Ah, the BEST Reason I've Heard to NOT IMPEACH

[berni_mccoy]

I heard this on the Ed Shultz show on the way home from work tonight.

If we start of with impeachment, we aren't going to get the 2/3 Senate conviction we need to get Bush out of office.

BUT, can you imagine this scene behind closed doors:

Bush: "Come on Pelosi! There's no way in hell I'm going to allow you to pass a Minimum Wage Increase Bill"

Madame Speaker: "That's Madame Speaker to you Bush, and if you don't, well, I guess I'll let Conyers issue those subpoenas..."

Bush: "Yes, Madame Speaker. I'll sign that Bill into Law first thing tomorrow morning."

Madame Speaker: "That's what I thought you said. Thank you George, you can go now." (Bush leaves Pelosi's office)

Basically, the Rubber Stamp Congress that has pushed every Bill through that Bush wanted has flipped over to Bush now signing every Bill the Dems want to pass.

The Stem Cell Research Bill will be the ONLY BILL Bush will veto...

Bush has become Congress's Lap Dog.

[mike_c]

1. no-- my America does not countenence criminals in office....

We need to utterly discredit, prosecute, and remove the war criminals Bush and Cheney.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Isn't going to happen without the votes in the Senate to convict.

And if you try and fail, Bush will be vindicated and what will you be left with?

[man4allcats]

10. Bush and Cheney are both

NeoNazi thugs, and everyone knows it. Some may not be willing to admit it, but everyone knows it. They need to go.

[mike_c]

12. if the evidence of criminal conduct is there and aired openly...

...there will be plenty of votes to convict. Jefferson was right about the role of impeachment in American democracy. Turn over the rocks and let the sunlight in-- repubs will not be able to commit political suicide en mass and defend obvious criminality. It just won't happen. Investigation and public disclosure is the first step. Impeachment will be unstopable afterwards.

[magellan]

17. Ask the Repugs if they believe Clinton was impeached

They say yes, even though the Senate said no.

Besides, the House investigation of Bush**/Cheney will bring to light information that will shock this country. Those senators who don't go along with the final step of impeachment will run the risk of losing their seats in the next election.

[pat_k]

38. No worries -- Pelosi exonerated with her "off the table" pledge

You don't need to worry about some future "vindication" -- as long members of Congress follow their self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict, they hand Bush and Cheney this unassailable "exoneration" argument:

Hey, if Cheney and I were destroying the Constitution those folks on the Hill would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Well, they aren't. In fact, they are pledging NOT to impeach. The far left loonies are just helping the terrorists with their crazy accusations.

Heh, Heh."

A person who covers for criminals has a name: Accessory After the Fact.

The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion. Win or lose, in the end history will pass judgement on our actions.

When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

You can't win if you don't fight.

[MercutioATC]

13. Sooooo many reasons why I don't think that's the way to approach this.

Let's go with the big two:

1) Berni's right. We stand to gain a lot more if we use this as a prybar instead of a hammer, and

2) The people want change. They're sick of political battles. In the short term we have to work to not look vindictive. That's where "working together" to make necessary changes happens. In the long term, of course, we can open investigations now that will lead to a world of shit for some Repubs...but we need to do it intelligently. We need to fast-track universally positive solutions to show that we're not simply anti-Repubs, and we need to put the pot of whoop-ass on simmer so it's ready in September or October of 2008.

[mike_c]

16. I will not rest until the war criminals are removed from office....

We must not "work with them." They are vile pigs. They belong behind bars, not in the oval office.

[MercutioATC]

29. I agree, but there's an intelligent way to do that...

Absolute purists (whom I do have respect for) frequently get their asses handed to them.


We have momentum. We have our voice back. Strategically, we need to foster that with the voters. We need to demonstrate that we have positive changes to make that don't involve political retribution.

I hear what you're saying, but I believe there's a better way to handle it.

[Buzz Clik]

34. good post. n/t

[pat_k]

44. For your consideration. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2948216&mesg_id=2950729

[stepnw1f]

3. He's a War Criminal... This Sets a Precedent

[berni_mccoy]

5. And you are going to convict him how exactly?

[stepnw1f]

22. Plenty of Evidence

SIX + years of it. Wow... I can't believe you are afraid of losing this. You can't be serious!!?

[berni_mccoy]

24. So you must be mad as hell that Pelosi and Conyers have taken it off the table

If there already is plenty of evidence.

[stepnw1f]

27. ahhhh... I See Where You are At

of course we have investigations before we have an impeachment. Is this what you are getting at? Because I believe that's what both are saying.... I hope I'm not wrong.

If I am wrong, America is lost and doomed to repeat the same shit over and over. Bush crossed the line a long time ago..... the people will no longer trust the Democratic Party again. They will see the Dems caving into corruption. Bad gamble.

[berni_mccoy]

47. I certainly hope that is what they are planning... if they are taking the

investigations off the table, I'll certainly be pissed.

We need some answers... and when we have those answers, and the facts implicate Bush & Co. to the point that we believe can get 2/3rds to convict in the Senate, then it will be time to impeach...

Until then, it's a tool of leverage to get things done for the better and to allow these investigations to get things like Bush TESTIFYING UNDER OATH in Front of Madame Speaker.

[stepnw1f]

49. Sorry for Misunderstanding You at First

I'm looking forward to the investigations.

[upi402]

4. shhhhhh

Remember why we're hiding in the bushes....

[Independent_Liberal]

6. Maybe he'll do what Nixon did and resign to avoid it.

Something like this...

Cheney is indicted and resigns.
Bush is forced to appoint McCain as VP.
Bush resigns.
McCain is caretaker until January 2009.

[berni_mccoy]

9. At which point he'll be convicted.

[MADem]

18. If McCain is caretaker, McCain gets elected. Then it's eight years of McCain.

Gerald Ford had two big problems--he pardoned Nixon, and inflation was rampant.

Absent those two significant difficulties, he would have sailed to victory. People didn't like the fact that he pardoned the criminal, even though he had nothing to do with Watergate, and they hated the fact that their wages REALLY weren't keeping up with expenses. It was a time of malaise...his "Whip Inflation Now! (WIN)" campaign was a fucking joke.

Don't use the Nixon-Ford model on McCain. McCain would probably LOVE to see Bushie get the full measure of justice, as a PAYBACK for those Carolina 'illegitimate black baby/Crazy, hot tempered McCain' stunts, courtesy of Rove, way back when.

[Independent_Liberal]

37. Maybe McCain would pardon Bush.

I don't know. I guess anything's possible.

[MADem]

7. That's what I keep saying--the joys of lameduckery!!!!

And if Monkey can't bring himself to sign something, we can always work on those Senators who are up for reelection in 08--and a shitload of them are Republicans. They'd vote to override any nasty veto that might come along if it meant they'd be painted as shitheads with regard to the legislation in a nasty, contested "fifty state strategy" election.

A caged, constrained Bush is WAY better than a President Cheney, who might pick some rightwinger like MITT ROMNEY to be his VP. So then, you try to impeach Big Dick, or he clutches the pearls...and what do you end up with? President ROMNEY?? Jesus, that would be pure HELL!!!!

The devil ya know, people.....!!!!

[cui bono]

11. Yes, but Cheney has effectively been castrated.

The party would never allow him to make the pick.

[MADem]

25. If he is the President, he CAN make the pick. The SENATE advises and consents.

Not the Party. When he becomes President, he is the LEADER of the Party, you see.

How to ensure success? Pick a Senator. John WARNER comes to mind if he wants to be accomodating, if he wants to be a fuckstick, he'd pick Saxby Chambliss. Best to pick a GOP senator with a GOP governor, that way the replacement is GOP.

Look, how many Senators do you think actually LIKED Ashcroft? NONE. He was a fundy twit they couldn't go have a drink with. But the "collegiality" of the Senate overrode their distaste, and they put that bum in JUSTICE.

[cui bono]

42. I'm not saying that he's not able to...

I'm saying the party would object so loudly and turn on him more so than they probably already will that he would be a fool and an idiot to do so. They may even lead the calls for his impeachment.

[MADem]

48. They're already angry over the Rummy thing. They are actually angry at Bush, not Dick..

Cheney wasn't the one who pulled that 'decider' presser and vowed to keep Rummy on. Cheney has been pushed aside--by BushCo, because 41 is running the show for Sonny the Fuckup now. If Big Dick took the reins, the neocons might actually be HEARTENED by that event and throw their support behind him in very strong fashion.

Cheney is being marginalized by BUSH, not by the far right wing of the party. They still adore him. As far as the far right nuts go, Cheney's the only guy with balls left in the administration.

Put Cheney in the Presidency, and the crazies, the Limbaugh crowd, the Faux Snooze idiots, would be on their feet, cheering....

[cui bono]

51. I understand that Bush got rid of Rummy but...

the NeoCons are fed up as well. Cheney wouldn't get their support. He was Rummy's biggest supporter and apparently fought to keep him on. And the NeoCons are disowning the whole Iraq invasion now that it has been bungled so badly. So I hardly think anyone is going to appreciate having Cheney as president nor allow him to make many real decisions, especially not any that would have a great effect on the future of the party. Don't forget how low his approval rating is. They would be stupid to allow anyone with such little support of the people have any control when they are in such dire need to gain the public's confidence back.

But anyway, if Bush gets impeached I'm sure Cheney will as well.

[MADem]

52. I wouldn't count on it, at least not straight away. And if it looked like Cheney was going to go

down, then he'd resign, Bush would give him a full pardon, and pick someone else to assume the reins--like say, his POPPY. Then, if Bush is in the throes of impeachment, he quickly resigns before the proceedings can finish (effectively stopping them), Poppy becomes President again, and pardons Sonnyboy, and finishes out his term, naming Jim Baker as VP.

That'd take the wind out of everyone's sails, Iran-Contra and Christ-knows-what-else notwithstanding. It certainly would rehabilitate the legacy of 41 if he lived through the process.

As for the neocons, I'm not talking so much about them as the angry mouthbreathers who demand victory for their team-the Freak Republic crowd, who see this as a contact sport, who support their side no matter how stupid they are. If Cheney took over, and got up and SNARLED, they'd cheer. Of course, a Democratic congress enssentially castrates him, but it would be a short-term joy for them.

[cui bono]

53. I was saying Cheney would go after Bush went...

I agree with your assessment of Poppy saving Sonny boy's ass. It's already in the works with Baker's committee and Gates' nomination.

But as for Cheney, I really don't think the party has that team spirit now, especially after Bush screwed them with the timing of the Rumsfeld departure. They're pissed that after they stod by and supported him in whatever he wanted he didn't let Rummy go sooner when it could have helped their campaigns. They are falling apart and I can't see them rallying around Cheney with his low approval rating and disdain for the poeple. The public doesn't like Cheney. I think it would be political suicide for any congressperson who stood up for him.

So I guess we just disagree. That's okay. :)

[MADem]

54. Well, I think I see the disconnect--I wasn't thinking Congresspersons!

I was thinking Rush fans, those idiots at that far right website, those kinds of chest-thumping idiots. That's the 'rabid base' that would be heartened....

[cui bono]

8. I say go ahead with all the subpeonas

We ahve to investigate. Let's get that going, and in the meantime we'll get all the pertinent things passed, hopefully starting with outlawing signing statements so he can't give them the ol' Bush veto, then minimum wage, getting rid of lobbyists, reverse all the unconstitutional changes, etc.. etc.. etc.. THEN... when the results of the investigations come out and the people are demanding impeachment, then let's go ahead with it.

We can't allow such abuse of the office of the POTUS without repurcussions, if we don't impeach eventually we are condoning his actions. It's not just to teach him a lesson, it's to warn all future presidents that they must stay within legal limits and not try to govern unilaterally.

[TahitiNut]

14. Sorry, I don't believe in "government by EXTORTION."

I believe in a government of the people, by the people , and for the people. I believe in (a System of) Justice - the sole legitimacy of government, without which NO GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMATE.

That 'reasoning' is more "means justify the ends" - I don't buy it. It's amoral.

[berni_mccoy]

21. It's called politics. And Impeachment is a political process that is supposed

to be hung over the head of the President in case he gets out of line.

[MADem]

28. That's EXACTLY correct. And threats have been known to go both ways.

There's a lot missing from the civics lessons, and the "I'm only a bill, sittin' here on Capitol Hill" tunes! The wheeling and dealing goes on all the time, but only the innocent and naive fail to factor it all in...

[TahitiNut]

32. So, let's hope all the Republican Senators are murderers so ...

... their cooperation can be compelled? AGAIN, THAT'S EXTORTION. While the terminally skeptical and cynical may see that as a "reality" not to be changed but to be exploited, I find that to be amoral and destructive. Abandon Justice and we might as well abandon all morality.

It's widely believed that was how J. Edgar Hoover (a closeted Republican and protofascist) accumlated power. I reject it OUT OF HAND. It has no saving virtue.

[bobbolink]

15. nope, that's not the way we govern

Bribery and blackmail aren't the Democratic way.

To The Hague!!

[berni_mccoy]

23. Threat of impeachment is not bribery... it's political

Impeachment is a political process, not criminal, and it's intent is to keep the President in line.

[bobbolink]

26. The only line I want him in is the mess hall line in prison.

Our country comes first before this kind of political gaming.

[MADem]

30. I agree with you and admire your fortitude in attempting to educate on this matter.

They don't get it, and they aren't gonna, because they don't wanna know the reality of it all. Bless their hearts, they're ideologues and purists. They'd shit a doublewide brick if they spent a day on the Hill and saw what really went on! It really is like making sausages...the end result looks fine, but the process is a bit off-putting on a good day and disgusting on a bad one!

[brentspeak]

31. Thank you pointing that out.

The very nature of impeachment -- the need for a majority of elected representatives in the House to formally impeach, for 2/3 of the Senate to convict -- means that the entire process is political as well as legal. In impeachment matters, the two are inseparable. Therefore, the "must/have to" impeach argument falls flat, because sufficient political concensus is necessary to conduct hearings in the first place. If the Founders didn't want it to be political, they wouldn't have bestowed impeachment power onto elected representatives in the first place.

[cui bono]

40. The problem is he's already stepped out of line.

Not taking some corrective measures condones it and gives the signal to future presidents that they can trample on our constitution and rule by their whims any time they want.

[Jcrowley]

19. The inquiry must begin

speculating on how many will or will not support impeachment is beside the point. It is the CONSTITUTIONAL obligation of those who were sworn into office to explore the possibility (like the possibility of a bird flying) of the President lying. As the inquiry goes along and the mountains of evidence pile up and are presented to the American people it will become political suicide for any who do not support impeachment. And like all good politicians they will realize and cut their links to Herr Bush.

Look, how can anyone say impeachment proceedings shouldn't begin when what were dealing with here is WAY beyond mere impeachment.

[brentspeak]

20. I was thinking the same

Impeachment doesn't put food on the table -- and might even make it harder to put food on the table!

[cui bono]

45. and on your family. :)

[Buzz Clik]

33. Eh. I don't buy it. Bush is pretty damned stubborn.

When I see and hear conversations like this one, I think back to some sage words from Molly Ivins: Bush has many, many faults but he is not a coward. It takes some nads to be a fighter pilot, even if you're only protecting the skies over Texas.

There is no way in hell that Nancy Pelosi will be able to back him down with threats -- veiled or otherwise. The Democrats have the administration by the scrotum, and from that position there are plenty of ways to induce pain.

[sarge43]

35. There's that and I keep thinking about who's right behind him.

The Dickster. If by some miracle, he left, one or another, first, Bush would just appoint whoever Poppy chose. Maybe we could live with it, maybe not. However, given the numbers in the Senate, it would be difficult to block. Plus, the American people would see it as another dirty political dog fight or worse, an attempt at semi-coup d'etat to put the Democratic Speaker in the WH by keeping the VP slot vacant, then impeaching Bush. They made it clear Tuesday they're fed up with that.

Yes, Bush deserves impeachment and conviction. He's violated the spirit and letter of the Constitution many times over. However, the cure could be worse than the disease.

Investigate the hell out of everyone and everything connected with him. Turn over every rock and paw through every underwear drawer. The American people also made it clear they're fed up with corruption. The Democratic congress can do something about that. It can also in the process leave Bush in an Arctic landscape and with a legacy that will make Warren Harding and Richard Nixon look positively saintly.

It may not be enough, but it may have to do.

[pat_k]

36. Nice try, but they can't fulfill their oath that way. . .

I am all for using the threat of impeachment to enforce an immediate "cease and desist" demand (e.g., "We will impeach your ass if you sign one bill out of this lame duck Congress"), but we did not give them the power to impeach to use as a tool of manipulation to achieve their legislative agenda.

The power to impeach is the weapon we gave them to defend the Constitution against attacks from within the halls of power.

As long as they follow their self-imposed edict to keep impeachment off the public agenda they are not just being derelict in their duty, they are handing Bush and Cheney an unassailable argument:

Hey, if Cheney and I were destroying the Constitution those folks on the Hill would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Well, they aren't. In fact, they are pledging NOT to impeach. The far left loonies are just helping the terrorists with their crazy accusations.

Heh, Heh."

A person who covers for criminals has a name: Accessory After the Fact.

The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Any member of Congress who sees the threat but won't speak up is enabling and empowering the attackers. No rationalization, whether it's the edict from their peers that "talk of impeachment is off limits," their fear of being snubbed at the next cocktail party, their fear of losing votes, or pronouncements that they "can win," excuses their dereliction.

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion. The process ends with removal from office by resignation or by force through impeachment. Between those two points things can play out in an infinite number of ways. There is no way of knowing.

Their oath is an individual oath. Even if No Other member recognizes the threat, each member has a Personal Duty to act on their own judgment.

[cui bono]

43. Well said.

As I stated earlier...

Start the subpeonas, and in the meantime we'll get all the pertinent things passed, the things that the Repubs will/have to go along with so that we gain the trust and confidence of the people that we're going to lead fairly and responsiblya nd carry out things good for the people. THEN... when the results of the investigations come out and the people are demanding impeachment, then let's go ahead with it.

We can't allow such abuse of the office of the POTUS without repurcussions, if we don't impeach eventually we are condoning his actions. It's not just to teach him a lesson, it's to warn all future presidents that they must stay within legal limits and not try to govern unilaterally.

[pat_k]

46. Hear, Hear! (nt)

[Odin2005]

39. That is fucking brilliant.

Hahaha, using blackmail to rein in the Imperial Presidency, I love the idea!

[Generic Brad]

41. Can we call him "Nancy's Bitch" yet?

Or do we have to wait until January 2007 before we can do that?

[lonestarnot]

50. FUCK YEAH! NANCY'S BITCH! WOOT!

:rofl: