impeach bush for peace peach
Mikael's Accountability Blog

(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

September 20, 2008

Conyers: Give up on Impeachment, Single Payer Health Plan – Surrender Everything

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Mikael @ 1:56 pm

white_flag.jpgDaily Kos
John Conyers told me forget about Impeachment & Single Payer
by DrSteveB

John Conyers (D-MI; Chair of House Judiciary Committee; lead sponsor for HR-676) was the guest of honor at a Physicians for a National Health Program event last night in New York City.

It was a book signing of “10 Excellent Reasons for Nation Health Care” with chapters written by PNHP leaders and other, and an introduction by Congressman Conyers.

I got my “grip & grin” with Conyers:

stevewithjohnconyers.jpg

And he told the 150 or so of us to forget about Single Payer, forget about getting Rove to testify or impeaching Bush. Forget about all that. Because as we learned in 2000, elections matter.

Until after November 4, we should do nothing but WORK to make sure that this election results in electing a President and larger majorities in the Senate and House in order to make those things we want more likely.

On November 5, we can go back to work on each of our individual causes.

(Source)

And this from National Impeachment Network co-founder Cynthia Papermaster:

“Conyers has been giving us this message all along.

John Conyers is NOT correct that an impeachment inquiry would hurt Obama’s chances, but his and the leadership’s flawed judgment is going to rule the day and it could possibly cost Obama and the Democrats the election. I told Wexler’s Chief of Staff Eric Johnson, his Legislative Director Ellen McLaren, and Wexler himself that convincing the Obama campaign that starting a hearing will help Obama win, and then letting Conyers know to go ahead, would help all Democrats if they don’t cave to the media spin about it being a partisan stunt. It would have to be completely behind the scenes; Obama can’t be seen to play a part. Eric was all ears. He even embellished the plan and said he’d talk to Robert about it.

The Democrats are stuck in old, illogical thinking and this is one reason they have lost in the past. It was only by coming out with strong rhetoric against the war that they won in 2006. The party hasn’t made the connection that ending the war equates with winning. If they did get it they would overrule the blue dogs and work to end it. So if their anti-war stance was acceptable to the media and public, then why wouldn’t impeachment be acceptable to the public? Can’t the Judiciary Committee defend itself from the right wing? Don’t the numbers show that voters want accountability, especially now that they’re seeing the economy crumble? But the Democrats don’t learn, do they? Even when they have a winning strategy staring them in the face, they flub it. The Democrats make mistake after mistake. They can’t even figure out how to win! (I don’t agree with those who say the Democrats don’t care if they win or not because they take money from corporations too so it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House.)

I was going to keep this strategy under wraps, but since I’m now in favor of the blank vote strategy, I’m sharing it. If you know someone who can talk to the campaign, like Bobby Kennedy Jr., please go ahead and work it.

[Ed. Note: The blank vote strategy is to make clear to Democrats that in key districts with competitive races, we favor a write-in vote of "None of the Above" if the Democrat has been in breech of their oath of office to defend the Constitution by not actively pushing for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.]


4 Comments

  1. Conyers can resign that and Conyer can’t expect even a paycheck from the people
    of this country.Conyers jobless.We are going to impeach Bush/Cheney and remove the rest of the corruption.
    impeach!

    Comment by Dennis M Mccullough — September 20, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

  2. I don’t care about the Election we only started another impeachment.
    We impeach now!.

    Comment by Dennis M Mccullough — September 20, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

  3. IMPEACH JOHN CONYERS

    Comment by MARK — September 21, 2008 @ 10:56 am

  4. Why have a Judiciary committee? No Justice No Peace No Justice No Peace

    Comment by MARK — September 21, 2008 @ 11:00 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)