If Dem legislators shouldn't impeach because they don't have enough votes to convict...

[Mister Ed]

...then doesn't it follow that they should only draft bills that are pleasing to Bush, since they don't have enough votes to override his vetoes?

:shrug:

[Solly Mack]

1. Bush likes bills that give perks to corporations

so he won't veto those bills

Just adding to the safe bills to pass list

and even if said bills contained a provision he didn't like, he'd just issue a signing statement

or if some evil helpful to the people bill did get passed, he'd just veto it..and and well, can't override a veto like you said.

I think it's nice that Bush allows Congress to go through the motions, don't you?

[elocs]

2. So you are comparing passage of a bill with impeachment of a president?

Hardly equal since the impeachment of a president is one of the most solemn of constitutional devices and has seldom been used in the history of our country. Nice try, no cigar.

[BlooInBloo]

4. No. She/he is saying the *logic* is the same, not the content. Duh.

[Mister Ed]

6. No. Just saying the likelihood of being overruled by BushCo shouldn't deter us from either one. n/t

[elocs]

7. Bills can be reintroduced and voted on again.

Impeachment would be a one time shot. If it was done now, then Bush would not be convicted.
Who amongst us would be happy then? Or is it just the impeachment and conviction is unimportant?

[Mister Ed]

8. Aye, reintroduced and voted on again...and then vetoed again.

Perhaps the emperor needs something to make him feel a little less smug and secure with that veto pen.

Impeachment needn't be a one-time shot. Bush, Cheney, et al have committed a long, long list of impeachable offenses. If they're not convicted on one charge, then it may be time to introduce the next charge. It'd be time-consuming, to be sure, but so is the constant re-submission of vetoed bills. I think both are necessary when the alternative is to be a submissive, rubber-stamp congress like the last one.

[elocs]

12. Practically speaking, impeachment will only be done once, if at all.

Exactly how many times do you think impeachment would be done in the next 19-20 months? Impeachment is not the same as a bill. No matter what Bush thinks, the minds of Republican representatives can be changed since they might like to be reelected and a veto may be overridden. Democrats want to be reelected too. The public will not stand for a year and a half of impeachment. What can the Democrats do if the public decides to blame them for tying up government for month after month with impeachment(s) when there are other important things that also need to be done and they elect a Republican president and we lose Congress?

[BlooInBloo]

3. Yes the logic is the same, and I advocate doing the opposite on both.

[mondo joe]

5. Bills are not the same as impeachment.

Bills also have the advantage of being political weapons.

[Mister Ed]

9. What you say is true. Bills can have the advantage of being political weapoons.

But isn't the same true of impeachment? We have the goods on these guys, a hundred times over. Impeachment proceedings would put the proof of their crimes into a glaring public spotlight. If GOP senators let a proven criminal off for the sake of their party, then they face a political backlash at the polls.

[onenote]

10. apples and oranges

First, the consequences of a failed impeachment is to give the repubs the talking point that the effort was a partisan witch hunt and that the acquittal is vindication for chimpy.

Second, in case you haven't noticed, legislation is often crafted on a compromise basis. Among the reasons for this is that the Democrats don't have a majority on some issues, because of disagreements between the more progressive and more conservative wings of the Democratic caucus. Not every bill passes with a veto-proof majority, but most have been attracting some measure of repub support. A bill that couldn't attract any repubs runs the risk of also not attracting blue dogs and other Democrats whose votes are needed for passage.

Finally, its unlikely that chimpy will veto every bill that passes with a non-veto proof majority.

[Mister Ed]

11. I must concede your point. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, and can only go so far.

Impeachment is a black-and-white, up-or-down, are-ya-with-us-or-against-us vote. A bill, as you point out, is usually a big bundle of compromises, cobbled together by many different factions.

But please, please, don't argue that we must try to avoid giving the repubs any talking points. They make up their own, All day, every day. And if we never do anything at all that they can spin for propaganda purposes, then we will never do anything at all, period.

[L. Coyote]

13. "Don't try a case unless the jury has decided the verdict" freepers chanted

at a recent Bush rally. Apparently, they heard about House Resolution 333!