Impeachment: an excellent way to drive Bush's approval ratings up

[Perry Logan]

The Bush gang is easily the most impeachable administration ever. There's no debate about that.

And in an ideal world, impeachment is the right thing. There's no debate there, either.

But would impeaching Bush, or Bush and Cheney, help or hurt the Democrats? Would it help or hurt the country?

I'm guessing it would hurt both party and country, by making the malefactors look sympathetic. Instead of watching Bush and Cheney destroy America and the world, we would be watching the big bad Dems ganging up on them.

It all comes down to the extreme right-wing bias of the media, all the way up to the New York Times. The corporate news media are the most powerful tool the Republicans have left. They can spin any story their way, and utterly drown the truth in disinformation. For some reason, people still watch this propaganda. So the press--a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Right--will impress its version of reality on a huge portion of the populace.

Gross!

Far from airing the Bush gang's crimes, as we all would hope, the media would paint a picture of a lone leader under seige, struggling to protect the country from Islamofascists while the Dems play politics, etc.

That would be the meme, and we would hear it over and over. I'm quite sure it would give a boost to the approval ratings of the Worst President Ever™.

If the impeachment should fail, the Republicans would crow about it as a vindication till Hell freezes over. It would be a tremendous boost to Republicans in future elections.

And if a domestic terror attack occurred during all these proceedings, the Republicans could well be back in the catbird seat, back on course to bomb Iran, confer more powers on Dubya, game the electoral system, and destroy all known human rights.

[babylonsister]

1. Sure, that'll do it. Not! I see no way anything will turn this tide around.

I really think you need to see and absorb the info in this:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-2.html

[terisan]

2. I would rather see impeachment, which is the in our Constitution, than have a military takeover.

Unfortunately I believe that at some point the generals will have had enough, and will believe they have to step in to save the country and the world.

[polichick]

3. Impeachment is the right thing. Period.

We have to stop making moves based on what the Reps do or might do, stand behind the Constitution and Democratic principles, speak clearly and unflinchingly about what we believe in, and have faith in ourselves.

[democratsin08]

4. why?

bush in the whitehouse is the best possible thing for democrats in 08!! lets keep him there, it helps us.

[polichick]

11. I'm talking about what's "right" in terms of justice...

Rather than in terms of political moves. Sometimes what's right has to come first in order to preserve something precious, and in this case it's the Constitution.

[Dawgs]

19. It might be right, but what if it backfires?

Can you guarantee that it won't help get a Republican (just like Bush) elected in 2008? If no, then it's a risk we shouldn't take.

[ldf]

51. if it backfired it would be the democrats' fault

if the american people KNEW all the criminal misdoings of this administration, they wouldn't pause for a second before demanding that he, and his entire administration be removed.

yet we throw up the excuse that the msm would never air it....

if EVERY democratic spokesperson was on message, and on the same page, over and over and over, the msm would HAVE to air it.

we are NOT completely helpless.

we just need some democratic leaders that are willing to do what is necessary, rather than "play nice"...

:grr:

[TheBaldyMan]

43. how do you get that message across to military families though

considering it's their folks that will be coming back wounded & maimed - if at all.

How the fuck can you justify such a dickheaded statement.

[guidod]

26. I agree 100%.

The Constitution comes first and future Administrations have to understand this.

[earthlover]

5. Great OP. Prepare for flames from the "unless you are for us you are against America" crowd....

Unless you are for impeachment you are against the Constitution. SARC

Sorta the same logic as "unless you support Iraq you are against America (or the troops)". But if it is our side that uses this logic it is ok?

The OP makes a point. When Clinton was impeached public approval of Clinton went up 10 points. ALSO, public approval of Republicans went DOWN 10 points. And that was in spite of a conservative-leaning media.

Today we have a media that would work FOR the incumbent, and the potential for a backlash is even higher.

So those of us who know how bad the Bush Administration has been are faced with a dilemma. Do we try to remove Bush AND Cheney from office now, knowing they are lame ducks anyway, knowing conviction in the Senate is unlikely, knowing it would take almost all of the govenment's attention away from other issues such as Iraq, knowing it would harden party lines on other issues, and knowing that there would be a risk that a backlash could occur that could cost us victory for pres and congress in 08?

