I don't care if they don't have the votes ...

[GeorgeGist]

let the chickenshitters stand up and be counted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. They'd get the votes if they started impeachment hearings

[jgraz]

2. No shit

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. As long as the reps in DC run away from this issue, the grass-roots support is going to be limited to, well, the grass roots.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. shouldn't we test that theory first

by, oh... say breaking a filibuster or overriding a veto?

If we can't do that, how can we remove Bush?

[jgraz]

8. Oh yeah, cuz all of those issue are EXACTLY equivalent

Let's see if we can't push through a bill on, oh, maybe dairy subsidies. That'll give us a lot of information on whether we can uncover enough evidence to make a convincing case for impeachment.

:crazy:

[MonkeyFunk]

9. we can uncover evidence

through investigations. It doesn't require impeachment.

I'm arguing with the idea that if we build it, they will come. What evidence do we have that Republican senators are running from Bush? If we cant break a filibuster, that indicates they're not running yet.

[jgraz]

10. Impeachment hearings will focus attention, draw MSM coverage and put pressure on the Rethugs

Going against a popular movement for impeachment will be much more difficult than sneaking in votes against cloture. The dems are so afraid of "looking bad" (direct quote from Conyers) that they can't see the real political upside from pressing directly for impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I think

they're not so much afraid of "looking bad" for doing it, but for doing it and failing.

[jgraz]

14. Yep, when really they're failing by not doing it

I'm all for leading from the back row, but at some point these guys are going to have to fight this fight without being guaranteed a win beforehand.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. but as things stand right now

they're guaranteed to lose.

Americans aren't behind impeachment in the numbers that would put enough pressure on Republican senators to convict.

We can change those numbers, though, just as the Senate watergate committee did in '73. You investigate and uncover the evidence. THEN, when the crimes are indisputable and the public is aware of them, you move to impeach.

[jgraz]

17. instead of trying to break a filibuster, they should start impeachment against Gonzo

That's about as close to a slam dunk as they're gonna get.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Now that I can agree with

I think that would be a very worthwhile pursuit.

[jgraz]

21. Holy shit, we agree

And somehow, the universe has not exploded. ;)

[MonkeyFunk]

22. the problem

with debating on the internet is the discussion immediately focuses on the areas of disagreement.

We all agree that bush SHOULD be impeached and removed. We agree he's the worst president ever. We disagree on the tactics of how to achieve that.

[jgraz]

23. I completely disagree

:P

[bvar22]

18. "Fear of Failing"

Fear of Failing has kept a lot of good men from attempting to do the things they really should have done.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. How would a filibuster be a test?

Maybe you don't understand what I meant. IF they begin impeachment hearings, I am convinced the evidence would be overwhelming and proof beyond what is necessary to support throwing these bastards out. Every single republican in Congress is up for re-election next year. Impeachment hearings will be televised. When the American people see the evidence I have seen, all laid out at those hearings, they will demand their representatives do the right thing.

So a filibuster is not necessary. The damn votes will be there.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. ah

i think the big problem we have is that a lot of people think we should impeach, then have hearings to build the case.

That's not how it works.

You hold the investigations, uncover the evidence, build the case, THEN hold an impeachment hearing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. But we HAVE the evidence

The problem is that the American people have not seen it yet.

[miceelf]

15. Actually

NOT every republican is up for reelection next year. Many in the senate are not.

And many in the house are up for reelection in districts that still support Bush 2 to 1, thanks to Delay era gerrymandering.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Indeed they might: It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts

Dismissing prospects of impeachment for lack of votes undermines the seriousness of the allegations and thus discourages the House from aggressively pursuing its Constitutional imperative. All it's going to take is a few courageous members to initiate the hearings. This will add legitimacy to the effort and generate support on both sides of the aisle. No Republican member of the House wants the Bush albatross around his or her neck. But at the same time, these same members don't want to be associated with calls for impeachment that are considered free-floating and frivolous. If you build it, they will come.

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Amen!

At this point, the constant flow of shocking revelations about the crimes and outrages committed by this administratation -- I now think of it as "shock and awe" Democratic style -- are only serving to fuel my extreme frustration and aggravation over our Democratic congressmen/women's lockstep position that impeachment is off the table.

[Bonobo]

5. Agreed. Pre-counting votes is, like the issues of "60 votes needed", a lazy way out.

The Dems don't want to force the Pukes to fillibuster cause they don't want to syat up all night either. They pre-count so as to avoid having to do their real job which is to represent us. REPRESENT US!

51 votes are needed to pass a bill, not 60.

The 60 vote threat only has power if the Pukes are willing to actually get up there and continually fillipbuster and be obstructionist, BUT we have to force them to do so by continually bringing up the bills WE want to vote on. Simple as that.

Our Dems don't want to do the real work.

If they kept introducing the same bill and forced the Pukes to fillibuster, it would be clear who is obstructing the will of the people. Deny it if you can.
I support Cindy and anyone that really gets the cost of what is going on and acts appropriately. Aprropriately in this case is geting pissed, pissed, pissed off! Anything less is INAPPROPRIATE and is disrespectful of the sacrifice our soldiers are making

[rateyes]

6. You understand.

:applause: