There are legitimate arguments against impeaching Bush. Here are my

[Guaranteed]

concerns. I was just talking with my dad about this.

There are three big ones, just that I've thought of:

#1, and the biggest- The futility: All the way down the line, if we impeach Bush, we're just going to get another asshole neocon. Whether it's Cheney, or, if he's impeached as well (and California has "written him up," too), Dennis Hastert, or....Condi, or whoever comes after the Speaker of the House. It doesn't matter. The neocons are lined up as far as the eye can see. It would only be a short-lived, emotionally satisfying victory. I admit, I would love to see him ushered from office, involuntarily. But, in the long run, that might even work against us, as demonstrated in the following points. And, after Clinton being impeached, it tends to cheapen the idea of impeachment, justified or not (and, of course, it is), and could set off an impeachment war. It just wouldn't be what, initially, most would think of it.

#2: 2006 turnout. Talking about impeachment could make Repukes so defensive that they turn out stronger in the mid-term elections than we expect. This, in my mind, is somewhat of a weak point, because I think that Repukes are going to turn out strong in any case, just to keep their own psychological ruse up for themselves. But, if we make impeachment a huge issue, it could be even worse. And every district/state counts for and against us, when we're trying to win back Congress.

#3, and this is very compelling, in my mind: The *2008* election. More than ANYTHING, what we NEED in the run up to the next presidential election is to KEEP Bush in office. We need THAT dumbshit to rail against, not some new Republican dumbshit who doesn't have nearly the horrible history that Bush has. We can't have someone with excuses to go up against. We want a VERY bad taste in the mouth of the American public when they are looking to vote for our next president. It needs to be practically a done deal. We can HAVE that, with Bush. If we have someone who has only been in for a year or two, not only will the choice not be nearly as stark, but they might even be able to be re-elected for TWO MORE TERMS. Jesus. 10 MORE FREAKING YEARS OF REPUKES. NO- thanks, though.


So, anyway- that's my POLITICAL feeling about impeachment. I can deal with another two years, as long as we have an extremely good shot in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. If there has ever been a "president" worthy of impeachment, it's jr

If things continue to move along as badly for jr as they have for the last few years (and there isn't any reason to think that things will change/get better) many gopers will either jump ship or stay home
on election day regardless of the impeachment threat.

[Guaranteed]

2. You're absolutely right. I said that to my dad, too-

who is actually more gung-ho about impeachment than I am. Which is surprising.

I was crazy- literally- against the Iraq War when he supported it.

In other words, I totally agree with you- NOONE is more deserving than this fucker to be thrown out of office.

I'm just not sure it's the best thing for us, in the long run.

I think we're getting to the point where we actually NEED him. He's an excellent target for our politics, so to speak.

[treestar]

3. Good point, Cheney is no improvement, though he may need

a puppet. If Cheney was actually president, what might happen?

His authoritarian style might bring the right down. Bush survies on the folksy good old boy routine while Cheney pulls the strings. But Cheney's actual personality could bring it out into the open that they just want control/authority.

Cheney has been in D.C. for decades and if he were president, his history would be focused on more.

[Guaranteed]

4. Right- but what would we be sacrificing, for what level of change

in leadership?

The change in leadership would be virtually nil, if not worse.

But, then we wouldn't have Chimpy's target to shoot at.

We've got to think of this as a possible trade-off. Do we really WANT to make it, at this point?

Would we have wanted to make it in 2003? Sure. NOW, though? I really don't think so.

I think we're better off leaving THAT guy as the President, and taking our government back through elections.

[ProfessorGAC]

Cheney Would Be Defanged

I think you're underestimating the power of the person who takes over for a disgraced president. Ford was POWERLESS in his short term. He had zero political capital, the american people were still thinking Watergate, he took over for a guy driven from office in disgrace, . . .

Getting Silverspoon means gutting their agenda. That should be goal. They have an ideological which is an obvious failure, their tactical moves have all turned out quite differently than advertised, and if impeachment happens, whoever takes over will have virtualy no allies on Capitol Hill.

I think you may have been thinking a little too "x therefore y". I think there are political dimensions that need to be examined.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Dupe

...

[Guaranteed]

5. Kick- I didn't like coming to this conclusion, either.

If you think about it, it's right, though.

If we impeach, the governing is just going to be more of the same- clearly- with the Repukes having the advantage of a fresh face going into the next election.

I just don't think that is a good trade for us.

We should concentrate on 2006, and beating them. And then, in 2008. Bush will be DESPISED by then.

Honestly, if Bush was man enough to do what is best for the Repukes, he would resign.

[mother earth]

6. Nothing short of criminal charges against the whole group

will suffice. They can all be ousted & if the Dems. don't do it, then they truly are powerless & will remain so. Don't you think the third party can emerge and be stronger than ever before with the next elections? If something isn't done soon, many of us will be looking to that third party candidate as well. (Just a reminder: THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE ELECTION IRREGULARITIES, much to our dismay.)

This is a cop out, and I just don't buy your line of thinking. Sorry, JMHO.

[Guaranteed]

8. Right- they would ALL have to be GONE.

We couldn't even leave the slightest residue, or it wouldn't be worth it.

I SUPPOSE that, if the proposition came up, I MIGHT trade McCain for Bush. He WOULD get re-elected, though, almost certainly.

I think he would be significantly more tolerable than Bush, though- as long as he didn't owe the position TO Bush.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Response

EDITED for punctuation.

Number One. All the way down the line, if we impeach Bush, we're just going to get another asshole neocon.

The idea is to impeach Cheney, too. And why not? Cheney is part and parcel to many of the same crimes that Bush is, especially lying to start a war against Iraq. In fact, Cheney was actively involved in strong arming analysts to get them to say what the junta wanted to hear. In addition, it was Cheney who arranged for no bid contracts for Halliburton, a company of which he was once CEO. Even with a blind trust, he had to know that would fatten his account. Conflict of interest, any one?

Furthermore, if Bush and Cheney impeached and removed after the 2006 elections, which would almost have to be the case, then the president will be Nancy Pelosi, who will become House Speaker after the Democrats assume control in January. Maybe she's not everything everybody wants, but she sure as hell isn't a neocon asshole.

Number Two. Talking about impeachment could make Repukes so defensive that they turn out stronger in the mid-term elections than we expect.

That is a risk we have to take. And right now, with His Imperial Incompetency crawling along in the low thirties and the GOP Congress even worse off after their corruption scandals, it looks like a good bet that this kind of calculated risk will pay off. Big.

Number 3. The *2008* election. More than ANYTHING, what we NEED in the run up to the next presidential election is to KEEP Bush in office.

If Bush stays in office, there may not be a 2008 election, at least not a free and fair one. Keep Bush in office and he just might start a nuclear war. Keep Bush in office and we'll stay in Iraq. Keep Bush and office and he'll tap the phones of more American citizens and toss a few in the slammer without charges. Keep Bush in office and he'll continue to undermine international treaties on human rights and the laws of war. Keep Bush in office and he'll just give us dozens of more reasons why he should not be kept in office.

[Guaranteed]

10. THAT is a good point- if we get the House back, Pelosi would be #3.

That is an ENTIRELY different story. I would support the impeachment of both of them, in that case.

#3- Yes, two+ years is a long time. But, here's the thing- barring Pelosi being speaker, and impeaching both Chimpy and Cheney, what would be different after impeachment? We'd still have neocons governing. Iraq; nuclear wars; phone tapping; international treaties; human rights. What would be different, if we couldn't get Pelosi in there?

And there is the rub. In my mind, it would be only to their ADVANTAGE to get Bush out, at this point. A NEW face- with the same policies! That's exactly what we don't want. It would just start all over again. UNLIVEABLE.

[sweetheart]

9. allowing republicans to save face

Unless we impeach the criminal, the republican coolaid faithful
will have no way to re-join civil discourse. It is not about
impeaching "bush", but impeaching criminality, and letting all
persons the freedom to cast a stone at the stocks to distance
themselves from felons.

