Impeachment discussions: Why prefer uninformed opinion over fact-based information?

[omega minimo]

Elizabeth Holtzman, Barbara Jordan, Lewis Lapham, Elizabeth De La Vega, John Nichols, www.afterdowningstreet.org & others have provided solid, researched, Constitutionally-grounded essays in impeachment threads on DU. There is a lot of info out there. IMHO those references, those scholars, lawyers and former Congress members make the case for why impeachment is appropriate. Maybe you can help me understand how people who read these FACTS about the realities of the American governmental system can fall back on OPINION and memes that are based on sand and spin........... I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions.

Buying into assumptions about what will happen without having any real reason to do so is what I have been calling "strategery" (thanks for that, Dubya!)-- different from the "strategy" that some anti-impeachment folks claim. "Strategery" is all about memes, spin, assumptions, mindgames; relinquishing the outcome to the lameness of others; gambling the future rather than taking responsibility for it.

A DUer asked this question and claimed that those informative threads did not provide an answer:

"Please explain how impeachment alone, without a conviction in a Senate trial -- which we couldn't get now, since it requires a 2/3 majority -- would be a good thing for us?
Why do you want Bush to be able to say he was tried for impeachment crimes and found NOT GUILTY?
Why not just make him wallow in investigations for two years and not give him a chance to free himself in a show trial in the Senate?"


Once we have some solid background info, I would challenge these assumptions that:

"Impeachment as an act was totally trivialized by the Republicans during the Clinton era. There's no putting that horse back in the barn."

Yes they TRIED that but why fall for the bullshit? Really? Do you believe that "Impeachment as an act was totally trivialized" or do you believe that OTHER people believe that? The "horse that won't be put back in the barn"-- unless it is in cans for dog food-- is the central driving force of the Constitution provided by the Founders and preserved (or abandoned) by each generation.

"Bush wouldn't feel disgraced, he would just point out that the same thing had happened to Clinton."

Excuse me but where the hell are you getting that one? How can anyone KNOW THAT?

"The only way to make a real difference would be to convict Bush, and we don't have the votes for that."

"The only way to make a real difference..."

Impeachment and the process will make a difference by educating zombified Americans about their government, their citizenship, and flush out the national abcess "healed" over by Ford's pardon of Nixon.

"The only way to make a real difference would be to convict Bush..."

Who says? Who? Who is deciding ahead of time what the process woulda/coulda/shoulda be and determining ahead of time that there is no point to it? Again, CHALLENGE THE MINDFUCKERS! Don't buy the line ahead of time and wimp out because of it.

"The only way to make a real difference would be to convict Bush, and we don't have the votes for that."

Who said? How do you know? Even if you make the above CHALLENGED assumptions based on impossible predictions and capitulation to the worst case scenario NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE VOTE WOULD GO.

Sorry. That's reality. Honest. No one knows what will happen. No one knows how many Members on the R side of the aisle will suddenly remember what their sworn duty to the Constitution actually is; how many of them will hear from constituents who remember Watergate and Iran/Contra and know that Gerald Ford did not "heal" the nation by pardoning the crook Nixon. Instead of counting Republican votes, maybe we should be discussing how many Democrats are prepared to stand for Truth vs. Strategery. Hmmmmmm?

I don't buy all the assumptions that these arguments are based on. I don't see these assumptions supported by facts, links, research, law, Constitutional references, essays-- it's all Think Tank Meme Bullshit.

They're selling you out. And you don't have to buy it.

The same arguments keep floating around DU. The same lack of information (although plenty information has been made available on plenty threads) rules. The same personal-opinion-pretending-to-be-the-be-all-and-end-all previals. More fun than learning something you didn't already know?

[porphyrian]

1. You can't beat this drum loud enough. - n/t

[omega minimo]

2. SNAFU

I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions.

[porphyrian]

11. I think they're attempting to frame the idea of impeachment as the ridiculous claim...

...thus putting the burden of proof on those calling for it. However, it doesn't seem to matter how many times the facts are provided, some people just won't accept it. Luckily, they are in the shrinking minority.

[GOTV]

77. Are we suppose to link to the page where 67 Senators have not declared support for conviction?

It can't be done.

I could link to the constitution to show that an impeachment doesn't stop a president - only conviction does.

No, I think it's up to the "impeach now" crowd to make the case that impeachment will get us what we want.

You've made that case well enough to many DUers, just not all of us.

[omega minimo]

84. Please proceed to the Naysayers Forum..................

"I could link to the constitution to show that an impeachment doesn't stop a president - only conviction does."

That would be an answer to the OP question-- show us where the "don't impeach 'til it's convenient crowd" finds literature to support the arguments. If you read any of the authors mentioned in the OP, they explain the value and the importance of impeachment and refute your claim about the limited value of impeachment. This is one of those impossible-to-predict predictions repeated ad nauseum on DU. Where's the proof?



"No, I think it's up to the "impeach now" crowd to make the case that impeachment will get us what we want."

All the articles referenced here make that case quite clearly. The "don't impeach 'til it's convenient crowd" has yet to make a convincing case and show documentation for it.

Hence the OP.

If you want to be the first to answer the invitation for citations, have at it. :thumbsup:

[GOTV]

100. "Where's the proof?" The proof is the Senate behavior over the last 6 years. n/t

[mmonk]

3. I know I've given up.

Some people just go along with politicians if they like them, even if to their detriment. To them, it's like a sports contest.

[omega minimo]

4. "Team players," eh? Good point.

[mmonk]

5. Yep.

That's why there isn't any links to any credible anti-impeachment arguments (because there aren't any).

[omega minimo]

6. Thanks for clearing that up

:rofl:

[mmonk]

50. Don't mention it.

;)

[bryant69]

7. What would we have togive up to push for impeachment?

What programs would have to go on the backburner so we could get the political capital to pursue impeachment immediately?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[omega minimo]

10. What will you be giving up if you don't?

This OP is about information, not opinions-- and strategy, not "strategery."

[bryant69]

14. Oh I apologize.

I forgot for a moment that only a Bush-Bot could think there is a downside to immediate impeachment.

Bryant

[omega minimo]

19. My question mirrored yours. Please consider the OP:

"Maybe you can help me understand how people who read these FACTS about the realities of the American governmental system can fall back on OPINION and memes that are based on sand and spin........... I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions."

[bryant69]

22. Maybe the OP is blind to arguments that don't reflect his preconceptions

Wouldn't be the first time someone suffered with that problem.

Bryant

[omega minimo]

24. you seem blind to an OP question that doesn't fit your preconceptions

please consider and answer the OP if you like :hi:

[bryant69]

26. There'd be little point.

At this point there's nothing to be said - it's clear that at this board those who favor impeachement and those who oppose it are in reality about 2 feet about. Both sides want to see the new congress investigate the President aggressively, both sides want the House and Senate to pursue investigation if and when such investigations make it a possibility. In reality there's not much difference between the two positions - but admitting we largely agree would deprive us of the joy of believing those we disagree with are dunderheads.

Bryant

[omega minimo]

30. Since "In reality there's not much difference between the two positions"

I asked the question of why people who argue vociferously about it -- arguments NOT apparently based on "expert opinions" about ya know, stuff, like the LAW and stuff-- continue to argue and not address the FACTS of the law.


"- but admitting we largely agree would deprive us of the joy of believing those we disagree with are dunderheads."


There is no shame in learning and modifying opinions based on new information. Some of us come here for that. There is no "joy" in "believing those we disagree with are dunderheads."

[bryant69]

56. So you think congress already has all the evidence they need to impeach?

Do you think they should not waste time on investigation?

Bryant

[omega minimo]

59. "Strawman? Izzat you????" I'd like an answer to the OP question, pleeeeeeez

mmonk (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-09-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. So would that make yours fact?
Here's a definition of a straw man
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

[bryant69]

60. I'm just trying to determine what actually distinguishes your

position from mine. Assuming the Congress acted honorably, how soon should impeachment hearings in the House start?

Bryant

[mmonk]

52. Immediate impeachment.

Is that a straw dog term for defending the impeachment is off the table position?

[Warpy]

8. Building outrage through investigations first is the best

strategy. You have to scare GOPs into voting to impeach one of their own, and nasty investigations they KNOW will spill over onto them is a great motivator.

I can see three reasons for instant impeachment, though: First, and all too likely, he simply vetoes every piece of legislation that comes out of a Democratic Congress, including the BUDGET. Second, he tries to widen the war to the whole Middle East, especially if he uses nuclear weapons. Third, and least likely, he doesn't like where investigations are going, declares martial law and tries to dissolve Congress, something he is not permitted to do under the constitution.

Those are the three outrages that would cause his immediate removal from office. Incompetence and corruption aren't enough, sadly, and most of Congress sees those as his major shortcomings. They really don't want to think about things like voiding the Geneva Conventions, lying us into a disastrous and unnecessary war, and being completely asleep at the switch and allowing 9/11 to happen.

[mmonk]

12. Impeachment is investigations and charges.

The vote for removal from office or not isn't, it's the trial after articles of impeachment (read charges or indictments) are submitted. Whether he is acquitted by the senate or not is irrelevant because he is already impeached at that point (just not convicted). By saying impeachment is off the table, Pelosi is saying there will be no charges of wrongdoing coming from the House. Thus this is an Iran Contra redo, nothing else and will be ignored and forgotten.

[omega minimo]

23. impeachment prevents the history from being rewritten (E. Holtzman's point, DU thread)

"By saying impeachment is off the table, Pelosi is saying there will be no charges of wrongdoing coming from the House. Thus this is an Iran Contra redo, nothing else and will be ignored and forgotten."

[sinkingfeeling]

9. I firmly believe we MUST get articles of impeachment through the House and then, by overwhelming

public opinion force Republican Senators to vote with the Democrats for conviction. One of the news websites had it as a question a week or so ago and the vote of over 400,000 was 87% to impeach. We true legal articles and facts about Bush/Cheney's violations of the 'rule of law', we could convict.

[dogday]

13. Culture of Corruption starts at the Top nt

[rinsd]

15. Curious definition of facts you got there.

Seems like a bunch of straw men and an appeal to the opinion of experts.

"The same personal-opinion-pretending-to-be-the-be-all-and-end-all previals"

Oh the irony.

[mmonk]

16. The only straw man argument is

the country will be better off if we don't impeach and the democrats will be in a better position to win in 08 if we don't impeach, and there exists a real check and balance on power or you can't pass legislation to help the American people if we impeach members of this administration.

[rinsd]

34. Learn the definition of s strawman.

[omega minimo]

37. One thing's for sure-- so far you haven't actually said anything

:eyes:

[rinsd]

39. Oh I am sorry

I should have stated that I feel arguing with someone who considers their opinion to be fact is quite fruitless.

Now you can certainly make your arguments and do so persuasively but stop calling your opinion fact.

[mmonk]

42. So would that make yours fact?

Here's a definition of a straw man
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

[rinsd]

45. LOL. Where have I called my opinion fact?

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

Excellent, now you have a definition. Now as you can see the OP cherry picked a few quotes and offered them as the opposition view a points including few that were quite spurious.

[mmonk]

47. What is the opposition view?

[rinsd]

49. Sigh

That was the point. The OP created a false opposition than proceeded to knock it down while calling his/her opinion fact.

[mmonk]

51. Don't I need to know the opposition viewpoint in order

to make that determination?

[omega minimo]

72. Sigh. Poor uncomprehending you. Now enough with the false accusations.

"Now you can certainly make your arguments and do so persuasively but stop calling your opinion fact."

"Excellent, now you have a definition. Now as you can see the OP cherry picked a few quotes and offered them as the opposition view a points including few that were quite spurious."

"That was the point. The OP created a false opposition than proceeded to knock it down while calling his/her opinion fact."



The OP did NONE of the things you claim. I hate to have to spell it out for you, because the OP is clear enough.

The first line refers to the fact-based analyses of various authors. The "opinion" I ventured was "IMHO those references, those scholars, lawyers and former Congress members make the case for why impeachment is appropriate."

AND THEN ASKED THE QUESTION:

"Maybe you can help me understand how people who read these FACTS about the realities of the American governmental system can fall back on OPINION and memes that are based on sand and spin........... I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions."

And whaddya know?! So far in this thread, NO ANSWERS.



The OP says: "A DUer asked this question and claimed that those informative threads did not provide an answer:"

"A DUER." A" DUer!!!!! There were examples provided of the sorts of discussions taking place (repeatedly). AT NO POINT DID THE OP "cherry picked a few quotes and offered them as the opposition view."


More of the OP's "opinion":

"Once we have some solid background info, I would challenge these assumptions that..."

"I don't buy all the assumptions that these arguments are based on. I don't see these assumptions supported by facts, links, research, law, Constitutional references, essays-- it's all Think Tank Meme Bullshit."



This OP referenced the documentation of various scholars that have already been presented in DU threads. And invited an answer from the folks who spew opinion and "strategery" rather than provide any sort of supportive literature AT ALL, EVER.

Your little snipes and incomprehension of what the OP said and more false assumptions about what it DIDN'T say reinforce the impression that some "opposition" is just snarky, uninformed and unwilling to read anything that might educate.

[omega minimo]

44. Read the OP fer gawd's sake. Read something. Snark attacks are pointless

[rinsd]

46. Use the ignore button.

Its what its there for.

[omega minimo]

57. What are you here for?

[omega minimo]

25. The documentation provided you write off as "the opinon of experts" as if that's a BAD thing?

:wow:

okay then--

"Maybe you can help me understand how people who read these FACTS about the realities of the American governmental system can fall back on OPINION and memes that are based on sand and spin........... I have not seen any anti-impeachment threads that provided links or informed arguments beyond personal opinion about (questionable) strategy and (impossible to predict) predictions."

[rinsd]

35. You call them FACTS when they are opinion!

[omega minimo]

36. Have you read any of them? Which ones?

:popcorn:

[ellisonz]

64. Mmm...popcorn.

:popcorn:

[Zhade]

87. Uh, no, you're completely wrong. You haven't even read the people she referenced, have you?

Their arguments are full of fact - things like, oh, Constitutional law.

Maybe you should actually read up instead of arguing so hard against arguments you're uninformed about.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. First We Should Let Congress Investigate And See What Happens From There.

Nothing wrong with going down the legitimate path.

On a side note:

\"NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE VOTE WOULD GO.

Sorry. That is reality.\"

Actually, I would say believing that as if all was equal is beyond silly and foolish, but to each their own. Anyone can throw out the good ole \"No one TRULY knows\" argument with just about anything in life, but rational logic and deduction could basically rule out and cast aside most of those claims.

In this case, there are somewhere along the lines of a million to one odds that we would not have anywhere near the votes necessary to convict, and one in a million odds that we would. When such a lopsided and apparent gap arises, a rational and logical mind can easily deduce that the former is the outcome to go by. 99.9999% of the time they would be right. I would say that would be more than enough to justify standing on that side of the argument.

[mmonk]

18. Impeachment is off the table means

there will be no charges (articles) produced by the House to present to the senate. In other words, he is immune from charges no matter what. It also means there won't be a vote.

[Senator]

20. The Investigations are Over Already

Guess you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3071745&mesg_id=3071745

Or was there some other mystery you wanted uncovered?

What else do we need to know?

--

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. There Is A Very, Very, Very Relevant Word Of My Post You Failed To Comprehend.

Congress.

Congressional investigations.

Congress = Congressional

Congress <> Some knee jerk impeach now! impeach now! crowd on DU.

[omega minimo]

33. The "knee jerk" crowd is the one with the opinions minus the documented/linked facts.

[mmonk]

48. What's an impeach now crowd?

What's so great about the "impeachment is off the table" crowd and how are they and their positions better?

[Senator]

61. Sorry, Only Impeachment Can Make Congress Relevant

Or has someone divined the magic potion to circumvent "Rule By Signing Statement?"

The oldest GOP joke in DC still rings funny: "Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."

Remember ... Only Impeachment is an action.

--

[AZBlue]

53. That investigation means as much to Congress as Bush's word.

The ONLY investigation that will count toward impeachment is one done by Congress itself. NO ONE ELSE'S MATTERS. Let's stop arguing this point and push for an investigation - the investigation, the one that will matter.

[Senator]

69. And any Non-Impeachment "Investigation" means even less than that

Because there's really nothing to investigate. The regime admits and "defends" their impeachable offenses.

All that is substantively left is an up or down vote on bushism vs. Americanism.

==

[GOTV]

78. There is plenty to investigate...

... #1 how we were led into the Iraq war.

"All that is substantively left is an up or down vote on bushism vs. Americanism."

Today an up or down vote in the Senate would result in a Bush acquittal because there are 49 GOP Senators there.

[omega minimo]

82. Let's not pretend that it's Either/Or, okay?

:eyes:

[GOTV]

83. I'm not. It's first things first.

Don't fire your weapons until they're in range.

[omega minimo]

85. Don't fling you non sequiturs in circular arguments

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3074894&mesg_id=3075351

[GOTV]

92. Ok, I won't. Still, first things first.

First investigate,
convince the public,
convince the Senators
Then impeach.

[omega minimo]

102. OHGIVEUS AFUCKINGBREAK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I ALREADY SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET'S NOT PRETEND IT'S EITHER/OR


:puke:



This phony bullshit is perpetrated by those who don't know any better AND SOME WHO DO :evilfrown:

[GOTV]

107. No "FUCKINGBREAK" until you realize that there's work to do before we're ready for impeachment.

Impeachment will not work unless the Dems are willing to do their homework.

[omega minimo]

112. Please answer #108

regarding your "homework"



As for this post, see-- I don't buy these false assumptions. THAT'S WHAT THE OP IS ABOUT.

"No "FUCKINGBREAK" until you realize that there's work to do before we're ready for impeachment."

[GOTV]

115. The "homework" is building your case before trhe American people BEFORE starting impeachment n/t

[porphyrian]

113. Yeah, apparently that work is to put up with two or three thick-headed contrarians...

...who insist their way is the only way, despite what else is said.
:eyes:

[GOTV]

118. What else has been said other than "The Senators will magically appear once Impeachment begins"?

We need the Senators.
They have not said they are there.
Until they do we are not ready.
Impeachment doesn't add more to the facts at hand.
Unimpressed Senators remain unimpressed.

Two things can change this
1) find new facts through investigations that will impress the Senators
2) Spend more time explaining the facts you have so that the American people will finally demand Bush's head and thus force the Senators to convict.

Do you have any argument against that other than just asserting that the Senators will start calling for Bush's removal if the impeachment process is started? It is a FACT that no Senator has called for Bush's removal at this point. Therefore I'd say the facts are on my side.

[porphyrian]

119. You're the only one talking about magic, so I don't get your confusion.

And I don't think you're much of an authority on facts, given the dubious nature of your claims.

[Senator]

120. No, there really isn't ...

... unless one's goal is to rationalize inaction or simply waste time and effort on unnecessary, masturbatory endeavors.

The war crimes and illegal spying charges are sufficient to impeach and remove the regime. There is no reason to take up other matters until after the ongoing danger of their access to power has been removed. You don't leave a violent criminal on the street while you investigate everything you suspect they've done. When you can prove a single charge, you act.

And for these 2 charges the regime admits their actions. These are the arrogations and abuses of power that characterise bushism. These are also the charges least likely to be dismissed by GOP Senators. In fact, several GOP Senators have already expressed their disapproval publicly. And like with the current opposition to "The Surge," it only takes a few to cast the effort as a unified, bipartisan challenge to a rogue regime.

As for your "#1," we already know that we were terrorized into war with a bomb threat of "mushroom clouds!" But no amount of investigation is likely to demonstrate that this fraud was perpetrated with malice aforethought. In this case their fig leaf rhetoric of "we believed" puts one in the position of having to claim mind-reading ability. Investigation would be an exercise in futility here.

But impeachment is not a legal process, therefore the charge as it exists now can still be levied. It can be argued that their state of mind is not relevant, as they had the duty not to terrorize the public with such scant evidence of threat. It will still advance the effort, whether or not it rises to a formal article of impeachment.

The same is true for other charges. Whether the regime is evil or simply dangerously incompetent is not at issue. Impeachment is a defensive act to remove a continuing threat to the Constitution. The record is ample to support that needed defense.

Criminal investigations and prosecution must wait until the Constitution is out of harm's way. As must less urgent political matters.

Otherwise the perfect, and perhaps the selfish, becomes the enemy of the good.

--

[rpgamerd00d]

21. Does anyone have links to all those articles in one handy place?

[omega minimo]

27. Do a search and many are cross-referenced in the threads

:thumbsup:

[rpgamerd00d]

29. What do I search on?

[omega minimo]

31. DU

[rpgamerd00d]

40. No, I meant, what word do I search on? "Impeach" gave too many results

[omega minimo]

41. This might help. Fer starters. Names in OP.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Barbara Jordan, Lewis Lapham, Elizabeth De La Vega, John Nichols, www.afterdowningstreet.org & others

[rpgamerd00d]

43. Bah, no luck.

Oh well.

[omega minimo]

71. Here's a new post of an essay (informed opinion)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3081588


Did you try Advanced Search? Some may be archived. Or google the names in the OP. Or visit www.afterdowningstreet.org

[omega minimo]

75. Citizen Surge to Protect Constitution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3079411&mesg_id=3079411

[BuyingThyme]

28. kcik

[porphyrian]

38. Anyone provide anti-impeachment facts yet? - n/t

[mmonk]

54. Don't hold your breath.

[porphyrian]

55. I know better than that. - n/t

[ellisonz]

65. Actually,

The OP's argument can be better termed "impeachment in due time."

Sorry, that's politics.:nopity:

[omega minimo]

73. "Due time" is when impeachable offenses have/are occurring

Not sure I get your point..........

[GOTV]

79. Fact: impeachment without conviction = Bush gets away with it. re: the constitution n/t

[GOTV]

80. Fact: 67 Senators have not come out supporting conviction n/t

[porphyrian]

95. 67 Senators have not yet come out supporting the 2008 President-elect, either.

That doesn't mean they won't when the time comes. Really, come up with something else.

[GOTV]

98. We don't need Senators to support the 2008 Senator elect. You've made no point. n/t

[porphyrian]

101. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I don't blame you for your stubbornness, but your insistence on focusing on the end of the process before we can begin it is getting a little irritating.

[GOTV]

103. Whatever. You need Senatorial support to remove prez. You don't to elect prez. Try again. n/t

[porphyrian]

104. Right. Like I said, irritating. - n/t

[GOTV]

105. Irritating is OK, as long at I'm not delusional. (Senate witholds support on prez elect! Oh No!!!)

We need Senate support to remove the president.
If you don't have that, you have nothing.

Do you have it?
...
..
.

Ok, you've got nothing.

[porphyrian]

106. No, it really isn't OK. You have one message, and it's empty.

The votes will be there when we get to the point we need the votes. They may or may not be there now, because the impeachment process has not even yet begun. It's funny that you think I'm the one who has nothing, but I'll let you keep this going as long as you want.

[GOTV]

109. Name the Senators. They are required. If you can't you've got nothing, Check the constitution.

"The votes will be there when we get to the point we need the votes"

Wishful thinking. They know what we know. If they are not impressed now, then you haven't done your job.

Or name the magical process by which impeachment will transform the facts we know now that have not convinced the Senators to call for removal, into facts that do convince Senators to vote both against their party and against their constituents to support removal?

Not one of you have done that. You just assert that the Senators will magically do your bidding at a future point. Even 67% of the public fails to support impeachment.

[porphyrian]

111. You haven't listened to a damn thing.

I'm not surprised, though, and that's one of those irritating qualities I mentioned. You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. I don't have to name anyone because impeachment proceedings haven't yet begun. You don't believe it, but you are the one being ridiculous, not me.

[GOTV]

114. I've listened to you say the Senators will magically appear - I just don't believe in magic...

But you do so, more power to ya, I hope you're right.

The dems are the majority in the HoR. The Dem agenda is the HoR's agenda. They may talk about whatever they want. Impeachment proceedings are not necessary or even helpful now. Dig all the dirt you want at your leisure.

Whatever you can do in impeachment you can do now without the negative connotations of impeachment. So do whatever you'd like to do. No "mojo" is added to investigations because they are part of an impeachment proceeding.

Make your case.
Start counting Senators.
When you get to 67 you're all done but the paper work.

If you start with impeachment, and the 67 Senators don't appear - you're fucked.

Do shit in the right order and succeed. Do what feels good first and fail.

[porphyrian]

116. Now you're either lying or delusional. You are the one talking about magic.

I've said nothing of the sort unless I was quoting you. But, then, I don't expect you to hear anything but your way and what you consider the wrong way. You should just know that it's irritating.

[GOTV]

81. Fact: most polls last year found minority support for impeachment:

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

[Zhade]

88. WRONG. That's blatantly false.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

A majority favor impeachment, contrary to your false statement (yes, if it's show he lied; since it has been, duh).

[omega minimo]

90. Thank you, Zhade. I think kpete posted some polls on this also

:toast:

[GOTV]

93. Are they also ancient like Zhade's (For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005)

way to stay on top of things.

Are you guys at all serious?
Then why play games?
2005?
Do you know it's 2007?

[omega minimo]

97. What's your vested interest? What game are you playing?

[GOTV]

99. Not wastng trime on short term feel-good measures that ultimately hurt us.

I don't like it when the GOP does it, and I don't like it when we do it.

You want to protect the constitution? There's a way to do it that works and there's a bunch of ways to do it that don't.

Too many of you don't want to do the work.

Impeachment WONT work right now. You need public support, which gets you Senatorial support, which gets you a successful impeachment. I don't want to give Bush the acquittal that Clinton got.

Clinton deserved it (the acquittal). Bush does not.

[omega minimo]

108. The real dispute is over what "ultimately hurts us."

This post of yours will resonate one way or the other, based on whether you have read any of the referenced authors, have any of the background, or alternatively cite (A DU FIRST EVER!!) any literature supporting your suppositions (aside from polls)-- or if this post is just more of the "strategery" and unsupported assumptions that the OP challenged.


"Too many of you don't want to do the work."




For the record, Clinton didn't "deserve" the IMPEACHMENT in the FIRST PLACE :puke:

[GOTV]

110. A Bush acquittal hurts us and

[omega minimo]

117. Okay. Clearly you're not serious. Enough with the wankfest.

[GOTV]

91. I'll go poll for poll with you.

Your info is from 2005.

My info is from 2006.

Try to stay current, we're talking about the future of the nation after all - and you want to play these silly games.

[omega minimo]

94. ALL RIGHT GOTV-- SHOW US YOUR POLE

Holy Fukkin Shite. As you say "we're talking about the future of the nation after all - and you want to play these silly games" BASED ON POLLS?

[GOTV]

96. Here's one, More recent than 2005

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 16-17 2006

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should 26% Should Not 69%

What do you have?

[cool user name]

58. Thank you!

You don't know how frustrating it is, especially with this meme:

"We don't have the votes in the Senate."

:wtf:

How can one make that prediction?

[omega minimo]

74. My least favorite is:

"Impeachment as an act was totally trivialized by the Republicans during the Clinton era. There's no putting that horse back in the barn."

answer in OP:
"Yes they TRIED that but why fall for the bullshit? Really? Do you believe that "Impeachment as an act was totally trivialized" or do you believe that OTHER people believe that? The "horse that won't be put back in the barn"-- unless it is in cans for dog food-- is the central driving force of the Constitution provided by the Founders and preserved (or abandoned) by each generation."

[Senator]

62. kick

[ellisonz]

63. K & R

:applause:

[Imagevision]

66. Impeachment via sworn testimony and hard evidence -Iraq war - 9-11 - Katrina response

[Kurovski]

67. K&R. I know some folks arguing against impeachment

are good Democrats and progressives--and some others--perhaps just a few, aren't anything of the sort.

Just saying.

Thanks for furthering the discussion on impeachment in an intelligent way.

[omega minimo]

68. Well K, ya gotta wonder......................

all these well-meaning replies and still no apparent "non-impeachment" fact based analysis..................




:boring:

[dorkulon]

70. Crush, Kill, Destroy: Why Bush must be impeached

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3236

[Rex]

76. You could ask that questions about 911 and Iraq.

Why cover up and obstruct investigations? Why lie about the reasons for going to war?

Seems to me there is a preponderance of evidence of criminal activity, at least criminal negligence.

[omega minimo]

86. ...and Katrina/NOLA

"Seems to me there is a preponderance of evidence of criminal activity, at least criminal negligence."

[Rex]

89. It should be interesting to see what Chimmpy says in a few minutes.

Maybe he will crack up finally on TV.