Jay Tea,

I smacked this pretentious moron around back in August here: http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/isou/archives/2005/08/hotel_guantanam.php#comments

Note that he wouldn't debate unless he controlled the turf. Why would anyone take him seriuosly?

Actually, that was a different pretentious moron (who happens to be a good friend of mine, but that's okay, I insult him for his positions, too). Today's pretentious moron is a guest blogger at ISOU (as I am on rare occasion, as one of a few non-Liberals who post there).

I'll leave it to Jay to discuss Tas (whoops, he's already done that).

As clarification (and to beat others to the punch), I'm identifying myself as both a guest poster at ISOU and a pretentious moron. :)

I've seen this kind of thing before on left blogs:

"start a conversation on what strategy the Democrats should implement to make the Plame Affiar truly into Bush's Watergate."

If Bush ever does something that truly warrants impeachment (which is unlikely), it won't be difficult to get 67 votes. And it won't require a strategy from the left.

But trying to twist and magnify every minor "scandal" in the media will never achieve the left's goal. Indeed if there were an impeachable offense by Pres. Bush, the public just might be resistant to believing it, thinking that it's just another Democratic Party display of hate against the administration.

Pat Buchanan also wants to impeach Bush--is he a liberal?

Not long ago Kerry said he was going to start impreachment proceedings against Bush. No word since.

I think John was in France at the time getting photographed with Lance Armstrong who had just won the Tour again. When he returned he noticed the US Constitution applied here.

I am reminded of Dr. S.I. Hayakawa's famous rejoinder to a plump young man's statement that his opinions "came from his gut feelings":

"I'd rather have opinions from my brain than what comes out of your gut." Perhaps I misquote, but you get the idea.

Boyd,

My hat is off to you, sir! Anyone who can laugh at themselves with that much gusto is not pretentious. I could use some work on that front myself.

So, I'm not pretentious, just a moron, right?

Not picking a fight, just been through three wives, so I've got extensive experience with the "does this make me look fat" type of question. :D

Uhm, Jay, brief reminder: Watergate started in the papers, then led to a Senate investigation. AFTER that investigation started is when the House impeacment proceedings began.

Nowhere in my post did I ever say that the Senate could impeach a president.

Learn to read. Toodles.

My favorite saying about liberal feeling and conservative thinking is one my aunt always says: "If you're not a liberal in your 20s, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by your 30s, you don't have a brain."

It was not only that Andrew Johnson was impeached, over the removal of some of the cabinet officers that were appointed by Abraham Lincoln; these were the most anti-Southern ones that he wanted to get rid of. Of course the Congress was made up of mostly Northern Democrats and Republicans that wanted their pound of flesh too. These people were not following the Constitution when they did this.

Tas, I missed where Jay said that you said the Senate could impeach a President. Please point out where he said that, so I can learn to read better, too.

Toodles.

My favorite saying about liberal feeling and conservative thinking is one my aunt always says: "If you're not a liberal in your 20s, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by your 30s, you don't have a brain."

Posted by: jc at October 3, 2005 09:27 PM

jc - I've heard of that one, but I've always heard it attributed to Winston Churchill (if memory serves, which at my age, probably doesn't).

Pat Buchanan also wants to impeach Bush--is he a liberal?

He ain't no conservative. The only people who seem to think he is, are the idiots at CNN who hired him for "Crossfire."

Liberals think that everyone who hurts the feeling of a monorty should take sensitivity classes or be givena 6 hour lecture about rasicism and what ever they come up with

This was my favorite line:

"I haven't heard the Democrats come together and say something to the effect of "We're the anti-corruption party in Washington"

LMAFAO!

I am not yet ready to call for the impeachment of George Bush because I am not convinced he is competent to stand trial.

I'll wait for the court and the court psychiatrist to decide.

tas,

Boyd is right. YOU appear to be the one who cannot read.

Jay Tea,

I can find people with conservative blogs/opinions that say things that are erroneous, misguided, deceptive, emotional, etc., and I can fail to report when people with liberal blogs/opinions do the same thing. Does that mean that "liberals think, conservatives feel"? Of course not. Even if I were to make a broad generalization of that kind, I would need some sort of corpus of evidence to compare "liberal" vs "conservative" blogs along various dimensions such as how often they present logical arguments, how often they present legitimate evidence in support of these arguments, if they fairly portray (or even address) the other side of the argument, etc. etc.

There are mistakes made by both sides, and there are emotional arguments put forth by both sides. Using a few mistakes made by one side to generalize an entire group is just plain illogical. With this kind of illogical post, you can use it to push a start a new "conservatives feel, liberals think" generalization.

JT makes a post which claims that I have no clue how the constitution of this country works, and what I glean from it is that he's saying that I think the Senate is able to impeach presidents. The reason why I think this is because a big part of my ISOU post (if anyone bothered to read it, which I doubt) explains how I think Senate Democrats need to start making planns to have the Plame matter investigated.

So if JT isn't implying (falsely, I might add) that I said the Senate could impeach a president, then what is he doing? What comparisan is he making? What's the point of his post? To point out that the House does impeachments and is currently led by a GOP majority -- crap that I already mentioned in my ISOU post?

I can't speak for Jay, but when I read your post, I got the impression that you believe that there's sufficient justification to impeach the President. That struck me as wishful thinking instead of considered opinion based on the facts.

I agree that your post doesn't indicate any misunderstanding about the impeachment and conviction process, but I think your visceral hatred of the President (similar to that of Clinton-haters from the past decade) has clouded your ability to to evaluate the facts.

Most people forget that Nixon was able to stay fairly clear of Watergate until the dreaded tapes surfaced. There was a lot of finger-pointing going on, but no solid evidence until that point. It was the tapes that forced Nixon's hand.

I would argue that "Plamegate" won't even come close to rising to that level. Sine Watergate, political operatives have learned to use "plausible deniability" to maximum advantage. If there was a conspiracy to leak Plame's name, I would guarantee that the President knew absolutely nothing about it. His staff would have kept that well-hidden. As for indictments, no matter how much the left hopes, I just don't see any indictments being handed down over this.

'Pat Buchanan also wants to impeach Bush--is he a liberal?'

No, just a dumbass.

The Bush-haters are going absolutely bonkers at this point, because by their count Bush should be the clink for each of the following:

1. Stealing the FL election and the coverup
2. Failing to stop 911 and the coverup
3. The "lies" of WMD and the coverup (see:Downing Street Memo)
4. The Abu Ghraib torture and coverup
5. Stealing the OH election and coverup
6. Katrina and the coverup

Somehow, the sheer volume of the accusations are equal in their minds to minimum burden of proof. They dont need an actual trial to know it. They cant figure out why the rest of America dont see it that way, but they're pretty sure it has something to do with Fox News. :)

Hey Jay
Are all you people forgetting what motivates W?
This is from Ron Suskind, NYT Oct, 04:

The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies --
from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and
Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years
when they requested explanations for many of the president's
decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts.
The president would say that he relied on his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to
guide the ship of state, and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro
Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that
has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the
secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This
evangelical group -- the core of the energetic ''base'' that may well
usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from
God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the
discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of
Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ''you can be
certain and be wrong.''

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -
connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more
on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith
illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common
knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound,
nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith
from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the
Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on
a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The New York Times Magazine: Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt" (October 17, 2004)

W is a man who, unfortunately for many, only has his gut to go on.

Hey Jay
Are all you people forgetting what motivates W?
This is from Ron Suskind, NYT Oct, 04:

The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies --
from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and
Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years
when they requested explanations for many of the president's
decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts.
The president would say that he relied on his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to
guide the ship of state, and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro
Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that
has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the
secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This
evangelical group -- the core of the energetic ''base'' that may well
usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from
God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the
discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of
Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ''you can be
certain and be wrong.''

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -
connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more
on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith
illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common
knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound,
nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith
from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the
Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on
a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The New York Times Magazine: Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt" (October 17, 2004)

W is a man who, unfortunately for many, only has his gut to go on.

Pardon the double.

Thank you for treating us to Mr. Suskind's gut reaction, Fran.

Here is the Liberal formula for Impeaching Bush. One part Florida 2000, One part Iraq War, Three part Lies, One part Ohio 2004, One part Cindy Sheehan, Two parts he takes long vacations, One part He's just so darn stupid, One part Valerie Plame, One part he knows Tom Delay, One part Hurricane Katrina, and One Kitchen sink. Mix it all together and the Democrats can have the White House back. I love watching Liberals wringing their hands.

To Mermaid:

Be careful, teddy-the-hut will pour in a 5th of scotch and...BOTTOMS UP!! No more impeachment.

McGehee

Bush has said he has "been fairly accused of being impatient" and has described himself as "not very analytical." Bush told Bob Woodward for the book "Bush at War" that he is "a gut player" who relies largely on his instinctive reactions to crises.

Found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45277-2004Aug29?language=printer

Even he describes himself as a gut player.

And thanks for your ability to research the truth about the man in charge.

The reporters being questioned were initially curious as to why a political hack like Wilson was given the assignment. THEY WERE DIGGING FOR A STORY. It wasn't a secret Plame was his wife. It wasn't a secret she worked at the CIA. The only possible secret here is that she was/still is undercover, WHICH WAS BLOWN BY FUCKING WILSON HIMSELF.

Now if you can explain how Wilson outing his wife to sell books is grounds to impeach Bush, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, STFU.

That's the jerkwad who called me a racist for opposing affirmative action. That was in the same comment thread where David Anderson told me that I couldn't have a valid opinion on affirmative action because I was wasn't black. Right ... and I'm the racist. They're morons, the both of them. C'mon... the Downing Street Memo as Bush's undoing? Their reading comprehension is laughable.

And so the cycle continues....
When Bill "Cigar" Clinton was Prezzy I remember hearing "not my president" "impeach Clinton" from the get go, even before the Monica 'sticky' mess got started.
Same ol
Same ol
the cycle continues...

I honestly don't see where I have any "visceral hatred" for Bush. As far as the case for impeachment goes, the Constitution is pretty clear: "...Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If someone from the White House leaked knowledge, with malicious intent, of Valarie Plame's identity to the press, that's a pretty high crime. Not only is intelligence compromised, but so is her life. And if Bush knew anything about this, then that makes him complict in a high crime.

Call this whatever you want, "visceral hate" or whatever, but them's the facts.

Your latest comments define you better than you know, tas.

1) You don't even recognize how your actions (well, statements) illustrate your "visceral hatred."

2) Consequently, your "visceral hatred" causes you to construe suppositions, accusations, rumors and (potentially) lies into "facts."

I really get a kick out of how you go to Loaded Mouth just to get a rise out of tas. Then you compare liberals to conservatives based upon one post that tas has written. And then pretty much talk down to everyone about how you know so much about the articles of impeachment, when you obviously had to Google it yourself.

And people should take you seriously, why?

Why don't you just listen to Rush and agree with everything he says? It would be much easier for you and probably more entertaining for everyone else.

Mixter

Tas very clearly said "IF someone from the White House leaked knowledge, with malicious intent, of Valarie Plame's identity to the press, that's a pretty high crime..."
Clearly this implies that there is some doubt, and when he said "thems the facts" he was obviously reffering to a hypothetical situation where, IF a high crime has been committed (and there is achance that one has, you have to admit that) THEN Bush could face impeachment. Now it's extraordinarily unlikely that this eventuality plays out, but I fail to see why this reasoned thought experiment shows that Tas has a "visceral hatred" for the President. So come on Boyd explain what you actually meant.

"Reasoned thought experiement??"

Go read tas's blogs. What is the theme in each of them? What is nearly every post about? He's all about bashing Bush and hoping there's truth behind every unsubstantiated rumor that catches his ear. He's about taking all the "ifs" and treating each one as foregone conclusions. Hes about wondering why some of the more responsible members of the media do not join his hysteria and publish more rumor and innuendo. He's about criticizing the more responsible members of the Democratic party for not piling on every non-issue. There must be some serious dislike of Bush, to say the least.

Who is tas? The following excerpts from his bio confirm he's an uneducated extremist brat who couldn't understand the issues if he tried:

"Adam Dupont plays the role of "tas" here on Loaded Mouth. He is a 27 year old writer currently residing in Rhode Island, though that's probably not going to last for long. Not yet wielding a degree in anything, he's searching for a location where he can get one good and cheap."

"Politically speaking, Mr. Dupont is pretty out there. He was formerly a member/token young person of the Rhode Island State Green Party's Coordinating Committee, and voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 before holding his nose for Kerry last year. He's no longer involved with the Green Party, though during his period of emulating Kermit, he was thrilled to have the opportunity to speak in front of 800 people at the University of Rhode Island. (For a hemp rally.)"

"When he's not blogging, Mr. Dupont dreams of the day when he'll again grace the stage of some small bar playing drums for another speed metal/power violence band."

Puh-leeze! It's not like tas just dropped out of the sky, and has written a single blog entry, nor has the same just happened to me on the reading end. If you haven't been reading his posts, then you have no basis from which to draw any conclusions about his writing. Go read Loaded Mouth and come back and try to support your claim.

And regarding the "factual" nature of tas's last comment, it must be my problem, because I can't abide someone touting speculation (y'know, "if") and then top it all off with "them's the facts." If you want to follow your hyper-convoluted logic to get there, more power to you. Just don't start saying you're part of the "reality-based community," 'kay?

Boyd,
You were not refering to his previous poosts, you say quite clearly that his latest comments define his visceral hatred. So boyd, simple question, where's the beef? Where in his last post,does exhibit this visceral hatred." Admit it, you just tried to shout him down without addressing the substance of what he said. You sound like a knee-jerk ideologue, not a "thinking conservative" to me.

Sorry poor proof-reading.

That should read "...you say quite clearly that his latest comments define him..."

"You were not refering to his previous poosts, you say quite clearly that his latest comments define his visceral hatred."

Okay, if that's what you believe, let's go back and read what I said:

"I agree that your post doesn't indicate any misunderstanding about the impeachment and conviction process, but I think your visceral hatred of the President (similar to that of Clinton-haters from the past decade) has clouded your ability to to evaluate the facts."

Please pay attention, and it would behoove you to actually read and try to understand what someone has written before you try to take them to task over it.

Or, alternatively, if you're going to lie about something, you shouldn't do it where the evidence of your lie is right there on the same page.

Take your pick: poor reader, or liar. Doesn't matter to me.

I have been loyal to Bush and the republican party for years now. But I cant carry the water on this one.

By listening to the Republican talking points today we now know that Bush's scottish terrier is qualified to serve on the supreme court.

a. He is probably conservative but we dont know since there is no paper trail.

b. He is extremely loyal to Bush.

I was going to suggest Barbara or Jenna instead of the scotch terrier.

Then we could wonder about what is really being worn beneath the robes.

urghh,

I would demand that we get a peek under those robes.

Now what the fuck does this have to do with impeachment over Plame?

Hi All,

Others have commented on Buchanan, but I thought that I would toss my two cents in also. He is a nut who is disowned by conservatives generally. Some of out best conservatives were liberals (or worse) at some time. Although I doubt that people could prove that it happens often, some conservatives go nuts. The ebb and flow is generally going towards people realizing that the conservative viewpoint is more sensible, especially now when liberals are acting so crazy.

I am totally tired of the implication or outright declaration that Bush is a moron. Most who make the claim did not go to Yale (and had no prayer of getting in). Most did not get an advanced degree from Harvard. Most Democrats can't make the case that they are smarter than Bush, no matter what their deeply held feelings are. It is simply a fact that most Democrats are not even close to Bush in intellect or educational background, but will that logic shut them up? Of course it won't.

Mike