Folks, impeachment isn't going to happen

[bluestateguy]

And I'll tell you why.

When Richard Nixon was president much of the Washington establishment was liberal and/or Democratic. The bureaucracy, the courts and the Congress were all controlled by liberals and/or Democrats. The news media was a lot more adversarial to people in power (after having been lied to in Vietnam). We also didn't have a well organized religious right back then. In short, the dominant governing regime of the time was liberal and/or Democratic. Nixon was playing ball in the opposing team's stadium, which might explain why he gave us OSHA, the EPA, the Endangered Species Act and supported affirmative action. On domestic policy, he leaned left because that was the still the dominant mode of governing in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Bush does not face this dilemma. For Bush, the bulk of the Washington establishment is conservative and/or Republican, and the news media is much more concentrated and more corporate than it was 30 years ago. The right's noise machine is a lot more powerful now than it was 30 years ago. He's playing ball in his home ballpark, even if he's losing the game.

So what if the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress? The likelihood of this is small, but even if it does happen, their majority will likely be small in Congress. There will be enough DLC/Vichy Democrats who won't have the stomach for impeachment and will wimp out. And if they started the impeachment process the corporate media would be bitching and moaning loudly, as would the right wing noise machine, and the noise would be deafening. This would cause impeachment to fizzle.

The best thing we can do is to work to weaken Bush politically. To expedite his lame duckerry and shrink his presidency to a point where his political clout is weakened in the Washington community. Then his bills won't get considered in Congress and he will further lose control of the American political agenda.

[converted_democrat]

1. I think we will take it back in 2006.. Read this.. There are no

pukes in America..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x561991

[depakid]

6. Wish that would come true

but it's an empty wish.

The Dems are doing everything in their power to lose a 7th straight congressional election- and I think they're well on their way to succeeding.

[helderheid]

17. I'm not sure we've been losing. Diebolding, for certain.

[SmokingJacket]

30. That's an imaginary article... look carefully... nt

[converted_democrat]

34. Damn, it fooled me.. Thanks for pointing that out.. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. I've thought about this before...

...and I honestly don't see the political logic of impeaching Bush. It's not as if removing Bush would change any of the policies he's pursued. If anything it'd get worse with Cheney in charge. Oh right - impeach him, too. We've still got rummy and about a thousand other wingnuts. I just don't think it'd work. And it'd be a horribly long and bloody fight. The American people have a low tolerance for massive disruption of the orderly proceedings of government. Remember the extremely negative reactions to the Republicans shutting down the federal government?

[npincus]

10. oh, I CAN see the logic. Let the B*sh presidency go down in the

history books as a tragic failure; his policies, recklessness, abandonment of his responsiblities, and his imperial-style presidency need to be repudiated for future generations.

I think impeachment WILL be a consequence if Dems can triumph in 2006- it has to be. If this country is an organism, B*sh and his ilk must be purged for our country to recapture it's principles here and in the eyes of the world.

VISUALIZE it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Visualisations or not,

Removing Bush does nothing to remove the Republicans from the white house. It doesn't change the policies. All it does is get rid of Bush and put a new face on the same old administration.

[npincus]

15. In the absence of a trial at the Hague for being a war criminal

B*sh NEEDS to be punished, his incompetence, recklessness and mismangaement of this country resulting in the Iraq tragedy NEED to be rejected, and furthermore, he has already admnitted to BREAKING THE LAW. Twice: authorizing warrantless wiretaps, now bypassing the 45-day review process for DP World, even though it was reaquired as a matter of national secutiry. How can we as a country go forward if we DO NOT deal with this malfeasance? We have gone so far off the rails, we must recapture our good sense and show the world that the US has recovered its senses.

It goes beyond political party. Of course we are stuck with a republican president until 2008. That's not the point. THIS Republican has so befouled the Constituion, and been so incompetent, he MUST be fired.

BTW if a Dem was so fucking stupid and reckless and destructive I would be saying the same thing. If a Dem could be impeached over a BJ, how can we NOT impeach this tyrant?

And (finally)- we are stuck with a Repug president. If there is an impeachment, i think it makes voters way more likely to vote Dem in 2008.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. OK, but this is what I'm saying...

"Punish Bush" is a rubbish political platform.

[npincus]

22. but I think "accountability" is a word we should be using.

and that extends beyond B*sh.

I have a fever to see him disgraced and his presidency written as a stain in the history books. "comeuppance" would describe it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. It was, however, the lack of impeachments and criminal prosecutions

following the Reagan years that put this crop of criminals in power. Iran/Contra? Illegal mining of Nicaraguan harbors? Death squads run out of the embassy in Honduras? Secret deal to hold the Iran hostages until Carter left office? And how many other scandals down the memory hole?

If they had suffered the consequences for their actions then they would not be running things today.

Impeach? Yes! HELL YES!

[Solomon]

3. I agree. Impeachment was never an option, but I still think it was good

to use the word, as in, "he ought to be impeached."

[Yavin4]

4. Bush Is Already Weak Politically

His SS reform plan failed miserably. Iraq is falling into a civil war. Katrina exposed him as an idiot, and the port deal has turned off his own base of supporters.

Democrats need to start talking about their agenda and the future. We need to take back congress and use it as springboard to take back the WH in 2006.

The Bush presidency is virtually over.

[gordianot]

18. He still has the threat of Richard Nixon, to create more mayhem.

If you take the view he is merely incompetent imagine what he and his equally disgusting minions will do with a purpose. They accused Clinton of trashing the White House, imagine what it will look like if the Democrats ever manage to return (only reason Democrats will not return is voter fraud).

