What does the no-confidence failure say about our ability to remove Bush through impeachment?

[GOTV]

If we can't get 60 votes to allow us to vote on a non-binding resolution against an administration official who everyone agrees should not be in office, How can we be expected to remove the president who still has many defenders in the Senate?

Answer: We can't without more ground work.

[rfranklin]

1. Most of the Dems in Congress are just thinking about ....

benefitting from Bush's low numbers in the next election. They do not think that we are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis with our country being run by criminals. To them it's just politics.

[onenote]

34. except "most of the Dems in Congress" voted for the no-confidence resolution

The point that the OP makes, that you conveniently sidestep, is that if there are only 7 repubs that would break from chimpy and vote against gonzo, how does anyone think that, at this point in time, there is a snowball's chance in hell that enough repubs would jump ship to convict chimpy in an impeachment proceeding.

[madokie]

2. I'm inclined to believe if we were to have the trial where all the evidence is layed on the table

the outcome would surprise a bunch of folks, the disconnect that is allowed by not trying is why the votes aren't there now. they would be there though in the end, I feel comfortable with that thought.

[GOTV]

20. The evidence on Gonzo was laid out. Everyone agreed he was bad. Where are the votes? n/t

[madokie]

26. Well not really

there were no articles of impeachment brought forward and until then there's no table to set, IMO

[GOTV]

29. What's "not really"? The evidence wasn't laid out? Or he wasn't already opposed?....

You mentioned neither in the body of your post. You simply claimed it wasn't true and went on to talk about impeachment.

I still maintain that there was sufficient evidence laid out to turn a sufficient number of Senators against Gonzo. The proof? Their public statements against Gonzo.

Yet, Regardless of the facts. Regardless of their lack of support. They would not vote against him.

[JHB]

32. The votes for what, exactly? A "no-confidence" vote is meaningless in our system

Why should anyone treat a whiffle bat seriouslY?

[GOTV]

45. Not in our media "system" n/t

[MADem]

3. Nothing, really. A "no confidence" vote is a meaningless, made up, copied tool. We don't do that

shit--it's what the BRITS do when they want to unload their PM. Over there, it has meaning. Over here, it's just a wheel spinning exercise that substitutes for actual action in the minds of those who don't pay close attention. Amd the fucking Senate KNOWS this--they don't wanna hose up their summer vacation plans, after all.

What's going to stop BushCo in their tracks is repeated, intense, unrelenting and brutal investigations that peel the layers of fetid bullshit away so we can see the rotted core of this dreadful enterprise. Drag these bastards to the witness chair, strap 'em in, and grill 'em.

Anything other than that is just hot air.

[Amonester]

41. Yes, plus (and it's a BIG +) non-stop m$m "news" reporting of all ...

the "repeated, intense, unrelenting and brutal investigations that peel the layers of fetid bullshit away so we can see the rotted core of this dreadful enterprise. Drag these bastards to the witness chair, strap 'em in, and grill 'em."

But... but... but... We all know PH will get out of jail one day or another, and that, maybe (and I said, perhaps) she will do something else to make sure she will remain the Center Of Attraction for years, and if not (doubt it...), they'll find someone else to distract the hypnotized sheeple.

[Dhalgren]

4. Maybe after '08, with a Democratic President, we can finally impeach Bush!

Maybe the Democrats would have enough power then? Maybe?

[Tesha]

7. :-) / 2. (NT)

[peace13]

15. When and if we get a Democratic President....

our government will work swiftly to impeach him/her. Too sad.

[Toots]

5. Ah yes, the famous battle cry of the Democrats.."The votes aren't there"

:shrug: Nothing ventured, nothing gained

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Is the statement incorrect?

If so, please tell me where they are.

[Toots]

12. How do you know if it is correct or not if you don't try?

Is this statement correct? Nothing ventured, nothing gained

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Because they lobby.

They actually ask before they go to a roll call. If the votes aren't there, they don't do it.

And while your statement may be correct, you fail to point out that there is a whole hell of a lot to lose.

[Toots]

16. Lot to lose.... like maybe the US Constitution

Keep your powder dry, someday somehow Bush* will let you vote on something, maybe school crossing guard..

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Ahh, good, I see you've decided to bust out the melodrama.

This conversation has now become useless.

[GOTV]

22. The other option is not to venture nothing.... maybe that's why you're shrugging your shoulders n/t

[Toots]

49. That is indeed one other option and one I wish they would accommodate

One must remember There is always an alternative It may not be an alternative we like or would choose, but no matter what the situation is there is always an alternative.

[Tesha]

6. More interesting question: Why were we so ineffective at blocking Alito and Roberts?

A more interesting question, at least to me, is:
Given the success that Republicans have always had
blocking Democratic majorities why were we so
ineffective at blocking Republicans when they
were the majority?

For example, why did we completely fail with the
Alito and Roberts nominations? Or the Ashcroft or
Gonzalez nominations? Or USA PATRIOT Acts parts
I or II? Or any number of other shitty deals that
were pushed ahead past our "opposition"?

Maybe there's some sort of systemic failure in
the Democratic Party?

Tesha

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Did you forget the whole "nuclear" saga?

We don't have that option because we opposed it.

[Dhalgren]

17. Yet the Republicans used the filibuster, even though they opposed its use before.

Republicans would say, "That was then, this is now." If the Democrats are as ineffectual as they appear, then it bodes ill for '08. If the Democrats only appear to be ineffectual, then what is their problem? Why is it that the Republicans seem so in-your-face in charge when they have any kind of majority and even in the minority they "take no prisoners", but Democrats cower, unable to do anything regardless of who has the majority? If this is just a PR problem, then we have the wrong Democrats in charge...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Uhm, I hate to point this out to you, but...

Those tactics the Repubs used got them booted out of the majority and are the reason their approval ratings are continuing to slide. One does not build a lasting majority by following their blueprint.

[Dhalgren]

24. Those "tactics" had nothing to do with the Republicans loss of the majority.

They lost the majority because the voting public was fed up with Iraq, corruption, and Bush. Using power does not lead to political loss, misusing your constituency does...

[Captain Hilts]

28. That's exactly right Vash, we should not use their vindictive playbook. nt

[Kolesar]

14. "Patriot Act 1" was during the bush* personality cult

It was tough to make any opposition then. Ashcroft was an accomodation for a "new" "president" in order to not give the press an issue to attack the Dems with.

As for Alito and Roberts, I cannot think of what leverage we would have had to stop them. There really is no convention that the president is not allowed to appoint extremists. We did not have anything incriminating or embarassing on either of those two.

Note how those two assholes voted against protecting the atmosphere from CO2 pollution. I think those men were put up as "religious conservatives" for the RW antiabortionists, but were really doing the bidding of the oil companies.

This is depressing.

[Tesha]

33. Yeah it was tough. And we weren't. We were "go-along wimps".

> "Patriot Act 1" was during the bush* personality cult
>
> It was tough to make any opposition then.

Yeah, it would have been tough. 'Shame the politicians
on our side of the aisle weren't tough but instead were
"go along wimps" who hoped to hang on to a few shreds
of personal power by not opposing anything Bush did.

(Yes, Hillary, I'm talking to you and your friends
who enabled the Chimperor at every step.)

Tesha

[napi21]

35. Are you forgetting that Patriot Act I was passed when most of the

Public were still SCARED to death? They had recently endured WEEKS of non-stop coverage and replays of the NY towers and that terrible time of searching for bodies and interviews of people who lost loved ones. We're all screaming NOW because Congress and the Prez aren't listening to the Public, but the same Public was screaming for more protection back then.

I agree, the power was misused, but circumstances at the time demanded SOME kind of action!

[Tesha]

40. A little leadership (from our side) might have helped aleviate the fear. (NT)

[napi21]

44. I really believe that's playing monday morning QB!

NEVER in MY lifetime have I ever seen an American President totally disregard the laws, and be completely devoid of any common sense. I remember, shortly after the hit on the towers, there were rumors floating out there about Shrub being behind it. I well recall saying to my husband "I don't believe that. NO American President, no matter how bad or incompetent, would ever do THAT!" My hubby said he agreed. NOW I'm not so sure, but it's very difficult to erase all the things we've found out since then and try to remember ONLY what your mindset was THEN. I ask myself all the time WHY I didn't see any of this when Shrub was campaigning? I'm usually a much better judge of people than that. I don't have an answer. I just know I had at least SOME trust in any person who occupied the Office of President. NOW I have NONE!

[Tesha]

50. You're only saying that because I've been saying the same thing since...

> I really believe that's playing monday morning QB!

You're only saying that because I've been saying the
same thing since "Saturday afternoon".

It was astounding how far the Democrats let Bush go
*FROM DAY ONE*. They should have all stood up and
opposed his theft of the election, and kept right
on opposing him every day afterwards.

But they let things slide and Bush kept getting away
with more and more and more...

Tesha

[flyarm]

9. i would be more impressed with subpoenas for Rove and little lord pissy pants, and harriet!!

get those bastards in front of congress under subpoena!! and if they ignore it have them arrested!!

that would impress me!!..the rest is dressing for the turkey!

fly

[Bandit]

31. Right on....

Put them on the Defensive for a change

[11 Bravo]

11. Bush could be caught on film strangling an orphan while sodomizing a goat,

and there would not be enough Repug votes in the Senate to convict him of a high crime or a misdemeanor. The pugs showed their true colors yesterday, making it abundantly clear that loyalty to party trumps everything else.

[Captain Hilts]

18. A LOT. There are not enough votes to justify the long process. Lean on your Repubs! nt

[bigtree]

23. what Feingold said, we don't have the votes to prosecute

all of the (14?) appropriations bills still pending . . .

[UTUSN]

25. Uh, that our "majority" needs to be larger in numbers?!!1 Just guessing!!1 n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

27. I'd settle for the complete utter destruction of the Republican Party

at this point.

:nuke:

[RiverStone]

30. It says we are way long on rhetoric, way short on guts! n/t

[Johonny]

36. I don't care

I want the votes on record. Make these people time and time again put their opinions to public record.

[EFerrari]

37. So, you see no benefit in what the Senate Dems did?

I like that the Senate put Bush's administration on the ropes and discussed at length why Torquemada should step down. And while there weren't 60 votes, a majority did go on record against that bastard. :shrug:

[GOTV]

46. I see Gonzo still in office and a Senate leadership not able to reach their goals n/t

[EFerrari]

48. I guess I don't expect big flashy gains but smaller, solid ones

with the numbers we have now. (And, I'm not a dry powder person in case you haven't noticed. lol)

[catmandu57]

38. It's telling me that it's up to us

To go get these motherfuckers ourselves, the American people fuck congress, fuck the senate it's coming to mob rule before it's too late. This system is seriously fucked up it's long overdo for a change.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. It Says Nothing Really. There Was Zero Chance Of Removing Bush Before It And Zero Chance Afterwards

[Rosemary2205]

42. You little freeper you.

Dude, get with the program. Unless you get behind "President Pelosi" you ain't no REAL Democrat. :crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. LOL Silly, Ain't It.

In reality though, sometimes I think I'm one of only a small ratio of real democrats here LOL.

[GOTV]

47. Well, I was looking to see if impeachment hawks were moved at all by the failure....

... to see that impeachment is probably doomed if started today.