Or do we concentrate on Iraq, investigating and embarrassing the Reps at every opportunity, and and position ourselves for a landslide victory in 08?

Personally, I think it is a moral imperative to win in 08. Four or eight more years of Republican rule to me could do a lot more damage to the Constitution and to our country than another year and a half of Bush. Just look at the Supreme Court. More Bush appointees, and it could affect things for a generation.

Sorry to break bad news, but Dems are not shoo-ins in 08. Yes we have a wonderful opportunity. But Bush is NOT running. We cannot run just against Bush. Now almost everyone, even Republicans, know Bush is a twit. But many/most of the same voters who voted for him, will be likely to vote for another Republican this time around.

If impeachment leads to a backlash, a public opinion swing similar to what happened when Clinton was impeached, we are probably going to get beat in 08.

[Dawgs]

17. Thanks for being realistic.

It's sad that so many are willing to take the risk for an administration that will be gone in a year and a half.

[sueh]

38. Its sad that some would not defend the Constitution.

[DutchLiberal]

25. It's not about 'lame ducks' and 'oh, it's only a year and a half'...

It's about giving any future president the sign that it is OK to do what Bush & Co. did, because we never impeached him. If Bush doesn't get impeached for all the crimes he has committed, why would ANY future president EVER be impeached? Not impeaching Bush clears the way for a dictatorship in the USA.

[earthlover]

29. the flea vs the elephant

While you can indeed make a good case for impeachment (I think most here who differ do so on pragmatic grounds), to argue that NOT to impeach would lead to dictatorship, or that there is nothing short of impeachment that would deter future leaders, is balderdash!

There are many alternatives to impeachment. One is the elephant in the living room that the impeachment advocates don't seem to see. It is called mobilizing public opinion, shouting out to everyone what Bush has done wrong, in a massive campaign.

Of course, part of this campaign would be to show how the administration and the Republican machine has committed these abuses. This is what should be done FIRST! We cannot rely on the media to do it for us either, they are biased to the right.

What we need is grass roots activism....getting the word out about what bad things the Bush administration has done. Letters, direct action, demonstrations, speeches, spread the word high and low.

This is the sort of thing that may not be as glamorous as impeachment. But we need to work on such a grass roots consensus. It can lead to a massive landslide in 08. And such a landslide may have more long lasting impact than you can imagine.

My advice is don't get mad, get even. Nothing...not even impeachment....would stick it to all the Repukes more than making 08 a transformational election.

This I think is possible. But we cannot lose sight of the goal, lose our focus.

Impeachment not only is not the ultimate goal, it may actually make our goal harder to achieve. Our goal is to undo the wrongs, not just get Bush out of office a few months earlier. We need to promote what we want to do differently. THAT is what is going to win people over, people are fed up with politics and negativity.

Even if impeachment were successful, it would polarize our country, and harden party lines on other issues to the point where it would be harder to get any meaningful change done on these issues. It could also backfire on us big time.

What impeachment backers seem to be saying is that impeachment will lead public opinion over to our side. I don't think that is the way it would work. Public opinion will do the leading, and if we overstep ourselves, we could pay the price. We need to win over public opinion to make a transformation.

I much more favor a grass roots mobilization to show the American people what we think is wrong and what we think should be done differently.

Impeachment seems to be an instant gratification thing, rather than a long-term grass roots solution. It is also such a drop in the bucket, compared to the real change that could be done by mobilizing public opinion. Comparing a transformational election in 08 to impeachment is like comparing an elephant to a flea. PS....impeachment is the flea.

[DutchLiberal]

45. There's not one thing in your post that makes sense

With all due respect, of course ( I don't want to get into a fight).

Mobilize the public opinion? Shouting out what Bush has done wrong? I don't know where you've been living for the past year, but the word IS pretty much out there. Did you see the polls? Bush's approval rating is at 26%, the lowest ever. Cheney's approval rating is at 9%, the lowest for a vice-president in history. Only 20% of the population thinks this country is heading in the right direction. 45% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. 54% think Cheney should be impeached.

The word IS out. The public knows. And we did it not thanks to the indeed right-leaning media, but thanks to the very grassroots activism you're talking about. The Internet has played a vital role in it and it will continue to do so. How much more can we do to reach the people? The people understand what Bush has done wrong. Maybe you're aiming at the 26%, but they're drinking the kool-aid Fox is handing out to them, so we'll never get their support.

People are tired of the Democrats not standing up to this administration. Sure, they will pass a bill or two, then Bush veto's it. And then what? Nothing happens. The Democrats send out subpoenas for members of the administration to testify under oath. Bush tells them to ignore the subpoenas and so they do. And then what? Again: nothing happens. Do you know Congress has a lower approval rating that Bush? Now why do you think that is? Because it's not doing its job. They do nothing, or not enough, to stop Bush.

And no, winning in '08 is NOT the solution to all our problems. What message do you send, not only to the future president, but to any other politician, to all Americans, to the world, by not holding Bush accountable? It says: you can be the 'leader of the Free World' and still behave like a criminal. You can lie Congress and the public into illegal wars; you can wiretap an entire country while a court already ruled it's illegal; you can engage in oppressing the votes of thousands of African Americans enabling you to win elections; you can hold and torture people as long and as often as you want, etc.

And then comes the next president in '08. What if we LOSE in '08? What if, 'somehow' (Maybe election fraud again? It's never been investigated, so why not?), a Republican gets elected? He will have ALL the benefits of his predecessor not being impeached. He can do as Bush did, and maybe even worse. And you will be VERY sorry for letting war criminals Bush, Cheney and Rove off the hook.

[earthlover]

60. well, flame away! have fun!

[DutchLiberal]

63. What's the 'flame' in my post?

There was no flame whatsoever. It's a lame excuse for not answering my arguments.

[earthlover]

64. The flame in your post was in your title..."There's not one thing in your post that makes sense"

And it went downhill from there. I really don't think I should have to respond to you, because probably nothing I will say will make sense to you either.

But, in my own defense, there were several things in my post that did make sense. At least made a valid point, which may or may not agree with you, but then again you are not the sole arbitor of what makes sense. Are you?

One of the points I made was "to argue that NOT to impeach would lead to dictatorship, or that there is nothing short of impeachment that would deter future leaders, is balderdash".

It is a pretty bold and brash thing to say we will have a friggin dictatorship if we don't impeach. It is also simply FALSE that there is nothing short of impeachemnt to deter future leaders.

One example of something that would deter future leaders would be making 08 a transformational election. Beginning an era of Democratic domination for perhaps as much as a generation. Impossible you say? You gotta start believing in yourselves!

And one of my main points was that we need to mobilize public opinion for our causes. Build from the grass roots up. Apparently you thought that was an idea that makes no sense. But it is, after all, pretty much a working definition of a CAMPAIGN! It is, after all, pretty much what the civil rights movement did, the anti-Vietnam movement did, the womens rights movement did, and just about every movement for social justice did. And you say trying to mobilize public opinion makes no sense. HA! How are you going to even get an impeachment through if you cannot mobilize public opinion in favor of it? You can't rely on the media to do it for you! It will be working its asses of to defeat it! And the key gamble of impeachment is, if you can't get the people on your side you will wind up creating a backlash. Yet you think....since nothing I said makes sense....that mobilizing public opinion doesn't make sense.

Heck, I made some other points. And what am I doing? It is a waste of time. If you are just going to say nothing makes sense anyway.

But one thing you maybe should ponder. If you treat a liberal Democrat this way, saying they make no sense at all, how are you going to convert people out there....those who are not on DU....people who are among the moderates who are pretty split about the idea of even starting an impeachment?

Helpful hint...you don't win someone over to your cause by saying they don't make any sense.

That will only turn them off.

Good luck with your impeachment. You are doing a good job of preaching to the choir.....

[DutchLiberal]

66. Showed you didn't even READ my post... and that you're over-sensitive... and

that you were looking for an excuse not to answer my arguments. Because, if you had read the post, you would've seen that the very next thing I wrote was: "With all due respect, of course (I don't want to start a fight)." Apparently you conveniently ignored that. And the "nothing makes sense" headline was my opinion. I thought a forum was supposed to be about opinions, even when you don't agree.

The rest of what you say also shows you haven't read my response.

Because I didn't say grassroots activism and spreading the word to look for support are nonsense. What I DID say, was that it already had happened and is still happening as we speak. You act like we have to START it just now. Again: where have you been living the past year? Somewhere where you didn't gave access to the Internet, I guess.

And then there's your point where you say we could better focus on the '08 election and we got to 'believe' in ourselves. Well, 'believing in yourself' doesn't make everything okay. We're not in a Disney movie here. This is reality. We don't know who will get elected. The GOP might do some more election fraud, since the last two times nobody called them on it. Then we have a Republican president WITH all the benefits of his predecessor not being impeach for the crimes he committed. Then he could indeed rule like a dictator.

So why are you not answering my counter-arguments rather than picking a phony fight, throwing red herrings around and making personal attacks against me?

[radfringe]

6. so let's just do nothing....

[Dawgs]

18. No, let's get Democrats elected to Congress and the Presidency in 2008.

They can fix the damage Bush has done, and show the world the difference between a Republican led America and a Demoractic one.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. You mean, like the way they turned the public against Bill Clinton?

[OneBlueSky]

8. disagree completely . . . when the evidence against Bush and Cheney is presented . . .

dispassionately and impartially, the public will quickly learn just how much harm these people have done to the nation and its citizens . . . there will be no sympathy except from the most rabid Kool Aid drinkers -- and they're a lost cause anyhow . . .

[Dawgs]

I am so sick of this lame ass argument.

If the public hasn't discovered the harm Bush has done to this country, why would you think they would notice after the Dems "tried" to impeach him?

If impeachment is attempted, the risk to hurt the Democrats is much greater than doing any actually harm to Bush and his administration.

You will never get any justice by "attempting" impeachment.

The OP is right.

[Dawgs]

14. Dupe.

[frogcycle]

9. this, of course, is a sad commentary on the degree to which the takeover is complete

that the constitutional remedy for malfeasance could/would be 'spun' by a subservient and complicit media and that large numbers of the not-informed populace would buy it is in and of itself evidence of how far we have moved away from the design of the Founders.

I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, don't know which way the tide would flow.

I do know that the Founders knew they would be hanged if their movement to overthrow a tyrant failed. They felt that that fear was less compelling than the fear of living under the ever-increasing tyrannical rule of the king. They saw no alternative to change the tide. they rolled the dice and prevailed.

We may have an alternative - riding it out, putting 'our side' in charge by traditional means, and putting this bleak period of our history behind us. On the other hand, if 'riding it out' means allowing them more time to solidify the takeover and never getting the opportunity to use those traditional means in a legal and honest election, then we will be forever seen as like Chamberlain.

We can all make predictions of which course has the higher probability of success until we're blue in the face. We can argue incessantly over it. We still won't know.

'tis a quandary.

[kath]

10. yes, Sadly, we're so far gone at this point that I don't know how we're going to get our country

back. :-(

[Dawgs]

16. Well, it's not by giving the republicans the Presidency in 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

57. By closing the door on impeachment, the door to tyrannicide is opened

We must insist and demand that those that abused power, subverted the Constitution, and broke the law be held accountable.

If the rule of law is not upheld, such as by using impeachment process, then we revert to the law of the jungle. I don't think any of us want that!

[Doctor_J]

12. You mean like they did for Nixon?

C'mon. Supporting the consitution will NOT harm the Dems' approval

[assclown_bush]

13. Fear is NOT an acceptable reason for inaction...

The "war Preznit" and Darth Cheney are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. They will not allow an investigation from congress to proceed. The only alternative left is for articles of impeachment to be brought against both the pResident and the veep.
Of course many repugs will rally round their beleaguered pResident (though few if any will stand by the much hated Chaney) but many more people will see that impeachment is the only remedy to cure the country. The Constitution has been trampled and it is more important than party affiliations.

[Dawgs]

15. It is if we get another President like Bush in 2008.

Do you want another war (Iran)?
Do you want two more conservative Supreme Court judges?
Do you want more corruption?
Do you want no inaction on the environment, heathcare, and removing our troops from Iraq?

If no, then why would you risk it by attempting something that may cause more damage?

[DutchLiberal]

27. No, we do NOT want that, and THAT'S why we have to impeach

So we make clear to future presidents what will happen to them if they trample the Constitution and commit the crimes Bush has committed.

But we WILL get all the things you listed if we don't impeach and we let Bush & Co. do as they please for another year and a half.

[blondeatlast]

20. Gang--even the "mushy middle" has had it with GWB. The only support

he has now are crazies for whom nothing will sway them.

He MIGHT gain 10-15% over this which still leaves a majority. He's toast and Cheney's already ruined the toaster.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Consider a few things ....

..... the big bad media was there before the 06 cycle. They tried to knock our side down. But look at the result. We picked up majorities in both houses and did not lose even one single seat. Not one.

Why?

The people were pissed.

The same people at whom they were pissed are still in power. The media is actually losing its effectiveness, not gaining. Rush is seen pretty widely as the drug addles gasbag we know him to be. Billo is suffering at his own hands and at the hands of one Keith Olbermann. So I think the Mighty Wurlitzer isn't working as it one was.

The people were pissed? How about the people are *still* pissed. The difference this time is that they're also pissed at our side. Not as much as at the Republics, but we're not without some ire directed our way.

They're angry at us for not ending the war and for letting the thugs advance unchecked.

You say impeachment will hurt us more than them yet you cite no statistic of act to back that up.

Well he is a fact: 45% want Bush impeached today.

Another fact: 54% want Cheney impeached and removed.

And those numbers are in the face of a hostile (to us) media. What happens when the facts start getting reported because the reporting of them becomes inevitable?

Impeachment is quite likely to be a political winner for us ..... not a loser.

[Perry Logan]

22. Your point is taken about the media losing its effectiveness.

A fact which we can all celebrate. And I hope you're right that impeachment would be a political plus.

One problem with your view is that the media had no single focus in 2006. In the impeachment scenario, there would be a total focus on one or two guys--Bush and Cheney. The media would go hogwild about the President's terrible stomach-aches now that the Demos are trying to crucify him, and how these poliically-motivated impeachment proceedings are crushing the morale of our brave troops, etc. It would be easy for the media to repeat a single message endlessly, which is how they do the most damage.

You're right that the people are hacked off. But wouldn't they be maddest if Bush and Cheney just spent their final months screwing things up? That's what got them so ticked in the first place, after all. Might impeachment proceedings be a chance for Karl Rove to practice his craft again?

[earthlover]

30. So is 45% a mandate? I guess Cheney would say so, but it is still less than half

wishful thinking seems to be among us

[Stinky The Clown]

65. You know ....... you could post something thoughtful .....

The point I made is that even with all factors against us (media, mainly) the demand for impeachment is nearly 50% for the boss and in excess of 50% for the REAL boss.

If the media were just honest - not left leaning - those numbers would likely be much higher.

So, while it is just a few points shy of a mandate, it isn't anywhere CLOSE to being the disincentive you apparently would like it to be.

It isn't really 'wishful thinking'.

And what's this 'us' stuff?

[DutchLiberal]

23. Who on earth, besides the '26%' would feel sympathy for Bush?

He's the most impopular president ever! Over 50% of Americans favor impeachment. Why do Democrats keep making up excuses like these for not impeaching?

[Perry Logan]

24. Both of your questions were answered in the original post.

[DutchLiberal]

28. No, they were not.

There were assumptions, yes. False assumptions. Assumptions that made no sense at all.

But no answers.

[earthlover]

31. what polls says impeaching bush is over 50%?