[mtnsnake]

5. Like hell it isn't

"So what if the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress? The likelihood of this is small, but even if it does happen, their majority will likely be small in Congress. There will be enough DLC/Vichy Democrats who won't have the stomach for impeachment and will wimp out."

What, did these "wimpy DLC" Democrats tell you this or something?

Look, if we win back the majority, and we DON'T impeach, then these elected officials of ours, all of them, can count on kissing their party goodbye and losing their jobs.

Not impeaching Bush, if we have the majority to do so, would be a crime worthy of impeachment itself.

[Daylin Byak]

8. I don't understand...

Everyone else says the Democrats won't win, that fine. But when I say it I get bitched at, what the hell?

[European Socialist]

14. You need to be a DU legacy poster to criticize Democrats.

[Independent_Liberal]

7. You don't understand. He HAS to be impeached!

If we keep letting the Bushes get away with it, they're going to keep returning and keep getting worse.

Let me put it this way:

Reagan-Worse Than Nixon
Bush I-Worse Than Reagan
Bush II-Need I say more?

We have to nail the bastards for good this time. If we don't, America will be hated forever and we'll be sending the message that we stand for these atrocities. Is that what you want?

Please believe me when I say they MUST be punished!

[Solly Mack]

9. I agree that he must be punished

and not just him

but I don't think it will happen.

and you are 100% correct - it will keep happening if the Bush Regime and all of his enablers get away with their crimes

but America tends to lie about her crimes and cover them up as much as possible. America tends to sugarcoat her history...and that's what will happen this time around as well.

[Independent_Liberal]

11. Only if we let it.

It will be our fault if they get away it because we kept whining around and saying, "There's nothing we can do." Not even trying is the same as being complicit in all the crimes. Do you want to look complicit? I sure as hell don't.

[Solly Mack]

16. I already do "look" complicit as an American

Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles - but I live outside America - and ALL Americans are viewed as complicit already.

We got a pass after Selection 2000 - based on the premise that the people would rise up against such an obvious coup - but that didn't happen. But after 2004, when it "looked" to the outside world that , apparently, Americans didn't mind their dictator, that pass was seeya - bye- gone. And while most people blame the Bush Regime and our Congress more, they still see a people who are supposed to be champions of human rights doing nothing and they wonder "why?"

And then the Congress people who had the power to stop Bush got re-elected during the last Congressional cycle - well, if you're continually re-electing those who back and enable Bush, then you do "look" complicit to others. It doesn't matter if you didn't vote that person, it still "looks" like the people are complicit.

Now, while you and I know there are those in Congress who will never opt to hold the Bush Regime responsible and they are fighting attempts by other people in Congress at every turn - but people outside the US still see us as a "whole" and that the people aren't stopping the crimes.

We already do look complicit. Whether that's the "reality" or not - it IS how it "looks"

People outside of America know our government is corrupt - but they still don't understand why "the people" aren't marching on DC en force. They don't understand why we aren't risking life and limb to stop Bush.

America won't be worth the price of ticket to visit if the Bush Regime and all his enablers are not held accountable - but I still don't think it will happen.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I'm beginning to agree with you

not 100% yet. I still worry about the disruption of impeachment UNLESS it is a "slam dunk."

But I'm really beginning to pay attention to the concept.

[gordianot]

12. No matter which Repuke holds the White House in 2007 and 2008.

We are all in grave danger. Republicans offer NO security to Americans.

[Dr. Jones]

23. Bunch of defeatists!!

Finally for ONCE we have the GOP and Republicans beginning to question, dare I even say break with Bush and White House policy! And now you're saying impeachment will never happen??

This OP is SO 2 years ago!!

[bluestateguy]

24. Well I guess I got slammed by the "soft on Bush" crowd

Toodles!

[Dr. Jones]

28. Your defeatist attitude doesn't bear up given the facts

of our current situation. We have MANY Repubs who are now distancing themselves from Bush and the White House. Those MANY Repubs are now willing to at least THINK about standing up and checking the power of the Executive Branch. This port deal is the cincher - so many Americans are against the deal, and the Repubs know if they don't heed to the demands ot the public, the public will vote their asses RIGHT OUTTA DC.

Self-preservation is the key here. Put enough pressure on the Repubs in the House and we can create a groundswell for impeachment of this current unelected President. If they are told in no uncertain terms that THEIR ASSES ARE ON THE LINE if they don't support House Resolution 635, maybe they'll think twice about supporting an increasingly unpopular and corrupt White House. What is House Resolution 635?

H.RES.635

Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (introduced 12/18/2005)      Cosponsors (27)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00635:

So get off your pity pot and start BOMBARDING your reps in Congress that they support House Resolution 635!!

[porphyrian]

25. You're right. We should just stop trying altogether.

:eyes:

[Demand Justice]

26. Accept nothing less

John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense."

Congress needs to stop going along to get along.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Even "DLC/Vichy Dems" have the stomach for impeachment.

The Dems let Iran Contra slide, but I have serious doubts this abortion of a presidency will be allowed to pass into the annals of history unscathed.

[lonestarnot]

29. Oh bullshit!

[bluestateguy]

31. What a cogent, articulate response

[lonestarnot]

33. Thank you. :Bow:

[stevietheman]

32. Thanks for today's false choice.

As if we have to decide between weakening Bush politically and trying to get him removed from office.

The American people can work on both.

And even if impeachment never happens, I still maintain it's a very useful exercise to push for it.