Maybe impeachment is not the way to go.

[madinmaryland]

Assuming that the Repubs control everything until the November elections, absolutely nothing will happen until after then. If the Democrats are able to take over one or both houses of congress, would dragging the country into impeachment hearings be the best thing?

Maybe, if they control both houses of congress, the dem's would be able to begin hearings (many of them) into everything that has happened. Continue to bring more and more of the corruption to light and shining it on the many repubs who may be interested in running in 2008. It's going to take months of hearings to bring all of this corruption out. Put all of this on the table in late 2007 and into the election year of 2008. I think we need to focus on the entire corruption of the repub establishment and not just at the top.

[mdmc]

1. are there still wiretap hearings going on?

If no, then a party line censure loss is in order. The message is, when the GOP was in power, they fought Clenus more then terror. In 2007, if the dems get into power, terror will be the main battle. We will censure the Pres, in order to protect the USA.

[havocmom]

3. Wire tap hearings aside, there is that attempt to make it legal

for the DOJ to shoot any messanger that the junta is breaking the law.

[mdmc]

8. true

[madinmaryland]

4. The dems must get into to power

in order to stop and maybe roll back everything that has happened over the last 5 1/2 years. Election reform is needed also.

[mdmc]

6. a 2006 censure is the best way to get back in to power

the censure motion shows that the dems have the willpower and backbone to lead. They take the pres to task when he is wrong. They don't do this "because they know that they will win", they do this because it is the right thing for America.

You don't fight the fights you can win, you fight the fights that need fighting. If you do the right think, and your motivation is pure and noble, you will win.

Peace and low stress.

[madinmaryland]

13. A Censure motion is a great start and can be done now.

That does not mean it will pass in 2006, but at least we have gone on the record as opposing the alleged breaking of laws.

[mdmc]

14. Let the GOP say "illegal activity is okay if it keeps us safe"

we don't need to be complicit. A party line loss would be a huge success. HUGH11! I'm SERIOUS11!

[havocmom]

2. Yep, work for clean elections and good DEM candidates

THEN tackle impeachment. Anything before we control the Hill is just so much effort diverted from the clean elections and promoting good candidates that we will need to move forward with anything besides a lot of rhetoric. :thumbsup:

[BOSSHOG]

5. Let us not pursue impeachment

Censure, yes. Investigations, yes. But no to impeachment. Let bush stay til January 2009 and the gop will be in minority status for an incredibly long time. Investigate and hang the results on the entire republican party. My senators are both republicans (Mississippi) so I doubt they'll like our idea (all the more reason to pursue it.)

GREAT IDEA.

[mdmc]

9. great idea boss!

[Independent_Liberal]

25. He HAS to be impeached! It's a matter of life and death!

This country or this planet will NOT survive three more years of this.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. My only worry...

...is that if we bank on the Dems winning back one or both Houses, it'll be too late to take on impeachment.

It'll be 2007 by the time anyone takes office officially, and after that they'll have to deal with other business like committee assignments. Even the earliest possible opportunity for impeachment might not happen until somewhere halfway through 2007.

And the Dems would at least have to win the House to get it going. But it'll be a moot point if they don't win the Senate as well. Before you know it, 2008 is a short trip down the pike and people are focused on the coming elections again.

[madinmaryland]

11. But we can't do anything until we take over one

or both Houses. Nothing will happen until then. Even a stain on a blue dress would probably not help, unless gannon/guckert was somehow involved.

[Burning Water]

10. I sorta wonder

how all this is going to play out myself. Here's a scenario I haven't heard mentioned. What if the House goes Democratic, but the Senate does not? Is impeachment worth while then, seeing as there can never be a conviction? Maybe, because it brings to light the horrendous crimes of the evil cabal. BUT. Suppose the Repukes retaliate by launching investigations into various Democratic office-holders, present, and ex-.

They could launch Senate investigations, and Bush will still control the FBI and the Dept of Justice for two more years. Even if they can't get them on the actual crimes alleged, could they do a Martha Stuart on them?

Are our guys so virgin pure they can't be touched? They're professional politicians. I tend to doubt it.

[madinmaryland]

12. If its a split house,

it would at least bottle up any legislation that * wants to get passed. Also would help, if there were any appointments * wanted to make (assuming the dems can take the senate).

[tritsofme]

15. It doesn't matter who control the Senate, there would never be conviction

It requires a 2/3 vote.

Impeachment in the House is realistic, conviction in the Senate is not.

[madinmaryland]

22. If impeachment were to somehow pass the house,

then the senate would not want this dragging out during a presidential election year. There might be a possibility of it happening if it occurs in 2007.

[tritsofme]

24. Clinton's trial in the Senate only took a little over a month.

It wouldn't take any longer to convict than it would to acquit, so I don't really see your point.

I just don't think we will ever see 67 votes for conviction.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I view it the same as if you were a wife

married to an abusive husband, would you want to drag the kids through a messy divorce? I imagine it could/would get to the point where you would have no choice. I also believe, just because a possible future Democratic controlled congress were to press a head with impeachment, that this would not prohibit them from exposing the rampant corruption, they go hand in hand.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I heard John Fund say on Olbermann

that only the internet lefties and activists would push for impeachment, that most Dems would not want to roll the dice with the 2008 elections on the horizon.

I say BS to that. The Clinton impeachment was an unjustifiable travesty. Junior is begging for it. It would be a travesty NOT to impeach him, and I believe the majority of Americans want it. It's not like he has Clinton's numbers.

[madinmaryland]

19. By the time all of the corruption

actually comes out, it will probably be too late to start impeachment. My guess is sometime in early 2008 would there be enough. Unless of course something happens early next year, that has not been revealed..

[ClassWarrior]

18. Of COURSE impeachment won't be best for the country. But you can blame...

...Bush** and Cheney** for THAT. THEY committed the crimes that are dragging our nation into this. And it's our responsibility as patriots to see that justice is served.

Do you not agree?

NGU.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Impeachment is the way to go for the people, not nessesarily the

way to go for the Democratic Congress.

We the people need to be demanding impeachment from the Republicans.

If we think about it, the rule of law is often inconvientent in a political sense. So should we ask that laws are only applied when they help us politically?

Or is it wrong for anyone, even the president, to break the law?

Do we have values that are above and beyond politics, or are our values flexible depending on the political ramifications of holding those values?

This is the challenge for Democrats, and by that I mean the people who make up the party and the people who identify with the party, and vote or potentially vote with the party.

We know impeachment leading to removal of bush is impossible on Dem. votes alone at this time. We know that impeachment leading to removal of bush is probably impossible even if we took back majorities of both houses in the mid-term, because the Senate has to sustain impeachment with a 2/3 super majority.

Which is why impeachment is a perfect issue for grassroots activism leading to a Demo majority in one or both houses in the mid terms, but may not be the perfect issue for the Dems in Congress to push at this time.

If the grassroots really pushes the Republicans on impeachment in a public, persistent and highly visable way, we will win back a majority in one or both houses.

My post on using impeachment as a grassroots issue is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x26835

[madinmaryland]

21. An addition problem with impeachment is

that it will not solve the overall corruption of the republican party. We can impeach *co, but that still leaves the rest of the repub congress. We have a long ways to go.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. The way to winning back one or both houses of congress,

by the grassroots activists, is straight through impeachment.

The Dem lawmakers should do what they do best, and we should do what we do best. Those are not the same things.