, or more accurately, about my video from the Pensacola Tea Party (although I guess they felt like they had to create yet another nickname for me, "Pensacola Jeff," which I suppose is preferable to Keith Olbermann's "unemployed blogger named Jeff"). You can go read what they had to say if you like ...

I'm joining some incredibly illustrious past honorees, including Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dennis Kucinich, Rachel Corrie, Kurt Vonnegut, my former classmate Jon Stewart, and of course President Obama and the First Lady -- plus my "new friend" Mr. Olbermann himself. I assure you that in no way do I feel worthy to be mentioned in the same breath, let alone with the same award, as all of those truly exemplary Americans, and so it is a tremendous honor and privilege to receive this award today.

Anyway, thank you to everyone at BuzzFlash for this award. I am indeed humbled and grateful.

Impeachment is on the table

Finally, someone had the decency and sense to step forward, despite Speaker Pelosi's protestations that impeachment was "off the table," and do what needs to be done ... what's needed to be done for a long time. And not surprisingly, that someone was Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Yesterday, Rep. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives (first page of PDF begins here; links to each article also PDFs):

Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United
States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W.
Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.

ARTICLE I.—CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

ARTICLE II.—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

ARTICLE III.—MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR

ARTICLE IV.—MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

ARTICLE V.—ILLEGALLY MISSPENDING FUNDS TO SECRETLY BEGIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION

ARTICLE VI.—INVADING IRAQ IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.J. RES. 114.

ARTICLE VII.—INVADING IRAQ ABSENT A DECLARATION OF WAR

ARTICLE VIII.—INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

ARTICLE IX.—FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE ARMOR

ARTICLE X.—FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

ARTICLE XI.—ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XII.—INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR CONTROL OF THAT NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCES

ARTICLE XIII.—CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP ENERGY AND MILITARY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ AND OTHER COUNTRIES

ARTICLE XIV.—MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

ARTICLE XV.—PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XVI.—RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF US TAX DOLLARS IN CONNECTION WITH IRAQ CONTRACTORS

ARTICLE XVII.—ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT CHARGE PERSONS BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES

ARTICLE XVIII.—TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF TORTURE AGAINST CAPTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND OTHER PLACES, AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY

ARTICLE XIX.—RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL TO "BLACK SITES" LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE

ARTICLE XX.—IMPRISONING CHILDREN

ARTICLE XXI.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THREATS FROM IRAN, AND SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN IRAN, WITH THE GOAL OF OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT

ARTICLE XXII.—CREATING SECRET LAWS

ARTICLE XXIII.—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT

ARTICLE XXIV.—SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

ARTICLE XXV.—DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

ARTICLE XXVI.—ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS

ARTICLE XXVII.—FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY

ARTICLE XXVIII.—TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

ARTICLE XXIX.—CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

ARTICLE XXX.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MEDICARE

ARTICLE XXXI.—KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL EMERGENCY

ARTICLE XXXII.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

ARTICLE XXXIII.—REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 9[/]11

ARTICLE XXXIV.—OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

ARTICLE XXXV.—ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS

The full text enumerating each article stretches some twenty pages in the Congressional Record. This is a full and complete indictment of the illegal acts of the Bush crime syndicate since January 2001, and it's on the front page of every major newspaper in America. Right?

Well, not so much ... in fact, it only appears to have reached sixteen news sources in the entire world. Sixteen. On any page. As a wise person once said, "What the fuck?!"

Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for finally putting words to the misdeeds of the last seven and a half years. Just reading the article headers is sobering enough, but when you read the full articles, you can hardly believe your eyes ... you can't believe that it could happen in America.

But it did. And it will continue if Huggy Bear becomes president. And it's well past time to punish the real evildoers: the Bush crime syndicate.

