Pelosi's choice..Impeachment vs Improvement , improve chances of winning

[Stuart G]

Perhaps her decision was this, Go for Impeachment and lessen the chances of our party electing a Democrat (any Democrat) for President..Or put all the cards of improving chances of a Democrat getting elected President..therefor..deliberately not going after impeachment. If this were the case, that you could really only get one of the above, then was she right? or perhaps her judgment was so bad, that she could have gotten both.

If there was an Impeachment,and Bush was able to elicit any kind of support and sympathy during the Impeachment, (which is clearly possible and plausible) then, perhaps her decision was correct. The national focus would have been on Impeachment instead of his incompetency..(not by me, but by the media).. and the election could have been far different. I am not sure. Just bringing this up for discussion.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Except that was a false choice. Impeachment could have meant super-majorities...

...in the House and Senate.

NGU.

[libertypirate]

2. The one hurdle we have not been informed completely about

continuity of government and how to impeach a president who has functioned in a state of national emergency since the day that changed everything.

[JDPriestly]

4. As far as I am concerned, "the day that changed everything"

was the day that the United States adopted the Constitution which clearly limits the president's powers and delineates those of Congress. And no day since changed the basic ground rules.

Congress is entitled to pass a military budget limited to two years. All of the president's powers depend on what that budget allows him to do. No day since has really increased the power of either Congress or the president.

And one of the greatest powers of Congress is to try and impeach the president and other officers of the United States government. War and peace have got nothing to do with it. It's all down in black and white.

The only additional power that the president has in wartime is to serve as commander in chief of the army. And the army has no business operating within the U.S. unless there is an insurrection or direct assault on the U.S.

9/11/2001 did not change that. If Bush had been a halfway decent commander in chief of the army, we would have found Bin Laden, and we would not have spent our national heritage in Iraq.

The Constitution is for as long as we, the people, support good government and abolish tyrants. The impeachment process is the orderly procedure for abolishing tyrants.

Pelosi did not allow the impeachment of Bush because she is part and parcel of the ruling elite that lacks respect for the people and our Constitution.

Remember, our Constitution and, among other things, the doctrine of separation of powers that is set forth in the Constitution, is the will of the people. It establishes the people, not the president, as the highest power in the nation.

The president, Congress and even the Supreme Court are the servants of the people. They answer to the people. Even a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached. Impeachment is the power of the people. Pelosi refused to allow us to exercise that power. In that way, she supported tyranny, not the will of the peope. Her rationalizations are irrelevant.

[Poiuyt]

3. Historically, bringing up charges of impeachment is a winning issue

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

==

The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.

When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.

When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition.

more -

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[mmonk]

5. That was just an excuse. How could it have harmed Democrats?

There is no logical or good or morally decent reason not to impeach office holders who engaged in malfeasance and violations of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and checks and balances. There were other reasons she would not allow proper investigations and remedies or use the force of her office and law.