Political strategy about impeachment

[steve2470]

Please hear me out here. I'm for impeachment and imprisonment of * and Darth as much as anyone here but I try to be politically realistic.

I think (but I have no first hand knowledge, of course) that Nancy Pelosi would be thrilled to see * and Darth escorted out of the WH. However, memories of 1998 and 1999 are instructive.

If my memory serves me correctly, the impeachment and the conviction votes were almost exactly party line, correct ? That tells me, a non-expert on politics, that partisanship had a HELL of a lot more to do with that impeachment effort than any noble effort at saving the country.

I'd like to think that Ms. Pelosi wants to avoid that scenario. IF..which is a big if at this point...she and Harry Reid can muster the Dems and non-Dems and "enough" Republicans to actually vote for impeachment and conviction, I'd like to think that she would get the ball rolling.

But from what I've read, there are not the votes there to sustain even a fairly "bipartisan" drive for impeachment, let alone conviction. What do you think ?

edit: corrected grammar

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. In 1998 and 1999, we were NOT in a Constitutional crisis

And this current state of affairs is about our nation, not partisanship. Unfortunately, as things stand today, it is still all viewed as partisanship. It's most probably true that there will be obstruction and interference in bringing impeachment to the table due to the chaos now present within our governmental system, as well as, due to those who willfully abuse their elected status, will wield their collective power like cavemen with clubs in hand to bring down and kill that woolly mammoth in the political living room. For those people it is the feast of money that follows the heady victory hopefully ensuring they will continue as the higher-ups in DC, and who will also continue to pretend it's about their constituents when in truth it's about their egos and wallets.

I feel strongly that many of our elected officials are out of touch with the basic precept that this is OUR government, and they serve at OUR pleasure. While I do believe there are some Congress Critters who take their charge seriously to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, it seems to be quite imbalanced when weighed against those who do not act on behalf of our people, our nation.

As for impeachment, I believe what David Swanson wrote recently can make it happen, but I have to wonder who will be patriotic enough to step up to the plate and get this done.

From David Swanson and http://wwwafterdowningstreet.org :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24608

Why We Need More Investigations Like Cheney Needs More Power

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-12 19:51. Evidence | Impeachment

Their crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past six months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment.

[FogerRox]

2. Even if Bush & Cheney are removed from office Nancy will have nothing to do with it

No Dem in congress will ever seriously suggest removing a republican Pres & VP, and putting a DEM in the White House. Carl Albert was speaker of the House in 1974, DEMs made damn sure that ALbert did not end up president. The DEMs made Damn sure that did not happen. That would have been far too partisian.

And we need to consider that lesson. IMHO the DEM leadership will tell the Republican leadership they will make it so a republican becomes president. This way more repubs are likely to sign on to impeachment and removal. It worked to get articles of impeachment out of commitee in 1974, many repubs voted with DEMs. IIRC the Judicairy commitee vote on obstruction of justice was 11 to 27. And thats the sort of ratios it will take to remove from office, something on the order of better than 2/3rds.

And for that reason Nancy "WILL NEVER" ever public consider moving impeachment forward. Because she might become president. ANd the act of removing Bush and Cheney, only to put a DEM, Nancy Pelosi, in the White House, would historically be considered an act of brutal partisianship. Republicans would work for payback for 50 years.

If no DEM gains the White House then IMHO many republicans will be prone to listen when the day comes. This will be a vital part of getting republicans to consider the good of the country, and vote to remove Bush & Cheney. I say...... if it means removing Bush & Cheney, then if we have to cut a deal.... we do it.

[Lindsey]

3. At least for right now, I agree with steve2470....unless Olymipia Snow,

Susan Collins, and some other respectable Repugs become Independents and/or Dems. Also, I don't know where exactly we stand regarding numbers in The House. We'd have to have the numbers on our side.

[FogerRox]

4. Ok, sure, but I think the analogy to 1974 is far more germain.

In the house we need a one vote majority. IIRC.

We need 2/3's of the senate to vote for removal, how do we get republicans to vote for that? One way is to tell them the DEMs will let the white house stay republican. Heres a good diary from D-KOS

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/14/194318/207

[steve2470]

5. anyone else want to chime in here ? nt