The Impeachment Dilemma - how do we manage it?

[LynneSin]

Let's assume that Bush's rating is so horrible that we pull out major wins in 2006 in both the house & senate. And let's assume that once the democrats are in charge, the first item of agenda is impeachment (reason? I think we all know of at least 5-6 very different reasons as to why).

Ok, is it feasible that we can impeach both Bush & Cheney together? Since if we impeach Bush we end up with Cheney and let's face it - he's running the country. But if we impeach Cheney first, he'll just 'retire' because of health issues but continue to run the country from his 'undisclosed location' but just as a civilian.

[Neil Lisst]

1. we do nothing about it. we focus first on winning in Nov, then leading

I'm worried that if we do gain one or both houses, we'll be stuck with the same weak leadership in congress we have had under Pelosi and Reid. Neither one is up to the job.

We investigate, and then we proceed after that. Let the push for impeachment come from the public.

I personally don't feel it's necessary at this point, or even useful.

Maybe 2007 I'll feel differently. I suspect at some point Bush will have Cheney re-sign, and appoint someone like McCain as his Veep.

[electropop]

3. If the new Dems are progressives,

they may choose bolder leadership, or may pressure the existing team to do their jobs.

[Neil Lisst]

5. the problem is they're usually beholden to the leadership

who helped them in their campaign through the DCCC

People who are in leadership help candidates raise money and provide them with expertise in campaign stylings. Then those folks owe them, if those folks are elected.

[LynneSin]

4. wait - Reid & Pelosi are hardly "Weak Leadership"

I mean Pelosi has back Murtha when it comes to the war and Reid has had some great victories for a party that pretty much has all of their legislation shut out by the opposition. I'm looking forward to both of them being Majority Leader - a far cry from Daschle/Gephardt (ok, Pelosi would be speaker - you get my drift)

[Neil Lisst]

7. we're gonna have to disagree. Daschle & Gephardt were miles ahead

of Reid and Pelosi. There's no comparison. They were both largely effective.

In today's world, if you're not good on TV, you're hurting the party by being there and talking for us. Reid and Pelosi are TERRIBLE on TV, just atrocious.

[LynneSin]

12. Yeah, they were effective in helping start the war

I'm so glad they are no longer on our team. The best thing I can say about Thune defeating Daschle is we got rid of one of the most ineffective Senate Leaders out there. We had the majority and Daschle still treated it like the repukes were in charge

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I have to disagree with part of what you said .......

While I agree with you on Reid, I think he's doing okay under the current circumstances.

I disagree about Pelosi. I think she's holding back because she has no real power. I'd give her a shot again after we win the House back. I have a strong feeling we'll see a **much** more progressive MAJORITY leader Peloisi than we have a Minority leader Pelosi.

[Kolesar]

8. I have my doubts about our leadership

I would like to know what you are thinking before I cite them.

[Neil Lisst]

9. I don't think they've managed well the political opportunities we've had

and I think they're both terrible on TV.

That big fat bastard who recently retired from Exxon-Mobil never had himself on TV selling that stuff, did he? You can't sell politics with Wilford Brimley. You need George Clooney.

BTW, did someone mention Fat Bastard?!

[Kolesar]

10. I would like to see the Dems attack on the energy issue

Interesting that you posted the Exxon guy. I am sure that the American motoring public absolutely hates the oil companies. Those of us with high gas prices don't like the natural gas distributors. My state had a week-long blackout in 2003--we hate First Energy too.

The Dems need to break some noses. Those are the global warming liars/propagandists.

[Neil Lisst]

14. I agree. It's time to show outrage. It's time to bring Jabba the Hut

down to congress to explain why any CEO is worth $400 million in retirement.

[electropop]

2. As far as I know there is no Constitutional impediment to that.

Impeachment is a purely political process, so my analogy may be shaky, but in the legal system, they often try multiple defendents together, when all are alleged to be part of the same criminal enterprise.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Most favorable scenario ....

Cheney is indicted and resigns, Dems regain House and Senate, Dems bring impeachment proceedings in House and move for trial in the Senate, Bush resigns.

How? Cheney is indicted by Fitzgerald for lying in the investigation just like Libby. Dems bring resolution for impeachment based upon Bush lying to Congress regarding WMD and uranium claims leading us into war in Iraq.

Subpoena power will open the gates, and Republicans will run like scalded cats .... there is way too much to ever hope that it could be covered up.

[Independent_Liberal]

16. I agree.

Most favorable scenario indeed.

-Cheney is indicted and is forced to resign.

-Congress forces Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

-Bush resigns to avoid impeachment.

-McCain is sworn in.

See Nixon/Agnew/Ford.

[Sapere aude]

13. After we take the White House in 2008 we prosecute them for war crimes.

[ShortnFiery]

15. We need to get the Republicans to start Impeachment proceedings

NOW! If we don't impeach this Mad-Man, I'm afraid that he just may bomb Iran before the upcoming elections. :scared:

IMO, we MUST help *anyone* (any congressperson) impeach both * and Cheney A.S.A.P. but no later than the end of September?!?