Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why don't the Democrats run on impeachment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 10:55 PM
Original message
Why don't the Democrats run on impeachment?
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 10:58 PM by boolean
Talk about energizing your base. I think the Democrats ought to make impeachment one of, if not THE, central theme in the upcoming elections. They need to convince all the fence sitters out there that this president needs to go before 2008, that he is a DANGER to the country. (And he is. We all know it.)

Anybody who thinks this president shouldn't be impeached is probably going to vote GOP anyway. He has broken more laws than a mob boss. I say play the impeachment card to win, then follow through with it. Then kick Cheney to the curb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because they're yellow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why don't they? Because it would upset their corporate paymasters. nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. because we don't want to scare the crap out of anyone that
might vote democratic that might not be a typical democratic voter

dems are running on the promise of OVERSIGHT and that means oversight into iraq and the billions of cash we were handing out that disappeared, oversight into nsa wiretapping, katrina, etc etc

and if that oversight just so happens to lead to charges being brought against the criminals...well, then so be it! (and it will be, i'm sure)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. yahtzee
and you are one of the few people here at DU that understands this.

Nancy Pelosi flat-out said if investigations lead to impeachment, so be it. Screaming it to the rooftops would play into the GOP mantra now. They know what's coming, but we don't need to hand them a campaign slogan by admitting to the inevitable course of action. It's a game.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. sorry
Politics is a game. And to win we have to be smarter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. We have a winner ...
First ... Running on "impeachment" is just not right ... WE all KNOW this crew has done 100 different things that should lead to impeachment, but you have to have the PROCESS first ... Have to have official hearings, and it is putting the cart before the horse to just jump to impeachment ...

It is absolutely the right thing, because it is the right thing, to promise oversight, to promise accountability and checks and balances ... THAT is all that can be promised, despite knowing that the likely outcome would be ...

And, as you noted, while we want every single one of these freaks hung by their fingers off a cliff ... "We" are just 30 percent or so of the people who are going to vote ... Add in the 30 percent who will support these criminals regardless, and you have that 40 percent or so in play that isn't going to want to hear that the democrats have put the horse before the cart ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. I personally think they're doing the right thing by acting like they're
not interested in impeachment. They don't want to sound like they're on a witchhunt. Investigations, hearings and oversight will be one of the things on the agenda. You have to investigate before you impeach. I guess the plan is to do thorough investigations and see where that takes us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. sorry
Again, we have to be smarter.

Oh, that and quit hating Democrats more than Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. I personally think they're doing the right thing by acting like they're
not interested in impeachment. They don't want to sound like they're on a witchhunt. Investigations, hearings and oversight will be one of the things on the agenda. You have to investigate before you impeach. I guess the plan is to do thorough investigations and see where that takes us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sorry, double post.
You can delete this extra one if you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's a bad idea
alot less people want that than you are thinking. And please don't cite cleverly worded polls to me. It would just look like revenge for Clinton. We should be doing something about the issues instead of forcing that blockhead to admit he was wrong. If he admits whatever it is you want him to admit, how will that improve healthcare? Will we have more oil? Will that bring the troops home? I'm against impeachment for those reasons. I think it would backfire badly if we did that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisainmilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
40. WHATEVER!
I completely disagree with you, but carry on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think you're 100% right....
My only concern is, as much as I like the Impeachment word, it could backfire, Republicans will call us 'angry unpatriotic democrats'. We have to come across as reasonable.

I think if we did a big campaign underlining the fact that Republicans held the majority in every branch of our government for the last six years, we'll have it made. ...We're already seeing republican pundits trying to pin this mess on us. Their motto seems to be, "Democrats were stupid enough to back our war at the start; how could you trust such stupid people?". We can't let them get away with that.

Nancy Pelosi used the term "Subpoena Power" when she was explaining why democrats couldn't look into White House records. It kind of gave an explanation as to why democrats seem to have their hands tied when it comes to holding this White House accountable. ...If we get out the word that Democrats need to win in November in order to achieve this magical wonderful "Subpoena Power", people will come out in droves to vote of democrats. Even a die-hard republican might listen to reason and accountability.

We have to win. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. So much better to run on the wishy-washy ticket that always works
so well for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
10. why? because not all of America is DU
Sure, we here WANT impeachment and believe it's absolutely justified.

Not all of America feels that way. And even those who might be willing to be convinced if there were impeachment proceedings brought that made the case, that doesn't mean that they'd vote Dem on the possibility of what might be seen as a political witch-hunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Quote: "Talk about energizing your base."
Because Dems need to appeal to more than just their base, to win national elections.

If the Dems do win big in November (and I'm not convinced they will... we've seemed to be ahead in the recent past and fallen short) then there is a chance that Dems might investigate Katrina failures, Bush lying to Congress, what actually happened with 911, etc.

So first we need to have some Democratic victories
Then some possible bi-partisan investigations.

A better question to ask, possibly: Why don't Dem candidates challenge/dare GOP incumbents not to block Congressional investigations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alacrat Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Not a good idea
I support progressive ideology, and hope one day it will spread throughout the party, and eventually throughout the nation. Now we are a minority. IMO we will do ourselves more harm than good by pushing to hard to fast. We need to regain control as a party, and then work to change our party, by moving it into the direction we want it to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Why can Repukes get away with it, but not Democrats?
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 08:58 AM by boolean
So what if a lot of America doesn't feel that way? This is how you CONVINCE them.

Why is it that the Repugs have absolutely no problem pushing freeper bullshit that the majority of America doesn't agree with? They seem to get away with it, don't they? It's about energizing the base, and it's about convincing more people to join the base.

Dems have to start playing the GAME. Stop chicken shitting out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. why? because THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA
until the Dems can, it won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. don't run on impeachment . . . run on the "impeachable" issues . . .
(just about everything BushCo has done) and let people draw their own conclusions . . .

the war in Iraq, the "war on terror," a government of laws, honest elections, healthcare, and civil rights and liberties, for starters. . .

toss in mentions of the economy, energy policy, saving the environment, the PNAC, and re-opening the 9-11 investigation as boosters . . .

just tell the truth about each -- and let people decide for themselves . . . people are not stupid; they're just uninformed and/or misinformed and/or completely disengaged . . .

getting the truth out will be difficult, of course, given the state of the corporate media . . . we'll need to rely on the internet and other non-traditional avenues . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. NO NO NO
Bring up these issues and then say "this is why the chimp ought to be impeached". NEVER let the people draw their own conclusions. You have to give the conclusions to the people if you want to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:09 AM
Response to Original message
15. I don't expect the world from our leadership.
But maybe they should split the difference and run on "accountability".

We need a complete review; hearings into budget mismanagement, conduct of the war in Iraq, contract graft by Halliburton, election fraud and the list goes on.

Before you can fix the problem you need oversight, facts and accountability. Given the incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration the next logical step might be impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. I have mixed feelings about impeachment. Suppose we start proceedings.
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 04:45 AM by pnwmom
1. Cheney will resign.
2. Bush will appoint new V.P., e.g., John McCain
3. Bush is either impeached or resigns first
4. John McCain names Colin Powell as his new V.P.
5. McCain and Powell run in 2008.

Would we be better off than we would be if we just spent the next two years publicly airing all their dirty laundry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. That's exactly it!
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 04:41 PM by Independent_Liberal
You nailed it. We must be psychically linked.

Here's what will happen:

IRAQ, PLAME, ABRAMOFF, BIG OIL, DOJ, FBI, CIA, DIA, DOD, NORAD, CENTCOM, NSA, FAA, ETC.
All Roads Lead To
9/11 COMMISSION COVER-UP

Endgame: The Perfect Storm
What sets it off?


