Do Democrats know we’re laughing AT them?

| November 9, 2007

While catching up with stuff, I read with interest the story on Rick Moran’s Right Wing Nut House about whacky Dennis Kucinich’s pandering to the Far Left Pro-defeat crowd by sponsoring impeachment articles against Dick Cheney;

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich expressed satisfaction Tuesday with a series of procedural twists on the House floor that resulted in the Ohio congressman’s impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney being sent for committee review.A series of strategic maneuvers on both sides of the partisan aisle ended with a 218-194 vote along party lines to deliver the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel of jurisdiction for such matters.

“This vote sends a message that the administration’s conduct in office is no longer unchallenged,” Kucinich said after the vote.

Yeah, that’s what it does, Den. I guess if he figures he can act crazier than Ron Paul he can raise $4 million in one day, too, just by tapping the raving lunatics constituency (Kucinich supporters sound exactly like the pauliens, too). Moran continues that it’s not really a victory for Kucinich as he’d like us to believe;

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. 

The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes to kill the resolution to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

“We’re going to help them out, to explain themselves,” said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. “We’re going to give them their day in court.”

So, Kucinich got his vote through because the Republicans are calling his bluff – to make him look foolish. Well, more foolish than he was looking last week as reported by The Gentle Cricket, anyway. 

Moran says it best, though (as usual);

The exquisite irony of watching Democrats fall all over themselves trying to kill impeachment after spending most of the last 7 years accusing Bush/Cheney of the most dire impeachable offenses was almost too delicious to watch. It showed the Democrats to be shallow political hacks, eager and capable of using rhetoric to undermine the presidency during a time of war but without the balls to match their actions to their words.

Well, that’s not the end of the story, by any means. DUmmie FUnnies trolls the depths of undrained swamps to bring us these nuggets as Mad Dennis leads the nation’s whackiest over the cliff;

“Dennis Kucinich just announced on the Ed Schultz show that John Conyers will hold hearings into the impeachment of Cheney. A full House vote yesterday would never have succeeded and would only have endangered red-state Democratic House members. But hearings could do the trick. I’ve been saying all along: Follow the Nixon impeachment playbook.”

“I hope its true, last I heard from Conyers was they were discussing it, and then Wexler came out for it. Maybe Conyers listened to him and us.”

“I doubt Articles of Impeachment will pass unless evidence of wrong doing is put forward and gathering that evidence seems to be not so easy. “ 

They’re cute when they’re at their koolaid drinking best, aren’t they? The “Nixon impeachment handbook”? What the Hell is that? Nixon was never impeached. Oh, and I’m sure Conyers is listening to you – it’s real apparent that he’s not listening to anyone with any common sense – that leaves you.

I doubt articles of impeachment will pass either – and my doubt has a lot to do with evidence, too. There is none – there’s only a bunch retards enamoured with the sound of their own voice and the echo they get from places like Democratic Underground.

But, it turns out there are even whackier people with whackier theories than on DU;

I propose a third, far more likely reason why the Democratic shmucks in congress won’t impeach Bush and Cheney.

Nancy Pelosi, an ardent zionist, was told that Cheney must remain exactly where he is because Bush simply can’t launch another war before he leaves office without him – he’s too f*cking stupid.

Conyers and the rest of them “won’t cross Pelosi,” not because they’re afraid of her sorry ass, but because they’re afraid of AIPAC, which will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares impede their insane plans to launch a war against Iran.

Of course, we all knew that somehow it was the joos. Still others see it as an opportunity for Ron Paul;

Once again, this is a commanding moment for Ron Paul in influencing the direction of the nation by joining with Democrats to look more sharply upon the deeds of the current administration.

Others don’t understand why Congress doesn’t bend to the will of 23% of Americans in a CNN poll.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Politics

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don Carl

They are too blinded by their various insanities to see us laughing at them.

robin

Hey Jonn and welcome Back! My fav was the DUmmie who demanded that Lynne Cheney be included
in the articles of impeachment. The level of intelligence underwhelms me!

Jonn wrote: Thanks, Robin. I missed that one, I was going cross-eyed reading that stuff.

klaus

Yes, how foolish can the Dems be? I mean, everyone knows you only impeach a president (or VP) when there’s no real basis for it. Like the Reps did to Clinton.

By no means should you ever impeach a pres (or VP) who’ve actually committed a number of heinous crimes. Why, that would make too much sense.

Jonn wrote: Welcome, klaus. Um, where is the evidence of these “heinous crimes”? The whacky unsupported posts on HuffPo and Daily Kos aren’t real evidence, by the way. The only crime here is the fact that Democrats are blinded by political utility and hyperbole.

10 hours later: Oh, sorry. I thought you had something you wanted to discuss – my bad. I should have known that having no evidence of malfeasance you were out of ammo.

klaus

Dude, don’t be ridiculous. Of course there’s no evidence, because there’s been no investigation. But lack of evidence didn’t stop the Reps from impeaching Clinton. So let’s have an investigation, one that lasts 5 or 6 years the way the Whitewater investigations did. Did you know that those investigations cost $77 million, vs about $10 million spent on 9/11? I bet you didn’t. The Reps thought that digging into every nook and cranny of Clinton’s private life was more important than what happened on 9/11. Why is that? And yet, after 6 years, the worst thing Ken Starr could uncover was Monica. Imagine what a 5-year investigation on 9/11 or the run-up to the Iraq war could uncover. Especially when Dick and the boys were holding meetings on Saddam in Jan of 2001 and couldn’t be bothered to follow up on “Osama determined to strike in the US.” So let’s investigate. I mean, Dick and George refused to tesitify under oath at the 9/11 hearings; Sounds like they’ve got a lot to hide. And, dude, you’re not the least bit interested in actual discussion. Anyone who’s defending Dick (the insurgency is in its last throes; Saddam was involved in 9/11; there’s no doubt that Saddam has an active nuclear program) Cheney at this late date has had his head stuck in the sand for the past 6 years. Nor do I have any illusions that I’m going to change your mind now. I’m not a miracle worker. I just want to make sure you know that the reality-based community isn’t buying what you’re selling. Jonn wrote: Um, if your “community” was indeed reality-based, you’d admit that Clinton lied under oath and lied to the American people (at least once) and didn’t deserve to be President. If there was a faint sniff of a scandal, the Democrats would be having hearings right now. And Cheney’s head in the sand is just stupid – in fact I just saw him today. You’re right though, I’m not interested in a discussion with some nimrod who knows my name is Jonn and still calls… Read more »

Cavebear

aka “Cavebear”. Hey, I’m a (usually) a Democrat and we mostly think Kucinich is a nut case too. Notice he isn’t getting much support? LOL!

Oh, and I might add that if Bill Clinton was rightfully impeached for getting a little blow job from an adult woman (and who hasn’t?), maybe ya’ll could consider that Bush Jr and Cheney might “just be” subject to war crimes… For, ya know, torture an that stuff like Nazi’s did?

Cavebear

Jonn wrote: If Kucinich is considered a nutjob by Democrats, why does he keep getting re-elected? Naw, he’s mainstream – just more vocal about it than candidates trying to attract votes from Middle America. He spills your populist beans.

And no matter how hard you try to make Clinton’s impeachment about sex, the law and the courts say differently. What torture? Please provide an iota of proof – and proof that it’s comparable to what the Nazis did. No hyperbole there, huh?