Sheehan to challenge Pelosi if no impeachment sought

[strandinthewind]

Thus, my point (emphasis supplied) :

Sen. Feingold proposes censuring Bush 21 minutes ago

Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

But Feingold's own party leader in the Senate showed little interest in the idea. An attempt in 2006 by Feingold to censure Bush over the warrantless spying program attracted only three co-sponsors.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions — measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.

The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney and perhaps other administration officials.

The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said. It would also ask for a reprimand of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and maybe others.

"This is an opportunity for people to say, let's at least reflect on the record that something terrible has happened here," said Feingold, D-Wis. "This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Feingold's proposals showed the nation's frustration. But Reid said he would not go along with them and said the Senate needs to focus on finishing spending bills on defense and homeland security.

"We have a lot of work to do," Reid said. "The president already has the mark of the American people — he's the worst president we ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

As for the Senate's top Republican, "I think it's safe to say Russ Feingold is not a fan of George Bush. I think that's the best way to sum that up," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Feingold spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press." Reid appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS, while McConnell was on "Late Edition" on CNN.


www.yahoo.com

[irishgrl]

I read that but I cant understand the Dem reluctance After all, Censure is not the same as Impeachment...Reid is a coward in my book.

If this is typical of Russ Feingold, I'd like to see him run for something higher up. soon.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

I just think that Pelosi and company have been a giant disappointment. That whole exercise last week in the all-night fillibuster on the war, knowing full well they didn't have the votes, not even within their own party was nothing but a bone they threw to the party-faithful. It was an empty gesture.

It wasn't Pelosi who did the filibustering, it was the Republicans forced into it by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I fell asleep to Olympia Snowe speaking and woke with my morning coffee to watch them take the final vote for cloture ( a term that refers to the senators going on record with a yes or no vote). The Dems got 52 votes and what it boiled down to was they needed 60. Four Republicans ( Snowe, Collins, Hagel and someone else I can't recall) actually had the balls to vote to invoke cloture. Senator Fuc...I mean Lieberman (former Dem, now Independent because of a primary loss to Democratic candidate Ned Lamont) voted no. What came next though, was the most interesting part. Reid tabled all bills that were to be voted on in upcoming sessions that had anything to do with the future funding of Bush's war. It was really a pretty cool thing to watch. So either the Republicans are going to have to go on record to their constituencies as supporting a war that at least 75% of Americans disagree with or just as they did with Vietnam, Congress will stop the war by simply refusing to fund it any further.
So really, what I'm trying to say is while it looked like grandstanding and the mainstream media was happy to report it as such, I didn't see it that way at all. I'm sure you're shocked by that.
With things heating up in the Harriet Miers deal and this going on, I think we can look forward to a very interesting session of Congress after the summer break.

[irishgrl]

Thanks for the heads up Chris. I dont watch tv so I dont stay up on that stuff, but Im interested nonetheless.

[gldstwmn]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b..._the_perplexed

Iraq and the Defense Bill: A Post-Mortem Guide for the Perplexed
By Spencer Ackerman | bio
So Harry Reid (D-NV) withdrew the defense authorization bill this morning after the Democrats weren't able to break the GOP filibuster.

The indignation spilled out across the aisle, with Republicans bemoaning Reid's all-night session as a political stunt, and Democrats warning the GOP that they'll pay a hefty political price for their obstruction.

But the whole mess remains complex. What actually just happened? What are the procedural and political nuances? What comes next for the Dems? Does yanking the Defense authorization bill have a prayer of forcing Republicans to stop blocking redeployment? Is this a political winner or loser for Dems in the long run?

To answer those questions, Election Central has put together a massive guide to what happened today that we hope will prove useful as a road map for following the debate as it unfolds over the coming weeks.

1. Procedurally, what's next for Reid? What various options does he have?

The problem for Reid right now is this: How can he get the Reed-Levin proposal on redeployment, his chosen way of ending the war, to a vote, now that it's been revealed yet again that the GOP has the votes necessary to block it? What legislative vehicles are available to him?

At the Dems' post-vote press conference, Reid said that he's "not tipping my mitt" by answering the question. But leadership staffers acknowledge that there are really only three courses of action open to Reid going forward:

A) Keep them attached to the defense authorization bill. Reid voted against the bill today in order to reserve the right to bring defense authorization to the floor again later. But obviously, as a senior leadership aide conceded to me, this course would just replay today's blocked cloture vote unless the GOP agreed not to block it again, which is an open question.

B) Attach the amendment to the upcoming defense appropriations bill, and reintroduce it that way. The GOP might filibuster again, and the same game would start. This time, each side would try and blame the other for blocking the year's half-trillion-dollars of Pentagon funding.

C) Introduce the amendment as a free-standing bill. This would be a potentially even tougher road to follow, because there's no larger Defense-funding measure to accuse Republicans of opposing. Furthermore, Democrats uncomfortable with a mandated timeline for redeployment, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, could balk for the same reason.

Reid indicated at the presser that the most likely vehicle for Levin-Reed is going to stay with the defense authorization. "There are two things that I want to accomplish," he said. "One is to pass a defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq."

While Reid may not want to be hemmed in by his statement, it's a fair indicator of his intent. Sticking with the defense authorization may be the best course politically for the Dems. That's because it has the political upshot of not tying the Dems' Iraq effort to a bill supplying actual money to the Pentagon, which would be the case with the Defense appropriations bill. And that means Dems won't be opened up to the charge that they're willing to defund the Pentagon in order to stop the war.

2. Will pulling the defense authorization bill really succeed in ratcheting up pressure on the GOP?

Reid, for one, thinks this is a virtual certainty. "It's a politically untenable position for the GOP," says the senior leadership aide. "They cannot possibly hold out much longer. A change is around the corner."

The thinking goes that the public, exhausted with the war and knowing that President Bush won't end it, is going to hold the GOP increasingly responsible for the war the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq. Reid thinks he's actually succeeded in darkening the GOP's political fortunes by yanking the defense authorization bill. That's because he thinks he'll also be able to blame the GOP for not just the continuation of the war, but for the total lack of Congressional action on it, which he thinks will further inflame voters and increase the pressure on Republicans even more.

There's a lot of post-hoc rationalization here. The Democrats gambled incorrectly that ten GOP Senators would be nervous enough in July about the war's cost that they would break with their leadership. It could similarly be the case that Reid is misjudging Republican tolerance for constituents' antiwar pressure, and that the August recess won't bring enough of a change to get more GOPers to break ranks by the time Petraeus throws his stars into the ring.

3. What will Reid do if the GOP continues to refuse up-or-down votes on the Iraq amendments?

Totally unclear. The leadership aide says he "won't speculate" on this question. But this is the ballgame: If the Democrats are incorrect about the level of public pressure that Republicans can withstand over the war, they won't have any additional mechanism to compel its end.

The other available options are far more extreme than the ones Dems have been willing to risk so far. After all, Democrats have so far rejected defunding the war, in order to avoid the charge of cutting funding for the troops in the midst of the fight. If the GOP is able to prevent defections even after the summer, then Democrats may find themselves with fewer legislative options to stop the war than they think.

4. What are the prospects for the Dems succeeding in breaking the GOP filibuster?

They're actually better now that the softer Iraq amendments can't get passed. That's yanking the bill rules out the introduction of other, nonbinding amendments that nervous Republicans were inclined to support. Without the option of supporting such amendments, Republicans can't plausibly claim to constituents to have done anything to stop the war. In turn, that increases the pressure on them to support the only available option left -- i.e., a binding measure mandating withdrawal, such as the one favored by Dems.

That's probably the real reason why Republicans are furious with Reid today for removing the bill and all its amendments. (Well, that and sleepiness.) Case in point: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). In his floor statement right after the cloture vote failed, a visibly angry Specter inveighed against the Senate's lack of debate on the most prominent GOP amendment -- John Warner and Richard Lugar's toothless proposal for Bush to submit a post-surge strategy to Congress after Petraeus's report. Specter, clearly, wanted the option of supporting Warner-Lugar, an option Reid has taken away.

As a result, when debate eventually resumes, Specter will have to choose between either staying with the surge or mandated redeployment. Even for a moderate GOP Senator not up for reelection next year, stark choices are not pleasant ones. Get ready to see more waverers -- though, as Greg has been pointing out, not all waverers actually vote their wavering consciences.

The wild card here for the WINOs is the September Petraeus report. No matter how nuanced a picture of Iraq Petraeus paints to Congress, the White House will use it as a rallying cry for continuing the war. How much support that can give to a GOP Senator whose constituents loudly hate the war is one of the big unknowns.

One thing that could conceivably cause more Republicans to defect, ironically, would be President Bush portraying Petraeus's report as more optimistic than it in reality. The same could happen if Petraeus's report itself is more optimistic than Iraq seems to warrant. Either of those could diminish whatever credibility on Petraeus' part the White House is out to exploit, leaving the GOP caucus set to fracture ahead of the next election.

5. Stop this equivocating! Who won?

The GOP won -- today, at least. Sen. Mitch McConnell prevented the crucial ten Republican defections. Much of the media is portraying the Democrats as either obstructionists -- which must rankle them, since they weren't the ones filibustering the defense bill -- or as losers. And since the Dems didn't break the filibuster, that last part is true enough.

Looking beyond the day's vote, however, reveals a more complicated picture. After the Democrats lost the Iraq battle over the supplemental appropriation in the spring and didn't launch another fight against the war, many on the left were disillusioned with the Democrats. Antiwar liberals appear much more energized now, so clearly today's events had one positive effect for Reid: It appeared to shore up his support on the left again.

More importantly, by raising the Iraq debate in the summer, the Democrats have created something of a public expectation that September is the beginning of the end for the war. Even Fred Barnes's summation piece for the Weekly Standard is titled "McConnell Holds The Line; At Least Until September." The benefit for the Democrats of the July push, even the unsuccessful one, has been to redefine the debate over the war.

By forcing the discussion now, Dems forced Republicans into the fall-back position of saying, "The war should begin to end not now, but in September." That means it will be tougher for Republicans to continue to back the war come September -- Petraeus report or no.

Two weeks ago, it was hardly clear that September would be the beginning of the end, as opposed to a potential rallying point for Republicans when Petraeus comes to Washington. But thanks to how the July debate unfolded, come September the GOP's victory today could look like a Pyrrhic one.

[Rickypt]

I am frustrated with the Democrats also, but some of this stuff has to be put in the context of reality. The biggest reality is you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. And you need 67 votes to be veto-proof.

The other reality is that it is going to take a bipartisan efforts to end this war. And just when a few Republican senators start speaking out about the need to end the war, Feingold does something really dumb and gets into a partisan fight over a useless "censure" measure. That is just going to unite the Republicans and will do nothing to end this war.

I really like Cindy Sheehan, and she gave a great interview on "Hardball" recently. But it is far easier for her to be an activist and do things like threaten to run against Pelosi than it is for Pelosi to hold together the Dems and bring in Republicans so that we can end the war.

Sheehan keeps talking about all these people who want to move to Pelosi's district to get her elected. I don't particularly want a bunch of carpetbaggers coming to my city to determine who represents me in Congress. San Francisco has plenty of antiwar people who already live here and understand the district. Sheehan should run for Congress in her own district.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Sheehan should run for Congress in her own district.

Who is the Congressperson is Sheehan's current district?

[Rickypt]

^^I don't know where Sheehan lives.

[DavidMn]

If I remember she lives near Sacramento. In that case her representative is a woman named Doris Matsui.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

If I remember she lives near Sacramento. In that case her representative is a woman named Doris Matsui.

Republican or Democrat?

[Rickypt]

^^Matsui is a Dem, as are almost all Northern California Dems. I understand why Sheehan wants to take on Pelosi rather than run for her own district's seat, but it doesn't sit well with me to have a bunch of people swoop into my city and use our congressional seat to make a national political statement. Sheehan should be organizing people around the country to run for Congress in their own districts on an antiwar platform.

Also, Sheehan made a bunch of noise about running against Feinstein for senate and never followed through. So I'm guessing much of this is just to put pressure on Pelosi, which is good.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

Sheehan arrested while calling for Bush, Cheney impeachmentStory Highlights
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan says she'll run against Speaker Pelosi

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.


Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan says "Impeachment is not a fringe movement."

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Michigan, chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."

Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.

Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.

"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.

Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Also, Sheehan made a bunch of noise about running against Feinstein for senate and never followed through.

I'd never heard that she was considering a run against DiFi. That would be futile. Running for the House of Representatives is one thing (and no cake walk) but running for the Senate is quite another.

[irishgrl]

and Sheehan already said she'd move to S.F. so then it WOULD be her district.

If Hilary (or is it Hillary?) can do it, so can Sheehan.

[Rickypt]

^^I didn't say she couldn't, I said I didn't like it.