House trembles as McKinney happyslaps Pelosi
December 10, 2006 7:11 AM   Subscribe

Ladies and gentlemen, your bill to impeach President Bush is ready. Introduced by Cynthia McKinney.
posted by jfuller (79 comments total)
 
Previously wished and hoped for in this undeleted front page post, and this one, and this one, and this one, which conveniently aggregates lots of other mefi impeachment-wish links, including most piquantly the one that says Now, go out and get control of the House if you want Bush impeached. Concerning that point, the present fpp link notes Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment. Question: is this the most telling, universally applicable rock'n'roll quote evah?
posted by jfuller at 7:12 AM on December 10, 2006


BURN HIM!!!!!!!
posted by quonsar at 7:14 AM on December 10, 2006


She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation to establish a permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur's recordings at the National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into his killing.

NO WAIT - BURN HER!!!!!!
posted by quonsar at 7:17 AM on December 10, 2006 [2 favorites]


I am looking forward seeing Mr Bush in underwear on NyPost frontpage.
posted by elpapacito at 7:17 AM on December 10, 2006


SOMEONE BURN SOMETHING, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!
posted by quonsar at 7:18 AM on December 10, 2006


Bush...Underwear...it's like destiny
posted by elpapacito at 7:18 AM on December 10, 2006


lame duck congresswoman makes last desperate bid for national attention; washington yawns
posted by pyramid termite at 7:19 AM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


We are burning the record of posts per second
posted by elpapacito at 7:19 AM on December 10, 2006


Well.... this will end.
posted by The Deej at 7:20 AM on December 10, 2006


Bush...Underwear...

BRITNEY HAS NIETHER! MY EYES! THEY'RE BURNING!!!!
posted by quonsar at 7:22 AM on December 10, 2006


it just occured to me ... it would be a more meaningful act of farewell if she just had the limo driver drive by the white house on the way to the airport and stuck her bare ass out the window while she was passing by
posted by pyramid termite at 7:22 AM on December 10, 2006 [2 favorites]


still sore about the thumping, jfuller, huh?
posted by matteo at 7:27 AM on December 10, 2006


Err, McKinney won't be back for the 110th congress, and I don't think this has much chance of passing in the next few days...
posted by delmoi at 7:29 AM on December 10, 2006


I have this very slight sensation nobody in this tread believes Bush will be impeached ? Nosense ! Let's talk about Haggart uncloseted homosexuality , that is real important.
posted by elpapacito at 7:45 AM on December 10, 2006


Nosense!
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:54 AM on December 10, 2006


Go! Go! Go!
posted by mgorsuch at 7:55 AM on December 10, 2006


McKinney aside, there are many out there sending around stuff calling for impeachment. My answer: he can not be impeached because whatever he has done has been accomplished with congressional approval in most instances. And then we have Pelosi's statement that there would be no impeachment. That helped bring in votes from the "uncertains," who want the business of country to move ahead.
posted by Postroad at 7:58 AM on December 10, 2006


I doubt anyone on the hill will take her any more seriously than those of us in this district do. What an embarrassment.
posted by kjs3 at 7:59 AM on December 10, 2006


Headline: Idiot idiotically attempts to impeach Idiot.
posted by Falconetti at 8:00 AM on December 10, 2006


In other news, quonsar used capital letters.
posted by sourwookie at 8:20 AM on December 10, 2006


Would love to see him impeached, but let it go....

The U.S. media had to be shamed into finally calling Iraq a civil war (never mind that it is now BEYOND a civil war and become total anarchy).

The U.S. media continues to under-report public outrage over Bush.

While Clinton was president, it actually helped manufacture that "outrage".

Why? Because Clinton was - and still is- an outsider and Bush is The Ruling Class.
posted by wfc123 at 8:24 AM on December 10, 2006 [2 favorites]


Of course no impeachment. That would serve to rally support for him when instead, most everyone, including lotsa former supporters, would prefer to let him spend his remaining time in office as the embarassing crazy aunt that is occasionally patronized and mostly ignored.
posted by wrapper at 8:29 AM on December 10, 2006


Dammit! Why did it have to be her?
posted by Plinko at 8:31 AM on December 10, 2006


Attaching McKinney's name to an impeachment motion is probably the surest way to discredit an already disreputable idea.

Actually moving forward with this would tie up the legislative process through 2007 and demolish the Democrats' chances of fashioning an enduring majority after 2008, not to mention make them look like ax-grinders rather than a legitimate, critical opposition.

Pelosi is spot on. The Democrats should settle down to the business of legislating and overseeing the excesses of this corrupt administration.

And Cynthia McKinney should go home.
posted by felix betachat at 8:35 AM on December 10, 2006


whatever he has done has been accomplished with congressional approval in most instances.

I think that impeachment is a nonstarter, Postroad, but not for that reason. The war received approval, but with the manipulation of the NIE, and false statements and implications about how great the threat was, al Qaeda links, etc., you could definitely make the case that the vote was tainted by executive malfeasance.

And the wiretapping was done in violation of FISA.

Impeachment won't happen because the Democrats aren't interested in investing the effort (this on-the-way-out-the door action by America's most marginalized outgoing member of Congress is a huge nonstory, unless you derive excitement from hating Democrats). Looks like Bush's punishment will be going down in history as one of the 2 or 3 worst ever presidents.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:38 AM on December 10, 2006


Dis tread is nosense.
posted by The Deej at 8:40 AM on December 10, 2006


Cynthia, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
posted by caddis at 8:50 AM on December 10, 2006


Bush...Underwear...

BRITNEY HAS NIETHER!


OK, that was funny.

Dammit! Why did it have to be her?

My reaction exactly.
posted by languagehat at 8:51 AM on December 10, 2006


BURN
(a bowl of pot to help you forget about the sad fact that your apathy isn't really an opt-out: it's a tacit complicity with the status quo, which sucks the sweat off my balls).

Errr, what I mean is, aren't we super smart and cute?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:54 AM on December 10, 2006


by *your
I mean our

my bust
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:57 AM on December 10, 2006


There are lots of reasons to be frustrated with both Bush and the democratic leaders, but this is such a hollow shot. She might as well have introduced a bill to have Bush drawn- and-quartered. At least that would have sparked some fun conversations and editorial cartoons.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:03 AM on December 10, 2006


Somehow you just had to know that McKinney would be the one to introduce this. Sadly the "batshitinsane" tag is missing.

Now if only I had a bowl of pot!
posted by clevershark at 9:03 AM on December 10, 2006


Impeachment? Nah, that will just be a waste of time and taxpayer money, and the end result will be like a slap on the wrist in his non-reality-based worldview. Let Bush serve the remainder of his term. Then throw him in prison.
posted by lekvar at 9:03 AM on December 10, 2006


Good riddance to her.
posted by gsteff at 9:04 AM on December 10, 2006


Ironically, the fact that McKinney introduced this bill makes it less likely that Bush will get impeached any time soon.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:05 AM on December 10, 2006


I like her fighting spirit. At least she's standing up for her beliefs, unlike the rest of the cowardly Democrats and criminal Republicans.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:22 AM on December 10, 2006


Now, if only Bush would get into a car surrounded by paparazzi wearing only a micro mini and no underpants, perhaps we would see an impeachment...
posted by Hildegarde at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2006


He certainly deserves impeachment on so many grounds, of which initiating a needless war that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians comes to mind. A war that Iran has won without firing a shot, let it be noted. Oh, there is a whole Pandora's box of reasons. But will be he be impeached ? Unlikely. And in the years to come, people will scream, rant and cry Why the fuck not !? He served it!

Move over Warren Harding, we have a new The Biggest Loser. Oh, his is a coin that will not rise in value.

The embarassing crazy aunt that is occasionally patronized and mostly ignoredis a crazy aunt in control of several thousand atom bombs should never be ignored. The possibility for new and even more unbelievable disasters will remain far less than unlikely as long as this crew can order a military strike.
posted by y2karl at 9:45 AM on December 10, 2006


how to kick it gangsta style, in 8 easy steps:

1) get elected
2) do whatever the fuck you want
3) the press, the opposition party and the american people will be too timid and docile to call you on your shit; they will, in fact, savagely turn on anyone who dares to do so
4) get away with all kinds of shit for at least 6 years
5) profit. tremendously.
6) when the press, the opposition party, and the american people finally find the fortitude to maybe sort of slightly call you on your bullshit, rest easy knowing that there'll be more talk of "getting on with the business of the american people" than holding you accountable.
7) retire to the private sector (specifically, the carlyle group)
8) profit. tremendously.

at this point, i actually think bush et al deserve great credit for managing not to openly laugh at the idiocy and weakness of the american citizenry. we suck -- no if's, and's or but's about it.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:48 AM on December 10, 2006 [7 favorites]


Move over Warren Harding

there's not much to derail here, so, let me point this out: why does Harding get so much shit, when his incompetence and corruption pale when compared to the damage Hoover (in the 20th Century) and Buchanan (in the 19th) managed to do to America?

and frankly, I'm sure future historians comparing the Teapot Dome scandal with the Iraq war corporate gangbang will be like, yay for Harding.
posted by matteo at 9:55 AM on December 10, 2006


Two years is a long time. Now that the Congress is held by the opposition party, there will be hearings.

Given what we already know about the various High Crimes of the Bush junta, I would not place money that more crimes won't emerge in the next two years - crimes that will either force his resignation, or that will force Congress to impeach him.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 9:58 AM on December 10, 2006


...when compared to the damage Hoover (in the 20th Century) and Buchanan (in the 19th) managed to do to America?

Well, I was thinking Buchanan, myself, to be sure, but used Harding so as not to be too arcane.
posted by y2karl at 10:06 AM on December 10, 2006


Simply getting hearings going will be the true prize. Impeachment will take care of itself.
posted by ao4047 at 10:06 AM on December 10, 2006


Meanwhile, Rep John Sweeney (Lame Duck-NY) sulks, and refuses to show up for votes.

I'm gonna miss the Party of Grownups.
posted by swell at 10:15 AM on December 10, 2006


Thank you lord_wolf, I was thinking the same thing.

But I think that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Dems haven't even warmed their butts on their new leadership chairs. There is still 2 years of hearings and reports that hopefully will have damn near every Republican and Neo-con squirming like the worms they are.

Sure, this is a vain attempt at a parting shot, but maybe, just maybe, this is the crest of a wave that can just barely be seen over the horizon. The tip of that wave will crash before it ever gets here, but the wave is on it's way, and no force that Bush Etc. can muster will hold it back.
When the pendulum swings back, it has the force of momentum.

Here's to hoping that the Dems can stem their own corruption long enough to cancel out much of what Bush has tried hard to steal.
posted by Balisong at 10:17 AM on December 10, 2006


What we have here is an elected representative fulfilling constitutional duty by proposing legislative action. It just confuses you guys because it so rarely happens these days.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:20 AM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


In other news, quonsar used capital letters.

Oh, he uses them a lot. Especially on specific days. He just doesn't mix cases. Blood and milk and all that.
posted by cortex at 10:40 AM on December 10, 2006


President Cheney? No thanks.
posted by diastematic at 10:48 AM on December 10, 2006


Ironically, the fact that McKinney introduced this bill makes it less likely that Bush will get impeached any time soon.

How so, monju? Is there a legal point here that would make it technically harder to introduce another later?

To be honest, I was thinking this is good theater for the Democrats. An outgoing member of the house considered on the fringe introduces a bill for impeachment. The Democrats as a whole show restraint and civility by ignoring it and repeating the assertion that "impeachment is off the table."

