Bouldin didn't open his DNC talking points on Pelosi's flip-flop on impeachment being off the table I guess.

Adam Sullivan is a breath of fresh air in that he is a straight shooter, which is a rare thing in Democratic Party politics. Bouldin admires the party over principle types who try to be GOP lite to win elections at the expense of any pretense at having true progressive politics.

Too many folks have been drinking too much Nadler Kool-aid for years. Asked to point to Nadler's accomplishments in his 15 years in the Congress, they point to his voting record and his press conferences. For someone who represents the left loaded 8th CD in New York, you would hope that Nadler might have led something meaningful and dynamic just once.

As chair of the House Judiciary's subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Nadler was in a great position to lead and be dynamic by holding hearings on impeachment. What Bouldin fails to mention is that you can use a Congressional committe to actual investigate rather than just whine. Nadler seems to say all the right things, but has no backbone to take on the Bush-Cheney cabal with teeth. Apoligists for the Democratic machine and its old style politic like Bouldin expose themselves as nothing more than party hacks. If you think Nadler is a rock star progressive then you should cash in your chips and find a new hang out.
History will judge Pelosi, Conyers and Nadler as nothing more than Vichy Democrats in the face of the Bush/Cheney Reich. Bouldin continues to expose himself as an attack dog for phony progressives who tear down any attempts at changing the old guard. Shame, shame.

To be fair, for Nadler to call his fellow NY City Reps, Yvette Clarke and Anthony Weiner, "on the fringe" is a bit silly. Nadler is someone I like a great deal, but he does seem amazingly thick-headed about this issue, particularly given the Constitutional implications and horrible precedents set by a complacent Congress when a President breaks the law.

As to the challenge, it is hard to see that this is the best way to accomplish it. But for those within his district (as opposed to those who can pressure other Reps) there aren't many options when an otherwise great politician decides to stop listening to some of his most active constituents.

Personally I don't see that Nadler loses anything by joining with Clarke and Weiner on impeachment. I know Congress Critters in far less liberal districts who are supporting impeachment.

At the risks of setting off Michael on one of his tirades, I have to say he is right on the money. Although, as someone Michael usually labels a "machine Democrat", I think the proper response is tears rather than snickering. What a stupid waste of time and money!

This is why the law was designed to permit ballot access challenges.

Full disclosure requires me to point out that Nadler may be my second favorite member of Congress (my first is Barney Frank, and I also love John Lewis and Gary Ackerman--and lust after Debbie Wasserman Schultz).

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that Kucinich (whose defeat for renomination I profoundly wished for) switched to pro-choice many years ago. He also no longer foments racism to get votes among Cleveland's white ethnics. I thinks his past positions do raise legitimate issues, but once a candidate's outlined the reasons for a sincere conversion on such issues, I think it may be time to cut him some slack. I've know you've done this once or twice yourself.

Whether Dennis the Menance has ever shown such sincerity is a topic for further research, though thankfully not my own, but I must admit he has impecable taste in choosing spouses. Even Sarkozy is jealous (he even leaves Debbie Wasserman Schultz a mere also-ran).

