Can someone prove to me that impeaching Bush/Cheney wouldn't hurt the Democrats?

[Dawgs]

If you can't, then why do it? It will never happen, and I've yet to hear anyone explain why it's so important that we do it now. It seems like many DUers don't care about the big picture, and are only interested in making Cheney and/or Bush pay for what they've done. Is it more important than keeping control of Congress and taking over the Presidency? Would you still be for impeachment if it means getting another President like Bush?

If anyone can prove to me that it won't hurt our party and/or country then I will get behind it. Until then I can't - I'm sorry.

[Tatiana]

1. Why not start with someone everyone hates and impeach Alberto Gonzales?

See how that goes over (I think he'd surely be convicted in the Senate) and then go after Cheney.

Save the big fish for last.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Well, for starters, it's NOT something you can prove or disprove...

...so your initial premise is invalid.

[Dawgs]

19. Then why do it?

Are you okay with impeaching Bush/Cheney if it gets us two more just like them?

[Cooley Hurd]

28. Three words: Rule of Law.

If they are allowed to break the law, then what good IS the law?:shrug:

Personally, I don't think there's enough time to do it, since it's less than two years before President Kucinich is inaugurated.:D

[Xipe Totec]

3. Can you prove to me I won't get hurt crossing the street?

If you can't, then why do it?

[Dawgs]

20. Because it's stupid.

And the only consequence of trying is YOU getting hurt. Trying impeachment that potentially destroys everything we've worked so hard for hurts EVERYONE.

[Xipe Totec]

59. That proves squat.

Your OP asked about proofs, not consequences.

Your premise was that no action could be taken unless the risk was proven to be zero.

By that standard, no action can ever be taken, on even the most trivial choice because risk can never be reduced to zero.

Your reply indicates a lack of exposure to logic.

[ecstatic]

4. How useful is a Democratic win in a world devoid of justice

Where criminals run free?

[Dawgs]

22. So,

more wars, loss of a women's right to choose, and failed energy policy are all worth it to you?

[Bluerthanblue]

41. do you really believe NOT holding them accountable for their lies, crimes

against us, (as well as humanity) will make it so there will be "less wars" , safe abortion access, and "good energy policy"??

Why?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Look what happened when people gave in over the selection of 2000-

We were sick of the impeachment crud and the bickering and fighting so we just let it go- There was MUCH that could have been done to set the real record straight- but it would have required us to be willing to do the RIGHT thing, even when it was uncomfortable, unpopular, ugly and difficult- So we chose the "safe/easier" path-

And look where we are now.

[Faygo Kid]

5. Investigations first, then impeachment.

If investigations are able to go forward and show what we know to be true about how we were led into war, elections have been rigged, etc., there is a moral and practical obligation to commence impeachment proceedings, if we are to restore our country (or even retain what's left of it).

[yurbud]

49. heard a congressman on the radio respond to caller saying if we were going to

impeach, we would proceed EXACTLY as we are doing now. Collect the evidence, get the testimony, have it all on the congressional record as well as the public record BEFORE you drop the I bomb.

The other thing he said was all other business stops once impeachment starts, which would make it harder to end the war.

I don't know about that last part. There is a good chance the troops are screwed until Bush & Cheney are gone in any case.

[Faygo Kid]

70. Agreed. We are screwed on the war, but I am coming around to impeachment now.

I want investigations and clear evidence first, but I don't want that to mean it won't happen. I think the American people have had it with this administration and its lies, despite the yahoos and fascists at Fox News and the amoral and complacent mainstream media.

[yurbud]

74. most of the evidence is already in the public record, they just need to put it on the right

paperwork, and remind the public with witnesses along the way.

[DawnIsis]

6. I think doing what's RIGHT should be put above doing what's best for the Democratic Party

If you care more about your party than the rule of law there is nothing anyone can say to convince you to support impeachment.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Agreed!

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[DawnIsis]

9. Sorry typo,

thanks for the welcome!

[Cooley Hurd]

11. 's okay.

:thumbsup::hi:

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Agreed.

