How will impeachment affect the Democrats chances in '08?

This what Pelosi is talking about. That is the reason to a great extent that she does not want to impeach.

*It should be noted that impeaching Bush will not put him in a jail cell, only a criminal investigation will do that. If we impeach him, he just gets to go home.

*If the House does pass articles of impeachment, the Senate still must approve them by 2/3 vote. The Democrats are not, even in our wildest dreams, capable of picking up 2/3 of the Senate. In other words impeachment won't get him out of office and will at the same time hurt our chances in '08.

but that didn't stop him from serving out his term.

You have to be convicted of the impeachment charges for them to affect. Technically he was impeached, he wasn't convicted.

And the Republicans did lose seats in the 1998 elections.

An impeachment is a decision to bring charges. It does not mean conviction.

It won't remove him from office, yet we still feel a political hit for it.

Show this country that all are bound to the rules, that crimes will be prosecuted and punished! That will give us the Presidency for as long as we don't abuse it, which will be a hell of a lot longer than the GOP or whatever succeeds when they are RICOed out of existence.

If we get control of one or both houses we can turn Bush into a lame duck, and maybe even put forward some bills to help america and dare him to veto them. I think if we were to do nothing but pursue impeachment, the Republicans would be able to rally their troops by saying things like 'see they have no plan' and crap like that. Sure they'll lie anyway, but why play their game.

On the other hand, I think that there should be TONS of hearings to find out what's going on in the congressional comittees and force everyone to talk under oath as opposed to the past 6 years of unsworn blabbering. If they start uncovering hard evidence of consipiracy or treason, or something like that, then they definately need to impeach, however to just pursue impeachment right off the bat without looking at any evidence will do nothing but hurt our party in the long run.

Where do we draw the line?

A President breaks law after law after law, lies about it, spies on us, puts his cronies in positions of power that ultimately hurt America, and we're going to let him get away with it because it's too much bother?

A law is a law. ALL must abide by them. There cannot be exceptions made for one without making them for another. This is only right, and it is the basis for our country and our freedoms.

What George Bush has done is much worse than having an affair with a consenting adult of legal age. Much, much worse. Ask the families of the troops who've died for his lie in Iraq. Ask the families of 9/11 victims who died because Bush and his administration were inept, reckless, and irresponsible in handling the warnings prior to the attack.

No, we should not make an exception for Bush. The dirt needs to come out. All of it. If for no other reason, just to make sure it can never happen again.

and if we dig up solid impeachable info, than impeach.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

According to our own laws, bush has met the requirements for impeachment more than once. Any elected official who shirks their duty to do so is complicit in bush's crimes and should be fired.

It has been just unbelievable to watch what has been going on sine he took office. It had gotten to the point that I'm not even sure who I am more angry at - the chimp for being the criminal and the dictator that he is, or our Congress for allowing it.

resident of 1600 we've ever had; I think impeaching him would be a big mistake.

I think we should use our subpeona powers to investigate everything his administration has ever done, from lying about Iraq to Abramhoff' and spend two years doing it, creating a litany of reasons why these thugs shouldn't be trusted as a governing party for a generation. that would be more productive. everyone now realizes the fish stinks from the head;in the end, all fingers will point to cheney and bush anyway; who cares whether they are indicted or unindicted co-conspirators at this point. use the power of a majority in the house and senate to investigate ceaselessly.

history will impeach bush; the investigations will lay bare the deeply corrupt and immoral governing style he was part of.

whalerider

figurehead, while the rest of the ship sails on by.

He can be rendered ineffective by investigating and indicting the republican party pillars that prop him up.

It occurs to me, however, that if he is left in place he will simply pardon the minions and they will come back next time, the way the Iran/Contra criminals did. Maybe, hold off impeachment of * for a year and a half, then remove him from power in time to prevent that from happening. As you said, enough fingers will be pointing at him by that time; it could make impeachment inevitable.

Didn't work out that way at all, even though the impeachment was decidedly unpopular.

(Edit to add: I completely agree that it shouldn't be a political decision, anyway. By their oath of office, Congress has a duty to impeach when "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been do blatantly and brazenly committed.)

If we get into Congress, it will be by the skin of our teeth. We won't be able to afford to lose 10 seats in the '08 election.

You can't compare Shrub to the Clintonsituation. You need to go back to thedays of Nixon. Even though Impeachment was only a threat in the Nixon case,so many things became public during those hearings, the Pubs were hurtbadly for YEARS! People STILL talk about how crooked, under handed, and paranoid Nixon was.

If, during an investigation, serious legal infractions aare revealed about Shruband others in his admin. I think it will help Dems in 08, just because it will PROVE just how corrupt they are, and how theyacted as Royaltyin ignoring any law they didn't like.

in '98 they lost ten house seats and Clinton was more popular than ever, so I'm not sure. It depends on what is found out by investigations, and I'm not sure there would be enough time anyway--besides, we shouldn't get too cocky that we will win congress.

even if we do impeach the bastard, he is not going to be convicted. The Republicans in Congress are an extension of Bush/Cheney/Rove, and they will vote against impeachment.

The Democrats will pay the price of impeachment, yet they will not have any of the fruits. It just doesn't make sense from any perspective.

For that, impeachment should no longer be a tool to protect our republic?

in a Green party surge at the democratic party's expense.

:grr:

Where that takes us, who knows. Democratic leadership must be pulled by public opinion into impeachment hearings, they can't push it.

I can merely look to the near south of me, in John Conyers' district, and easily imagine people listening to Pelosi and saying it's not worth the effort to even go to the polls, then. Very, very few people have the 'heightened sense' of partisanship that leads them to believe changing the party LABEL without correcting the WRONGS is worth the effort to even vote. I personally believe Pelosi has shot the Dems in the foot.

John Conyers, if nothing else, understands his 'base' ... and the sentiment of that 'base' (which includes me, even though I'm not in his district) is FOR impeachment. It is astonishing that a Newsweek poll can find the MAJORITY of voters aware enough of the crimes of this regime to advocate impeachment. These AREN'T the party insiders and ward heelers - these are predominantly working people (the "working poor") who pay attention, imho. If the Democratic Party has lost support over the last 25 years for one major reason, it's because of the rationalizations of "go along to get along" - the moral cowardice ("gee, let's not rock the boat and have them call us names") that failed to put rally behind McGovern and McCarthy in the late 60s and energetically support organized LABOR in the late 70s and 80s. When you don't stand up for something you don't stand for anything.

Especially if the Dems started with it right away. I agree with the people who are saying it is a bad idea. The Democrats have zero chance of actually making an impeachment stick. It would do nothing but make a poisonous political atmosphere even more so. The people do not want Congress to start bickering over an impeachment. The 109th Congress go nothing done. The people want Congress to do something. Let Pelosi do the work on raising the minimum wage, lowering prescription drug costs, fixing health care. Let the Dems show America that they can fix the Iraq problem. Gain their confidence. Once we do that, once we show that the Republicans are wrong about the Dems, then maybe bring up impeachment. But not until they've actually accomplished something in Congress.