Did Mike Castle Vote to Impeach George W. Bush in 2008?

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on September 14, 2010


Well, no, he didn’t, despite what Dan Riehl and Mark Levin say about the matter. What happened was that Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush, and a number of Republicans decided to embarrass Democrats by having a full floor vote, in order to force a debate about the issue, and force Democrats to either disavow the crazy by coming out against impeachment, or to embrace the crazy, and thus make Republicans appear more sensible.

Castle was one of the Republicans who voted to refer to committee, so that the bill would be killed. The worst that can be said about him is that he did not endeavor to have a floor debate, and let Democrats get embarrassed by the fact that one of their own introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush. But there is no way that this can be called a Castle vote in favor of impeachment; the roll call has the question titled as being “On Motion to Refer.” Either Riehl and Levin don’t understand House parliamentary procedure, or they are making stuff up in order to make Castle look bad right before the Republican primary in Delaware (which is today).

In any event, Riehl and Levin ought to be embarrassed, and ought to apologize for getting the story wrong. And one hopes that it was just an honest mistake; I hate to think that they decided to make stuff up to help out an inferior candidate.

UPDATE: Yeah, I feel comfortable being on Patterico’s side about this.

UPDATE II, Editor’s Note: Dan Riehl has requested a retraction on behalf of Mark Levin. You can listen to the audio of Levin from here, in which he lays out the votes and the matter in question.

Now that we’ve heard the audio, it appears Mark Levin made a more accurate claim which, if interpreting the context slightly incorrectly, did not bluntly claim “Castle voted for impeachment.” Any mistake here was in assuming that Dan Riehl, who claimed “Yes, Castle Voted to Impeach Bush,” had accurately described Levin’s views.

In the future, we will avoid this error by assuming that everything Riehl says is the rantings of an idiot, and probably false, which we really ought to have assumed from the beginning.

  • renagle

    Haha, when will people learn that Mark Levin knows exactly what he says and how he says it. The man can run intellectual circles around most. We can also see that you don't exactly research what you say, but take other people's interpretations so your credibility isn't exactly stellar. Nice name calling, too. Levin's show is available free for anyone to hear his positions and why he takes them. It's not that hard to interpret. Next time go to the source and avoid looking like and ass and having to make snarky “updates”.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    I think only those suicidal about their reputations self-identify as Levin and Riehl fans these days. My sympathies for your lack of regard concerning your public standing. By the way, that update must have stung, huh?

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    By the way, this has to be either Dan Riehl or Mark Levin posting under a sockpuppet identity. One can tell by the lousy writing.

  • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

    I just deleted a comment that was more name-calling than an attempt to foster a discussion. While we all understand that such comments are typical of Dan Riehl-types, and may well have been written by Riehl under a sockpuppet identity, we here at the New Ledger have higher standards for discussion. It's perfectly fine if you agree with Riehl, but please try to write better than he does. I promise you that shouldn't be too hard to do.

Previous post:

Next post: