Recall Petitions

» GeraldS_2 - Recalling Congressmen who violate their oath

We should commence circulation of petitions to recall congressmen who voted for impeachment on the grounds that they are endeavoring to overturn the will of the electorate by unseating a duly elected president.

It is apparent that the entire proceedings, beginning with the Paula Jones allegation has been carefully arranged for the sole purpose of defying the will of the people in choosing their leader.

A recall petition has a great advantage over an election because the petition can be carried to the signer rather than requiring the signer to "get to the polls".

If this is begun but does not succeed, at least it will demonstrate that "TWO CAN PLAY AT THIS IMPEACHMENT GAME!"

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» GeraldS_2 - More to the above

The intent of the framers of the constitution is quite clear in its desire that each of the three branches of government be totally independent of the other two. A rigged attempt to depose the president by the legislative branch is certainly contrary to the intention of the framers.

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» brianpopo - Expose them

I do not deplore the work of Larry Flynt to expose the hyprocrites. I hope he digs up as much dirt as possible.This process started because Ken Starr invaded President Clinton's privacy. The Republicans who support this witchhunt are just getting a taste of their own medicine. Maybe after this pathetic soap opera is finally over, these kind of tactics will be considered unacceptable and the privacy of politicians and ordinary citizens will be respected.

-- posted by brianpopo

Permalink Print Discussion

» EricViesturs - recall nonsense

Mr. Scheel

Your plea for a recall petition seems to ignore the fact that the founding fathers specifically included the impeachment process "to overturn the will of the electorate by unseating a duly elected president". What else did you think impeachment was intended to do?

-- posted by EricViesturs

Permalink Print Discussion

» GeraldS_2 - Eric

It is quite clear that impeachment is a method of unseating a government official (e.g. the President) who presents a threat to the security of the state or who would assume power exceeding that defined by the consitution.

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - Now that is a thought!

Boy, I sure hope that something like that actually happens, Gerald. Nothing would please me more (except ending free trade) than impeachment of Politicians- President or otherwise- for exceeding their Constitutional authourity.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion

» GeraldS_2 - Brian, Where have you been?

As much as I disagree with you relative to Pat Buchanan and a few other right wing, anti-labor, pro big business politicians, I must admit that I have missed you.

I do agree with you that Clinton does not represent the interests of the majority, however when one considers the alternatives he looks like a hero. The alternatives would include Kenneth Starr, Pat Robertson, oongressmen Hyde and Hutchinson, for example. How do you feel about these birds?

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - I jsut took a break

Hi, Gerry!

Things were a little quiet on the free trade/ internationalism front for awhile, so I took a break. I think things will heat up sometime this spring, so I am back. I sure was sorry to hear about Steve- I may have gotten mad at him from time to time, but I think he meant well, and sometimes (not very often) I agreed with him.

I am not sure what you mean by what do I think of the men you mentioned- they cannot all be pigeonholed inot one category. I don't have a big problem with Henry Hyde's record on abortion, but I don't know if he is a free trader. If he is, he is the enemy of working people, and that's all there is to it.

As for Pat Robertson,I don't have, and have not had, much use for him. I like and respect my allies on the Christian Right... except for their leaders. I blame the Christian Right ledership for Pat Buchanan not getting the 96 nomination. But that is just my opinion, and others will, I'm sure, disagree.

Why do you say Pat Buchanan is anti-labor? Who else is trying to keep industrial jobs in this country? I agree that Mr. Nader is doing his best, but the reality is, Pat Buchanan is the driving force behind the tarriff movement. I know many people in the UAW who think Pat Buchanan
is the best friend labor has.

You might have seen recently another breakthough for free traders- Levi's is moving a large amount of their jobs to low wage countries.
They even talked candidly about it, saying they had no choice if they wanted to compete. And Pat was the guy in the USA Today hammering the government policies that made this happen. Not Clinton, not Gore, not Bradley, but Pat.

What else can working men do, Gerry? Who else will help them? I am a nationalist conservative, so I vote for Pat for a number of reasons, but who else do the poor working stiffs have now, but him?
Mr. Gephardt, whom I would have certainly considered voting for, got out.

Think about this, all those who are frustrated at Pat's popularity- what else do you expect these men with 20 years service in the plants to do? They have families to feed, mortgages to make, and free trade doesn't do them a whole lot of good.

Is this the best you old-time (as opposed to the "new Democrats" who I say are the true enemies of working people) liberal democrats can do for your most loyal group that busts their backsides every election to get out the vote- just stand by and watch while their jobs disappear in a puff of internationalist smoke?

I assure you, we have an alternative with a good track record, and we will do all we can to stop those who want to turn our republic and the workers of the world into one vast dollar an hour enclave.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion