Democratic Victory in '06 will Not Result in Impeachment in '07/08..

[radio4progressives]

Does Feingold Know Something we are in denial about on the matter of Impeachment? I've addressed this issue in another thread, but i want to highlight it in a thread of it's own - because i think us rank and file folks better get a grip on reality - impeachment is never going to happen.

In the other thread i'm responding to someone else's concerns/question/criticism on Feingold's remarks on the matter of resolution for Censure vs possible 'impeachment' proceedings. my focus here is not to knock down the obvious straw man - but to raise a different question on our collective assumption that a Democratically controlled House of Representatives would even result in impeachment proceedings.

I say no, it won't. And I suspect Feingold intuits, or knows it will not as well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=683816&mesg_id=694577

Maybe because Feingold knows that Impeachment Will Never Happen?
Impeachment is not going to happen. period, end of story.

Let's say for argument sake that suddenly the folks who own Diebold and Choicepoint and Sequoia and such are suddenly wanting for the Democrats to be in power - and promises to hand us a victory in the mid terms in November - and so we win all 15 seats in Congress that we're desperately eying to achieve.

Let's say, that none of the election results are challenged because the vote tabulations matched the polling - etc. So let's say Dems have a major victory in Congress, in November 2006.

Winter recess occurs, Congress begins their new session 2 1/2 months or so later in late January or early February.

But wait! President Bush is still in office! He and Karl Rove and everyone else knows that we've been chomping on the bit to begin impeachment hearings immediately ...

hmm.

Think about this for a minute. Do you honestly believe that the puppet masters are going to allow our attention to be devoted to impeachment?

Given what these people have been doing, are doing, and are capable of doing, do you honestly believe that they're not going to do everything in their power to prevent impeachment proceedings to occur by invoking fear of terrorists strikes or other events to prevent this from occurring?

And even if the Bush Co does absolutely nothing to obstruct impeachment proceedings, (yeah right) given that these proceedings take so damn long, and obstruction by the White House is their M.O., before you know it, the next (2008) election cycle will be upon us, so focus and campaigning for that will be the order and priority of the day - the new mantra will be vote a Democrat into office, and "elections have consequences" will be preached .

I think Feingold knows very well that impeachment is never going to occur, even under a Democratic party controlled Congress, given all that he knows behind the scenes, and so the very least that should be done (and can be done) to hold this administration accountable, (and even possibly to mandate a Cease and Desist order) is to introduce a resolution to Censure.

The bottom line is a Democratically controlled House of Representatives will not yield impeachment results and that's the long and short of it.

That sad reality will have other political implications that may eventually destroy the party, and they haven't even figured that out yet.

[Pryderi]

1. If we regain control, Impeachment is far down on my list of priorities..

I'd rather start fixing all of the things that republicans have broken. Iraq redeployment, Health Care, Tax breaks for the rich.

We don't need to impeach Bush. History will judge him as the evil, inept moron that he is.

[Eric J in MN]

26. The bankruptcy bill, the tort reform bill, both should be undone (nt)

nt

[EVDebs]

2. They've got to at least TRY. Your opinion isn't optimistic, which wins

voters btw. He who dares, wins, radioforprogressives. Please try to remember that.

[radio4progressives]

4. I think Feingold knows very well, that it will not be a priority..

and that's why I believe he pressed for Censure.

My opinion is not optimistic, these are not optimistic times and our party isn't what we thought it was - we're going to need a NUMBER of people with courage, a spine and who knows what the hell is going on.

Feingold is only of these people, we need about at least 300 more of those kind of people in Congress - not cowards or corporatists.

[EVDebs]

10. History will scold those who stayed silent

History will scold those who stayed silent
by Leonard Pitts
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/14118677.htm

Pitts says, ""I think I know. I think tomorrow will ask how we could have shrugged off the very real possibility that the president broke the law. I think tomorrow will want to know how we could have meekly and quiescently allowed our civil rights to be abridged. I think tomorrow will be perplexed by our tolerance of obvious incompetence and brazen untruths. I think tomorrow will wonder how we could have turned blind eyes and disinterested ears to mounting evidence that the war in Iraq was predestined and Sept. 11 just a convenient pretext.

So I understand where Feingold and Conyers are coming from. Where good and frustrated people all over the country are coming from. History's verdict is all we have left. And when tomorrow calls today to account, some of us want to be able to say, we stood up. We called out. We were not silent.

It is small solace, but it is solace, nonetheless.""

Along with the Harper's call for action:

The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.
http://www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html

show us that SOMETHING must be done. Sit on your hands if you will, but I'd rather see my representatives go down swinging. It's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog !

Failed effort or not, Sen Feingold is boldly carrying the flag. The troops will rally to that flag, if they know what's good for the country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Good article

but unfortunately we will be ignored, you watch

[radio4progressives]

19. Nice Post, I totally agree with it.. completely...

thanks for posting this...

[radio4progressives]

31. I know it isn't optimistic.. we need to start thinking "out of the box"

Because when we, the Democratic party, are victorious vis a vis elections of the few seats in Congress come November, we're going to be expecting that victory to translate to justice immediately which will also will impact outlook for the future..

I'm advance forwarding the tape, based on a political scene/scheme in washington - and knowing that all eyes are on impeachment proceedings - for us to toss our eggs into a political victory in novemeber i honestly beleive is taking the bait for a switch on washington agenda.

i think that's what Feingold is trying to convey to us, and has chosen to take the only action available for the stated purposes that will be available no matter which party is in "control" following the 2006 mid terms.

[quaoar]

3. Probably not

but there will be so many congressional investigations Bush will wish he was out of office.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You are right, it is not gonna happen

but not for the reasons you state....

NSA wire tapping, and skeletons in closets

And the most damming, there is collusion in the upper reaches of government between the two parties. Yes Nader was right, but for the wrong reasons... if we want our democracy back, we will have to fight to take it away from those who refuse to work for us... regardless of party... all you see right now is political theater, to keep the masses quiet and thinking they are doing something about it. I hope I am wrong, but after recent events, I hate to say it... they are ALL in bed together.

[acmejack]

16. "all you see right now is political theater"

That is so strange, I was watching the Senate energy hearings (again) and thinking that very thing earlier.

[radio4progressives]

21. I think there are a few, like Feingold and Conyers, and few others

who are not in bed together..

they have been essentially silenced, will continue to be silenced by those that are..

unless, we the people stand up (to those who are lying in bed together)and demand what we know must be done.

[PSPS]

6. There will be no more "USA" without justice

Unless there is a price to be paid for lawlessness, what does the USA stand for? This country will just continue its slide into oblivion unless these criminals are held to account for their crimes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. That will only happen when we have a revolution

and what form that revolution will take is a good question, but rest assured you are living in pre revolutionary times. (Yes something as simple as the meteoric rise of a third party replacing one if not two parties, and the reform of the electoral system might be one form... but there are many others) We also live in an empire in the last stages of decline and once people realize that, this alone might lead to revolution.

Suffice it to say, the revolution shall not be televised.

[radio4progressives]

32. which is why i wanted to plant the seeds

for a special recall election in 2006 (presidential recall election).

[quaoar]

8. Nixon got away with all his crimes

[EVDebs]

11. And he's forever disgraced. Read Leonard Pitts's latest column

and the Harper's magazine Case for Impeachment. You will change your tune.

[radio4progressives]

33. yep, he sure did.. and a number of his people got in power w/dubya.

[Imagevision]

18. no "USA" without justice -- I'll second that!!

[radio4progressives]

22. We will become the "Former United States"

as indicated in the film V for Vendetta...

[mikehiggins]

9. Can you see the Vichy Dems really trying to impeach Bush?

I can't.

[radio4progressives]

23. never... they want the same "unitary executive authority" he has..

they cravenly long, and thirst for the same autocratic powers he has wielded.

[Imagevision]

12. Impeach Clinton for a BJ but no way on Busj?? no logic there!!

sorry - common logic!

[radio4progressives]

24. But our system is no longer based on logic or justice....

our constitution is being used as toilet paper to wipe the asses of these despots.

[mtnsnake]

13. They need to know that our support in '08 depends on impeachment in '07

if we win back the House in '06.

If we don't win back the House, they need to know our support depends on an impeachment attempt, regardless of where it goes.

Not impeachimg, or not attempting to impeach, would be a sin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. They don't know it, they don't care to know

reminds me of the three wise monkye, no see, no hear and no talk no sin...

[radio4progressives]

27. i agree... but then, they should be saying it now..

and Nancy Pelosi responded to a reporter for her reaction on the San Francisco Board of Supes, resolution to Impeach dubya and Cheney, and her response was "No". "Elections have Consequences" and then went on to say essentially if we want to remove dubya from office, we have to vote him out. (paraphrasing).

[xultar]

17. An impeachment takes a simple majority right?

[mtnsnake]

20. Yes, just a 1 vote majority to impeach. Conviction takes 2/3, though,

I believe

[xultar]

25. that is why winning in 2k6 is so important. Impeach = TRIAL

[radio4progressives]

29. Trial takes place in the Senate, not the House.. We won't have 2/3 in the

Senate in 2006/2007/2008. There is the possibility of winning a 2/3'rds Senate in the 2008 elections, i suppose - but by then Bush Co will be out of office..unless.... something unforseen happens to keep him in office... (?)

[xultar]

30. I know that. But the trial will bring out the facts.

[radio4progressives]

34. we can only hope...

[radio4progressives]

28. In terms of actual voting? (Simple Majority)

but a whole lot more is involved then simply voting to impeach.

Articles of impeachment (and charges for impeachment) first has to be invoked, introduced along with a resolution to conduct investigation hearings... which begins a long drawn out process of testimony and evidence into the record, if the purpose is also to conduct a trial, and convict, (which it is for most of us) then that involves the Senate, which requires 2/3 of the majority, which we will not have in 2007. (I suppose that could change in 2008, maybe).

[Clarkie1]

35. How badly do we want Cheney to be "officially" president? n/t

[Nutmegger]

36. Um, not badly.

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[radio4progressives]

37. cheney is guilty of crimes too... impeachment of both is possible

but it isn't going to happen.