According to the American Research Group poll, 45% favor beginning impeachment procedings against Bush. The Gallup/USA Today poll has it at 36%.

45% is not a mandate unless you are Cheney. 36% is barely more than one third!

Be very careful in assigning too much importance to the results of one single poll. And, besides, 45% is not even a majority.

[Yukari Yakumo]

34. There's another factor not being considered

How many Americans see impeachment as a high priority?

I'd wager good money that percentage is going to be very low.

You can have over two-thirds favoring impeachment, but it doesn't mean anything if impeachment is seen as unimportant among the public.

[DutchLiberal]

46. Yes, I got that number wrong

I think there's also a large group who thinks: "well, maybe he doesn't NEED to be impeached", so they vote no, but when it comes to it, they don't really care. He's the most unpopular president. If the highly popular Clinton could get impeached over a blowjob, why can't a highly unpopular president be impeached over war crimes?

[earthlover]

54. i agree with you....

...a lot of Americans just don't care!

[IndianaGreen]

32. If you believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, you would impeach Cheney

Political parties be damned!

When the GOP blocked Jim Webb's proposed legislation requiring that combat troops spend as much time at home as they did deployed to Iraq, Harry Reid accused the GOP of putting party ahead of country.

You are doing the same thing the GOP did in the Senate. You are putting party ahead of country! Cheney and Gonzales must be impeached!

[earthlover]

53. against the constitution and the rule of law, huh?

Wow!

Your logic is similar to those who think that those who don't support Iraq are unamerican!

I believe that under the constitution we can have disagreements over what to do.

PS you aren't going to win over ANYONE by calling them anti-constitution and saying they don't believe in the rule of law if they disagree with you over impeachment.

This "for us or against us" logic is sad enough when the wingnuts use it. It is equally abhorrent when we use it towards people we disagree with.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Bush publicly admitted he violated FISA, which is a felony!

We can't have a president or a vice-president flaunt the law, and I don't care what party they belong to, or what last name they have.

[sutz12]

33. Another variation of the "Clinton did it" defense...

Get a clue. Clinton's approval numbers were good (or at least better than Dubya's) before, during, and after the impeachment proceedings.

Bush? Not so much on the before status. It is arguable what they would do if they did impeach.

If we impeach Bush, his numbers will NOT rise to Clintonian levels.

[earthlover]

39. Disapproval of Republicans also increased by 10% as a result of Clinton's impeachment..

It wasn't just Clinton gaining 10%.

Who cares if Bush's polls go up? He is almost (thank god) through with his term anyway and the lamest of lame ducks.

What I care about is if disapproval of Democrats goes up similarly. People already distrust congress in general.

[DutchLiberal]

49. People distrust Congress for lack of stopping Bush.

[Larkspur]

35. When Bruce Fein, who wrote the articles of impeachment against Clinton says

that Bush and Cheney must be impeached because they have committed worse crimes than Clinton, I do not believe that Bush's poll numbers will rise. If they do, it will be insignificant.

When Bill Clinton was being impeached, the country had a surplus and most people had jobs, even if it was 2 of them. The polls clearly showed that people would not want their daughter to date Bill but they gave him high approvals on his job performance as President. Bush's job performance rating will never recover, thanks to Katrina and the Iraq War. Bush's personal ratings are still high, but almost 50% of the country supports impeachment proceedings today against Bush.

[MrMickeysMom]

36. Oh, the cry of batterd wives! "I'm so afraid I can't help myself"

Listen to what's being postulated..... "If the impeachment should fail, if a domestic terror attack ocurred during all these proceedings". And here's something to make you stop in your tracks- "if the right wing media" got ahold of it...

WOULD YOU PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR CONSTITUTION?

If this means nothing to you, then by all means, continue to business as usual and "hope for the best". I can no longer afford that for the future of this country.

[sueh]

37. Fuck "will it help or hurt the Democrats?"...

It will help our country.

[earthlover]

40. if there is a backlash against the Dems, and the Reps win in 08 as a result...

