Why is "Impeachment off the Table" for the Democrats in DC?

[WCGreen]

On the surface, I believe it is because we are smack in the middle of an important, although seemingly trivialized, presidential election and that the Dem's feel Impeachment would suck most of the attention away from addressing the real issues of the day...

From the perspective of DC democrats, and I am sorry to see that the most respected liberal in the US Senate, Russ Fiengold, is against Impeachment, it is easy to see why they are not so keen on the idea of Impeachment...

It must be shell shock from the last 20 years of constant GOP ballistic bully tactics that have rendered the democrats almost impotent...

Throw in the Media as willing partner in the dumbing down of American political discourse and they are afraid of their own shadows, afraid of making a small mistake and thus appearing indecisive...

Every time Dem's attempt some change in course, the GOP is there, fighting tooth and nail to preserve their dark side of the aisle

That leads consultants and professionals in DC to think the American public really does view the Democratic Party as a motley crew full of crazy liberals, neutered men, communists and wild eyed feminazi's who are out to sell us all down the river of socialism and into utter eternal damnation...

The Democrat's are afraid to alienate even one voter or, perhaps more salient, one potential donor...

It's as if the whole party is acting like a battered spouse blaming themselves for the condition they find themselves in...

After all, they just want to be loved...

Or maybe it is simply because the GOP plays the game of politics to win and that the Democrat's are just trying to not make any mistakes...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Therein lies the rub...

But in trying to not make any mistakes...

The Democrats are making a HUGE one...

Not going for the damn jugular.......

We may go down in this fight, but at least we can say we tried!

And we need to make a stand, IMHO, at least...

:grr:

On edit: K&R

:patriot:

[WCGreen]

2. Right on.....

[allisonthegreat]

25. democrats should multi task

It is necessary for the impeachment to take place. The double talk and tantrums the repugs have made us endure over the past seven years has been unbearable. Also the lies that have been spun.

[Kagemusha]

3. Last I checked, impeachment took 67 votes to succeed.

When in the last 20 years have Democrats had 67 reliable votes while a Republican President was serving in office? You speak of being "rendered" impotent. As impeachment is concerned, when were the Democrats potent, anyway?

[WCGreen]

5. The Impeachment takes place in the House....

Judgment is passed in the Senate only after the House has spoken...

Remember, even though the GOP knew they didn't have the votes in the Senate to remove Clinton from office, they still proceeded in the House with the hearings and endless investigations...

[Kagemusha]

21. ...Your point? Impeachment without conviction achieves what?

What good would that do? The Republicans will simply behave like the Democrats did when Clinton was being impeached. The House Democrats, I kept hearing how not a single one bothered to review a single page of the evidence cited in the indictment against Clinton. They were going to vote with Clinton no matter what the details were.

What you're suggesting is that we "impeach" the President and fail to convict him and somehow, something positive happens. ...What would that be?

[Phredicles]

27. We air all the evidence of their massive abuses of power;

was OJ Simpson vindicated by not being convicted?

[Kagemusha]

33. If you're seriously suggesting this is all about throwing an accusation big enough

that Bush's name is tarred by the accusation, and not by conviction, so that we can OJ him, I want NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING.

Seriously. Had enough of that during Clinton's 2nd term.

[Phredicles]

36. Throwing a Clintonoid accusation? Of course not - the facts speak

for themselves. Bush has done terrible enough things that his name SHOULD be tarred by the accusation, especially the ones that fall under the heading "Crimes agaisnt humanity", not to mention his placing himself blatantly above the law. It needs to be a matter of public record.

Let's not fall into the rightie trap of equating outrage at Bsuh's enormous crimes with their Clinton-hate.

[Kagemusha]

37. So you're going to make public record his getting away with it all?

That Congress duly considered crimes against humanity and against the Constitution, and found Bush to be innocent of all charges?

You think that's going to help us all?

[Phredicles]

39. Still better than sweeping it under the rug and hoping it goes away,

especially when if we stick to that approach it very likely won't.

[Kagemusha]

40. Putting a public stamp of approval on Bush's actions is better???

Uh okay, if you say so.

[Phredicles]

41. Neither of the other presidents impeached are regarded as having

received "a public stamp of approval" for their actions. And to go back to my earlier analogy, neither is OJ Simpson. My expectation is that an impeachment trial, even if it does not end the Decider's presidency, will destroy it. With all the evidence of Bush's crimes out in the open, those who vote to acquit him will be just as discredited in the eyes of the public and the world at large.

[Kagemusha]

42. Yes, Clinton was so discredited to the public and the world.

Just look at his job approval ratings from the time... oh, wait, those were spectacularly high compared to W's in the present era. Pardon me.

[Phredicles]

43. A) Do you really think an acquittal would garner similar approval ratings

for Bush?

And B), His high approval ratings notwithstanding, I don't recall anyone regarding the acquittal as a medal of good conduct.

Besides, I'll say it again: I'm confident most Americans can tell the difference between what Clinton was impeached for and what Bush ought to be impeached for.

[Kagemusha]

44. I thought it was regarded as a medal of bad conduct by the GOP in congress.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

And by the same token, it's my understanding that a lot of people took the acquittal as proof that lying about sex in a civil case VERY foolishly permitted by the US Supreme Court was not worthy of impeachment nor removal.

[ProudDad]

47. You are obviously too young to remember nixon

He wasn't even impeached... He saw the handwriting on the wall and public opinion was SO against him that he resigned.

And we didn't have ANYTHING on him compared to the proven crimes of the bushies...

The impeachment process would buy the right-wing for decades...

[Kagemusha]

53. Didn't have anything on him? You had Republicans willing to vote to convict.

I'd say that's something lacking today. In fact, the main lesson Republicans seem to have learned is that they were wrong to push Nixon out and should have knuckle-dragged it through, and they'd have done just fine.

As for proven crimes. I'm sorry, proven?

[ProudDad]

54. There might be more repukes than you think

in the Senate willing to tell bush to take a hike and take cheney with him...

They're up shit's creek without a paddle as long as he's in office...

It wasn't a love of truth, justice and the American way that turned the repukes against nixon, it was a cold hard calculation that he would cost them votes...


None of nixon's crimes were proven -- Ford pardoned him before he could be indicted...

Don't you think the crimes of the bush crime family have been proven in the public record?

[Kagemusha]

57. Re: last line, no, not at all. They're suspected, not proven.

But I'm sorry, hasn't been the main thrust of Republicans since Nixon been, Nixon got a raw deal, if Republicans had only stuck by him he'd have survived, and it was a tragedy and a travesty to participate in his being forced out, a mistake that should never be repeated? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[ProudDad]

59. nixon got a raw deal???

nixon spied on American Citizens.

nixon caused the deaths of anti-war and anti-racism workers and protesters.

nixon is the original imperial president, the one cheney now uses as the model for bush's actions. Except cheney/bush have taken it to new extremes.

nixon suborned perjury...

nixon covered up criminal acts committed by his subordinates with his knowledge...

nixon illegally bombed a sovereign nation...

nixon let the Vietnam war drag on -- more Americans and Vietnamese people lost their lives under nixon than did under Johnson...

nixon's crimes are legion and well known...

HOW THE FUCK can you say he "got a raw deal"!!!?!??!?!?!?!?????

He was a crook and a war criminal just like the current occupant. He deserved a jail cell not a pardon...and he would have gotten a nice cell at the farm next to Liddy, and Haldeman, and Erlichman and the rest of his criminal cabal if that FUCK ford hadn't pardoned his ass...


You are Horribly, Monumentally, Incredibly wrong in every possible way both about nixon's removal and the absolute need for an Impeachment process against bush/cheney...

[Kagemusha]

60. Calm down!!! I said Republicans have argued he got a raw deal.

They've argued that for 30 years. Do not rip my throat out with your teeth thinking I agree with them - I don't!!!

[ProudDad]

61. "correct me if I'm wrong"

So I did...

I guess your post was ambiguous and I thought YOU were trying to excuse nixon rather than repeating the RW spin...spin that I've never heard before.

I'm totally amazed that anyone sane can make the argument that nixon got a raw deal... I guess that's the operative phrase -- "anyone sane"...

:hi:


If you hear any idiots in the future trying to pass that gas you are free to use the points in my post against them... :hi:

[Kagemusha]

62. Seriously, you've never heard them argue that?

Well ok, it's basically the founding principle of the Cheney wing and all associated with it, like Rumsfeld etc, and therefore is the inspiration behind Bush's defense of the presidency's uh, powers which it never actually had to begin with.

But that's not important. The important thing is that this is what Republicans have founded much of their actions on in recent history. It is the reason why they'll defend a president to the death, esp. a "strong war leader" like Bush. You won't turn them.

[ProudDad]

65. Thanks for the heads up

Weirder and weirder...

We were having a discussion the other day trying to figure out who the 29% are...

I figured 2% of the haves and have mores -- his base...the ultra rich...

Half of the remaining group probably couldn't tell you who the president is just that they "support" him...

The other half are the idiots who still watch faux noise (about 1%) freepers (about 1%) and the totally brainwashed...

I'm really not worried about bush's "base" -- they're beyond help beyond a pre-frontal so they don't harm themselves or others...

I still would like the Dems to recognize that Americans HAVE progressive values and they should capitalize on that fact...

[WCGreen]

28. It's beyond passing Judement...

It's the only way the people, via House hearings, will ever get any sort of accountability from this administration...

[ClassWarrior]

35. "Even if impeachment didn’t reach the ultimate goal..."

"...of removing Bush and Cheney, it would put down a marker of congressional resistance to executive abuses. The public would get the point, too."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072107.html

NGU.

[niceypoo]

56. If we Impeach him his precious place in history is destroyed, in his eyes

and only will such a threat actually jar him into doing something about Iraq. its all about him, yanno.

[Yukari Yakumo]

11. 60, not 67. But your point stands. {nt}

[MonkeyFunk]

12. No

It takes 67 votes to convict in the Senate.

[ProudDad]

46. Check again

it only takes 213 votes...a majority of the House to impeach...

67 votes in the Senate to remove from office...

And public opinion and withdrawal of authority to render impotent...

[MrMickeysMom]

64. Why does the discussion revolve around current numbers of congressional votes?

... I don't say this out of a sense of being naive, however- Do we not have the ability to change the numbers and gain a 67 reliable votes?

Come on...

Another thread started by orleans today lists the members in Congress who can be phoned and reached this week. Isn't it better to make the future happen rather than wring hands over the high possibility that it just can't happen, given our majority influence?

Engage!

[sandnsea]

4. Today, the focus is on ending the war

Isn't that what everybody has been working for?

If you don't want the attention on the war, then let Congress know you don't care about ending it anymore. Revenge is sweeter. It's definitely more American.

[WCGreen]

6. I am not saying one way or another what I want....

It's how I percieve the actions of the democrats in DC...

[klyon]

19. and many legal cases are winding their way thru the courts

The republicans are under fire from many directions. If the media would just report on it.

KL

[sandnsea]

23. I know

But nobody wants to do anything to challenge the media. They'd rather rant at Democrats doing everything in their power to get the evidence against these crooks. Somebody should be stalking Dan Abrams.

[rocktivity]

26. The war BEGAN because Bush did impeachable things

which should not be ignored under any circumstances. I couldn't care less if the effort failed--it has to be attempted because it's Congress' JOB not to tolerate impeachable things!

:headbang:
rocknation

[sandnsea]

30. You didn't answer the question

Would you rather the media were focused on Bush, Republicans and their refusal to end the war - or the silly vindictiveness of Democrats who are just impeaching Bush to get back at Republicans because of Clinton. What do you want to hear on the media every day? Both isn't an option because nothing will drown out an impeachment.

[rocktivity]

31. The national media would pick on us? That's not a reason NOT to do it.

Bush did something that Congress is supposed to punish him for. And I certainly don't consider such punishment to be either silly vindictive. The longer the Dems lay back and whine that they don't have the votes, the more Bush will encroach on their power to stop him--and the less the public will support them.

:headbang:
rocknation

[sandnsea]

32. That wasn't the question either

Try again. Impeachment or ending the war. Which do you want the media and country to focus on.

[ProudDad]

49. Please stop with the

Right-wing bullshit:

"silly vindictiveness of Democrats who are just impeaching Bush to get back at Republicans because of Clinton"

There are enough ASSHOLES on faux news regurgitating that Shit, we don't need any DU'ers doing it too...

The reason to impeach is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from domestic (and foreign) terrorists -- the bush administration.

They would only be doing their FUCKING main jobs and fulfilling their oaths of office by impeaching this band of crooks...

[sandnsea]

50. Well helloooo, that's the exact point

That's what is going to happen the second an impeachment is started. So that's your choice. A year and a half of regurgitated faux news shit - or a year and a half trying to end the war and expose the hideousness of Republican policy. Take your pick.

[ProudDad]

52. Nobody watches faux news

except a few remaining idiots and the folks keeping track of faux news.

They have nearly NO sway in the public anymore...

I hear and see reporters from the MSM asking more pointed questions of the bushies, holding their feet to the fire. They didn't do that in the first 5 years but now they smell blood in the water.

For the good of the country, they must be impeached -- and if more blood is spilled into the water, good.

I want the outcome to be the total discrediting of right-wing ideal, "values" and ideas for EVER... The publicity value of impeachment proceedings would help drive another stake through the heart of the right-wing bullshit machine (a difficult target, I know)

And they don't have to spend 100% of the Congressional time on it. In fact, it would lend a rather nice smoke screen and provide leverage to pass some real progressive legislation.

Anyway, this is a moot discussion since the process toward impeachment is already well underway... :hi:


On Edit: the Dems have already proved they aren't up to ending the war so they might as well impeach...

[sandnsea]

58. It's the same crap on ALL the news

Nothing has changed. The second the House brings impeachment, it would be a right wing feeding frenzy. Every channel, every newspaper, all across the country. If that's what you're choosing, you ought to be right up front in saying so. You choose a shit slinging fest over trying to end this war.

[ProudDad]

48. GOD DAMN IT

IT'S NOT REVENGE (and yes, I'm yelling!)

Do you believe in a Constitutional Government of laws or do you believe in a dictatorship of one man???

THAT IS THE QUESTION...

No impeaching would be a crime against the Constitution and the People of the United States in the face of the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration...

It has NOTHING to do with revenge, it has to do with the protection and well being of the People...

[sandnsea]

51. You need to learn how to read

I said that's what THEY would say, and that's the kind of garbage that would be on the news for the next year with impeachment. People need to get real about what they're asking for.

[ProudDad]

55. Post #52

Stop being afraid of the right-wing spin machine...

As long as the Dems keep reacting or censoring their actions because of what the RW spin machine might say they aren't worthy to hold office.

They should stop being such invertebrates, hold some principles and act on them...

[jgraz]

7. Thom Hartmann made a great point today

and I now feel a tiny bit better about the whole "off the table" thing.

An impeachment committee would have to follow the same methods that congress is following now: investigate, subpoena, etc. Impeachment may, in fact, slow this process down. It would certainly allow the right-wing noise machine plenty of time to reach full spin cycle.

A week, a month or a couple of months from now, Congress will likely have enough evidence of high crimes and/or misdemeanors to draw 17 or more Rethug senators toward the light. We just need to keep up the pressure and make sure they understand that the people have no intention of backing down.

[WCGreen]

29. So Thom Hartman is worried about the right-wing noise machine...

Then he truly is acting like the battered spouse...

[pinto]

8. I'm a Democrat and don't favor impeachment of Bush. I favor taking the

"Unitary Executive" gambit to the district court and to SCOTUS. Put the abuse of power in the courts first. Call out the judicial system to stand by the Constitution.

(just my two cents)

[countmyvote4real]

9. Good luck. * and "play nice" Dems already stacked the SCOTUS in his favor. n/t

[pinto]

14. I'm not advocating playing nice. I'd like to see the absurd assertions

the Executive is making brought up in the courts. It's a reasonable move, imho. We all want to limit Bushco's dismantling of the progressive federal system we've built over three generations. Clear cut court challenges would bring those to light.

Impeachment's a feel good option, yet it may not be as effective as a series of court challenges. All the way up the legal chain.

If those fail, I'd rethink my take on the possibilities.

(ed for grammar)

[Golden Raisin]

13. Be careful what you wish for.

The courts are now stacked and in BushCo's debt and pocket. The older, "more liberal" Supreme Court incoronated Bush after the debacle in Florida.

[pinto]

15. I know. Yet the arbiter of the Constitution is SCOTUS. That's their primary role.

I'd like to see us put *them* on the record in the issues of Executive privileges and a 'unitary Executive'.

[AndyTiedye]

10. More Than Just "Shell Shock"

Throw in the Media as willing partner in the dumbing down of American political discourse and they are afraid of their own shadows, afraid of making a small mistake and thus appearing indecisive...

That is because they get totally reamed by the Repiglickin media every time. Is it any wonder they might be a little spooked by now?

Every time Dem's attempt some change in course, the GOP is there, fighting tooth and nail to preserve their dark side of the aisle

And no defections ever — blackmail is handy that way.

That leads consultants and professionals in DC to think the American public really does view the Democratic Party as a motley crew full of crazy liberals, neutered men, communists and wild eyed feminazi's who are out to sell us all down the river of socialism and into utter eternal damnation...

And thanks to the Mighty Slime Machine, a significant portion of the population actually believes this.

The Democrat's are afraid to alienate even one voter or, perhaps more salient, one potential donor...

Because it's still close enough to steal!

Or maybe it is simply because the GOP plays the game of politics to win and that the Democrat's are just trying to not make any mistakes...

The Repiglickins can make mistakes all day and it won't matter, but let a Democrat make any mistake at all and it's all over. We have seen this time and again!

[Heath Hatcher]

16. I was sad to hear that from Feingold

I thought he'd be the first to jump on impeachment. I think maybe the party would be willing to jump on impeachment if there was more support for it. It seems with the exception from the left wing of the party it seems that in the general public there's less people willing to support it. You can blame that on whatever you want: stupidity, lack of media support etc. but it just seems like support for in in the political center and right isn't there not to mention every poll taken on the matter comes up lukewarm like the latest poll from USAToday showed only 36 percent showed support for impeachment of bush while 62 percent disapprove, any other poll I showed only showed support in the mid 50's. If I were Congress I would want support for this in the 60's and 70's.

And of course the most important part: the votes. Sure your right, Congress job is to withhold the constitution but that means nothing when you don't have the votes to convict. Now i'm not worried about impeaching because thats no sweat, you can pass anything through the House it always go by party lines, but what everyone forgets we have a ultra slim majority in the Senate and it would take 67 votes to convict, the Democrats would be lucky if they could squander up 50 cause you know Lieberman would never support this and those ratfuckers called the GOP would never turn on a fellow rat, these people will stick together till the gates of hell approaches them. I would rather see the party go after this if we can go all the way on this and at this point we can investigate, draw up impeachment papers, impeach bush and Cheney only to see it die in the Senate. Not to mention that politically this will have some serious blowback from the MSM about this which will portray this as a "witchhunt" and "revenge for clinton" hell Faux are already calling us witchunters because all the investigation the party have been doing on the administration.

Look i'm not saying i'm againist impeachment, i'm not but i'm just speaking with a bit of reality when I say that the votes aren't simply there and support outside our party is flat. But if I knew that the votes and the support were there then as god as my witness i'll go up to the highest hill and scream from the fucking top: CHAIRMAN CONYERS, GET DENNIS KUCINICH AND BDRAW UP THE FUCKING PAPERS. Seriously, i'd do that.

I'm sorry if y'all don't like my opinion I can't help that, but you got to respect it, I respect everyone elses comments regarding this issue.

Everyone have a good day and god bless.

Oh and WCGreen thats a good prespective on impeachment, I don't believe the party is "impotent" but nevertheless a very good prespective. If only the media would be on our side on this, damn could that help.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Who says it is?

NGU.

[me9399]

18. because...

there are more important things to worry about...like congress is more interested in holding hearings on steroids in professional wrestling..:sarcasm: which I read off a wrestling news site

[WCGreen]

20. A lot of prominent Dem's are saying just that....

I do believe that most are in a precarious political situation that can not stand something as onerous as Impeachment to block the way on their road to victory....

As if...

[RFKJrNews]

22. RFK Jr. says "Bush should be impeached as a civics lesson"

Story here:

"RFK jr. says "Bush Should Be Impeached as a Civics Lesson!"
http://RFKin2008.com

Couldn't agree more. Enough talk, already. Let's get the job done!


***SIGN THE PETITION to Draft RFK Jr. for President in 2008:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RFKin2008/

[CK_John]

24. Let's see, 67 - 52 we got to cut off debate = 15 more Senate votes. n/t

[Alexander]

34. I suspect Holy Joe will jump ship if impeachment starts....

Because he is being blackmailed by Bush and co.

That's probably what the dilemma is.

[illinoisprogressive]

38. some are leary of setting a bad presidence. By that I mean

with the gop doing a frittering of impeachement just to get at Clinton they somewhat cheapened what is suppose to be a very rare thing. If they do so they are afraid of it becoming a cheap shot and stunt to do tit for tat.
So, they are leary.
I'd like them to be impeached but, I also see the reasoning.

[ProudDad]

45. It's NOT really off the table

just sort of behind the gravy waiting for someone with a little better reach to get it...

It's happening as we type...

[gulliver]

63. They can't handle it, so they suppress it.

Pelosi and Reid are not bigger than their time in the way, say, Bill Clinton was. I'm glad they are not pursuing impeachment, because they would screw it up. I'm willing to watch them work up the flame on it a little higher though. It might turn into something.

They could do a lot better. They are like the mosquitoes at the nudist colony. They don't know where to start. Also, they are trying to bury the Clinton impeachment in the past instead of trying to resolve it.

On edit: Or maybe they are willing to wait for 2008 so they can get video of GOP congress critters protecting Bush from impeachment.