Reasons for failure vs Results from impeachment

[Celica Toyota]

Which do you think will get more votes?

We wanted universal health care but failed vs we threw out the crooks and got univesal health care.
We wanted to end the war in Iraq but failed vs we threw out the crooks and got out of Iraq.
We wanted to overturn new bankruptcy laws but failed vs we threw them out and restored bankruptcy protection.
We want stem cell research but failed vs we threw them out and have fully funded stem cell research.


We could list all the things we claim we want. But we don't really want them if we don't impeach. If we don't impeach, all we want are reasons and failure.

Will Americans really vote for failures in 08? I don't think so.

[rooney]

1. I don't think so, either. I would like to see Conyers or

whoever is the correct congressmen to have papers (indictments or summons) ready to hand the administration on the first day right after they are installed. They can do other things at the same time. Get in there and work, this is not a vacation. If we could just repeal every single thing Bush or Cheney has done since their first day it would be wonderful. But we must impeach!!!!!!

[onenote]

7. how do explain the absence of impeachment as a campaign issue

We just won back the house and senate. In the 468 campaigns that were just waged, impeachment was not part of almost any Democratic candidate's platform, or an issue in any of the races. If we couldn't run on it as an issue a couple of weeks ago, how do we justify to the public making it an issue first thing out of the box? We did campaign on investigating and exercising oversight with regard to the administration and we should fulfill that campaign promise immediately, as an end unto itself. If and when that effort builds bi-partisan demand for impeachment, then impeachment can happen.

[twilight_sailing]

2. Works for me!

[onenote]

3. could someone explain this post

why are the choices given the only choices? How can you be sure (1) that we can't get stem cell research through without impeachment or can't overturn the bankruptcy laws without impeachment etc. and (2) that if impeachment was successful, we could get through any of the items listed.

Most importantly is the option you didn't list: how many votes will we get if we try to impeach and fail because the moderates and independents whose support is what made the difference this past elecdtion end up regarding it as a partisan effort unrelated to their concerns?

Investigations and oversight should take place as an end unto themselves. Virtually no candidates ran on an impeachment platform or made it an issue this past election and the swing voters who supported our candidates would rightfully think they're the victims of bait and switch if, instead of focusing on the issues that were the focus of the campaign, the focus became impeachment. Investiations may get the public to the point where impeachment is viable, but we can't put the cart before the horse

[Padme Amidala]

4. Bush will veto them and we can't override. If he's out, they'll be signed

It should be obvious.

[onenote]

6. where are the sixty votes to get cloture on the senate

if we embark on a partisan impeachment effort before there is bipartisan public demand, the repubs will have a free path to engage in their own partisan fighting, incluidng the use of the filibuster. The result will to block legislative initiatives. However, impeachment may drown out everything, and the public will not blame just the repubs or just the dems. In the end, the spoils will go to the 2008 candidate who says " a pox on both your houses" -- and McCain is better situated to take that approach than any Democrat.

[Constitution]

8. It takes 67 votes to override Bush's veto

The numbers show that it's better to impeach unless we want to be useless.

[onenote]

10. there won't be anything to veto if you can't pass a bill

And you can't pass a bill if it can't get to the Senate floor. And you can't get to the Senate floor without 60 votes. And we're not likely to get 60 votes to get our agenda to the floor if its being done simultaneously with a partisan impeachment effort.

Again...we didn't campaign on an impeachment platform three weeks ago, we campaigned on an oversight and investigations platform. Stick to investigations as an end in and of themselves, and, hopefully, it will take us where we want to go. Skip straight to a discussion of investigations as a means to impeachment, and we probably get nowhere.

[Constitution]

9. This is about war crimes - not sex. It's suicide to oppose impeachment.

It's also suicide to fail to impeach.

[stillcool]

5. I'm changing my post...

I've listened to arguments for and against, and scanned wikis' articles on Impeachment and it's process. I am not sure, but it seems the remedy provided by the constitution is impeachment. There doesn't seem to be an 'other' choice.

[pat_k]

11. The wave was a wave of outrage at Bush. (The Subtext? Impeach!)

The talking heads tell us the election was "all about about Iraq." Then they tell us it was "all about corruption."

There is a reason they are jumping around. It was "all about" one thing (that is, one PERSON).

The election was "all about" the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country. (See interview excerpts below)

The LAST THING angry voters were looking for was the sham of "bipartisanship" in Bush-World.

The message of this election: Be Gone Bush!

Do the Dems seize the moment and give voice to the outrage? No.

Do they give voice to what "Be Gone" actually means and take up the fight for impeachment? No.

Instead, they do the OPPOSITE. They do everything in their power to put the lid on the outrage. Instead of being champions of the People and the Constitution, they choose the path of "responsible" and tactical appeasement. (As they wipe their forheads in relief, believing they have dodged the Impeachment "bullet.")

Despite their BEST efforts to push the "Impeachment is BAD" propaganda they have only managed to get 44% of the electorate to say "Shouldn't Impeach." (And that 44% includes Dems who are simply following Pelosi's lead, but who would jump on the impeachment bandwagon in a minute if our so-called "leaders" woke up (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek Poll)

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">November 10th (Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

The prescription?

Gans: Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .

How can the Democrats become the Party of "the Constitution and the People's Government" if they continue to adhere to their self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict?

It is impossible.

A laundry list of legislation while people are being tortured in our name, and the "tactical" sham of committing to "bipartisanship" in Bush-world, is the opposite of what this nation needs. It is the opposite of what the Democratic Party needs to be if they are to have any hope of inspiring and engaging the electorate.

Wake Up Dems! http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm Truth Matters!>

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda