IMPEACHMENT - THE NEXT STEP

from jan-2001 thru jan-2007 - bush/cheney and their cronies have systematically destroyed (either by design or imcompetence) everything they have touched. They have grabbed power while the republics toasted each other by clinking rubberstamps over a pitcher of kool-aid. They have spit on, pissed on, and taken a big dump using the constitution for toilet paper.

the excuses:
whaaaaaaaa - take too long
whaaaaaaaa - not enough votes
whaaaaaaaa - waste the American peoples time and money
whaaaaaaaa - too close to the '08 election
whaaaaaaaa - fill in weenie excuse

TAKE TOO LONG:
bush*t - didn't take long to pass the freaking patriot act, had it written, debated and voted on in a matter of a few weeks. didn't take long to vote for the freaking Iraq invasion, debate lasted mere hours in both hours. When Congress wants to move it's ass it can do it quickly

NOT ENOUGH VOTES
bush*t - you held an all nighter jammie party knowing full well you didn't have the votes. You've passed stem cell legislation and other things knowing you didn't have the votes to sustain a veto.

WASTE THE AMERICAN PEOPLES TIME AND MONEY
bush*t - with the republic blocking every proposal, initiative, bill, the congress isn't getting much done anyways. Frankly, I don't think saving our country, saving OUR DEMOCRACY is a waste of time - after all according to the bushies that's why our troops are dying in Iraq isn't it? Because "they" hate our freedoms?

I'll tell ya why we haven't had a freaking terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 - they don't have to attack us to destroy us, bush/cheney an$ their cronies are doing it for them

TOO CLOSE TO THE '08 ELECTIONS
bush*t - hasn't it occurred to you that with the bush/cheney power grab that there MAY NOT BE AN ELECTION in '08? If you can't freaking standkup to the bush/cheney regime, why the hell should we think you are capable of standing up to a threat like terrorism?

IMPEACHMENT- THE NEXT STEP


Jump in - the water is fine:


Sign up for a FREE SUBSCRIPTION and get the toons e-mailed to you at Radical Fringe on Comics Sherpa

NSA spying on them has something to do with it, imo

something on every member of Congress among others in this country.
Everyone is afraid to touch these bastards.

They are ALL crooks, with something to hide, and Bush/Cheney, due to their illegal spying program, have the goods on EVERYONE. So, they're basically left with nothing by harsh words and empty threats, because both sides know nothing is really going to happen.

The Dems need to prove us wrong if this is not so. And they need to do it quickly.

As a matter of historical precedent, before the House Judiciary Committee holds impeachment hearings, the full House approves a resolution authorizing and directing Judiciary to proceed. If you don't have the votes for that, it doesn't happen. Forcing members to vote for a resolution that almost certainly won't pass (because all it takes is 16 of the blue dog Democrats to vote no) isn't going to result in impeachment happening. There probably only is one shot at it and it makes no sense to force a losing vote on the issue.

didn't hurt the republics in 2000 - it gave them more ammo to use and blame the dems and clinton

they are still trying to use it, spin it as a reason why bush shouldn't be impeached

an impeachment debate would be news, it would be reported, information that has otherwise been buried would be brought out

failure to impeach and the whole bush/cheney mess would be blamed on the republics rubberstamping and kool-aid swilling performance

sometimes failure is really success

The repubs failed attempt to impeach Clinton DID hurt them, both in 1998 and 2000. In 1998, the repubs failed to pick up any seats in the Senate and lost 5 seats in the House. This was the first time in over 70 years that the party not controlling the WH had failed to pick up seats in the sixth year of a presidency and the first time in over 150 years that the out-of-office party had actually lost seats in such a circumstance. The losses continued in 2000 -- the repubs lost 4 Senate seats and another House seat and, but for the SCOTUS, would've lost the presidency.

Sometimes failure is failure. Bill Clinton's wife is the front runner for the presidency, Clinton himself pulls down tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to all manner of groups. Think that any of the repub managers of the impeachment process are doing as well as Clinton is?

And you still miss the point -- there won't be that much debate. The vote will be on a resolution to authorize the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. In 1998, the House began debating such a resolution relating to Clinton at around 11 am on October 8 and voted on it around 3 pm.

but I guess we'll just have to differ on the pros/cons of impeachment

if they can impeach clinton for lying about a blow job, then surely they can impeach bush for lying about screwing up the country

My only point is that the reason that the process stands where it does is that, almost certainly, there is insufficient support for the resolution that needs to be passed to start the process. There are several dozen blue dog Democrats who are from districts that lean more red than blue and those members undoubtedly are not enthusiastic about supporting an impeachment resolution that isn't popular in their districts. The Blue Dogs generally shy away from issues that divide along strictly party lines and thus, they are almost certainly going to hold out against voting for a resolution to start impeachment hearings unless and until there is a modicum of repub support for the resolution (keep in mind that the comparable resolution in the Nixon case passed 410-4 and even in the Clinton situation, the comparable resolution picked up 31 Democrats).

purposes of predicting future Congressional election outcomes.

The proponents of the impeachment of Nixon fared better than the Republicans who were willing to stand by Richard Nixon in subsequent elections. In fact the Democrats gained 49 seats in the House in 1974, the first post-Nixon-resignation election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1974

I'd argue there is more of a similarity between what was going on leading up to the efforts to impeach and remove Nixon than in the Clinton impeachment process. The mood in the country was more similar to current events during Watergate than during the Lewinsky scandal.

is that it had bi-partisan support from the start. The vote to authorize the Ervin Committee was 77-0 and the vote to authorize Judiciary Committee hearings was 410-4. The deadenders that held on to Nixon suffered, not surprisingly, when the smoking gun came out and Nixon was forced to resign.

That's a far different scenario than one in which an attempt is made in the House to authorize impeachment hearings and it fails because 16 or more Blue Dog Democrats bolt and the repubs all stick together, which is a distinct possibility at this point in time.

There was not a lot of public support for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls

Furthermore, Bill Clinton's approval ratings going into the impeachment proceedings were much higher than Bush's are currently. Nixon during Watergate, was a very unpopular president, as is Bush currently.

I think that American people have the ability to look at the results of the investigations and make an intelligent decision as to when impeachment is appropriate and when it is not. I'd also suggest that after the Clinton impeachment proceedings the numerous revelations of Republican sex scandals played a role in the loss of Republican seats.

Here's an interesting article comparing the impact of impeachment investigations/ proceedings on approval ratings.

http://www.democrats.com/would-impeachment-rescue-bush

Good rhetorical move.

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

Honest question.

You destroy all reasons not to push forward.

But how do we proceed?