You can't really be suggesting that congress should only hold impeachment hearings when they know they will have enough votes to impeach. And whose fault is it that they dont' have the votes, by the way? Tell it to Nancy, that's what happens when you take away power and succumb to playing politics, her little stunt of taking impeachment off the table before even taking office pretty much emasculated the democratic congress; they haven't been able to stand up to this administration on anything. But in any case, the guiding principle in opening impeachment hearings is based on the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors being committed, in this case by the president and vice president, not politics. And assuming our elected officials, both democrats and republicans had even an ounce of integrity it would be impossible, in the light of day, not to vote for impeachment given the mountains of evidence of their criminal behavior. There isn't a constitutional scholar who hasn't acknowledged this administration has shredded our constitution and in case you hadn't realized our constitution was our single, defining point of difference, it was what made us a great country. And what a coincidence, since our constitution has been systematically violated by this administration we have been behaving no better than any other human rights abusing country - we torture people, we spy on our citizens, the executive branch lives above the law, every federal agency is just an arm of the republican party. This is the most unpopular president in history and the congress has unprecedented single digit approval ratings. And if you think just getting democrats elected is going to change anything in this country I'm afraid you really need to stop drinking the cool aid. The democrats need to take a refresher course in ethics and government and stop playing politics. They need to abide by the constitution, which they have all sworn to uphold and protect and that means impeaching this president and vice president who have committed at this point numerous crimes not to mention completely destroyed the balance of power among the three branches of government, eviscerated the process of checks and balances all of which will stand as precedent for future presidents and vice presidents. So, in a nutshell, without impeachment this administration leaves the office of the president all the powers of a monarch. Try getting that back in the bottle. And if you think, at the rate they are going, the democrats are going to be in power for the next twenty years, think again. There is a new generation of republicans already rewriting the party.

Jill

I agree with Isaac Benvenuti. Vichy is an interesting comparison. I would suggest we are in a Weimar moment & it's not necessary to have a single Paul von Hindenburg to deliver the coup de grace.

Jerry Nadler sought out the chairmanship of what is now known as the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. His expressed intent was to undo the Republican abuse. Prior to the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House, he supported impeachment. During
the Clinton Administration, he & Charlie Rangel were parties to a citizen action seeking the satellite
reconnaissance & supporting documentation for the period of the Srebrenica massacre, when the former
Yugoslavia was the most watched place on earth. He would challenge a President of his own party but not
the illegitimate, lying, thieving leadership now at the nation's helm? He should be applauded for seeing FISA as an assault on the Constitution yet he somehow dances around the 6 places where it names impeachment of public officials as necessary to maintain the balance of powers?

When a freshwoman member of Congress unexpectedly won the House seat long held by a liberal icon,
she was rewarded with a spot on the Judiciary Committee & assumed she was banished for the effrontery
she had committed. She got the assignment of drafting articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. At
that point, there also was no support in Congress. Liz Holtzman & those hearings are now a pivotal moment
in US history.

If one approaches Jerry as I have & raised the issue of Iran & our lunatic with his finger on the nuclear button, he certainly does exhibit concern at what might happen. If one visits the office of Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, another liberal icon - of national standing - one is told impeachment hearings will start if the President launches another war. Isn't that too late?

By the way, the "troll" from the "mistake by the lake" got a 100% rating from NARAL. I am glad that he shows
understanding of Benjamin Franklin's statement, "we have a republic if we can keep it." Jerry's uncovered hearings, the Democrats handing over the purse, the failure to use the power of arrest for members of the
administration that have showed the Congress utter contempt. leaves nothing else for citizens to do but
challenge him. The US Congress is not a debating club at Stuyvesant HS. Our democracy is under total assault by these terrorists within. Just look at who & what gets time on TV. At this point we have no guarantee of an election, fair or stollen. If that sounds silly, please wake up & smell the f**king coffee.

Jerry talks about trials & arrests after an inauguration. Even if Obama would win & make to the inauguration,
we don't recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Even if we could send Bush, Cheney,
Rove et al to the Hague, that in no way restores the Constitutional balance & our civil guarantees.

and I want to thank you for drawing attention to Adam Sullivan's campaign and blog post on dailykos. I hope you and others will also visit his website at www.SullivanForCongress.net

My first impression after reading your post is that you don't research before you write. Since I am not familiar with your work, it may be that this post is unusual in that respect. However, had you researched, you would know that Rep. Nadler does indeed have jurisdiction wrt impeachment. Had you taken a moment to go to thomas.gov you would know that Rep. Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney, H. Res. 333, was referred to Nadler's subcomittee on May 4, 2007 where it languished for months before Kucinich introduced his point of privilege in Congress this past February. If you are truly in favor of impeachment, you would know this fact and you would likely be just as frustrated as Adam Sullivan about Nadler's refusal to act.

Instead you refer to Sullivan as petulant. I wonder if King George referred to the colonists as petulant? It sounds to me as if you have your P's mixed up. Sullivan is Patriotic. He is also Principled. He has stepped out of his comfort zone to take on a popular politician who appears to have forfeited principle for political expediency. He is using the democratic process as it was intended. Anyone who thinks this through would applaud a challenge to an eight-term incumbent who has not been responsive to his constituents on the critical issue of impeachment. Whatever the outcome of this race, New Yorkers in the 8th CD and the country at large will benefit. It will result in either a principled freshman Congressman or a powerful incumbment who has been reminded of his accountability to his constitutents and takes his position as defender of the Constitution more seriously.

You refer to the lack of votes for impeachment. I wonder if you have a crystal ball others of us don't. Elizabeth Holtzman, when talking about the Nixon impeachment, has been asked if they knew then that they had the votes. Her clear answer is no, they did what they felt was the right thing to do. That is what Adam Sullivan is asking Nadler to do. It is what I assume, if you are in favor of impeachment, you would also like Nadler to do. If you would like to hear Holtzman's remarks on impeachment at the town hall meeting Nadler declined to attend, you can find them at www.AskNadler2Impeach.org.

I must also ask you - is it your habit to only fight when you think you will win? You sound like a longtime New Yorker, what about the Mets in '69 - did they and anyone else think they would win? This is much more serious than sports, yet you and Nadler think that we should only fight the safe battles. If the Democrats found some backbone and took some risks, this country would not be in the state it is in now. We need Jerry Nadler to step up and take a leadership role in fighting for the Constitution and civil rights.

You refer to Nadler raising money for other Democrats. Again, perhaps a factor of writing before reading, but I have to ask which Democrats? You sound as if you are a progressive. In that case, I wonder what you think of the fact that Nadler supported Recchia first and now McMahon against Steve Harrison the true progressive in CD-13?

Mr. Bouldin, I appreciate your loyalty to Nadler and I appreciate that you claim to support impeachment. However, I don't see how you justify your support of impeachment with your petty attacks on Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich and Robert Wexler have championed impeachment. There is no valid reason why Jerry Nadler has not joined them in fighting for our Constitution. He has stated that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses and rails against them in his speeches, but then backs off and says that impeachment will not happen unless the Democratic leadership wants it to happen. He has refused to support Wexler's call for hearings in the HJC. I wonder what he has to say now that Nancy Pelosi has opened the door to impeachment by stating that this is an HJC matter that deserves discussion in the committee. It is time for Jerry Nadler to support Wexler's call for hearings and take all of the valuable information he has collected in the hearings conducted over the last two years and put it to use in defense of the Constitution and the Republic.

Have no balls. Their main interest is the next election so they only take on the easy bills or those that are not as controversial as impeaching Bush and Cheney. With a few exceptions (yes Gatemouth I agree with you on Barney Frank and in the Senate Bernie Sanders)our current Congress takes the oath and then starts worrying about the next election. They stop listening to their voters (some never even start) and sit on their fat rears. They don't even listen to their follow members of Congress when their debating a bill! Have you ever watched CSPAN and seen all the empty seats as a bill is debated? Disgusting.

Nadler started out as a Progressive but lost his way. For this year he was looking for Hillary to get the nomination and become President because he wanted to be named to fill the rest of her term as Senator. Personally, I don't think he stood a chance getting that appointment but he can dream like the rest of us. I think that's why he took impeachment off the table, didn't want to rock the boat.

I've heard comments made that they can't bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney because it would look like payback for the Clinton impeachment. SO WHAT!!!!! What Bush and Cheney did and are still doing is more criminal than what Clinton did. As a matter of fact, Europe laughed at us the way it was handled.

Nadler (and the rest of Congrss) need to look themselves in the mirror and see the Congreeperson they were when they first took the oath. They wanted to change the country but instead its now them that we want to change.