So down the road when the congressional investigations pull up some really dark crud, they can say "Wow. We really weren't going to do this, but I don't know how we can avoid it now...."
posted by namespan at 11:30 AM on December 10, 2006


problems with "Impeach Bush!!1111111!11"

1) he probably hasn't done anything impeachable. Congress authorized him to use force in any way he saw fit. A horrible, bi-partisan mistake. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Attempting it against any president who is simply disliked undermines are entire system of government permanently. (yeah yeah Clinton, but two wrongs dont make a right)

2) It makes a large segment of "middle of the road" America think (rightly so) that the people on the left proposing it are bitter, partisan nuts, and (not so rightly) gives them the same opinion of everyone on the left.

3) it's not going to happen. It's a waste of time and energy. meanwhile, nuclear material is sitting unsecured in former Soviet republics, just to name one real issue that desperately needs to be addressed.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:31 AM on December 10, 2006


"our entire system"
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:32 AM on December 10, 2006


How so, monju? Is there a legal point here that would make it technically harder to introduce another later?

No legal point, just political expediency. If Bush is really impeached, it will be after the new Democratic leadership conducted hearings, heard witnesses, and made findings. At that point, they could present a united front and a complete case for impeachment. McKinney isn't part of that new leadership, and as a lame duck Congresswoman, couldn't wait for hearings and committee fact-finding to play out. Instead, this is the last selfish flailing of a disgraced Congresswoman. If there's a vote on this bill, the Democrats will largely have to vote against it, making it harder for them to change course later even if hearings reveal more negative facts for Bush.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:44 AM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Ugh, ignore the mixed cases in my previous comments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:47 AM on December 10, 2006


This is simply an effort on the part of McKinney to generate a bit of publicity before she leaves town. Now she can cliam that she introduced a bill calling for impeachment (knowing full well that nothing would come of it). It bodes well for her career and/or speaking options down the line.

That people are actually debating this meaningless act on her part only helps her cause. McKinney is pulling a Pepsi Blue for herself.
posted by aladfar at 11:58 AM on December 10, 2006


How so, monju? Is there a legal point here that would make it technically harder to introduce another later?

I'm not a lawyer, but having lived in Atlanta for many years and being somewhat acquainted with Ms McKinney's career, I think the legal point would be that the congresswoman from Georgia is is an incompetent, race-baiting demogague and an embarassment to the Democratic party.
posted by three blind mice at 12:02 PM on December 10, 2006


> still sore about the thumping, jfuller, huh?

:) Bloodied, but unenlightened unbowed.
posted by jfuller at 12:03 PM on December 10, 2006


I'd look down my nose at these antics, and god knows Cynthia McKinney's a twit, but on the other hand, things are much better when our government spends its time in howling fights and powerful people have crap jobs, so I say Let's Get Ready To Rumble!

2, 4, 10, 20 more years!
posted by furiousthought at 12:40 PM on December 10, 2006


If Bush keeps clinging on to Iraq like Captain Ahab did to Moby Dick, the Republicans might impeach him to save themselves in 2008. Nixon resigned when he lost the support of the Republicans in the Senate and they told him he didn't have the votes to beat impeachment.

President Cheney? No thanks.

Step 1. Impeach Cheney.
Step 2. Impeach Bush.

Any Cheney replacement would be an improvement by default, since they would presumably be human.

why does Harding get so much shit
Middle name: Gamaliel
posted by kirkaracha at 12:42 PM on December 10, 2006


diastematic writes "President Cheney? No thanks."

oh, it would only make official what unofficially started 6 years ago.
posted by clevershark at 12:43 PM on December 10, 2006


If (or when) serious investigations begin against the Admin, (and oh boy what a stinking mountain of questionable executive branch malfeasance there is to wade through...phew), this parting shot ain't gonna make any difference either way.
posted by Skygazer at 12:43 PM on December 10, 2006


It's a bill? Can't he just veto it?
posted by tehloki at 1:43 PM on December 10, 2006


i don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that if the real investigations wait until bush is no longer president and if a democrat's president, we wouldn't have to fight the white house for evidence ... or impeach and convict him in congress ... but just get 12 people on a jury to agree that he's done something criminal

my guess? ... the dems are waiting until 2009 and then they'll let the courts do the dirty work for them while they shake their heads and wave their clean, clean hands in despair ...

at least, that would be MY strategy ... revenge being a dish best eaten cold ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:48 PM on December 10, 2006


Aw, hell, why now, and why McKinney for cryin' out loud? Even Charlie Rangel has more gravitas for controversial moves like this than she does.