Struggling with electability

Four years ago, I worked tirelessly for Howard Dean's presidential campaign as a Meetup leader, organizer, and canvasser in Michigan. Probably the biggest obstacle we faced -- pre-scream, anyway -- was the notion of "electability." I remember being so frustrated because I never could understand why so many people believed Gov. Dean was "unelectable," when I knew full well that not only was he "electable," but in fact he was the best person for the job of president.

Now as we approach 2008, presumably four years older, four years wiser, and four years more disgusted with the unconscionably destructive behavior of the Bush crime syndicate, we are encountering the "electability" meme again. And it's just as vague and inscrutable as ever.

What does it mean for a candidate to be, or not to be, electable? And, more to the point, how does one get to be electable, and can a candidate overcome the perception that he or she is not electable?

My personal struggle with the concept of electability arises as I try to determine whom, if anyone, I will endorse for the Democratic presidential nomination and, specifically, for the Florida Democratic primary. Ultimately, my beliefs and ideals are probably most closely aligned with those of Dennis Kucinich, but I have been most outspoken in my support of positions taken by John Edwards. Try as I might, I have found it difficult to overcome the feeling that Kucinich is not "electable." And I'm upset with myself when I think that way. I mean, in theory, isn't every candidate electable? Well, yes, by definition ... if you use a literal definition of the word as "capable of being elected," that is, of garnering enough votes to win.

But I think "electability" has taken on a meaning rife with subtext these days. To be "electable" means more than the ability to get the most votes. In short, it means having the charisma to draw regular positive (or at least neutral) media coverage. It means avoiding the label of "crazy" or "fringe" or "radical." And, most of all, it means having that je ne sais quoi that says, yes, I can see this person as president.

I admit that I have an easier time envisioning John Edwards in the Oval Office than Dennis Kucinich, but I can't really articulate why that is. I have been loath to say that Kucinich is unelectable, but at the same time, I have no problem describing Ron Paul with the same word.

Sadly, I do believe the media, particularly television, plays a disproportionately significant role in establishing whether or not a candidate is electable. I have little doubt that, for example, television would have helped the charismatic and mellifluous (albeit quite short) Stephen Douglas win the 1860 presidential election over Abraham Lincoln, whose shy demeanor, reedy speaking voice, gangly and awkward appearance, and deranged wife would not have played well on TV, to say the least. But would anyone today say Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, wasn't "electable?" Indeed, American history is full of such examples, from "confirmed bachelor" James Buchanan versus dashing trailblazer John C. Fremont in 1856 to morbidly obese bureaucrat William Howard Taft versus oratorical genius (and two-time loser) William Jennings Bryan in 1908 and wheelchair-bound Franklin D. Roosevelt in declining health defeating popular, handsome Republican Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

I don't think the concept of "electability" is healthy for America, but unfortunately I think it's here to stay. And so, while I battle my own feelings about the electability of candidates I truly admire, we will continue to get the most telegenic candidates and not necessarily the most qualified ones.

For Ron Paul, the fundraising starts here

By "here," I mean America's Wang™. Yes, the online fundraising frenzy for Ron Paul's narrow-minded campaign to win the hearts and minds of Americans unable to think for themselves has its roots in south Florida, specifically South Beach. (And don't tell me you didn't see that coming ...)

37-year-old music promoter Trevor Lyman of Miami Beach has spearheaded multi-million-dollar Internet fundraising drives for Paul, motivated largely by his feeling that the Democrats in Congress "betrayed" him by failing to get our troops out of Iraq.

"Nobody took him seriously until we brought money to the campaign. It's a sad state of affairs," Lyman said in a telephone interview from New Hampshire, where he's rounding up support for his candidate before the first-in-the-nation primary (Iowa holds a caucus before New Hampshire votes.). "This [fundraising drive] was pretty spur of the moment, so we'll see how it goes."

If it fails, Paul runs the risk of being dismissed as a one-hit wonder, especially since his online popularity has barely surfaced in the polls. On the eve of Wednesday's debate in St. Petersburg, his support in Florida was smaller than the CNN poll's margin of error.

GOP donor Mark Guzzetta, who helped organize a $2,300-per-person reception in Coral Gables on Thursday for the more-established candidate Mitt Romney, said the Internet can't and won't replace traditional fundraisers.

"People want to meet the candidate -- shake his or her hand, test his mettle, watch his speech," Guzzetta said. "Having said that, I do think all of us can learn a thing or two from someone who has maximized the Internet."

It all started when Lyman was noodling online in October and came across speeches by Paul, an anti-tax, pro-gun, non-interventionalist who touts home schooling and above all, the Constitution.

"It was a betrayal," Lyman said of the promises by Democrats in Congress to bring the troops home. "So in the midst of a betrayal, when you find someone who's been consistent, you know that's your guy."

Consistent? Yeah, consistently crazy, maybe ...

Here's what I still don't understand about the Ron Paul phenomenon (and I use that term loosely, given his paper-thin, albeit vocal, support): There are, you know, other consistently anti-war candidates -- like Dennis Kucinich, for example -- whose other positions aren't noxious, as Paul's are. Even John Edwards may not have been consistent if you go back to his vote in favor of the AUMF, but as a candidate he's been consistent in his retraction of that vote.

Why are Paul supporters, especially those who are or have been disaffected Democrats, so quick to rush to a candidate whose campaign is based entirely on the "I've got mine, screw you" mentality and who rejects the basic tenets of what progressives believe? Have these people suddenly become anti-choice (as Paul is) and anti-health care (among other things), or worse yet, are they willing to ignore Paul's crazier positions in order to celebrate the single issue of his opposition to the war in Iraq?

See, that's what has caused me to decide that Ron Paul supporters, by and large, are just goofy. They are hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at best, even while trumpeting the alleged "consistency" of their knight in shining armor. The only comfort I take in watching the Paul phenomenon run its course is the knowledge that his candidacy will be over soon, probably after Iowa and New Hampshire.

UPDATE (1:13 pm 11/30/07): Of course, among the batshit crazy Paul supporters are the Stormfront neo-Nazi gang of racist brownshirt fucks. I almost forgot about them.

Yeah, go ahead and sign on with Ron Paul, kids. That swastika will look great on your Hollister and Abercrombie gear.

Dear Steny Hoyer: Fuck you. Sincerely, me

I was pretty critical of Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House Majority Leader, here last month after it was announced that he would keynote the Florida Democratic Party convention. Then, just before the convention, Hoyer made a speech that actually sounded like he was willing to do more than just put a "D" after his name, when he called out the Bush crime syndicate for their egregious, repeated flouting of the Constitution. Hell, Steny even quoted Federalist 47!

However, just as I feared when I said:

But I'm not ready to jump on the Steny bandwagon just yet. Why, in just the last few weeks we've heard loads of similar rhetoric from Harry Reid, Pete Stark, and others, only to be left wanting like Jenna Bush when the keg runs dry.

So, good on ya, Steny, for speaking truth to power. Now will your actions back up your words? I'll be watching ...

... Hoyer is letting his true colors (read: sniveling coward and Republican enabler) shine through.

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday he will block an effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has announced he will try to force a vote on Cheney's impeachment.

Hoyer said he will use parliamentary tactics to table that effort.

"Impeachment is not on the agenda," Hoyer said.

Hoyer said his decision was not based upon the merits of the impeachment effort, but rather because the new Democratic majority had more important issues to resolve.

Goddammit, Hoyer! What could possibly be more important than pursuing charges against the arch-dictator of the Bush crime syndicate? How can you call yourself a Democrat, in an era when the Bush crime syndicate has run roughshod over everything Democrats -- and Americans -- presumably hold dear, and not even give Rep. Kucinich's proposal a chance to be debated? Jeebus, Hoyer, you suck.

The "new Democratic majority" has failed time and time again to solve their purportedly "more important issues," largely because the leadership of Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been almost criminally ineffective. And there are no indications to suggest that things will be changing anytime soon.

Impeachment clearly is warranted, both for Cheney and for Drunky McStagger, the nominal leader, himself. It's one thing to oppose impeachment, but for a Democratic leader to refuse even to countenance the idea of impeachment and allow it a full and fair opportunity to be debated is malfeasance of the highest order. It's unconscionable and astonishing, and it demands a response.

Contact Rep. Hoyer's office:

Phone (202) 225-3130 (House Majority Leader office) or (202) 225-4131 (Md.-5th Dist. office).
Email is only available for constituents, with a zip code check; use 20770 or 20602 if you wish.

UPDATE (3:43 pm 11/6/07): I just called the House Majority Leader's office at the number listed above, and I told the gentleman who answered that I was disgusted with Rep. Hoyer's motion to table, and that I have pledged $1,000 to any progressive candidate who challenges Rep. Hoyer in next year's primary. I also asked him to pass that word on to Rep. Hoyer.

Now, you call. Either number above should be just dandy.

When 8th graders outshine the media, everybody wins

Why is that that a 13-year-old kid in New Hampshire can ask a more direct and cogent question of a presidential candidate than can most of the ink (or makeup)-stained wretches in newspapers and on teevee?

On Thursday, Eighth-grader James Harvard told Edwards that several other Democrats had made that guarantee.

"Last night, I watched the debate and Congressman Kucinich said he would end the war in three months and you said it would take a whole term, and I was wondering why," Harvard said.

Edwards told Harvard that the United States has troops in many parts of the world, and the key issue is combat troops. If elected, "I would have combat troops out of Iraq in about nine months," he said.

During the debate, Edwards said if he were elected and 100,000 U.S. troops remained in Iraq, he would immediately redeploy up to half of them.

"I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq," he added.

I'm still generally an Edwards fan, but I wonder what the distinction is between moving combat troops out of Iraq in nine months and ending the war in nine months. Why would it take a whole term to end the war if combat troops are gone by this time in 2009?

Ron Paul eats brains!

No, not really.

But it's interesting to see how his supporters think.

I found a link back to my Political Compass post from a libertarian message board, where the poster said (in yellow, so it's kind of hard to read):

The left/right may be accurate [although as i have mentioned before, there is no such thing as left and right as it is a fabrication of elites who use it to create polarization], the authoritarian/libertarian notion is total BS, especially when gravel supports a carbon tax and kucinich has not called for a repeal of the IRS.

Elite? Who the fuck is that person to call me "elite?" Yes, all I want to do is create polarization and make sure no one agrees. Right. And are you saying that unless Kucinich calls for a repeal of the IRS (oh, yeah, right, no taxes, no government), then he's authoritarian? Whatever the fuck you say, d00d.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need another glass of very expensive pinot grigio, and I have to make sure that Fritz is buffing the Aston-Martin to a mirror-like shine* ...

---

* Not a euphemism.

Hackett endorses Kucinich's primary challenger

Well, this is kind of interesting.

In my ancestral home of Ohio, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D), who's running for president again, is facing a primary challenge from Rosemary Palmer, a former teacher whose son was killed in Iraq in 2005.

Cincinnati attorney Paul Hackett, who was something of a darling of the netroots when he first mounted a run for the U.S. Senate, only to drop out after then-Rep. Sherrod Brown entered the race (Brown eventually won), has endorsed Palmer.

Hackett's involvement in Palmer's race "adds instant credibility," says Anthony Fossaceca, Palmer's campaign manager. It tells voters that she's serious and that, like Hackett, she's willing to go against the grain, he says.

"And it means a lot more now coming from Paul," Fossaceca says, "who doesn't do many of these."

Apparently Hackett's endorsement arises out of remarks Kucinich made to him when he was running for Congress two years ago. According to Hackett:

"[Kucinich] started his conversation off, which was pretty much a unilateral conversation, him to me while I was driving in my car in the 2nd Congressional District, by saying 'I would rather see Jean Schmidt get elected to Ohio's 2nd Congressional District than you. Because you are wrong on Iraq, you fought in Iraq, you're a Democrat in name only,' and a host of other issues."

