Jerry Springer's interesting point regarding pushing for impeachment

[Pryderi]

Actually, he made a couple of good points.

1. Most Americans don't want to have to go through another impeachment process, as we had one not long ago.

2. Calling for impeachment would unite the republican party. The cracks that are forming in the republican party would be patched.

{although, it might be a good thing to have Repugs siding with Bush it could help dems in 2006 elections}

3. Realistically, republicans won't call for an articles of inquiry or impeachment

[jmaier]

1. That's my take also

We want to keep splintering Republicans and lowering Bushco's credibility even further. Don't do anything to give them a rallying point. Especially, on such a quixotic quest.

On the other hand, keep pounding on the themes of deceit, incompetence, cronyism, etc.

[getmeouttahere]

2. The 3rd point is why....

we live in dangerous and damaging times

[autorank]

3. Jerry Srpinger also thinks Bush won Ohio.

More self-censoring recommended by our side. Big Ed Shultz isi calling for impeachment on his show on a regular basis now. Why not? It won't unite anybody. We're beyond tactical rhetoric. The public is rapidly losing any residual faith they had in *. He's at 42%. When he goes below 40, look for public opinion to endorse impeachment. Remember that 42% isn't rock solid, his core support is aboiut 33%, that which he cannot lose (I suspect). He's toast. Jerry should go back to hosting selected dysfunctional families. His political views and ideas are weak. For an over the top guy, he's awfullyi tepid.

[endarkenment]

4. Oh we shouldn't hold them accountible

because it would be unpleasant. Or we might lose. Tell that to the families of the dead, both American and Iraqi. Tell them it is just too much bother to apply the rule of law to this situation.

Regarding point 3: If a representative from either party acts, a vote on an inquiry must be held. That would at least bring the matter out in the open. At the moment I'd guess that approximately 90% of the public is unaware the high crimes and misdemeanors have ocurred and that the administration may have commited war crimes in violation of international treaties that we are signatories to, and may in fact have commited treason.

I think that, win or lose, we have a moral obligation to force this out in the open.

[Ilsa]

11. You sound like the caller who set Springer straight! And if you were,

great! He needed it! We can't sweep this treason under the rug just because it would be unpleasant or hard work. (Did I really say that?)

[Larkspur]

5. I think Impeachment is impossible but if done right would be an

exercise in justice for the wrongs committed against our dead troops and innocent Iraqis killed during the war and afterwards.

I wouldn't call for Impeachment now, while the Repukes control Congress, but I'd use the Downing Street Memo to bolster a case for outing the Repukes from Congress as well as laying the foundation for an Impeachment process. If Dems take over Congress, they should launch an Impeachment process based on the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and do what the US did with the Nuremburg trials in 1945 -- make a statement that launching illegal, preventive wars is immoral and against the US Constitution and International Law.

[tk2kewl]

6. With all due respect to Jerry, how the hell does he know

what "most Americans" want, especially if they had all the facts

[quiet.american]

7. Agree - the "most Americans" argument is silly.

Most Americans did not want Bill Clinton impeached, according to the Big Dog's polling numbers at the time. Most Americans are against Bush's policies and Bush's war and would probably celebrate in the streets if he were impeached, according to his polling numbers.

It comes down to a corrupt and cowed Republican-majority congress as to why Bush and Co. will never be held accountable for the most egregious crimes against this country since Benedict Arnold.

[leesa]

8. The whole point of the Clinton impeachment was to make

people weary of another. Are we going to let the GOP pull our strings once again??

Jerry, there were high crimes committed. To ignore them is WRONG.

Springer drives me crazy with his appeasements.

[OneTwentyoNine]

9. Most don't want to go through another impeachment?? BAWHAHA...

I SURE AS HELL DO JERRY!!! So don't even pretend to know "what most Americans want".

If "We the People" could spend $60 MILLION to see if Clenis got a BJ and then lied,then we sure as HELL can repeat the process to see if Bush LIED about WMD and reasons for War.

So...shut the FUCK UP Jerry,I could watch Impeachment hearings against Bush for DAYS and WEEKS on end!

