Democrats.com: "Impeachment - Which Democrats are blocking us?"

[Hissyspit]

Email from Democrats.com FYI, perusal, contemplation and flame-wars:

Impeachment: Which Democrats Are Blocking Us?

Thanks to your grassroots lobbying efforts - and the leadership of Rep. John Conyers - there are now 29 co-sponsors for Conyers' Select Committee on Impeachment, H. Res. 635.
http://afterdowningstreet.org/635

That's a good start - but ALL 202 Democrats should be co-sponsors. After all, Bush deserves impeachment far more than any president in American history, and a solid majority of Americans want Congress to impeach him NOW.
http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

What's holding back the Democrats? According to reporter Dave Lindorff, "members of Congress - even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) - have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House." The DNC chairman is Howard Dean. Ask him why he is blocking impeachment here:
http://democrats.org/page/s/contact

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also opposes impeachment, urging Democratic activists to focus instead on winning the House in November. We reject that because every single DAY that Bush remains in office is another day in which American soldiers are killed or maimed in Iraq, Iraqi civilians are killed or maimed or poisoned, prisoners in America's Gulag are tortured, America's ports are left vulnerable, our phones and computers are wiretapped, and our planet races towards climate catastrophe. Also, since a solid majority (52%-53%) of Americans support Bush's impeachment, it's both good policy and good politics. Ask Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership why they are blocking impeachment here:
http://democrats.house.gov/contact/index.cfm

Another terrific way to promote impeachment is by getting cities, counties, towns, villages, and Democratic committees to adopt impeachment resolutions. Last week, citizens of five Vermont towns overwhelmingly passed resolutions urging their Congressman, Bernie Sanders, to introduce Articles of Impeachment. His first reply was to call impeachment "impractical," but he then responded to his constituents by co-sponsoring H. Res. 635. The growing list of local resolutions favoring the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is here:
http://impeachpac.org/resolutions

Activists who are particularly savvy have embraced the "Rutland Resolution" to urge their state legislatures to submit impeachable charges directly to the U.S. House of Representatives under Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. This strategy is best suited to states that have strong Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature: CA, MA, HI, RI, and VT. Learn more here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/statehow.html

If you would like to help organize impeachment efforts in your state, county or town, join the Impeachment Working Group of Progressive Democrats of America:
http://pdamerica.org/impeach-wg.php

And be sure to urge your Representative to co-sponsor H.Res. 635:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=8329176

Let's make impeachment our highest priority this spring - victory is possible!!

[Selatius]

1. I worry that impeachment will do nothing but tear this nation apart

52 to 53 percent is not a "solid" majority by any lengthy stretch of the imagination. I didn't buy it when Bush said he had a "mandate" at 51, and I won't buy at 52 or 53 either. If only that many supported overturning Roe v. Wade, I wouldn't say there's enough momentum to get rid of it either even if they did get past the 50 mark.

You could easily cause a rift in this nation by putting forth articles of impeachment not seen since the darkest years of the Viet Nam War, and if you continue to push even harder, you could easily cause the rift to become wider, and there has been only one other time in US history that it has gotten wider than it was during Viet Nam.

[lies and propaganda]

2. if you dont already think its torn apart, i ask where you live

We deserve, along with BushCo, a nice big fat impeachment. FOR DEMOCRACY!

[Selatius]

3. Impeachment will fail at the current rate

If only the House is recaptured, you advocate impeachment even though it will be tried in the Republican held Senate where politicians will vote party-line against impeaching Bush?

What the hell will that accomplish except to push this nation even further apart? You're just going to polarize the political landscape further and make this nation even more unstable. That's not the path we should go down. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Abraham Lincoln

[bigbrother05]

4. Thinking back to Watergate

There was not a clear majority of public opinion to take out Nixon. The Senate hearings (Dem controlled) brought the facts to light for the public at large. When it became clear to them, the Pubs went to Nixon and gave him a choice, resign or be impeached. Now with the divide in Congress, there is no middle ground. Any thorough, open investigation/hearing on the several issues (energy plan, Iraq, Katrina, Ports, Plame, etc.) would reveal the inner workings of what we refer to as BFEE. Control of the House and an impeachment hearing is really the only tool Dems have a shot at with the way the deck is currently stacked.

Just as the Watergate hearings opened my Mom's eyes to the Nixon us "kids" hated/distrusted, a public reckoning for Bush, et al will reveal the men behind the curtain and help America start to return from this wilderness. Impeachment is the Constitutional process that the Pubs themselves mainstreamed and if they can't deal with it, they should be more careful about what they wish for. Division and polarization may be the price we'll have to pay, better that than the price our kids are paying in Iraq to prop up NeoCon's egos.

[Selatius]

6. Reading your post, I guess impeachment would be in order, but...

I have a heavy heart at the thought of ripping this nation apart, but the truth is something that was never so easily carried, especially in trying times, and in the end, I'd say the truth should come even if it causes a rift that'll last generations.

[Hutzpa]

12. Selatius, I have one question for you, do you feel

all the lies that this government has told should go unpunished? Surely there must be a price to pay for all this catastrophe that this administration has caused, now if you don't see that then something is wrong.

[Selatius]

13. It seems those lies have been unpunished since the day JFk died.

I think everything has gone wrong with this country, and looking back at history, I think the train jumped off its tracks soon after his death, and there were no war crimes trials for the lies surrounding Viet Nam, so why should I expect that there should be any now? After Viet Nam, they said there'd be a price to pay for war, but none came. Johnson died in the early 1970s and escaped trial; Nixon got in trouble for a different reason; McNamara escaped without having to answer for the 2,000,000 civilians that died in that war and the 58,000 Americans that returned home dead, and Gen. Westmoreland got away as well. Even Lt. Calley ultimately got away when he was pardoned for the My Lai massacre, and the good folks in the CIA behind Project Phoenix never saw the inside of a courtroom either or a prison cell. They all escaped, and that's something the Nazi Party leadership can never claim to have done.

I think there should be a price to pay as you do, but I believe the system has become so entrenched by interests that push war and don't want things to change such that they will only give you the option of removing Bush and his cabal through the electoral process, not through the legal process. They will give you Bush on a platter, Frist on a platter, or Santorum on a platter; they may even give them all to the people, and they may calculate this is enough to satisfy people's answers and collectively go back to sleep on the couch with a football game on the TV. The best propagandists and social engineers use a combination of rewards as well as anesthesia. They'll give you what they believe they can sacrifice to you, and then they'll stonewall you on true reforms and wait until the people grow tired like they did after the 1960s. They were right in the end. The people eventually went to sleep. "We've gotten enough done; I'm not going to protest anymore; we've gotten enough from them."

You tell me what's going to happen. You tell me. What do you honestly think is realistic? You think we'll have a successful impeachment? You think we'll win both houses of congress to not only introduce the Articles of Impeachment but also have enough seats in the Senate to win the vote to impeach the White House? What about the corporate news media? How do you think they'll spin this as? You think they'll spin it as a witch hunt by a bunch of extremist, unpatriotic leftists like the Venezuelan corporate news media with Chavez?

[rucky]

8. If Gallup Poll called you and asked if Bush should be impeached...

how would you respond?

32% disapprove of this president
51% support impeachment

that leaves a gap of about 10-20% who probably think he should be impeached (emphasis on "should be", but don't want to go forward with actually supporting it for the same reasons you stated (too narrow margin). But it wouldn't be such a narrow margin, if that 10-20% just said what they felt should happen.

[madfloridian]

19. I agree with you on that.

We do not have to rub salt in the wounds.

[Iowa]

20. It's the CRIMES that would tear the country apart...

NOT the impeachment proceedings. Furthermore, I disagree with the premise. Impeachment would likely be a cathartic process - a huge relief to the majority of us who can hardly believe what we're seeing as we watch these evil bastards destroy our country.

Regardless, we must restore the rule of law or we're doomed as a nation. Sometimes you just do what's right and to hell with the consequences - and this is one of those times. History will look kindly on those who do what's right against incredible odds - win or lose.

Focus on 2006, for sure. But keep beating the drums for impeachment too. We can multitask.

[DanCa]

5. Why is the chimp so protected?

I have never seen a president that's been so inept that still has so many people in his corner.
Hell for Katrina alone he should be impeached. Not to mention Iraq and other issues. I just don't understand the cult like mentality of his followers.

[anitar1]

7. This nation is already ripped apart and will never be the

same. This cabal has destroyed so much of our country. I will not live long enough to see it turn around. I hear more unrest and deep anger every day from people I know.If we keep waiting for something good to happen, we are fools.

[johncoby2]

9. Let's not be dumbasses about this.

Take the house. Focus. Then hold hearings on who sent us to war.

Impeachment WILL NOT happen unless we have hearings on who sent us to war.
Hearings WILL NOT happen unless we take the house.
Therefore impeachment WILL NOT happen unless we take the house.

Put your energy into taking the house. Go work for someone fighting for Congres.s

Th war is not going to stop just because a motion (that will not pass or even get to the floor for debate) is filed. The war is wrong and people are being killed for a mistake, but unless you intend to light a torch and rush the white house, impeachment will not happen.

BTW If you are reaching for your torch, pick up one for me! I personally think that is the only way to get attention to what this idiot has done. Civil unrest. We need the tear gas to be thrown. A few rocks at the white house, horses and billy clubs drawn.

[robinlynne]

11. We cannot take the house until

we have honest elections. We do not have real elections at this moment. Bush would not be in office at all if our votes were actually counted correctly.
Robin

[Selatius]

14. DING DING DING DING DING! Tell the girl what she's won! n/t

[Brazenly Liberal]

10. 3rd week of November

That's when I'll focus on impeachment. Not before.

The right would love to have us distracted from focusing on the 2006 elections. Especially since any reasonable hope of impeachment depends on the results of that election.

[RazzleDazzle]

21. You might find yourself focused on VOTING MACHINES instead

since you aren't now.

[Brazenly Liberal]

28. Huh? You must be mistaking me for someone else

I've never said a word about voting machines here. It would be foolish nigh unto bizarre to assume that just because I haven't posted on this site about a particular issue must mean it is of no concern to me. So I'm guessing you have mistaken me for someone else.

[RazzleDazzle]

29. Nonsense

The whole premise of your previous post is that come November we'll have enough Dems in Congress to be able to push for impeachment.

My point: no, not at all likely, no matter how low Bush's poll numbers go (and doesn't anyone WONDER why he's not concerned, aside from not being electable hereafter?), given the FACT that the voting machines aren't reliably honest, accurate or under non-partisan control.

If you think there's a chance in hell the Dems will take the House back in November, you're NOT focused on the problem of voting machines. Or if you still say you are, you're sadly ill-informed about them.

[Joey Liberal]

15. We cannot be wimps about this

We need to go for the jugular on this.

[madfloridian]

18. Why? Why must this be done?

Why can't we just concentrate on getting ready to win in November?

Why must we tip our hand about impeaching right now. It will turn a lot away from our party.

[lilly_j]

22. What if....

the way TO WIN is to stand up for the constitution, and demand accountability for Bush's crimes against this country, no matter the odds.

We are in the majority, even principled Republicans acknowledge illegal wiretapping is an impeachable offense, so calling for impeachment will draw people to the party, not away from it.

[madfloridian]

23. Nothing wrong with calling for impeachment...but demanding it

is another thing altogether.

We are allowed, last I heard to have diverse views. In my mind this is antagonistic and divisive just as many are looking to send the GOP a message in November.

This demanding it, calling all our Democrats weak for not calling for it is overboard.

[madfloridian]

16. Should David Swanson prove his statement about Howard Dean?

And twisting arms about it?

Or does he get a free pass. He quotes Lindorff on this.

Should either of them be asked to prove that the DNC is behind arm-twisting? Or is it the DLC/DCCC/DSCC/THIRD WAY/New Dems?

[madfloridian]

27. So what do you think? Does he get a free pass?

Or should he explain why he is directing people to write Howard Dean...when the guy he is quoting has not understanding of party structure. I posted an article he wrote that was so unfair to the DNC.

If these guys are not going to learn the difference in the parts of the party...they need to back off and quit condemning.

[madfloridian]

17. Is Impeachment the only criteria now?

First it was the Iraq War. And this same group absolutely ripped our leaders up over it.

What was it next? I forgot.

Now it is impeachment, and if we don't go along we are evil Democrats.

Since when does this group get to decide the Good Dem/Bad Dem thing??

[PBass]

25. Too early to push for impeachment

because it can't succeed in the current Congress. A failed drive for impeachment is worse than no impeachment drive at all, because there can't be "double jeopardy". In other words, you can't prosecute the president for impeachment twice. If impeachment fails, that's it... it's a dead issue after that.

Secondly, if impeachment is a major issue in November elections, it's going to undercut Democratic votes... People who don't want impeachment or think it's a sticky issue, will donate less money or not show up at the polls, if the 2006 election is a referendum on impeachment. Democrats already hold almost all the 'good cards' in their hand with the disasterous GOP record thus far... piling on with impeachment talk will look like over-reaching and will make the Dems seem like they are on the verge of swinging the government too far back the OTHER way (to one-party rule by Democrats). Bush should be impeached for his illegal expansion of presidential power ('power grab') but in the process, Dems can't appear to be pulling a 'power grab' of their own.

In the meantime, a slow and steady build for impeachment is the right approach. Lets start setting the stage between now and 2007, but lets not rush into it prematurely.

Just my opinion as an amateur.

[madfloridian]

26. Nothing wrong with talking about it...demanding and condemning..

our Democrats for not getting on board is another thing. It will come if we get some power back, but I hate being told I must support it right now.

[lilly_j]

24. Right now?

Which Democrats Are Blocking Us?

ALL OF THEM!

It only takes one representative to introduce articles of impeachment for illegal wiretapping.

Conyers has taken the lead on impeaching however he has not written anything about the illegal wiretapping, only Iraq.

I think the rest of the issues(which there are many) cloud the one obvious reason for impeachment that cannot be disputed. Nixon resigned over illegal wiretapping. Everyone knows the appropriate course of action here. What are the democrats waiting for?