It is a Constitutional duty to pursue impeachment.
This shouldn't be about politics or payback.
It should be about the rule of law.
If Bush and Cheney go unpunished, we might as well remove impeachment from the Constitution.
The effect on the Democrats should be irrelevant.
The Constitution is bigger and more important than both parties.

Oddly enough, Lyndon B. Johnson provided a worthy example of this approach when he championed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson knew that his decision would almost certainly alienate most Southern Democrats for a generation -- and he turned out to be right -- but he pursued it anyway.

Would anyone with hindsight suggest that he shouldn't have signed the Voting Rights Act? I hope not.

[MissWaverly]

16. Agreed, and they are hurting America

Look at the Washington Post Story which details how this administration turned away millions in proffered aid and support for the
Katrina victims from other countries. There were people who died from lack of services, support or adequate housing in the months
following the hurricane.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Trust me, I am very familiar with the initial stages

and it was not pretty

These administration though did what every nation I am familiar with does in a disaster, even a major one... but it took them longer to finally say yes than it should, and teh reason why they said yes, teams were already on the ground anyhow

[Dawgs]

17. Excuse me?

Where did I say I cared more about my party than the rule of law? You won't find it anywhere, because I didn't say it.

[DawnIsis]

45. You ask us to prove to you impeachment won't hurt the Democratic Party

otherwise you won't support impeachment. How is that not putting your party above the rule of law?

Your original post is kinda weird anyway, you ask us to prove things which cannot be proved in order to justify your position?

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. And actualy it is provable

the ONLY time we came close to impeaching a President for High Crimes that was not partisan was Watertate. The next election the Democrats did very in the House and Denate and took the WH.

He will not adress the 1976 elections since that does not support his quite twisted, and based on Clinton's impeachment, POV.

For the reccord, the Republicans did not do well in the next election, just as the party in power that imepeached Andrew Jackson did not do well etiher

What do both impeachments have in common? They were political, and both presidents were more or less popular

This guy is not popular, and we are in Watergate territory.

[bahrbearian]

7. It could hurt the Democrats ,but it would be a Godsend for the Country

Do it for America.

[OlderButWiser]

15. Maybe a poll about

would you want to proceed with impeachment if it meant we wouldn't win the White House in '08?

[Dawgs]

21. Even if it gets us another President or VP just like them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Who did you have in mind?

[IDemo]

10. Yes, if you count the failure of Clinton's impeachment to damage Repukes in 2000

Which was an impeachment based upon a vanishingly smaller offense than any one of the multiple 'high crimes and misdemeanors' of the present maladministration.

[mudesi]

12. For one thing, it didn't hurt the Republicans

And they had absolutely no moral authority to impeach Clinton.

[Dawgs]

33. It didn't hurt Republicans because the media agreed with them.

The American public was convinced that Clinton was immoral and not worthy of the Presidency because of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. What was his popularity at the middle of it?

Care to tell me what was his popularity when he left office?

By the way, for purely partisan reasons, they did loose some seats in 1998, as a backlash. the American people were not that stupid

[porphyrian]

14. Why? That impeachment would hurt Democrats is the ridiculous claim.

People making the ridiculous claim are responsible for proving their claim, not those suggesting the Constitutionally-prescribed method of dealing with this criminal administration should be enacted.

[Kurovski]

18. Because it will prove once and for all that Democrats are indeed

"tough on crime."

But I guess you're aware that you've asked a question impossible to answer.

I think that NOT doing it shows fear. The Constitution requires it in this instance, and to worry about political consequences is a sign of--in my opinion--denial, if not outright clue-lessness.

[Dawgs]

26. It shows fear to who?

...maybe 5-10% of Americans that support Democrats anyways?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. 5-10%.... damn that is why the

REPUBLICANS won the 2006 election, RIGHT?

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. It's not about helping the party

Do you think the republicans impeached Clinton to help their party?

Some things transcend what is best for a political party. These bastards lied us into war, ignored one of the largest cities in the US when it was destroyed by a hurricane, are trashing the US constitution and destroying our economy, just to mention a few of their misdeeds. It would be irresponsible to NOT impeach them.

Impeachment is our duty as American citizens. And doing what is best for our nation is far more important than helping a political party.

[Dawgs]

29. I could care less about political parties.

"These bastards lied us into war, ignored one of the largest cities in the US when it was destroyed by a hurricane, are trashing the US constitution and destroying our economy, just to mention a few of their misdeeds. It would be irresponsible to NOT impeach them."

Agree, but what if impeachment gives us another war, ignored hurricane, destroyed economy and other misdeeds from future Republican Presidents?

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I don't understand what you mean

Sorry.

[Exiled in America]

63. *cough* the phrase is "couldn't care less"

saying you "could care less" means that you care, and its possible for you to care less than you currently do.

Saying you could not care less means that you don't care at all.

Sorry, I only mention it after the second time I saw you use the phrase incorrectly.

[Faygo Kid]

75. Words are important, and if I err, please correct me.

We need to get it right, and no need to *cough,* unless this is a physical exam.

[lies and propaganda]

25. Im sure no Repugs ever said this about blowjobs.

And we all fucking no these evil bastards have commited way more then a bj. They should be sent to the fucking Hague but we are worried about what looks bad.

[indie_voter]

27. The reason to impeach is because they violated the constitution

That is a crime and they need to be held accountable.

Standing up for our constitution is good for our country, not only that, it might show the world we believe in what we say we stand for. Which in turn might just go a long way in earning back some of the respect this lawless bunch has squandered.

[Dawgs]

36. I could care less about the constitution, if..

it hurts our country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. If you do not care about the Consitution then

you don't care if the country is hurt, What you are afraid is that we will get another Bush Chenney team... guess what, we will get it if there are no consequences

By the way the country will not be hurt, it is already hurting

There is nothing anything can say to you...

[indie_voter]

42. Violating our constitution hurts our country

The constitution is our foundation. We either stand up for it or not. If we don't hold those who violate it so blatantly, it sets a precedent for future administrations.

Impeachment hurt the republicans during the Clinton era because they were going after a popular president over a sex act. Bush/Cheney are not popular. They lied us in to a unpopular war. Look at the Zogby poll from 2005, there is support for impeachment, there was very little during the Clinton mess.

Remember what FDR said

"Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself"

You're afraid of some unknown boogey man, afraid the democrats will lose favor, yet not what could happen if these folks are allowed to get away with such monumental crimes.

Not caring about our constitution in fact hurts our country, as Bush/Cheney prove day in and day out.

[RufusTFirefly]

44. Huh?

Your well-intentioned statement reminds me of an old Peter DeVries line, which was funnier pre-Internet, but here goes:

"I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork."

The Constitution is what defines our country. If you don't like it, you change it. You don't defy it on a conditional basis. Imagine if that approach were taken to free expression. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who think certain words, views, or works of art are "bad for the country," but that doesn't matter because the Constitution protects (at least it's supposed to) those things.

[Forkboy]

67. You have got to be kidding me....

That is unreal that you could type that without actually thinking of the implications of that.

Honestly,the mind boggles over that statement.Please,for the rest of us Americans,don't ever run for office anywhere.

Ever.

[WinkyDink]

30. When someone can "prove" such a future event, let me know; I'll take that person to Aqueduct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. One election: 1976

After waterwate the Dems actually won seats

And by the way, they are laying all the groundwork for it

[bbgrunt]

32. wrong question. justice must be primary, not the party.

[Dawgs]

35. Where did I ever say party over justice?

I'm sorry so many on DEMOCRATic Underground can't see the difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I guess crappy healthcare, more wars, and a shitty economy are worth it as long as we enforce the 'rule of law'.

[bbgrunt]

38. the question, as posed, suggests that impeachment

should be avoided if it hurts the democratic party. We rightly accuse repukes of putting party loyalty above national interests. We must not do the same.

[MedleyMisty]

39. Perhaps you should explain

how impeaching Bush would "hurt" the country.

If your argument is that it will alienate people and they will vote for another Republican president - umm, have you seen the polls on Bush's approval rating and on impeachment?

This is not like Clinton. This is not a private affair blown all out of proportion. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and our democracy is in tatters. There needs to be accountability for that and that goes way beyond some idea of the good of the party. Politics is not a team sport and elections are not ball games. We're not fighting for scores and standings. We're fighting fascism, and it's time to take a stand against it.



Note: I consider humans who aren't American people too, so the hundreds of thousands includes Iraqis and Afghans.

[OtisTDog]

40. The proof is simple...

1) The essential logic of the "it will hurt our country" argument is that the American public is so traumatized by an impeachment proceeding that it's just not worth it to upset us like that. Question: Do you feel traumatized by the Clinton impeachment? Did you ever? Was it so painful a topic that people turned off their TVs in disgust at the 24/7 coverage? Did every copy of the Starr report sit on store shelves unsold? It's a nonsense argument with no basis in fact. It's basically a "concern troll" tactic.

2) The essential logic of the "it will hurt our party" argument is that, since the Republicans felt a backlash after the Clinton impeachment, ipso facto, the Democrats will suffer a backlash if they impeach Bush. The hidden thesis is that the impeachment proceeding itself, absent any other context, was the cause of the backlash. This is total BS. It's important to note that the Clinton impeachment was a top-down affair, conceived and pushed by a handful of people in the Republican leadership and benefiting from months of heavy media coverage of their arguments in favor. Demand for a Bush impeachment comes from the people themselves, it's bottom-up and is a relatively popular idea despite the total lack of endorsement from party leaders and the near-total silence in the news. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/26/225814/870 for a great WSJ graphic comparing the two with respect to public support. The backlash came because a) the Republicans insisted on pressing ahead despite the lack of public support and b) most of the public felt that any wrongdoing Clinton was charged with was in no way related to his performance as a public servant. Question: Can the same be said about the charges against Cheney?

3) The hidden thesis of the "it will hurt our chances in 2008" logic is that there is simply nothing to be done about rampant abuse of government other than to wait it out. That is a statement that I assure you our founding fathers would disagree with. Impeachment is written into our Constitution, purposefully and specifically, as a means to regain control over an executive branch run amok. Like we have now. Although some people think that a successful impeachment would result in the Democrats gaining the presidency, generating ill will as the result of a "power grab", this is simply not the way it would work. A brief history lesson of the way Nixon went down gives a precedent for how to handle it. First, the VP is successfully removed. Second, a new VP candidate is appointed and confirmed by Congress, per the terms of the 25th Amendment (assuring someone who is acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans). Third, the President is removed and the VP replacement takes the reins. The presidency stays Republican.

If you're convinced, I encourage you to participate in a MoveOn-type poll/letter-writing campaign at:

http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php

Participants have the option of having their comments sent to their senators, congressmen, and local newspaper editors. Get your opinion to the opinion makers!

You can also get a feel for the opinions of other real Americans on the issue by checking out the 25 most recent comments made by real Americans participating in it at:

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45

--Otis

[yurbud]

46. Those who oppose it don't see the DECADES long big picture

If we don't impeach Bush & Cheney, their rehabilitation by the right wing media will begin as soon as they leave office, and eventually Bush will be elevated in their pantheon above Reagan.

If Bush & Cheney are impeached even if they aren't removed, it will put historic stink on them.

The one thing most of us know about Andrew Johnson is that he was impeached, even though he wasn't removed.

The two impeachments that were done before this, Andrew Johnson & Clinton, were essentially partisan snits.


If we have a president who has committed multiple obvious impeachable offenses on the public record and we don't impeach, then impeachment will always be seen as more about partisan calculation.

[yurbud]

48. opposition to impeachment is like saying we should arrest other side's quarterback for rape

so early in the season because they will have time to break in a new one for the play offs.

[Joe Fields]

47. If you have yet to hear why it is so important, you haven't been listening.

[WillyT]

52. My Answer...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=748818

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

53. The big picture is that not holding Rayguns accountable

with all his ContraGate co-conspirators, THEY ARE ALL STILL IN OUR GOVERNMENT, only better at their craft.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. and... we have a WINNER ding, ding, ding

;-)

[EFerrari]

57. Wait -- this isn't the AARP?

:rofl:

[blm]

69. Bush1 was heading for impeachment if he had a second term - THEN we would've

better exposed the entire cabal and its funding of global terrorism at a time when we could pre-empt its growth.

[EFerrari]

71. We can't think in election cycles because the appointed recycled felons

aren't subject to them. :shrug:

[Poiuyt]

56. **** Historically, it has ALWAYS been a political winner to the impeaching party

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.

snip -

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

[WFF]

73. That's about as close to proof as we'll get. Let the impeachment begin!

If it's clear that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable acts (and I think that's pretty easy to prove) and it would help the Democratic party to start impeachment proceedings, then I say let's get going!

[BlooInBloo]

58. Stupidest rule EVER: Don't do anything unless you can prove it won't hurt the party...

Fuckin wussiest, most craven rule EVER

[mmonk]

60. When you prove it would.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Hopefully, we'll find out. But, don't fear our courageous "leaders" lack the backbone to pursue it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Does congress work for the party or the country?

If they work for us, then impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is their duty as office-holders. If they work for the party, then their job is to hold on to their precious seats and avoid any risk.

[Exiled in America]

64. Dawgs, prove to me that not impeaching bush/cheney wouldn't hurt the Democrats.

[blm]

65. About 70% of the country now cannot STAND George Bush and see country going in wrong direction

and in that case, they want someone to take over from the guy steering us into the world's largest iceberg.

[merh]

66. Why would I want to prove anything to you?

Your only concern is "hurt the democrats" (I note you don't refer to the party properly - DEMOCRATIC.)

Impeachment isn't just about a party, it is about the nation, it is about what is right and holding our elected officials to the rule of law. It is about making all who hold office realize that they can and will be held accountable for their crimes. It is about protecting the checks and balances are established by our fore fathers. And it is about protecting our Constitution and ending a tyranny while trying to let the rest of the world know that we, the citizens of the US, do not agree with the perversions of the admin. It is about ending an illegal and immoral war that was begun by a power crazed admin that is controlled by greed.

So you go touting how it would hurt "the party" and foresake the rule of law.

Our elected officials work for US, WE THE PEOPLE. Convincing our congress critters that impeachment proceedings are essential is our duty to one another. Their duty to us, the folks they work for, is to respect our will and go forward with impeachment proceedings.

[Forkboy]

68. So don't.

Just stay the hell out the way of those who DO care about the constitution.We already know you don't,so please,stand aside and continue to believe the image of the Party is more important the actual country itself.

[Garbo 2004]

72. If "it will never happen" then what's the problem? Or are you referring to "conviction" rather

than "impeachment" as what will "never happen?"

No one can "prove" to you what you ask them to prove any more than you can "prove" otherwise. What "proof" would be sufficient to you? If there can be none, then what's the point of your challenge to others?

You have an opinion and conclusions. You have offered no "proof" of your conclusions. You're against impeachment. OK.

You talk about the "big picture" but don't seem to be aware how that "big picture" has evolved over the years of the Bush Administration and a Repub Congress. Especially if you think only "5-10% of Americans" support Dems, then you simply haven't been paying attention and/or have been buying the RW/Repub claims to represent the "mainstream" Americans. They don't. They're the "dead-enders" in their "last throes" against a majority of the American public, and not just Dems, that are repudiating them and their disastrous policies.

The continuing involvement in Iraq, the continuing lies of this Administration, the continuing revelations of the corruption and malfeasance does not aid this Administration.

Don't worry about impeachment. I figure if it comes it won't be imposed by a "fringe element" (as some would seem to regard any one who mentions the word "impeachment") in or out of Congress. If it comes to pass, it will be organic and an outgrowth of events yet to come, as a remedy against an executive that refuses to recognize constitutional limits on its power, accountability and the will of the people.

[AnOhioan]

76. It would actually help the Party, and our country.

Too bad you disagree. Reading through the entire thread some of your comments are mind-boggling to say the least. Not sure what your agenda is but I am not buying into it. Not many are apparently.