And About this "Thin Majority" In The Congress Bullshit ...

[ThomWV]

Someone explain to me how it came to be that when the Republican's held the same 'thin majority' in the Congress they were able to run roughshod over the Democrats and do anything they dam well pleased but now that we only have a "thin majority" we can't get the only god damned thing done -IMPEACHMENT- that will get this country back to sanity?

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. I don't think a "thin majority" can carry the day in the Senate

Afterall, doesn't it take 67 votes to CONVICT?

And, if you CAN'T convict, what's the point of impeachment?

[ThomWV]

2. What's the point? Its better to fight tyranny than to resign to it and lose freedom.

That is the point.

[lynnertic]

3. well, the (R)s did it to distract and disrupt and impede

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. So that's why you think WE should do it? n/t

[lynnertic]

15. Absolutely. But I add that we would do it for the good of the planet, to

DISTRACT the administration from constantly eroding our civil rights,
to DISRUPT efforts that oppose an end to the occupation of Iraq,
and to IMPEDE any possible attack on Iran.


cheers
:toast:

[1monster]

12. If the evidence is strong enough, and the case is presented in such a

way that the evidence can't be refuted (at least to reasonable people), then all but a few would have to vote to convict or see their careers seriously damaged.

[KingFlorez]

4. The Republicans had a bigger majority in the Senate

And obviously it helped that they had the executive office too.

[Lerkfish]

6. Perhaps the point is that when they had the majority under Clinton

they impeached, even though it didn't succeed.

They understood how important it was to impeach, even if they didn't understand what high crimes and misdemeanors are.

[jwirr]

9. The pugs were also sending their bills to their own prez and he

was not about to veto them.

[papau]

5. The GOP had Lieberman plus 6 other Dems avoiding filibusters for some reason that I

never understood.

Plus the GOP threaten to destroy the filibuster technique via the Vice President as head of the Senate and his interpretation of the rules.

We do not have a Dem vice president yet - but we do still have Lieberman.

[kurth]

7. 2009: Dems in control of White House and Congress but unable to pass key legislation

because of their "thin majority" in the Senate...

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vows action when Democratic majority reaches 99.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Because their "thin majority" didn't include anyone named Lieberman.

I think we could get more done if we adopted their tactics of not inviting republicans to the committee meetings, though.

[xchrom]

11. well -- if they are unwilling to even attempt to exact a price

for what republicans have done to them --

then there is really just not a lot to say about it.

it's what we have to live with.

[WillyT]

13. Didn't You Hear About The Plan ??? - Lookee Here:

"...a senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee recently argued to me, "we are holding what otherwise would be impeachment hearings under the heading of oversight" and publicly "embarrassing" the Bush-Cheney White House.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1176205

The thing is... as a Democrat... I'm embarrassed by that quote... and that reality.

:shrug:

[alfredo]

14. They also held the presidency. Even if the Dems can break a filibuster

bush will veto.

We have to win the war of ideas. We also have to shame those few Republicans that can feel shame into doing what is right for the country.