You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
McKinney introduces bill to impeach Bush
2006-12-09
In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney announced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush. The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.

McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.

McKinney has made no secret of her frustration with Democratic leaders since voters ousted her from office in the Democratic primary this summer. In a speech Monday at George Washington University, she accused party leaders of cowing to Republicans on the war in Iraq and on military mistreatment of prisoners.
Cowing? LOL. Bye Cindy. Don't go away mad, just go away.
Posted by:Seafarious

#25  Meant to add, don't count McKinney out yet. She may be gone, but remember, she was gone for 2 years when Majette kicked her tail, only to return 2 years later. If she gets on the ticket again, I'm betting she'll win, just because it's "her" district.
Posted by: BA   2006-12-09 22:37  

#24  Good start at the list, and I agree with the banning of lobbying thingy being a HUGE good start.

The one I'd change would be #11 and #12. Mandatory voting is NOT freedom, and believe me, I've seen some folks who may be eligible, but should NOT vote in my mind. On this one, I likey Neal Boortz' idea...not only be of certain age (18), but you must pass a test on how our Federal Gov't(should) work, as outlined in the Constitution. That would get rid of all the scumbags who vote Donk just to enrich themselves through welfare, food stamps, etc.

On item #12, I agree with wxjames' take on it (in #22). Of course, IF you got rid of lobbying, that may well solve that issue. I'd actually prefer to go the route of requiring the Presidential nominees to have been Governor of some state. Think Reagan, Bush-II, et. al. and you'll see how having served as Governor, you bring the more Local/State take on things to the table. Of course, Billy Jeff Clinton was Governor too, so not all's well with that choice.
Posted by: BA   2006-12-09 22:36  

#23  Mike, first off, the legislature is where the money changes hands.

First off, the nyms Mick! Although I really don't care, I've been called worse than Mike. Second, go read the list again, pay attention to item #10 and #2. Hell, look at all of them again. I didn't say it would be perfect, just better than what we have now.

Also, before my plan would be put in place the existing lot would have already done the high jump, their replacements would understand what was expected of them. Or they'd get replaced as well. I want to see an end to the notion that "Career Politician" is a job title worthy of pursuit.

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-12-09 18:00  

#22  Mike, first off, the legislature is where the money changes hands. You want every presidential candidate to have served in the money changing closet at least 2 terms ? I say no terms. We need leaders, not legislation for sale, as we have today.
We have practically forced them to pass a bill to build a fence, and still they want to legislate more technical immigrants, via green card, and amnesty. They don't give a shit about what we want, they are being bought by business, and they are in no position to fail to deliver.
If this government really respected the will of the people, they would put plain language questions on the ballot asking about immigration, military action, social security, medicare, property rights, and a host of other issues.
They send around surveys, which are really intended to solicit funds, but they never put a serious question on the ballot. Why ?
You tell me.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-12-09 17:21  

#21  Where can I vote for #11's list of 12; er 13?
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-12-09 16:46  

#20  No lobbying except for citizens interested in the legislation to be passed.

All legislation should be reviewed by a panel of me.

You may lobby me.

National service for everyone.

Except for me.

Posted by: Shipman   2006-12-09 16:39  

#19  This one single change could assist the cause of good government more than nearly all the other alterations you suggest combined.

I know. And it is exactly because of Bubba Clinton and the whole China-gate debacle with commies sleeping in Lincoln's bedroom etc. etc. that I'd insist on item #2 alone if I couldn't get the rest of it.

I'd hang the lot of them, tomorrow, just to send a message to their replacements. Who knows, the jihadis get lucky and pop a nuke on our soil, we might just get the chance.

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-12-09 15:49  

#18  The final act of what may be a certifiable lunatic?
Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden   2006-12-09 15:42  

#17  Do away with virtually all forms of lobbying.

This one single change could assist the cause of good government more than nearly all the other alterations you suggest combined. The undue influence of special interests is literally poisoning this country.

Should you doubt this, simply examine the impact on domestic policy regarding communist China and Taiwan caused by campaign contributions from those who profit from low-cost Chinese imports and manufacturing.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-12-09 15:42  

#16  
Oh yeah, I forgot. Implement the above at the State and Local levels as well. It is WAY past time to put the service back into public service. What we have now are a bunch of ticks. Time for some sheep dip.

When you have someone (rich naturally) spending 10's of millions of their own money to run for an office that doesn't pay squat --according to you-- something is wrong. Being elected to a national office shouldn't be akin to winning the lottery.

I'd also limit the whole career bureaucrat thing as well. Think DoS and all the other idjits that screw this country over.

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-12-09 15:07  

#15  If your mechanism for change is simply 'throw the bums out' all you get is just more bums to take their place.

Possibly, possibly not. My prescription for change would be the following.

  1. Do away with all the gerrymandered districts.
  2. Do away with virtually all forms of lobbying.
  3. Define the qualifications necessary to serve in office.
  4. Require all Citizens (by birth) meeting those qualifications to register for service.
  5. Hold lotteries to select multiple candidates per party, per district.
  6. Hold primaries to winnow down to one individual per Party, per district.
  7. They go to the final election.
  8. Increase Representatives term to 3 years with a maximum of two terms.
  9. Decrease Senators terms to 4 years with a maximum of two terms.
  10. Mandatory death sentence for leakers and corrupt officials.
  11. Make it mandatory for ALL eligible voters to vote.
  12. No one would be eligible for consideration as a Presidential candidate unless they had served their two terms in either the House or the Senate.

It would be better than the disaster we have now.

Comments?

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-12-09 14:57  

#14  Right Mike. And the founding fathers never intended that the United States of America would maintain a large standing army. Reality makes shoulda, woulda, coulda a dead issue. If your mechanism for change is simply 'throw the bums out' all you get is just more bums to take their place.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2006-12-09 14:20  

#13  I was hoping some Congressional security person would give her a parting shot - in the chops! She certainly deserves it.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-09 14:14  

#12  All the whiners complain about the government, but what do you expect when you entice good people with crap in pay.

What the job lacks in pay the grifters more than make up for it in graft! Besides, serving ones country as a Statesmanperson was never meant to be professional pursuit.

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-12-09 13:21  

#11  Cynthia will be just fine. Surley she already has a job with one those 9/11 fact finding thingys. They will continue to refer to her as "Congresswoman McKinney" and prolly even present her with her very own brass name plate.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-12-09 11:36  

#10  If I was Cynthia, I'd be more concerned with setting up some well paying hack no show job now that I've been voted out of my well paying hack no show job.
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-09 11:17  

#9  Or at least Scoop Jackson Democrats and Neocons.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-09 11:09  

#8  Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush

That's the key piece of information in the article, as far as I'm concerned. The Kos Kiddies do not get yet another of their non-negotiables, and the White House won't have to waste time playing that stupid game. At the rate they're getting mugged by reality, the Democrat Congresscritters are going to end up Conservative!
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-09 11:09  

#7  You pay cheap, you get cheap.

All the whiners complain about the government, but what do you expect when you entice good people with crap in pay. Come on, you want them to manage a multi-trillion dollar international economy that is the engine of the world economy and pay pittance. No wonder you get the likes of this gal and her bribe stuffed refrigerator partners. Just like teachers, IÂ’m sure in that the one you have is good, itÂ’s just all the other ones are idiots. I donÂ’t care what the current crop of dodos is worth, what IÂ’m interested in doing is attracting a better crop of potential candidates. Notice that the military pays bonuses to attract and retain quality people. What a concept. 435 Reps, 100 Senators, 1 President, and just throw in 9 Justices of SCOTUS, that is a total of 545 people. A million a piece would only be 545 million, small by comparison to the amount of pork these current fellows turn out every year for contributions to their reelection funds. You think you might, just might actually get competent knowledgeable people above the usual selection of party hacks to try for the job?

You gets what you pays for.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2006-12-09 09:32  

#6  look for her at the local drive-thru
Don't put it in gear before you double-check your order and change.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-12-09 08:01  

#5  look for her at the local drive-thru - the bitch at the window with the attitude and room temp IQ. IIRC she has no real job quals...semi-inherited Billy's wacko-constituent seat
Posted by: Frank G   2006-12-09 05:55  

#4  Damn. Just when I had purged that from my memory. Who's got the citric acid and steel wool kit?
Posted by: gorb   2006-12-09 01:33  

#3  She's really not as smart as she looks.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-12-09 01:33  

#2  A parting shot...
Posted by: .com   2006-12-09 01:24  

#1  Don't let the door his yur arse on the way out, ya wacky bitch. An' don come back.
Posted by: SpecOp35   2006-12-09 00:46  

00:00