And Hackett's response to Kucinich?

"Unbelieveably, really not anything," Hackett said today, saying he figured that "any sort of in-your-face on my part wasn't going to do anything for me."

Hackett was talking today as part of his endorsement for Rosemary Palmer, who is running against Kucinich in next year's Democratic primary. Hackett got to know Palmer and her husband after her 23-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was killed in Iraq.

Hackett said he concluded that Kucinich, a longshot peace candidate for president, was so driven by a singular agenda that he was unwilling to work with others, even those who might help with solutions.

As much as we in the DFH wing of the Democratic Party may like Kucinich, it seems that his act may be wearing thin in his own congressional district.* I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that Dennis is a one-issue candidate, but there's definitely one issue that takes -- and holds -- precedence with him.

---

* However, he has a smoking hot wife, which makes up for a lot of deficiencies.

Progressivism is not dead! (But it's on life support ...)

My kingdom for a real progressive candidate!

Perhaps you've heard of the Political Compass website, where you can take a test that places you on a grid based on the degree to which you are "left" or "right" on the economic scale as well as how socially libertarian or authoritarian you are.

I'm damn near as moonbatty as it gets: -6.50, -6.67, which puts me in, for lack of a better term, the "deep Southwest" of the grid.

Anyway, thanks to a recent article on London's TimesOnline, we can see how the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates fit on the grid.


Putting this into perspective, I'm about as far "southwest" of Mike Gravel as Gravel is of John Edwards. But I digress ...

The surprising, or perhaps not so surprising, point is that even most of the Democratic candidates fall in the upper right quadrant. So, the only truly progressive candidates are Gravel and Dennis Kucinich ... again, not much of a surprise.

Look, I understand that candidates have to appeal to a broad spectrum of American voters, but is it really that impossible or ridiculous for us to have a truly progressive candidate? Wouldn't the average American voter be more likely to be "southwest" of center rather than "northeast?" That's just a hunch, but if I'm right, then too many candidates, including most of those on the Democratic side, are missing the mark.

Here's another interesting comparison:Draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE (9:54 am 8/15/07): dirk gently shows us that, indeed, my hunch is correct. America is progressive. It's just that our candidates aren't.

UPDATE (12:19 am 8/16/07): Welcome to all the visitors from Crooks and Liars, and thank you for the link, Blue Gal! I hope you folks will stick around and see what the world looks like from the perspective of a DFH in America's Glans™! Maybe leave a comment or two while you're here ...

For example, no one covers Blowin' Bob Allen like Blast Off! does. :) Or maybe you'll be interested in what happens when religious freedom and animal cruelty intersect in Miami.

But thanks again for visiting ... don't be a stranger!

UPDATE (4:26 pm 8/16/07): Wow. Political Compass seems to be down. If you can't see the second image above, that's why. If you can see it, well, then, it's back up. I wonder if we had anything to do with their technical difficulties ...

Oh, well, in the meantime, until PC returns, you can laugh at the latest Florida Republican to be arrested. Or help me spread a nickname for Fred Thompson. Your choice.

UPDATE (5:23 pm 8/16/07): There's a new chart out there that pegs a number of current world leaders on the grid. Guess who's farthest to the upper right?

(h/t finding the filth)

UPDATE (5:41 pm 8/16/07): This may be the most-updated post ever on Blast Off! ... anyway, I fixed the second image, even though Political Compass still seems to be down. The image is smaller than it was, but still legible, I'm sure.

(h/t Mountain Philosopher, from whom I stole liberated the image)

Censure's too good for him

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) will be introducing legislation to censure Drunky McStagger when Congress returns from recess next Tuesday.

A censure is a rare public reprimand but does not carry any other penalty.

