I have a question for those of you who oppose impeachment

[proud2BlibKansan]

If bush and/or cheney ARE impeached, will you support that effort or will you continue to speak out against it?

Just curious.

[zanne]

1. I would support. nt

[madokie]

2. this should get interesting ;-)

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Yes indeed

[NeedleCast]

3. I'd support it

However, I guess I'm not so much opposed to empachment as I am focused elsewhere.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I believe impeachment should be the least of their problems

I'd prefer war crimes trials, guilty verdicts and matching gallows. If we move toward impeachment I'll kick up my heels.

[A wise Man]

9. I agree with you

Impeachment isn't enough, I'd like to see them all tried for treason, just like in NUENBURG.

[sandnsea]

6. I'd dance in the streets

are you freaking kidding me???

I just think they've taken enough from us and if I have to fight for something, I'd rather fight for the changes we need instead of have all the attention given to those two assholes for the next year.

[Randomthought]

7. the reason I have doubts about impeachment

The chief justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the trial in the Senate. The odds of a "fair" trial would be zero to none IMO.
If Bush is impeached for illegal wiretapping for instance and is cleared, it becomes legal for every other President from now until the end of time.
I fear with a stacked Supreme Court we will just get an endorsement of the crimes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. But would you support it if it happens?

Or would you continue to oppose it?

[Randomthought]

45. if it happens

I will definitely support the effort and hope that the people make so much noise that Chief Justice Roberts can't do anything but be fair.

[Norquist Nemesis]

41. Catch 22 - If he's NOT Impeached, it sets a precedent

At least the "Clinton did it!" mantra will be a thing of the past. For all of the mis-uses of that phrase, the thing that the Cons (and Comgressional Democrats) are failing to acknowlege is that each time Bush does it without having to account, precedent is being set for future Presidents--regardless of their party affiliation. That is the scariest thing in the world today.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. That's my fear too

[GOTV]

59. That's nothing like the precedent set by acquittal though...

... a failure to accuse is not the same as accusing and then affirming the rightness of his actions.

[harun]

84. They are better off saving up evidence for when we ship them

off to The Hague after they are out of office and don't have the power they do now.

[EstimatedProphet]

10. I support it, I just want it done right

I want everything to be crystal clear and watertight. I don't want the Repigs to come back and say that it was a political ploy. There is evidence to impeach, but it needs to be presented right, and doing it immediately, without organization, is a recipe for defeat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I agree n/t

[bryant69]

11. I would support the effort

I should be clear, I support congressional Democrats in choosing not to put Impeachment on the table for practical reasons, not because I wouldn't like to see Cheney and/or Bush impeached. If conditions change, and impeachment hearings start I would get behind them; I might have reservations on the wisdom of the policy shift (which I would probably express), but I would support them.

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

[MonkeyFunk]

12. When Bush is acquitted in the Senate

and his approval goes up, he cheers, and Democrats take a beating for it, I'll just say "I told ya so".

[EFerrari]

14. The Republics won't let it go that far. They'll make him step down

first. They don't want weeks of airing their dirty laundry before an election. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I am constantly amazed

at how people could have watched these bastards for the last twenty years and believe they'll suddenly discover honor and integrity.

Why would he step down when acquittal is a certainty?

[EFerrari]

23. It's not about honor. It's about an election. The Thuggery

knows they're in trouble and they're desperate to hang on to what they have.

They're defending about 20 seats this cycle. We're only defending about 12. And, they have an albatross in the White House. I think they'd throw him under the bus rather than go through the process because the process would be very damaging for them.

Would they care if he's acquitted if in the end, it loses them seats? That's what I meant.

[MonkeyFunk]

I disagree vehemently

they'd never admit to their crimes. They'd rally around Bush.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. I agree; he is losing his base

Only a few die-hards will rise up to defend him.

[EFerrari]

32. Imho, they'd want to make Republican failures *Bush* failures

and leave him holding the bag for all of it if at all possible.

I think we're going to find out pretty soon, in any case, if the rats will leave the Titanic or not.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. we can't defeat a veto

in the senate. What possible reason is there to believe they'd vote to remove him from office?

[GOTV]

60. They've had numerous opportunities to throw him under the bus....

... and they've passed on every one.

So, I don't buy your analysis.

[EFerrari]

62. Watch them as they get closer to the election, with no acceptable

front runner and a dwindling presence in Congress to deal with.

[GOTV]

69. Well, maybe then things will be different and impeachment could bring results...

... If we're talking about today though, Senators are NOT willing to throw Bush under a bus and so would acquit and vindicate the administration.

[EFerrari]

71. I think we're quickly approaching a tipping point.

We'll know soon enough.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. LOL

Bush's approval is in the 20s. America hates this war.

Yet we can't even stop a filibuster on any measure to curtail it.

What possible reason is there to think some tipping point is near?

[EFerrari]

75. You've answered your own question. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

79. No I haven't

I admire the optimism you have, but I don't think Republicans are close to waking up and becoming honorable.

If we can't even break a filibuster now, how can we possibly expect Republicans to remove him from office?

[EFerrari]

81. You keep bringing up honor when honor has nothing to do with this.

It's only about political expediency.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. !

:spray:

Please tell me you were just bustin. I hope so much you were just joking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Why don't you answer the question?

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. That will never happen

How much of a beating did the repukes take after Clinton was impeached?

[MonkeyFunk]

72. they lost seats

in a 6th-year election - unprecedented.

Their approval sank, Clinton's rose. They lost two House Speakers.

That's something of a beating.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Their candidate is the president now

And they retained majority. Not a great loss by any means.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. Nonetheless

it was a loss for them.

Their majority was bigger than the one we currently enjoy. We could lose it all.

[jobycom]

13. I have a question for you.

Do you understand that Democrats aren't opposed to impeachment, they are just against tying up Congress for a symbolic gesture with no chance of success while we could be trying to end a war, bring down the deficit, make people's lives better, and in general clean up some of the mess BushCo has created?

Obviously Democrats would support impeachment if there was a chance it would succeed, and there was a chance it would make a difference. BushCo has a year and a half to go. Impeach Bush, we have Cheney. Impeach Cheney, we have some other Republican picked by either Bush or Cheney. If Congress opposes the pick, we might have a battle with no VP for a while. Let's say the best happens. We impeach Bush--take about six months. Then we impeach Cheney. Let's say we rush that, and get him out in three months. There go eight months. We have nine more months to fill with a new president. If it's one of BushCo's picks, they will keep the same cabinet and government, so no policies will change. The last nine months will be basically the same as the previous seven years.

Or let's say we get Pelosi as president, because Cheney hasn't been able to get his pick confirmed. She's got nine months to form a government, run the government, then turn it over to Congress. What government will she form? Will she keep Bush's people? Will Bush's people resign immediately instead? If they all resign, who replaces them? How many positions will she fill in nine months, and will her picks have a chance to do anything?

And most importantly, will Congress get anything done for the next eighteen months? Will we be able to stop the occupation of Iraq in the last nine months, after Bush and Cheney are removed, or will our energies be tied up in trying to form a new government? Obviously, if we have a BushCo replacement, nothing will change.

Now I'm not exactly the person you were asking the question of. I do think we should impeach Bush anyway. I'd like to see him removed from office even if it's only ten minutes before he is due to step down. That's pure revenge on my part. There is nothing practical to it at all. But it sure as hell is what I want to see.

But I understand those in power having more sense and more of a concern for what happens to the nation than that.

And keep in mind, all of those problems are pure fantasy, anyway, because there is no way an impeachment would remove Bush, much less Cheney and Bush. Too many Republicans for us to get the votes.

So my question, again, is, do you understand that people who are opposed to impeaching Bush now, barring some new evidence that changes the status quo, aren't against impeachment, they are against symbolic gestures that at best would result in lost opportunities for us, and at worst could result in chaos that could damage everyone more?

[flashl]

17. Great post

And, great points.

[bryant69]

19. Good response.n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Taking it off the table is the same as opposing it

I also just don't understand how much more evidence those people need. Six months ago, I said right here on DU that I was willing to wait for hearings and evidence. Well, we have had hearings and the evidence is overwhelming. And on top of that, we have an executive branch ignoring subpoenas and commuting Libby's sentence. A person with unpaid parking tickets spends more time in jail than a man who committed treason.

And the death toll in Iraq just gets higher and higher. A war started with lies.

It's time, the evidence is here.

If you oppose impeachment, you must support this administration. How can anyone look at the overwhelming evidence and oppose impeaching these bastards?

[bryant69]

31. "If You Oppose Impeachment you must Suppor this Administration"

You know maybe you should consider growing the hell up. I mean part of growing up is accepting that people can disagree with you and still be moral good people. I admit that makes the world more confusing that simplistically determining that all who do not support impeachment are pro Bush, but it is a more accurate way of looking at the world.

Bryant

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. How can anyone look at the overwhelming evidence and not support impeachment?

Sorry I just don't get it. Unless you support this administration, it's a no-brainer that they deserve to be impeached.

[bryant69]

44. OK - but take a step back and look at the people who support Pelosi

or defend Pelosi's choice to not make impeachment an A list priority. I admit I'm a bad choice here since I'm universally despised at DU, but there are plenty of people who have supported Pelosi and are also upstanding honorable DU members. I mean if it weren't for their disagreement with you in this one issue, would you suspect them of being Bush supporters?

I'm not going to make an impassioned argument on why I support the Democratic Leadership; I'm on record on that enough. The issue isn't whether or not to impeach; the issue is whether there is any reason an honorable and uncorrupted person would disagree with you on impeachment.

Bryant

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. I guess I just don't understand how anyone can support allowing them to stay in office

and not be held accountable. I too asked for time and wanted to see what evidence there was. I wanted hearings first. Well we have the evidence now. So what's the hold up? Is it the desire to support the Democratic leadership regardless of what they do and don't do?

[MonkeyFunk]

76. I don't support allowing them to stay in office...

but impeachment will fail to result in conviction, thus they'll stay in office no matter what you or I want.

[bryant69]

82. Than why not accept that you don't understand

And stop accusing those who disagree with you of being, essentially, vichy Democrats.

[GOTV]

63. Simple. I oppose impeachment because I support removal. When impeachment can cause removal,....

.... I'll support it.

[NeedleCast]

57. No, it's not

If you oppose impeachment, you must support this administration

I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion. That's like saying someone who is not anti-nuclear power is for it or saying that someone who's not activly campaining against McCain is supporting him. There's a gray area, regardless of your desire to see it. This whole "if you're not with me you're against me" meme plays out to often here on DU.

[GOTV]

61. Impeached presidents may still serve their entire term. Look at Clinton...

... I'd be for impeachment if I thought it would accomplish something.

> If you oppose impeachment, you must support this administration.

I suppose it's a lack of imagination on your part that you can see no other explanation.

[demgurl]

29. Out of curiosity.......

Did you see the Bill Moyers show about impeachment? I ask because it states a lot of important points about why impeachment is not a symbolic gesture and why we are required to do it.

One point is that each power grab a president makes, and gets away with, gets put in a box and passed to the next president. They say that more often than not these powers remain in their entirety. Think about that, right now we are all pretty much 50/50 as to whether * is evil or just dumb. Think of someone truly evil inheriting these powers 40 years down the road. Never mind that we have had to live with our civil rights being abolished from the last few years right down the road, but now imagine someone who may not even be in politics yet and they care even less about the American people than * does. (is that possible? Let's assume it is) The question is will you trust every future unknown politician with the powers * has grabbed now. If you say 'no' then you are for impeachment. If you say 'yes', well, I am shocked and really do not know what to say. You see the havoc this administration has wrecked and I can only imagine it getting worse.

We are setting the stage now for what presidents can do in the future. Everything is set from letting corporations rule our law to wiretapping citizens to letting people who can testify against the administration get off with a commutation and possible pardon. (something for which James Madison specifically said they were including impeachment for!)

We are not only in the middle of a constitutional crisis but a crisis for our entire nation. Impeachment is a must. If you have not seen the Bill Moyers show please take time to do so now. It may change your mind. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html)

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Not impeaching Nixon cost us dearly

We need to put the brakes on this administration and all the underlings who are learning at their footsteps. Impeachment would end Monica Goodling's political career. That alone is enough for me to support it.

[jobycom]

42. That's a great argument, except for one point.

The impeachment would fail, so rather than telling future presidents they did not have the power, we would be confirming that they did.

The whole point of my post went past you, sadly. The Democrats aren't opposed to impeachment. They are opposed to wasting time and energy with no chance of success.

[demgurl]

54. I understood your post.........

and I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I know Democrats are not opposed to impeachment. (most of them anyway) I have heard some DUer's express they are afraid for the outcome of the next election if we try to impeach and that makes me sad putting party before country. That is the biggest thing I have against rethug voters.

Whether or not we have the numbers it is imperative we do it. If we do nothing then you are right, we have set the stage that this is all legal and they may continue. I believe, though, that when we start proceedings more and more things will come out and more and more folks will demand impeachment. My father-in-law is a big time R supporter and donor. He donates so much that one of the congressmen for our state comes to his Christmas parties. The other day he denied he was a Republican and actually said in the last election he even voted for an independent! He also complained about some of the things the thugs are doing around his town. That was big.

People like him may be our saving grace. If we do not even try to impeach we have been told our country is on a possible path to failure. If we do try to impeach at least we have a chance to take back our country. I think the number of our house supporters would change as the people became more and more vocal. For me, that means I am calling people like Pelosi, Boxer and my own critters. I am also sending, everyone I know, emails about why these proceedings must go ahead. I am educating them. Never underestimate the power of education. One of our close friends voted for * in his first term and because of my emails he did not vote for * the second term.

So I guess there are my arguments. I truly do not want to live in a fascist country - not that I am implying you do. It is so hard to make sure you sound respectful to a stranger on a board where you do not see body language or hear intonation! I feel this country has quickly become fascist under this regime and now I am told (the Bill Moyers show) that if we do not try to take these powers away then it will, with almost a 100% certainty, stay this way. Even if we go forward and fail, at least we have sent some sort of message that we will at least try and fight for our country and our 'leaders' can not just walk all over us. Maybe in that respect you are right. It is a symbolic gesture that we will never give up our country and that they can not just steal it out from under us.

All I know is that if we do not fight for impeachment then it would seem our country is already defeated but I would rather fight and believe we have a chance.

[GOTV]

65. Why do so few get that simple point? If you oppose Bush, why give him the vindication of acquittal?

[EFerrari]

35. The people you are talking about commit symbolic gestures

every day. I'm watching one right now in the Senate. That's what they do for a living, isn't it?

They aren't worried about the nation, they're focussed on the election - their own talking points betray that.

And, avoiding impeachment won't set this country straight again. There is no chaos or damage that could result from an impeachment process that is WORSE than what is going on NOW -- unless Deadeye decides to nuke us or something. That's how it seems to me, anyway. :)

[Bandit]

37. It takes the same number of votes to accomplish those things you listed

Bush* will veto all of those things and it takes the same amount of votes to override his veto as it does to remove him from office. It only takes a simple majority to Impeach them. Now a question for you. do you think it is poor politics or poor for the country to Impeach. Should politics be put before the well being of the country? I think Democrats are guaging the politics of Impeachment instead opf the well being of the country.. Just my $.02 worth

[jobycom]

43. You've got it completely backwards. All the polls show that impeachment

would be popular. Hence, it would be good politics. It would be bad for the country, as it stands now.

As for the votes needed, there is more of a chance to work with a Republican Senator or even Bush himself to get part of what we need done in a compromise deal--the way government always does--than to get enough votes to remove Bush. There is no compromise on the latter, there is nothing to be gained by the Republicans from it.

[EFerrari]

56. I usually agree with you but can't in this case.

The Republics could slough off years of Bush failures. They do stand to gain from marginalizing him.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. all the polls?

There isn't a single poll showing a majority of americans supporting impeaching Bush.

[T Wolf]

46. What?!?

"those in power having more sense and more of a concern for what happens to the nation than that"

Who exactly are you talking about? Certainly not the so-called Democrats in Congress. With very few (13 or so) exceptions, those in power are only worried about the political fallout if they take the Constitutional course of action.

Those in power are corporate-owned cowards who would not know the constitution if they found it in a pile of documents headed for the shredder.

Name one thing those in power have accomplished since January, other than catering to their corporate owners and pissing off the real Democrats who are not so anxious to let the cabal skate into blood-soaked monetary heaven.

If they continue to bend over for continued ass-fuckings from George and the Dick, they deserve to lose next year. But, we the people, do not deserve the governmeent we have gotten. Well, maybe just a little for trusting that things would be "different this time."

[frazzled]

16. Your question is wrongly stated

Very few "oppose" impeachment. That is setting up the kind of false wording we see so often in various opinion polls. The preponderance of people on this board (and in Congress) who question the wisdom of impeachment proceedings base their arguments on the efficacy of the process. Everyone believes Cheney/Bush have flouted the Constitution and committed crimes. No one doubts that with a Democratic majority in the House, impeachment could be achieved: No one with any sense believes that a 2/3 majority (67 votes) could be gotten to convict and remove from office. Impeachment without conviction, as we saw with the Clinton charade, and 25 cents will get you a ride on the bus, and little else. It is not, as some impeachment-hounds have claimed, a deterrent to future administrations; it is not the only "teachable moment" available in the arsenal of tools at our disposal; and it is hugely time consuming: other issues, such as ending the war and fixing domestic policy, would necessarily be slowed down.

Of course everyone would be thrilled if Cheney and Bush would be removed from office (as opposed to merely getting the wrist slap of "impeachment"). But a show-trial impeachment that could not result in that outcome (a veritable certainty, given the current configuration of the Senate) would be an enormous waste of resources and achieve little. Congressional investigations can shine the same light on the corruption of this administration, and possibly uncover some sure-fire Capone-like tax-evasion gotcha that could result in actual resignation or removal. But don't count on it: what we are up against is an administration that has no respect for any law, much less the approbation of Congress. That is why impeachment seems pretty useless: it's as if the Reichstag decided they should impeach Hitler: that would have worked to stop him, right? Not.

What we have to realize is that we have a totalitarian regime on which such niceties of law are completely beside the point. They have no shame and they will not relent--nor will their party (short of some incontrovertible evidence such as finding a dead boy in Cheney's bed) turn against them. It's a sad state of affairs, the likes of which we've never seen before. But some of us apprise that it is the actual one, and that our efforts should be placed on stopping the depredations rather than holding a show trial.

If impeachment or its effects looked more promising, I'd change my tune in a second. I've been fighting these people and their outrages for seven years. No one understands their crimes better. It's insulting to have it suggested that people like Russ Feingold are being "puppets" or "wimps" when they question the efficacy of impeachment proceedings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. There are quite a few DUers who oppose impeachment.

[frazzled]

27. Clearly you did not read my post

Or rather, did not understand it. I don't know how it could be stated more clearly, along with some of the other posters who are explaining the same thing above.

[jobycom]

33. For the reasons the poster stated. Did you read the post?

That post, and mine above, both make the same point--that DUers don't oppose impeachment, they oppose tying up the government for a symbolic gesture. In other words, they believe impeachment won't work. Most of them would love to see Bush impeached if they thought we had a real chance to do it. So your post is a push poll, creating false choices to push your view, rather than fairly discussing the issue.

This is such a stupid thing to be arguing about. Obviously, if we had the evidence and the votes to impeach, it would be done already. We don't have the votes, we don't have the conclusive evidence that would force Bush's strongest supporters to turn on him, so instead of a futile, time consuming show they are trying to make a difference where they can. Why do DUers keep harping on this? It's not going to happen, it's not going to change anything, all it's going to do is distract our energies and create tension where there shouldn't be any. Just like the Cindy Sheehan division, or the Hillary Clinton division--everyone wants to fix what Bush has done, but we are all splitting apart over the nuances of how we do it. I can understand arguing for impeachment, but all the attacks on and misrepresentations of people who see a different route to victory are so counter-productive we might as well disband the party.

When there are more posts on the Latest front page attacking Democrats than Republicans, you can be sure we are in trouble. In fact, DU is just about irrelevant now, because all we do is attack our own party. What possible reason would the party have for supporting us?

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. They oppose tying up the government for a symbolic gesture???

Please tell me what in the bloody hell you call advocating 'passing legislation to end the war'?? THAT is where your symbolic gesture and waste of government time lays. But don't let me rain on your parade of delusions.

If any of you seriously believe that Bush won't veto any legislation that makes it to his desk that has ANY kind of language in it about ending this war, you are only deluding yourself and those that you push this line of thought on.

It won't matter if you get the whole fucking republic party to vote on ending this war, the war chimp is NOT going to stop, and he is NOT going to listen. Any legislation passed by a veto proof majority will only be rendered moot by a signing statement. The sooner you understand that, the better off it's going to be for all of us.

Trying to pass legislation right now is like trying to give a choking person oxygen without removing the obstruction first. It's futile!!

[jobycom]

48. You don't understand politcs.

Not at all. If the entire Republican Party, or just a large enough number of Republican Congresscritters, opposed the war, they would override Bush's veto. We can work on that. We can draw up bills that give Republicans enough of what they want to get what we need. Politics always works that way. That's why it's called the art of compromise.

On the other hand, what can you give a Republican to convince him to remove his president from power? What would convince them to remove their party from power in the White House as well as the Congress? There is no compromise, and there is not enough integrity in the Republican Party for anyone to just vote for the right thing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. You don't understand reality or life.

Seriously.

Didn't I just tell you it doesn't fucking matter if they had a 100% unanimous vote in the House and Senate that the chimp would just use a signing statement??? Don't you pay attention or what?

And you want to turn around and spew the same BS again?? Wise up and pay attention and actually READ something before you just spew your talking points back again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. Not wanting to impeach these bastards is opposition

Why is that so hard to understand? Either you are in favor of impeaching them or you are not. You guys can spin this anyway you want, but you either want them held accountable or you don't.

It's not about votes or time. It's about criminal behavior. Do we let it continue or stop it?

Those of us who favor country over party see this as a moral issue. So maybe we have disbanded the party already. I know it is very difficult for me to remain loyal to a party that supports an illegal war and refuses to hold the men who started it accountable.

[EFerrari]

38. Who has called Russ a puppet or a wimp? I just think he's wrong.

n/t

[KharmaTrain]

64. This Is Why This Thread Is Deceptive....

Bravo for your post...among many good ones in this thread.

It's assumed that since you're not lock-step on impeachment that you're a "booosh appeaser" or hate the Constitution or smell bad or whatever. They see what they want and dismiss any questioning of their position under a sanctimonious faux outrage of how evil we must be if we aren't outside Nancy Pelosi's door with pitchforks and torches.

I won't get into my long-running justifications for the futility of this exercize at this point. It's as though people like Pelosi, Conyers, Waxman, Feingold and Progressive writers around the blogosphere are totally stupid...they "just don't get it"...since they see the same end-results as I do....and many others.

I'd love to see this regime Impeached...and if it doesn't happen now, there's no reason it can't happen once in the future as part of a comprehensive investigation of ALL the crimes of the past 6 years. I'll say it one more time...Impeachment is a political, not criminal, rememdy...thus no rememdy at all.

Thank you for your post.

Cheers....

[cboy4]

22. I predict you'd get a lot of flip-floppers

"Oh, I was supporting impeachment from the beginning." :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Oh I think it just takes some longer to understand than others

I have never been opposed to flip flopping anyway. I think it's a sign of intelligence and humility to change your mind.

[onenote]

25. I don't oppose impeachment. I oppose rushing the process.

I think people should be speaking out, contacting their representatives -- particularly their repub representatives -- and calling on them to support the commencement of an impeachment inquiry. But I am opposed to the process being started unless and until some repubs will support it since I think that it likely will be impossible to muster a majority if the vote is purely along partisan lines (because a number of blue dog Democrats will balk at supporting impeachment if its purely along partisan lines). If the process does start, with or without repub support, I would support it moving forward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. I can agree with that

I want the process started to put a stranglehold on failed policies. As much as I would love to see these bastards in jail, I would be happy if we just started the process at this point.

[EFerrari]

36. That's a good point. Maybe we should be calling Republicans.

lol

[onenote]

53. laugh all you want

But one of the reasons that many Democratic members proceed cautiously is that repubs aren't shy about contacting Democrats and making known their views. There is no reason that we shouldn't be doing the same thing to repubs

[EFerrari]

58. I wasn't laughing derisively, I was laughing at the idea of calling

Republicans! Because, I think you're right.

[ClintonTyree]

55. Of cousre,but....

since there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it succeeding, what's the point? That's like asking, "if someone wanted to give you a million dollars, would you take it"? Damned straight, but the chances of it happening are next to nil.

[bigtree]

66. I've said it before

I won't second-guess it. I'll work to help it succeed like I do all of our party's important endeavors.

I haven't be able to elicit the same response from the majority of the 'impeachment now' supporters I've encountered. Nothing that Congress does short of what they want is of any interest or consequence to many.

[EFerrari]

68. It might not be a bad thing to consider that grassroots and Congress

has overlapping but not identical aims.

[mondo joe]

67. I'll support it if the Dem leadership in Congress does.

I would love to see them impeached - that's not the issue.

I'm a Democrat. I have a measure of trust in our elected representatives, and unless they abuse that trust I'll continue to support them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. You Mean Articles Presented or Do You Mean Successful In House, Now Vote's In The Senate?

[northzax]

85. depends on what crimes they are impeached for

doesn't it?