The party than impeaches wins the next election

[proud2BlibKansan]

[babylonsister]

1. BRILLIANT! "THE" party with the best candidate will win anyway. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Every once in awhile I get something fairly decent

in my email inbox. :)

[babylonsister]

6. It's too damn bad the asshole-in-chief has no morals. I'm very serious.

He's a person who will never be embarrassed about what he's done. And that makes me angry. Because to me, it indicates "he doesn't "get it", doesn't get what he's done?
I really want him to know what's he's done, but is he that stupid? Or immoral?

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. He's that arrogant

He reminds me more and more all the time of the spoiled little rich boys I went to high school with. Their daddies were always there to bail them out. Accountability was not in their vocabulary.

edit damn typo

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. He is part of a very bad bunch

[pipi_k]

47. I've come to the conclusion that

he's a sociopath.

Or psychopath

whichever one is worse...


or maybe both at the same time



Seriously, I think that under marginally different circumstances he might have been a serial killer the likes of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, etc.

[bjobotts]

57. Unless we impeach, politicians will continue to act without fear of consequences

[bjobotts]

58. Impeachment is the "legal" process but we already know they are guilty

[bjobotts]

60. They've all been caught on tape. Guilty-So what is their punishment

[bjobotts]

61. What is the penalty for arranging mass murder for profit??

[bjobotts]

62. Won't bring back the dead, but must be severe to prevent others from doing it again.

[EstimatedProphet]

69. Why do you keep answering your own posts?

[ThatsMyBarack]

2. And to think....

We finally get start Impeachment in six days! :bounce:

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Woohoo!!

:woohoo:

[burythehatchet]

3. Remove Pelosi first

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[debunkthelies]

54. I second that

:toast: :bounce: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause:

[tinrobot]

8. Even works for 1868

Ulysses S Grant, a Republican, won in 1868 after Johnson (who had no real party affiliation) was impeached by the Radical Rebublicans in 1867.

[trthnd4jstc]

10. Impeach for Justice!

Impeach because this is what impeachment is for. The Chimperor must be removed.

[Richardo]

11. I thought we spent the last 7 1/2 years saying Bush *wasn't* elected...

I missed a memo I guess.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. He's in office

That's all that matters.

[Richardo]

26. Not according to your headline

"The party that impeaches wins the next election"

Also, there's only one impeachment in the three administrations you cite.

[rhett o rick]

12. If impeachment endangers the election, so be it. Returning the rule of law

and the Constitution is the first priority. If doing so loses us the election, all was already lost anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. acquitting him in the Senate will do nothing

to return the rule of law and the constitution.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Except for justify the last 7 years to far too many in this country

[PeaceNikki]

28. Exactly. It will exonerate, clear their names and prove no wrongdoing.

How is that helpful?

[rhett o rick]

27. So we don't try if we don't think we can win? These people are criminals

and will continue to commit crimes if we don't bring them to justice. We may fail but we must try. If the Senate won't convict, let's expose those that won't. We may fail this time, so we will try again. And if our winning the election hinges on us not doing the right thing, then it was too fragile anyway.

I say we take it to them in every way we can, on every opportunity we can. The last seven years has shown the Democrats to be timid and keeping powder dry, etc. That hasn't helped one bit.

[EstimatedProphet]

34. No, we don't try UNTIL we can win

[rhett o rick]

42. That's what I said. How's that been working for yuh?

Do you think that our fore fathers were sure of a win? I say fight them at every turn. We are going to lose some maybe many battles but we have to fight and not wait.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Few such battles have such a clear outcome

this isn't about being hard to win, or being against the odds. It's about the 100% certainty that there aren't 18 republican senators who would vote to remove Bush. And even if there were, we'd have President Cheney.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. No, that's not what you said

See, the argument that this is like a court case, and a prosecutor would try a case even if not sure of the outcome is bogus. We haven't made a case yet. When we have a case, then we can start. You wouldn't expect a prosecutor to go into court and start trying to see if they can make a case on the spot. Why expect impeachment to do the same thing?

[rhett o rick]

82. Correct me if I am wrong. Impeachment isn't the trial, it is the investigation.

Impeachment will expose this administration's criminal activity to the public. The corp-media will have a harder time keeping it quiet. To me the investigation phase is worth it even if we lose the trial phase.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. No

if we know we'll lose, we don't do it.

You guys act like there's no possible downside to impeaching, and that's just not the case.

[1]

14. nope.

in this case, the party that impeaches is the party that risks losing the election.

republicans would climb all over this and pronounce "the democrats are just doing this to besmirch our president in a time of WAR!"

"the democrats are just doing this for political purposes!"

"the democrats are just doing this to win an election!"



luckily, our elected democrats are smarter than that and will focus on the upcoming election and not get involved in petty politics.

and we will win in november.

yay!

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. You are denying the history

[MonkeyFunk]

19. You're inventing history

there have only been two impeachments, not much of a record to work with.

In the second impeachment, Republicans maintained control of congress, but they LOST seats in a year when, historically, they should've gained a lot. They were hurt by the impeachment effort.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patchuli]

17. I think that's wrong

Republicans are rushing to disassociate themselves from *. I do NOT think they are thinking that "the democrats are just doing this to win an election" at all. I think they know that this country's had about enough of Republicans for a while.

[fascisthunter]

44. surrrrre it is

[snot]

15. k&r'd -- good point --

i've felt it worth doing for a long time, for many reasons, but partly bec., in addition to being fully warranted, it might slow them down in the damage they're still WREAKING . . .

We don't hesitate to prosecute small-time criminals on the ground that it might be too much, too often, or whatever. Why the hell should we hesitate to prosecute criminals in our highest positions of trust???

[MonkeyFunk]

22. The simple answer

is that we know who the jury is, and we know they won't convict.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. The party that launches inevitably-doomed impeachment procedings loses it.

Impeachment procedings would achieve nothing except a warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness for Dennis Kucinich, and four more years of Republican government.

51 < 67. It's an incredibly simple sum, and so many people seem not to be able to do it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Did Bill Clinton get elected because Democrats impeached George Bush?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

36. Just like Reagan got elected because the Republicans impeached Carter.

[Zuiderelle]

29. Or we could just consult the tarot cards.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

30. That's true. The excuses given so far are hiding whatever

the real reasons are for letting this administration slide.

[stray cat]

31. Or the party embroiled in political or sexual scandel is at a disadvantage

[lonestarnot]

32. K & R

[Richardo]

33. The President in power during a series of moon landings always resigns under threat of impeachment!

It's irrefutable. We should have sent some more moon missions up in 2002-2005. Bush would have had to resign by now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Thanks for kicking the thread

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

35. N=0. Republicans lost the '98 elections. Nixon wasn't impeached.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Time for a history lesson!

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)

On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

[Occam Bandage]

39. Didn't claim that he wouldn't have been impeached.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. And the flier in my op doesn't claim he was impeached

[Occam Bandage]

43. True, meaning there are still zero examples of an impeaching party winning the next election.

Nixon wasn't impeached. The Republicans lost 1998, which is unheard of for the midterm elections for the opposition party to a second-term President.

[whopis01]

64. Clinton was impeached in December of 98. The next election was in November of 00. n/t

[onenote]

71. and but for nader and the SCOTUS, Gore would've won.

To be sure, Gore suffered because a portion of the electorate was upset with Clinton's behavior. But here's a shocker -- that same portion of the electorate would've been just as upset with Clinton's behavior if, after it came to light, there had be a censure rather than impeachment or indeed, if there had been no impeachment at all.

[mina_seward]

40. sorry but Dems are not serious

about impeachment, or stopping the war, and I could think of at least another dozen things.

The time was 2006 when they regained power in congress. Do you honestly believe that impeachment will happen simultaneously with the presidential election? What kind of drug are you sniffing?

Plus Bush has a lot of dirt on Dems through illegal wiretapping. Let's not forget that Dems knew about torture and illegal wiretapping, how could they possibly impeach now?

This is just the party leadership throwing a bone to the base to keep them fooled and in line.

[fascisthunter]

45. Awesome.... you Just Dismantled the Dem Establishment's Excuse

oh well..... the truth always comes out and those that truly give a damn will side with the truth rather than give their party officials cover.

Take over the Democratic Party and route out those that helped the GOP. Corruption is corruption and it needs to be dealt with openly and honestly.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. You call that a dismantling?

It's full of made up nonsense.

Do you really think impeaching is a guarantee that Dems would win this year? Then why doesn't Obama support it? Why doesn't Howard Dean support it?

[Enrique]

46. send this to the dems

maybe they'll see the light.

[davidswanson]

48. here's PDF to fax to them

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/bushaction

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Will fax first thing tomorrow

Thanks for that link!

I also printed out the flier in the OP and will be distributing it at a shopping center this afternoon. My friend will be at another local shopping center doing the same thing.

I can't go to DC this week but I will do what I can here in red state hell.

Thanks David! :hi:

[Richardo]

59. I'm sure they could use the laugh.

:patriot:

There have been two presidential impeachments in US history, and one of them is not mentioned in this informative flyer.

If this were submitted as class work in any high school course involving government, logic, debate or even statistics it would get a big F for being so ill-informed in any of those areas.

[progressoid]

75. I'd like to give your post a K&R.

There does seem to be a severe lack of reason and judgment in this thread.

Maybe it's the summer heat. :shrug:

[Overseas]

52. Just sent my tenth pro-impeachment letter to Madam Speaker.

That was my point, too -- the public respects tough leadership and would find refreshment for the Wrong Track Administration highly refreshing and inspiring.

I agree that Reagan should have been impeached for Iran Contra, along with the other criminals from that era who have reemerged under this criminal regime to serve under Tzar Cheney.

[AzDar]

53. K & R ....

:kick:

[muryan]

55. Impeachment reeks of divisive politics

Its time for this hyper-partisanship to come to an end.

[Beam Me Up]

63. Time for the Constitution to come to an end, too --

which is to say the rule of law.

Is that what you want?

There's right and left and there's right and wrong and Impeachment is right. Damn right.

[beammeup]

65. This is not about partisanship. Have you read the articles of impeachment?

It might be instructive to create a table of all impeached presidents, including Bush. True, past impeachments have been completely politically motivated.

President / Reason
--------- ------
Johnson / Politics: tried to fire a cabinet member.

Clinton / Politics: extramarital affair, and he defeated GHW Bush after 1 term.

Bush / Illegal surveillance, war crimes, conspiracy to defraud Congress & America, waging a war of aggression on Iraq, failing to heed warnings of terrorist attacks, exposing a covert CIA agent, violating his oath of office by undermining the constitution, etc.

[Richardo]

66. You want President Cheney

:scared:

[Fumesucker]

76. What "hyper-partisanship"?

I see very little partisanship at all on the Democratic side, let alone hyper-partisanship.

Do you really want to join hands with the Republicans after the last eight years?

[mdmc]

67. no - diebold decides

The Greens are for impeachment and will not win in 2008

[Richardo]

68. I've been looking at this for almost a whole day now...

...and it's still the stupidest argument for impeachment I've ever seen.

It demonstrates no grasp of US History, logic, truth or even statistics.

Anyone who thinks there is ANY elected Democrat who would be persuaded by this ill-conceived tripe to impeach is dreaming. Or smoking. Or dropping acid. I'll bet even Kucinich would think it lame.

Look, if you want to argue for the moral or even Constitutional imperative to impeach, have at it, but to suggest that there is some kind of POLITICAL advantage to the impeaching party, based on two instances in 232 years and an intellectually dishonest 'IF' about Reagan and 'ALMOST' re: Nixon, is both laughable and sad. But mostly laughable.

[onenote]

70. that is some bad history.

First, it is based on two impeachment efforts which itself is a pretty limited sample. Comparing dissimilar situation is pretty lame scholarship. As pointed out, but for the SCOTUS and Ralph Nader, Gore would've won in 1980. And historians are divided as to whether Carter would've defeated Ford but for the bonehead moves that Ford made during the campaign, such as his Poland gaffe during the debates.

Second, it tries to bolster its "case" by citing examples where impeachment WASN'T attempted -- well there are a lot of those. For example, Bill Clinton was elected after Bush I wasn't impeached. Ike was elected after Truman wasn't impeached (and there was a lot of talk about impeaching him, both after he fired MacArthur and in reaction to the steel seizure). Obviously, there are dozens more instances --- no one impeached Ike and a Democrat was elected in the next election. No need to go on, since the lack of any relation between who wins in a particular year and whether or not there was an impeachment effort is pretty obvious.

[WoodyM]

73. Bush has the lowest approval rating

of any president ever. Justifiable so, because the people of this nation know they have been lied to about so many things. An impeachment process in the congress would expose those actions to all the US citizens and the world. If there were enough Senators to vote against convicting, they would have to stand up and vote, and by doing so, they would label the GOP the one and the same as Bush. Make them paint their whole party with the Bush brush.

[rhett o rick]

83. Well said WoodyM. Welcome to DU. nm

[Vidar]

74. K&R.

[HughMoran]

77. I imagine if the Republicans wanted to gain back some respect, they should impeach Bush

Funny how you didn't mention a party and I imagined that the Republicans would be smart to impeach Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Gore won the election, Bush stole it

The 1998 elections are an example of the political hazards surrounding impeachment.

[The Liberal Thinker]

80. Oh come on.

How about this: The party that's pissed people off usually tends to lose the next election. Or how about this: The party that has the better candidate tends to win the next election.

You can't throw up three examples there, one of which didn't actually happen, and the other of which did not actually come to impeachment, and say "Look! The party that impeaches will win the next election!"

Impeachment would make these guys look like victims and then like heroes when the Senate acquits them. I agree with most of the other people that replied to this.

[Richardo]

81. Embarrassing, isn't it?