House leaders could take the resolution directly to the floor, but that's unlikely. More likely is that the resolution will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Wexler is a member. Since this would be a "sense of the House" resolution, it would not require Senate approval.

Wexler said Bush's "intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision.

[...]

The last president who was censured was James Buchanan in 1860.

Why just censure, Rep. Wexler? Why not impeachment? Drunky surely deserves it, and the evidence for high crimes and misdemeanors certainly exists. Sure, Drunky could be the first president censured in almost 150 years, but he'd still be in office.

While you're at it, you can join Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as sponsor of HR 333 (PDF), to impeach Dick "Dick" Cheney.

But censure? Censure's just another word for "slap on the wrist." And we're watching you and your Democratic colleagues in Congress very closely now.

Do your job. Impeach. Now.

(h/t to Eschaton commenter portia)

Impeach the man in charge

You understand, of course, that when I say "man in charge," I am not referring to the Dry Drunk-in-Chief, right?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Sources tell the Sleuth that in light of the mass killings at Virginia Tech Monday, Kucinich's impeachment plans have been put on hold. There will be no action this week, they say.

There's plenty of evidence of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to support a Cheney impeachment, so the only reason not to do so would be political at this point. Honestly, I think we're to the point where the country can't afford not to impeach.

It's time. Let's get the bastards out.

(h/t to Holden at First Draft)

Water is wet

And, in other news, Obama draws large crowds in urban areas:

[Leah] Hanes is among the throngs of people who have turned out to hear Obama speak during the two weeks since the Illinois senator formally entered the race. Obama is drawing eye-popping crowds in an unusual campaign swing that is taking him to large urban areas outside of the early voting states where presidential candidates typically stump for votes.

The people Obama is attracting in those cities won't be able to cast votes in states like Iowa and New Hampshire that are so critical to deciding who makes it to the White House. But his tour is designed to build his reputation among voters nationwide who still don't know much about him and to create an army of small-dollar donors who are invested in his success.

Obama is expecting huge turnout for rallies Friday in Austin, Texas, and Monday in Cleveland. More than 10,000 people have signed up on Obama's Web site for free tickets to each event, according to the campaign.

That's a larger turnout than President Bush usually gets and certainly more than Obama's rivals in the 2008 campaign are pulling in.

The last sentence reminds me of the old quote from Babe Ruth. When asked how he could justify making more money than the president (Herbert Hoover), Ruth replied, "Well, I had a better year."

Anyway, I'm still struggling with my choice for 2008. I guess it's still pretty early yet, and I don't think I was even this far along four years ago (indeed, I didn't start volunteering for the Howard Dean campaign until August of 2003), but each of the Democratic candidates has a major flaw that keeps me from diving in. I liked Obama at first, dating back to his scintillating speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but his apparent desire to appease the religious right and his tendency to change course with the wind have raised questions about him in my mind. I'm also not sure that skipping yesterday's joint Democratic forum in Nevada was such a great idea.

Meanwhile, I find Clinton too polarizing, Edwards too weak (following his failure to stand behind his bloggers in the face of wingnut attacks), Kucinich attractive (politically) but unelectable (unfortunately), Biden too 1988, and the rest are basically supporting characters at this point. I probably should look more at Bill Richardson, though ...

Memo to Al Gore: please run. Thanks in advance.

Kucinich is in

Another hat in the ring for 2008, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) today announced his candidacy for president.

My sense is that 2004 set Rep. Kucinich up well for '08 ... but do I think he'll win the nomination? His chances are slim, but I won't say nil. His niche - and in the current climate, I think it's a good one - is ardently anti-war, and this time he means even within his own party:

"Democrats were swept into power on Nov. 7 because of widespread voter discontent with the war in Iraq," Kucinich said. "Instead of heeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in polices and direction, the Democratic congressional leadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of the war."

Whether or not Kucinich wins the Democratic nomination, any dialogue his candidacy engenders will be a net positive for the country. The more anti-war voices that can be heard, the better.