The "O" and Joe Show!

Now that his "O" ness has selected his Robin to be his sidekick for his version of "The Dark Night" (let's call it the dark presidency), it's time to dissect the pick. I think, to be honest, that the general consensus is that this was a good pick by the "O" man. He could have done better from a pure political standpoint (Sam Nunn anyone?), but he could have done a lot worse as well. (Hillary anyone?)

And folks, let's not get it twisted; the field doesn't think the "O" man could win these elections if he had selected Abe Lincoln himself to be his running mate. But selecting Biden won't let the beating he is going to get any worse.

So anyway, let's take a look at the pros and cons of a Biden pick, shall we?

PRO: He is a white male.

CON: He is a white male from a very Northern state.

PRO: He has a great personal story.

CON: His running mate already has a great personal story.

PRO: He is a glib passionate speaker, who speaks his mind and will do well in the debates.

CON: He is a glib passionate speaker, whose mouth might get him in trouble. It has before.

PRO: He has great foreign policy credentials, and has the fact that he is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee on his resume.

CON: He has great foreign policy credentials, and the "O" man picking him will seem like he is trying to cover up one of his weak areas, foreign policy.

PRO: He is not Hillary.

CON: He is not Hillary, and her peeps won't like it. Get ready Denver.

PRO: He is from Delaware, and that will help him with the Southeastern part of Pistolvania and the Philly suburbs.

CON: He is from Delaware. A very small state that his "O"ness was already going to win.

PRO: He has years and years of experience in Washington.

CON: He has years and years of experience in Washington. (What about change "O" man?)

PRO: Being born in Scranton Pistolvania and Catholic should help with some of those blue collar voters that the "O" man was having problems with.

CON: Many of those voters aren't voting for the "O" man and will never vote for a brother to be their president.

PRO: He is a fighter.

CON: He is a fighter, and his running made will seem even more benign and indulgent than he already is.

PRO: He is photogenic.

CON: Well, there is the whole "hair club for men" thing.

Let's impeach his ass!

Here comes another cut and paste job. (Hey, I am on vacation)

This article penned by some members of the Judiciary Committee is serious, and it should not be ignored.

Did I mention that I agree with it 100%?

"The allegations that he abused power are credible.

[U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.)
are members of the Judiciary Committee]

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the vice president and his staff purposely gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to "unknowingly [pass] along false information." In addition, recent revelations have shown that the administration, including the vice president, may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction - this time about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about Clinton's personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquiries. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped-up and insignificant allegations - would be if it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise.

The charges against Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority supports hearings, according to a Nov. 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say the vice president has abused his powers, and 43 percent say he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee cannot proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the vice president - not of our commander in chief - and the resulting impact on the nation's business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton presidential impeachment hearings. Also, even though President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans - including children's health care, stem-cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq - the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum-wage increase, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence - not politics - should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an administration that has consistently skirted the Constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it. "

So what the fuck are we waiting for? Let's do this.

Check out Wexler's site and get involved.