[Guaranteed]

11. But we do that with elections, as well. Discourse is rejoined.

In 2006, and definitely 2008, I think having Chimpy in there is only to our advantage.

[sweetheart]

13. Agreed about 2006

Chimpy is a democratic advertizement... he's a gift from heaven.

For 2008, i'm not sure, as we need a champion who is not
a tired re-worked politician to underwrite the return.

I guess my point there, was that my mother won't have a way
to distance herself from her bush vote, but if he is actually
indicted for the crimes he's done, then she'll be apologetic
and yet retain mom's innocence. Mom is not in a position to
indict and try bush... i'm all for doing it for her.

[Guaranteed]

15. I see what you're saying.

Force the break, rather than allowing the "loyalty" issue to remain.

[mother earth]

14. I absolutely agree, Sweetheart! And Jack those ARE terrific

points!

[Lerkfish]

12. wow, you've convinced me! no need to charge criminals for their crimes...

no need to charge treasonous bastards with ...er...treason, because its just too hard!
You're absolutely right! we need to bend over and tell them where to find our anuses so they won't miss as they ram what's left of the flag up our collective arses while we beg for more....

pfffft!

[Guaranteed]

16. That is absolutely not what I'm saying.

And it's not out of the question simply because we don't impeach Chimpy.

[Lerkfish]

35. oh, I got what you were saying, I just disagree is all.

whatever reasons you think impeachment is futile, I think is completely irrelevant.
It needs to be done because its the right thing to do, regardless of outcome.
He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment.
to not do so would be DERELICTION OF DUTY.

all arguments against it do not outweigh that, in my opinion.

[cali]

17. Love these DU delusions

You didn't address any of the OP's points, but that's not what bugs me about your post. There's no way that bushco is going to be impeached for treason. There's a very specific legal definition of treason, and it would be exceedingly difficult to shoehorn bush's crimes into it. I'm pro impeachment, but I'm realistically so. I think the best bet, as yet, is that he be impeached over the NSA domestic spying. He clearly violated the FISA laws. Even so, the OP makes some good points, but he misses one that's vital: With a narrow majority in the House, articles of impeachment might squeak through, but the chances of a conviction in the Senate are absolutely zero. So we'll end up in the same place that we were in '98; a president impeached by the House and cleared by the Senate. And remember that impeachment actually improved Clinton's standing with the American people. Be prepared to see the same thing happen to bushco.

[Guaranteed]

18. I didn't mention the Senate because that was beside

the point as to our best interests. It is inherent within my points, actually- they suppose that we gain control of the Senate.

I did mention the unlikelihood in the Senate to my father, though (to bring him up again). I.E., that we're much more likely to regain the House than both the House and Senate.

[sweetheart]

19. At question is nixon's legacy

Nixon was shit. He's gonna stay shit, goddammmmitttt#!

The fucker was impeached, rightfully so, and his reanimated bushian simulacra
has gotta take the wooden stake or we risk the civil long term acceptance
of rogue criminality every decade from a load of hackers.

Political expediency surely advises putting impeachment
energy towards elections... a call i myself would advise... but for
public positioning purposes, toss as much fuel on the impeachment fire
as possible... he really should be if the rule of law governs the place.

[Guaranteed]

23. Nixon wasn't impeached, although he certainly would have been.

You must also understand that we had control of Congress at the time. It was a different era.

Vietnam hadn't just been going on for 3 years- more like 11-15 years, depending on how you look at it. Nixon had even gotten us out of it, but still took much of the blame for its escalation and the deaths while he was President.

And the generation that supported him- the Silent generation- was extremely weak, in the process of being ousted by their children, the Boomers.

And, of course, the evidence against him was overwhelming- not that it isn't against Bush. But, these Constitutional issues seem to be argued as if they are matters of simple INTERPRETATION. That is laughable, of course- but Nixon covered up a break-in to his political opponents' property. There is nothing even arguable about that, if the facts are supported.

Further- Nixon was largely seen as a simple "dick." People had no sympathy for him. He wasn't "likeable," as unbelievable, again, as that it is to think that Chimpy is.

Also, Nixon didn't have his 9/11. Nor did he have Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News.



Bush and EVERYONE in his administration- I INCLUDE Powell, because he knew, more than anyone- should be thrown in jail. But we have to realize that the political "cycle" is just coming to the SWEET point, for us- the point where people start getting TRULY SICK of what is happening. You don't want to remove the sickness, as far as image is concerned, when that happens- especially if you're not even going to cure it, in reality. This isn't the "don't step in when they're hanging themselves" routine- or, if it is, this is the RIGHT application of that phrase. Because Bush has a 32% approval rating, at the moment. That is unbelievably bad. We don't want to change that by replacing him with someone else.

[sweetheart]

29. really, an impeccable post

I am humbled by that brilliant response.

I am but a lowly turdpile
who knows only english.
I am not worthy to be in a thread with you.

:-) I'm just upset about this bush motherfucker and want
the politicals to sort out the damn mess so i can get back
to sorting out mine. I just can't believe, that being
such a stupid and ill-formed persona as i am, that i
have to be bothered with setting right poitical foolery
on the internet... foolery itself indeed.

Bush should not exist, his whole tribe is an abberration
of oddity arising from some why? Why? What did americana
do, to deserve this evil blighter.

namaste,
-s

[cali]

27. Yeah, but even if we regain

the Senate, we won't get a conviction. It's not like it just takes a simple majority. It takes two thirds of the Senators to vote for conviction.

[Lerkfish]

33. Its always interesting to see who comes out against impeachment

and their reasons for doing so.

invariably, its because people like you say its doomed to failure as far as conviction.

I say, instead, they committed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment. If they are NOT impeached, this country and this congress have failed in their DUTY.

If you cannot understand the difference between DUTY and only gambling if you can be assured of victory, then the delusion is yours.

[cali]

39. Poor reading comprehension skills?

Or are you just lazy? From the post of mine that you're referring to:

"I'm pro impeachment, but I'm realistically so."

I support Impeachment on principle, regardless of the outcome, and I still maintain that expecting a conviction from the Senate is delusional. Or do you rate repukes so highly that you actually think they''ll come around.

Critical thinking skills are your friend.

[Lerkfish]

40. Just lazy. mea culpa.

I was speaking in generalities, but lazily included you specifically in.
my bad.

[cali]

41. Ah, forget it. I'm bad too.

I way overreacted and got much too snarky.

[Independent_Liberal]

20. We have to quit worrying political backlash for Christ's sake!

There comes moments in life when you're going to have to stop worrying about politics and take some risks to save your country and the constitution. I wish people around here would stop saying stuff like, "It will end up making us look bad in the end," "It will only hurt our chances," and "It will only make us look like we want revenge for Clinton." Bullshit! We're talking about the most unpopular president in history. 70% dislike him and want him gone. Political backlash my ass! If we let these traitorous criminals get away with everything, these abuses of power will become a part of the way we govern our country. We CANNOT let that happen! If you keep letting the Bushes get away with it, they'll keep coming back to do more damage. Read my lips, IMPEACHMENT IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH! People continue to say, "Three more years and it will be over." Those who say that are ignorant. These maniacs are bent on world domination for crying out loud. I'm not fucking around. They are THAT crazy and they ARE crazy enough to start a nuclear war. For fuck's sake people, wake up! International law and treaties are being violated, the constitution is being shredded, soldiers continue to die, gas prices keep going up, we're losing our allies, people are being imprisoned without charge, people are being tortured, and you're worried about political backlash?????!!!!!!! GODDAMMIT!!!! This wimpyness stops NOW! (I don't think wimpyness is a word. It's probably a made up one like "decider.")

END OF RANT

[Guaranteed]

24. I'm not talking about backlash, though. I'm talking about a lack

of a figurehead for us to point to and say, "You want more of THAT clown??"

I'm saying that having Bush is a political advantage for us, right now, and that getting rid of him would be a bad trade-off.

[never_get_over_it]

21. I use to be opposed to impeachment

because of its futility but not any more - first of all impeachment does not equal removal from office. It would take 2/3rds of the Senate to remove him once impeached - that will NEVER NEVER NEVER happen with this group of repunks - so even if we regain control of the Senate which probably isn't that likely - it won't nearly be enough to remove this guy - so we don't have to worry about Cheney or Hastert/Pelosi. But we get two things from impeachment or an attempt to impeach. One the admin is STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS - they will not be able to do anything except defend themselves - the House is stopped too - this is a good thing hopefully we can keep them from any more damage in the final two years. The only legislation passed the entire year they were impeaching Clinton was a bill to change the name of National Ariport. Secondly and more importantly these criminal freaks will be investigated and exposed which should have a fairly chilling impact on the repunks for a LONG time. We have a right to have this administration investigated and hopfully the checks and balances that our founding fathers intended for this government might be restored.

[Independent_Liberal]

22. I don't know, if all the scandals that the investigative committees...

...manage to drag out are damaging enough, I think he will be removed.

[never_get_over_it]

26. I really don't think so

don't know how old you are or if you remember it was the Republicans who went to Nixon and told him to give it up. But these were much different people - people that you might have disagreed with politically but still had the best interest of this country and had some integrity - the current batch of repunks have no integrity and care only about themselves and couldn't care less about this country. Depending on what the number of Dems to repunks is after November we would need anywhere from 10 to 15 or more repunks to vote for conviction and removal and I just don't think that will ever happen - I can't think of one of them who would join the Dems in a vote for conviction.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. There are some who would vote for it, like Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Hagel,

and maybe Specter. I'm wondering if some of the Republicans won't feel the need to vote in lockstep anymore after the Dems have regained control. It's possible that if they're no longer in power, they won't feel the need to act so arrogant. You also have to keep in mind all the criminal Republicans who are under investigation. If the Dems win back both houses, but still don't have a super majority for impeachment votes in the Senate, you have to think about some of those whistleblowers who know about a lot of wrongdoing by the executive branch and some of the complicity amongst the Congressional Repubs. Those people would be testifying before the investigative committees and they would be witnesses at public hearings. If the Dems win back the Governorships where some of the criminal Repub Senators are from, once these Repubs are indicted and forced to step down, the Democratic Governors can appoint Dems to the Senate to take their place and only increase our numbers in the Senate. Also, keep in mind that the Dems didn't retain a super majority in the Senate when Nixon was in office, but Nixon got so scared of an impending impeachment, that he just resigned to avoid it. You're right that it was the Repubs who tipped the hat against him in the end. It's possible that a few of the decent Repubs (like Hagel, Specter, Chafee, Collins, etc.) may do the same with Bush. For the GOP, there has to be a devil's scenario. For them, the devil's scenario would be having both Bush and Cheney impeached and Pelosi taking over as President. They'd still want to have some control over the White House. If the Pelosi took over, the whole executive would cleaned out and the criminal Repukes wouldn't be able to get pardons (eg. Ford and Nixon, Reagan-Bush I and the Iran Contra team). In my opinion, the best case scenario would be this: Cheney is indicted and forced to resign. Bush is forced to appoint McCain as Vice President. Then Bush resigns and McCain becomes President.

Please think about everything I said.

[cali]

30. That's a lousy scenario

McCain becomes President, we're screwed in 2008, and can look forward to 4 more years of a repuke in the WH. Thankfully, it'll never happen. Your scenario is highly unlikely. First of all, it's very doubtful that we'll take back the Senate. We stand a decent chance of picking up 2-3 seats. Burns in Montana is in deep shit and Santorum in PA is in equally deep shit. Maybe we could pick up another seat in RI or Ohio, but the stars would have to be perfectly aligned for the dems to take back the Senate. The repukes in real trouble are largely in the House. The only Senator I know of who's implicated in a scandal is the aforementioned Burns.

Even if by some miracle we won the Senate, we will not be able to pick up enough repubs to convict. No way will Specter or even Collins vote to convict, but even if they did, we still don't have enough votes. It's just not gonna happen, and we really should be realistic about it.

[Independent_Liberal]

31. Don't be such a Debbie Downer.

I'm not going to let you rain in on my parade. If you don't agree with my scenario, that's fine. But if my scenario does happen, just be prepared for me to say, "Told you so."

[cali]

32. Are you kidding?

If you're right, I'll be so thrilled I won't mind if you say it a hundred times. (except for the McCain part)

[never_get_over_it]

34. Nope he will never be convicted

Cheney might go through resignation you know for "health" reasons - but freak in chief will never be convicted with 2/3rds vote in the Senate and he knows it - he is too much of a sociopath to ever resign - our best hope is he completely cracks and has to leave because he is incapacitated - but they would just cover that up - he is here at least until Jan 20, 2009 and then I'm not completely sure he won't suspend the election becuase of the war on terror...I would put nothing past these freaks - best we can do is so politically damage him he can do no more harm.

And I hope you can come back and say I told you so to me too!!!!

[Independent_Liberal]

37. You don't know anything for certain. Never say never.

Crazier things have happened. BTW, he HAS to be removed for the reason you mentioned above (trying to suspend the election). Removal is the whole point. Impeachment with no removal would be worthless. I'm not putting all this energy into this movement just to have him found innocent. My hunger for justice would not be satisfied. It is absolutely crucial that we get a Senate that's will to convict. We may not be able to get a super majority, but the less help we need from the Republicans, the better.

[Guaranteed]

25. Those are good points, as well. nt

[Oak2004]

44. I am not sure that impeachment will never happen

Many of the current batch of Republicans in Congress are in fact the mirror image of the Democrats: spineless, and drifting with the wind.

In recent years the biggest breeze has been the ultra-partisan one blown by the radical right, so they have drifted partisan and right. If the wind from their constituencies starts to blow in the direction of accountability, and starts to blow so strong they think they'll be blown over if they don't go with the breeze, they'll vote for conviction.

It's popular opinion, and popular action, that convicts and removes from office. Politicians simply go through the formalities of it. Recent history of velvet revolutions overthrowing entrenched dictatorships testifies to this truth.

[mikelewis]

36. Impeachment is not a "political feeling"...

it's a legal action in response to breaking the law, i.e. high crimes and misdemeanors. This President has shown nothing but utter contempt for the letter as well as the spirit of the law and has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It is irrelevant what happens in the political arena after impeachment or who succeeds him as President. Either we live under the Rule of Law or we don't. If we don't, as long as I'm stronger than you, I can always take whatever I want away from you. The Constitution has not been repealed, last I heard and until it is, Impeachment must remain a legal process and not a political or emotional one.

[Lerkfish]

38. exactly. Its dereliction of duty NOT to impeach

I wish those who naysay impeachment would get that point.

[More Than A Feeling]

43. The way I see it, not acting to give the constitution political meaning

will make the constitution meaningless. Laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they are not enforced. How can we claim to defend the constitution if we won't demand that violators be brought to justice using established and longstanding procedure ie. impeachment. If Bush doesn't deserve impeachment, then who does? Upholding the constitution is more important than who ends up in the office next. If they do the same things as Bush does, they should get the same impeachment he gets. There have to be actions that are beyond the pale, and consistent punishment is the only way to make them beyond the pale.

Now as for 2006, what about OUR turnout? We talk so much about the amazing Republican base turn-out, but how about getting OUR base excited? The promise of impeachment will bring out our base like nothing else would.

As for 2008, there is no law against tying the Republican Party to George W. Bush for all eternity, nevermind the very next election. Republicans still freak out about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Heck, they freak out about LBJ (southern strategy, anyone?). They made their party about W, and now that's all they have, and I want to keep it that way.