If Sen Johnson cannot continue his duties, the Dems will be off the hook

[Doctor_J]

on impeachment - "He would never be convicted anyway, so we might as well not bother". The House Dems that we worked our asses off to elect last month will crawl off to the corner and try to figure out how to maintain a 218-217 lead after the 2008 election cycle.

[jgraz]

1. huh? Conviction requires a 2/3 vote

They're already "off the hook" if you assume a party-line vote. However, they're not "off the hook" when it comes to doing the right thing and standing up to tyranny.

Aren't any of these Dems thinking about how history will view them?

[renie408]

2. Isn't there some kind of order these things have to go in?

I mean, A) they aren't even THERE yet and B) shouldn't there be some investigations first? They can't just walk in and start impeachment prodeedings on day one, can they? And wouldn't be a mistake to get the other side riled up by talking about it before they have their case in order?

[jgraz]

5. Investigations are a red herring in this case

Specifically with regard to the domestic wiretaps, the Moron in Chief has made a public confession. There is more than enough obvious, irrefutable evidence to impeach Bush right now. All the rest is just spin and politics.

[renie408]

6. This doesn't sound right to me

I am not completely sure how impeachment works, is it anything like a criminal case? 'Cause in a criminal case, even if the guy OBVIOUSLY did it, you still have to organize your evidence and run an investigation and get your proof in order, right? That's what I mean. I agree that Bush appears to have committed some clearly impeachable offenses, the wire tap thing being only one. But I also think that the Dems have to handle this carefully. I don't think that it would be smart to jump in screaming "IMPEACH" from day one. Just because they aren't shouting it to the rooftops now, doesn't mean they won't get there.

[jgraz]

8. I'll confess to not knowing all the details

but I'm pretty sure you have no burden of proof as in a criminal trial.

I'm not advocating that we have the impeachment vote on day 1, but the fact that we have NO prominent Democrats saying that Bush has committed crimes worthy of impeachment is somewhat disconcerting. If this President -- given all we currently know about his misconduct -- is not impeachable, who is?

Illegal wiretaps, signing statements and lying to congress about a war are all offenses for which we already have ample evidence to at least start discussing the "I" word. Any public disagreement from the Dems regarding impeachment should not be about whether, but rather about when and how.

[renie408]

9. I wonder if they are talking about it behind the scenes

Could they be putting out feelers? They wouldn't have enough votes for impeachment and maybe they think a hard push when it would basically be symbolic would be emotionally satisfying but politically damaging?

[pinto]

3. Geez. That's a blanket assessment. There are *other* things on the table

besides impeachment. I hear your point, but I expect the Democratic House to move for a minimum wage increase, increased federal support for college tuitions, legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate bulk drug purchases, collection and investment of unpaid oil company taxes, curtailment of the Administration's "supplemental" Iraq war budget maneuvering, as well as the stated oversight and investigation proposals being put forth by House membership across a broad range of issues, from Katrina to Iraq.

Personally, I'm not a fan of pre-emptive impeachment proceedings in the House, but if there's a consensus after some committee investigation - read documentation in the record - I'd support it.

We worked to get this Congress, as you point out. Let's give them some room to work for us. It may not happen overnight. Hang in there.

[TwilightZone]

4. What are you talking about?

1) According to his doctors, there's no reason to believe that he won't have a full recovery.

2) You might want to research impeachment, because we're going to need a lot more than just Johnson's vote for it to be successful.

3) Democrats didn't win in 2006 because people want Bush to be impeached. It isn't the key to winning in '08, either.

Edit: clarified #1

[madrchsod]

7. johnson has to resign or die to be removed-

because he is in the hospital or disabled does not mean he has to resign. strum thurman was senile and his aides voted for him and other senators have had long term absences from the senate.