Yesterday, I posted a diary titled: YK 2007: Impeachment Too Touchy?, based largely on Bob Fertik's claim which I've included here:
Submitted by Bob Fertik on August 2, 2007 - 2:04pm.
* ImpeachForChange
I'm at YearlyKos in Chicago and there are sessions on every topic of interest to progressive bloggers - except impeachment.
We asked nicely but they turned us down. Why? They wouldn't say, but I think the organizers worked hard to bring Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the organizers didn't want to scare them off by confronting them with a few thousand incredibly smart, passionate, and articulate impeachment supporters.
Turns out that wasn't the whole story...
marchtoimpeach, kindly added this comment from Jonathon Schwarz to the diary:
There's been some unfortunate miscommunication about this on my end. YearlyKos organizers were enthusiastic about the idea of a panel on impeachment when approached by Democrats.com last week, and tried to find some way of fitting it into the convention schedule. They later reported back that there unfortunately wasn't enough time to make it happen. There's no evidence they turned it down because of the subject matter.
Last week?
The first thing I'd like to do is thank all the volunteers and sponsors of YK 2007 and those who organized the Impeachment booth at YK 2007.
We're going backwards in many respects on Iraq and on FISA and on accountability. That bothers me and many others deeply. Yes, I was moved by the keynote speech by our host. But I'm not entirely convinced that it's time to stop throwing stones. I've thrown plenty. And sometimes good folks get hit when my barbs should be directed elsewhere. Most of these folks are tough enough to take a shot. But that doesn't mean they should.
I apologize. to all who've been on the receiving end of my criticism over impeachment at YK 2007.
All this confusion, while somehow understandable in light of Bob Fertik's unhelpful post, is inexcusable. The good folks who organized the Impeachment Booth deserve a lot of credit.
There have been lots of great impeachment diaries. We can't give up. George Bush isn't going to remove himself from power. Win or Lose, impeachment means Dems stand for something.
There isn't a pretty way to put it. After all the histrionics, the screaming, the drum-banging and the rending of shirts, when the time came to put-up or shut-up, our silence was deafening. No impeachment panel at YK 2007. No experts on "high-crimes and mis-demeanors"; and no panel discussion of impeachment strategies.
Not my job. Both Buffalo Girl and Eugene have presented clear critiques of the need to do more, to recognize that just shouting isn't enough.
Those of us who favor impeachment have failed to mount a persuasive campaign to convince those who disagree. We had an opportunity to make our case at YK 2007 and we blew it. And when some of us learned of our failure, we "couldn't quite believe" we'd done so little. It was far easier and convenient to construct an elaborate conspiracy theory than square up to the fact that for too many of us, too often, impeachment is just talk.
I believe Bush, Cheney and Gonzales must be impeached for many, many reasons. We need to do a much better job of making our case. Blaming our natural allies for our own short-comings isn't the way to do it.