When, exactly, did we determine that bringing matters to a vote

[burythehatchet]

in the congress must be a decision based on whether we have enough votes to win?

When one makes that assumption, one assumes that all the debate and evidence has already been presented and the determinations of individuals have been die cast.

We don't have the votes.

Impeachment is an indictment. A trial follows. During a trial prosecutors and defenders are complelled to produce evidence of innocense and guilt.

Do you suppose NEW information might actually come out? Maybe we don't know everything. Maybe there are GREATER CRIMES that are occurring without our knowledge, without our consent and without our oversight.

We don't have the votes.

There is a Hindu swami whose lecture on Judgment I listened to very intently. It was a long lecture with many parables and illuminations, but the gist of it was that making a judgment like this (any judgment actually if you interpret the lesson with 100% purity) was the height of arrogance. When one makes such a definitive judgment, especially regarding a subject so intensely violative of our sensibilities as this vile group of men, one presumes to know an awful lot. The Gods smile and ponder how absurd it is that mere mortals would deign to inherit the vision of God.



We don't have the votes.

It's not ANYONE'S call on whether we do or not - and that should never even be a factor in the equation. Our moral compass tells us that we should try to do the correct thing when confronted with a dilemma. Failing to do so is making the judgment on your own accord.

[Joe for Clark]

1. I think that is a great post.

We either try to do the right thing or we don't now.
And we might lose - and that is always the risk of trying.

But trying is the only way to find out.

I would never blame the democrats for really trying and losing - never.
I would blame them for not trying though.

And this is up to god right now.

Joe

[Zensea]

2. Since when does politics have anything to do with morality?

That's the key mistake people make, the assumption that it does.

This is not to say that not pursuing impeachment and bringing it to a vote is immoral, just that the two things (politics and morality) are on different layers of existence.
Politics is primarily about pragmatism, morality about idealism.

Attempts to bring them together of course have nobility but getting overly upset when such attempts fail leads to needless despair.

In my opinion anyway.

[Joe for Clark]

21. Politics - it is about US.

It is about us - what we think and what we want.

We hired those people - and we can fire them too.

That is what it is about.

And I am your 5th vote -and I am proud to do so on such a good post.

Joe

[burythehatchet]

22. Thanks, Joe. Your reply could have come from my keyboard.

It is We who decide. One dollar, one vote seems to be the current reality though.

[Zensea]

23. Yes, I agree

All I am saying though is that a sizeable percent of what people want in politics revolves around pragmatism instead of morality.
(Of course, pragmatism is a type of morality, so there is an implicit paradox or contradiction).
I am not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but that it is the reality of things.

[Joe for Clark]

25. Oh - There is nothing you could possibly say that I could say is

"wrong" - nobody elected me god.

You tell me your opinion and that is enough for me.

This whole thing - it is about what what WE think - what WE want to do.

Really - bottom line.

And I DO NOT accept people on CNN telling me what I should think - they are part of the problem.

TO me.

Joe

[SoCalDem]

3. Republicans KNEW that they COULD impeach Clinton, but they also knew

that the senate would not convict him.. They knew he would remain in office, but they knew they could humiliate him, and stall any agenda he may have had..and they just did it.because they could..

we could, but we won't

pitt-bull v chihuahua

[burythehatchet]

16. What a nice extension of the point.

And their's was the immoral choice that did more damage than we can calculate.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Because

sometimes there's a downside to losing, sometimes there's not.

Advancing a health care initiative that ultimately fails is fine - Ted Kennedy's been doing it for 30 years. You keep advancing it, gaining support as time goes on. it's a long-term view.

Impeachment on the other hand, is a one-shot deal. We won't get a second chance to do it, so we'd better do it right. Acquitting Bush in the Senate would be a very undesirable outcome.

[TahitiNut]

5. It's worse to not even try.

I have yet to see how ZERO votes for removal is better than 65 votes for removal ( or 64 or 63 or 62 or 61 or 60 or 59 or 58 or 57 or 56 or 55 or 54 or 53 or 52 or 51 or 50 or 49 or ...!)

If this regime's acts isn't a case for impeachment then NOTHING is!

[MonkeyFunk]

Why not

wait, investigate, build a case, and then impeach when you actually have a shot at winning?

on edit: And i disagree with your premise. A failed impeachment would be worse than not impeaching at all.

[TahitiNut]

10. Impeachment *IS* investigating and making the case.

I don't understand why this has to be repeated.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. because it's wrong

[burythehatchet]

20. I think a definition might be helpful for you.

Impeachment
2. (in Congress or a state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house.

The presentation of formal charges. Then an investigation. Then a trial.

[truedelphi]

41. Thank you! I was so freaked I might have to tye that again

During an investigation - anything that is stated as being needed to review for the impeachment cannot be withheld by the Executive Branch that is being investigated.

Impeachment would help us on a lot of causes.

Also, it would keep- the House in DC over August so that (just maybe) Cheney would be less likely to nuke Iran.

[puebloknot]

44. Precisely. Too many keep wanting investigations first. Investigation...

... of what, exactly? The charges set out in Articles of Impeachment.

Geez, maybe we need to start a section at DU for a refresher course in Civics 101.

[TahitiNut]

42. Just for grins (and your own education) try researching just when and how Butterfield

... disclosed the Nixon White House taping system, and how Congress found the 18-minute gap and the evidence contained on the tapes.

[puebloknot]

37. "... a failed impeachment..."

An impeachment could hardly be a failure at this juncture. The very definition of impeachment is holding public hearings to determine if there is enough evidence for a trial in the Senate.

If impeachment hearings were held, there is a mountain of material in the public record already which, if opened up to scrutiny, would serve to educate the masses about what has been happening in the country -- those who don't read all about it every day as we do. And what if the whole thing "failed," because the Senata wouldn't take it up, or did take it up and failed to convict. The facts are in the public record. The People will see it. It could swing a lot of voters to the Democrats. The world would see that there is still a shred of integrity in the U.S. of A. It could serve as a tipping point to take the country back.

The waiting game is an immoral game because we *know* that impeachable offenses have been committed. While we wait and dither over political strategy, more and more people die. Ivory tower number crunching is beneath the dignity of the United States of America, as we've known and loved it for lo, these many years!

[TahitiNut]

43. Agreed

:thumbsup:

[yodermon]

31. Aquitting Bush would ensure an eternal Democratic Majority and

the Destruction of the Republican party.

Provided, of course, that
A) that the proper evidence is presented & broadcast in his Impeachment trial.
(everyone seems to forget that there is a trial).

and

B) The current Congressional investigations are allowed to follow their natural course, which will absolutely and inevitably lead to impeachment of at least Cheney.

The 22(? check) Republicans up for reelection in 08 who vote to acquit do so at their peril (and their party's).

[puebloknot]

38. Yes! Let the Repubs step up to the plate and "sin" ...

... politically, in the eyes of those who will then decide if they belong back in the Congress as moral and upstanding representatives of The People!

[jgraz]

33. Why is impeachment a one-shot deal?

Couldn't the Dems have an impeachment vote every day on a different BushCo crime? I'm not saying that's valid strategery, just that it's theoretically possible.

As I've said before, we should start with Gonzo (slam dunk), move on to Cheney (a layup, maybe) and then proceed to Chimpy McPolypbutt. As the small-fry fall, they can be leaned on to rat out the bigger fish (ok, mixed animal metaphors, but you get the idea).

Shit, the House should have a gonzo impeachment vote tomorrow.

[mondo joe]

6. When did we forget that politics is about strategy?

Hm?

[TahitiNut]

8. When we were deluded into thinking values and principles were more important?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

11. Politics is just a tool to implement your values and principles to the degree you

are best able to do so.

If you're not willing to deal with strategy, then politics is the wrong tool for you.

[burythehatchet]

15. UNderlying your comment, in my perception, is the frame that

says it's a win-lose proposition. The problem with politics in this country is precisely the win-lose mindset. Whereas, good politics tries to find the middle ground of legitimate compromise.

[mondo joe]

17. Then I think I must have misstated something.

I agree that good politics finds middle ground for legitimate compromise.

[Phredicles]

27. But what we have here is one party that will NOT compromise, ever, and another

pathetically eager to compromise. The inevitable result is that the latter gets rolled, repeatedly.

These are circumstances that call for patriots and statesmen (and women), and we're stuck with politicians - and piss-poor ones at that.

[mondo joe]

34. I disagree with your assessment.

I'd say it's more like one party is just trying to hold on and run out the clock, and the other is trying to effect enormous change on many issues, which is of course going to be much more complicated and difficult.

But as to your conclusions: politicians do what politicians do. It's illogical to expect them to be anything else. But they will always respond to the public - if the public will assert itself.

[burythehatchet]

35. if the public will assert itself ... spot on ... in many ways shapes and forms n/t

[burythehatchet]

14. When have you known Democrats to execute strategy?

[mondo joe]

18. Ha! Not often enough. But I think strategy did well in the mid terms.

And I think Bill Clinton was masterful in his use of strategy.

[porphyrian]

7. WE didn't decide that. A handful of hard heads and people who don't understand impeachment did.

It's either ignorance, an excuse or intentional derailing.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. what is the point of anyone doing anything

they don't have complete confidence in?

Your post and your perspective is right on in my opinion.

There is a saying that goes something like .. the only time you are assured of losing is when you refuse to try. Either way you have lost.

Who knows what kind of crumbling * might experience under the pressure of impeachment hearings- Who knows which reps. may finally hear US when things get going and be 'surprise' votes.

the refusal to even try makes losing a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Thanks for your thought provoking perspective.

peace,
blu

[TahitiNut]

12. Everyone loves to get credit for a fait accompli - and it's never deserved.

:shrug:

Why work? It's not worth it. Let's just win lotteries.

[LSK]

19. doesnt that happen daily????

Do you know what whips are? Do you know how legislation is brought forward in the House?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

24. Since people became craven wusses.

[Vanje]

26. We dont have the votes

And we wont get the votes..
UNLESS dem leaders in congress start talking about impeachment.

When Pelosi says "impeachment is off the table", uncommitted congress members are hardly going to get behind impeachment.

I want Conyers , Pelosi and all to put it on the table and start talking it up.
Maybe if the thing were polished up and placed on the table,it might actually attract a vote or two.

[Joe for Clark]

28. Says who??

I know - people who want to keep ther job next year - isn't it??

Maybe they better understand their job is at risk too - if they flinch in doing the right thing now.

Are they going to put politics aside - really - and do the right thing??

Maybe - when they understand their ass is being put to the fire too.

Joe

[Vanje]

29. You didnt read my entire post ,did you?

[burythehatchet]

30. he heh I did the same thing, but then I read it. n/t

[Joe for Clark]

32. I did read it.

And we do agree on the premise. And if that did not come thru I wrote that wrong.

The thing is - I don't trust politicians - any of them - to really do the right thing now.

I trust the country - the will of the country - to do right totally.

In the 19th century you know what they did? - There was no impeachment thing - they latched you to a rail and tarred and feathered you on your way out of town. People didn't wait for politicians - they did what they had to do for the country. That is what a republican democracy does.

I want to see the 21st century equivilent of that - and I think we are going to see it.

SO no disrespect at all. But I put NO faith in politicans - they have to earn that.

Joe

[Vanje]

39. Understood

And now that you menton it,I could get in the mood for a tarring and feathering.

I'm frustrated.
54% of Americans, (Including the republicans too!) want Cheney impeached. but we cant get "the good guys" to even TTALK about impeachment.

[puebloknot]

36. It's elementary, my dear Dems.

How did we get so timid, so tepid, so lacking in courage and integrity?

In courts all over the country, for small offenses and large, hearings are held to determine if there is enough evidence to hold the defendant(s) for trial. If judge or grand jury finds that there is, defendants are bound over (not necessarily in chains or ropes, but legally) for trial.

The initial inquiry starts with certain accusations, but as the questioning proceeds, allegations are thrown out or strengthened, and new information can be gleaned.

Impeachment is not a formal trial; it's a preliminary hearing. It might lead to a trial, but it at least serves as a public venue (if it isn't actually a grand jury hearing) where We the People can see what has been happening in our country. Impeachment hearings would be public, and televised (unless the MSM refuse to cooperate), so that what We the Choir know can soon be what We the Voters all over the country know.

[Atman]

40. Excellent post.

Thank you.

[OneBlueSky]

45. and the most important consideration is that time may well be running out . . .

you're absolutely, 100% correct . . . whether they have the votes to impeach doesn't matter . . . it really doesn't . . . the votes weren't there when the Select Committee on Impeachment began considering the Nixon case, either . . . the point is that the Congress has a responsibility to impeach if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are suspected . . . and in BushCo's case, they are not merely suspected, they are in plain sight . . . the evidence for many is in the public record and is, in fact, prima facie . . .

but, most importantly, time may well be running out . . . Bush is not issuing all of these draconian Executive Orders for the possible benefit of some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . he fully intends to activate them at the earliest possible time -- even if he and his co-conspirators have to orchestrate a national crisis as a trigger . . .

when that happens, it will be too late . . . the Constitution, and the powers of Congress, will be "suspended" in the interest of national security . . . they won't be ABLE to impeach . . . and those who dare to question the dictatorship may well find themselves in "re-education" camps -- with no habeus corpus . . . websites like DU will be shut down . . .

the problem with Congress is that they're more afraid of Bush/Cheney than they are of losing their country -- a state of affairs I find both baffling and thoroughly disgusting . . . future generations -- if there are any -- will shake their heads and ask "Why didn't they stop them?" . . .