Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach Bush and Cheney: The Fein (v) Tomasky Debate

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Friday, January 25, 2008

Impeach Bush and Cheney: The Fein (v) Tomasky Debate

Impeach Bush and Cheney:

The Fein (v) Tomasky Debate

Post material introduction and links provided by friend, Virginian, Robert (Bob) Crowe, Alexandria, Virginia. {Thank You}

In this debate, Pelosi's political arguments are juxtaposed against constitutionally based legal reasoning. It clearly shows the short-sighted and unscrupulous nature of Pelosi's position.

The entire debate runs a little over 2 hours, but it's worth the time.

CARRBORO, N.C.: In the tradition of the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Coalition for the Constitution hosted a Debate on Impeachment between Republican Bruce Fein (pro-impeachment) and Democrat Michael Tomasky (anti-impeachment).

The Debate was held on January 15, 2008 at 7pm, at the Carrboro Century Center and was moderated by UNC Professor of Leadership and Public Policy, W. Hodding Carter III, and hosted by Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey.

Link to the debate video on the Coalition for the Constitution site:

You might find the picture and sound quality better at the

Guest Essay

by Al McSurely

"Republicans and Independents are more and more convinced that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed constitutional abuses that "rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution," said Al McSurely, of the North Carolina-based Coalition for the Constitution. "The latest poll, by the respected American Research Group, shows a major shift in the electorate from last summer. In July of 2007, just after President Bush pardoned Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby, only 13% of the Republicans polled said Bush should be impeached, and 17% said Cheney should be impeached. Only four months later, in mid-November, 30% said Bush's abuses of his power had risen to the level of impeachable offenses under the constitution, and 27% said Cheney's abuses were impeachable."

"The other striking change in the four months from July to November is that 3 out of 5 Independents now believe that Bush (60%) and Cheney (57%) have committed abuses of their powers that have risen to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Last July, Independents responded to a slightly different question saying that 50% favored starting impeachment proceedings against Bush, and 51% wanted to start the impeachment process against Cheney."

The opinions of Democratic voters have remained relatively stable over the four month period that included the summer political doldrums of July and August, and then then the September-October period when citizens begin to focus on the Presidential primaries. Republican candidates have damned with faint praise much of the Bush-Cheney abuses--and tried to position themselves as change agents or house-cleaners. Some have challenged the Bush-Cheney policies directly.

"Democratic leaders have tried to argue that charging Bush and Cheney with their Constitutional abuses would sidetrack the efforts of the Party to reverse some of the errors and crimes of the past seven years, and that may be reflected in the slight drop from 75% to 70%," McSurely said. "But the Constitution does not belong to the Democrats. The Constitution belongs to all patriotic Americans. And it is heartening that, in just four short months, the number of American voters--Republican, Democratic and Independent, has risen from 45% to 55% that firmly believe that President Bush has "abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. It disrespects our constitutional system to argue that 'impeachment is off the table.' The Constitution is the table."

The July and November Polls of the American Research Group can be viewed at

For more information on the Coalition for the Constitution, call

919-370-4065 or email

Questions? Email:
© 2007 Coalition for the Constitution - Privacy Statement

And What Did The Opponents Of Impeachment Have To Have?

MSM Still Pushing the 'Impeach Bush/Cheney' Idea

January 24th, 2008 (8 views )

-By Warner Todd Huston

A recent “news” report in the News & Observer from Raleigh, North Carolina is a perfect example of a pointless story with a predictable outcome all meant for the purpose of furthering a political end – in this case to promulgate the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney. Staff writer Cheryl Johnston gives us a report on a “debate” that occurred in Carrboro, NC in which impeachment was the topic. The story attempts to create an air that the issue was fairly and legitimately debated, yet no one at the so-called debate was actually against impeachment. Not only were all present basically for impeachment, but the event was also staged by an impeachment advocacy group and attended solely by impeachment fans. Some, debate. Then the article claims that “Few in the audience appeared persuaded” to turn against trying to impeach Bush and Cheney as if anyone was there to actually hear a real debate and weren’t there as impeachment activists already!

Johnston’s story begins by informing us that “Michael Tomasky had a tough gig Tuesday night in Carrboro.” She is referring to long time Washington “journalist” Michael Tomasky who didn’t argue against impeachment as much as that impeachment is merely impractical. He did not argue that impeachment was wrong, just that it isn’t going to happen so why bother to worry about it all? So much for the contrary position.

Tomasky is a long time leftie writer who penned the books Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America as well as Hillary’s Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign.

For the pro impeachment position, Tomasky faced Bruce Fein who is an impeachment advocate and lawyer. Fein is also a counsel for the Ron Paul campaign and a writer for Slate Magazine.

This supposed “debate” was put on by the Coalition for the Constitution who’s main purpose is seemingly to promote the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

So, the scene was set for an event put on by impeachment advocates, with guests that favor impeachment and attended by fans of impeachment. Yet, our intrepid staff writer of the News & Observer treats it all as if it was a real debate that sadly didn’t seem to change anyone’s mind.

Well, DUH!

After discussing the speakers at this impeachment rally, Johnston seems shocked that no one changed their minds.

Few in the audience appeared persuaded by Tomasky’s stance on the reality of the political situation.

“Not at all,” said Marcie Ferris as the debate wrapped up. “I think Americans have been so beaten down by this administration. It’s all this fear-mongering.”

Well, of course not. They all had their minds set in favor of impeachment before they even went to this “debate.” No one went there to hear the issues, they only went to figure out how to better advertise for impeachment as can be seen with this bit from the article…

Audience members asked Fein and Tomasky for ideas on how to get the American public more engaged in the impeachment topic. With many more Americans now tuned into the primaries, neither debater could come up with the golden ticket.

Johnston also quotes one of the event organizers who ridiculously claims that the debate had a “twist.”

Hodding Carter III, a UNC-Chapel Hill professor of leadership and public policy, moderated the event. He pointed out that the debate had a twist, with a Republican arguing for impeachment and a Democrat arguing against.

Is this supposed to make it seem as if things were “fair and balanced"? Let’s recall that the “Republican” in the debate has been a vocal pro impeachment guy all along and the “Democrat” in the debate was NOT arguing against impeachment, but only saying it was impractical. And, who could be surprised that a University professor was a ring leader for impeachment here?

This News & Observer article does not waste any time fully informing the reader that the whole “debate” was put on to further impeachment and was in no way a serious discussion on the merits of both the pro and con positions. Worse, there wasn’t even a single soul in attendance that was truly against impeachment. This article is a perfect example of a media outlet trying to assist this impeachment group to promote their ideas.

EmailPermalinkSend feedback

1 comment:

tonylearns said...

As a strong advocate for impeachment I must agree with almost everything Mr. Hudson wrote. There was no discussion of the issues that supporters of the president would present in such a debate.

I can think of a few which are similar to what Fein brought up in his initial argument. Terrorism is such an overriddding threat that the actions Bush has taken that are deemed impeachable are of small consequences and worth doing in order to protect the American people. That the United States, and in fact western civilization, faces the greatest danger in our history from Islamo-fascism

But he brings up none of those issues in his critique. In fact he provides not one substantive objection to any of the points made by either Tomansky or Fein. Why is that? I have read a number of conservative arguments against impeachment in the last few months and none of them had any substantive arguments either. I was actually shocked that W.F. Buckley's arguments in the National Review were that no serious politician has come out for impeachment and that in spite of the polls most Americans believe Bush is "a man of good will and very stout heart who is pursuing his duties as he sees them, a man, moreover, of conspicuous incorruptibility"

Since my view after studying this issue for a couple of years is that the case for impeachment is overwhelming on a vaiey of grounds, then the lack of substantive arguments against it lead me to the conclusion that there are no serious ones.

I then contend that the question is whether the threat to America as described by the neocons is accurate and if that threat warrants the egregious abuses and the attempt at restructuring the government that the administration has been involved in. Is there a valid case to be made that these threats require the unilateral rewriting of the constitution now, when it was not necessary during the war of 1812, the Civil War , WWll, and the cold War.

I can think of no better way to determine the answer to the question than to initiate impeachment hearings immediately