[NJCher]

10. very poor argument

His political views and ideas are weak.

Very weak points. Frankly, I'm astonished and disgusted that one of our own would advocate such a milquetoast response.

I think something along the lines of what Larkspur advocates is an appropriate map.


Cher

[magnolia]

12. Did the impeachment proceeding of...

...President Clinton unite Dems? NO! Many, many dems turned against him. It hurt him, the democratic party and Al Gore. The impeachment weakened, NOT strenghtened, the party and made stealing the election so much easier.

The far right nutcases aren't going to change no matter what so they aren't worth giving any attention to. The average republican, those who are our friends and family, believe in the war because they trust Bush. Impeachment proceeding would put a crack in that trust. At the very least people would have to pay attention, look at the facts and question what has happened.

I never turned against Clinton because I knew from the beginning that he was guilty. (of sex) But many people I know believed him when he said "I did not have sexual....." and defended him and felt deeply betrayed when the truth came out. Many have never forgiven him for that. If you can remember that betrayal...then imagine for a minute all those who will feel betrayed when the truth comes out about Bush. And it won't be over sex in the oval office, it'll be a war, thousands of lives lost, billions of tax dollars wasted. Every person who voted for Bush in 2004 has blood on their hands because they trusted him. Every Senator and Congressman who voted for the war has blood on their hands because they trusted him. When that trust starts to crack, the betrayal will be monumental!

[11cents]

14. Wrong.

The impeachment proceedings against Clinton united 70% of the public behind him. People who'd felt betrayed by Clinton and who were deeply angry with him forgot their anger in the face of a much greater provocation. People didn't "turn against Clinton" because of impeachment; just the opposite. People who'd turned against him because of Lewinsky began to support him against because of GOP overreaching.

I'm not speaking here either for or against impeachment against Bush, but if you're going to use an historical precedent you need to get it right.

[nikraye]

13. Jerry's point #3 is unfortunately dead accurate...

There was a democratic congresswoman (Slaughter?) on AAR yesterday who said precisely the same thing. She emphasized how critical the 2006 elections will be in getting enough dems elected to congress so that they CAN have enough support to call for impeachment.

edited for typo

[MrPrax]

15. Best argument against....?

Springer's suggestions are self-serving, generic and fails to understand the gravity of 'what' is being contemplated and the evidence on the table so far.

The attempt to impeach Clinton was purely done out of abuse and contempt for the Constitution and the American people. It's was a mean political stredgy and Springer, by his remarks, seems to think that is all there is to the political game; gamesmanship and advantage.

But, there is a element of truth in this. Impeachment was meant as a safeguard against tyranny, corruption and illegality and indeed some of the American people may deem this a 'case' as failing under that category of high crimes and misdemeanor...

The best argument against it though, is that the American people aren't really involved; 'the politicians charged with pursuing these charges, establishing a court, presenting the evidence and ultimately judging POTUS can't be trusted'

There are currently no high-level democrats in Congress that can be trusted to get this done or even make this a strong 'political' stratedgy, for the same reason there are no democrats with clout that didn't wholeheartily support the 'spirit' of the Iraqi invasion and didn't help Bush 'fix' the case.

They can not pursue this from any moral position and therefore one can't expect them to pursue it from any congressional standards that somehow places the bar higher for Bush and not for Congress members.

[silver10]

16. I wonder how much Jerry was paid

by his corporate media bosses to say that? How can Clinton getting a BJ be worse than shrub and co. murdering thousands for money, and lying about it before and after the fact? If Clinton got impeached, shrub most definitely must be impeached, and saying that it is too much trouble, especially to the families of dead soldiers, is a disgrace.

America would rather punish a penis than a robber-barron murderer?

I don't know if we would win or lose, but there should be no doubt that we need to fight and fight and fight until it happens. The repugs would NEVER let the Dems get away with so much evidence if the tables were turned, not in a million years. I don't think we should let them get off easy, especially with so many people being hurt in so many ways by this bunch of thugs.