Why is everyone talking about 2008?

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

Is it because everyone just gave up, and figures there no way to get Junior out BEFORE 2008?

I hope SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE is considering Impeachment, Civil Disobedience, whatever, to END the Boy-King's insane reign.

Lawdy knows, there's a good chance the rest of the world might not want to wait that long . .

[paineinthearse]

1. Such a strange statement

I'm focusing on the 2006 midterms. With Democratic control of the House, we can begin impeachment proceedings on or about 1/20/07.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. Not strange at all really: Think about it from a Canuk's viewpoint . .

.
.
.

WE are PART of the rest of the world that might not want to wait that long.

That includes the majority of Canadians.

I guess we are "spoiled" in that with our multi-party parliamentary system, we can "re-choose" our leader, party, Prime Minister whenever we want by defeating a confidence motion, or the PM loses their seat, and does not get re-elected in an election, or a bi-election.

Our "shortest" term PM was The Rt. Hon. A. Kim Campbell, Prime Minister from June 25, 1993 to November 3, 1993. (source)

Heck, if'n y'all could dump Dubya before April - you'd beat our record!

(yeah, wishful thinking, I know . . .)

Only in Canada, eh?

(sigh)

[blondeatlast]

11. Then you really need to think 2006.

With the Congress we have now, impeachment just has no chance whatsoever.

It's a pretty thought, though!

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. OK then, - I'll friggen' PRAY for 2006

.
.
.

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

16. Heh--don't we all.

Sigh...

[CatholicEdHead]

13. Good luck getting past the gerrymandering

that has been done over the past couple decades. There are very, very few seats that are really up for grabs each year.

[Placebo]

2. We're realists in regards to possible impeachment...

and keeping our eye on 2006 or 2008 is the only way for some of us (me) to get any sleep at night!

[Liberty Belle]

3. Impeachment over a sex scandal: Gannon/Gucker Gay Hooker in WH

5 things you can do to help make "Guckert" a household name


Do your part to make sure that the Gannon/Guckert story -- and, most importantly, the Bush administration's massive propaganda effort -- gets the media attention it deserves:

1) Sign up to receive Keith Olbermann's daily newsletter -- this will show the "big bosses" at MSNBC that Keith's got a big following among the "hoi polloi" out here who care about the truth (when everybody else was too chicken, Olbermann was giving a lot of airtime to the Gannon/Guckert story)
http://www.msnbc.com/tools/newstools/e/EmailExtra.asp?n...
(go down to second box "MSNBC Text Only newsletters", check 2nd box from the bottom, go to the bottom of the page and type your e-mail and then hit "submit" -- only takes a minute).

2) Send a quick e-mail to Dotty Lynch, who wrote a great piece at CBS.com called, "Rove-Gannon Connection". The more good feedback CBS gets, the more they'll run with the story: [e-mail]
Her article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/lynch...

3) E-mail Frank Rich's NYT article -- it's the best piece yet on how the Gannon story is one piece in the Bush administration's giant propaganda effort. Rich's article being on top of the Time's "Most e-mailed list" will help get it the attention it deserves: E-mail to a friend (or even just yourself -- I think the site lets you do that).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html ?
(See box at right for e-mailing feature)

4) Send a quick e-mail to Anderson Cooper saying he did a great job on the Gannon interview and ask him to keep covering the story as well as other aspects of Bush's propaganda efforts (e.g., suggest he have Frank Rich on his show or someone you like from Air America).
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?5

[patricia92243]

9. Thanks a lot for telling us how to receive the Olberman newsletter. I do

not get MSNBC on my tv and hear a lot about Olberman here on DU. Now I'll know what everybody is talking about. Again, thanks.

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

12. Thanks for the action suggestions

Really, I appreciate it. Very little free time lately, but these I could jump on.

Every little bit helps.

[TheFarseer]

4. I don't think that's very productive

It would be much more productive to focus on midterm elections. President Bush isn't going to be impeached so get used to it. If we can neuter him by winning back control of at least one house of congress in 2006(yes, unlikely, but you never know what can happen in almost 2 years) that would be worth alot and would help a potential democratic president in 2008. I think if we lose in 2006 and 2008, it might be time to pack up the tents cause the party's over. So I suggest we put everything we've got into that and forget about a long-shot impeachment that would only put another republican that could run for re-election in there with a republican majority.

[Laurab]

5. I haven't given up

I really do hope someone, somewhere is working on it. That's one of the reasons I don't like to talk about '08 - too much to worry about prior to that. Starting with election reform, because if it doesn't happen, IMO, '08 won't matter, neither will '06.

In the meantime, fighting each and every insane plan he has to "spread freedom", and "fix" things that don't need fixing.

With all the illegal and unethical things this administration has done and continues to do, I have hope that truth and justice will prevail, and save our country before '08. I can't imagine another 4 years of this bushit.

[omega minimo]

6. 2004 WAS "Next Time"

....after 2000, remember? We had "reform" and the Help America Vote Act. We had FOUR years after the first stolen election. And what happened? What happened?

I'm with you, CC. It is insane, not only the damage Bush will do/has done, but the complicity that the Congress and the American people have in enabling his presence in the Roval Office.

There's 2 posts here that say, "Someone, somewhere." We are it. First rule of activism. "Someone, somewhere" is an illusion. (But you may be in Canada, eh? Sorry).

For my part, I will keep askin' and risking some flame, keep askin' why this selection was allowed to stand, why Kerry backed off, why Boxer stood alone (but for Kerry), why MoveOn was silent, why everyone who investigated the election (including BlackBox, the Ohio Congresswoman and Boxer, and the Conyers judiciary committee) ALL said "we don't expect it to alter the outcome of the election, but......" WTF not?!

The only answers I've heard come from Jello Biafra (red and blue are two wings of the corporate party that kept Bush in office) and Jon Carroll of the SF Chronicle (won't get excited about the second stolen election because of the first).

:hi: :kick:

BTW one enormous challenge and outcome of the 2004 "election" to be addressed along with electronic voting issues: all the additional people who will NOT vote because they know (for a fact) that it really doesn't matter. (meant to say "it doesn't count" but "it doesn't matter" is how people feel about it).

Heartbreaking. Meanwhile the police state marches in and war marches on. Times' a wastin'.

[zann725]

7. I agree. Shrubco will be impeached and indicted LONG before '08.

All his new appointees have perjured themselves extensively in their Nomination Hearings. If the cards start falling, there'll be no one left but the Dem's...who can then step forward with the TRUTH about the 2004 Election. And recapture the WH longgggg before '08.

[blondeatlast]

10. I think most of us who are serious are thinking 2006.

It isn't too early to set the stage, and Congress is more important than ever.

I pass on ANY speculation about '08 at this poing; but jump on threads about the midterms.

[donsu]

14. future voting in america is a waste of time

with rigged voting machines and corrupt election officials still the norm, what's the point?