What would happen if we tried to impeach Bush and failed?

[ThomWV]

My guess is that the people of this country would realize that the only reason we would have failed is because there aren't enough Democrats in Congress - and they would elect even more for the next go-round.

It is nonsense to compare the needed impeachment of George Bush with the sham impeachment of Bill Clinton. With the exception of a few zealots the nation was well aware that Bill Clinton did nothing that demanded he be removed from office. The nation, with the exception of the same few zealots, is now well aware that George Bush has done many things that each are demanding of removal from office.

[Vinca]

1. If we tried and failed, at least there would be an asterisk in the history books. nt

[yurbud]

34. more than an asterisk--one of only three, and the only with merit

[demnan]

2. I'm of the "Impeach Cheney First" camp

He's the one who's really in charge. Bush would rather be Baseball Commissioner. I say we go after Cheney relentlessly.

[OzarkDem]

11. Much stronger case against Cheney

impeachment can't be based on lack of popularity or appearance of seeking revenge. From a strictly legal standpoint Cheney and the OVP have many problems.

[KittyWampus]

22. Thank You, I'm on the Impeach Bandwagon if it's heading for Cheney.

[crikkett]

3. it would be right around time to elect someone else

and in the meantime the troops would still be in Iraq?

Best case, we prevent war in Iran with impeachment proceedings.

[tnlurker]

7. The time from introduction to resignation

For Nixon was about two weeks. It does not have to take that long. The investigations may take a while but I am confident that it could be accomplished this fall.

[radfringe]

4. similar thought

My guess is that the people of this country would realize that the only reason we would have failed is because there aren't enough Democrats in Congress

wonder how many republics would balk at the notion if they realize their jobs are in jeopardy and the only possible way to save themselves would be to vote to impeach/convict bush/cheney

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. If we tried and failed...

...and we certainly would fail if we tried, then we would almost certainly risk giving Congress back to the Republicans in '08. In fact I'd go so far as to say it would be almost certain. The consequences for the presidential race are less clear, but it would almost certainly be detrimental.

[Vidar]

6. A fine set of DLC talking points & wrong on every count.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. DLC talking points?

Uh uh. Stop using the fucking DLC brush to tar everyone who disagrees with you. A failed impeachment attempt would be a disaster.

[onenote]

could you provide some analysis to support your post?

A failed impeachment could provide ammunition in races against repubs who backed chimpy to the end. But it also will provide a rallying point for the repub base that otherwise is likely to be entering the 2008 elections divided and demoralized.

What people don't seem to realize that the battle over impeachment will end up becoming a debate over whether those favoring impeachment are trying to hold chimpy accountable for actions taken to protect the country during a time of war. Now, I agree that's pure bs, but it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that this is how the repubs will try to spin it, and that it will resonate with a significant number of people who think chimpy is a failed, incompetent president personally, but will nonetheless be sympathetic with the repubs presentation of the argument. In other words, most people think chimpy is incompetent not evil.

Personally, I think chimpy has committed impeachable offenses, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that without the presence of something as dramatic as the "smoking gun" that nailed Nixon's coffin, the risks of pursuing a failed impeachment in terms of the 2008 elections are substantial.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Sure.

The main problem would almost certainly be that significant sections of our party would either wash their hands of it entirely or actively come out against it. There are enough moderates and conservatives in the party to ensure that we wouldn't be presenting a united front. We have enough unity problems already with the war. And it's a fairly easy political football for the Republicans to handle, as they'd definitely have a much more united front. I can't see more than a couple of Republicans crossing over to vote for it, and they would definitely be the exceptions. All any attempt at impeachment would do right now is show up divisions within the party, which could prove problematic during an election year.

Also, any impeachment attempt would automatically become issue #1 for the Presidential campaign, seeing as our leading contenders are all in the Senate, and there's no way for them to say how they'd vote on impeachment without endangering their standing with some large minority of the people. It's just bad political calculus on all fronts, really.


Personally, I think chimpy has committed impeachable offenses, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that without the presence of something as dramatic as the "smoking gun" that nailed Nixon's coffin, the risks of pursuing a failed impeachment in terms of the 2008 elections are substantial.

That's a pretty accurate asessment, I think. Without someone at an extremely high level in Bush's inner circle coming out against him, it ain't gonna happen anyway, so this discussion is pretty much moot.

[onenote]

31. I agree with you. Actually, my post was directed to Vidar

You are absolutely right in the political calculus, at least at this point. The repubs are split and have little to rally their base. A partisan impeachment effort would be exactly what they need to improve their fundraising and excite their base.

[OzarkDem]

12. Opposite would happen

it would also provide additional pressure to end the Iraq debacle and prevent us from invading Iran.

[OzarkDem]

13. All US impeachments have "failed"

Of the 3 presidents who have been impeached in US history, none have been passed or enforced. Public outcry persuaded two to resign and the third was ignored since it was without merit.

[onenote]

18. which two presidents resigned?

Three presidents have been the targets of impeachment proceedings. Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted, finished his term, and later was elected to the US Senate. Richard Nixon, who actually was not impeached (although the Judiciary Committee did approve three articles of impeachment that almost certainly would've been approved by the full House) but resigned because impeachment and removal from office were inevitable. And Bill Clinton, who was impeached, acquitted,served out his term and is now a highly sought-after public speaker and the husband of a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination.

[OzarkDem]

24. You are correct, my bad, but its still reasonable to begin the process

Nixon was the only one to resign.

Impeachment should be viewed as a process not a result. Three times, presidents have had impeachment proceedings initiated against them. None were followed to completion.

In this case, Bush and Cheney are blocking any public airing and discussion of their illegal crimes, which by the way, are much more serious than any of those committed by Johnson, Nixon or Clinton.

Initiating impeachment proceedings are the only avenue to force testimony about their activities.

[onenote]

30. I don't disagree, if only it was possible at the moment

I wish the political will was there to start the process. But unfortunately, it takes a vote by the full House to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. And until there is at least a modicum of bi-partisan support for starting the process, I don't see that happening. The key will be if/when a few repubs start jumping ship in the House. Will that happen? At the moment I don't see it, but its important that people contact their repub members and pressure them.

[OzarkDem]

39. There's no incentive for GOP'ers to jump ship

Get the ball rolling on impeachment and shed some light on the Bush administration's crimes and they'll start jumping overboard.

[onenote]

41. the old chicken and egg dilemma

You may be right in theory, but the political reality is that Blue Dog Democrats aren't going to support "getting the ball rolling" unless and until they have the cover of a modicum of bi-partisanship. The problem is, in part, historical -- even the Clinton impeachment effort began with 31 Democrats supporting the commencement of Judiciary hearings.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. What the hell are you smoking?

The only two Presidents who were ever impeached, Johnson and Clinton, both survived the attempts. There have certainly been successful impeachment proceedings against other Federal officers, just not the President.

[OzarkDem]

25. Impeachment proceedings

were begun for 3 presidents, and that includes Nixon. His process didn't get far, but it had begun.

We have to recognize that impeachment is more than just bringing charges - its also a process of investigation.

Argue my point if you want, but ad hominem attacks are counterproductive and weak.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Nixon resigned.

Clinton didn't resign. Johnson didn't resign. You have no point with which to argue because your facts are not, in fact, facts.

[OzarkDem]

38. You're missing the point

Impeachment doesn't have to have a guaranteed of passage in the House and Senate to get started or succeed in bringing about change.

Impeachment proceedings have been initiated in 3 cases in US history and in 2 cases they began without prior substantive charges or investigations.

Bush and Cheney have violated the Constitution more than anyone in recent history. Its a very strong case against both of high crimes and misdemeanors combined with unprecedented stonewalling and refusal to follow the rule of law during the Congressional investigative process.

If Dems can't make a case for impeachment based on Bush & Cheney's high crimes, then there is no hope for the future of our Constitution and government.

If public opinion counts more to you than upholding and protecting our freedom, then so be it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. How would a failed impeachment attempt...

...keep us from invading Iran?

[madokie]

15. you just know that

or you would want to know that. my guess is the later

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Hell, I'd love to see the bastard impeached.

But it isn't going to happen unless things change radically.

[ThomWV]

16. Dead wrong ...

"it would almost certainly be detrimental"

Explain what on earth it is that gives you that impression. There is no evidence what so ever that your statement is true.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. That's What I Was Wondering Too

The vast majority of the public did NOT favor impeaching Clinton. His approval ratings WENT UP during that fiasco. Yet, the R's still won the WH in 2000, and did not lose their majority status in the Congress.

So, what is the basis for anyone worrying about the political fall-out from impeachment.
The Professor

[VP505]

44. I strongly disagree

the biggest and most frequent "bitch" that I see and hear about Dem's is, " no plan, no answers, weakness, indecision, and non-commitment, etc. Impeachment would make a strong statement and energize those who care about the Constitution and rule of law to take a more critical look at the Bu$h Admin misdeeds. Look to GWB for an example of someone who has royally screwed up EVERYTHING his Admin has touched, yet what do his followers say about him? He is resolute, does what he says he will do, will take a STRONG stand on issues he believes in, etc. He gets their loyalty partly, IMO, because of those qualities. That's why I disagree.

[cooolandrew]

9. It's for historical record really. It will fail but the ink stain will not be removed.

[underpants]

10. Impeach him- there won't be a conviction but do impeach him

"put it on the books" as a friend of mine said

[cali]

17. I do think the dems should offer articles of impeachment BUT

it is highly unlikely that they'd actually impeach. There are 50 or so Blue Dogs and a slew of freshmen dems from conservative districts. As it stands now, impeachment would fail in the House.

[onenote]

19. exactly right . Until some repubs jumped ship, the votes aren't there

Any effort to impeach has to have at least a modicum of bi-partisan support in order to have a chance to succeed and, more importantly, to dampen the politcal risk.

[ClassWarrior]

58. ANY effort to IMPEACH these criminals is success. No matter how far it goes.

Political risk?? You mean the kind of risk we run by giving a pass to criminals who are raping our nation? Thank kind of "political risk??"

:eyes:

NGU.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Failed Impeachment = Booooosh Vindication

I know many Democrats (and I include myself in this group) who saw Clinton's acquital in the Senate of vindication of his "crimes" and the consensus at the time...even among "reasonable" repugnicans was that the Senate vote not only was the right one, but it cleared Clinton. Look past the talking points...Clinton then went on to launch the military action into Kosovo. I still see the SNL episode where Darrell Hammond does his Clinton and says "I'm Bulletproof"

The time will come that an Impeachment of booosh will happen. The smoke is there...we're getting closer and closer to that fire. In many ways the increased scrutiny and investigations is beginning to wear on the manchild's enablers...Time is the avenger.

Cheers...

[LeftHander]

37. Wrong...Clinton still had a BJ....and the "clenis" is to blame

for everything since...

Rather successful for the Repukes...they took power....and shifted the nation right.

No vindication.

[Poiuyt]

43. No - Clinton was vindicated because he didn't commit any abuse of power

The American public could see that. Bush, on the other hand, has committed serious abuses of power, and that would come out in the trial.

Just because Bush would be acquitted doesn't mean that he would be vindicated. O.J Simpson was acquitted too, but he wasn't vindicated in the eye of the public.

[ClassWarrior]

52. Bingo. I can't see how any reasonable person could compare...

...holding these criminals responsible for their crimes to the failed Rape-Publican coup against Clinton.

NGU.

[Fla_Democrat]

20. I don't know...

give it a try, let's see what happens. :evilgrin:

[Mutineer]

26. I don't think we would fail.

Opinion polls show again and again and again that Bush and Cheney are not popular and people are really questioning WHY we ever in Iraq, the war is unpopular, people now it's a disaster, it's been one scandal after another. I think if the Democrats grew a pair of balls, went forth with impeachment, that the American public would support it. And being whorish politicians, the Congress would HAVE to back it up, even if they were GOPers. THAT is how unhappy their constituants are with them--look at the opinion polls for Congress, they are even lower than that of Bush/Cheney!

[ClassWarrior]

32. We win every time the I-word is attached to Bush** and Cheney**.

Every mention is another silver nail of accountability in these ghouls' hides. So it is IMPOSSIBLE to fail with IMPEACHMENT.

NGU.

[jerryme1]

33. Please, enough with the impeachment blather. It's not going to happen.

[ClassWarrior]

46. That's the point. It doesn't HAVE to happen to have a positive effect.

It just has to be pursued.

NGU.

[defendandprotect]

35. This is a criminal adminstration -- only criminals would deny that -- !!!!

[LeftHander]

36. The truth would still be exposed...

At Repukes that remained loyal to Bush would be voted out of office.

The republican party would collapse under the weight of it's own unity...

The "united we stand divided we fall" mentality of the Republicans will see them all fall together, hard.

[Ravy]

40. I think the danger would come if we impeached, but failed to convict.

Then there would be an argument of "double-jeorpardy" if he was tried in criminal (or world) court after his term of office. Saying "He was tried, and found not-guilty" would be a pretty strohg argument against extradition or further criminal proceedings.

[Poiuyt]

45. IT WOULD BE A POLITICAL WINNER

For Republic's Sake, Pelosi Must Ponder Impeachment
by John Nichols

==

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

Pelosi's problem appears to be that she doesn't want to be accused of repeating the partisan misuse of impeachment that Republicans perpetrated in 1998 and 1999. But the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney are precisely the sort of wrongdoing that impeachment was designed to check and balance.

==

It is impossible to support and defend the Constitution in this era of executive excess while taking impeachment off the table. As long as impeachment is wrongly portrayed as the political third rail by Pelosi, standards of accountability remain low, and prospects for fundamental improvement in the national condition are diminished.

The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.

When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.

When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition.

more -

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[porphyrian]

47. We would be on record as trying to save this nation...

...through the method prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America. That record would serve to say that, though it failed (and I'm not convinced it would), some of us believed that our law means something, that our freedoms mean something, and that we did our best not to let this administration set precedent otherwise.

[ClassWarrior]

48. That says it right there.

May I quote you?

NGU.

[porphyrian]

51. Absolutely, as long as you wash your hands after. - n/t

[librechik]

49. we would be thought heroes for trying, even if we fail

the only wones who would ridicule us are the criminals in charge.

[The Stranger]

50. There would be some semblance of the Republic, of Justice, of all that is Right and Proper in the

World?

[AZBlue]

53. You're operating under a false assumption:

that the vast majority of Americans understand our political system and understood the current conditions in Congress.

Unfortunately, that is very much not the case. So, an attempt would backfire.

[ClassWarrior]

54. How does demanding that criminals be held accountable for their crimes...

..."backfire??"

:crazy:

NGU.

[AZBlue]

55. Because when they aren't held accountable in the end

average Joe Citizen, who doesn't know all about number of votes needed and such details, just thinks, "Well, if you can't convict someone, they must not be guilty. That's the way our justice system usually works in the US! Guess those Republicans aren't as bad as they said they were!"

And then those Republicans turn around and blame us for wasting all that government time and money, and J.C. says, "Yeah, that was a waste, they weren't even guilty!" Thereby nailing the lid down on the coffin we'd built for ourselves and climbed into to all on our own.

[ClassWarrior]

56. How does abandoning our values for political expediency...

...NOT amount to a "backfire??" And a MAJOR one at that?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

57. YOU let Rape-Publicans nail a lid on YOUR coffin.

I'M fighting back.

NGU.