...would THAT be good for the country? would THAT be good for the Constitution? Would even more Supreme Court justices serving life terms be good?

You can't separate the political from this. If the Reps win in 08, we are screwed.

[TheBaldyMan]

44. I think you misspelled screwn n/t

[DutchLiberal]

50. What if a Repuke wins in '08 without Bush impeached?

Now there's a scary thought.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. The only backlash I have seen so far...

is against the dems for failing to take on bush in no uncertain terms.

If the dems fail to either #1) IMPEACH and/or #2) Stand strong and not give into him... they will lose to a third party in 2008 anyway.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Yes, we'd hate for them to get all the way up to 25 percent.

:rofl:

NGU.

[TheBaldyMan]

42. Are you completely fucking insane?

that scampering sound you hear is the patter of rats' paws as they scurry off the sinking ship. The oversight that congress finally started all of 6 months ago is uncovering more impeachable offences with every day that passes. Bush and Cheney are toxic.

There comes a time where Congress has to ask itself whats more important, their political asses or their oath of office. Are they willing to keep a pResident in power when he shows nothing but contempt for them. They can cease funding Bush whenever they feel like it. It the final sanction they have and one area where he has no authority at all. They can place articles of impeachment against the most corrupt and incompetent administration in living memory and rid the US of the worst president ever.

That time is long overdue, both Bush and Cheney have shown how unfit for office they are, the pair continue to be a menace to their nation. Let's face it who would go to the wire for them? The military? The Republican Party? The chickenhawk dittoheads? Who in America will sacrifice themselves for Bubble Boy and Darth? Blackwater mercenaries?

Bush and Cheney have no support left to bolster - it's gone.

[xkenx]

47. If we were attacked by terrorists again, it would prove Bushco didn't protect us.

He's been in office 6 1/2 years, not the 8 months @ 9-11-01.

[ProudDad]

48. Look around, The general population of the U.S.

is about the most blood thirsty group you'll find anywhere...

They'll be cheering...

"Kick 'em while they're down!"

It's actually started, haven't you noticed? The MSM has already grown a spine, they're beginning to ask the hard questions and report some of the crimes...

Impeachment will complete the job of discrediting the right-wing in this country, AGAIN, hopefully for many more decades than just 1 1/2...

Impeachment proceedings will flood the MSM with their crimes. I predict that like nixon, his numbers would continue to plummet.

Even if they didn't, Impeachment is a CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE not a choice...

From Bill Moyer's Journal Friday Night:

"JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we're not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-"

Read it here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

Watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html


We're already IN a Constitutional Crisis. Ever since that black day in 2000 when bush was selected by 5 fascists on the Supreme Court in our first real coup we've been in a Constitutional Crisis.

It's time to apply the cure!!!!!

[Pastiche423]

52. What utter hogwash!

I take it that you are not a student of our Constitution.

Please read/listen to Bill Moyers and Constitutional scholar (conservative) Bruce Fein:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

According to Fein, Cheney has:

:bluebox: Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.

:bluebox: Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.

:bluebox: Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

:bluebox: Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.

:bluebox: Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

:bluebox: Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.

:bluebox: Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.

:bluebox: Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq.

And much more.

[IndianaGreen]

56. and Bruce Fein is no liberal. Like Jonathan Turley, he is a conservative

and Turley has been calling for impeachment on the Keith Olbermann Show.

[Pastiche423]

59. And let's not forget John Dean

[blondeatlast]

58. Right now, the smartest thing the re-electable RRRepublicans could do is

vote FOR impeachment. The country is with us, and W and Cheney don't give a levitating fornication about congressional RRRS--Congress itself is his enemy and it doesn' matter what initial falls after their name.
Impeachment is a win-win and it has taken me up until the last two weeks to be convinced of it.

[Alexander]

61. A foolish and poorly-thought out diatribe.

Bush has already illegally wiretapped Americans and lied about the reasons for war in Iraq.

Polls have shown that if Bush has done those things, a majority of Americans support impeachment.

He already has - the key is informing people and telling them exactly what he's done.

How?

IMPEACHMENT.