Gore Opposes Impeachment

[maximusveritas]

Maybe because he's not an announced candidate, Al Gore's position on impeachment has escaped the scrutiny given to the positions of the announced candidates. Then again, maybe it's also because Gore is so popular, having received universal praise for his leadership on Live Earth and his judgment on a whole host of issues, that the pro-impeachment people don't want to discuss the fact that Gore disagrees with them on their issue.

Anyway, here is what Gore said in an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS:

GWEN IFILL: You've been a leader. You served in Bill Clinton's administration as vice president. You watched as the Republican Congress impeached him. Do you think that the Democratic-led Congress right now should be making efforts to impeach George W. Bush?

AL GORE: I haven't made that case. You know, I think that, with...

GWEN IFILL: Why not?

AL GORE: Well, 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.

GWEN IFILL: You don't think it's a good use of time?

AL GORE: Well, I don't think it is. I don't think it would be likely to be successful.

Read more of the interview: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june07/gore_05-30.html

[whistle]

1. Then Gore need not run for president, he still seems to want to avoid

...confrontation, just like back in November and December 2000.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Avoid confrontation?

That month long fight was not a confrontation?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. "xcuse me, this went to the USSC

after that, and he has said it, he had two choices

1.- Accept the USSC judgment

2.- Civil war.

He's made this clear...

Perhaps I watched a different history than you did, by the way

[book_worm]

87. Oh Please! He took it all the way to the US Supreme Court

It's Kerry who decided to avoid any confrontations.

[Zensea]

2. This is a month and a half old.

& yes, he probably still opposes it.
Things have a way of changing with time and events though.

[maximusveritas]

6. Yes I know, but I think a lot of people missed it the first time

I've heard people complain that none of the current candidates (except for Kucinich) are supporting impeachment and that they wished Gore was running. They clearly aren't aware of his position.

[robinlynne]

7. I was not aware of it at all.

[Zensea]

11. agreed ... now regarding his position (or any pols' position) on this--

If impeachment happens there are a lot of people who are against it now who will change their mind.
If impeachment doesn't happen in the next year and a half, a relatively long time in politics, definitely at the point of the 2008 election at all -- even most likely at the time of the primaries, I'm not going to be basing my vote solely on the individual's position on impeachment.

[rooney]

3. I read today in a DU article that there were ''0'' people

signed on the resolution to impeach Clinton, at the beginning. How many do we have? 9 or 10?

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. 14

But we aren't talking about the Clenis so I guess we need a kazillion.

[WCGreen]

4. He didn't say he wasn't against Impeachment...

He just felt that time was running out and that the process would eat up resources that he felt would be better spent on, gee I don't know, the environment, health care, stopping the war...

[maximusveritas]

9. Yeah, he's against pursuing impeachment. Same thing practically

I think his position is the same as most people opposing impeachment. We'd love to see Bush and Cheney impeached, but realize we'd be better off spending our time on those other things, which we actually have a chance of accomplishing.

[lonestarnot]

68. Sorry to fucking disappoint you, but Al is for what the American people are for.

with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition

[maximusveritas]

82. Talking to me?

Not sure where our disagreement is.

[jobycom]

10. Which is what all the Democrats not screaming "IMPEACH NOW!" are saying.

I haven't seen any Democrat saying "Bush is a swell guy, why would we want to impeach him?" They are all saying what Gore said--it has no chance of success, it would tie up Congress for too long, and in the end the only result would be wasted time. Government by symbolic gesture and wistful thinking is bad government. That's what Bush does--why would we want to do the same thing?

Come up with a smoking gun on an impeachable crime, and we've got a different ballgame.

[mzmolly]

22. Exactly!

I feel relieved to see that I'M NOT insane!

:hi:

[WCGreen]

23. No you're not...

I am for Impeachment if there is a good chance it will happen...

But just to Impeach for Impeachment sake...

We shall see what comes out of the committee hearings over the next few weeks...

[mzmolly]

25. Thank YOU.

I fully agree!

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Good grief, how much more evidence do you people need???

Or are you not paying attention?

[shireen]

5. WHY?

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

:banghead:

[jobycom]

12. He explained why. nt

[shireen]

50. i don't understand his explanation as written in the main post

i must be stupid.

[saltpoint]

8. We don't know the itemization of Gore's thinking that informed his

response.

My secret hunch is that impeachment proceedings would have to target 90% of the Bush administration. It's political sport to narrow blame to just Dubya and Dick. They're the high profile players, certainly, but isn't Alberto Gonzales just as evil? For me, Gonzales is at least as bad as Cheney, and Cheney's as bad as it gets.

The stream is hastening toward the waterfall. Only 6 months until Iowans cast the first votes for our next U.s. President.

Gore is juggling the several responses he could have offered, and picked the one that prioritizes our issues over our political sparring.

[mzmolly]

28. Your post mirrors what Pelosi has said Old Crusoe.

She said that the corruption/lies/filth run deep within the party and focusing on only a couple of men would essentially let the rest of them off the hook? It would afford them an opportunity to distance themselves from what they too, played a hand in. I understand that take. Too bad we can't impeach the majority of Republicans - period.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

36. Oops. I didn't mean to quote the Speaker without her permission.

But if she's said this already, I'll defer happily to her version.

I don't know where someone would begin in a project to sort of wrong-doers in the Bush administration. It would take forever. Too bad we can't invoke the Everglades Solution. It involves a fleet of pontoon boats and an impressive number of crocodiles. I have it from reliable herpetologists that crocodiles love Republicans.

Hiya right back. Politics is a fun thing, isn't it. We're all here on DU swapping perspectives and anti-GOP sentiments. It's a good way to get revved up for the upcoming primaries.

:hi: :dem:

[mzmolly]

40. Ya know, I bet all progressives would agree on this?

...the Everglades Solution. It involves a fleet of pontoon boats and an impressive number of crocodiles. I have it from reliable herpetologists that crocodiles love Republicans.

Heck with impeachment, "Evergladement" it is! :D

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. If we had impeached Nixon, we wouldn't have these monsters today

Impeachment has a trickle down effect. So if we had gone after Nixon, we wouldn't have Rumsfeld or Cheney today. One reason I favor impeachment is so Monica Goodling won't be our VP in 30 years.

[philosophie_en_rose]

13. What a republican!

Forget that saving the world from global warming shit. Only one issue ever counts.

:sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. ...

:evilgrin:

[zalinda]

14. I have listened to a number of things that Gore

has said. He is very consistent with saying that there isn't a ground swell. Not just a ground swell on impeachment, but on CHANGE. He's looking for a fundamental change the American people. And without a change, he or any one else can not carry the burden of righting all the wrongs.

zalinda

[mmonk]

80. The biggest groundswell for an impeachment in US history.

Sorry, I feel I have to correct political statements when they are inaccurate (even if it's Gore).

[orleans]

16. AL-- you're breaking my fucking heart!

truly.

[mzmolly]

17. He doesn't feel it would succeed at this time.

I agree.

[jpgray]

18. If Sheehan goes to protest him for this, the opposing cults of personality will make DU explode

:D

[Truthiness Inspector]

37. For that, we'll need The Popcorn Train

forget the buckets, machines, or trucks even. LOL.

[northernsoul]

72. irresistable force, meet immoveable object!

I'm not sure whose cult is which, but that's roughly the physics of it.

[greenbriar]

19. and your purpose was?

are you voting for sexy freddie

[LWolf]

20. And I disagree with Gore on this issue.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

21. Would you support Sheehan protesting Gore, to change his mind?

I'm genuinely curious.

[mzmolly]

24. Good question JPG.

Hmmm.

[emilyg]

46. No.

[LWolf]

65. Let's back up a step, and look at the larger picture.

I support political protests as a part of a healthy system, and as a democratic principle. I think that openly, clearly, and publicly expressing dissent is one factor that can help keep the system clean and flowing.

Given the above, I have to support anyone protesting, even if I don't agree with the protest. To me, it's not a partisan thing. I'm not going to cheer on protests against the other "team," and get angry about protests against my "team." That would be hypocritical, at the least.

Would I support CS protesting Gore to change his mind about impeachment? Sure. I think protests are a valid, appropriate avenue of political expression, and a valid political tool.

[PBass]

26. This is a bottom-up phenomenon, not top-down.

We could start a whole forum just to discuss all the Democratic Senators and Presidential candidates who say they don't favor an impeachment. It would be a long list.

SO WHAT.

Congress is what matters, because this is a one-step-at-a-time process. Some folks naturally want to know the verdict, before the trial starts. That's jumping the gun.

Al Gore doesn't favor impeachment? Okay. I want it, my friends and family want it, and that's all that matters to me.

Do you want it?

[Swamp Rat]

27. Damn straight!

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

31. Gore essentially said what you did. He's not opposed per se.

He simply doesn't feel we have the conditions in place at this time.

[mzmolly]

29. Recommended. I think this pertains to recent discussion.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

52. I'm #8

Where's all the "Al for President" people now? :)

[mzmolly]

70. Well, I'm an "Al for President" person,

but, his position doesn't trouble me personally.

Then again, I needn't agree with my political leaders on every issue in order to feel represented, so if he did not agree with my tainted perspective - that'd be fine too. ;)

[sandnsea]

71. Well we're up to 12

Apparently your abilty to embrace the totality of a person isn't widely shared. :)

[mzmolly]

75. Depends on the day I suppose?

And the "topic du jour." ;)

[Uncle Joe]

73. I support impeachment and I support Al Gore for President.

:)

[sandnsea]

76. I think his is a reasonable conclusion

But if he had laid out a real case for impeachent, completely documented, that would be reasonable too. All I ask is that a candidate shows that his position is thoroughly analyzed and that his perceptions reflect the fine print. I think it's sad that his remarks have gotten so few recommends. I imagine if it were the reverse, it would have a flood. His opinion should be highly considered, even if its disagreed with.

[phildo]

30. oh geezz who gives a ras a, when this guy would not even stand up against

vote fraud that cost you all the election?

I know a bunch of you blame Nader. And yeah I did vote for Nader, but in Texas I could have voted for Satan and made no difference -- there are so many Bushbots here.

But back to Gore. He is a pathetic wiener. Why do you all keep choosing this same character over and over?

[mzmolly]

32. What about this thread is "choosing Gore"

As for the fraud, it wasn't exposed until some time after the election. Pretty tough to "stand up" for shit one isn't aware of no?

[AlGore-08.com]

57. Actually Gore formally asked the FBI to investigate the Florida disenfranchisement on 11/12/00

Most of the wrongdoings were unknown then. I know all of you will be surprised, but Team Smirk and the state of Florida were actively working to keep everybody in the dark about the extent of the disenfranchisement, even lying to the courts about how many over votes and under votes were in each county, trying to run out the clock until the deadline for Gore to challenge the election results had expired. But Gore asked the FBI to investigate the fraud known at the time and any other fraud uncovered later.

Gore, as Vice President, had no power to investigate the state of Florida. He did all the law allowed him to do - - he reported the suspected crime to law enforcement. And he spent the recount period giving speeches and interviews emphasizing that thousands of votes had not been counted yet, and an unknown number of people had been kept from voting. Later, as some of the details of the vote fraud became known, Gore would refer to specific cases of disenfranchisement - - and that vote counters were being kept from counting votes. It was the FBI who dropped the ball - - I'm not sure any body's ever researched how much the FBI investigated before (and maybe after) Team Smirk came into office.

Gore's campaign turned over all the information they gathered on the Florida mess to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which held investigations in the spring of 2001. In March 2001, John McCain chaired a Senate investigation of the massive voting irregularities in 2000 - - he basically listened for awhile, then threw up his hands and claimed to be mystified as why so many African-Americans and poor people had their votes lost.

[mzmolly]

69. Thanks for the refresher.

Great info. :toast:

[Uncle Joe]

74. Kicked for this post.

:thumbsup:

[losthills]

33. No,

Gore is a principled leader.
And he is right.
We don't need a pointless sideshow right now.
We need to stop the war.

Stop the war!

Now.

[mzmolly]

34. Welcome!

"Stop the war" agreed!

[shadowknows69]

38. I'd just like to hear one candidate (the ones running) say

that at least Bush should be impeached, but, we don't have the time or resources, or votes but we should try because it's a constitutional imperative. Oh that's right Kucinich has.

[mzmolly]

41. I fully agree. I just worry that it would distract from bringing home the troops?

I'm really torn, but I have to side with the troops. I will entertain Dennis's suggestion on how we skin both cats?

[Imagevision]

39. Screw what Gore thinks, remember, he was the genius who chose Lieberman as his running mate in

2000 election - WTF was he thinking? perhaps one of you at DU can enlighten me?

[shadowknows69]

42. He was the DLC number one draft pick that year

[defendandprotect]

43. Gore is never of much help when you need him --

More or less Gore is saying . . . "eh, 18 months . . . what's that?"
This is nonsense -- how many more Americans will die in Iraq -- how much more damage to America's reputation? How many more Iraqis will die? How many more months at $12 Billion per month when we are without national health insurance and so many in America impoverished -- our schools in need, our infrastructure in need of repair!!!

How much more damage will be done to the nation in 18 months?
Social Security overturned?
Medicare totally privatized?


What in the hell is Gore thinking?????


As I was saying . .. Gore is never of much help when you need him . . .

whether picking a VP -- Lieberman !!!!!

or standing up to demand a fair election 2000 -- !!!

Called Jesse Jackson out of Florida to stop rallies -- !!!

wouldn't support a challenge to the election -- !!!

doesn't want to stand against this corrupt administration re impeachment -- !!!

encouraged Clinton to overturn 60 years of welfare guarantees -- !!!

supported most of his career by oil company --

doesn't recommend that we have electric cars -- !!! Why???

Nor does he discuss overturning control of our natural resources by a few families -- !!!!

He has known about Global Warming for decades -- and was very quiet about it until after his retirement --

[sueh]

44. Okay, time to split hairs.

..."with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition,"...

That's what jumps out at me. The nation is now moving towards a desire to impeach. And I'm pretty sure some folks who have read Assault On Reason did post on here that according to his book Gore isn't against impeachement.

[jpgray]

48. That's true. I think Zogby had 54% as considering impeachment

Of course "considering" isn't too strong a word, but it's a step in the right direction.

[Canuckistanian]

45. There wasn't 'consensus in the nation' for Clinton's impeachment

It happened anyway.

[Cameron27]

47. K&R

Interesting.

[Senator]

49. Yes, Gore Fails Again. Is That So Surprising?

And even less surprising is that he meanders around a euphemistic attempt at one the lamest of the False Memes (#2) that impeachophobes use to rationalize their inablility to do what they know is morally demanded.

But I guess it is surprising to many. For some of us it still feels like yesterday when he quit on us in 2000. We forget that the resulting nightmare has lasted so long. And as Time for change recently observed, it can be quite difficult to believe that Gore actually wrote the book he wrote without calling for impeachment.

But he did write it**. And he did, once again, fail to take the moral stand.

This is just bushvgore all over again. It's the reason there was no groundswell for him to run in '04.

He's just not a "closer." Not a real leader. I wish he were too, but he's just not.

----
** Which is not necessarily the accomplishment is seems, as there's nothing in the book that I haven't seen echoed here on the pages of DU over the past few years.

--

[fooj]

54. His book is practically a roadmap FOR impeachment.

BTW- Gore DID NOT QUIT on us in 2000. SCOTUS HANDED the presidency to Jr. That's what REALLY happened.

[Senator]

56. And yet it leads to a Dead End

Failure to impeach. Which is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime. But that's where he leaves us.

And no, Gore quit in 2000. All the Felonious Five did was stop the vote counting in Florida -- thereby truncating and invalidating their election. Justice Breyer instructed Gore and congress on what to do in his dissent.

Gore failed to object -- even as the Black Caucus pleaded with him to do so on Jan. 6th, 2001 -- even though thousands had demanded that he follow through (I was one of them) -- the way Barbara Boxer did over Ohio in 2004.

He quit. He says it was because the next step was "revolution." Whatever that means.

He's doing it again.

--

[AlGore-08.com]

59. Gore wasn't a Senator - - he couldn't join the Florida 14 in challenging the electors

As we have all discussed recently under different circumstances - - the Vice President is a member of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. Only members of the legislative branch can challenge electors. Specifically, at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate must join in the challenge of electors, or there is no challenge. If we are going to condemn Bush, Cheney et al for ignoring the Constitution, we cannot blame Gore for following it to the letter.

After the SCOTUS ruled that the Florida vote count had to be stopped, there was nothing legal that Gore could personally do to get the votes counted. There were things other people or institutions could have done (none of which would have resulted in Gore being inaugurated in January 2001) but there was nothing that Gore personally could do to change the results.

A single Senator could have joined the Florida 14 in challenging the Florida electors. But what would have happened next was in contention. Either:

1.) The House would have voted on whether the Florida electors should be accepted. Since the House was majority Republican, the chances that they would reject the Florida electors was nil.

2.) A miracle would happen and the House would vote that the Florida electors should be rejected. Then the Governor of Florida - - Jeb Bush - - would get to pick electors to replace them. The odds that Smirk's little brother Jebbie would pick pro-Gore electors was less than nil.

3.) The Florida State Legislature - - which was overwhelmingly Republican - - had publicly pledged that they would not allow any Florida electors to vote for Gore. They had already begun selecting a second set of pro-Bush electors, in case the first set of pro-Bush electors was successfully challenged by the Congress. If the Florida State Legislature had sent a second set of electors to DC, it was unclear who would decide which set of electors could represent Florida: either the House, the Governor of Florida or the Supreme Court would have decided. None of them were going to agree to anything but giving Florida to Bush.

So as I said, Gore had no legal avenues left to him. Other people in other countries in other points in history have decided that the ends justified the means, so they launched an armed revolution to try and win power. To accept a court ruling when the ruling is not just wrong, but is one of the worst mistakes in Supreme Court history takes a Hell of a lot of character. It requires the courage and the patriotism and the faith to believe that America can survive as a Democracy despite Bush v. Gore, despite Bush himself.

Seven years after this horrible miscarriage of justice, we're discussing what the best legal maneuvers are for Congress to use to hold Bush, Cheney and their cronies accountable for the crimes they have committed. We're still living under a nation of laws, and believing that the law will win in the end. We're discussing 2008 candidates, believing that there will be a legal transfer of Presidential power in 2009. Some people are concerned that Bush will find some way to hold on to power, but the vast majority believe that America is still America.

If Congress can indeed bring the Bush admin's deeds to light, if we can decide as free Americans whether those deeds warrant impeachment or even imprisonment... then maybe an armed revolution wasn't necessary back in 2001. (And anybody who really thinks we'd have been better off if Gore started a civil war.... I humbly suggest you volunteer for a tour of duty or six in Iraq and study civil war up close.)

[Senator]

62. Gore needed no "legal avenues"

But simply the courage to open his mouth. To say, "This is Wrong." And "what would have happened" after that was not "in contention," it was UNKNOWN.

Certainly parts of that convoluted** list of RNC "inevitability" talking points were possibilities, but also possible was that 4.) the right thing would have been done. What was certain was that if Gore had just said "No, I don't concede," a (necessary) national debate would have ensued. The public/electorate could have been heard from (as with impeachment now).

This notion that someone somewhere would have picked up a pointed stick, let alone engaged in real violence is just bizarre. Who and where would these "revolutionaries" and "civil warriors" attack? To what end? Who exactly is on which side? It is surreal that I'm forced to ask these questions non-rhetorically. I've seen some interesting attempts to rationalize Gore's failure over the years, but that's just stunning. But no more so than this bit:

"To accept a court ruling when the ruling is not just wrong, but is one of the worst mistakes in Supreme Court history takes a Hell of a lot of character."

Positively Orwellian. This must be the same kind of "character" the DC Dems are currently displaying -- accepting the actions of a regime that are not just wrong (like engaging the entire Justus Dept. in their next election theft), but some of the worst atrocities in our nation's history (like torture and terrorizing the nation into war).

Failing to even object to things like this is not "character." It's just irresponsibility. And in the context of being a representative of the American People -- dereliction of duty to them. Sticking one's head in the sand and claiming "the faith to believe that America can survive as a Democracy despite" one's own inaction requires neither courage nor patriotism. Just wishful thinking and a desire that somebody else do the heavy lifting of citizenship.

And like Gore's failures, the regime's deeds have already been "brought to light." Unlike Gore, they readily admit to them. They smugly claim them to be necessary and legitimate. Why shouldn't they? It's not like anyone is willing to challenge them. And without impeachment, that's the precedent that will be set.

"Seven years after this horrible miscarriage of justice," Gore still won't agree that it was one. Let alone suggest that it be redressed. It's a punch line to him. The same is true of the rest of the Dem members of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. Seven years they've look the other way -- asked us to go forward with them in dishonesty.

It can't continue. The people are increasingly taking up the heavy lifting themselves. This crowd of corrupt careerists will be replaced in time and remembered only for their failures.

----
** Some of the things you say in that list are just nonsense. I'd rather avoid untangling that, now moot, bramble of Luntz/RNC baloney. But I will if you like. Suffice it to say there was no "mystery" about the necessary procedure.

===

[fooj]

53. "and with no consensus in the nation"

Things have changed since that interview. His book is practically a roadmap for impeachment.

[Chulanowa]

55. I've been really quiet on impeachment...

But Gore, and the other Democrats are right. I will tell you what will happen if our congresscritters go after Bush.

The same thing that happened when the Republicons went after Clinton. We have no hard crime we can pin him for, though there are numerous trails that lead to his doorstep and stop just shy of the front door. It would turn into a mocked media circus. A serious event, the effort to remove a criminal president, will become a laughingstock and media "goofball" reel, especially if we're still sniffing for clues. It will be turned into a "political witch hunt" or "revenge" for Clinton's impeachment.

Investigations plus hearings plus trials will take up a majority of our legislative time. And for what? What will it do? If we remove Bush, what does that accomplish for us, really? Cheney is next in line, and though way more impeachable, we won't have the time or energy to do it again. And then we deal with trying to squeeze impeachment into an election year, and you get a lot of congressmen and senators who suddenly turncoat to keep their "red" bases... And the flaw remains that there are sill a lot of crazy-assed Republicans in the legislative and executive shooting down everything, even without Bush and Cheney.

It would be immensely gratifying to see both of those freaks dragged through impeachment. I would LOVE to see it. But unless we have something they can actually be convicted of and thrown in jail over, there is no reason to spend the rest of the time we have with these fucks like this. I'd be content with investigating every facet of this administration, which is exactly what our Dems are doing, thus all the subpoenas. Just because they leave office doesn't make them any less legally responsible for actions committed while in that office. Remember - the Republicans were investigating the Clinton administration until 2002. We will do the same, we will FIND the trails, and we will have them incarcerated.

In the meantime, let the Legislative investigate but spend the majority of their time knuckling decent laws through, rather than feedign hte already bloated media beast.

[Senator]

58. Comparing with Clinton is Oxymoronic

----
(Note: And BTW, it's exactly what the Euphemedia is training people to think/fear. So it is not my intent to single out this poster. In fact, this part of the post is a cut and paste -- including this note.)

It's not just apples and oranges, the circumstances are diametrically opposite.

Clinton was a popular, twice-elected president -- impeached for less-than-trivial reasons -- by a party in danger of being seen as extremists (since having been proven).

Bushcheney is an unpopular, never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- being impeached for torture/war crimes, spying on Americans, and/or terrorizing the nation into war -- by a party that might be in danger of being seen as conscious or vertebrate (currently being disproven).

Realistically, we can expect "Reverse Clinton" results. Perhaps even on conviction/removal.
--------

But beyond the Clinton part, there is nothing to "investigate" here -- no smoking gun to find, no "trails." The regime admits its actions and merely "defends" them as legitimate. All that is left is an up or down vote on whether or not torture/war crimes, spying without a warrant, and/or terroizing the nation into war with a bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds!" are things we want to approve of for all future presidents.

That's what failure to impeach means. Approval -- complicity -- exoneration for the regime.

There is no option but to impeach both bush and cheney. They are equally responsible, but more importantly there is no other way to reclaim the power of the office. Cheney could simply be tried first -- in order that a caretaker VP-2B-P is confimed by Congress. But staggered resignations would be far more likely.

And there is no "knuckling decent laws through." Even if they manage to override a veto, the bill still gets negated via "Rule By Signing Statement" -- like the McCain Anti-Torture Law did after being passed 90-9 in the Senate. They are literally impotent to do anything but impeach.

It really is the only moral, patriotic option.

--

[marions ghost]

63. you said it Senator...

'Failure to impeach means approval--complicity--exoneration for the regime...They are literally impotent to do anything but impeach. It is really the only moral, patriotic option.'

What we have on this topic anywhere you look is a feud between the "it'll never work" pragmatists and the "it's the only right thing to do" ethicists. One view is expedient and the other view is longitudinal. Both groups are sincerely advocating the best course, as they see it.

But the "it'll never work" argument depends on your definition of what "working" is. In a society as dysfunctional as ours, it is hard to say that avoiding impeachment will really bring us to a BETTER outcome. That argument is not very convincing. Either way we go on it, we are still on shaky ground.

Some people may have a hard time admitting to themselves that we are really beyond the point of compromise on these issues of treason and tyranny. We are in uncharted territory now. Those who have been systematically stripped of a real sense of security tend to fall back on the safe solution...at least until they are forced to face the degree of abuse they have suffered. Then they will finally fight for their rights.

This is a test of our democracy if ever there was one.

[deacon]

60. He's wrong. I'm switching to Kucinich. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

61. Hey kids ...

only do the right thing when you think you'll be successful. Assault on Reason indeed.

[SidDithers]

64. Does this mean Cindy is going to run against him too?...nt

Sid

[lonestarnot]

66. with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition

He's been busy with Mother Earth.

[DireStrike]

67. "no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition"

uh...

[Initech]

77. It's pretty easy to see why Gore is against impeachment:

They really set the bar pretty low with Clinton's impeachment. And he knows that if he encourages the democratic congress to pursue impeachment, if the republicans ever gain a sizeable majority again, they will try the same thing. It's the old "turnabout is fair play" rule.

[Mabus]

78. USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007: 36% FOR impeachment; 62% NO impeachment

The actual question was:

2. As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?

2007 Jul 6-8
Yes, is 36
No, is not 62
No opinion 3

MOE +/- 3%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-09-bush-poll-results_N.htm

I don't know if you remember or not but back in May of this year (2 short months ago) there were complaints that polling companies wouldn't ask about impeachment. Here are some sample headlines from the After Downing Street website.

June 2007: Harris does online poll on impeachment but does not publish results.

June 14, 2007: CNN's polling director comments on impeaching Cheney, but has done no poll.

June 4, 2007: American Research Group refuses to poll, even for money.

May 30, 2007: Harris refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

May 29, 2007: Ipsos refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

So, can you point me to a reliable poll showing that the majority of Americans wanted to impeach Bush that was contemporaneous to the when Gore was interviewed? Otherwise, Gore was correct when he said there was "no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition" he was correct. If he had said there was a consensus he would have been attacked by the political media as "making things up."

I did find a poll asking about impeachment back on June 30th that was conducted by Zogby. The results were 42% in favor of impeachment (if Bush lied about Iraq) and 50% were against it. (MOE +/ 3%) Below are the comments from which I got these figures. And, if you think about it, Gore's early June statement is mirrored in Zogby's comments especially in regards to no consensus across America. As you would expect, some areas are more supportive of impeachment than others.

Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

[wiggs]

79. IMHO, 36% is very high, given that the opposition party official opposes impeachment

, is not setting an example, and is in fact preemptively squashing hope by saying that votes aren't there...and given that talk of impeachable offenses in the media is EXTREMELY limited and no one is seriously laying out a case yet. The public is pissed, yes, about things in general but specifics and evidence and articles and documentation and statements of outrage aren't really being discussed yet. If they were...look out.

And...I'll make the point again....we here at DU think we're pretty well informed, but I'll bet the number misdeeds we DON'T know about exceeds the ones we DO know about..that the stuff out in the open is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Mabus]

81. Still, this poll wasn't done until July. Gore was interviewed in early June

Otherwise I agree with most, if not all, of what you are saying.

[autorank]

83. I'm a supporter Al, but you're wrong. Nothing happens until Impeachment!

Seriously, we are a lawless nation, you told us that 1/16/2006. He must go and go now!

But that's cool, you'll come around but loosen up.