Why are there so many impeachment rallies and Congress

- a DEMOCRATIC Congress, at that - isn't paying attention?

I'm seeing thread after thread here regarding average citizens hanging up banners, spelling it out on beaches and protesting their public houses and, yet, not a peep (except inadvertantly by John Murtha) from Congress?

Odd.

Does our news media control us THIS much?

and in doing so may well lose not only the WH race but our majority as well.

represent us, I guess, it doesn't much matter. (sigh)

This is frustrating.

some folks on DU are, though.

The only place I read, or hear, anything about impeachment is here. "The people" voted to end the war, end the Republican rule, and keep Bush under control until they can vote in a Democratic to replace him.

voted to just get some work done, and impeachment proceedings would just be a diversion. We couldn't get the "no negotiated pricing" on drugs repealed, because we couldn't get 60 senators to let it go through. We won't get enough votes to override the veto of the war spending bill. There's no way we'll get 2/3 of the Senate to convict on impeachment.

Better to spend more time on the war spending negotiations, and keep hammering at medical costs. If we can get single-payer health care done, so much the better, but I don't think that would make it through the Senate either. We'd need a bigger majority.

That's the ticket!!

I applaud your optimism. I don't think we have the votes in the Senate. It's not about "guilty or innocent", it's about the numbers. There won't be a 2/3 majority for conviction. It's a complete waste of time, and may even give Bush and the Republicans a morale boost.

about impeaching Clinton?

And he wasn't a war criminal.

Not while Bush is in charge.

Medical cost control? Blocked.

Union-empowerment? Vetoed.

Environmental legislation? Up in smoke

Ending war in Iraq? Stopped in its tracks.

Balanced budget? Social Security reform? Not going to happen.

Stem cell research? Again, vetoed.

You can't work with those sons of bitches. You can't negotiate with sociopaths. They're fucking impossible to deal with. Any deal they won't block will certainly be one that will leave everyone completely screwed. The only way is to remove the fuckers from power.

So we might as well impeach. As much as I'd like to see it, meaningful progressive reform is not going to happen as long as the corporatists have power. Leave that for 2009, and focus entirely on breaking the Republican Party's back. We have the opportunity to send them to the same dustbin of history as the Whigs, if we choose to take it.

:)

The minimum wage raise still hasn't been signed yet...

By all rights, the minimum wage should be raised to a living wage, roughly $11.00/hr, then indexed to inflation. Bush is only letting this through to turn the upcry over low wages down a notch.

... the point though is, real work is getting done.

Rioting or strikes are the only solution. If you think that you can ask gently to the power mongers to stop bullying, Bush has give you answer yesterday.

My 73 year old mother of portuguese descent asked me last week why he hasn't been thrown out of office.
If this woman who has never followed any politics in her entire life is asking this question,who still speaks english with a heavy accent, who mainly watches portuguese news via satellite,if she asks.. you can bet there are plenty more like her out there. I almost fell off my chair when she said that. My recently deceased father.. a loyal republican his entire life voted for Kerry because he hated * so much also wanted him impeached.

There was another thread on this board about an impeachment rally in Minneapolis that had several hundred people and the newspaper wouldn't even cover it.

And the DUer who posted it WORKS for the Minneapolis newspaper, which was the kicker.

I hear people talking about impeachment. There were rallies all this weekend - even though you wouldn't "hear" about it anywhere but here. Apparently, it wasn't big news for local newspapers.

So.. you see... that was sort of my point.

Here. I found the thread (it sunk because it was a little unclear what it was about): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=781415

be on the evening news.

When I talked about impeachment a few years ago, I had to look over my shoulder and whisper it to my close friends. Now I just say it out loud. Congress and the media are lagging here. Both elections were stolen and it is as plain as can be to anyone that has more than 2 brain cells to rub togather.

It is NOT just on this board.

Unless a person is here 24/7, it is easy to see talk of impeachment all over the blogsphere.

a newspaper that ignored the story?

HAS been ignoring this story. The only place I have heard about the BYU protests have been here-and that is big (conservative, mid America rejecting to listen to Cheney). What about Bush's stony reception by military yesterday. They are getting chilly receptions where ever they go anymore.

People are starting to get a very clear picture and the approval ratings went down the tanks months ago. The press corpse is looking more like Baghdad Bob every day and the public is in on the joke. The press are the only ones taking themselves serious.

NYC, D.C., Salt Lake and Portland, Indianapolis and Memphis --even expatriots in Rome -- held demonstrations for impeachment that weren't covered by the lapdogs.

Now, why would the pressitutes not cover those protests? :)

Impeachment would be an interesting sideshow, but meaningless in the end. There's no way to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Any impeachment action that leaves Bush/Cheney in office is pretty much a waste of time.

If we do it just to pull *'s chain, that's also a waste. He's not listening. He's the decider, the defier, the drunkard-in-chief.

shouldn't they give the people they represent at least some lip service?

there are 3.000+lives that say we should impeach or a corp. congress and senate that's selling us down the drain for their own personal greed, like "OIL"and "LIES"!!!

It's not.

The Constitution says Congress shall impeach on high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not an option.

During the oversight process, if it is discovered that Bush/Cheney have been involved in anything illegal, the Constitution demands impeachment. Most of the American people are in support of impeachment for crimes.

To forego this process compromises Congress, puts them in violation of their duties, and encourages future administrations to do the same as Bush has done.

No, impeachment must be done if crimes are uncovered. It's what America is all about. No one is above the law.

the constitution doesn't say that.

It's pretty easy to look it up.

Seems clear to me.

it says that if impeachment and conviction occurs, the President shall be removed from office.

It doesn't say the House shall impeach. :eyes:

I talked to an attorney who specializes in government law about it. It's a process that must be initiated by Congress. Congress cannot choose to just ignore it because it's not politically advantageous or it doesn't feel there is enough time. Nor can Congress not start the process because it feels it doesn't have the votes.

You seem to enjoy belittling people. I guess that's YOUR strong point. Nice.

Enough said.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... it does not specify any conditions under which congress looses their discretion to choose or not choose impeachment.

and vote to convict? Good luck with that.

Maybe it says they "shall impeach", but I'd guess we'd have a party-line vote outcome in the Senate. In other words, "not guilty", according to the required 2/3 majority.

So, yes, it's an option. That's what voting is.

does NOT say "shall impeach".

That's an invention of fevered minds with no civics education.

No, the exact words are not "shall impeach" but the meaning is the same:

"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment"

DEFINITION: shall (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.

I'm playing with words?

It was asserted that the constitution says "the congress shall impeach..."

that's entirely untrue.

Your quote clearly says that if impeachment and conviction occurs, removal is the remedy. It says nothing about requiring the House to impeach.

I used to despair about about constitutional understanding. Now I despair about basic reading comprehension.

... the only obligation is that they can't impeach and convict and then decide to leave him in office.

Congress is never - under any circumstances - legally obligated to impeach.

If Bush is president, then the Democrats look good no matter what they do. They might not look as good compared to his replacement.

Unfortunately, this is about getting elected - not ending a reign of error.

Impeachment will have to come from the Republicans - and it just might.

it controls everyone else.

What are the Democratic congresscritters saying about it

crickets chirping

Why should the Democrats do anything for us? They
KNOW that we're all going to vote for them just
because they have a "D" before their names on the ballot.

Haven't we all read that a thousand times here on DU?
"You MUST vote for the Democrat simply because
they are the Democrat!"

That's what comes of promising to vote for someone
completely without regard for what their policies are or
what they'll do (or won't do) once elected.

Until Democratic politicians start to learn that they
EACH INDIVIDUALLY need to EARN our votes,
they'll keep pissing down on us.

Tesha

I do not vote democratic because of the party, they to me are the lesser of the two evils. But anyone with a brain in their head after 2000 that would continue to support the republican party after all the garbage they have thrown in our faces and the demise of our country must be insane. No one is asking the rethugs to join the democrats party, we only ask tha they hole their party accountable for their actions.

it would destroy their party. It's simple math.

Imagine if all the new Dems in Congress had thought that way.

And anybody who says it is completely overlooks the SCOTUS's black hand in things, not to mention undermines all the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into exposing corrupt Repug tactics such as caging lists and voter suppression.

Anybody who blames Nader also dismisses the cold hard facts behind the fiasco in Palm Beach County over its butterfly ballot, which confused so many people there were 19,000 overvotes (voted for both Gore and Buchanan for president) and 3000 votes for Buchanan (many of which were also probably meant for Gore) -- more than enough to steal Florida for Bush** with his measly 543 vote margin over Gore.

Impeachment is necessary. The Dems will realize it when their approval numbers continue to slump. And Repugs will cross the aisle for it once the investigative process gets underway and they realize their seats depend on it.

...and not necessarily compatible, particularly when pursuing one causes more damage than the other.

one day they will listen to us. I also ask everyone on this board to schedule a meeting with your Congressman, Democrat or Republican, to talk about "Accountability" (then when you get your foot in the door - impeachment). You can go to Democrats.com to form your own Impeachment Committee, every Congressional District should have one. We only had about 300 in D.C. on Saturday, but we still spelled out the Word against the backdrop of the Capitol Building. Go here to see the photos:

http://www.bbppix.com/gallery/2773212/1/147631755

despite what you read here, the people aren't demanding impeachment.

The rallies reported here are no bigger than the crowd down at the local bar on a Tuesday night.

There really ISN'T a huge groundswell of public action demanding impeachment.

But it's there.

and the blackout.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x788588

It won't work. But, yes, the corporate interests that control the media and their lapdogs will give it a try.

Your rally there was HUGE. Why wasn't it covered more?

It takes A TON of people to spell out "IMPEACH" anywhere... why did I only read about it here? There was nothing on the news about it.

It's pretty hard to miss thousands of people in one place unless you're trying hard.

written your reps re- how crucial it is to roll back the loosening of restrictions on the consolidation of media ownership?

B.t.w., did you see Ruper Murdoch's made a bid to purchase The Wall St. Journal? http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/113469320/murdochs_news_corp_f.html

I regard this issue as second in imptc above all others except election reform.

time I could better spend doing something else.

My representatives are all Republicans.

I am a former reporter, so I do have contacts using other methods that I work with in efforts to roll back legislation that got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, though. Not that anything helps until Congress actually cares about it - Dem majority or not.

And the American people sending the Democrats barely a 51 seat majority is a much better indicator of what the American people want than a not so random sampling of impeachment protesters.

Thanks for the most thoughtful post on this thread so far. I always love it when folks on DU pontificate with such authority about what the people should want versus the hard sometimes unpleasant facts.

Or is this just a very vocal minority that is pushing for this?

"By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

... A protest, even a large one, does not indicate that the majority opinion is in line with the protest.

Very few polls have shown that impeachment has more than minority support in the country.

That's what matters to them.