Somebody upthread mentioned Clinton, and Congress' bipartisan complicity, and the hell of it is, lying under oath is a more immediately demonstrable and straightforward cause for impeachment than what this Administration's done with the legislative branch's collective blessing. Holding in abeyance, of course, the damage done to the US' foreign policy, to 650k Iraqis and nearly 3k US military personnel, as compared to that done to a blue dress.

I'd've preferred to see the new Congress to get established and wait to see which way the wind blows with the case against Rumsfeld before starting this ball rolling.
posted by pax digita at 3:07 PM on December 10, 2006


It's a spin thing. If and when the multiple investigations show up impeachable offenses, the front page war-type headline will read "So-called 'mainstream' Congressional Dems revive Cop-Slapper McKinney's Anti-Bush Plan". On page 13, at the bottom, "President trades California to Mexico for Handful of Beans and Fifth of Mescal, Dems cry Treason Again."
Tim Russert will put on his "serious journalist" face and say "Speaker Pelosi, how do you know that the President didn't think they were magic beans?
posted by swell at 4:14 PM on December 10, 2006 [2 favorites]


The grounds for impeachment have a lot more to do with violations of the 4th Amendment (FISA, illegal eavesdropping) and the nexus of issues around the Padilla case (an American citizens having his legal rights revoked for no reason) than with Iraq.

But I've been saying for a while now -- why impeach the best thing that's ever happened to the Democratic party? As incompetent and spineless as most of them are, two four-year doses of Bush W. is the only thing I can think of that would have given them back both the House and the Senate. Two more years of the guy? Two more years = Eight guaranteed years of a Dem POTUS, possibly, twelve, and another few decades of power in the House and probably the Senate.

The problem of course is that hundreds of people are dying daily for his mistakes and incompetence. As horrible as that reality is, I don't expect US domestic politics to get less venal overnight.

The Republican party has done a hell of a lot of damage to my country. It's going to take a while to repair even some of it, but two more years of Bush W. is two more years of rubbing their faces into their own shit-stains on the carpet.

And it's a real shame Feingold isn't running. I completely understand why (the Clinton-wing of the Democratic leadership would be harder on him than the Republicans), but it would be nice to see just about the only Dem with true convictions actually run for national office.
posted by bardic at 6:01 PM on December 10, 2006


Ann Richards always said the best way to get the Republicans out of office was to elect them.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:08 PM on December 10, 2006


why does Harding get so much shit

Interesting question. One theory I've not seen refuted puts the blame on a hatchet job by Bruce Bliven, quondam editor of the New Republic. From that all later mud allegedly flowed.

Shouldn't be too hard to dig for more, if you're interested. I mean to do so myself at some point.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:10 PM on December 10, 2006


What we have here is an elected representative fulfilling constitutional duty by proposing legislative action. It just confuses you guys because it so rarely happens these days.

thanks, cynthia, for having a spine. perhaps others will follow the example.
posted by eustatic at 8:27 PM on December 10, 2006


thanks, cynthia, for having a spine. perhaps others will follow the example.

It's called an ego, not a spine. She's an attention whore who's been voted out because of her attention whoring, so she's decided to use her last moments in Congress to draw attention to herself, shocker. Don't be fooled that she has any patriotic, courageous or altruistic motivations for any of this. It is pure and simple grandstanding. She's running for state legislature.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:10 PM on December 10, 2006


Spine? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Pollomacho is right, it's an ego, not a spine. "Don't touch me you lowly security guard. Don't realize I am an important congresswoman?"

