Sigh, on the one hand, you say that Bush deserves to be impeached, but on the other, you claim that attempts to do so may have some 'unintended consequences' of which you're not quite sure, but could possibly hurt the chances of a Democrat getting elected. How can I ever get it through to you, it's meaningless to me to get a Democrat elected over a Republican. I'll vote for a Republican, Democrat, Green or whatever, if I think they have good ideas, and share similar values that I do. I'm not only not buying your argument that Gore would have been better than Bush, but I find completely worthless the feeble blame game played by Democrats who act like Bush is the third parties' fault. None of Nader's votes were Gore's votes, they were Nader's votes. Everyone who voted for Nader or some other third-party candidate can make the same type of absurd claim Democrats make by claiming that a vote for Gore was a vote for Bush. This kind of reasoning just makes you look foolish and like your lashing out looking for blame rather than taking responsibility for the weakness of your own candidates.
Congressman Kucinich still looks like a decent candidate to me, maybe I'll even vote for him, but that shouldn't stop me from asking him to rethink his view on impeachment. Like you say, he may not care a whit about what I think, but there are a lot us who feel
that if we don't pursue impeachment we will have let our country down and allowed a president to usurp his power, commit massive unnecessary murder, and systematically destroy precious civil liberties. The cause of electing a Democrat pales in comparison
to our duty to hold those accountable for their crimes.


p.s. All your yammering on about Robert Norse is inappropriate in this thread. Why don't you write your own opinion and post it rather than use others' posts to weasel digs in on Robert Norse.