impeahment is hugely unlikely to remove Bush - and I support it 100%

[Truth2Tell]

67 votes, 67 votes, 67 votes.

If I hear anyone say again that we need sixty-seven votes to impeach President Bush I think I'll lose my lunch.

We don't. We only need a majority in the House of Representatives. Sixty-seven votes only come into play in the Senate when it's time to convict.

"But wait," say the 67 vote nattering nabobs of negativism, "wouldn't it be a big waste of time to impeach if we can't convict?"

Well...

I happen to believe very strongly that the answer to that question is a resounding No. And I'd like to tell you why.

Let's begin by setting aside the obvious question of "what the fuck else is Congress doing of value right now", because that discussion is a rat hole. Instead let’s address the impeachment process on its very own merits.

To that end, here are a few of the reasons I believe that even a failed impeachment would have enormous value, beginning with

Politics. Impeachment is a political winner. The reason that the approval rating of our Congress sits at 18% is because it has been effectively unable to reign in the villain whom 70% of Americans deem to be political enemy number one. Impeachment solves that in one stroke. Even a failed impeachment gets the Democrats in Congress an A for effort with most Americans. And don't let the 67 vote nabobs try and tell you that political parties lose Presidential elections by holding impeachment hearings. Carter won after the Democrats voted to impeach Nixon and Shithead won after his own party staged an unpopular impeachment of Clinton. Their respective parties gained in Congress in those same cycles as well, with some of the chief impeachers doing best of all. Shit, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii has been politically untouchable since 1974.

But, as we all know, impeachment isn't about politics - it's about the Constitution of the United States. I think we can all agree that any politician who puts party politics ahead of the Constitution of the United States is a worthless, cynical, un-American sack of shit, right? Fortunately for the Democrats, the good news about the potential advantages of impeachment extends well beyond politics, and also includes

Obstructing the Suicidal Neo-con Agenda. It's a lot tougher to plan an attack on Iran when you're busy meeting all day with your outside attorneys. It's difficult to spend time scheming to shore up additional Presidential powers when you're forced to spend your afternoons in the well of the Senate listening to John Conyers talk about ignored subpoenas. If nothing else, an impeachment would be the mother of all distractions for an out-of-control administration. It would serve as a wrench in the gears and a smack on the ears. It's impossible to deny that impeachment would eat away at the remaining inner circle of "human resources" in the Bush/Cheney administration, and put them, for the first time in six years, on the defensive.

If such defensiveness were to even moderately slow our nation's current march toward pseudo-fascism at home and endless war abroad, that alone would make the effort worth plenty. That alone would make even a failed impeachment more than worth the time and energy. But wait, there's more! The monkey wrench in the gears and the certain political gains would simply be the side benefits of a failed impeachment. The greatest value of such proceedings far eclipses even those reasons outlined so far. It's as simple as

Sending a message. Impeachment proceedings are, first and foremost, political theater. Forget Barnum and Bailey - If President Bush was put on trail before the Senate of the United States, I promise you it would be the greatest show on earth. The world would stop. No media, and I mean none, could ignore it. In our present day TeeVee culture it would be "all impeachment all the time." And this, my friends, would be when and where the most desperately necessary salvage work could and should be done on our democracy. This is the show that desperately needs to be seen. Let's call it the Restore American Democracy show. Reality TV in all it's glory.

So who's the target audience of this potential Restore American Democracy Show? Well, in the short term it's me and you and a dog named boo - adult American citizens, and particularly voters. But in the big picture, and the long run - and much much more importantly - the audience is our children, future generations and the rest of the human beings on the planet. And this is where we really get to the crux of this whole impeachment debate. Our kids need to see this show. My four year old daughter needs to be able to sit in her 12th grade civics class in 2021 and watch this show. That, I firmly believe, is vitally important to American democracy. Struggling peasants in the third world - those who have turned, in the last six years, against the vision of America as a beacon of hope - they need to see this show too. We very desperately need to demonstrate to the world, and to posterity, that we actually give a shit about what we have the nerve to call "the greatest democracy on earth." This is the the reason that transcends the objections of the sixty-seven vote nabobs. This is the "do it because it's the right thing to do" reason. This is the reason for The Show.

Sooo it's a political winner. And it mucks up the works for the regime. And it screams to the world and future generations that Constitutional democracy is worth defending at all costs.

With all that at its back, who the hell cares about the sixty-seven votes?

And if there's one thing a bunch of politicians knows how to do, especially when they put their minds to it, it's get in front of those cameras and tell a compelling story.

So let's bring up the lights, draw back the curtain and let the show begin!.

