Impeachment is the wrong move . . . .

[hijinx87]

if we do win the house and the senate, impeachment would
paralyze our progressive legislation.

I can think of better uses of our majorities.

[babylonsister]

1. I say impeach the bums-they've earned it! nt

[hijinx87]

3. so what happens after we have the house?

impeachment, or should we increase the minimum wage?

[babylonsister]

4. I think both can and should be accomplished. nt

[BushOut06]

10. Exactly - why can't we do both?

It's not as if Congress can only do one thing at a time. We can move forward with impeachment while moving our agenda forward also.

If you think that we're going to get a minimum wage increase through with * standing by with his veto, you're mistaken.

[hijinx87]

21. impeachment = paralysis

if we impeach, our agenda will DIE on the vine.

[librechik]

36. you still haven't explained why

[hijinx87]

44. because impeachment would take up the time . .

of our democratic congress

I want universal health care, and a substistence wage before I
go further

[enough already]

71. Chimpus Khan will veto all of this

Impeachment is imperative.

[enough already]

70. You assume we can't walk and chew gum at the same time

Impeach AND increase the minimum wage.

[calimary]

77. Go DIRECTLY to IMPEACHMENT hearings. Do not pass "GO," do not

collect 200 dollars.

FIRST, we have to be for ACCOUNTABILITY, above all else. Above minimum wage. Above health care for all. Above even ending the fiasco in Iraq and bringing everybody home. Before even that.

Either you're FOR accountability or you're NOT. I think bush needs to be held accountable. And then cheney, too, but first, bush. An example needs to be made of him. For all to see. All here, and all - the world over.

IMPEACHMENT is PRIORITY ONE.

[dtotire]

112. Censure Would Be a Better Move

While he deserves impeachment, it would be too divisive. I suggest that when the new Congress meets, he should be censured for lying us into an unnecessary war, and then we can move on to more important issues.
Remember what the other organization said about Clinton: Censure and move on!

[El Fuego]

115. You have got to be kidding.

The argument for censure (which notably came from Democrats, I might add) was because of the trivial nature of the offense.

The deaths of thousands of people in an illegal war IS NOT TRIVIAL. The trashing of the U.S. Constitution is NOT TRIVIAL.

Yes, I am sure the republicans will be the ones calling for "censure" this time... :eyes:

Maybe they already are.

[William769]

2. Impeachment Is the only move.

We can't move forward till past & current crimes are addressed.

[hijinx87]

5. it is NOT the only move . . .

it will paralyze our agenda in congress.

[William769]

16. That should be our agenda in Congress.

[hijinx87]

19. is there another agenda?

we are talking about congress, here.

[Vickers]

6. Think of all they've done with THEIR majority.

:eyes:

Walk, chew gum. Walk, chew gum. Hey, it's easy!

[hijinx87]

9. that is stupid . . . .

shall we not make our progressive efforts realized?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hijinx87]

23. one more time, moderates die?

is that your point?

[OzarkDem]

67. We can do both

We have an obligation to uphold the law, hold elected leaders accountable and above all preserve our democracy and protect our Constitution.

If this were something trivial as, say, a sexual indiscretion between consenting adults, it might be different. But Bush has violated some of the most sacred tenets of our democracy, he's seriously weakened many of our Constitutional protections and upset the balance of power. These wrongs have to be righted if we are to remain the great country that we are. We have to restore our reputation and integrity as a world leader and as an example for others. There's just too much at stake to blow it off.

[BushOut06]

7. How do you figure?

I can't think of anything that would paralyze our progressive legislation more than having BushCo blocking everything we put forward.

[hijinx87]

11. think it through

impeachment takes a full year.

what could we do with a progressive legislative agenda in a year?

[BushOut06]

35. How do you figure we'll get anything with BUSH in the WH?

Let's say we decide not to impeach Bush. Do you really think that Bush will allow any progressive legislation pass? Why do you think he hasn't used his veto very often yet? Because with the GOP in Congress, he's been getting what he wants! The minute that Dems take over Congress, that veto stamp will start working overtime. Minimum wage? VETO. Health care? VETO.

[hijinx87]

37. when was the last time he used his veto?

never.

[BushOut06]

49. When has he ever needed his veto?

He's had a GOP Congress to basically pass whatever he wants. Why would he use the veto?

Try thinking for a second. Why wouldn't Bush use his veto on Democrat-led bills?

[sandyd921]

38. I totally agree

While the moral justice argument is very compelling, the practical reason you point out is equally compelling. The regime will block any progressive legislation that is passed.

[hijinx87]

43. he's done, for openers

impeachment will kill our agenda for years.

[librechik]

50. he will resign first

to avoid a criminal investigation

[meldroc]

91. I highly doubt Bush would allow any progressive bills past his veto pen...

whether he gets impeached or not - we'll have to scare up 2/3 majority veto override votes in order to get anything useful done at all.

We do have to make him and his administration accountable, or the country will have a much harder time recovering from his culture of corruption. Impeach him, make an example of him, and it will be much harder for the next guy in the Oval Office to attempt a repeat performance.

[rubberducky]

8. Justice has to prevail

The criminals have to be brought to justice. We must set the record straight.

[hijinx87]

13. would you sacrifice 20 years of our house rule?

that is the deal here.

[El Fuego]

113. Clinton's impeachment didn't exactly hurt the repugs, did it?

[applegrove]

14. I don't think impeachment would solve anything. It would just be King

Rummy or King Bolton. The only person who would step into Bush "runners" would be even worse.

[hijinx87]

18. and it would paralyze our agenda. for years.

fuck 'em. they are gone anyway.

let us concentrate on reforms.

[applegrove]

51. Not sure what you mean by agenda? There will still be a war in Iraq

and terrorists when the Dems take back the houses. Agenda makes it sound like there is some plan. I think it will be more a roll-back to transparency and then looking at the financial mess to see what there is there and if the economy can be saved and the school system and everything else.

Bathtub is spilling over at this point. May not be much room to move. Which was the plan.
.

[applegrove]

82. By transparency I mean the real meaning of the word..not how neos

have cooped it to suit their purposes. When they use the word..they are being orwellian.

[Marnieworld]

80. What agenda?

If there is no rule of law, no separation of powers, no respect for the constitution then we have lost the country. Righting the constitutional wrongs and coming back to the rule of law is priority one. Impeachment is step one in that process. Without it, we'd be condoning all that has happened, letting it go unchallenged. What could be more important than that?

[applegrove]

83. I agree there is no "secret agenda" for dems. Disagree that impeachment

would solve a god darn thing. I think impeachment should be avoided at all costs. Neocons are a many headed hydra and you don't fight the "heads" ... you fight the body of the beast. Not its base (legs)... but intellectually and popularly, with might & empathy & discernment and intellect...the adult in you fights the ideas at the heart of this sick movement of neocons & wealthy elitism.

[Marnieworld]

110. And impeachment can be a part of that

With speeches and press conferences and articles detailing their crime. It's recorded for history and on TV for all to hear. Impeachment may be just a step in acheiving what you wrote, but a nice step and what we should do as a remedy according to The Constitution. WIthout that, it's all a show.

[Sparkly]

111. Yup! The Constitution: USE it or LOSE it.... nt

[applegrove]

116. No. Chimpeachment would put either Cheney or Rummy as the Pres.

You would spend the next two years trying to impeach them. And they would fight like dogs. Better to win in the house or senate..a few more seats..get power and go from there.

Canada had a conservative PM who was disliked. The longer he staid the more people were disgusted (he was thin skinned, he was vain and he bragged about rolling dice with the Quebec issue). He never understood that wanting to fit right under the wing of the USA was never going to fly with Canadians because in our minds the USA is a place South of us.. not something we are under. He resigned and a new candidate was chosen. She mentioned the neocon mantra out loud "elections are no time for serious discussion of anything important" and ended up with two seats in the Parliament.

You may be better off in the USA if all the moderates have to look at who they voted for last time...for a full two more years. It may teach them something about how important voting with your heart and brain..instead of for a song & dance..really is.

But none of my business this impeachment. Cause I am from Canada. It is for you to call.

[Warpy]

17. We may not have the choice

This bunch thinks they can scribble little signing statements on bills they sign so they can absolve themselves from having to obey the laws, the constitution, and standards of simple human decency.

They are so lawless that Congress may have to impeach the lot of them.

It may be our only chance to avoid being on the losing end of the next world war.

[mmonk]

22. This is a joke right?

If you're not going to use it in a high crimes situation, you should get rid of it and let future presidents know they are above both the law and constitution and you may as well keep the knowledge of those crimes away from the public (since there are so many people who haven't a clue).

[pooja]

24. If we don't impeach, we are setting precedent for every leader to come

that it is ok to engage in illegal actions against the constitution. They impeached Clinton for lying about sexual relations. I think the abuses this monarchy has imposed are greater than that, and they need to be adressed. We the people need to say this is not how we want our govt to be run.

[hijinx87]

27. "precedent" is a thug term . . .

I prefer "progressive"

[Guaranteed]

28. If we do impeach, we won't have Bush

as our target in 2008, and the Repukes will win again. And it'll just be another neocon replacing him.

Forget it. We'll throw him in jail after we win the White House back.

[hijinx87]

33. impeachment is reactionary . . . .

we should think about our agenda

[Guaranteed]

25. 10 years of Dick Cheney.

Or his VP- and then 10 more years of him.

The impeachment stuff needs to be rethought.

[Selteri]

26. Psst, We are a country of laws

Those laws are worthless if we do not enforce them upon our leaders. He has opently and blatantly violated the laws and the constitution. An impeacdhment is demanded by the law as a remedy for his actions. The fact that the last was was over a blow job and supposedly lies surrounding it says scores about why this one is overdue.

Who knows, the Republicans might start it soon seeing the writing on the wall.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. I can't believe so many people are biting on this.

Get a grip, folks.

[hijinx87]

30. other than being a moderate, I have done nothing wrong n/t

[IChing]

46. "Moderate and have done nothing wrong" is true

But at the same time by not impeaching you have done nothing right, which in itself can be a moderate move.

Sorry your argument for non action and not even discussing investigations and accountability cannot be viewed as moderate but an enabling behavior.

If and when President Bush is impeached and removed from office, the next step should be to arrest him and the other architects of the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If Americans ever find the will to do this, as we once did to German aggressors, history will remember it as a turning point in international relations. It will go down as one of the most spectacular and complete affirmations of the very best of American ideals. Imagine, as well, the chilling effect this would have on any other head of state considering aggression. If the most powerful man in the world can be held personally criminally responsible for starting a war, then clearly anybody can. Such a precedent could move humanity significantly closer to realizing the original vision of the United Nations: a world without war.

Certainly many will scorn this idea today. But 30 years ago the idea that Augusto Pinochet would ever be held responsible for his reign of terror in Chile also seemed outlandish. Since then, the law has evolved and what was once inconceivable is now happening: Pinochet is under house arrest in Chile awaiting trial for human rights violations. There is no statute of limitations for these crimes, just as there is none for aggression.

Given recent developments in international law, the time may very well come when George W. Bush will be unable to leave the U.S. for fear of arrest abroad. For so many reasons, however, it would be better if we Americans faced up to our responsibility and arrested him ourselves. The sooner the better. In the end it’s a matter of simple justice.

[CrispyQ]

31. Heavy sigh.

Assuming the dems make gains in '06 & '08, I fear they will have only 4 years of advantage to fix the mess that the repukes made. After that, the public will start to vote repuke again. They will. :eyes:

I'm such a freakin' pessimist sometimes, I make myself :puke:

[The Wielding Truth]

98. Have faith that truth, justice and the American way will not be killed.

It is in our nature, as a justice and freedom seeking populace, to rid ourselves of these warlords and rule ourselves as a balanced coherent nation. Our souls our fed by truth not fear. All tyrants fall. We must however act up and reject the insanity of greedy business power-mongers. Remember the antitrust acts must be enforced, and remember the power of just one vote.

[Sparkly]

32. I think it is the RIGHT move, on principle and as precedent.

It is exactly the RIGHT thing to do. This abuse of power is the REASON our ability to impeach is there. If ever there was a time to use it, it's now.

As for it stalling all the rest of the "agenda" -- I disagree. It would preoccupy the House Judiciary Committee, and then move to the Senate.

In the short term, it may take time from other ways of restoring our nation's principles; but in the long run, it is well worth whatever it takes, imho.

[Dinger]

34. Impeachment Or Bust!

That's my motto! The judges too!

[AtomicKitten]

39. sorry, I vehemently disagree

It would be a travesty of justice and misuse of power for the Democrats to not proceed in that direction. Oversight will lead to investigations and there is no question that will lead to impeachment. What kind of message will it send if Dems let it all slide? No freakin' way. These bastards so have it coming.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I strongly disagree with you

Impeachment is for times *exactly* like these. Then there's the issue of not just thorwing them out but also of sending amessage to our citizens and to the world that the US will **not** stand for a totalitarian (since *they* seem to be using that word of late) corporatist cabal that takes away the rights of its citizens and shits on our allies.

This maladministration has been a continuous stream of hubris, greed, exclusion, incompetence and real malfeasance. "Worst in History" only starts to tell the story.

[PresidentWar]

41. Its about the LAW, not party agendas.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not "men" (meaning personalities). I'd like to add to this that we also are not a nation of partisans. The move to impeach George Bush proceeds, and it should proceed, because of serious evidence that he and his underlings broke the LAW.

Let's focus on what's the most important.

[Guaranteed]

59. I think this is about pulling our country out of a tailspin.

You want ten more years of neocon presidency? Will we survive that, or ever have another chance?

[PresidentWar]

84. You do that by enforcing the LAW.

Call all of your Democratic leaders and insist they pursue that course now. Support Conyers and Feingold. We have a wonderful stop-gap against this "tail spin" you describe already put in place by the founders of our nation. It's called the Constitution of The United States, and lays down a very specific procedure for dealing with criminals in high office.

The question remains - will the Congressional Democrats have the balls to use it?

[Guaranteed]

93. #1- We don't even have any executive power! How do we ENFORCE

the law, without it?

#2- All you're doing is allowing them to get around the 22nd Amendment. BUSH IS A STOOGE!! It's not HIM that is the problem! You cut him out of the equation, and the neocons start FRESH, and get another ten years out of the NEXT stooge!!

***By not waiting until 2008, you're actually letting them off the hook.***

Now, do you actually want to fix the problem, or jack off to pictures of Bush in handcuffs?

God DAMN, I want to see justice JUST as much as you do, but use your damned brain.

[PresidentWar]

94. You are confused about the process.

You don't need to "have executive power" to bring the case against the chief executive. In fact the impeachment process is set up specifically to address that eventuality. What you need is the HoR to bring charges against the president. Those are based on the articles of impeachment, which can be drawn up by the brave ones in the Democratic part of the HoR. Once the articles are presented, the president can be "tried" on them in the Senate.

Seriously, have you ever read the US Constitution?

[Guaranteed]

97. That's not the point. I'm talking about law more generally.

I.E.- don't you want to be able to enforce the REST of the laws?

Respond to the second comment.

[PresidentWar]

108. ....what the hell are you talking about?

Your question makes no sense. Since when does bringing an impeachment case against the president, which is a process in accordance with established law, mean that you cannot enforce any laws?

[Jack Rabbit]

42. Investigating and impeaching war criminals

That sounds like a good use of time to me.

It's not going to do any good to pass progressive legislation if a reactionalry fascist is going to veto it.

[onenote]

45. the truth is hard to hear sometimes

but the OP is right. Take a reality check on the impeachment idea and this is what you come up with:
Assume that we recapture the House in November 06. But even if we also recapture the Senate, it is mathematically impossible that we will have the votes needed to convict. And because conviction isn't within the realm of possibility, I doubt that the House Democratic leadership will go in the impeachment direction. Will there be hearings? Yes. Will they provide new evidence of what we know this administration has done? Very unlikely. (If you think the administration would provide such evidence without a fight that takes it to the Supreme Court and if you think the Supreme Court will go against the administration....ha!)

So the situation after the hearings will be pretty much the same as before the hearings. The administration will stand accused of doing the things it has been doing. The repubs in Congress will defend the administration saying that what they did wasn't illegal, was necessary to fight the war on terra, blah blah blah. And the public will feel about the whole thing about the same as now, except that if the Democrats then push for impeachment, they may get turned off, since what the electorate really wants is to see some action on issues not pointless partisan battles (which is how an impeachment effort will be perceived).
So, bottom line: pursuing impeachment is pretty much a bad idea.

[William769]

52. There is only one flaw with your reasoning.

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because there was no crime committed. Bush on the other hand... If there is proof during the Impeachment & some don't convict just because of politics there are other avenues.

But to let someone walk away scott free is just plain stupid.

[onenote]

63. what other avenues?

Until he's out office, there are no other avenues that I know of. There are a lot of advantages to waiting until he's out of office to pursue any actions. The problem is that we arent' going to be able to establish anything new while he's in office and there is a very substantial risk that a large portion of the electorate that is fed up with the repubs, and who may be ripe for conversion to longer term support for the Democratic party, will be equally fed up with the Democrats if they see an impeachment effort that appears to be partisan and divisive. The country wants a functioning government and impeachment proceedings probably aren't high on their list of priorities. Hearings and investigations into a variety of the adminsitration's actions are an absolute must, but not in the context of an impeachment fight, imo.

[TheFarseer]

47. Does anyone remember when they impeached Clinton?

Repub approval ratings went in the toilet because most people thought they had gone too far and people rallied around Clinton. Do you really think it will be different if we went after bush?

[William769]

53. There is one difference. Clinton was innocent.

:eyes:

[Independent_Liberal]

57. Bush ain't no Clinton!

The Clinton deal was just about politics and the public knew. Clinton was popular. Bush isn't. He's somebody who's committed real impeachable offenses and more people are becoming aware. It won't be anything like the Clinton impeachment.

[elocs]

48. If you don't toe the line on impeachment and crucifixion of Bush,

then you will find many people here and Democrats who will attack you and accuse you of being all kinds of vile things. No difference of opinion is tolerated. The calls for impeachment seem to be more about revenge than anything else and it is doubtful if the numbers would ever be there to convict in the Senate. But guess what? If Democrats do not win back at least the House in November, then it is an empty threat and just self feel good tough guy talk. I am not against impeachment, but I would rather wait until after the election to get real vocal about it since the talk of impeachment now has the potential to motivate the Republican base. Democrats have more than enough issues to fire up their base without getting all pumped up and screaming for impeachment now. Why not wait a little while longer to when that threat actually has the potential to be backed up by actions? You certainly don't see many Democratic leaders who are screaming for Bush's impeachment now.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

54. I just want accountability...

Impeachment is nothing, though it would FEEL GREAT to impeach the little dictator!! I would love to see Bush sitting next to Saddam in that crib like structure, I want him on trail for war crimes. Bush shouldn't get away with ANYTHING! :mad:

[Guaranteed]

60. Yes, you're right. We can hold them accountable

without sacrificing our entire country.

[pa28]

55. We sorely need a thorough set of hearings on a range of topics.

Ideally, there has to be accountability before we start picking up the pieces. Beyond that, I really think the mess has to be cleaned up before we embark on the finer points of an agenda.

[upi402]

56. The Judge ruled he committed HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS

What? No video tape?
What on earth has made Americans so accepting of treason by the traitors in power?
:popcorn: :patriot:

[niyad]

58. ONLY if all of them are going straight to the Hague for war crimes

[Senator]

61. What Is Your "Magic Solution" to "Rule by Signing Statement" ??

Because that's where we are. Already "paralyzed."

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[ToeBot]

62. Progressive legislation? Yeah right, Bush wouldn't sign it and ...

congress wouldn't override the veto. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the surge of "progressive legislation" to be introduced, even if the Democrats take both the House and the Senate.

[onenote]

64. fine. we'd have their votes and vetoes to run against in 08

As opposed to running in 08 on having wasted time and money on an impeachment effort that cannot possibly remove chimpy and that will produce a highly motivated repub base.

[Vinca]

65. Unlike some parties, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Bush must be impeached for the future, not the past. If our country is around in 200 years and people are reading a history book about the early 21st century, I don't want anyone to interpret anything done by this - this - this - dictator (can't say president in the same sentence with idiot son) as being good policy for America, a job well done, etc. or that anyone on the planet respected the fool. Of course, thanks to a certain party's refusal to acknowledge global warming, it's unlikely anything but snakes and lizards will be here in 200 years. (Okay, so the Frist family will still be around.:rofl: )

[spanone]

66. Wrong. Impeach the bastard....at least.

This will send a signal to the world that his policies were wrong and that as a nation we are sending a new message to the world.

[leesa]

68. It's not a "move", it's the law.

[PBass]

69. Exactly! (It's not a "move", it's the law.)

First Congress needs to INVESTIGATE.

If there is legitimate cause for impeachment, then it should be done, because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO...

NOT because impeachment may (or may not be) a good campaign strategy. That's a Mickey Mouse strategy for running a government.

[SaveElmer]

72. I agree...

It would be viewed by the public as partisan, would cripple any chance we have of getting a minimum wage increase, real energy legislation etc through the Congress..

There will be a very short window in which anything can be accomplished before the partisan paralysis that will occur around the 2008 elections.

And frankly, there isn't a chance in hell an impeachment resolution would ever pass the House.

[PBass]

73. Impeachment could only be viewed as partisan BEFORE an investigation.

Seems like maybe people are leapfrogging the whole investigation/hearings aspect, that would have to come first.

You read DU, you are probably up on the various ways Bush has broken (and openly flaunted) the rule of law. Most people are not as well informed as you. One of the benefits of an investigation and hearings, would be that the public would learn how the laws have been broken.

At that point, in my opinion, impeachment would no longer be partisan, it would become bi-partisan. As this information filters out, I believe there are right-thinking Republicans who would have the decency to support impeachment.

One reason I believe this, is because I am firmly convinced that the administration has been illegally spying on political enemies (the Democrats) and not just "the terrorists". I believe that would be revealed, in an investigation.

Also- the President lying to Congress (during the run-up to the war) cannot possibly be viewed as a partisan issue, by anyone who is sane.

[SaveElmer]

74. You are forgetting...

The ability of the media to ignore facts, logic, and what is right in pursuit of a good juicy political fight. Any investigation into whether Bush should be impeached will be portrayed that way by the media. There is no way that it will be spun any other way.

Bush is gone in two years anyway, why not wait until he leaves office to investigate? Witnesses no longer beholden to him, or under his sway will be more likely to divulge information, it will be seen as less partisan, and it would not endanger any chance we have of rolling back the many Bush policies that have harmed the country.

Not only that, if it is viewed as partisan (which IMO it will be), it will endanger Democratic chances of expanding and enlarging our majority.

Given the inevitable partisan spin by the media, the extreme unlikelihood of any impeachment resolution passing, and the hardening of the partisan atmosphere which would jeapordize our legislative agenda, it simply is not worth it to begin impeachment investigations right out of the box.

[Dr Fate]

79. Which Top Democrats are saying all of this about the media?

You are essentially saying that we cant discuss investigating Bush's lies & crimes because Democrats also refuse to discuss media bias.

Should we base all of our decisions on false media perceptions- or should we start speaking the truth for a change?

What makes you think that the media wont attempt to jeapordize our legislative agenda just as they would smear impeachment investigations?

Sorry, but "the media will be unfair to us" is not a convincing excuse anymore for our leadership's laziness & cowardice- the media will be unfair to us no matter what we do.

[Dr Fate]

81. So the media will be fair to us on those issues, but not on impeachment?

I think the media will be unfair to us and distort our positions no matter what we do- be it investigations, Minimum wage, energy, etc, etc, etc.

[CollegeDUer]

75. Impeachment will drench the GOP and kill their poll numbers

Impeachment paralyzed the dems when used against Clinton. Using it against the GOP would stain their name for at least a decade.

[lisainmilo]

76. I can can sleep at night!

The impeachment of GWB and his administatation is necessary....IF, you stand for truth, IF you stand for accountability, IF you stand for civil liberties, IF, you believe in the CONSTITITION.
Like I said yesterday, I can sleep at night, whether or not GWB is impeached, I have done my part and sent in my DIY impeachment to stand up for the priniciples of this nation!
GWB is changing this country....Wake Up America, You Country is Disappearing!

[Dr Fate]

78. I say we at least investigate the bastards...

...then we ask the GOP/media to split hairs over why what happened is NOT inpeachable.

[MiaCulpa]

85. Impeachment didn't 'hurt' the repugs any

When the shoe was on the other foot.

[Dr Fate]

86. In fact, they won the following 3 election cycles after that.

The real reason we wont impeach is because the beltway fat-cats who are supposed to be fighting for Democracy are not aggressive, brave or hard-working enough to get it done.

I dont think our "leaders" are willing to take on the GOP and the media- what they dont get is that the longer they wait to do so, the weaker we get.

[onenote]

87. actually, the repubs lost ground post-impeachment

The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend a full impeachment inquiry on Oct 5, 1998. In the election that followed a month later, the repubs lost 5 seats in the House (the Senate, not yet involved in the impeachment effort, remained unchanged). The vote to acquit Clinton in the Senate occurred in Feb 1999, more than 20 months before the 2000 elections. In the 2000 elections, the repubs lost 2 more House seats (including Jim Rogan who admitted that his support for impeachment is what cost him re-election) and four Senate seats. They also did not win the presidency, but that's another story altogether.

[Marrak]

88. Impeachment ...

unless we can get a SCOTUS ordered resignation and mandatory commitment to St. Elisabeth's. which "ain'ta gonna 'appen."

<>

Definitely insane...

[Dr Fate]

90. What is our excuse/cop-out for not at least holding investigations?

???

[Marrak]

96. Can you imagine the clusterf**k ...

just trying to hold accountable those political appointees that had a role in the Bush-War alone? Then the CPA? etc...I wish we could, believe me...for five long years they been rewarding us with nothing but incompetence and bile. I'm thinking accountability, and it starts at the top. I lean strongly impeach.

[Dr Fate]

89. Bush won the Whitehouse in 2000. The GOP won in 2002 & in '04

I'm not sure what you are talking about. If Impeachment hurt the GOP so much, they sure did laugh all the way to the bank.

The sex scandal angle contributes to the perception that "Democrats are immoral" to this day. It also still contributes to the "Democrats lie too" angle/excuse.

Also, if we really are offically claiming elections are stolen, please show me the quotes from Hillary, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gore or any other top leader expressing that. If we really did win, I need to hear top leadership people say so. All I've heard that from is annonymous DUers.

Any argument that Clinton's impeachment somehow helps us and hurt Bush/GOP is in error.

[onenote]

92. what part of my post couldn't you follow

the two elections in closest proximity to the impeachment were 1998 and 2000. In those two elections the repubs lost a total of 4 Senate seats and 7 house seats. They also lost the 2000 presidential election but for a little thing called the Supreme Court, which you seem to overlook (and they lost the popular vote in the pres election even with the fraud). By 2002 and 2004, 9/11 had long overshadowed impeachment of a former president as a factor in any direction.

[robbedvoter]

109. No kidding! All that Florida unpleasantness was a dream then...

All the rigging wasn't able to take the popular vote from Gore...So, uhm, no.

[Rosco T.]

95. Start the Hearings on every thing they've done... stretch it out...

EXPOSE EVERYTHING.

LOCK UP EVERY SINGLE APPOINTMENT HE TRIES.

OVER RIDE HIS VETOS.

but DON'T give them 'impeachment' as a weapon to use in the elections.

Then on November 8th, IMPEACH HIS ASS.

[ThomWV]

99. Fuck No! Impeachment Is REQUIRED of this asswipe.

The man has broken the law, he continues to break the law. No person on earth is safe from him. He must be impeached and if that means our social programs have to wait, then so be it.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

107. i agree 100,000% - impeach that asshat and his buddies

[paulk]

100. yes and no

The Iraq war will still be here, Afghanistan will still be here, the economy will still be in the toilet, issues like the high cost of health care, energy policy, environmental policy, etc, will still be here, the threat of transnational terrorism will not have gone away - in short - the people of this country will expect our government to spend it's time addressing the very real problems we face. It is quite likely that an impeachment attempt will not be looked on favorably by the majority of Americans and could very well hurt the Democratic's chances of taking back the White House in 2008.

OTOH - The Bush Junta needs to be discredited if the USA is going to regain credibility on the world stage. The Democrats will need to tread carefully - especially considering that the MSM will be looking for any opportunity to cast them in a bad light. Hearings will need to be held - maybe not a full frontal assault - but, the truth MUST come out. The duplicity of the Bush gang must be exposed. Then, and only then - with the facts out in the open - and with an enraged public behind them - can the Democrats push for impeachment.

[ProudDad]

101. With a Dem House, Conyers should immediately hold

and keep holding hearings on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the administration.

Impeachment won't happen though

There are not enough dems with spine, repukes with courage or character, or enough votes in the Senate.

[Independent_Liberal]

104. Conyers has a spine!

And there are other Dems with spines too. I know you don't want to believe it, but there are. Impeachment WILL happen. And yes, there will be enough votes in the Senate. The Republicans will have abandoned Bush by then.

[clark08]

102. Very interesting post.

Your make good comments. I appreciate you not giving into the herd mentiality of impeachment. If we regain control, I hope we govern and not just play the political game of impeachment. That's the GOP road...we should take the higher one.

[Sparkly]

105. Impeachment is not a "political game."

Nor is it "the GOP road."

[SeaBob]

103. impeachment

maybe we should do what other countries do to useless dictators

[Ouabache]

106. Not if there are enough votes FOR it

just because we get a majority in the congress would not necessarily mean there were enough votes though...

[El Fuego]

114. They've committed crimes and must be held accountable.

To say there will be no justice simply because we must stick to an agenda is a disservice to this country and it's people.