This impeachment thing

I can almost taste the desperation for impeachment of Bush and his cohorts, but the word is 'it is off the table'.

So, why would it be off the table? Trying here to put myself in the shoes of those who are making that decision, I come up with these alternatives:

1. Dems don't want to appear snarky and vindictive
2. Impeachment may open a can of worms that implicates some Dems
3. The numbers just are not there
4.....and this is what I fervently hope....
They are guaranteeing the future by giving the bastards enough rope to well and truly hang themselves for a long time to come.

Now I admit, I'm not the most devious political mind in the world, but I can see why there would be long-term wisdom in this course of action. Make the pendulum swing back so far that it will take decades for the Repubs to recover. Thoughts?

say enough is enough......and then they will perform the will of the people....and yes if this administration continues on this downward spiraling path the Rethuglican party will be in ruins for decades...

...but I can't. I agree that the Republicks are on the road to ruin but my fear is that, unless our side gets some guts, we're all going down with them.

I wonder how things might change, if elected officials remained in their districts and all voting was done digitally. Would it burst that inside-the-beltway bubble that they all seem to live in? Would removing them from their echo chamber, their hall of mirrors, and making them confront the daily realities of real American life have any impact?

I also believe that K Street should be burned to the ground and the earth beneath it salted but, if our representatives were out of DC and under our scrutiny, maybe lobbying would become less effective.

but I'm a foreigner. What's K street?

Lobbying, I know, is a fact of life. But it kinda makes you need a shower after discussing it.

the right thing to do. It's a question not of strategy but of principles. This nation has lost its way. Bush and Cheney are more deserving of impeachment than any administration in the history of this country. Are the votes there? Maybe not. It doesn't matter. Did Washington and Franklin and Jefferson sit on their asses worrying about whether we might lose a war with Great Britain? No! They fought it because it needed fighting, and as it happened, we won. This battle needs fighting. Maybe we will win and maybe we won't, but whether we do or we don't is not the issue. The issue is that as Americans and patriots, we have an obligation to stand up to these S.O.B.s and do the right thing by defending the Constitution and the principles upon which America was founded. Personally, I'd rather die fighting than lying on my back with all fours in the air begging for mercy.


Impeach these Nazi S.O.B.s NOW!

but for a moment leave aside principles, the right thing to do etc. and consider what, if any, political strategy is at play here.

Now, I'm assuming the Dems DO have a strategy behind the reluctance to consider impeachment, and it would have to be a fucking doozy to mitigate not marching these bastards off in chains. I guess what I'm looking for is some insight into what this strategy may be and it's long term consequences.

I think it deserves a thread of its own. :thumbsup:

I wish I could ram this down Congress's throat and force them to act, but alas they don't seem to care much about the Constitution, the rule of law, or what I or any of us think.

Any impeachment without conviction is a hollow gesture and wasted time. I still don't see the 67 and do see tons of investigating that still needs to be done. A rush to "judgement" is what this regime did that got us all screwed up...and its gonna take time to unravel all the layers of corruption. Maybe some here will be satisfied with sending junior home to Texas with the equivelent of a bad mark on his report card and every other crook in this regime walks away scott-free, but I won't be satisfied until I see booooosh and his cohorts in the docks at the Hague facing real justice for their crimes...the criminal ones, not the political.

I won't dismiss anyone who still bangs the impeachment drum. It's a good thing to see both the passion and to keep our legislators both honest and know we're watching.

Without the senate votes, the whole excercise is pointless. Speaking realistically, how close do you think the vote would be?

If I could wish the world my way, boooosh and his cabal would never sleep peacefully knowing their fate will be determined by those who they abused and subjected...a true world coming together.

Right now, I don't even see a vote in the Senate getting 40 votes...yes, I see Democrats who would vote against impeachment now, just like there were Repugnicans who voted not to convict Clinton. There's no way a Salazar or Nelson (either) or any Democrat who still lives with this belief he/she needs "crossover" votes to win. Also, other than Hagel, I don't see any Repugnican ready to stick the knife in one of their own...no matter how inept or corrupt.

The dilemma right now is that we don't have a real specific charge that's iron clad on this regime. Yes, there are plenty of trails, but nothing that says booooosh committed obstruction in the way the smoking gun tape proved Nixon ordered the stonewalling. Sadly, incompetence is all we have at this point...but that could change. If investigations turn up a memo or tape of boooosh personally ordering crimes...and they need to be felonies to get any real traction...then full speed ahead. But, again, I would hate to see all the investigations that cover many within this regime turn into a end game aimed only at one figurehead.

Again, those who favor Impeachment do best by keeping up the topic. It's not "off the table" as much as the table isn't properly set yet.

Cheers...

If it is true that not even senate Dem votes can be counted on, the question of self interest has to raise its head.

The trouble with polls is that they are engineered to give the required response. If, truly, 28% of America supported Bush, then should this not reflect directly on the number of senators who supported him? Do the reps and senators represent the wishes of their constituencies or not?

I know I am asking basic questions, but as a ferangi who follows USA politics extremely closely, I find it is not as cut and dried as it may be made out. It may have been idealism that asked what the long term motive of the Dems was, but the more I read, I am starting to see them as complicit in the matter.

I doubt that a majority of those elected to Congress really vote to support the majority of their constituents. The endless political cycle thrives on money more than integrity. While a vote may get you great raves here, it may also cost a candidate a contribution or other piece of gold that means their career. Unfortunately it's those who raise the money that matter and it's not the 28% that support boooosh as much as the 100% who rely on the big money and will compromise their constituents in most cases where the two conflict.

Also, the beltway warps people...they truly lose a lot of contact with the real world there. It's not what is said on Main Street that means as much as getting a good plug from Tweety or a nice mention in Roll Call. It's a world that not only cares little about how the rest of the nation lives...and where self interest and personal hubris trump any concept of principals. The axiom of absolute power corrupts absolutely applies here like never before.

I have suggestions at to shortening the campaign season and other means that would take a lot of money out of the process and open it up for greater voices, but first things first...and that's having a government we can take back.

You are very right...it isn't that cut and dried and those who attempt to make it that way either need to read a little further (like you have) or stop being disengenuous.

Cheers...

Coming from the political sytem here (Aust. Westminster) I can do little but sit back, agog, when 18 months out from the business end of the process you are already subject to dollars raised and debates among potential candidates. I can see why lobbyist have such a grand impact on the outcome.

We are not immune either, we have career politicians and they scare the hell out of me.

I've had to do a lot of reading on the powers of your 3 branches of government to get my head around why Bush is continuing to elude attempts to rein him in. What's to stop this happening again, even with a Dem president?

I refuse to believe that any system that relies so heavily on spin and money for power can NOT be beholden to those who provide the wherewithal. It would be good if government was taken back from the hands of the abusers, but given the bigger picture, how can they not be as corrupt as those who have gone before?

I've long liked the British system where you don't know when the election is coming...just that it is, and that once its announce, all you have is 90 days until the general...not only shrinking down the rhetoric but also the need for money as well. That's just one aspect...of course, there's the other influences, such as special interest money and the masssive amounts to purchase ad time on the public airwaves that are in serious need of addressing, but my I have my doubts that will ever be totally flushed as there's just too many people getting rich from this system.

I can understand how someone who lives in a Parliamentary system can find our system both confusing and frustrating. Some of it is a good thing...such as the high marks of 60 votes to over-ride a veto, and 2/3rds (67) to enact the most serious legislation. It was either Jefferson or Maddison that called the Senate the "delibarate body"...that tempers the emotions and partisanship of the House. Also, since the Executive isn't directly tied to whose in control of the legislature, it has evolved into a gridlock game of all sorts of motions and procedures developed by minorities on both sides over the years. I always warn here that those who screw with the Constitution or wants to make changes faces the other side of the sword later when the party's roles are reversed.

Obviously, the best way to prevent this from happening again, is to avoid electing the goons who created this mess in the first place. Honestly, had you asked me, or I would imagine many others here, who never supported this regime from the outset, that they would have abused the Constitution, started a war and been one of the most corrupt regimes since Caligula, I would have given it lip service, but never in my worst nightmares would I have envisionsed where we are now. This country has sunk so low, and it's a low climb back up. The Democrats dug themselves into a hole that almost made the party exctinct...thus there's a long way to go.

Also, once this regime is gone, I'm certain we'll see a lot of revisiting of the criminality of this time...similar to what happened following Watergate that will address some of the worst abuses...but first all the abuses have to come to light and I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more before this regime is relegated to the ashheep of history.

Hopefully you'll be dumping Howard soon...one of boooshie's few friends other than Barney. You have a fascinating country...and hopefully we'll both look back at this time in the near future and remember how far we've come and look forward to creating a better world.

Cheers...

:toast:

Top news billing will be on this topic...the American Voters will be all over it from BOTH angles!
The freepers and the Neo-Cons and the Kool-aid drinkers will be looking to prove that THEY were right all along while the left, the progressives and the tinfoil-hat brigades will be cheering the process on to what may actually be an inevitable conclusion. What HAS to happen here is the veil of smoke which the bfee hides behind gets lifted for ALL sides to see.

As the hearings take place, those who have been siding with bush and co will start finding their very own arguments crash into a wall of facts...THIS will be the tipping point which causes the Republican leadership to choose: continue with the myths, myths which one and all can see to be false and lose all hopes for a re-election OR do a proper house cleaning and hope to hang on so as to rebuild the Republican party. Those who stay with bush will be soon gone by their own hand!

Look back into republican mentality for a moment: Do you remember when they were all standing tall and saying bravely that we must stop Saddam Hussein from unleashing a nuke over here in America? How many still argue that we actually stopped Saddam Hussein from unleashing a nuke over here? They can no longer argue this...it would be sheer suicide for ANY politician to run on this record. There is no way the American voter will allow it, the truth came out long ago: Saddam NEVER could have done this...it was false intel at best and deliberate deception at worst. Kool-aid drinkers will side with the false intel...until that is soundly proven wrong as well. See the mentality here? When the myth bumps into the facts everyone abandons the myths and motors on!

Should the impeachment process happen, should the American people get sucked into the debates, (they will), should mainstream media scramble to keep the whole thing on page one, (spin and all), then the facts will rapidly banish the myths, removing that curtain the bfee has hidden behind and what support there is remaining will astonishingly be swept away replaced by close to mob mentality for a lynching!

No we do NOT need to worry about the "votes" here any more then we needed to worry about Saddam Hussein becoming a martyr and unleashing a nuke ANYWHERE!

and not be blinded by passion. The whole point of impeachment is conviction. As it stands now, there are not the 67 votes in the Senate to convict and they are not going to magically appear. If there is to be a successful impeachment and conviction, it will require the help of the moderate Republicans who honestly want to purge their party of what is a philosophical distortion for traditional Republicanism. Their party has been hijacked by the extremists and the neocons. Get a prominent Republican senator like Senator Howard Baker during Watergate who asked, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Then Bushco will start to fall apart and probably quickly. It's the pebble that will start the avalanche.

I've been trashed as a "freeper" and "bushbot" in past "discussion" on this topic when I point out some sad realities that make impeachement at this particular moment a disaster for Democrats.

Read my reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=929558

I don't think there's even 40 Democratic votes now and only Hagel may cross. There are no Howard Bakers or anyone on the GOOP side with any integrity...if there were they would have stepped forward. Remember, Trent Lott had a vote on Nixon's impeachment as a member of the Judiciary committee (John Conyers, Charlie Rangel and Paul Sarbanes were also on that panel)...and Helmethair felt that NONE of Nixon's crimes were impeachable...but he did thing a sloppy hummer was. That's the climate we deal with.

And that's another major problem. Unless there's a conviction, the corporate media is sure to portray any vote that doesn't convict...even if it's 65...as being a "victory" for booooshie and would demoralize the Democrats going into the '08 elections.

Again, I wish circumstances were different, but to use the overused cliche..."we are where we are".

Cheers...

Many fine realists have been trashed here because they won't bay with the mob. Your opinions are appreciated.

Supporting impeachment now without even the possibility of conviction seems to have become the litmus test for being a good Democrat here at DU. I want to see Bush convicted, not simply impeached. If he was impeached now and fail to be convicted, those who are screaming the loudest for impeachment now would be going nuts.

There have been several threads on the impeachment process, and it's not hard to get your head around it. The house votes, the senate convicts by a two thirds majority.

I hate it when the mob turns on one of their own for talking sense and biding time. These are probably the same people who scream that Freepers are 'eating their own'. Freeperland has nothing on the auto-ingestion that happens here!

I have yet to see a president end up behind bars , I just can't see this happening even though he belongs in a cell for life as does cheney and many others .

It may be that many dems have things they don;t want brought out on them , this makes the most sense to me , after all they all live in a bubble and are not to be trusted especially when money or sex comes into play .

Who can say and we may never get to the center of this web of lies . Impeachment will at least prevent more damage or an attack on Iran .

This entire thing is moving like a snail .

:banghead:

1. Dems don't want to appear snarky and vindictive
   
   The assumption that impeachment is political poison is baseless. They tell us they will be accused of mounting a "partisan coup," when that accusation is easily deflected.¹
   
   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.


2. Impeachment may open a can of worms that implicates some Dems.
   
   Impeaching Bush and Cheney is the only way to break the bonds of complicity with the torture, the criminal surviellence program, and the abuse of signing statements to nullify the laws passed by Congress (like McCain's anti-torture amendment, which passed 90-9).
   
   It is their refusal to impeach that implicates them in these crimes against our constitutional democracy.
   
   It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime; even when you are deceived into complicity by the criminals. The Members who voted for the AUMF learned this. They have paid, and are continuing to pay a high political price. The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators who opposed the AUMF -- have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c">caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).
   


3. The numbers just are not there
   
   They tell us impeachment has insufficient public support, when the polls tell us the opposite. Despite relentless efforts by the establishment -- both Republican and Democratic -- to boost opposition and suppress support for impeachment, a Newsweek poll before the 2006 election 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.
   
   They tell us they don't have the votes to remove in the Senate.
   
   First off, it is arrogant of the House to declare to know the mind of the Senate.
   
   Of all the rationalizations for refusing to impeach, perhaps the most insidious is "Can't win; won't fight." It is a self-defeating prophecy. No battle can be won when we refuse to fight.
   
   In the case of impeachment, defeat is far from certain.
   
   Republicans know that the nation's anger at Bush is overwhelming. They are scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves.
   
   Many Republican Senators will loathe being forced to defend Bush and Cheney against very real, and very grave charges. Even those who enthusiatically embrace torture won't be keen to defend Bush's bush's abuse signing statemetns to arrogantly overrule them and render them powerless (e.g., Bush's nullification of McCain's anti-torture amendment, which the Senate passed 90-9.)
   
   The Republican caucus is likely to do everything in their power to force Bush and Cheney to resign to spare them from from having to vote and keep the WH in Republican hands. They'd rather see Bush and Cheney resign and turn over the WH to Pres. Danforth (a nominee likely to gain approval of the House and Senate) than President Pelosi.
   
   The establishment also appears willfully ignorant of the fact that impeachment is not a "one-shot" deal. Bush and Cheney are attacking our Constitution on so many fronts there is enough ammunition for at least a half dozen impeachments. The House could vote out a new set of articles monthly. The fight to impeach and remove would not be "lost" unless the House exhausts their ammunition before they achieve their goal. Even then, the 111th Congress could start over and impeach "in absentia."



4. ...and this is what I fervently hope....
   They are guaranteeing the future by giving the bastards enough rope to well and truly hang themselves for a long time to come.
   
   They thought the same thing when they refused to impeach Reagan and Bush I, and then watched in disbelief as Bush I took the Presidency.⁵
   
   Democratic leaders are hanging themselves by exacerbating the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.
   
   The Democratic Party's 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?" Those who do accuse, and then declare their intent to tolerate the intolerable by refusing to impeach sound like idiots.
   
   As long as they refuse to impeach, they trap themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

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

1. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .


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


5. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=142357&mesg_id=142901">It's like Deja vu all over again

Even 51 votes in the House is anything but a sure thing. It would only take 16 Democrats defecting to keep articles of impeachment from passing. I'm quite confident that there are at least 16 moderate to conservative House Democrats who have made clear to leadership that they don't want to deal with this. Many of these members are in districts that supported chimpy in 2000 and/or 2006 and, having not made impeachment an issue during their campaigns, I doubt that they feel comfortable with the issue now.

I am tired of people mad at the congress and senate for not passing things since the last election. Like said here earlier we don't have enough votes to override the nutcase in office.

My dream would be not only impeachment but federal prison. But who is going to stop them. Our justice system and courts are all run by them too.

Sometimes it just feels overwhelming...

Pelosi's pre-emptive surrender in the war that Bush and Cheney are waging on the Constitution is reprehensible. Their oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- "to support and defend."

There is a reason we take oaths to do the tough stuff. So that when the time comes, we "just do it." When principle demands action, you act. Even if you are sure the fight will be a "charge of the light brigade."

Refusing to fight crushes hope. On the one hand, we hear our leaders condemn the apathy of Americans, and then they turn around and promote apathy by telling Americans "Go back to bed. Your voice changes nothing. You can't win."

Impeaching Bush and Cheney, whatever happens in the Senate, is a victory. Every member who votes for impeachment is breaking the bonds of complicity.

Resignation is more likely than removal by the Senate, but removal by the Senate is VERY possible, as described in Post #13, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=932483">Each point is the opposite of reality..

I find option #4 cynical. Not only does Bush find our soldiers and Iraqis expendable for his own selfish reasons, but now the Dems might too? Oy! (and I'm not even Jewish!)

I would guess it is #3 which would make the most sense for Pelosi to ignore her constituents who are SCREAMING for impeachment. Going forward without the votes could backfire, particularly with the Dems already facing a hostile media. However, I would think that this difficult position should result as #4 would.


I can only hope that they don't back down on the investigations and subpoenas, as well as the punishment for these crooks. Then maybe Bush will start to learn how to meet people half way, or all the way for that matter.

Unfortunately, that's the truth. As long as there are at least 45 Repub senators who are lock-stepped to Bush, impeachment is impossible, at least in any effective way. Unless something new and massive comes out, or there's a sea change in the attitude of Congressional Republican, then the numbers just aren't there.

It is an excuse they only invoke when they fear the consequences of fighting.

The don't have any problem voting out bills to make a "statement" when they think the "statement" is a perfectly safe "statement" to make. -- bills they know will never become law.

When principle demands action, you act. Outcome expectations don't enter into the decision to act. When they invoke the excuse "Can't win; won't fight" they just confirm the public's perception that Democrats are weaklings and hypocrites.

Tragically, their fears that the sky will fall if they fight for impeachment are baseless. They may not realize it, but what they actually fear is getting dirty looks at cocktail parties.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=932483">Each point is the opposite of reality.

The Puke-whores in the MSM would spin it into be a PR disaster for us. :(

There is also the issue of getting the 2/3 vote for conviction. If we Impeach and then fail to convict I fear it will give * a free ride to act even more dictatorial then he already is.