Toots
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-15-07 09:37 AM
Original message |
What would have more impact Impeachment without removal or Censure? |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 09:42 AM by Toots
I go with Impeachment. It is a stain on the Presidency that will live for as long as the USA lives. Censure probably will never be mentioned by anyone after ten years. I say Impeach both those bastards and try as hard as possible for removal but if that can't come to pass at the very least there will always be that stain on them....Let the Democrats put forward their very best case because I am convinced America will hang on every word..If there truly is just cause for removal, it will be almost an impossibilty for Republicans to not acknowledge it and vote for removal..Everybody knows about the two President that have actually been Impeached but do any of you know of the Censures that have taken place?
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-15-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Impeachment without removal |
|
would involve a formal airing of the charges against a monarchial presidency. The lack of removal would result from purely partisan voting (well, plus Lieberman). The party would be exposed as the party of dictatorship.
My own feeling is that Senators are loath to give up their jobs, cushy days of voting on bills they have not read, being treated to sumptuous dining by lobbyists, knowing they have the best socialized medicine in the world, and watching both pensions and portfolios accrue. My guess is that they will sacrifice this lame duck for their own survival.
If not, they will not survive.
In any impeachment, what is on trial is our system of government. Never has this been clearer than now.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-15-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I think censure, at this point, is a useless gesture. nt |
earthlover
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-15-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
3. There already is a stain on the Bush presidency |
|
As to censure, the reason people are not aware of the "censures" that have taken place is that there have only been one censure of a US President, Andrew Jackson, and that was later expunged from the record. That made the history books, and I am sure a censure of Bush would also.
What would make the history books as a meaningful repudiation of the Bush and all the Republican regime would be an historic landslide of epic proportions in 08. This would be the ultimate repudiation, and it would cause more of a shift of power and more meaningful change than just removing a lame duck president along with Bush.
In the meantime, we need to focus our energies to exit Iraq, and to continue to investigate Bush. Investigations into contempt of congress, etc etc etc could very well bring out evidence that could very well lead to impeachment.
And, most of all, position ourselves to win the presidency and win huge majorities in both houses of Congress.
That would be the historic repudiation that we should all be focussed on. Keep the powder dry and don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Then let them have it!
|
JacquesMolay
(413 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-15-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message |
|
... i keep saying it - get a special prosecutor and have him try to bring charges on the illegal wiretapping.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |