If the House Impeached President Bush, would Harry Reid the Senate Convict?

[bryant69]

A companion to another poll.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. To those who voted "That's not the point...", well, how does this hold him accountable?

If the point of impeachment was to "hold Clinton accountable", do you think it actually accomplished anything?

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Yup, I agree, impeachment without conviction is pointless

[Kokonoe]

2. Of coarse as we know a poll is a snapshot in time.

Because the longer he is in office, the more the shit happens.

[bryant69]

3. Of course - I've done variations on this poll before

But it is worth considering now, considering the rage currently leveled at Speaker Pelosi for failing to pursue Impeachment.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kokonoe]

7. Agreed, we must continue to press ahead.

A year from now we should be in full impeachment.

[Initech]

4. I dont care if he is convicted or not, we need to impeach.

The public must be made aware that he's a lying, murderous asshole. Even the threat of impeachment will be enough to outrage voters come Nov. 2008.

[Bake]

15. The public already knows that.

That's why his approval numbers are in the toilet. I've got a clue for you, the voters are ALREADY outraged.

Bake

[Initech]

16. Good. Let's hope they stay that way.

I personally hope that the Bush administration spells the death for the GOP and the two-party system in general. It's a flawed system, and the fact that one party has so much power and corruption over the other one (in W's case), this should be the long-awaited end.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Sure, let's just get nothing else done

Fuck workers' rights, the environment, the war, health care, electronic voting and a host of other important issues and let's just go on a pissy little vengeance rampage and fight a battle that can't ultimately be won. Great, so we impeach him or them; there's no way we can get a conviction in the Senate. These are meaner times than 1974, and the reactionary Senators are a much meaner bunch.

This is ridiculous. Republicans live in the past and thirst for revenge; let's not be like them, let's look to the future and work to reverse the ugly legislative and executive actions of the past 27 years.

We should subpoena them to explain their deceptions leading up to the war and we should rake them over the coals for their energy thievery and all sorts of other things, but to impeach is silly. Leave that for the rabid monarchists.

[MiniMe]

5. I would say that it depends on what evidence was brought up during the impeachment

[rucky]

9. THAT'S the case for impeachment PROCEEDINGS, right there.

We should be advocating for impeachment proceedings, instead of impeachment.

That would at least shut the "we don't have the votes" crowd up a bit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. You need the evidence BEFORE you start proceedings.

Not after.

[rucky]

19. We have ample evidence. Now we need a formal venue to present it. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

22. Oh yeah, and there is no evidence Bush has done anything wrong

If you honestly believe there is no evidence you have been following much of anything these past six and a half years.

[damntexdem]

6. I don't think the Senate would convict; but ...

there are some Republicans with some grievances with Dubya. Some GOP senators just might take their chance to whap him up the side of the head.

[DinahMoeHum]

8. I'll settle for the complete utter destruction of the Republican Party

if we can't get impeachment.

:kick:

[onenote]

10. Why is Harry Reid's name in the subject of this post?

If the question is whether Harry Reid would vote to convict, I suspect if it got that far, the answer is yes. If the question is whether the Senate -- which has 99 members who aren't Harry Reid -- would vote to convict, the answer likely is no, because there wouldn't be enough repub support. And if the question is whether Harry Reid would allow it to come to a vote, the answer is that the schedule and procedural rules of an impeachment trial are set by the senate and, in theory, as Majority Leader, Harry Reid has the ability to dictate the speed of the process to a certain degree. I say in theory because in the long run, the pressure for it to come to a vote will be so great that he really won't have that much control over the situation

[rucky]

11. Bryant:

You say "we don't have the votes"

I say, "Congress won't get to present the evidence to convict (or not) without impeachment proceedings"

[bryant69]

18. That's a fair point.

I presume you mean that whether impeachment is successful or not, the act of impeaching will certainly be a good lesson in what Bush is all about to our countrymen.

Bryant

[JerseygirlCT]

12. I'm skeptical we'd have the votes

You'd have to count on a good number claiming not to like the "precedent" of doing so, plus the losers like Lieberman who would do anything to kiss up to Bush.

It seems those willing to take a real stand and real action these days are few and far between.

[treestar]

14. So far, the rethugs in the Senate stand behind the Decider no matter

what he does.

[tiptoe]

17. This question is why -- with no help from MSM -- hearings, investigations, & subpoenas are necessary

and preliminary exposure for informing the American public and the world, setting legal background, and ultimately, possibly "persuading" (politically pressuring) otherwise-party-line Senators to "find a human, civilized, collective Constitutional conscience" (instead of being their usual mindless, lawless, anti-democracy, pro-electionfraud, murderous-war-crime-complicit * whores...albeit most purportedly anti-Satanic).

Look! A message of "something going on in DC" seems to have reached one MSNBC Newscaster: (video available) Indignant newscaster attempts to burn Paris Hilton lead story —David Edwards and Muriel Kane, Rawstory

...Commenters in a thread at Democratic Underground were agreed that the entire episode was scripted but were divided over whether it was a deeply cynical ploy or a positive symbolic gesture on the part of MSNBC...

(DU thread: MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, on "Morning Joe," refuses to do Paris Hilton story, tears up script )

Gore opposes impeachment (as not a good use of time)

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."
. . .
"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.
...

http://tinyurl.com/qkk23

[madokie]

20. why be so worried with what if if the process isn't started

lay the evidence out and then lets see if harry would

[Warren DeMontague]

23. You can't lay it all on Harry Reid. You'd need some Republican votes to convict. nt

[UTUSN]

24. Harry is supposed to do it all by himself? n/t

[Orangepeel]

25. 2/3 of the Senate have to vote to convict.

We can't get 60 votes to stop a damn filibuster.

Ain't no way there'd be a conviction -- not if the Wall Street Journal published undoctored photos of him and Kim Jong-il screwing an underage goat.