Poll on impeachment

[Hamlette]

I'm not saying no investigations.

[BlueStater]

1. This poll is unfair

Can't we impeach Bush AND win the White House in '08?

[RestoreGore]

26. And I suspect sarcastic as well...

But gee, yeah, 2008 is so much more important than our Constitution. Bush has already told his Republican Congress that they have until January to pass all the legislation they can, including warrantless wiretapping. This election didn't all of a sudden change anything regarding the fact that crimes have been committed against our Constitution. Or is talking about that only good enough to use as sound bites to win an election? It's time to put our money where our mouths are.

Abuse of power is grounds for impeachment, and if you are an American who abides by the Constitution and respects the rule of law, abiding by that law precedes any political powerplaying for an election. If you think Bush has had a change of heart because of this election, think again. We the people must now make our voices heard to see accountability for what he has done to this country by abusing the office he was handed by a USSC decision. Anything less is moral cowardice.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Nice Fox poll you got going there.....

I abstained.

[elocs]

6. Right, because there is only one valid and accepted opinion on this.

Obviously, if you do not want immediate impeachment you must be from Fox.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Please, you want a push poll?

Vote in this one. Fox couldn't have done a better job of getting a result it wanted.

[Sapphocrat]

20. This is a ditto post.

Ditto.

[H2O Man]

22. "

n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

56. Ditto. ....n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

63. Exactly... pretty limited choice. FTS!

[BattyDem]

3. Neither. Let the investigations take place and ...

when the findings are made public, the PEOPLE (not the Democrats), will make the decision about impeachment ... which is how it should be.

On edit: As long as the will of the people is acknowledged, the Democrats won't have any problem in 2008.

[JuniperLea]

4. Ignoring criminals is criminal

Anyone who suggests we turn a blind eye or give a free pass to a criminal is a criminal.

In the course of setting things right, many things will be uncovered. Those things need to be used to prosecute, impeach and imprison. Period.

It's all part of the work that needs done.


Only criminals let criminals go free!!


We can do both! By running the criminals to the poky, impeaching and imprisoning, we set an example and rally our people!!!

[Donnachaidh]

5. nice wording -- did you get this from Fox?

Try harder next time :sarcasm:

[Individualist]

12. more likely got it from DLC

:puke:

[Laelth]

7. Push poll on DU.

Not funny.

-Laelth

[porphyrian]

8. That's a false binary, and it illustrates how people can still be against impeachment.

If you believe in our Constitution, impeachment is imperative.

[cool user name]

9. Fuck that poll ...

It's not a Manicheaen concept.

[stepnw1f]

10. Funny Poll

You make the assumption that the Democratic Party would lose in 2008 for holding criminals accountable. Funny...

[GOPFighter]

11. Investigate

If we find he committed a serious impeachable offense, impeach him. But it has to be something the majority finds offensive. I'd prefer to pass popular legislation that he hates and dare him to veto it (increase minimum wage, fund stem-cell research, restore habeas corpus, etc.)

[BattyDem]

13. "I'd prefer to pass popular legislation that he hates"

LOL ... great idea! :toast:

[TahitiNut]

14. More BULLSHIT - SEE what the Nixon Impeachment proceedings brought

You'll note that the VOTERS rewarded the Democrats with an ADDITIONAL FORTY-NINE Congressional seats!

As someone who remembers those days VERY well, I can assure you that the crimes of Watergate were NOWHERE NEARLY AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD. Nor were they regarded nearly as serious ... not initially.

[brentspeak]

32. Yes, see what the Nixon impeachment proceedings brought...

Nixon's plan for universal health coverage for all Americans -- derailed.

Nixon's plan to mandate a guaranteed minimum income for every working American -- torpedoed.

Nixon's goal to broaden the enviromental oversight agencies that he had created -- never happened.

The people who backed the Republicans -- big business, in particular -- were more than happy to accept a temporary loss of GOP political power if it meant that Nixon's liberal policies would be nipped in the bud. If you remember Watergate very well, you would also remember that very few Republican benefactors supported Nixon during this time. They wanted him gone more than the Democrats did. And if impeachment hearings would mean that Democratic efforts to pass liberal economic policy would get tied up, don't be surprised to see corporate America sit silently on the sidelines as Bush gets raked over the coals. Don't be surprised to see even some Republicans make no objection to impeachment.

You're also wrong to imply that a Democratic wave similar to 1974 would likewise occur in 2008 should impeachment hearings be conducted against Bush: the public has already expressed its disgust with the Republican party, two days ago. The public kicked the Republican bums out of office in 1974, but were in a more forgiving mood in 1976.

Yes, Nixon deserved to be impeached, of course, as Bush definitely does today. But there's a great price to paid for doing that, as well as the possibility that one is unwittingly doing someone else's bidding.

[bobbolink]

34. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Nice strawman... Coddle the criminals,

as long as they're Republican.

ppsssttt.... It's not selling...

[brentspeak]

36. You can't even get your logical fallacies straight

let alone evaluate my post accurately.

[bobbolink]

39. Such a very sweet, Democratic reply.

Ever so glad you're on the same team...

:sarcasm:

[Jon8503]

15. You don't just lock in "no impeachment" or "impeach". It depends

on what happens. I say you leave it on the table because there could be circumstances where it may be necessary so I was unable to vote in the poll. If Bush tries to pull one of his fast ones and the only way we have bi-partisan cooperation is his way. Impeachment could come up. I really think our democratic leaders want to avoid it and try to clean up his mess as they have told us all.

Lets hope Bush works with them to get his mess straightened out.

[Party Line]

16. Long time lurker here...

I found much solace on this site pre-election but now I'm becoming rather dismayed with all of the clamoring for dumbya's head.

Screw him. We castrated him, thats good enough for him.

I'd rather see my party get to the people's work and not waste our political capital on a seek and destroy mission.

Also, I hope my fellow Dems realize that this IS a centrist nation...it always has been.

I used to consider myself a Liberal and still consider myself a social democrat, albeit a moderate one.

I'd rather make progress than noise.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. He has admitted to breaking 750 laws

and he has lied to start a war which has resulted in needless deaths, injuries, and hardship for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

[Individualist]

21. 11 days is a long time?

Your profile says "member since October 29, 2006".

[Party Line]

23. So what, Columbo?

You don't have to register to view threads.

Also, I didn't even start posting when I registered.

Anyways, think what you wish.

[Individualist]

24. ROFL!!

[Change has come]

28. Just curious...

When you went from being a Liberal to a social Dem, what brought about that change?

[Party Line]

30. Several courses I've taken...

...with a left-of-center Poli-Sci professor.

I'm in it for the long haul.

Radicals are just as bad as Reactionaries.

[magellan]

37. Since when is it radical to investigate suspected lawbreakers?

A major part of the impeachment process is the investigation. It doesn't necessarily end up with the official being impeached. It depends on the evidence, like in a court of law. In the case of our executive branch, the impeachment process is the investigatory process (House) and the court (Senate).

So, do you take the view that those suspected of a crime shouldn't be investigated? That's really radical.

[Party Line]

43. Of course...

...you're picking and twisting my words with your use of the word radical.

I never said anything about investigations.

Investigations are fine with me.

But, if we try to impeach, we'll get our asses handed to us...that's all.

[magellan]

45. You don't seem to understand what impeachment is

Read this page http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm , consider that it's not an option but the DUTY of Congress to investigate suspected crimes of the President and VP in order to protect our democracy, and think long and hard about what you enable by opposing impeachment investigations.

[stepnw1f]

42. "Radicals are just as bad as Reactionaries."

Please expound...

[Party Line]

44. You can't govern or remain in power...

... for very long from the extreme.

So, I guess there's no big welcome for me.

Do I not belong here?

[stepnw1f]

46. You Didn't Expound

yet you launched an attack, through insult.

What does extreme mean to you in "concrete terms"... and why do you personalize liberals as "extreme"? Please expound, as in give me concrete examples.

[Party Line]

47. I never said that...

...the american use of the word Liberal is extreme.

I feel that I answered your question.

I fear you lack a sufficent understanding of the terms I have used.

Good Luck!

[stepnw1f]

54. You can't back it up, can you?

Just what I thought. You are what's extreme... not liberals.

sgcase said:

Just Curious

When you went from being a Liberal to a social Dem, what brought about that change?



You respond:

Several courses I've taken...

...with a left-of-center Poli-Sci professor.

I'm in it for the long haul.

Radicals are just as bad as Reactionaries.


Ahem.......Yes you did say that. Not word-for-word, but you definitely said it. I just wanted to see if you could back it up with concrete reasons for thinking liberals were radical or extreme.

[Old and In the Way]

57. Let's get our terms defined, OK?

"..the american use of the word Liberal is extreme."

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

OK...now that you know what the term liberal means (not the 'american' definition (ie Rush's bullshit, ok?) tell me why you think that is extreme.

It sounds like you're getting a liberal arts education, is that correct? Good for you. A liberal arts degree is mastery of a number of divergent subjects, a mastery of the big picture if you will. You learn a little bit about everything. Ever consider it strange why there are no Conservative Arts degrees given out? Think about it for a second. It would have to be the essential opposite of the liberal arts degree, right? In which case, you'd be awarded a degree where you learn quite quite a bit about nothing. :rofl:

[stepnw1f]

41. So It's Ok to Break Laws Now

So when do we impeach? When it's purely for political opportunism like the GOP did to Clinton?

Alllllrrrriiiiigggghhhhtttyyyyy then!

[upi402]

61. the rule of law, constitution, bill of rights, treaties, etc =not noise

i'm for waiting, but we soil the united states of america if we just ignore their treachery nd crimes.

pretending there was no elephant in the livingroom didn't work at all. and neither did making nice and hoping they would let us play with their ball a little.

they drew first blood and set the rules of engagement.

[davidwparker]

19. Worked for FAUX? This is a "fair and balanced" poll.

[TheFarseer]

25. I think you've nailed the choices

We DID NOT run on impeachment. We MUST accomplish or attempt everything we ran on. Why should any voter ever believe us again, if we ignore the many problems facing our country and break our pledge to not impeach?

[951-Riverside]

27. The poll is slanted bullshit

Obviously you are not interested in what people really think on the matter, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[magellan]

29. Impeach means investigate

Are people truly against investigating these bastards? If you're a Democrat, SHAME ON YOU!!

[techtrainer]

35. No - Impeachment means Indictment

It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Impeachment

[magellan]

40. Honey, it would help if YOU knew what you were talking about

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.


The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
   
   
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
   
   
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
   
   
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
   
   
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
   
   
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
   
   
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
   

[Bucky]

52. Wow, patronizing and sexist all in one subject line. Congratulations.

I'm going to recommend discussing the topic without being a bastard. If you were face to face with this person, you wouldn't act like a shithead. Please don't do so here.

[magellan]

55. You obviously didn't read past the subject line I responded to

Apart from my adding 'honey', I was no more condescending than they were.

[Greyhound]

31. Another bullshit poll brought to you by the supporters of the DLC.

And now for a word from our corporate sponsor... :eyes:

[brentspeak]

48. It's the other way around

If impeachment hearings would mean that Democratic economic legislation would get tied up and end up unfulfilled, corporate America would support impeachment hearings. Just like Big Business refused to back Nixon when he was being impeached; they wanted to see Nixon's liberal policies defeated, and were happy the Democrats went after him.

Be careful of what you wish for...

[Greyhound]

58. The legislative process does not stop during investigations, just

the news about what they're doing goes unreported. The Democratic economic agenda, assuming it exists, will go forward in either case. If we let criminal behavior of such magnitude go without investigation and resolution, it will add another imperishable stain to the history of this nation.

If we fail to do the right thing in such a case, why would you believe that we will ever do the right thing?

[brentspeak]

62. There would have to be a groundswell of public outrage if investigations

produce the necessary "smoking guns" of criminal wrongdoing. The public has to be for it. If the public is definitely for it, then impeachment hearings are a possibility. But even then, there's no way to prevent important work from being derailed should hearings get underway. Every impeachment hearing of the Executive branch in American history has always derailed or compromised something important.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. What a horrible poll. eom

[LoZoccolo]

38. My kind of poll! Ever notice my side is *blue* and the other is *red*? n/t

[Alexander]

49. This "poll" is utter bullshit.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. Agreed-- total BS "poll"

[LittleClarkie]

50. Bit of a push poll, innit?

Even so, I voted for fixing messes and such.

[Bucky]

51. You forgot two options. Would you rather (A) slap the nun, or (B) save the kitten from drowning?

Give us a real poll and don't be so afraid of honest results, Hamlette.

[SPKrazy]

53. I Refuse To Vote In A Forced Choice- False Dichotomy Poll

Prove that impeaching Bush will hand the congress and white house to GOP please.

That's a corporate MSM talking point, aka a right wing, hence GOP talking point that if we impeach we will pay.

If the fuckers need to be impeached, it is unethical and wrong not to do so.

[meuniermr]

65. I've alerted the mods.

[casus belli]

68. To...silence the poll that offends you?

Tsk tsk.

[meuniermr]

69. Well push polls are illegal offline..

[SPKrazy]

70. I Think That Is An Over Reach

this isn't the real world

this is DU

a poll is only as good as it's writer

[WA98296]

60. CRIMINALS give other CRIMALS a pass. CLEAN UP and serve up justice. Or get the hell out of office.

[NoSheep]

64. Save lives in the Middle East...we can impeach whe they are safe.

[RiverStone]

66. Geeez. We can nail BushCo to the wall later. Far more lives are at stake to end this horrible war.

Darfur too!!!!

[Swamp Rat]

67. IMPEACH BUSH!!! ... IMPEACH THIS STUPID POLL!