<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://impeachment.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Dedicated to Constitutional Accountability</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:49:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Kucinich Impeachment Bill Gains a Co-Sponsor by johnofsilence</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/kucinich-impeachment-bill-gains-a-co-sponsor/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>johnofsilence</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=8#comment-89</guid>
		<description>Open the debates! First one is Friday!

I’m not a bot, I know you care about the democracy of our government, so we need to get this done. There are 6 Presidential candidates this year all of which are qualified and capable of winning, so why are there only 2 people on the debate! Bigotry, two party bias! Let’s flood the email inbox and the phone lines with: Open the Debates.

It takes 5 mins. Please help me make a difference . Below is a script but please feel free to appropriately modify it to support your candidate .

Step one:

Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.
Once connected, politely deliver the following message:

Hi, my name is …

I was wondering if Senator Obama, being a believer in equal opportunity and equal rights, could insist that Cynthia Mckinney and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates?
After all, Cynthia Mckinney is on 34 state ballots.
And she’s polling well nationwide. And he could help Senator Obama challenge the corporate Republicans.
True, Cynthia Mckinney would critique Senator Obama for his corporate ties also. But isn’t that what democracy is about? Could you please leave this message for the campaign manager? Thank you.

Step two:

E-mail Janet Brown jb@debates.org, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Here’s a sample e-mail:

Dear Janet Brown:

Greetings. You must be busy. Preparing for the first Presidential debate this Friday. So, I won’t take much of your time. Just wanted to let you know that the American people were not born yesterday. We know the deal. Take that little private corporation that you run. Controlled by the two corporate parties. And funded by big business. For the purpose of excluding independent minded candidates. Friday, two Wall Street candidates are scheduled to be in the ring. Barack Obama and John McCain. The one candidate who represents the American people, Main Street, if you will, will be on the outside looking in. So, here’s a simple request. Drop your exclusionary restrictions. And let Cynthia Mckinney into the debates.
It will be good for your conscience. Good for the American people. (I believe it was The League of Women Voters that called your corporatized debates “campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.”) And good for democracy. Let the American people have a real debate for once. Main Street vs. Wall Street.

Thank you.

Signed
your name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open the debates! First one is Friday!</p>
<p>I’m not a bot, I know you care about the democracy of our government, so we need to get this done. There are 6 Presidential candidates this year all of which are qualified and capable of winning, so why are there only 2 people on the debate! Bigotry, two party bias! Let’s flood the email inbox and the phone lines with: Open the Debates.</p>
<p>It takes 5 mins. Please help me make a difference . Below is a script but please feel free to appropriately modify it to support your candidate .</p>
<p>Step one:</p>
<p>Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.<br />
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.<br />
Once connected, politely deliver the following message:</p>
<p>Hi, my name is …</p>
<p>I was wondering if Senator Obama, being a believer in equal opportunity and equal rights, could insist that Cynthia Mckinney and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates?<br />
After all, Cynthia Mckinney is on 34 state ballots.<br />
And she’s polling well nationwide. And he could help Senator Obama challenge the corporate Republicans.<br />
True, Cynthia Mckinney would critique Senator Obama for his corporate ties also. But isn’t that what democracy is about? Could you please leave this message for the campaign manager? Thank you.</p>
<p>Step two:</p>
<p>E-mail Janet Brown <a href="mailto:jb@debates.org">jb@debates.org</a>, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.</p>
<p>Here’s a sample e-mail:</p>
<p>Dear Janet Brown:</p>
<p>Greetings. You must be busy. Preparing for the first Presidential debate this Friday. So, I won’t take much of your time. Just wanted to let you know that the American people were not born yesterday. We know the deal. Take that little private corporation that you run. Controlled by the two corporate parties. And funded by big business. For the purpose of excluding independent minded candidates. Friday, two Wall Street candidates are scheduled to be in the ring. Barack Obama and John McCain. The one candidate who represents the American people, Main Street, if you will, will be on the outside looking in. So, here’s a simple request. Drop your exclusionary restrictions. And let Cynthia Mckinney into the debates.<br />
It will be good for your conscience. Good for the American people. (I believe it was The League of Women Voters that called your corporatized debates “campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.”) And good for democracy. Let the American people have a real debate for once. Main Street vs. Wall Street.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Signed<br />
your name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Discussion on Impeachment and T&amp;RC&#8217;s by Thomas Nephew</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/a-discussion-on-impeachment-and-trcs/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Nephew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-44</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a pleasure to be included here.  

On the other hand, it&#039;s sometimes annoying to read my own stuff a few days later.  Re-reading, I obviously gave the T&amp;R idea very short shrift -- I mainly *feel* opposed, but I haven&#039;t really worked out why much better than the sentences above, nor calmly weighed that against its possible political merits and feasibility.  Also the item supposed to support Obama&#039;s reluctance about T&amp;R maybe doesn&#039;t quite do the trick, though I think the linked article does.  

Thanks again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a pleasure to be included here.  </p>
<p>On the other hand, it&#8217;s sometimes annoying to read my own stuff a few days later.  Re-reading, I obviously gave the T&amp;R idea very short shrift &#8212; I mainly *feel* opposed, but I haven&#8217;t really worked out why much better than the sentences above, nor calmly weighed that against its possible political merits and feasibility.  Also the item supposed to support Obama&#8217;s reluctance about T&amp;R maybe doesn&#8217;t quite do the trick, though I think the linked article does.  </p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution by Mick</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/open-letter-2-the-catholic-church-and-the-danger-of-irresolution/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>Mick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:36:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-43</guid>
		<description>Well, that&#039;s what it&#039;s for, to spur thought and/or discussion. Apparently it did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s for, to spur thought and/or discussion. Apparently it did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why a Truth &amp; Reconciliation Commission Is Better Than Impeachment by A Discussion on Impeachment and T&#38;RC&#8217;s &#171; The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/why-a-truth-reconciliation-commission-is-better-than-impeachment/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>A Discussion on Impeachment and T&#38;RC&#8217;s &#171; The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=4#comment-42</guid>
		<description>[...] will also reportedly urge the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission — something Mark Gisleson (”Norwegianity”) supports in an article written for Mick Arran’s impeachment blog “The [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] will also reportedly urge the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission — something Mark Gisleson (”Norwegianity”) supports in an article written for Mick Arran’s impeachment blog “The [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why a Truth &amp; Reconciliation Commission Is Better Than Impeachment by newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Impeachment and truth now. Reconciliation? Maybe later.</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/why-a-truth-reconciliation-commission-is-better-than-impeachment/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Impeachment and truth now. Reconciliation? Maybe later.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=4#comment-41</guid>
		<description>[...] will also reportedly urge the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission &#8212; something Mark Gisleson (&#8221;Norwegianity&#8221;) supports in an article written for Mick Arran&#8217;s impeachment blog [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] will also reportedly urge the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission &#8212; something Mark Gisleson (&#8221;Norwegianity&#8221;) supports in an article written for Mick Arran&#8217;s impeachment blog [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution by Thomas Nephew</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/open-letter-2-the-catholic-church-and-the-danger-of-irresolution/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Nephew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-35</guid>
		<description>Mick, on re-reading my own piece I think I didn&#039;t get across how interesting this comparison is.  Instead, I just outlined your arguments, however poorly, and launched straight into a reply/discussion of my own.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mick, on re-reading my own piece I think I didn&#8217;t get across how interesting this comparison is.  Instead, I just outlined your arguments, however poorly, and launched straight into a reply/discussion of my own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution by newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/open-letter-2-the-catholic-church-and-the-danger-of-irresolution/#comment-34</link>
		<dc:creator>newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-34</guid>
		<description>[...] Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church by newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/open-letter-3-nixon-reagan-and-the-church/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-33</guid>
		<description>[...] Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter to Barack and Nancy: Why &#8220;Moving On&#8221; Is a Recipe for Disaster (1) by newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/open-letter-to-barack-and-nancy-why-moving-on-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>newsrackblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Reformations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-32</guid>
		<description>[...] Open Letter to Barack and Nancy: Why “Moving On” Is a Recipe for Disaster (1) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Open Letter to Barack and Nancy: Why “Moving On” Is a Recipe for Disaster (1) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open Letter (2): The Catholic Church and the Danger of Irresolution by Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church &#171; The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers</title>
		<link>http://impeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/open-letter-2-the-catholic-church-and-the-danger-of-irresolution/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church &#171; The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impeachment.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-28</guid>
		<description>[...] History, Nancy Pelosi by Mick on August 15th, 2008   If it seems to you. Ms Pelosi, Mr Obama, as if these events are long ago, far away, and hardly germane to a modern question like whether or not to impeach a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] History, Nancy Pelosi by Mick on August 15th, 2008   If it seems to you. Ms Pelosi, Mr Obama, as if these events are long ago, far away, and hardly germane to a modern question like whether or not to impeach a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
