Impeachment is off the table because there is an election next year. . .

[wndycty]

. . .and the combination of distracting people from the candidates/issues and the potential backlash against Democrats are risk no Democrat would or should take at this point. I would love to see Bush* impeached BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. Let's look at the big picture here folks. The time to impeach was 2005, not 2007.

[loyalkydem]

1. true

however, I think republicans are afraid they are going to loose everything and they really should.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Ha, me and wndycty know each other and...

...I don't think you'd say that to either of us in person!

He's right, by the way.

[wndycty]

7. Its good to see you. . .

. . .I hope all is well.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Yeah, hope all is well with you too!

:hi:

[wndycty]

6. Afraid of the big bad wolf?

Hardly. . .we have an election to win, focus is what I'm advocating.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. IF there IS an election

[grasswire]

3. have you watched Bill Moyers from last Friday?

You'd better the hell go watch it. PBS.org.

The guests are Bruce Fein from the conservative Federalist Society, who wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, and John Nichols from The Nation magazine.

Bruce Fein will explain to you exactly why impeachment NOW is imperative with an election coming up.

[TeamJordan23]

10. But investigations and hearings would drag on until late next year. nm

[Perry Logan]

12. If you're relying on the Federalist Society for your information, you've gone bonkers.

[grasswire]

23. if you're too lazy to watch or read what Bruce Fein has to say...

....then you're on IGNORE.

[Birthmark]

5. Well, maybe

I know that there's an election scheduled for next year, but given the WH's actions of the last couple of days I'm no longer sure that such an election will take place.

[mikelgb]

8. better late than never

he is a criminal and should be tried and impeached

[Poiuyt]

9. Impeachment is a political winner

Historically, the party bringing up impeachment charges almost always picks up seats:

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

more -

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/impeachfaq

[Perry Logan]

14. When they impeached Clinton, they kept Congress but lost seats, lost Newt, lost Newt's successor

So it isn't like the Repugs reaped a bonanza.

[Poiuyt]

17. That's true, but the Republicans still maintained majority

They lost 5 seats. Newt stepped down because he was losing popularity with the Repubs, not because they lost majority.

As I said, the party bringing up impeachment charges almost always picks up seats.

[Phredicles]

30. I like to think people on the whole can tell the difference between

impeaching over failure to be forthcoming about a BJ vs. impeachment over colossal abuses of power.

[distantearlywarning]

13. This argument doesn't make sense

A majority of Americans support impeachment.

So if you were a politician and you wanted to make sure you were re-elected in 2008, you'd impeach.

Unless you have ulterior motives, of course...

[wndycty]

15. Let's not forget Congress has worst approval ratings than Bush*

:kick:

[Phredicles]

29. That's because they won't do their frigging jobs and impeach the mofos.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. That would be a good point

except the majority of Americans do NOT support impeachment.

[Yukari Yakumo]

28. Nor it is a high priority to them {nt}

[Mojambo]

16. These guys are charged with upholding the constitution. Period.

I'm sorry it's an inconvenient time for them career-wise, but they need to do their goddamn jobs.

[Totally Committed]

18. The Republicans didn't care a rat's a** about that.

They dragged Clinton's sorry a** all over the place until the day he left office. AND they won the next election because it fired their base up enough that they could steal the damned thing out from under Gore.

TC

[BlueStater]

19. That's a lame excuse

There's ALWAYS an election next year!

[90-percent]

20. impeachment

impeachment is to Prez-uh-dentz as criminal trials are to us civilians.

Seeing as GWB has inflicted as much damage on humanity as the work of 10,000 Jeffrey Dahlmer's, shouldn't the punishment for Bush in the form of Impeachment carry a similar consequence for GWB? Traitors and murderer's are imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole, or worse.

The White House actions of their entire term in office demand comparable penalties. Nothing less than impeachment proceedings from ALL OF our elected representatives in Congress and the Senate is an act of treason against the United States on the part of those bodies.

-85% jimmy

[90-percent]

21. bumper sticker version

Legislators that do not impeach do not get re-elected!

[The Stranger]

24. If we don't impeach, there isn't going to be a fucking election next year.

There is going to be a false flag terrorist attack and then the activation of executive orders creaing a fucking police state.

[Pyrzqxgl]

27. Oh, Come On. You've been reading too much Sci Fi!

If their weren't police states formed in the early 30's or the 60's this twerp sure isn't going to impose one.

[The Donkey]

25. Electoral Politics SHOULD Have Nothing To Do With It

However, let's note that the party that brought up impeachment in 1974 and 1998 won the White House in the following election. Therefore being afraid of election losses shouldn't be a valid reason not to impeach.

Also, according to my understanding of the Constitution, you can impeach someone even after they leave office, so the excuse that they only have 18 months or so left isn't valid either. it can ensure that they never serve in government afain, and it sets the stage for a possible criminal trial later on.

Finally, impeaching will show the world and future generations that we're still a nation of laws, not individuals, and that nobody - not even the President or the Vice President - is above the law. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that one of the principles our country was founded upon?

I see no real reason to NOT impeach.