Would you impeach Bush even if we learned it could cost us the WH in 2008?

[mtnsnake]

Let's say we win the House back next year. If Democratic strategists then got worried that impeaching Bush in 2007 would greatly risk our chances of winning back the presidency in 2008, for one reason or another, what would you do if it were up to you whether or not to impeach? Remember, this is ONLY under the hypothetical scenario where it was learned that our chances to win back the presidency could be jeopardized by an impeachment attempt.

I for one would want to impeach him no matter how it could affect our chances of anything, one way or the other.

[high density]

1. Why would it reduce our chances in 2008?

I don't think it would reduce our chances. A third of the nation would be pissed, but we'd never get those votes anyway. The media talking heads are always whining that the Democrats offer no alternatives, and attempts to remove the corruption that currently occupies the executive branch would be a good way to show that we (of course) stand for something different.

[mtnsnake]

8. I'm not saying it would. Just being hypothetical IF that was the case

Let's hope that when we impeach, we won't have to worry about it affecting our chances of winning back the WH, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear some people trying to discourage us from doing so for that very reason alone.

[niyad]

2. people have to know that our constitution actually means something-

and that people who violate it are going to face the penalties for so doing.

[OKNancy]

3. By the time removal would happen

..not impeachment, but if he were found guilty and removed, the term would be about over anyway.

He's not going to be impeached unless we have a huge, huge win in 2006, and even then maybe not.

[mtnsnake]

11. We don't need a "huge, huge win" in '06 to impeach, just a win

The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

As far as him not being removed until after his term, you're right, but that's Part II...if he's convicted in the Senate. Impeachment itself would be accomplished in 2007. What happens afterward, and how long it takes, is anyone's question.

[haydukelives]

4. Hell yes

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I hate to even put this out here, but what makes you sure * is leaving in

2008? (Martial law or * just decides he's staying)

Or if Diebold and other voting machines aren't already programmed for November 2008?

So yeah, I'd do it and not let up for even a day.

[MissWaverly]

19. He could be in a position to help his brother get elected

that's all we would need 8 more years of another Bush, and don't tell me that the
Republican party is too smart not to do that.

[troubleinwinter]

6. War criminals, those who violate the Constitution must be rooted out.

Show that they SHALL be rooted out of our White House and that we will not abide or tolerate criminal dictators.

[mtnsnake]

9. My sentiments exactly, especially in this case

It would be such a shame if this guy gets off scott free, considering the scope of his crimes.

[zippy890]

7. its our duty as citizens to hold our leaders accountable

for their criminal actions, to urge our elected officials to investigate and pursue all alleged offenses, and to prosecute, impeach or take any action required by their offices and the law of this country.

I fear for our Republic if we do not do everything we can to seek justice under the constitution

[ellenfl]

10. if we have the house and/or senate,

a repug pres could not get away with what dubya has. checks and balances, ya know. i want a win in 2006. 2006 is much more important, imo.

ellen fl

[madokie]

12. IMPEACH THAT BASTARD too much at steak

[tinfoilinfor2005]

18. I think you mean STAKE...

As in, "his head on the end of one" :)

[PATRICK]

13. Seeing as the GOP majority must sign on this

IF they were then able to spin this as the Dems' fault well hell, we would lose anyway. THEY control the votes and the initiation of proceedings. The media is not on a crusade. Bush is flaunting his crimes.

The Dems would seem only able to lose real votes by impeding impeachment, rolling over, or hiding under their desks.

[robbedvoter]

14. 2008 is already counted by Diebold. Not impeach=give in, accept empire

I don't think we have a realistic chance to actually impeach - but not fighting for it is tantamount with accepting the empire.
Chances of wrestling power from this bunch via election are even smaller than impeachment.

[mtnsnake]

15. We'd have a GREAT chance because we only need a House majority to impeach

"I don't think we have a realistic chance to actually impeach"
Nope, not true. All it would take to impeach would be to have one more "Yea" vote in the House than they do. If that happened, he'd be officially impeached.

Getting him convicted in the Senate would be a whole different story.

[robbedvoter]

21. To get Congress, you'd need elections (remember 2002 results?

And even then, you'd need ballsy reps - yet another miracle (we have only a few).
Still. It has to be demanded!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

16. Interesting question...

But Yes.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Of course yes.

It is not about winning elections it is about saving the republic.

[Initech]

20. The problem I have with impeachment is...

OK, say the scenario we've all been hoping for plays out - taking back the house and senate, and a successful impeachment for W. Which would also mean the first successful impeachment in our country's history.

Even IF that happens, and again I cannot stress the "IF" part enough, it will take years, maybe even decades to undo the amount of damage that Bush and the neocons have done to our democracy in such a short period of time.

[txindy]

22. Oh, HELL YES! n/t

[AgadorSparticus]

23. hell yes!!! I think ACCOUNTABILITY is more critical to the direction of

of our country.