[rudy23]

1. If it led to a Katrina investigation, we'd get the votes

Those are the among the most blatant crimes, though it's tough to know where to start

[ooglymoogly]

60. Its a great post and something I have been dreaming of but

what about the 41 dinos who voted for the FISA bill and the abstainers who also are probably dino leaners...guess where they are going to come down on this?...do we have enough votes in congress without them?...regardless I think we should put all the pressure on them each of us can muster to light a fire under their collective spineless butts.

[Truth2Tell]

66. Pressure them is all we can do

Of course the pressure would be a lot harder to resist if the leadership were leaning on them about it, rather than coddling them.

[Nite Owl]

2. The dems are afraid to do it now

because of political fallout. They are wrong, the fallout is from not doing anything. People are sick of the blatant political calculations with every move Congress makes. They are so afraid to offend the few that they turn away a huge majority, those who won't go to the polls to vote, those who see the parties as one and the same which they are proving themselves to be.


They start hearings on impeachment and the country will tune in and many more than they expect will be forced to face thier constituents and vote for it or be put out in '08. It was no 'mistake' or collosal incompetence that brought us to war, the treasonous bastards knew just what they were doing.

[ejbr]

23. impeachment hearings are VITAL

to maintaining the rule of law. There is all this hand wringing about not having enough votes. So, are elected representatives have chosen to place having enough votes over upholding their oath of office. The hearings are for the protection of future generations, not to ensure Democratic gains in 2008. The myopia and self-consumption of the Democratic leadership is beyond nauseating, it is treasonous. As far as I am concerned Pelosi and Conyers are as treasonous as those bastards to whom you refer.

It is refreshing to see a kindred spirit on the "internets" Is your head about ready to explode too? :nuke:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

44. There is also the matter (OF FACT) that they allowed the executive greater power.

They were swept into the political storm post 9/11, gave away too TOO much power, and are confronted with the consequences.

Moreover, the Democrats never fully acknowledged 'the network' that has been aggressively pursuing power over the USA for the last few decades.

This network of power-mongers did not find success overnight, for crying-out-loud. They worked to achieve their ambitions when Nixon went down, planned every detail to avoid being taken down for even greater abuses, and have plans in place to maintain power and fulfill their ambitions.

I refuse to attack the Democrats (the earnest and honest ones, anyway) for failing to anticipate such absolute savagery demonstrated by this network of monsters. Any human being with an inch of conscience has trouble imagining those who assert themselves as 'public servants' abusing their power to the tune of trillions of dollars and so many wasted lives,...ALL for SELF-SERVING PURPOSES.

I am pretty certain the Democrats are like me and just want to get these crazy effers out of power. Naturally, they are cautious to a damn fault and do NOT want to become want they loathe.

I do agree that, fearlessness is a necessary position the Democrats must take if they want to disable this savage network of power-mongers. Although I understand EVERYONE who challenges this cabal is in danger of some form of destruction, either take a stand or don't. The cabal energizes off any sign of weakness.

That cabal should be taken down, once and for all. NONE OF THEM SHOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO PUSH THE LIMITS, EVER EVER EVER AGAIN.

Do NOT allow the scattering rats to get away, this time,...like you did in the Nixon administration.

That's all I have to say.

[Cha]

65. It's like they get inside DC and

they develope TIN FREAKIN' EAR.

They act like they don't even know what's going on out here in the real world.

[Nite Owl]

84. It all comes down to the money

they get money for their campaigns from the leadership and then they owe them not the people who elected them. Our new Blue Dog rep didn't even want our county dem committee to vote on impeachment and that was one of the reasons given. (The other was the press would question her.) Not even half way through her first term and she has forgotten us. Her other votes are fairly good but not impeachment or ending the war, she wouldn't consider cutting off the funding, she feels * would just leave the troops there without anything (she might be right about that, but then maybe he could be impeached).

[robinlynne]

68. The dems (some of them) seem afraid to do ANYTHING. nt

[lligrd]

3. Exactly - Not So Much About Impeachment As

the investigations that let Americans know the truth.

[madrchsod]

4. correct it is 67 votes to convict

but there still is`t enough votes for impeachment in the house

[Truth2Tell]

6. So lets get to work on getting them! n/t

[OzarkDem]

18. Not yet, that's why we need an impeachment investigation

the investigation portion of impeachment proceedings is designed to enlighten the public and their representatives. With other investigaions being stonewalled by Bush, an impeachment investigaiton is the only way to bring charges, since subpoenas can't be ignored under those proceedings.

Congress has a moral and legal obligation to investigate these crimes and impeachment is the only way.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. It would also set a precedent for impeachment of every President

Even if there are legitimate reasons to impeach Bush (and there are) the right wing controls the media and I guarantee you that as soon as there is even the possibility of impeachment you will turn on your TV and hear the words "Payback for Clinton" nonstop.

Convince me that we could get at least 5 Republican Senators to vote for conviction and I would very seriously consider it. But if it's going to be a straight party line vote then absolutely not. History books will say that this was just about partisan revenge if it's a straight party-line vote and the next President will wind up being impeached for some reason or another.

[Truth2Tell]

7. The right wing

media hasn't been able to keep Bush's level of support above 30%. They could never muster a majority in support of the Clinton impeachment. They have certain powers, no doubt. But in the Impeachment Show, if done properly, the ring masters could write the script.

Don't underestimate the idiocy of those who attempted to impeach Clinton - they really were buffoons. The current Dem leadership isn't quite that incompetent. And the media loves a scandal. Many in the MSM would Pile On. They usually can't help themselves when it comes to a good "bigger they are, harder they fall" narrative.

If you're worried about what the History books will say, just imagine what they'll say about Congress doing nothing. I really think we'd have a shot at 5 Rep votes after the dust settles and the hearings run their course. But even on a straight party line vote - I say do it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. That's the umbrella boosh and the republics hide under

...and will continue to hide under. "It'll set a precedent." "It'll be payback for Clinton." They've hammered those thoughts into the mainstream -- because that fear is his only protection at this point.

Give me a few good poker players on the hill to call the bluff.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. If you let fear of what someone may say stop you from doing what's right, then all is lost.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. It's not fear of what they say

It's fear that the next President and every subsequent President will be impeached as a matter of ritual.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Has that happened before? Or is the situation that blatent criminality should

overlooked because of fear of something that's never happened before?

[Hippo_Tron]

72. See my post below

We're both agreeing with the premise that if we impeached Bush he would not be convicted or at least that is the OP's argument.

I recognize the logic in arguing that we can't just let Bush off the hook because then the next President will believe that they can break the law and get away with it. But the fact is that, that precedent existed long before Bush. Woodrow Wilson was guilty of many of the same crimes that we want to convict Bush for in the Palmer Raids yet he was never impeached. Nixon was guilty of illegal spying and police actions against civil rights and anti-war groups. Ford pardoned Nixon for his involvement in Watergate, but under the logic for which we're trying to impeach Bush, Nixon could have been tried for those crimes, but he wasn't.

My view is that impeaching Bush can't overturn a precedent that was started long before he was ever in office. What it can do is allow the right wing media to further tarnish the impeachment process, which they and the Republicans did with Clinton. I fear that after two consecutive impeachments that are viewed as partisan, every time a President is impeached, what the crimes are or whether he is guilty or innocent will not matter, the American people will just see impeachment as a tool that an opposition Congress uses against a President for political gain.

Again, my arguments are based on what would happen if Bush were impeached are based on speculation just as everyone else's are. You may be right and I may be wrong. At this point it is impossible to tell, but maybe a few years down the road we will have a clearer picture.

[Truth2Tell]

73. But I really don't think

the MSM has the power to tarnish impeachment the way you fear. They will try, but this is where we fight. This is where the Dems take that stand and wage the battle for the hearts and minds.

Right now Americans - a majority of them - understand the difference between the real crimes of Bush and the phony crimes of Clinton. The right wing MSM would need to roll that back if they wanted to succeed at framing this issue as you fear they would.

We have to stop being afraid of this and take up the fight! An impeachment show is our only hope of doing this. The ring masters would have the floor. The MSM could only do damage control. Please stop being afraid of how they will paint us and take them head-on! We have very little left to lose!

[Amonester]

70. Nixon was impeached (not convicted because he resigned) and...

Carter was impeached (because he was the subsequent President). Yep. A pay-back for Nixon's.



See how much sense that makes?



The real reasons for the Dems not impeaching is because they are scared for their lives, IMHO.

They know this maladministration's "fascist" leanings...

[Hippo_Tron]

71. This will be the second consecutive President impeached if carried out

The first time was for obviously partisan reasons and this time will be spun as being for partisan reasons. Nixon's impeachment was successful (he resigned) and had bipartisan support. Clinton's impeachment did not. If Bush's conviction is a party-line vote like Clinton's was it will be viewed as a partisan politics and will further tarnish the process of impeachment no matter how noble the intentions of those impeaching are.

Again, find me 5 Republican Senators that would seriously consider conviction and I'd say go for it. But if it's going to be a straight party-line vote I think that it will do more harm than good.

[Truth2Tell]

75. it will be viewed as a partisan politics

only if Democrats fail to put up the heroic fight this would require.

We have got to stop declining to do the right thing because we fear we will lose the PR wars! And this chickenshit attitude applies not just to impeahment BTW. War funding, you name it. Fuck that chickenshit attitude. It's time to fight!

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Actually, Nixon resigned prior to being impeached, or tried for impeachment.

I think the reason the Dems aren't impeaching bush is because they think they will win in 08 and get to use the same power bush stole.

[rateyes]

26. I say we payback

an impeachment of a war criminal for the impeachment of an adulterer. Anyone arguing "payback" will have to argue that Clinton's "crimes" are worse than Dubyas. That argument, though, doesn't pass the giggle test.

[davekriss]

79. There never has been a President and VP...

...more in need of impeachment than Bush and Cheney. History will NOT write that an impeachment was "just about partisan revenge". However, as it is playing out now, history will write about the complicity of the Democratic Party in granting a President unprecedent power to wage war at whim, spy on the American people, spend us into bankruptcy, withdraw from ratified treaties, engage in torture, and remold America from the City on the Hill to the rat in the gutter.

Perhaps the Senate will fail to convict, but otherwise what do we Democratic parents tell our Democratic children.

And on the Republican's owning the media: Well than do something about it! It was Clinton who signed the 1996 Telecommunications reform act that accelerated consolidation to near-monopoly. Why hasn't the Democratic congress introduced bills to restore the Fairness Doctrine, Rule of Sevens, the Editorial Rule, and the Personal Attack Rule -- all FCC regulations killed by Republican administrations. For that matter, why haven't they repealed the Miltary Commissions Act of 2006? O, I remember, they were too busy passing legislation that grants Bush the legal right to spy on Americans without warrant. Of course the complicit will not impeach...

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. I wish I could give this 100 more recs...

I've been saying for months that we *need* to make very one of these lected officials stand up on National TV and state whether they support the Constitution and Rule of Law or this criminal regime. Smoke the snakes out!!

Anyone who votes not to convict needs to be voted out of office in the next term. Smoke these enabling snakes out!!

[OneBlueSky]

9. "Obstructing the Suicidal Neo-con Agenda" . . . therein lies the single most important reason . . .

to begin impeachment proceedings immediately . . . if we can tie them up defending themselves, maybe they won't have the time, energy, or political will to start more wars and shit . . . hell, it's worth a try . . . nothing else seems to have worked . . .

[puebloknot]

10. K&R This is so logical, so intelligent, so ethical. Thank you!!!! nt

[Usrename]

11. Impeachment is the only way to put a wooden stake in these guys.

If we don't impeach, then we will never be able to rid the world of these criminals. Most of them are on their second and third strikes already, having been involved with other criminal conspiracies in past administrations.

[Senator]

13. ACTION Item: How To Get This Show On The Road.

It seems that this recess has gotten the message across that DC Dems are percieved as lame, spineless, fools by the vast majority of our rank and file; and the nation at large. But because DC-Bubble-Based Impeachophobia is a disease only curable by full Cranial-Rectoscopy, they have responded to this tsunami of complaint with a determination to turn the "Business As Usual" Dehumidifier dial up from 4 to 6 (dazzle those C-Span viewers, issue more ignored subpoenas).

They scurry around their exitless maze, pretending there is some "legislative" solution to monarchical, "Unitary" Rule By Signing Statement and war crimes.

They just don't get it that they are literally a Can't Do Nothing BUT Impeach Congress.

What we must do is broadcast this reality. Go to other political blogs (leftist and media) like dkos, TPMMuckraker, MyDD, firedoglake, Amer Prospect, etc and battle the delusion. Particularly try to get to "influential" ones and don't forget lawmakers themselves. Talk all impeachment, all the time.

Attack the groupthink that there's some downside to impeachment. Question what is supposedly being achieved by their shadow play, make-work inconsequential busyness-as-usual. Cut and paste the reasons from this OP (or help yourself to my journal). Don't allow other posters to applaud them for more and more useless posturing and play-acting as "leaders."

The point is to alert them that everything they think they're DOING is just fumbling with belly button lint.

Force them to see that Only Impeachment is a substantive act.

That it is our ONLY moral, patriotic, (and legal, legislative, electoral, diplomatic...) option.

That we must get on with it.

----

[radfringe]

14. has anyone noted how quickly the republics

have come out for craig's resignation?

what does this have to do with impeachment? well, the republics know they are in deep doo-doo - between bush's reign of error, the sex scandals, the money scandals, Iraq and just about everything else, their hopes for a 100-year republic control is in the crapper

they may end up feeling the only way to save themselves would be to impeach bush/cheney

[Senator]

19. That's the nightmare scenario

That the GOP moderates will take the initiative on impeachment and reap all the political benefits.

Let's just hope they're not that smart.

---

[Truth2Tell]

94. I'm OK with the GOP moderates

taking the initiative. Someone needs to. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Here here!

[Vidar]

16. I'm right behind you. Recommended.

[Spurt]

17. K&R and more...

I have been thinking along the same lines for some time.
A few more thoughts...

If a trial comes before the senate, the accused will have to attend and respond to unscripted questioning by numerous skilled lawyer/senators. Take a moment and picture that scenario and imagine how well the king of crawford would answer hour after hour of critical examination live on TV. (Check him for wire.)
I strongly believe he would convict himself and the vote count arguments would at best be rendered moot.

Two for the price of one. Whether shrub or darth is tried, the evidence will implicate the other inevitably. Get one and they'll both have to go.

Anyone who thinks election of a dem POTUS is certain is a fool. 04 was supposed to see change but it didn't happen. By fair means or foul, there could be a repub POTUS for the next term.
If that occurred, the same abuse of the now established power would simply continue, or perhaps expand further. Think about that for a minute.
That alone is I believe a good reason to impeach. It sends a message to future admins that the constitution is not just a goddam piece of paper, and it's wisdom applies to the WH too.

Cheers

[seafan]

20. History will not be kind to Americans if our House fails to begin Bush/Cheney impeachment process.

Remember this from July 31, 2007?

MSNBC JAY INSLEE WASHINGTON STATE GOING TO BRING IMPEACHMENT OF GONZO TO FLOOR TOMMORROW



And what happened on August 27, 2007??

Gonzales Resigns as Attorney General





From this May, 2007 thread:

Speaker Pelosi, lead or step out of our way. We The People are coming to IMPEACH THIS CHARLATAN.

We MUST proceed to the impeachment stage to protect the US against this uncontrolled executive.


It is how history will judge us.

Did we, as Americans, when faced with crimes committed by this president and vice president against our nation and other nations, use our Constitutional rights as The People of the United States to indict those responsible?

At this critical point, the wrangle over the potential Senate outcome to convict is only a distraction from the business at hand; we must not allow ourselves to be browbeaten by pessimism about what represents the second stage in the progression of stopping this unchecked and dangerous administration.

The business at hand is to begin the process.


We must begin the process.


Having The People's House vote affirmatively on articles of impeachment will wake up the nation in a simultaneous roar of validation that will force Senators to rethink their survival politically. But, if it turns out that a few Republicans choose to go down with the Bush/Cheney ship, by ending their political careers with a Nay vote, we, as a people will forever know that we did what was right for our country, when we started the process.


It is the last tool of The People against a despotic leader. We must use it.


What our leadership needs is courage.


We The People have it.


But what we are seeing is that while our ship has a gaping hole in the bow where Bush/Cheney tore into the rocks, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid are telling us not to bother wrenching the crazed captain from the wheel.... just start bailing out the water with our tin cups. And maybe we will have shallow water under us when the ship slips beneath the surface.



There is no other way to save ourselves. And most critically important, our window of time is slamming shut. We cannot wait any longer.



We must begin the process of indicting and removing this dangerously out of control executive and his vice president.




We owe it to those who will outlive us.

[5fingersurfer]

48. removing and moving as spineless bull

..

[Raster]

21. Preach on!

Wake up America!:kick:

[rateyes]

24. I wish I could recommend this more than one time...

Happy as a dung beetle on a pile of horse crap to K & R.

:kick:

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. Kicking this sucker back to the top... (n/t)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. K & R. nt.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Just noticed that I misspelled Impeachment

in my subject line. I'm such a dorkface sometimes. And too late to edit.

Oh well, thanks to all those who rec'd this rambling screed anyway. Teach me to proofread. :)

[onenote]

29. facts versus rhetoric -- doesn't help the OP

The problem isn't just that there aren't 67 votes for conviction. We can all stop talking about 67. Start talking about 218. That's the number of votes needed in the House to pass a resolution starting the impeachment process (i.e., a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry/hearings on whether chimpy/cheney should be impeached). The problem with 218 is that all it takes is 16 Blue Dog Democrats, out of more than 40, to vote no and the process stops before it gets started. And right now, there is every reason to believe that more than 16 Blue Dogs (and possibly some other Democrats as well) have no interest in voting for an impeachment resolution unless it also has support from at least a modicum of repubs -- even the Clinton impeachment process was started with a resolution that had support from 31 Democrats.

So, I agree. Let's not talk about 67. Let's talk about 218.

As for the statement that the repubs gained in Congress in the election cycle following the failed impeachment of Clinton, well, that's just historically false information. The reality is that in 1998 (after the impeachment effort against Clinton began, but before the articles were voted), the repubs lost 6 seats in the House and failed to pick up anything in the Senate -- the first time in over 150 years that the non-presidential party had failed to pick up ground in the sixth year of an opposition presidency.

In 2000, after the impeachment process was over and done, the repubs lost 4 seats in the Senate and two more in the House (and they lost the popular vote for the presidency and, but for the scotus, would've lost the electoral college vote as well).


Finally, let's consider the "18 percent" meme. The Gallup poll shows that Congress gets a miserable 18 percent approval rating. Somehow, this is translated into proof that the vast majority of the public are mad at Congress for not pursuing impeachment. But a deeper dip into the Gallup results is informative. First, the poll shows that the Democrats in Congress have 37 percent approval rating, about the same as the approval that the Democrats in Congress had in June 2006, before they captured control of the House and Senate. More importantly, 59 percent of the Democrats in the poll say that they approve of the job the Democrats are doing. And, lastly, of the 63 percent who disapprove of the job chimpy is doing, 47 percent still approve of the job the Democrats are doing.

So much for the 18 percent meme.

[Truth2Tell]

32. Fair criticism.

I stand corrected on that particular fact.

I would point out again, however, that the Clinton impeachment was opposed by a majority of Americans while a Bush impeachment has the support of most Americans. The real lesson may be that the voters reward the party that does what they want them to do.

[onenote]

33. But understanding what the voters want is a bit tricky.

I edited my earlier post to point out the problems with the argument that because Congress' approval rating is at 18 percent in the recent Gallup poll, it means that most people are mad that Congress isn't going after chimpy. But as a more detailed investigation of the Gallup poll shows that 59 percent of Democrats still approve of how the Democrats in Congress are doing and of the 63 percent of the public that doesn't approve of chimpy's performance, 47 percent approve of the job the Democrats are doing.

The polling data on how many people want chimpy impeached is also a very mixed bag. The Gallup poll (source of the oft cited 18 percent Congressional favorability figure) in July found that 62 percent of those polled did not think the commencement of an impeachment proceeding was justified. Other polls still show a significant minority (in the 40 percent range) as believing that chimpy's presidency has been a "success". Are these people crazy? I have to assume that they are. But crazy or not, the fact that the number of people in places like NYC or San Francisco that want chimpy to be impeached is probably in the upper 70 percent range or higher doesn't mean that in places like Houston or Salt Lake City the number is probably less than 20 percent.

[Truth2Tell]

35. Well, we could get into

a discussion about what particular polls mean or don't mean.

But really I think I already said in my OP what I thought about politicians (and others) who prioritize the political calculus on impeachment over the other far more important Constitutional and moral issues. The political rewards are simply a side benefit.

on edit: Going back and editing posts after I respond to them? Nice.

[onenote]

36. I was editing my post while you were responding

I didn't know you had responded to my post until after I was done making my edit, which is why I specifically mentioned that I had edited my post. (You posted four minutes before I posted my edit, which was during the time I was researching and writing my edit). Not a fair accusation.

[Truth2Tell]

56. Yer right. just looked that way. peace. n/t

[Fovea]

41. I predict a difficult time for the blue dogs

in the next two election cycles.

Even my particular blue dog has been showing signs of support for impeachment, and this is Kansas we are talking about.

This is a guy who voted for patriot and the MCA, and he is now telling his constituents to write LTTE supporting impeachment.

So I think that 218 is not so big a number as it sounds.

Now, back to the question of whether it is the right thing to do, rather than if it is a slam dunk or not.

[mzmolly]

31. I agree FULLY. And, if I hear anyone else say "impeachment will end the war"

I'll lose my voice. ;)

We must impeach, we must not confuse that act with ending the war. I "think" that's where the 67 vote error comes in, from intermingling the two goals?

[Netbeavis]

37. Sounds nice but....

Lets face it. The GOP owns the main stream media and thus the message. By the time things got warmed up in the House for an Impeachment trial, the media & GOP would be creating a bumper sticker motto to combat the proceedings in the court of public opinion. The Dem's may win in the chamber, but on Main Street, the GOP wins with the message on the street.

As its sits right now, most political analysts predict that not only will the Dem's win the White House with ease, but there is a GREAT chance that the Dems will pick up about 10 to 15 more seats in the House and 2 to 3 in the Senate. JACKPOT! Dean, Reid and Pelosy know this. This is why they are moving forward, but with caution and trepidation. They are killing the clock as they know its the fourth quarter and we've got the ball and the lead. As much as I want to see Bush & Cheney do the perp walk, a gross negative publicity campaign spearheaded by the GOP and their BS machine threatens all of this.

Now.....lets say its 2008 and (insert Dem candidate) wins the White House and Dems gain a few seats in both chambers. There is nothing to say that the criminal investigations won't continue which could lead to criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, etc... including war crimes. THAT would be huge stain for the GOP to constantly with deal with and try to run away from. The GOP would be neutered even more than it is now and it would take decades for them to try and come back into power.

Think long term and delay that gratification. We're almost there. Lets not blow it now.

[Virginia Dare]

39. I agree with this, and you will get flamed too..

don't let that scare you off, and welcome!

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. No need to flame. He's just lost the plot. Probably discussing the matter with Butt-head right now.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. Do you really think that the MSM would:

a) Be able to keep the same clamp on the daily news qua proper current affairs, that they have managed to do for so long, right up to the present, with the real balance of power definitively shifted - which is what impeachment proceedings would signal? Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan would really have to take a back seat.

b) Dare to even try it, knowing that people have had both the Administration and themselves up to here, including people who were life-long Republicans? I think you couldn't be more mistaken.

[PBass]

53. Wrong... there is NOT going to be any impeachment talk AFTER the next election,

no matter who wins. "Lets not look backwards" will be the excuse. Democrats and right-thinking Republicans need to take action, NOW.

Impeachment is the right thing to do, to protect the Constitution. There MUST be consequences. Nobody is above the law, not even the president!

In the future, I don't ever want to hear somebody say "Well okay, maybe President ____ broke the law, BUT BUSH DID IT TOO!!!!"

If the Democrats do not at least ATTEMPT impeachment, it will be a green light for more (and worse) trampling of the rule of law. Impeachment may not succeed in the house, but the Democrats must TRY. Let history show that somebody tried to say no!!!

[Truth2Tell]

58. No flaming here, just a response

The GOP owns the main stream media and thus the message. By the time things got warmed up in the House for an Impeachment trial, the media & GOP would be creating a bumper sticker motto to combat the proceedings in the court of public opinion. The Dem's may win in the chamber, but on Main Street, the GOP wins with the message on the street.

It doesn't have to be this way. An impeachment would be a long overdue opportunity to turn the tables on this dynamic. This defeatism on media messaging has been a self-fulfilling prophesy for the Democrats, IMHO. The time has come to take these bastards head-on with no mercy. We can write the script on this one - our leadership just needs to step up and show some guts. Yes, there is some political gambling involved, but the rewards are more than worth the risks.

Dean, Reid and Pelosy (sic) know this. This is why they are moving forward, but with caution and trepidation. They are killing the clock as they know its (sic) the fourth quarter and we've got the ball and the lead.

How many lives and freedoms are lost with every second that ticks off that clock? These are not just abstractions, but real considerations. And they transcend politics.

There is nothing to say that the criminal investigations won't continue which could lead to criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, etc... including war crimes.

If you really believe this will happen then I have war to sell you, cheap. Be prepared for a lot of talk about "national unity" and "putting the excesses of the Bush administration behind us" following a Democratic Presidential victory. Be prepared for that right wing media you so fear to congratulate the Dems on their "adult" behavior and ability to focus on the future and not the past. Don't hold your breath expecting any accountability in 2009, unless you don't like air.

It's now or never.

[Fovea]

38. Thank you.

Another person who *really gets it*.

I am so sick of the craven little lambs who bleet that it might cost us an election...

They are poised to do the wrong thing by the American people yet again, and in so doing snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[EFerrari]

40. The emperor is naked.

For 9/11 alone.

For Iraq alone.

For torture alone.

For Katrina alone.

For vote caging in 2004 alone.

This could be a long, long list.

IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS or suffer the consequences of their continued involvement in your government.

[Netbeavis]

42. GOP response?

By the look of these responses, I thought this was a GOP blog.

I thought it was the GOP who used fear to persuade others.

Becareful that you do not become that which you hate in your quest.

Have faith. The Democracy has survived so far, it shall continue and all shall be undone.

[EFerrari]

43. Ah, no.. It's not a fear tactic to recount history

We normally call that "learning".

Google "Iran/Contra" and make a laundry list of felons let off the hook THEN that are BACK now.

And there is no chance this thread could be mistaken for the kind of kool aid infused, authoritarian comments that would be found on a Thug blog.

But, thanks for your input. :hi:

[Danger Mouse]

47. Excellent points.

Impeach YESTERDAY!!!!

[5fingersurfer]

49. Spineless bull

Let me put this where it belongs:




The whole - "We don't have the votes to impeach" bullshit is one of the worst cowardly copouts imaginable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an impeachment trial about bringin forth the evidence and then making up your mind? That's like a DA not bringin charges on a case because he has already polled the jurors and they responded that becasue of what they have seen in the media, they will acquit.

I don't care if he is impeached or not. The impeachment process needs to get started so the American people can see for themselves, the level of damage that this administration has done to our country on so many levels. I think after all is said and done, any senator or congressman not voting to impeach, convict, whatever, will find themselves back in the private sector come their next election cycle.

Anyways very valid points in the orginal post, and I can at least dream about impeaching vader and the chimp.

[Horse with no Name]

50. Blue Dogs/DLC won't let it happen.

We have more real Republicans in OUR party than they do in theirs.

[Truth2Tell]

85. Well then at the very least

the leadership should push for it and force a vote. Lets make the rats show themselves.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dickbearton]

52. K&R.

[rambler_american]

54. I would favor impeachment

even if it didn't begin until January 19, 2009. Hell, why can't Congress impeach even after the imbecile in chief leaves office? It's important.

[Richard D]

55. I'd bet that the day before the hearings start . . .

. . . * would resign. There's precedent after all.

[leaninglib]

57. Impeachment would be colossal a waste of time.

The incompetent one will be gone soon enough.

Well, maybe not soon enough, but impeachment would do more harm than good.

Besides, there isn't enough time left.

[Truth2Tell]

59. More harm? Really, do tell... n/t

[leaninglib]

77. More harm, as in—do you remember what happened to the Republicans

after they impeached Clinton?

[Thothmes]

78. Yes

They won the Presidency, and retained controll of both houses of Congress.

[leaninglib]

87. You must be Minister of Misinformation.

The fact is Democrats picked up five seats in the House, which was something that had not happened in a mid-term since 1934.

[Truth2Tell]

82. Yes,

They took control of the country and have re-made the world in their neo-con image.

Are we really afraid to lose a few seats in Congress (in the worst unlikely scenario) in order to restore some semblance of accountability to our democracy? Are Democrats really that cynical? How disgusting. Fucking disgusting.

[leaninglib]

88. Wrong answer, see above.

Fortunately, cooler heads than yours will prevail and there will be NO impeachment.

In fact, your approach would lead to an increase in Bush's popularity and ensure not only a loss of the House and Senate, but Republican president as well.

Shrewd Democrats understand that it's best to keep your eyes on the prize and not your emotions influence your strategy.

[Truth2Tell]

89. Channel fox news much? n/t

[leaninglib]

90. That’s the type of response that I would expect

from someone who lets their emotions cloud their thinking.

:crazy:

[Truth2Tell]

93. You mean emotions like fear?

In fact, your approach would lead to an increase in Bush's popularity and ensure not only a loss of the House and Senate, but Republican president as well.

Why are you so afraid of them? How did you let them get to you like this? Are you convinced they will always win any media battle? Forever!? Should we ever fight back or just keep backing down? Do you think the media will all of a sudden be on our side after 2009? Or will you still be afraid of how we will be painted by them on every issue even then?

The best opportunity to turn the table on this chickenshit dynamic would be a full-bore offensive push - and that means impeachment. Stop being afraid. You can never win if you're afraid of them.

[leaninglib]

95. It's not about fear, it's about tactics.

And it would be a tactical error to waste time and energy pursuing a policy that has no chance to succeed. If you lead with your chin, you will only win a broken jaw. Sometimes it makes sense to flank your enemy as opposed to attacking them head-on.

Your reference to the media sounds like a Republican tune. Aren't they the ones that are constantly whining about "the liberal media?"

[motocicleta]

61. This Congress will never survive the history books

if they do not move to impeach. It is simply shameful and un-American to consider otherwise.

[MasonJar]

62. Please send this to all dems and wavering pugs.

[tavalon]

63. Thank you

This is what I've been saying.

[spag68]

64. Impeachment

Any one here need to be reminded that the house had impeachment on the table, and the threat of it got rid of NIXON. I think not, but our reps. need to be reminded.I've e-mailed and used the phone, but here in NY it probably won't do any good. At least I know in my heart,I've done what I can for now.

[Tab]

67. Oh, but impeachment during war time

that just shows the Democrats care more about getting even for Clinton than supporting the troops.

According to the talking heads in the media.

They'll fight it, but they'll also cave (the MSM, I mean). Look how quick Rush was to distance himself from Bush when he saw the writing on the wall, that he wouldn't be a "water carrier" for the right wing.

One danger is if some new disaster is engineered (whether you believe LIHOP or MIHOP), but we're facing that anyway as a catalyst to spark a confrontation with Iran. So screw it - we need to do whatever we can to bring the bastards down.

I swear, if impeachment wasn't designed for times like this, and this HUGE list of high crimes and misdemeanors, then why not just take it out of the Constitution? Because apparently I totally must have misunderstood the original intention for making this tool available.

[davekriss]

69. I agree 110% (n/t)

[Mind_your_head]

76. Aaack!!!! Too late to recommend, but I'll kick it.......this is really worth kicking/reading/shar

ing.

EXCELLENT IDEAS/THOUGHTS contained within this post :-)

:kick:

[timtom]

80. What a great post!

And I agree with all your points (some of which never occurred to me).

My take has always been that it must necessarily be done. It is required. It is a duty charged to the House by the Constitution. The wavering on impeachment is as treasonous as the behavior of Cheney and Bush.

Impeachment is NOT a political strategy. It is a requirement. (This is not meant to repudiate your points at all).

[Time for change]

81. Excellent reasons for impeachment even without the 67 votes

But I think that the 67 votes will materialize fairly quickly once the impeachment hearings educate the American public on what's going on. Either they'll materialize, or those who vote no will put their Senate seats in serious jeopardy.

[EFerrari]

83. Kick

[Poiuyt]

86. Keeping this kicked

[Richard Steele]

91. "a wrench in the gears and a smack on the ears." Great post! nm

[SalmonChantedEvening]

92. Too late to rec, but a HUGE kick for a great post!!

And special kudos for the Lobo reference :)

How I love being a free man. :pals: