Patterico's Pontifications

9/13/2010

September Surprise: Castle Voted to Impeach Bush!!!!!!! (Uh, Not Really)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:37 pm

[UPDATE 9-15-10: I see Mark Levin has once again called me a “jackass” — and once again, failed to address the facts or update his erroneous posts to correct his numerous factual errors. Details here.]

The last-minute slander on Mike Castle, a candidate for whom I feel zero affection, is that he voted to impeach Bush.

John Hinderaker shows why this is nonsense here.

Dan Riehl was pushing this crap for much of the day. He now has updates to his posts, that pretty much negate the entire substance of his posts.

I wonder if Dan is embarrassed to have jumped on a false slander of a Republican candidate, just because he didn’t like that candidate.

Riehl says it all may have started with Mark Levin: “I believe Mark Levin may have broken this on his show.”

Levin? Engaged in falsehoods? I refuse to believe it! (But then, I am a jackass and a moron, according to Mark Levin. So why listen to me?)

[UPDATE 9-15-10: Levin, in his trademark sneering style, implicitly denies Riehl’s charge. Hence, I am correcting Riehl’s mistake here. This is how it’s done, Mr. Levin: you correct the error in the original place where it was made.]

[UPDATE 9-16-10: Here is the audio where Levin talked about Castle voting to allow the impeachment resolution to go to the committee. Levin calls the vote “stunning.”]

As we head into tomorrow’s primary, let me quote the best post I read all day, from Michelle Malkin:

Guess what? You can be a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE,” a blogger behind a keyboard, a talk show host behind a mic, a prime-time TV host in front of a camera, a Beltway pundit, or a heartland Tea Party activist and come to different, good-faith conclusions about this race. I know people in both the Castle camp and the O’Donnell camp. I’m not going to deride or disown my friends in the blogosphere or anywhere else because we disagree. That’s, well, unhinged.

Everyone get a grip. Take a deep breath. Fight your best fight. Make your best arguments. Wait for the votes to be counted. Then march on and move forward.

Spoken like a true candy-ass RINO.

UPDATE: A commenter thinks I’m implying Michelle is supporting Castle. She isn’t. She’s supporting O’Donnell — whom she terms less than perfect, but better than Castle.

So what makes her a candy-ass RINO? Her acceptance of the notion that someone could support Castle and still be a conservative. Everyone knows Castle supporters aren’t true conservatives. Everyone, that is, but Michelle — who has this weird idea that conservatives should be able to disagree without calling each other names.

Consider this your Castle/O’Donnell open thread, you idiots.

75 Responses to “September Surprise: Castle Voted to Impeach Bush!!!!!!! (Uh, Not Really)”

  1. Smart girl. She is, of course, right about this. Must be a Libra thing. And she’s cute as a bug, too. Too bad that she’d already married. :(

    Icy Texan - who was born on the same day as Malkin (b356f2)

  2. And, hopefully, by “march on and move forward” she means that we should keep pushing the conservative cause; by both encouraging the Republican candidate to be conservative AND supporting said candidate against the Democrat in the general election.

    Icy Texan - who was actually born 5 years to the day BEFORE Malkin (2b7b29)

  3. i knew is was sweet, but i didn’t know it was candy….. lemme just try a nibble.

    OWWWW!

    she hit me….why’d she do that?

    8)

    moron in good standing (fb8750)

  4. I’ve been staying out of it. O’Donnell seems to me like a crazy bird and Castle like Scott Brown only not nearly as sexy. I think the purists are stupid, but I’m not going to over look something truly loathsome.

    Color me agreeing with the candy-ass RINO!

    Now, I’ll be heading out shortly to vote for Charles Lollar. I hope I can vote for him to replace that candy-ass American, Hoyer. spitspitspit.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  5. I have no problem with “fight like hell but back the winner” in most cases. However, I refuse to support a candidate of questionable ethics. Too many officeholders who passed close scrutiny turned out to be crooks anyway to support someone I can’t have any confidence in.

    I am flummoxed that so many of my friends on the right, people I once thought principled and reasonable, are so willing to endorse those of dubious ethics just because they fill out the survey form in the “right” way.

    Levin and Riehl have been overtly and aggressively duplicitous in this thing, especially Levin’s irrational and false attacks against you and Mirengoff, which to me is unforgivable – if he went off once, and later calmed down and apologized, fine, but he seems to have a new policy. I can no longer trust the man.

    Adjoran (ec6a4b)

  6. Riehl is a paid political hack just looking for future longshot clients … Levin wants to be the Tea Party Leader …
    Both are backing O’Donnell for the power and obviously have gone overboard …
    desperate people do desperate things …

    Jeff (fba88f)

  7. If this was all liberals, at least you could blame the grand journolist conspiracy of all that is against you.

    But since they’re on the right, of course there is no listserv or other way that these people discuss things.

    imdw (150cd7)

  8. Yes the clean toga, represented by Specter, Crist, Murkowski, and a few others that come to mind, always care about the party, until the moment that they don’t. Castle crossed the Rubicon with the Disclose Act, although cap n trade, was probablythe thing that put him on the Huntresss’s Radar,voting with SEIU on an increasing basis probably didn’t help thing either. But you’re not willing to defend those entrees to tyranny,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  9. My natural inclination would be to support O’Donnell, which is of course irrelevant because I live on the other side of the New Castle Arc.

    However, this dispute has taught me much about the integrity of various Conservatives. I come out of it far more suspicious of the tactics of those whose ideology closer matches my own.

    There is a difference between respectful disagreement and mudslinging demagoguery.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  10. It is a reasonable supposition that the Republicans who voted for HRes 1258 did so in order that Kucinich’s impeachment drive could die “a slow death.”

    Not voting for it would have helped even more, so that “reasonable supposition” does not strike me as very reasonable.

    Subotai (69764f)

  11. Levin is a conservative before he is a Republican. His position on Castle is consistent with this position. Last thing we need is another partner for Lindsay Graham.

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303

    OT:

    Terrorists can visit.

    Illegal Aliens can stay forever. Plus kids.

    People who make movies about killing Bush are OK. That is Art.

    But a 17 year old boy from England sends Propeller Head a nasty gram and he can’t ever visit the USA.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  13. all i can say is that i will be VERY glad when the day is over.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. Well, it’s pretty damn hilarious to observe the anti-O’Donnell forces suddenly deciding that mud-slinging is a bad thing.

    Spoken like a true candy-ass RINO.

    I fell compelled to point out that Malkin actually supports O’Donnell. And that this all started when the pro-Castle side started claiming that the pro-O’Donnell side were fools at best.

    You can be a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE,” a blogger behind a keyboard, a talk show host behind a mic, a prime-time TV host in front of a camera, a Beltway pundit, or a heartland Tea Party activist and come to different, good-faith conclusions about this race. I know people in both the Castle camp and the O’Donnell camp. I’m not going to deride or disown my friends in the blogosphere or anywhere else because we disagree. That’s, well, unhinged.

    Nothing wrong with that sentiment, but contrary to the way its being presented it’s coming from an anti-Castle person.

    So what is needed now is for some people on the anti-O’Donnell side to make the same gracious speech. Instead, P, you use it as an excuse for more snark.

    Subotai (69764f)

  15. So what is needed now is for some people on the anti-O’Donnell side to make the same gracious speech.

    I didn’t know the anti-O’Donnell people are saying you can’t be a true conservative and support O’Donnell. Duh.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  16. #5 “I am flummoxed that so many of my friends on the right, people I once thought principled and reasonable…”

    Really? Flummoxed rather easily, it seems, as Ms. Malkin also provides a laundry list of Castle’s political deviances, thus amply substantiating “principled and reasonable” disgust. And she doesn’t even mention Castle’s support for The DISCLOSE Act, one of the baldest and ugliest partisan assaults on political free speech in modern American history. In view of this vote alone I’d support a Sybil over a Castle, and would even consider a vote for Castle extremely unprincipled and unreasonable. Whatever O’Donnell’s peccadilloes, I’m fairly certain she’d vote (and as I see it, voting is really the key feature of the job) as a conservative. Imagine that?!

    rrpjr (addd48)

  17. So what is needed now is for some people on the anti-O’Donnell side to make the same gracious speech.

    The anti-O’Donnell people are saying you can’t be a true conservative if you support O’Donnell?

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  18. Pay attention to Subotai’s needs you jackasses, morons and idiots.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  19. If this was all liberals, at least you could blame the grand journolist conspiracy of all that is against you.

    If there was a “grand journolist conspiracy” on the right, we would not see these people disagreeing with one another in public.

    Subotai (69764f)

  20. Hmm…you know, there is something to be said about this Castle/O’Donnell debate that reminds me of Adherents of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. No matter what someone of the ‘other side’ says, it is instantly suspect and so totally wrong, you are gonna declare war on them, burn down their blog and ridicule/laugh at them while you whizz on the ashes.

    You know, I, for one, and getting just plain tired of this ‘debate’. O’Donnell’s supporters are the same as Castle’s; they are all people who want he best for the country. I am sick to death of the personal attacks, poo-flinging, and general idiocy.

    Grow up, all of you, there are bigger problems with the nation than determining who is the most righteous.

    MunDane68 (54a83b)

  21. So what is needed now is for some people on the anti-O’Donnell side to make the same gracious speech. Instead, P, you use it as an excuse for more snark.

    The factual inaccuracies, which is the main point of P’s posts, are all emanating from the O’Donnell supporters. Snark?

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  22. Comment by Icy Texan – who was born on the same day as Malkin — 9/14/2010 @ 12:38 am

    I’ll take Malkin seriously when she comes to realize why she has few, if any, friends in Big Media despite dutifully tossing every bad Republican in the garbage at the first sign of bad press. The stuff she’s said about Bad Republicans makes Joe Scarborough and David Brooks blanch.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  23. Subotai

    I think Pats sign off was just a piece of dark sarcasm highlighting the uselessness of empty namecalling in a debate of political ideologies

    or not

    given my negative accuracy rating among ome here feel free to disregard my interpretation of Pat’s intentional misintentionalism

    EPWJ the awash (17f94c)

  24. You think that “For you, that actually counts as a thoughtful and substantive comment” is “pure ad hominem”?

    Take a couple of deep breaths.

    [Yep. Attack on the person and not the argument. Foul called. -- P]

    Subotai (69764f)

  25. Will add my two cents.
    First, I’m a conservative Democrat (endangered species, I know) and a supporter of the Tea Party.

    Castle will lose because of his support of cap-and-trade. Simple as that. Mark Kirk might lose in IL to a mob banker for the same reason. This year, to voters like me, you are conservative or not conservative. Cap-and-trade is one of the big litmus tests. It IS that simple.
    Control of Congress is secondary, mostly cuz of the poor job the Rs did while in charge (drugs 4 seniors comes to mind).

    Also, Castle’s “not sure I can support her as a candidate” statements will likely cost him the general election. It will certainly keep my Del. friends at home.
    The Reagan coalition is out there waiting for someone to lead us out of the wilderness again. Violating Reagan’s 11th Commandment shows the true nature of Mike Castle. We will not follow him.

    Oh! And Levin has been that way for years. People usually only notice arrows when they are landing near them.

    Oh! Oh! We know she’s crazy. Crazy trumps all this year. I know its crazy. We are crazy mad. I don’t think anybody truly understands just how crazy mad we are.

    “Its CRAZY I tell you!”

    KobeClan (39eaf5)

  26. Subotai

    If you were referring to me, in comment 24 – it was not intended

    EPWJ the awash (17f94c)

  27. Rico, Rico, can’t we just get along?

    This, no matter who, when and where bearings are lost, isn’t about purity, but control going forward. It ain’t about 2010 or ’11, or even ’12, but thereafter.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  28. I’m a bit confused, Patterico. You write

    So what makes her a candy-ass RINO? Her acceptance of the notion that someone could support Castle and still be a conservative. Everyone knows Castle supporters aren’t true conservatives. Everyone, that is, but Michelle — who has this weird idea that conservatives should be able to disagree without calling each other names.

    Yet, you and the guys from Powerline have highlighted Levin’s personal smears, and deemed them unworthy of true debate, which is certainly true. Yet, you castigate Michelle? Was there perhaps some sarcasm behind that that I am missing?

    As far as it goes, I would prefer O’Donnell, but, Castle gives a better chance of winning. Not every state can be true Conservative. I’d rather win the seat and deal with a wishy washy Republican, than a Dem who will always vote against America’s best interests. Regardless, I’ll leave it up to the people of Delaware.

    William Teach (2d1bed)

  29. Wow, seems like a lot of folks’ sarcasm detectors are on the fritz today…

    Look, most of the Castle “supporters” in these conversation are not loving the guy – it’s just that they, like me, consider O’Donnell to be Un. E. Lect. A. Ble. It’s that simple.

    RC (f02884)

  30. Yet, you castigate Michelle? Was there perhaps some sarcasm behind that that I am missing?

    Irony, yes.

    Patterico (ba9baa)

  31. Sheesh, now even the pirates don’t get sarcasm? What’s the Spanish Main coming to?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. too much subtlety today

    quasimodo (4af144)

  33. OK, then. Just wanted to make sure.

    Sheesh, now even the pirates don’t get sarcasm? What’s the Spanish Main coming to?

    Too much grog over the last two days watching football and playing golf. Had Sunday and Monday off

    William Teach (2d1bed)

  34. What would have happened if the vote to refer Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee had failed?

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  35. If the Senate were genuinely in play, I would consider a Castle vote within bounds for a “true” conservative. I judge there is now way, Dick Morris to the contrary notwithstanding, that the GOP picks up a net of at least 10 seats.

    Therefore, a true conservative stand on the ground of casting out a non-believer. Castle is a squish too much of the time on crucial votes. Delaware is presented a very real opportunity, with far better odds than a takeover of the Senate as a whole, to elect a more true conservative in O’Donnell. This is not an occasion where such a vote would be a throwaway, such as when voting for a Libertarian candidate. O’Donnell is absolutely viable in this tea party environment – even in Delaware.

    Given that the practical considerations are not dispositive, a “true” conservative votes her/his conscience in this election, at this time.

    Ed from SFV (44a863)

  36. One extra RINO Senator makes no difference with Obama in the WH.

    Vote Castle out IMHO and let it be a lesson for future RINOs to not be.

    O’D losing makes no real difference but unfortunately most are saying “better Castle then a Dem” because of the Health Care Vote.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  37. I know its crazy. We are crazy mad. I don’t think anybody truly understands just how crazy mad we are.

    “Its CRAZY I tell you!”
    Comment by KobeClan — 9/14/2010 @ 7:00 am

    Great comment. I see delaware as the locus of a revulsion building for some time. It’s almost physical — a political peristaltic reaction. Rational political calculus such as “who is more electable”, etc., is not possible anymore, not here anyway; it is a casualty of too many betrayals and abuses for too long. The attempt to ram one more RINO down our throats for whatever sensible-sounding reasons, in the name of whatever logic or expedience, is triggering a gag reflex. It can’t be stopped or helped. This may be good or bad — we don’t quite know — but it just is.

    rrpjr (addd48)

  38. #38, Good analogy.

    Why support RINOs who sell you out on the most important types of legislation?

    Olympia Snowe’s support in sub-committe is what enabled the bill to be voted on in the Senate.

    She deserves no support b/c as always RINOs are more concerned over their Cocktail Party Invites on K Street then they are anything else.

    To me, sadly, you need a figurative bonfire and some bodies for it. Arnold, Castle, Snowe, Hagel … all of them need to go.

    By getting rid of the “Low Conservative IQ” Politicians we can fill the void with “High Conservative IQ” Politicians and slowly win elections with good candidates even if we do pick some duds.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  39. I don’t always agree with you Patterico, but you almost always strike the right tone. You’ve nailed it this week.

    WillOTP (c26337)

  40. Has Levin attacked Krauthammer yet? (and called him names in the process?).

    tbaugh (2b1f65)

  41. rfpjr, Rudyard Kipling’s true progeny. If McCain hadn’t miraculously(providentally) played the Palin card he’d have finished under 40%.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  42. As a variation on the “what if a Repblican said this or that outrageous thing” game… What if a Democratic candidate carried this kind of baggage into a campaign? C’mon, we’d be all over ‘em – at least I know I would.

    A serious political party should NOT consider her a serious candidate. We can, and must do better than this. Castle, twit though he is, probably did us a huge favor by getting this stuff out there before the Dems could trash her with it in the general.

    RC (f02884)

  43. == This year, to voters like me, you are conservative or not conservative….Cap-and-trade is one of the big litmus tests. It IS that simple.
    Control of Congress is secondary,==

    Today’s race in Del. and recently the races in a few other states–along with the intra-family feuds and “impassioned” defenses of various candidates– has been painful but instructive. It has caused many of us, I think, to dig deep and examine what we want to accomplish with our precious vote this cycle both in the primaries and general.

    For me, personally, and a lot of very good people I know who consider themselves conservatives, control of congress is NOT secondary. Changing control of congress–both houses– in January IS Job One.

    I hate C&T and detested the House Dems and the R’s who voted for C & T. I do understand that for many conservatives that vote was THE litmus test. I really do. But even then it was clear that Crap & Trade was flailing and known in Washington that the senate was not going to go along with the house bill. So, that was a symbolic House vote which ended up like hundreds of other symbolic “dead” votes congress has every session. And, it was always true that even if some weakened form of C&T eventually passed under the Dem majority it would be possible and relatively simple to to stop, dismantle, and defund it in future sessions.

    Healthcare was another matter entirely. That was the litmus test for many of us. And even the squish R’s passed the test with flying colors. Obamacare with its unconstitutional mandates, its taxation, its oversight by crazy people, its incursion into other areas that have nothing to do with medicine, is what is going to change the face of America, and our economy forever. It could have been stopped already with a few more Rs in the senate and it must be stopped in its tracks now before all the heinous new agencies and rules and mandates are implemented.

    I am praying that the R who can win in November in their state is the R who will win the primaries today–whoever that may be.

    elissa (1a8ec9)

  44. I hear this argument being made in a vacuum — this race is in DELAWARE, not Oklahoma. I very much doubt that any conservative would support Castle in a truly Red state. But this is the Land of the Blind, and the one-eyed man is King.

    Kevin (298030)

  45. The issue of who makes the best nominee, based on electability or policy, is a completely separate issue from honorable commentary about politics.

    Most people here want to weed out squishes in power, but we’re debating over the price in Democrat’s filling in. Reasonable people disagree.

    No one should disagree about this other issue of honor. People who are making up crap about Castle, and it’s really been one lie after another, this latest one nastier and far too late to repair the damage from, is a clear mark. I do not want a Daily KOS or Democratic Underground of the right. I don’t want crooks who support the conservative version of Rangel by lying and scamming the public as people are doing to Castle.

    We need to weed out the Levins and others lying about people’s positions. It’s as important as weeding out RINOs in power, because we can’t effectively analyze politicians when obvious crooks take advantage of dishonest pundits.

    It’s one thing to make embarrassing and attention grabbing comments, sarcastically, like Ann Coulter. It’s another to make up smears like Castle voting to impeach Bush.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. If O’Donnell wins the primary and loses the general, Levin et all will blame Powerline, Patterico, Krauthhammer, et al for giving the D’s talking points that the D’s supposed never would have figured out for themselves.

    tbaugh (2b1f65)

  47. tbaugh, I think you are right, and they will blame those people even while claiming that those people have no audience, nobody knows them, and nobody reads them.

    Which, if true, would mean the only way the general population would have known of the talking points is because Mark Levin, with the huge audience, brought them up on his show.

    If Levin thought Powerline was unknown, and thought revealing the facts was bad for O’Donnell, he wouldn’t have mentioned them.

    Charles (60406d)

  48. “If there was a “grand journolist conspiracy” on the right, we would not see these people disagreeing with one another in public.”

    Why? Would everyone be in it?

    imdw (017d51)

  49. Ace has a link up to some robocall by a former O’Donnell flunky. She says Christine is just in it for the money. Needless to say this is perceived as a dirty trick and a mean thing to do…but accusing Castle of trying to get Bush impeached is okay fine of course.

    Terrye (84455a)

  50. My guess is that O’Donnell does just about as terribly as she did in 2008. But yeah, the loss will be blamed on the evil RINOs.

    If it’s a contest as to who is the best conservative, demonstrated by who bashes the rest of the right, it’s, by design, a coalition breaker.

    Think Ross Perot. I have little doubt that whoever the GOP nominates will be at great risk to this strategy, which is probably Obama’s only hope at keeping power (at this point, the GOP could also run Congress, and the dems will be even more desperate). It’s one good reason to hope Palin or someone she backs wins the nomination.

    I’m tired of the argument that we should let the democrats own malaise policy. I expect to hear it again in 2012 and for my brain to boil away. The GOP ran congress for 12 years, with an average deficit of $104 billion (which is $104 billion too much). Frankly, I want all those RINOs back.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Best explanation I’ve seen comes from a book review by Leon Wolf of Megan McCain’s book in The New Ledger:

    I should say a word here about my own personal politics. While I am a conservative, I respect and understand the concept of coalition politics. In other words, I believe in the concept of hashing things out in the primaries between conservatives and moderates, and (with a few exceptions) voting for the lesser of two evils in the general. Sometimes you win the primaries, sometimes you lose, and there is almost never a benefit to taking your ball and going home. This year, conservatives get Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Joe Miller. Moderates get Carly Fiorina, Mark Kirk, and (probably) Mike Castle. I don’t know a lot of conservatives out there who are going to donate money to and/or vote for Barbara Boxer, Alexi Giannoulias or Chris Coons out of spite. The worst thing they will do is just pretend that the election doesn’t exist.

    By far the biggest problem the Republican coalition has right now is moderates who refuse to accept defeat at the hands of conservatives. Think Dede Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat in NY-23. Think Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter bailing the party and running against the Republican when it became clear that they would lose their primaries. Think Lincoln Chafee currently running as an independent for Governor of Rhode Island despite the NRSC spending millions to help him defeat a conservative in the primary. I defy Meghan McCain to identify a conservative candidate who acted or behaved in this way towards the party after a primary loss.

    Robert (9b1fdd)

  52. iamadimwith really is a nozzle of douche. That is all. Delete this if you must. It has never added one single solitary thing, even humor, to a single comment or thread. It decreases people’s IQs just by reading its drivel. And it is an anti-semite, and approves of JournoList.

    JD (fbd113)

  53. Crikey I thought we had gotten rid of Chaffee, they
    still haven’t learned a damn thing have they, I had forgotten that part of the review

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  54. joshua @ 35:

    What would have happened if the vote to refer Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee had failed?

    From the entry for Dennis Kucinich @ Wikipedia:

    On November 6, 2007, Kucinich used special parliamentary procedure and moved for a vote on impeaching the Vice President.[102] House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Pelosi opposed the measure and stood by previous comments that, “impeachment is not on our agenda,” and they initially moved to table the bill. When that attempt failed, Mr. Hoyer quickly moved to refer the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. That motion succeeded.

    From the entry for Efforts to Impeach George W. Bush @ Wikipedia:

    During the presidency of George W. Bush, several American politicians sought to either investigate Bush for allegedly impeachable offenses, or to bring actual impeachment charges on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment [1] against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.[2] The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25, where no further action was taken on it.[3]

    The Rules of the House provides that a bill is introduced into the House can be:

    a) tabled by vote of the House, but remains available to be brought back onto the agenda of the plenary House,

    b) referred to a standing committee by vote of the House,

    or

    c) put to an immediate vote.

    If c), the full text of the bill must first be read into the Congressional Record, unless the reading of it in full is waived by unanimous consent.

    If unanimous consent is not given, then before the vote, the sponsoring representative or his (her) delegate must read into the Congressional Record the full text of the bill, including each and every article, each of which was itemized to include details at the same level as one might expect from a criminal indictment.

    In 2007 when Rep. Kucinich moved his bill to impeach of V.P. Cheney, Democratic House leadership avoided that full reading by sponsoring a motion to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken on it. In 2008, when Rep. Kucinich moved his (and Rep. Wexlers) bill to impeach President Bush, Rep. Kucinich referred to that inaction and indicated that was why he opposed tabling the new bill. Democratic House leadership knew they did not have support for tabling or referring the bill, and Rep. Kucinich did not seek consent of the House to waiving the full reading. Then he proceeded to use up a good portion of the time of the House with that full reading.

    In between that first reading and the next (during which it was understood Rep. Kucinich intended to read it personally in full again), to avoid the second reading and progress towards a full vote, Democratic House leadership moved to refer the bill to committee, and that was the motion that succeeded in taking it off the House Orders list.

    It was a presidential election year, C-Span was as usual carrying gavel-to-gavel House proceedings, and a number of Republicans in Congress expressed concern that the repeated full reading of the bill might have an undue effect on the upcoming elections and effectively constituted a loophole to gain free campaign advertising.

    If the bill had not been referred to committee, every indication (including from Rep. Kucinich) is that it would have read it in full a second time just as Congress was going into the summer, followed by full debate and then in full again a third time once debate ended and it was put to a vote. Moreover, during the course of debate the sponsors could have opted for a full allocation of time on each article of impeachment, which would means not hours, but days, on each article, and weeks on the whole bill.

    That is what would have happened.

    shooter (32dc25)

  55. I don’t get the whole thing of wanting to constantly go RINO hunting. This is Delaware people. It is as if you are saying, that you do not want anyone in the Republican party who can actually win a general election in a state like Delaware, because if they can win such an election then they must be RINOs…hence we should strive to turn the Republican party into a regional party that retains permanent minority status. I am sure Obama would just love that idea. If conservatives want to win in a state like Delaware they have an obligation to run a candidate that can appeal to more than just conservatives. Try someone like Kudlow for heavens sakes, why just throw the state away?

    Terrye (7379d2)

  56. Some general observations:

    1. Mark Levin is an ass-hat. He’s often right on many issues, sometimes wrong on others, but always smug, abrasive and generally nasty. I can’t stand his show – it’s the antithesis of Ronald Reagan’s happy warrior. Did Levin learn anything from The Gipper? Mark has devolved into a bully? You know whose tactics he seems to be adopting? Charles Johnson.

    2. Dan Riehl has explained that Mark is his buddy or something. Awww. Isn’t that nice? So when Paul Mirengroff and Mark Levin get into a dustup, who jumps in? And, having waded into a political fight that is way over his head, who decided to hang make it a big deal that John Hindraker has jumped in. Or Patterico. Or Ace. And why not take a shot at Allah. Dan Riehl is a rah-rah guy. That’s it. He is the wormy guy that made friends with the bully and jumps on the back of anyone who questions the bully.

    Soylent Green (c5c03a)

  57. I agree with Soylent.

    Levin is a very smart man. For whatever reason, he thinks Michael Savage & Charles Johnson’s “debating” techniques are worth emulating. It’s a shame, because it gives people willing to be persuaded an excuse to turn him off.

    As for Riehl …. the Powerline guys aren’t sufficiently conservative????

    Well, we have some lovely parting gifts for you; thanks for playing.

    BD57 (f619d8)

  58. Caster was a joke, he’d have done better running as a Democrat. Glad Delaware got a little wiser in their choices.

    MisterB---who was actually born 58 days AFTER Malkin (f4dc4f)

  59. Who just linked me from Facebook?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  60. You got one thing right…you ARE a jackass and a moron.

    DXR (630797)

  61. That was quite enlightening, DXR. Thank you.

    JD (8ded14)

  62. Ah, I see. Levin called me a jackass again. And refused to confront the factual problems with his assertions — again.

    And attacked my competence at my job, again.

    This calls for another post.

    Did this guy really prosecute criminals in a courtroom? I’d have to see the proof. With this argument style, I can’t see a jury of 12 being convinced by ANYTHING he said.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  63. Wow. I’ve never read your stuff before, but you sound like a whiny little brat. Have you told mommy yet?

    Golfer in Chief (8145d6)

  64. Levin’s folks are really pleasant people.

    JD (8ded14)

  65. Did this guy really prosecute criminals in a courtroom? I’d have to see the proof. With this argument style, I can’t see a jury of 12 being convinced by ANYTHING he said.

    Patterico, he’s just tailoring his argument to his audience. He seems to be good at churning up outrage for people who are blindly loyal to “The Great One”. I don’t think it’s effective to bother with proof in that case. Makes more sense to just identify the target and go on a sweet riff of outrage.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  66. Let’s see… Trashing Conservatives who are no longer going to follow the lame electability meme, AND going head to head against a vastly more influential Conservative…

    Doesn’t make sense. But, whatever.

    RogerCotton (46c147)

  67. Where is this alleged trashing?

    JD (896f08)

  68. I listened to the audio. Levin said that his researcher provided him the House vote on HR 1258 sending the impeachment resolution to committee, and that the link indicated that Castle voted for it. Then he said, “We will link to this, you will determine on your own its accuracy and whether it matters to you.”

    That settles it for me: Levin did not equivocate. You ARE a jackass.

    Kyle (9f7e1f)

  69. Thank you for that mendoucheous bit of asshattery, Kyle. Now, run along …

    JD (8ded14)

  70. Give Levin’s troll-bots this much: they know how to use spell-check.

    Icy Texan (f486e9)

  71. Kyle, Castle stopped the impeachment from coming to a floor vote. that was the only impact of his vote. Those claiming this vote ‘allowed’ an investigation are either unaware of the fact that articles can be submitted to the house floor without permission, or didn’t care about this obvious reality (obvious because this is exactly what was about to happen to 1258).

    The manner in which the clowns smeared Castle with the impeachment story was extremely inaccurate, and extremely sloppy, because they knew it was a dirty trick on the eve of the election. Some people think the basic rules of honesty do not apply when you are RINO hunting. These people need to be exposed for the sake of the Tea Party movement, IMO.

    I already explained how it’s this lie about ‘allowing’ investigation, then about 90 seconds of reading the articles of impeachment, closed with “Castle voted for it”. It’s no surprise that so many people, including Levin’s best friends, started saying this was proof, and I quote, “Castle voted for impeachment.” It was just too sloppy and incorrect on the facts for the truth to come out.

    How come it was so offensive for Karl Rove to tell the truth about O’Donnell, with great clarity and directness, but it’s totally cool for Levin to be sloppy and inaccurate about Castle?

    Because Castle’s a RINO and we don’t have to treat him fair.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. How come it was so offensive for Karl Rove to tell the truth about O’Donnell, with great clarity and directness, but it’s totally cool for Levin to be sloppy and inaccurate about Castle?

    Is it because he’s gay?

    Whispers fron Unknown Campaign's Staff (b54cdc)

  73. Thank you a lot for giving everyone an extraordinarily marvellous opportunity to read from this web site. It is usually very ideal and also packed with a lot of fun for me and my office mates to search your blog at minimum 3 times a week to read the latest tips you will have. Not to mention, I’m also actually amazed concerning the superb advice you serve. Certain 1 points in this post are truly the most suitable I’ve had.

    Motorola H685 Bluetooth Headset (7a8aa1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3700 secs.