support impeachment with free dollars

We Americans have let our elected politicians get out of hand. I have not seen a politician out there who, maybe starting as a "do gooder", end up with much of any credibility. Screw the NAFTA highway. If China and Mexico want it, too bad. Even if they paid for the total project, America is doomed even further if this highway becomes reality.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/2008candidates

IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!

WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac

Great idea, Jeff Mack: stimulus towards impeachment.

I am offering part of my stimulus to Representative Robert Wexler to be applied towards new Google adwords linking to his Wexler Wants Hearings website.

Background:

Status of impeachment today: There is a United States Representative from Florida named Robert Wexler who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Wexler has a (slowly growing) list of persons who have put their names on the line as wanting V.P. Cheney impeachment hearings to actually begin someday [1], preferably before the inauguration of McCain or whomever, and certainly before Cheney, feeble of heart, decides to move on and out of the earthly paradise he and Bush have created. Rep Dennis Kucinich previously got into the House Judiciary Committee an actual resolution, (H. Res. 799 also called H. Res. 333) that contains articles of impeachment against V.P. Cheney and is co-sponsored by 26 other Representatives. Wexler is leading an effort in the Committee to begin hearings on those articles. Impeachment has gotten that far.

The next step: Hearings. The House Judiciary Committee of which Wexler is a member would oversee hearings during which the charges would be debated and discussed and defended. One possible result of hearings: Cheney has done nothing wrong. Another: He has committed impeachable offenses but the House isn't in the mood to actually impeach him. Another: Let's impeach him. Even the latter isn't necessarily a big deal. Bill Clinton was "impeached", stayed in office until the end of his elected term, and lived happily everafter - in fact, making about a hundred million bucks since leaving office and promoting his wife as a Presidential Candidate. So, if Dick Cheney is impeached, it doesn't mean his family will be destitute. Impeachment is not a felony. Soon (even if he were ultimately removed from office) Cheney would be able to return to the wealthy lifestyle to which he was accustomed prior to assuming his current office. Don't feel sorry for Dick Cheney.

If the House actually goes so far as to impeach, according to our Constitution, the ball is passed to the Senate which has to quickly make up its mind whether the person should really be removed from office. In the case of Clinton, the decision by the Senate was "No". In the case of a few Federal office holders since the founding of our country the decision was "Yes". Even being removed from office is not a felony. It is only: being removed from office. Everyone goes home to fight another day or live in splendorous retirement from proceeds of other endeavors.

Unfortunately, the House Judiciary Committee has a Chairman, Rep Conyers of Michigan, a Democrat, who does not want Cheney impeachment hearings to take place [4]. He apparently, in his position of Chairman, has the power to forbid hearings from taking place. Conyers actually was pro-impeachment until he became the Chairman of the Committee as a result of the Democratic Party taking control of the House in 2006; as soon as being given the power to have hearings, he reversed himself, going against hearings, impeachment and removal. (There seems to be another key player in the committee who is against impeachment hearings taking place: Rep Nadler of New York.) So there is this dilemma: millions of people - according to polls [3] - wanting impeachment or at least impeachment hearings but their congress, who they elected, refusing to do what their constituents want.

Wexler has not come out explicitly for impeachment as far as I know; his is a more moderate position: let impeachment hearings take place and then act, if necessary, on the results. Hearings are just hearings. They are just talking. They are asking basic questions and getting answers. Let's talk about it. Why can't we citizens of the United States at least have hearings? It seems such a small and reasonable thing to ask of our Congress.

Wexler's web site:

Rep Wexler has a web site on which people who are willing to lay their names on the line as being in favor of getting on with impeachment hearings may do so. In January he presented the list as it was then on the floor of the House as he called for hearings to begin. The site is linked to his re-election campaign website. He perhaps thinks being for hearings will be good for his re-election. That is fine. More power to him. But you don't have to worry about that. You don't have to give him a cent though you may want to and may do so. You can ignore everything except entering your name, address and email. (If you don't have email, there are other ways your name can be added.) The important thing is he is leading an effort in the House Judiciary Committee to begin hearings. The more people he has supporting him the more likely he will succeed [2].

We need to somehow let more people become aware of his effort and of his web site.

Stimulus for Google Sponsored Link:

I have decided to offer part of my stimulus, knowing it alone is insufficient, towards new and different Google adwords. For a long time now Wexler's office has had adwords "Cheney" and "impeachment" that bring up a link to his web site as a Google Sponsored Link when a person does a search using those specific words. Though they no doubt have brought in names, the current number of names added daily is very small, often around 20 or less people [6]. We appreciate his effort very much. Hopefully his budget will allow experimenting with at least a few new adwords from these or others in the same vein: foreclosure, mortgage, home loan, veteran, VA, stop-loss, wounded, casualties, disability, national guard, food stamps, LIHEAP, unemployment benefits, COBRA, homeless school children, Medicaid, medical insurance, bankruptcy, torture, Guantanamo, Abu ghraib, Mukassey, war crimes, social security, Medicare, recession [5].

If you have not already done so, please put your name down as being in favor of Cheney impeachment hearings finally getting started:

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

Notes:

1. Cheney first. The idea is that if Bush were impeached first, then Cheney who is less popular than Bush would become President. No thank you. Let it be someone else.

2. There are about 235,000 persons who have put their names on the line for impeachment hearings at Wexler's web site. This hasn't proven to be enough. When Nixon fired his Attorney General and the "Saturday Night Massecre" occurred, within a few days about 3 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS fired off letters, telegrams and telephone calls to the White House and Congress. In those days the population of our country was about 212 million; now it is about 300 million. Proportionally we may need 4.5 million people willing to put their names on the line for hearings to begin. Or we need such a high and stable daily rate it becomes clear that eventually a high figure will be reached.

3. A few polls have been carried out to see how many people actually are in favor of impeachment. According to the Nov 13, 2007, American Research Group poll, "(43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office." And that is before hearings even begin.

4. A strange thing about the Democratic leadership in the House being against impeachment hearings is that historically impeachment, even attempted impeachment, helps the party doing the impeaching. A couple of examples: There was an impeachment effort against Nixon by the Democrats - the Democratic Party won the next election. (Though President Nixon was never actually impeached, his impeachment hearings had gotten to the point where it was obvious that within a few days he would be. Rather than go through that, he resigned.) The Republicans impeached Clinton - and we got Bush in the following election. In other words, based on history, leading an impeachment effort at this time would be beneficial to the party in the coming election. Yet they are against it.

5. Thanks to yankhadenuf for adword suggestions.

6. Number of names added to Wexler's list by day, showing decline:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29666