DUer's: Discuss----Does veto of spending bill=Impeachment time?

a constitutional right of the President, an impeachable offense?

That's the original meaning of the old Anglo-Saxon word enpeecmunt, which is the root word for today's verb "to impeach". This was the traditional method for driving corrupt warlords and druids from power in pre-Roman Britain: mobs of angry peasants would gather up overripe fruit (the peach being the stinkiest) and fling them at the offending leader. The last druid to be "enpeec'd" in this manner was Ruthbert O'Gonthalis of County Shillelagh for claiming there's no right to habeus corpus in the Constitution.

We have to start thinking about where they go when they finish ,this one should go to jail.

that is in the Constitution?

at least last time I checked. And if you can't override a veto, what makes you think impeachment will do anything but take an awful lot of time?

the country is much better served by having the Democrats spend time passing good legislation than pursuing impeachment at this time.

Impeachment is a way to thwart the daily diminishings of the constitution ,and last I checked Impeachment overrides veto.

what makes you think you have the votes to convict? Non-sequitur thinking isn't going to help us any.

Agnew wasn't impeached and Bill Clinton wasn't indicted.

it was coming, but once you quit, you can no longer be impeached. That's like saying Nixon wasn't impeached, he would have been, but since he quit first...

Impeached, he wasn't driven out in Shame,But thwarted the Good ole boy network a little longer.

Impeachemet IS inductment...

The Senate conmvicts

Now impeacing for a COnstitutional act you are getting silly

;-)

Impeaching for obstructing justice ,abetting a traitor ,Perjury , it is silly and tragic.

..."unitary" dictator responsible for torture, spying on our citizens, the loss of habeus corpus, and much, much more? What "good legislation" is more important than that?

NGU.

. . .anyway. They are doing such a great job of confirming the perception that Democrats are weak, and are fast losing public support because of it. When 58% of the public wants the Bush presidency over right now, refusal to impeach is not just dereliction of duty and morally bereft, it is political insanity.

Even if anything short of impeachment could "get things done," do the American people really want to continue to live in a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, but now has a higher Federal minimum wage? I don't think so.

Impeachment is the ONLY thing capable of withdrawing our consent from the War Criminals in the WH (consent they never legitimately obtained in the first place, but that's another topic).

The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- defines who we are. It embodies our hopes for what a True America can be. It is the product of our commitment to the audacious belief that common people can design and perfect a system -- the inviolate dictates, framework, officials, powers, evolving institutions and body of law -- that balances conflicting interests in a way that reflects common values and embodies the principle of consent.

Only impeachment can rescue our Constitution, our national soul, and our self-esteem.¹

Our so-called "leaders" refusal to impeach has created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.

Watching as Nancy "off the table" Pelosi and Harry "we'll get Cheney" Reid stubbornly hold to their impeachophobic course is heartbreaking in so many ways, it's sometimes difficult to keep track of them all.

• It's heartbreaking to see them refuse to be the heroes we know they could be.


• It's heartbreaking to see them repeat the same, self-destructive, self-defeating, mistakes.
  • Like their refusal to impeach Reagan and Bush I in 1987.
  • Like their refusal let Walsh finish the job and prosecute Bush I for obstructing justice to cover his own ass with his intolerable pardons.
  • Like their refusal to unequivocally reject Bush v. Gore as an intolerable infringement on the power of Congress to sit in judgment of the electors on January 6th, 2001.
  • Like their refusal stand in unity and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005.
  • Like their refusal to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force.
  • Like their refusal to filibuster Alito (but then, after they paved the way to the court, hypocritically vote "against" him on the floor).
  • Like their refusal to unequivocally oppose the War Criminals Protection Act.
  
  We can point to individual acts of courage, but when simple truths and moral principles demand action, the Democratic caucus does the same thing over and over: they slam on the breaks and look for an escape route.
  
  As they plot their escape, they invoke the same rationalizations over and over again, with "the backlash beast will get us" and the self-defeating prophesy "can't win so don't fight" vying for the top of the list. The establishment is seemingly blind to the lessons that expose the appalling immorality and political insanity of refusing to fight for principle, regardless of what they believe the outcome will be.


• It's heartbreaking to watch them taking a defensive position deep in "Bush territory," when they can so easily go on the attack by impeaching and forcing the Republicans to defend the unconstitutional and criminal acts that Bush and Cheney have carried out in plain sight. Forcing the opposition into a defensive position is always good politics. The Democratic Party has turned into a Party of "reactionaries" (always reacting, never acting).


• It's heartbreaking to see them stubbornly cling to the baseless assumption that impeachment is political poison, when the opposite is far more likely to true.
  
  They tell us they were elected "on the issues" and to "get things done," when, above all, they were elected to oppose Bush. Post-election polling found that "Anti-Bush. Anti-Republican" reasons topped the list of "major reasons," while "Pro-Democratic" reasons ranked at the bottom.²
  
  They believe there is a backlash beast lurking out there, but they can't seem to find it in the polls.
  
  They tell us impeachment has insufficient public support, when the polls tell us the opposite. Despite relentless efforts to boost opposition and suppress support for impeachment, just before the election a Newsweek poll found that 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress, while only 44% said it should not be done.³ In a more recent Newsweek poll, 58% the public say they want the Bush presidency over now.⁴ People who want the Bush presidency over are unlikely to object when Democrats seek to end it by impeaching Bush and Cheney.


• It's heartbreaking to hear them say "We can't impeach because it would detract us from ending the war" when impeachment is the ONLY act that can change the dynamics and make it possible to extract ourselves.
  
  What makes hearing this even worse, if that is possible, is that the every poll shows that the vast majority of the public is angry at Bush. The same polls tell us that, like the Democrats themselves, the public is far more ambivalent when it comes to what to do about the quagmire in Iraq (that's the definition of a quagmire, no good way out). In this climate, even if something short of impeachment could "do something about Iraq," it would be a riskier political gambit than going straight for the object of the public's anger and impeaching Bush and Cheney.


• It's heartbreaking to see them exacerbate the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.
  
  Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.
  
  Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

=========================================

1. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/11">Only Impeachment. Only Impeachment... or
   http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/21">Unimpeached Bush and Cheney are "clearing, holding and building" . . .


2. http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reason for Democrats success


3. http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Priorities for a Democratic Congress, Newsweek Poll, 10/21/06)


4. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2752103&mesg_id=2753090">58% of Americans want his Presidency over now

Thank you for taking time to write it.

On edit: Added word so sentence actually made sense. :dunce:

you got 67 votes in the Senate I don't know about? I count the Senate as being at least 18 votes shy of impeachment, with strict party discipline from the Democrats (ex Lieberman, of course)

...succeed at it?

:eyes:

But since you insist on getting technical about my word choice rather than addressing my point, you can substitute the words "hold accountable" for "remove." My point remains the same. What's more important than making sure we don't leave the door open for even more crime and abuse of power?

NGU.

the house impeaches and for that we have the votes... it is a simple majority

You honestly believe that there are enough Democrats willing to support impeachment right now in the House? You think Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler are going to vote for impeachment unless there is a bi-partisan shift in that direction? Not going to happen.

Finally, idiot stops making them look bad and they have a shot in 2008. Remember the reaction of some of the right-wing talking heads after the dems took 2006 by storm? They may be up there spouting the same BS, but the truth of the matter is they'd rather have figures who don't constantly make them look bad. I wouldn't be surprised if we breached and surpassed 67 votes, just so some of the repug senators could save their skin.

Without their base voters, the repubs are dead. And calling for impeachment would outrage the repub base because, in a nutshell, anything that the Democrats would support is anathema to the repub base.

we all knew he would veto. Then he'll have to explain why he cut funding for the troops against the recommendations of "the commanders on the ground". Now I know he is very skilled at shifting blame but the voters are growing weary of this one-trick-pony.The cynical voting block is getting larger each time he speaks, not good for the republicans.

There will be no impeachment, there will be an election.

....Otherwise He'll victimize our country for the rest of his life ,like Poppy.

impeachment as a statement of admonishment? If he's acquitted, and he would be (and that's assuming you could get a majority in the House to impeach, which right now is almost certainly not the case), how does that do anything to chimpy other than make him the "winner" when he is acquitted?

same to poppy, there would have been no Shrub.

we will enter 2008 with a president who survived impeachment, a beaten house and senate, and no legisative progess to show for it. Pass a bill of impeachment today, and not one bill makes it out of the senate untill December, at the earliest. there will be no further investigations and Republcians will have the motivation to stand with Bush (since he's going to win an impeachment trial, no question) so instead of passing bills and making HIM oppose the popular will, he becomes the beleaguered guy trying to get something done, and the Democrats in the House and Senate become people with no legislative agenda, we accomplish nothing, and he gets to basically rule by fiat for the next 20 months. Great plan, that.

:crazy:

NGU.

and even worse, what if the vote to impeach in the house fails, which it clearly might.

...given that there's a chance he or she will be acquitted?

NGU.

how can that be so hard to understand?

...for others to do as bad or worse. How can that be so hard to understand?

NGU.

Poppy will really cry then.

It is the "lethal" weapon we gave Congress to defend the Constitution against subversion from within the halls of power, and to defend the electorate against officials who betray the public trust and abuse power for their own ends. Impeachment is the means by which We the People, through our representatives in Congress, withdraw our consent for whatever reasons we deem it to be necessary.

Related post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=482506&mesg_id=486063

of reasons, and as far as a lethal weapon ,I couldn't agree more.Getting Shrub was a definite negative byproduct of Clinton's Impeachment.

. . .they they have the political will to impeach on. (more on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=482506&mesg_id=486063">in this post)

But Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution on so many fronts http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/21">in plain sight that the House has enoough for at least a half-dozen impeachments -- simple cases for violations so grave that they no only demand impeachment and removal to defend our Constitution, at least three are subject to the penalty of death. For example:

• ordering detainees in Guantanamo to be treated in ways they knew to be War Crimes (confirmed by the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling);
• abducting, secretly holding, and torturing people in CIA-run prisons overseas (confirmed by the EU TDIP investigation);
• abusing signing statements to declare their intent to violate our laws (just need a single example, such as the nullification of McCain's torture amendment, which passed the Senate with more than 90 votes);
• terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" (the most colossal bomb threat in our history); or
• violating FISA to spy on Americans (public statements from both Bush and Cheney confessing to this one).

If Members of the House can't bring themselves to confront the grim reality that America has become a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, they could simply impeach Bush and Cheney because they are incapable of defending the nation. Their consistent lies (or as their defenders term them, "mistakes") have made any "evidence" that comes from any agency run by their appointees suspect. Their entire administration is therefore incapable of effectively motivating national or international response to a threat.

A nice one, but so long of a shot thats its hardly worth a mention.

Of course there are grounds for it, of course theres a chance it would pass.

I just think it'll never happen

And we have no idea how many Republican Senators -- Senators that are already doing their darnedest to "distance themselves" -- will be willing to publicly defend torture, war crimes, spying. . . whatever specific charges the House decides to go with.

When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment with a signing statement, he told a man who was a victim of torture to go to hell. He told the 90+ Senators who voted for that amendment to go to hell. Maybe Republicans don't care if Bush and Cheney tell the American people to go to hell, but they don't take kindly to be told to go to hell themselves. And it's hard to imagine them being at all keen on the prospect of publicly defending such acts or voting to uphold unconstitutional, unitary authoritarian action that makes Senators completely irrelevant.

Republican Senators may go to GREAT lengths to escape having to vote by putting the screws to Bush and Cheney and forcing them to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands.

Whatever the outcome, impeachment is not a "one shot" deal anyway. If the first set of articles voted out of the House fails to pass the Senate, the House can go with the next set. Tragically, Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution on so many fronts, they have plenty of ammo for at least a half-dozen impeachments.

I never cease to be mystified by claims that voting to impeach (House) or voting to remove (Senate) would be "a waste." The 133 Members of the House and the 23 Members of the Senate who voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force are making pretty good hay out of their "wasted" losing vote. Most appear to cite it daily.

Not unless there is significant bi-partisan support for impeachment, which I don't see yet. There are easily 16 or more House Democrats who are from red-leaning districts who would not support a purely party-line vote on impeachment, at least not at this point in time.

Win or lose. Doesn't matter. We are at a defining moment in History. A choice between Fascist Principle and American Principle. Only impeachment can defend our Constitution, redeem our national soul, and give Americans back their self-esteem, for the sake of the nation; the sake of the Party; and for the sake of their own moral standing and political futures.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

When principle demands action, you act. Outcome expectations have no place in the decision. Period.

1) Just saying its unlikely isn't going to make it so. Tell me something that will convince me that folks like Heath Shuler are going to support a party-line impeachment effort. 2) Not irrelevant. A failed attempt at impeachment will make us weaker and the repubs stronger. 3) The seats that they won with repub and independent/conservative to moderate votes? I don't think so.

And the idea that principle demands action is nice, but rushing blindly into a fight you are guaranteed to lose doesn't help the cause, it hurts it.

. . .against the AUMF that their vote was a waste. They seem to be under the misapprehension that it means something, since they cite it every chance they get.

Or, perhaps they are right, and it DOES mean something. If it means something to have voted against the war, why would a vote to defend the Constitution and the People's Government suddenly be a "waste"?

It is ALWAYS better to go down a hero, than to "win" by appeasing villains.

As those who gave into their fear of being called names and voted for the AUMF discovered, it is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

That says it all.

:thumbsup: pat...

NGU.

If you want to change the subject, I understand. But this started with my questioning your claim that "of course" there are enough votes to impeach. Nothing you've said supports that and, in fact, you now seem to accept the idea that the votes won't be there, and have switched to defending the pursuit of a failed impeachment effort.

Maybe they have the votes, maybe they don't. I see it as a sure bet. Your mileage may differ. Doesn't matter because it is completely irrelevant to the ACTUAL subject, which is:

That there is no legitimate excuse, justification, or rationalization for submitting to Pelosi's reprehensible "off the table" edict.

That impeachment, win or lose, is imperative to reject the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive, declare our commitment to the Constitution and the People's Government, and restore our self-esteem as Americans. That anything short of impeachment is the REAL waste.

That, by their refusal to impeach, Members of the House have created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.

That to refuse to impeach is to surrender to fascists without a fight; an outcome we must do whatever we can to avoid by making the impeachment of Bush and Cheney a reality.

Part of making impeachment a reality is battling rationalizations for refusing to impeach -- rationalizations like the ones you echo.

Part of making impeachment a reality is fighting for the inspiring and engaging politics of true realism, morality, and hope and fighting against the enervating politics of pessimism, cynicism, and hopelessness that is destroying the Democratic Party and the nation.

So, keep those rationalizations coming. Every opportunity to publicly challenge an immobilizing rationalization is an opportunity to bring impeachment a little bit closer. Every opportunity to fight against pessimism and cynicism disguised as realism is an opportunity to inspire and engage.

for years. All of the evidence is already in the public domain.

It just takes political will -- a backbone in Congress...


It's coming!

Hell, I lost count in 2003.