<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Impeachment pie has more takers</title>
	<link>http://stevensande.com/habitofwonder/2005/07/05/impeachment-pie-has-more-takers/</link>
	<description>Moments in an imaginary age</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://stevensande.com/habitofwonder/2005/07/05/impeachment-pie-has-more-takers/#comment-24</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:17:06 -0700</pubDate>
		<guid>http://stevensande.com/habitofwonder/2005/07/05/impeachment-pie-has-more-takers/#comment-24</guid>
					<description>that's my cruz! i'll eat a slice for you when i get home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>that&#8217;s my cruz! i&#8217;ll eat a slice for you when i get home.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Steven Sande</title>
		<link>http://stevensande.com/habitofwonder/2005/07/05/impeachment-pie-has-more-takers/#comment-25</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:28:35 -0700</pubDate>
		<guid>http://stevensande.com/habitofwonder/2005/07/05/impeachment-pie-has-more-takers/#comment-25</guid>
					<description>Dan Froomkin, on a &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/06/BL2005070601211_pf.html&quot;&gt;Washington Post&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; blog (via &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livejournal.com/users/twistedchick/2005/07/11/&quot;&gt;Free Speech Zone&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;), on the paucity of media coverage:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Only three mainstream outlets that I can find made even cursory mention of the poll last week when it came out.

You also wouldn't know it judging from the political discourse in Washington, but that makes a little more sense. After all, impeachment is for all practical purposes a political act, not a legal one. So with a Republican-controlled Congress that doesn't even like to perform basic White House oversight, it's basically a moot point.

Nevertheless, could there be anything that 42 percent of Americans agree on that the media care about so little?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Dan Froomkin, on a <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/06/BL2005070601211_pf.html">Washington Post</a></em> blog (via <em><a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/twistedchick/2005/07/11/">Free Speech Zone</a></em>), on the paucity of media coverage:</p>
	<blockquote><p>Only three mainstream outlets that I can find made even cursory mention of the poll last week when it came out.</p>
	<p>You also wouldn&#8217;t know it judging from the political discourse in Washington, but that makes a little more sense. After all, impeachment is for all practical purposes a political act, not a legal one. So with a Republican-controlled Congress that doesn&#8217;t even like to perform basic White House oversight, it&#8217;s basically a moot point.</p>
	<p>Nevertheless, could there be anything that 42 percent of Americans agree on that the media care about so little?
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
