Does "Impeachment talk hurt Dems" worse than letting Bush start WWIII?

There's talk going around that "Impeachment talk hurts Dems" and according to "strategery" we must wait until after Democrats (presumably) take back both houses of Congress in November.

Several Congressional Democrats have called for investigations and hearings into the actions of the Bush Administration, some of which are-- by definition-- high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable offenses and/or war crimes.

:kick:

Hold them accountable, but wait until we have some teeth. Wait until after the November midterm election. Then let 'em have it. To talk about it now just scares away moderate Repubs who might wish to vote Dem this time around.

"To talk about it now just scares away moderate Repubs who might wish to vote Dem this time around."

I also wonder why you're more concerned about "moderate Repubs" than Democrats?

Why don't the laws of the land provide "teeth"? Why should we give up before we start?

:shrug:

There are a bunch of legitimate reasons not to impeach Bush.

That does not mean that we shouldn't "hold them accountable," though. You think putting another neocon at the helm, for perhaps another TEN YEARS, is "holding the neocons accountable?"

Use your brain.

Look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1085177

Your make some big assumptions to equate investigation/impeachment with "putting another neocon at the helm, for perhaps another TEN YEARS"

Use your brain. Don't assume.

High Crimes do exist.

What would be a legitimate reason for Congress to ignore their constitutional duty to punish high crimes of the executive branch?

Oh- I know- The media and the very criminals in question will say mean things about them if they do.

That's insane. All the lawbreaking and the disregard of the constitution of the United States IS THE REASON IMPEACHMENT IS REQUIRED.

:hi:

Not a very fair poll.

Innocent until proven guilty. Dean's way is to do an investigation. What comes out of that can drive (with the people behind it) impeachment.

That's what the choice was. The OP poses "several Congressional Democrats have called for investigations and hearings into the actions of the Bush Administration, some of which are-- by definition-- high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachable offenses and/or war crimes."

which = "Dean's way is to do an investigation."

So we better lie and pretend that his offenses are okay and perfectly legal.

Always better to lie in favor of your opponent than to tell the truth about them- right? That is how we win so many elections. ;)

:bounce:

mean you aren't going to hold them accountable.

I hate dumbass loaded polls.

How do you plan to hold them accountable?

today doesn't mean you don't do it in 3 months.

You should have had a 4th option.

The question is why, since these aggregious acts have occurred and deserve investigation, would the American people (Dems and decent folk of other parties) talk themselves out of standing up for their country, for accountability and for representation in Congress (talk about NO BALLS!!!!!)

At the CA Impeachment hearing, Rep. Waters seemed under the impression that IF PEOPLE CARED ABOUT THIS THEY WOULD BE OUT IN THE STREETS. They (mostly) are waiting for the American people while the American people are waiting for them-- and everyone (mostly) sits around with a thumb up their ass and talks about "later."

:bounce: :bounce:


on edit: Rep. Waters is also on the Judiciary Committee in the House which would hear Impeachment proceedings

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

:hi: momcat. Don't fire til you see the red of their taillights :crazy:

Bush/Cheney are more than deserving of the honor of being Impeached; they are guilty. There's not way we can expect Democrats not to either believe or want this. To ask them, for purposes of political strategy, to do otherwise would be tantamount to asking them to be internally inconsistent (perhaps even dishonest about their beliefs and desires).

Then again, in such desperate times, it's potentially possible that seeking or asking Democrats to suppress such desires and efforts--if it can be clearly shown that it's a serious political liability, might just be necessary. Even so, my instinct is to be honest in my belief that Impeachment is the right thing to have happen and therefore do whatever I can to help achieve success in accomplishing it. Even if it's all but hopeless.

Perhaps the best we can do is try not to emphasis our desires for Impeachment until after the elections; and if various Democrats have not signed on for asking for Impeachment, they can continue to answer truthfully that they have no plans for Impeachment.

Integrity can be difficult.

A key point. A lot of the "strategery" is based on supposedly predictable outcomes.

A point that came up in the CA Impeachment Forum on April 29th is that no one knows what will come out during investigations and testimony. There were some surprises during the Watergate hearings.

The fact that this country can't get it together to even hold hearings is pathetic.

My goodness, the wailing and gnashing of teeth here in November will be unbearable when the Pugs get it all again.

it's going to be so painful.

almost like not many here believe in election fraud and Diebold/etc.

They Are Not Giving Up. why do so many here still not understand? The PNACers have had this planned for a long time and some think they will let a silly lil election get in the way? Prepare yourself for grievous pain.

does two negative things:

1) it potentially scares away independents and R's
2) it mobilizes the Republican base.

It potentially does one negative thing:

1) May attract people due to its "truth to power" rhetoric.
(I don't think it can mobilize the D base anymore than already motivated).

The question as always is do the benefits outweigh the risks.

Considering talking about investagations, holding accountable, etc. can be emphasized w/o bringing up the I word, I don't see why we should unless polling data is very clear on the issue (which it isn't).

"Talking about impeachment does two negative things:
1) it potentially scares away independents and R's
2) it mobilizes the Republican base."

Why should we believe that? What proof is there?

"It potentially does one negative thing:
1) May attract people due to its "truth to power" rhetoric."

How is that "negative"?

"Considering talking about investagations, holding accountable, etc. can be emphasized w/o bringing up the I word"

Which is the point of the OP and the Conyers statement and anyone interested enough to understand the process (or even the system of government we have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) enough to know :wtf: "impeachment" means. If we're playing games that people are "afraid" of the "I-word" as if its "too much" to that can only be replied :puke:

"I don't see why we should unless polling data is very clear on the issue (which it isn't)."

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO PLAY WORD GAMES AND BASE ACTIONS ON POLLING DATA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1127193

Rep. John Conyers
05.07.2006

It's Checks and Balances, Mr. Russert

It's not every day a Congressman from Detroit has his name mentioned on, not one, but two Sunday morning news shows.
First, on ABC's This Week, I was taken to task by none other than the soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Tom DeLay. Democrats should not be allowed to take back the House, he said. Why? Because, he claimed, "John Conyers will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats take over.

John Conyers is to the left of your next guest, Howard Dean and he's already participated in mock impeachment hearings." Funny, I don't remember that hearing. I did organize a Democratic forum on the Downing Street Minutes, but that was not about impeachment, and the Republicans wouldn't even let us have a room for it

Next, none other than Tim Russert launched an attack. While interviewing my Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Russert intoned ominously "The chair of the Judiciary cmte would be someone named John Conyers, I went to his website and this is what was on his website." He then showed the headline of my website where I call for the creation of a Sam Ervin-style bipartisan Committee, equally composed of Democrats and Republicans, to investigate pre-war manipulation of intelligence and other matters and, if warranted, to make recommendations to the Judiciary Committee on possible grounds for impeachment.

"That's the man who would be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee," Russert ominously declared. He then asked if "John Conyers should take down his website."

Perhaps Mr. Russert has forgotten, but I have been a Chairman before. For five years, from 1989 to 1994, I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, now called the Government Reform Committee. I have a record of trying to expose government waste, fraud and abuse.

That was back when Congress did something called "oversight." You know, in our tri-partite system of government, when Congress actually acted like a co-equal branch. The Republican Congress decided to be a rubber stamp for President Bush instead.

Snip...
If I become a Chairman again, I intend to push for oversight of this Administration. Our Constitutional system of government requires no less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/its-checks-a...

I'm not sure it does, but on the chance that it might, I'd be ok with impeachment being put away for now....nobody's committing not doing it, as far as I can tell.

Pull the idea, but pledge to follow investigations to their honest conclusion, reguardless of who is implicated...

the table when they got a man in the WH.

So, they won.

Cheapened everything

Lots of non-Dems are waiting for Dems to show spine so they can dump the Pugs and get off the "Independent" fence

:hi:

Although I think of impeachment as a constitutional "nuclear" option, I have come to believe that both George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney ought to be impeached. Their lies and law-breaking that led up to the invasion of Iraq as well as the Executive Branch's grab for power are exactly the sort of thing the Founding Fathers considered grounds for impeachment.

I am convinced that the rationales for impeachment were listed in one or more of the Federalist Papers, although my abridged paperback edition seems to lack these passages. And if grounds for impeachment can be found in the Federalist Papers, that's about as "original intent" as any genuine conservative constitutional scholar could wish for.

No doubt we'll hear much-amplified caterwauling from right-wing Republican/"conservative" propaganda organs that impeaching Bush and Cheney would be for "trivial" reasons. Such right-wing hypocrites should look to themselves; they themselves lowered the bar for impeachment to even lower standards when they called for and initiated impeachment proceedings against former president Clinton. What goes around should come around.

changed tack when Sen. Feingold introduced Censure: Impeach Cheney First. This in response to the excuse "But he's the President......" as if that makes him exempt.

You're right-- and someone else mentioned here-- that the Clinton Faux Impeachment lowered the bar (for impeachment and for the Presidency). The Forum speakers in CA last week referred several times to Founders regarding the origins of impeachment. Might be worth looking up.