I just noticed the title for this post "House trembles..." Oh, that is rich. More like House yawns.
posted by caddis at 10:19 PM on December 10, 2006


Attention whore? I checked the dictionary, and it said "See: politician".

I guess a congress person can't be colorful when both 'colored' and female. Oh well, we've got a long way still to go.

"It takes all kinds."
posted by Goofyy at 10:28 PM on December 10, 2006


She could be colored purple and still be an attention whore.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:04 PM on December 10, 2006



What we have here is an elected representative fulfilling constitutional duty by proposing legislative action. It just confuses you guys because it so rarely happens these days.


If by "legislative action" you mean simply to write up whatever will garner attention, calling it a "bill" and having no intention of it actually passing or even getting acted on, then I guess you have a point.


thanks, cynthia, for having a spine. perhaps others will follow the example.


I think you seriously need to take a look at her record before you jump to her defense. McKinney is notorious for *not* proposing legislative action and being unable to make progress on the things she did introduce. Her lack of any legislative record was a big part of the reelection campaign. Her time on the hill during her last term seems to have consisted totally of responding to her many gaffes and engaging in "hey-media-look-at-me" grandstanding events, not fulfilling any kind of legislative duty.


I guess a congress person can't be colorful when both 'colored' and female. Oh well, we've got a long way still to go.


Yup...a long way before dragging out the race card to trump legitimate criticism is seen for what it is.
posted by kjs3 at 4:58 AM on December 11, 2006


Like I said, she's a politician. What'd you expect? Did you read my post before you snarked?

It's interesting to note that Nancy Pelosi's constituency voted to impeach. Oh well, so much for representing those that send you to congress.

Funny how doing your sworn duty makes you an "attention whore" these days. That sounds, oh, I dunno, just so Rush Limbaugh or something.
posted by Goofyy at 5:03 AM on December 11, 2006


McKinney obviously went off her meds and faked the impeachment.
posted by tehloki at 5:15 AM on December 11, 2006


McKinney was a canary in a coal mine. A really big loud fucking canary that wouldn't just fall off its perch and die, but was a continuing reminder to the folk running the mine at the time that they had better keep the air pure.

But the mine has new owners now, so she isn't as needed, and she attracts the sort of criticism (as you can read in various comments above) that is not wanted by the Democratic Party leaders, who want middle America to see Democratic politicians as calm, efficient, middle-of-the-road folk who get things done, as distinct from the loony, divisive, McCarthyesque, impeachment-happy Republicans who arrived in 1994. Democrats want to win the next election, too, and they don't want McKinney to hurt the way people look at Clinton and Obama and others.

(Besides, McKinney has an interesting successor, Hank Johnson, who is also black and is one of two Buddhists elected to the US congress this year. I'm having trouble finding out where he stands on things, however, which I suppose could have been his strategy -- the I'm-not-McKinney strategy to attract voters who nonetheless wanted a black Democrat for their district -- but Washington does need better religious diversity.)
posted by pracowity at 5:22 AM on December 11, 2006


pracowity: I've read your comment twice, and I still am not grasping where you stand on McKinney. Are you saying she's not a goofy attention whore, but in reality a serious and thoughtful legislator who's been unfairly slimed by the evil media? I mean, I'm willing to consider the theory, but I want to make sure that's what you're saying.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 AM on December 11, 2006


The Democrats need to split into two parties: the New Republicans and the New Democrats.

The New Republicans will be the current conservative Democrats and current liberal and center Republicans (the looney right will be marginalized into a fuck-off party).

The New Democrats will be the current liberal Democrats and the various independent and Green parties.

America would then regain its center of balance and become a stable country once again. (It's currently off its meds and on a rampage.)
posted by five fresh fish at 5:26 PM on December 11, 2006




« Older The living is easy   |   Torture Inc. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments