How would you convince right-wingers to support impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et al?

[ColbertWatcher]

We all know right-wingers, they're in our family, we knew some growing up, they live next door and some even hold down jobs.

We only know they're right-wingers because of the irrational comments they make whenever Dumbya speaks and the drool seeping from the sides of their mouths whenever FOX news or Rush comes on the TV or radio.

Their political ignorance may have been discovered during a discussion about abortion or gas prices or some other hot political topic.

Regardless, we've tried to discuss the issues of the day with these people, sometimes it works out okay and friendly, other times it turns into a GD:P thread.

Based on your past successes, how would you convince the right-wingers in your life to support impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et al?

Selection 1: The mere sound of my voice brings everyone to my way of thinking

Selection 2: We engage in a rational, reasoned discussion about the facts like we always do

Selection 3: I will point them to any one of the many compelling threads on DU as evidence of superior liberal arguments

Selection 4: We don't need them, impeachment can happen without that half of the country voting for it

Selection 5: I don't even try to convince them of anything anymore, because every time I talk to them, I feel stupider

Selection 6: Other (please post in reply)

[sk8rrobert2]

1. I used to try then i found that when i made references like glass half full/half empty they think...

the glass is theirs. its gotten rediculious.

[Lorien]

2. The right wingers I know already dispise BushCo

they certainly would be against standing in the way of impeachment, if nothing else.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Who knows, they might just say they despise the man, but...

...harbor strong partisan feelings.

Racists know better than to say certain words in polite company, I would suspect GOPhers have learned to be discrete with their partisan ignorance as well.

[Liberty Belle]

4. Point out that if we won't impeach Bush for his crimes,

President Obama will be able to get away with anything he wants.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Hmm...

...interesting argument. I wonder if would work?

[magellan]

10. Winner

Yep, all those great Unitary Executive powers Bush** has taken for himself will soon be Obama's. Like warrantless wiretapping, email searches, and "free speech zones", not to mention signing statements that will let Obama decide whether or not and to what degree he'll follow a law passed by Congress.

And who gets declared an "enemy combatant".

And so many other lovely things we don't even know about but Obama will be briefed on on Day 1!

Repubs, you are SO screwed. And you did it to yourselves.

[Dark]

5. You can't.

Most of America just wants to ride it out, and start fresh.

[L. Coyote]

7. First, teach them to read, then critical reasoning, .... it is a long process

People don't change, but the old ones die!!

[ColbertWatcher]

8. LOL! Good answer, you win an internets! n/t

[crickets]

9. I'd point to their wallets and explain the Enron loophole

--then explain how things will keep getting worse at the pump and the grocery store. I'd explain that they can forget the price of gas for a moment and check the price of milk, then explain why they are being bent over a barrel to pay it. THEN explain that the lies about why they are gouged at the pump (and the grocery store and anywhere else that depends on deliveries) are not so different from the lies that led us into war, and it's often the same people shilling both sets of lies - or at least agreeing to tell them for a slice of the pie - while they laugh at ALL of us on their way to the bank. Then I'd remind them how many people in uniform have died for the people who wanted to set up the circumstances that would allow them to rape all of that money out of us.

I'd tell them that the money isn't coming back, and neither are the dead soldiers used as pawns for robber barons. If that didn't work, the hell with the right-winger. The rest of us human beings in the country will do our best without them.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. To play Devil's Advocate...

...the GOP already has released their talking point to combat that: the Dems won't let us drill in ANWR!

How do you argue against that?

Remember, I'm being a devil's advocate here

[crickets]

12. I'd explain that the GOP and oil barons are hypocrites, still LYING

about how many unused leases they already have lying around, many of those leases involving public lands other than ANWR, leases that they are STOCKPILING to drive up the prices and screw us over. I'd explain that ANWR is a code word, a buzzword, a location name that caught on decades ago, and that it's just another site they'd like to lease but never actually want to drill because of the difficulty and expense - and because it would undercut their stockpiling profits. I'd explain that we currently use about 20 million barrels of oil per day but ANWR would only provide at most 876,000 barrels per day... for about 7 to twelve months, AND it would take perhaps ten years before that oil would 'come on line.' Hardly going to help the pocketbook in the next month or so, hardly more than a drop in the bucket in the long run. Also, there are other leases they already have that could be drilled without destroying an irreplaceable habitat. Because people who care about the environment push back so hard, ANWR is a great buzzword for oil barons to manipulate people. It's a tool to fool, not a solution to our problem. And I'd explain: oh, by the way, the Environmental Protection Agency - that inconvenient government agency of the scruffy, granola addled, Birkenstock wearing set that gets in the way of 'progress' and drilling in ANWR - was the brainchild of Richard Milhous Nixon.

Then I'd remind them of the Enron loophole again, and soldiers dying in the sand for oil barons.

Remember, I'm being a devil's advocate here

;) S'ok. Help me out; I want to have an answer for every "but, but..."

[ColbertWatcher]

13. But, what is the big deal with ANWR?

Devil's advocate again, why is ANWR given special protections?

Why should ANWR be protected from drilling, but these other places are offered up?

Why are the GOP so eager to get at ANWR?

[crickets]

14. Yes, I see what you did there.

ARE they eager to get at ANWR? Reread.

Look at the numbers. It's not about a useful source of oil, it's about propaganda. This is comparable to the abortion debate, where reproductive rights are held like the sword of Damocles over the heads of women, various people who have moral problems with the issue, and the rabid elements of the religious right alike for DECADES--yet when was the last time it was brought before the Supreme Court? It's a controversial issue used to browbeat people into one camp or another to face off in a moral debate while other immoral crimes occur elsewhere. The GOP will never actually give up that issue; it's been too good a diversion for them.

As to ANWR, there are literally thousands of unused leases. What DOES make ANWR so important, other than as a buzzword to agitate? It worked on you. /devil's advocate.

So what would YOU say to those who oppose impeachment, those who do not recognize that they have been diverted and fooled?

[ColbertWatcher]

15. Impeachment is a special kind of trial.

The Constitution guarantees everyone their day in court.

If the crimes can be proven, those charged should be held accountable.

But, the entire legal process should proceed.

[crickets]

16. Close, but impeachment is not a trial.

The Constitution guarantees everyone their day in court.

True (Article One, Section 9)... except for those held at Gitmo over the past seven years. Good thing ninefive people got around to stating the obvious yesterday, when the Supreme Court voted to uphold the writ of habeas corpus. Go, SCOTUS, go. Apparently GW is displeased and "doesn't have to like it." SurveyConstitution says: Yes he does!

Agreed on the rest of your post.

Impeachment is only the first step, a presentation of a legal statement of charges much like an indictment. (See 35 articles of impeachment recently submitted by Kucinich.) This function is the purview of the House of Representatives. Members of the House may get up and make long speeches about the charges, and talk about evidence in doing so, but their comments are not considered of the same weight as testimony under oath. If a vote on impeachment passes the House by simple majority, the matter goes on to the Senate.

It is the Senate which conducts the trial and which will vote to convict (or not) on the charges levied by the House. During the trial process, the Senate holds hearings which air actual evidence regarding the charges. That is the seriousness and importance of getting impeachment passed - to have the evidence brought out into the light of day in a forum not subject to the spin of pundits, a setting in which the accused must be held under oath to answer charges. If the defendant is found guilty by a two thirds majority vote, s/he is removed from office, may be barred from future office at Senate discretion, and may be liable in the future for criminal charges.

Impeachment can still occur after the accused has left office.

The last President to be impeached, Bill Clinton, was acquitted by the Senate.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Maybe I should have said "quasi" instead of "special". n/t

[Cobalt-60]

17. I can't penetrate the ignorance

It's easier for a lazy mind to be willfully ignorant than
entertain rational discussion.
I have otherwise rational friends who push ideas like:
"It's the democrats letting in illegal immigrants."
"It's the Democrats that deficit spend."
That on is particularly irritating. They never care to hear any numbers.
"Obama said he's disband the military". Obviously not.
"Obama is a muslim". Incorrect.
And so on.
These people's willingness to believe the lies combines with a steady
supply of Lies (Limbaugh, faux news, ect.) weaves an impenetrable shell
of willful ignorance.
I've been forced the measure of refusing to discuss politics with them.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Morning kick. n/t

[mmonk]

20. We have to convince our party and the press first.

The average American is clueless and doesn't know the Constitution from a roll of toilet paper. They have to be shown and until that occurs, we have to convince the people in power and the press who know better.

[ColbertWatcher]

21. So, how do we educate people?

Schoolhouse Rock seemed to do a good job helping people learn the content of the preamble.

Maybe we can have them rerun?

I actually think it's time Bravo brought back West Wing.