Instead of Impeachment,

[Dawgs]

Let's work toward getting a larger majority in the Senate and the House in 2008,
Let's work toward getting a Democrat elected as President in 2008,

which will allow us...

to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home.
to get liberal judges appointed to the Supreme Court.
to fix health care.
to fix the environment.
to restore our standing in the world.
to help the middle and working class people of America; instead of the rich.
to increase fuel standards.
to defeat the terrorists.
to work on gay rights(civil unions and/or marriage).
to keep the Internet safe.
to keep our jobs in the US.
to take back the tax cuts for the rich.
to fix our educational system.
to fix our voting system.
to support our veterans.
to help places like Darfur.
to make college affordable again.
to make housing affordable again.

TO HAVE HEARINGS GOING AFTER BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION.

In two years, Bush and his administration will be gone. He's already irrelevant. Him being impeached will not change the problems we still face in this world. Unless someone can convince me that impeachment will help the Democrats get elected in 2008, I don't see they should take that risk. I'm all for seeing these bastards pay, but not at the expense of losing the White House or Congress again. Let's take back the White House, increase our majority in Congress, and then go after him and his cronies.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The issue is not just the specific one of punishing the Bushies.

It's more a matter of not allowing their precedents to stand. Power being what it is, I don't want a Democratic administration eavesdropping, torturing, covering up wrongdoing and the like any more than I want it from a Republican bunch. And furthermore, if the election theft game is allowed to stand unaltered, there may not be any more Democratic administrations.

That's my Friday argument. On Thursdays I agree with you. You just picked the wrong day to start this thread.

[ThomWV]

2. That is precisely the reason why IMPEACHMENT is absolutly necessary

Because every President after Bush will be doing exactly the same things as Bush if he is not stopped and removed from office.

[Dawgs]

5. But, what if impeachment backfires and we lose the Congress and White House?

Are you willing to take that risk?

As anyone that's been paying attention knows, the Democrats have absolutely zero chance of actually impeaching Bush. If the Republicans in Congress continue to support a super duper lame duck President's failed Iraq war, what are the chances they will actually vote to impeach him. My answer is no chance at all.

[ThomWV]

9. Of course I'm willing to take that risk

I do not find enforcement of the law much of a risk.

[Dawgs]

15. Okay, but what if trying to enforce this one law gives us a Republican President.

Would you still be okay with it if it gives us a new war with Iran, two more additional conservative supreme court judges, and continued destruction of the poor and middle class?

[Toots]

16. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Bring all the evidence out so the general public is aware. that is what Impeachment will accomplish. Most people in the US don't have a clue. Most only get their news from Fox or CNN or Network news. They don't know much. I am more than willing to take the chance because unless we do what really do we have? Democrats can not do a single thing because Bush* will veto it and it takes the same amount of votes to overcome his veto as it does to remove him from office. It only takes a simple majority to Impeach his ass though.

[Dawgs]

18. Most people in the US don't have a clue because they don't care.

Those same people will look at Democrats as babies who are looking for revenge of Clinton's impeachment.

Do you really think the MSM will cover impeachment favorably for Democrats? Talk about not having a clue.

Be realistic people. Impeachment gives us nothing, and will do nothing to stop this kind of stuff. As long as there are Republicans, we will see this kind of stuff. Let's work to get more Democrats in office, and show the world how we can make it a much better place than the Republican world.

Bush has done much more than Nixon could ever dream of, and Nixon's resigning or Clinton's impeachment did nothing to scare Bush from doing what he has done. Why would TRYING to impeach Bush scare any future Presidents? It wouldn't.

[marions ghost]

22. Times have changed...

I think we can forget about how "they" will spin it against us. "They'd" better watch out about how "they" will look in impeachment proceedings.

Democrats will not ensure these improvements you list without being strong enough to use tools of correction against criminals. They will always appear to be compromisers in bed with the abusers. They will be seen as not upholding the constitutional rights of the people.

Impeachment IS part of "making the world a better place."

[Atman]

17. Not a chance in hell...you're giving in to the scare tactics they're telling you.

Backfire? With WHOM? Read the polls, man...Americans WANT impeachment. How on earth could this backfire. The worst case I can see is that we fail to convict, but in the meantime all the sludge will be put on the table for the final 25% of his supporters to see.

Over 70% of the American people do not support this president. Over 50% want impeachment proceedings to begin. The only possible way I could see this backfiring on the democrats is if...well, I don't see how it could. How would it 'backfire?' You seem to think that not convicting would be 'backfiring,' but no, that would just be a possible outcome, and the American people are sooooooo pissed off at this administration that they will be even more pissed off at the republicans who refuse to vote to convict, not at the democrats just for trying.

Remember, the majority of the people want this! Why are you so afraid of the will of the people?

.

[Dawgs]

19. Who is this 'they're' you're talking about?

I think for myself, and you still haven't proven why impeachment wouldn't hurt Democrats.

And, 50% is not a majority. BTW, Most polls show that less than 40% want him impeachment. I saw one that was just under 50%.

Also, can you explain how the Democrats will get the votes to impeach?

[Atman]

20. You haven't said how it WOULD hurt democrats

You are part of the "They." "They" are the group of people afraid to defend the constitution and stand up to the tyrant who is thumbing his nose at us.

How many thousands of times does it have to be said...you never know what the jury is going to decide until you make your case. The American people don't like this man, and they'll like him even less when the evidence is presented. Then the republicans who want to get re-elected just as much as the democrats do will have to answer to their constituents. I guarantee you'll have more and more republicans join our side when and if impeachment is back on the table. Do you play poker? Wanna come to a game at my house? The reason why we don't have the votes to convict right now is twofold. 1) being the simple fact that the evidence hasn't even been presented yet, and 2) Nancy has laid her hand on the table already. The republicans would be foolish right now to sign on publicly because Nancy has said it will never happen, so all they'd be doing is going against Bush for no reason. Even several republicans aren't that stupid.

.

[Dawgs]

24. I did say. Try reading and thinking instead of just reacting.

[Atman]

25. Ooh, yes, THAT'S IT! I just haven't thought about it yet! How silly of me!

I read every one of your posts and you NEVER ONCE said "how this would hurt democrats." You give a lot of lilly-livered namby-pamby wimpy-assed whining about how we don't yet have a conviction secured even though the trial hasn't started yet (you used phrases like "we don't have the votes," which is wrong because we haven't even held the trial), and how poor little Georgie will be gone soon anyway so we should just let him run roughshod over the constitution.

I tell you what dawg-boy, why don't YOU read up on it so perhaps you might begin to understand the very, very dangerous precedent we set by allowing this man's power to go unchallenged. This is much much bigger than your petty concerns about image.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html

Oh, and if you prefer this snarky tone to an actual discussion, then you can just keep on responding in kind.

:hi:

.

[DangerDave921]

8. What?

So you're saying that a DEM president will do the things Bush has done? That's a weird statement. So why vote DEM at all then?

[ThomWV]

10. I think anyone elected President will look at Bush's actions and see what is possible

And if you think just because a person is a Democrat he or she is above that sort of thing then you're nuts. If they can they will and Bush is giving all the precedence needed.

[DangerDave921]

14. sorry

I believe Dems have a higher moral code. You're basically saying that all presidents will do the same thing. If that's true, then it doesn't seem to matter which party you vote for.

[Atman]

21. I agree completely. Once the precedents are codified, all bets are off.

There are Democrats who aren't all that "Democratic." The fact is, you give anyone the sort of power Bush has assumed for himself and they'll find opportunities and justifications for using it, regardless of the little initial next to their name.

.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. I agree with your Friday argument 7 days a week 28 hours a day!

Edit...and twice on Sundays!

[madokie]

7. thats the way I see it too

its the principle is what it is

[frogcycle]

11. Much of what you say is accurate

but there is an overriding societal issue

Allowing them to continue to occupy the position, represent this country to the world, is toxic. And even with Democratic control of Congress, he and his minions will continue to wreak havoc on the entire executive branch. The DoJ is reported to be gutted; we hardly even hear about what damage they may have done to HHS, or Interior, et al. He has eighteen months to continue driving away good people, dismantling the infrastructure.

waiting 18 months, letting him depart office normally, and then going after him is hollow. The world would scarcely notice.

he said just yesterday that the war had 'hurt our national psychology' or some such garbled expression. It is he who has done that, and for the sake of our 'national psychology' we need an overt national repudiation of all they stand for. We need some catharsis. We need to end our 'long national nightmare'

I agree the impeachment process has a lot of drawbacks. And most of what I say above would not be changed appreciably by an impeachment effort. What, though, short of just riding it out, is there?

Maybe a seven-continent rock concert with the theme "bush sucks?"

There is just no good answer.

[DangerDave921]

13. No more Dem presidents?

Are you forgetting the 2006 electiosn where the Dems won in a landslide? I think it very likely we will have a Dem president in '08.

Sorry to be blunt, but impeachment over election theft is a total PIPE DREAM. It is never going to happen. Look, there is wishful thinking and there is reality. One has to be able to deal with reality to make any kind of rational assessment of the world. Florida was almost seven years ago. Ohio was almost three years ago. Those elections are over and done with. There is simply ZERO chance that the House could ever find enough support to draft articles of impeachment over a stolen election.

If you truly believe it is still a possibility, I'd like to know your thoughts on which House members you think would support such a move, and how many members you think would go along with it.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Whatever ...

makes you think Bush is irrelevant isn't reality.

[snappyturtle]

4. Agreed. nt

[Dawgs]

12. So, your answer proves what?

I'm still waiting to hear how going forward with impeachment helps the Democrats for 2008.

[lonestarnot]

23. So give him 18 more months to scheme on an attack of Iran.

:thumbsdown: