. . .from of all places the Washington Times, offers some specific quotes that demonstrate the depth of their denial. Perhaps they got so many WTF??!! calls in response they figure they'd better keep their lunacy "on background."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070405-071057-7450r.htm">Impeach Bush chorus growing, Dems say
By Christina Bellantoni
The Washington Times
Published April 5, 2007Congressional Democrats say their constituents are clamoring for something even the most liberal lawmakers promise they won't pursue: President Bush's impeachment.
"I get one call after another saying, 'Impeach the president,'" said Rep. John P. Murtha,
Democrats say their constituents also want them to target such dministration figures as Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser.
Rep. Diane Watson, California Democrat, said she hears calls for impeachment from every crowd.
"They say, 'Democrats: Do something. Get Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales.' They are saying impeachment. I am hearing that more and more and more," said Ms. Watson. . . Although she said she would support impeachment, she speculated that it is "not a strategy our new leadership would want to start with."
An online "Impeach Bush" movement has received 861,000 votes, and the president's approval ratings hover below 30 percent nationally, according to polls.
Few of those surveys ask about impeachment, and a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted in January showed less than 1 percent think a Bush impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress. (
BS poll, see notes). . .
Several congressional Democrats told The Washington Times in an informal survey last week that they think impeachment is the wrong strategy.
"The Republicans showed their true colors when they impeached President Clinton," said Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat.
He called the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons' Arkansas real estate dealings a "witch hunt" that wasted thousands of hours and "so much of the public's money."
"We Democrats have to show the people of this country that we're better than that," he said.
Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, last year authored a resolution calling on Congress to censure Mr. Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. He told The Times that he is unlikely to reintroduce the bill or push for impeachment hearings.
"The election in many ways was a censure of the president and his performance in a number of these areas," Mr. Feingold said, noting that voters want Congress to tackle Iraq policy, health care and government accountability.
"Impeachment might make it look like we don't care about the other stuff," he said. "I don't think it serves the American people well, even though if there ever was a president that deserved to be removed, this is probably the guy."
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, backed censure last year but said the focus now should be on oversight. "It's a chance to change the administration's behavior, not just to express disappointment," said Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage.
Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman, has backed off his impeachment calls and has not reintroduced his bills to censure Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
A Conyers spokesman said the chairman has "no plans to resubmit" the bills, but declined further comment. Mr. Conyers' campaign Web site once implored visitors to "demand an investigation of administration abuses of power" and consider impeachment.
Mr. Conyers is still no fan of the Bush administration, as is evident on the site now, but his calls for impeachment have been removed.
Harkin's took my breath away. Called his office and asked "What 'true colors' are the Dems showing by REFUSING to impeach mem who turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on it's citizens?!?"
Didn't get through to Kerry's office then, but if he believes we gave Congress the awesome power to imepeach to "express disappointment" he needs a serious knock in the head with a big clue-by-four. And gee Senator, aren't those efforts to "change the administration's behavior" working out well?
And Conyers. Don't even get me started. When your champions start
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2863118&mesg_id=2863211">babbling like idiots, it is just too heartbreaking.
================== Notes ==================The Times/Bloomberg Poll asked an open-ended question ("What issue do you think should be the first priority for the newly elected Congress to address?") and limited respondents to two answers. Responses to open-ended questions are dictated by accessibly. The more frequently or recently one has been exposed to a topic the more accessible it is. (THE ACCESSIBILITY BIAS IN POLITICS: TELEVISION NEWS AND PUBLIC OPINION, Iyengar Int J Public Opin Res.1990; 2: 1-15 )
Given the media silence on impeachment, it is not surprising that so few would cite it On the rare occasions that impeachment does get mentioned in the media, it is rejected as something that can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. As a consequence, even of impeachment occurs to a respondent, they would tend to dismiss it as outside the realm of possibility.
In the poll Newsweek conducted shortly before the election (21-Oct-2007) respondents were prompted to assign a priority to specific items. In that poll, 51% rated impeachment a priority
http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
