67 Votes needed for Impeachment conviction comes from where???

[LSK]

Assuming we get all the Dems and Bernie Sanders that gives us 50.

We need 17 Republicans to vote with us.

Who exactly would that be???

Specter, Hagel, Coleman, Collins, Snowe, G Smith, Vonovich are a MAYBE. Thats 7.

Who else would be a possible??? We still need 10. Sessions? Inhofe? McCain? Cornyn? Hutchinson (LOL)?

Now dont give me all this stuff about evidence because this is the GOP we are talking about. These are the people who we have watched repeatedly tell us that Iraq is going well, Dems are terrorists, the economy is great, global warming doesnt exist, etc etc etc.

Lets be realistic here. The 27% out there can watch Bush eat live babies and would praise him. And that includes a number of them in the Senate.

There is also the fact that the GOP would see a failed impeachment as a win for them. Remember this is the party that outted a CIA agent who was investigating WMD proliferation. How many GOP Senators even batted an eye in defense of Valery Plame?

Remember who we are dealing with here. If you are still in doubt, please watch some CSPAN for a week.

We are not going to get 67 votes. That is reality.

[napi21]

1. I agree with that! I believe THAT'S the reason impeachment hasn't

been introduced!

I know all of us would LOVE to see the charge made, but if it failed with the needed votes it would certainly be seen as a FAILURE OF THE DEMS!

[AndyA]

2. That's assuming no further shameful facts come out about Bush, right?

Don't you think that after months and months of new revelations of criminal acts by George Bush, more Republicans are going to pull their support? Especially with an election looming?

Bush is already beginning to pull them down. In a few more months, many of them running for re-election are going to have to decide if it's every man and woman for themselves, or party unity above all else, even if it ends their political careers.

I think there will be more Republicans joining the impeachment cause as election 2008 draws near.

[LSK]

8. wouldnt the admitted wiretapping be enough to enrage a true conservative

And yet nothing...

They wanted to make it legal after the fact.

Doesnt that tell you enough about todays GOP??? What more convincing do you need?

[BurtWorm]

15. It's totally unlikely that the Repubs in the Senate would fragment on impeachment

with a presidential election looming not far (relatively) down the road. The whole phony election structure they've worked 20 years to rig in their favor would have to fall completely apart and threaten them with real consequences for their loyalty to the party above all for any of them to move toward even the slim likelihood that they'd vote for conviction. I haven't done the research, but I'm betting that anyone who voted in favor of convicting Clinton would be unlikely to vote in favor of convicting Bush.

And Spector would probably pull another one of his bizarre inscrutable Scottish parliamentarian manouevers to get around having voters understand where exactly he stood.

[eagler]

3. If you begin the debate enough will come out .

So much in fact that no one will be able to say he should be kept in office. And remember if the standard by which we go by is Clinton - well then, Bush far surpasses anything Clinton ever thought of doing to justify impeachment.

[WilliamPitt]

4. You won't get all the Dems, so 20 GOP Senators is what you'll need.

Good luck with that.

[elocs]

48. That;s right, not all of the Dems will vote to convict.

But why trifle with such piddling details? Because when you really, really want something to happen, it will come true. In the next million years or so I am sure that I will win the Powerball because I really, really want it to happen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I'm Under No Delusion That There Would Be Any Way In Reality To Ever Get Those 17.

[EFerrari]

6. You are jumping the gun. We have a PROCESS to go through.

And the rats are itching to ditch Junior.


If the Democrats play the corruption card and the accountability card, we could come off very well.

People are really mad right now. Why not try to herd that anger in a direction that is not only just but also beneficial to progressives?

[Mz Pip]

7. The GOP knew

they didn't have the votes for a conviction of Clinton either, but they went for it and tied up the government for a long time. Talk about political theater!

But just imagine the damage that could be done to the GOP and the Bush 'legacy' if we at least gave it a shot. THe trial would be facinating and would bring center stage all the nefarious doings of BushCo. So we don't get that conviction. Just making them sweat would be worth it.

Sometimes we should just do what needs to be done even if we know the final outcome won't be to our liking.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LSK]

9. what damage? what could possibly come out that isnt already out there?

[terisan]

27. I think there is a lot more....just as there was with Nixon

[GOTV]

29. And what new fact finding powers does this impeachment magic confer on us mortals? n/t

[terisan]

65. The focused investigation in the House leading up to impeachment.

Ironically, it was George Walker Bush, as head of the Republican party, who told Nixon that the votes for impeachment would be there and it was time for him to go.

[Mz Pip]

57. More people will pay attention

Granted there is plenty out there but it really isn't picked up on by MSM. The crap would be more heavily covered and would reach more people.

This country isn't filled with political junkies who follow every article on their government. Impeachment will put that stuf out there 24/7. Even the brain dead will have to pay attention.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[WI_DEM]

10. You won't get every democrat either is my guess

people like Nelson of Nebraska and maybe Pryor of Ark and Landreau of LA.

As for the GOP some of the moderates talk big but when you get right down to it they won't vote to convict Bush--people like Snowe, Specter, Collins for example.

[Clark2008]

11. No - we need 67 votes for CONVICTION and REMOVAL.

The House impeaches. And we only need a simple majority to impeach.

The Senate mets out the punishment. And we'd need a two-thirds majority to remove their sorry asses.

[LSK]

13. how is that different from what I said? "Impeachment conviction"

I dont understand the point of your post.

[onenote]

12. right now I doubt you could get a majority in the House to start the process

There are probably more than enough Democrats from red-leaning districts who aren't prepared to start talking impeachment at this stage. They will support hearings and investigations that are not couched in impeachment terms, but any vote that relates to impeachment that doesn't have significant repub support isn't going to get enough Democrats to support it. That is simply the political reality. (Consider the immigration bill -- Pelosi has made clear its not going anywhere unless the repubs deliver 70 votes for it--again, political reality).

[terisan]

14. They might get Bush/Cheney to resign in order to keep embarassing info

or info on criminal acts from coming out.

[Bake]

16. Bush won't even throw Gonzo under the bus.

He'd never quit HIMSELF. Never in a million lifetimes.

Bake

[terisan]

17. Didn't Bush dump Rumsfeld?

[LSK]

18. they will just blame some more Regent Univ kids in their staff

And theres plenty more to replace them.

[brentspeak]

19. Thank you. Some sanity (and actual mathematics).

[TahitiNut]

20. Newsflash: Nobody could've counted 67 votes to impeach Nixon before the House began.

The historical ignorance and political cowardice in this repeated presumption of perfect foresight is appalling, imho. How many times do we have to confront this crap on DU? How many times need it be answered?

Anyon not able to comprehend the difference between a 'fact' and a 'prediction' should be barred from race tracks and not permitted to purchase lotto tickets - for their own good.

[LSK]

23. ok then, which 17 GOP Senators do you think would vote to Impeach?

[GOTV]

24. Didn't they count? And that's why the president resigned. They knew the votes were there n/t

[TahitiNut]

41. Try reading what I posted.

The Senate was split 56-42-1-1 in the 93rd Congress. NOBODY was counting on 67 votes - least of all Nixon. Indeed, they weren't even counting on 56 votes! The House Judiciary Committee opened formal and public impeachment hearings against Nixon on May 9, 1974. The "smoking gun" tape, was released on August 5, 1974. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. On September 8, 1974, a blanket pardon from President Ford ended any possibility of indictment.

[GOTV]

49. I read what you're claiming. Without references I'm not sure I believe it.

My understanding is that Nixon resigned because they told him they had the votes for conviction.

[TahitiNut]

63. AFTER the House Judiciary began voting Articles of Impeachment. AFTER!

(1) There is no 'proof' that there were 67 votes to convict in the Senate - only a contention.
(2) Nixon resigned AFTER the House Judiciary began voting Articels of Impeachment.
(3) Nixon resigned AFTER the "smoking gun" tape was publicly disclosed.
(4) Howard Baker and other GOP Senators reportedly conferred with him and advised him to resign. That meeting was NOT recorded and all we know is what people say.

If you're "not sure" then do some research of your own.

[conscious evolution]

21. We do not need 67 Senators to convict.

All we need is 2/3 PRESENT.
Article 1 Section 3:And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
I would not be surprised if a few pukes sat the trial out.

[GOTV]

56. Interesting minor point....

... we still need to know who's voting and who's sitting out.

[conscious evolution]

60. Reveal to the American

public the extent of bushcos crimes and the pukes will be falling all over themselves trying to get out of DC to 'meet with constituents'.

I am starting to think we should push this idea so they know it is an option.

[GOTV]

62. I hear that alot here but, the Bush crimes have already been revealed...

... and while people care, they don't care enough for impeachment.

[Raine]

22. Agree

and I'm glad someone here is doing the math.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Republicans wanting to keep their seats.

The same seats they wanted to keep if Nixon hadn't resigned.

[GOTV]

28. Who threatens their seats? All the voters who tell pollsters they're not interested in impchmnt?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. No, the voters...

that last year gave the democrats the biggest landslide comeback in the history of the country.

[GOTV]

32. And what makes you think those voters want impeachment when....

.... they tell the pollsters they don't?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Why?

Because last year they gave us the greatest single landslide comeback in american history.

[GOTV]

36. Yeah... AND they tell pollsters they're not interested in impeachment.

So why would a Senator be scared?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. They're also telling pollsters they want Iraq war funding.

I think you put way, way to much credit in the polls.

[GOTV]

43. If you don't want to listen to the polls you're free to believe anything you want....

I put more belief in polls than I do in the insistent opinion of someone who has no data to back them up.

[GOTV]

26. We are the Judean People's Front. Crack suicide squad. Suicide squad! Attack!

Some people are more concerned with sending a message than with being effective.

[KharmaTrain]

67. Shhh...Bigus Dickus Is Listening...

[Atman]

31. AAAARRRRGGGHHHH.

Law breaking means nothing to you, apparently. The Constitution means nothing to you, apparently. You probably don't like playing chess because you might not win. YOU DON'T FUCKING WIN EVERYTHING. But you need to make a stand. When an intruder breaks into your house, he might beat the living fuck out of you, but you stand your ground and defend what is right.

Well, YOU don't. YOU apparently prefer to turn tail and run.

IT ISN'T ABOUT THE VOTE COUNTS. IT IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE DIED TO DEFEND, AND WHICH GEORGE W. BUSH IS PISSING UPON.

Or you can go play 3-pitch T-Ball.

.

[GOTV]

34. Foolish argument. Distiguishing between feasable and infeasable actions in not compliance...

... it is intelligence.

[Atman]

40. Bullshit. That is not INTELLIGENCE to give up.

That is simply giving up, plain and simple. You KNOW the law and the constitution are on our side, but you don't want to bother defending them because it might be messy. That's not intelligence. That's cowardice.

.

[GOTV]

44. Another lame argument. If I don't do it your way I'm giving up. Whatever. n/t

[Atman]

45. And if I don't do it YOUR way, I'm what?...

"Not intelligent."

Yeah, whatever is right.

:eyes:

.

[GOTV]

50. Yes. But I'm not claiming those are the only two ways - see the difference?

You say there's your way and there's giving up. That's ignorant.

I say there's my way, there's your way, there are other ways and there is giving up. Some of those ways are intelligent and some are not. Your way falls into the not-intelligent pile.

It's a far more complete and accurate view than many in the impeach now crowd have.

[Atman]

58. Well, since you seem to know more about what I said than I do...

WTF, huh? I never said there are only two ways, YOU did. You chose to be "intelligent" and decide that I said "My way or give up." Which I didn't, but hey, you're the "intelligent" one. Obviously you have all the answers. I should have just capitulated to you, too!

:eyes:

Thanks for your lesson, Dr.

.

[GOTV]

59. See post # 40 where you you claimed my disagrement was "giving up"

[GOTV]

52. Yes. But I'm not claiming those are the only two ways - see the difference?

You say there's your way and there's giving up. That's ignorant.

I say there's my way, there's your way, there are other ways and there is giving up. Some of those ways are intelligent and some are not. Your way falls into the not-intelligent pile.

It's a far more complete and accurate view than many in the impeach now crowd

[LSK]

47. nice personal attack

Thanks

[Atman]

51. It was NOT a personal attack.

It was a GENERAL attack at ALL "you"s who don't want to soil your knicker unless you can be guaranteed going home with a trophy. T-Ball players. The only thing important is not losing. Not not winning, but not losing. It wasn't directed at LSK, LSK just happened to start the thread. GOTV got your back. I'm just one of those old skool guys who think playing by the RULES is better than making up a whole new game so feelings don't get hurt when one side loses.

.

[LSK]

54. if you want to use baseball comparisons (T-ball)

Getting 17 GOP Senators to vote to impeach is like taking on the New York Yankees with only 3 players on your team.

[GOTV]

55. Who's all prissy about their clean knickers? The guy who doesn't care about conviction

And instead gives up at cheap and easy impeachment.

[Fridays Child]

35. Facts brought forward during the House/impeachment phase...

...could go a long way toward shaping public opinion and, thus, influencing voting decisions.

This is what I don't understand: The only thing that Congressional Dems need to know is that impeachable offenses have been committed, which they DO KNOW. And on this subject, the Constitution says NOTHING about popular sentiment or polls. Nor does it say anything about scandal fatigue. But it DOES clearly define the obligation of the legislature to remove bad and dangerous leaders.

[GOTV]

39. What facts require impeachment to be brought out. Does impeachment unlock the super duper subpeonas

[LSK]

46. and Waxman and Conyers have been sitting on their hands all this time?

:shrug:

[donco6]

38. That's assuming no Republicans have any integrity.

Which I suppose is debatable. But if you're just going to assume party-line votes even if Bush slaughters a live child at the dinner table - well, we're all fucked.

[GOTV]

53. No, it's only assuming there are less than 17 GOP Senators with integrity

And don't forget, we can't count on all the Dems either...

[elocs]

42. Here at DU it is impeachment that is important, not conviction.

The belief is that the 67 votes needed for conviction will magically appear. Then, when Bush is failed to be convicted, they will be the first ones to scream, "How could this happen!" Yep, reality is a bitch. Welcome to the real world.

[mmonk]

61. You don't know how many once the cat is out of the bag

and the MSM covers it. But that is beside the point. If the House does not issue and vote on any articles of impeachment, your constitution is good as dead. These rightwing radicals are dedicated enemies of the system of government you have grown up with. It is currently under a major concerted multi pronged attack. Why not be a dedicated American patriot and protect it? There is no worth in a constitution that is unenforceable. You are not free as long as it is not being followed. We are a nation built on the concept that no one including leaders are above the law. Without impeachment, you tacitly accept some are above the law and enforcement of your civil rights are up to the whims of people elected. This will be a defining issue for me and forever will change my voting habits and contributions. If the party does not defend my constitutional protections, I can not give the party any money anymore. I will only give money to individual democrats that support our constitutional constructs and the rule of law. The others will not get my vote nor contribution.

[LSK]

64. that cat is out of the bag with wiretaps

And they wanted to make it legal after the fact. Let alone convict Bush of anything.

Are you referring to some other GOP Senators hidden for the past 6 years?

[mmonk]

66. I think you underestimate the power of truth revealed.

I don't think everyone in American is a "good German" with truthful information. That is why our government now works in secret.

[HughBeaumont]

68. Groinovich would never step out of line.

Voinovich vaults when the Cabal says "jump".