Guys, even your "golden boy" Kucinich has said it's a waste of time and will only make matters worse without achieving a SINGLE goal! Yet you still persist in unrealistic goals, and then get mad even at the person to whom you look for guidance from above! I wonder if common sense will ever prevail in this town?
If Barbara Lee, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Media Benjamin, et al came out and said it was a bad idea, would you still push it as a good idea?

Sometimes we have to choose our battles, and it is clear from all sides that this is not one to choose, that's all.

Jerry, other than quoting other authorities, can you tell us why is pressing for articles of impeachment a bad idea?

Golden Boy? Where did you get that idea? And where did you get that I or we or whoever was mad at Kucinich? If you meant my remark about Democrats' usual excuse for inaction rearing its ugly head, I didn't mean to express anger so much as frustration, or general weariness of the same thing that Democrats typically use to try and suck us into voting for them. I'm certainly not angry with Dennis Kucinich, for a Democrat, he looks pretty good and he could even earn my vote. But since he's a Democrat I think he needs help and shielding from slipping into that horrible Democrat habit of compromising away vital issues until they melt into some kind of mish-mosh of luke warm actions that some political strategist has deemed okay and won't hurt electability. Gee, let's give the electorate some nebulous plans about educating the children, protecting the elderly and the environment, keeping everyone healthy, and putting a chicken in every pot.
In the case of impeachment, I feel its imperative to pursue. Regarding your question about whether I would still 'push' it as a good idea if every 'liberal' came out and said it was a bad idea, well yes, I hope I would have that courage of conviction that I want my leaders to have, but the truth is, I want more from my leaders than I'm sure that I could live up to myself. But you're certainly right that if I was alone in thinking it was a bad idea, it would give me great pause, and it would be very hard to continue to push it. Luckily, that isn't the case, many smart people have actually looked at the merits and realize how strong the case against Bush & Co really is and have contributed their time and effort into building articles of impeachment. I don't think they're perfect and could possibly be improved by being even more narrowly defined, but the work that has gone into them is certainly compelling.
I would be happy to hear a good reason not to pursue impeachment. So far, I've already stated why the ones I've heard from Congressman Kucinich aren't convincing, but I'm open to being convinced. But don't bother preaching at me if you haven't read the articles for impeachment and decided for yourself why impeachment isn't important. When you do, let me know what you think.

Bobby

p.s. Another important document to read is the PNAC report
Rebuilding America's Defenses -written in September of 2000.
This document will give you the background in order to understand the nature and motives behind Bush & Co.'s crimes.

No doubt, Bush and his administration deserve to be removed from office and in jail. Let's not make a mistake about how I feel on that. However, the basic concept is that the process is not legal, it's political. Articles of impeachment are heard through a political process, and anyone who studied the process with Clinton can tell you this for sure. In his case, what started as an investigation into a real estate deal 20 years before turned into impeachment over what he said to cover up oral sex. However, because the GOP is so hateful and politically violent, they had been trying for years to destroy him and take him down on any count, and they took what they could get.
Guess what- these people are still running Congress (and, I might add, no thanks to people like you who worked hard to NOT elect Democrats to Congress). Do you think they'll take their hate-tactics to their own president? It is as simple as that. Nothing would happen at all, except a press conference that may or not be attended and reported on, or the exact opposite and the leadership in the GOP would hang every Democrat (or, in Sanders' case, Independent) out to dry and would work to get them voted out of office. Which would leave us (and yes, that means you guys too) with a GOP congressman and an even larger majority in legislatures, so they have to listen even less to any moderation of their right-wing agenda.

So, yes, in the short term, maybe the articles of impeachment would raise a few eyebrows. And I do not mean to denigrate the motives or people behind crafting them, because they are certainly deserved. I am just trying to help raise the long-term effects of such actions, and how what seems like a great idea at the time may bring conclusions that are the exact opposite of what you want (for instance, supporting Nader for president and getting Bush). No matter what you may say about Democrats-- and by the way, why do you think he even cares what you guys say when you never vote for him anyway?-- the reality is that there are worse evils out there, and your dogmatic agenda of impeachement may bring that to light.

This is what Kucinich was trying to say. That even though it may have its merits prima facia, in fact it would cause far worse outcomes for everyone. So, why not try for a little more realistic action that actually does something? That's always been my message here- that this group of people, while I respect your passion, haven't done anything to change what you have set out to change. For instance, Robert- can you point to one true "success" in your years of occupation here in Santa Cruz? When will you realize that your tactics are tired and useless and do not accomplish anything? The reason is that you keep focusing on the sleeping ban. Guess what- most people don't want other people sleeping in their front yards. Remember when the ban was temporarily lifted? Remember how the people you champion represented themselves so well that they decided to urinate and deficate on people's lawns while they slept in front of them? How needles and alcohol bottles were found all round these campsites? Well, surprise- people who actually pay taxes and contribute to this community weren't too happy with that. Why not, for instance, work with the Homeless Resource Center, the Page Smith house and others towards a SOLUTION, one that everyone can agree on? I still haven't seen a viable, workable, realistic position on the local homeless position from you, which is why you have largely failed in doing anything in this town. Doesn't that bother you? That's why I poke fun at your enormous ego, because that seems to be the only reason you do what you do.

The reason I used "other authorities" is because they seem to be the people who can't do anything wrong in your book, Robert. What I was hoping was that someone who you seem to trust with every decision was also saying that it was a bad idea would resinate with you all. Apparently not. Morals and scruples are good, don't get me wrong. But blindly going and charging for everything isn't always the best idea (hence the "what good have you done" discussion). Sometimes strategy works, too.

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.

*Sigh* I guess it never crosses your mind why no one other than a major party candidate has ever won a seat here locally. Maybe because the unrealistic issues you push are just that-- unrealistic. I thought that maybe a thorough, intructive statement about why there has been no meaningful change towards any leftist side (including Robert Norse, who happens to b e lightening rod and major contributor to this page, so if you don't like my bashing of his trustafarian roots get over it and move on-- did you know that he is the son of very wealthy people trying to "speak" for homeless?) in the country would make sense, but since it doesn't then good luck. No, this isn't Dems versus Reps, it's people with realistic goals versus those who wish that candy flowed from springs. In between, however, there is the realistic world. I know that many of you don't wish to face it but you are the minority IN THE COUNTRY. Sorry if this is news, but it is the truth. So, when someone who is normally at the fringe of US politics says "impeachment is not the way to go", maybe you should take up other tactics, like making sure he doesn't win a second term.

I'd love to live in your nice little rent-controlled part of the world where what you believe really comes true, and if you wish hard enough then Bush will not be president. But how about working to ensure that he is not elected to a second term? That's what I was saying last time- I don't BLAME the greens for electing Bush (although that should be on their minds) but everyone who is decrying his policies should join with those (like the local Dems) whoa re trying to ensure that he doesn't get a second term. All this worthless hootin' and hollerin' about impeachment is wasted energy. You can wish all you want, but it won't come true.

Hey, I want everyone to have adequate food. If I protest against the metro transit board, will it happen? No. That's the rediculousness of your arguments put in a different light.

And Robert Norse deserves all the criticism in the world. Just because you don't have the balls top call his bs like the rest of us doesn't mean he isn't the most unfortunate thing to happen to Santa Cruz since his parents paid him off to leave Carmel.