Some interesting things start to come to light at the William Jefferson Capitol Hill FBI raid hearings.
1. The Department of Justice, the FBI, Federal Prosecutors and Senate Investigators get some cooperation in the Abramoff case and the Duke Cunningham bribery case. A GOP security aide comes forward with evidence relating to New Hampshire phone jamming at a court testimony. Jack gives up all the information he has on everything including defrauded Indian tribes, gaming casinos, lobbying firms, illegal campaign contributions sent to GOP Congress people, foreign influence peddling, illegal arms trafficking, the American Turkish Council, Denny Hasterts ties to Turkish spies and his shady housing deals, the SunCruz investigation, Guam, the Marianas, Adam Kidan, Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, David Safavian, Grover Norquist, John Colyandro, Jim Ellis, Tom DeLays misuse of the FAA and the DHS, his trips to Russia and the people who turned up dead in his district, DeLays ARMPAC, Bob Neys golf outings in Scotland, his ties to Iran and use of secret government wiretapping operations, Carl Gutierrez, Haley Barbour, Ernie Fletcher, Bob Taft, Tom Noe and Coingate, Ken Blackwells stocks in Halliburton, Leandro Aragoncillo, mobsters, the Gus Boulis murder case, New Hampshire phone jamming, stolen computers from the Ohio Democratic Headquarters, terrorists at casinos, 9/11 and Mohammad Atta, Saudi money, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Enron espionage and Afghani pipeline deals, heroin trafficking, money laundering, GOP prostitution rings and pedophiles, Wally ODell and Diebold, HAVA, Ralph Reed, etc. Randy gives up all info on Porter Goss, Kyle Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, MZM Inc., defense contractors and hooker and poker parties at the Watergate Hotel. They blow the whistle on several Republican leaders in the House, Senate and Executive Branch. All this doo doo hits the fan and Ney, Hastert, John Doolittle, Dana Rohrabacher, Richard Pombo, Roy Blunt, Louis Gohmert, Tom Feeney, Conrad Burns, Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter, Katherine Harris, Brian Bilbray, etc. are all indicted as well as their staff members. Also, Austin, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle indicts John Cornyn on charges relating to Abramoff-DeLay money and the SEC charges Bill Frist for his insider trading.
2. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald manages to obtain info from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in the CIA Leak investigation. This is related to missing emails from Cheneys office and White House documents requested by Federal Judge Reggie Walton.
3. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is indicted by Fitzgerald for perjury and obstruction of justice and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith is brought up on espionage charges in the AIPAC case.
4. Fitzgerald indicts Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for obstruction of justice.
5. A few whistleblowers step forward at the open and closed door House and Senate subcommittee hearings on NSA domestic spying and the Pentagons 9/11 Able Danger program and more interesting info is revealed. Several insiders from AT&T, Bell South and Verizon are forced to release info on phone records and data collected by the NSA.
6. More damaging info is revealed at the House and Senate Katrina hearings.
7. An Independent Commission to investigate the NSA wiretaps is set up. NSA staffer Russell Tice gives testimony before the Commission. Shortly after, the citizens appointed special grand jury to investigate torture allegations is set up.
8. Edmonds v. DOJ FBI translator Sibel Edmonds takes her case with the DOJ on FBI cover-ups to one of the Federal Courts. At the same time, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer gets an independent grand jury investigation into the 9/11 events in New York City going. Some family members are alleging a government cover-up. An Independent Prosecutor is appointed to investigate the World Trade Center EPA case, insurance fraud and other unsolved crimes related to the events.
9. The Democrats win back Congress and the Governorships in the November 2006 midterm elections. They get huge margins in both the House and Senate.
10. Happy New Year. January 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session The new Congress is sworn in (with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Conyers as House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman as House Government Reform Committee Chairman and Louise Slaughter as House Rules Committee Chairwoman).
11. Cheneys former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby is convicted and he implicates Cheney. A bunch of info comes to light about Plame, Halliburton no-bid contracts and Iraq corruption, AIPAC, the Energy Task Force and secret energy meetings and Mexico influence peddling. Cheney is indicted by Fitzgerald for treason, conspiracy, espionage, fraud and tax evasion. Calls are made for his resignation and his head on a silver platter. Cheney resigns. He claims hes leaving because of health problems.
12. Congress forces Bush to appoint John McCain as Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote overwhelmingly to confirm Vice President McCain.
13. Conyers sets up a House Select Fact Finding Committee to investigate everything (Downing Street Memos, Plame, White House Iraq Group, AIPAC, Niger forgeries, depleted uranium, Patriot Act and IRS abuses, Dubai Ports deals, mining disasters, Edmonds FBI whistleblower case, NSA, Gannon, Abramoff, Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate, Enron, Halliburton-Kellogg Brown & Root, Carlyle, Harken, Betchel, WorldCom, 9/11 Commission cover-ups, election fraud, Coingate, torture of prisoners, FEMAs Katrina response, Pentagon psyops units and secret government propaganda operations in the Office of Special Plans, etc.) Hearings begin and subpoenas are issued. Several whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, FAA, State Department and Pentagon step forward to testify. The public hearings are broadcast on television 24/7. A few Independent Counsels show Congress their findings from grand jury investigations. And Waxman opens an investigation into Halliburton war profiteering and examines reports from the GAO.
14. The investigation into Senator Paul Wellstones 2002 plane crash death is reopened.
15. The Senate sets up an Investigative Committee to investigate Iraq intelligence, Phase II, Plame, NSA, 9/11 oddities, Energy Commission cover-ups and other corruption, waste, fraud and abuse and an Independent Prosecutor is appointed. Senate hearings begin and Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, Richard Clarke, James Comey and Lawrence Wilkerson all step forward as witnesses. Ted Kennedy chairs the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Abramoff Special Prosecution Force brings evidence before the Senate. A few other things that get looked into by the Senate include: 1. The cover-up of the cost of the Medicare Bill that the administration asked certain individuals to hide before Congress. 2. John Negroponte's involvement with the School of the Americas and the death squads in South America. This also ropes in Henry Kissinger as well. Michael Hayden, Gonzales, etc. get implicated in this investigation too, when it expands into Abu Ghraib abuses, along with more damning info on what went on in NSA. Porter Goss, Denny Hastert and others testify against these folks, since that power play that Gonzales, Negroponte, etc. engineered to claim the right to searching Congressional offices got folks like Hastert upset. As a result, the School of the Americas will be shut down. 3. Involvement of ChoicePoint in various efforts in orchestrating election fraud in Florida, Ohio, and other places here and their involvement in election fraud in Mexico that helps Obrador force a new election and dismiss the current corrupted results.
16. Indicted Pentagon official Larry Franklin implicates Rumsfeld in the AIPAC case and Rumsfeld is indicted and resigns.
17. Congress forces Bush to nominate a "bipartisan" Secretary of Defense. Bush picks Lieberman. The Senate confirms Defense Secretary Lieberman.
18. As a part of Edmonds and other whistleblowers coming forward on the AIPAC, Plame, and other investigations, this forces a reopening of the investigation of David Kelly's death, Judith Miller's complete knowledge of that event, and a complete investigation into whether Brewster Jennings was close to exposing a plot to plant WMD's in northern Iraq that might have happened had Brewster Jennings not been shut down by the Plamegate affair. The House and Senate do joint inquiries into: 1. What pressure BushCo had on trying to accelerate the public airing of the latest terrorist plot before British Intelligence wanted to expose it, thereby losing the opportunity to arrest and contain more folks that were involved in that conspiracy. Related to this, it is looked into who in the Bush administration, and for what reasons, might have leaked A.Q. Khan's name out prematurely, which might have lead to some escaping to further carry out the London subway bombing raids later. 2. What sort of data mining that Bushco wanted to do through Google, Yahoo, AT&T, etc. over and above the NSA wiretaps. It is looked into whether Google or other search engines were asked to have their search hits manipulated at certain times to censor information on sensitive events, etc. too. (I personally suspect that Google was asked to censor certain hits like those having to do with Sibel Edmonds at the time that Larry Franklin was arrested when the AIPAC spy scandal became exposed publicly.)
19. United States v. Bush One of the whistleblower cases goes to the Supreme Court. One of the conservative justices breaks ranks and sides with the liberals on the matter. It is ruled that Bush must turn over documents on FBI cover-ups from the DOJ Inspector Generals office based on allegations by Edmonds and others. Bush refuses to comply. The Senate holds a censure vote.
20. Congress motions to impeach Bush. Impeachment proceedings and hearings begin. The House Judiciary Committee begins voting on articles of impeachment.
21. A small delegation of Congressional Republicans go up to the White House and urge Bush to resign.
22. Bush resigns to avoid impeachment. He fakes an illness.
23. McCain is sworn in as President. He appoints George Pataki as his Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote to confirm Pataki. And of course, McCain-Pataki are Jerry Ford-Nelson Rockefeller until January 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
17. Why change the momentum?
The winds of change are going for the Dems. If the big election issue became the 'upcoming impeachment', I think the whole thing would become stalled. The idea is to convince the independent voters to go the Dem way. They might have a different view if they perceived that the country would now be bogged down with those proceedings. Let's get elected first!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
18. Because they would lose.
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 05:56 AM by bowens43
We can't win with just our base. We need the moderates and the independents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
19. Corpomedia would CRUCIFY them...
They would immediately make "impeachment" the curse word of all time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. The media companies are owned by
the same mega corps that own the big munition suppliers..
They could care less about ratings, they are there to spin!

(please don't shout)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
20. Because that issue is not primarily about the voters
Impeachment is not an issue on the radar for most voters. Strong leadership, strong plans to keep America safe and strong plans to help the American worker get and keep good jobs and the health care benefits that go with them, are on the agenda for most voters.

What does impeachment have to do with improving the lot of the average American family? What good would it do them? How long does it take to explain the need and what do you expect the average American to get out of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. What does gay marriage, flag burning, etc have to do with anything?
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 09:05 AM by boolean
Americans don't vote on issues. Why do they vote Repuke when scared by the "homosexual agenda" or other such bullshit? If Americans truly cared about the important issues, they wouldn't have put this idiotic chimp back in power. (Election fraud notwithstanding!)

You're right, impeachment is NOT on the radar screens of most voters. Let's put it there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
24. Our base doesn't need energizing
We're trying to win a lot of elections (House and Senate) that have gone Republican in recent years. That means convincing people to switch sides -- something they're less likely to do if we promise to overturn the apple cart (and leave Dick Cheney in charge for real).

What's more, impeachment isn't really practical at this point. Assuming that we could win majorities in the House and the Senate, it would take nearly a year to get the impeachment through Congress. That would mean impeaching Bush only about 10 months before the next presidential election. And that would gain us what?

Bush has been effectively neutered, and winning control of either the House or the Senate would make him a lame duck for two years. Rather than make discrediting Bush (who can't run again) the object of our efforts, it should be discrediting the conservative ideology that he espouses. My vote is that we hold an endless round of congressional hearings into the myriad ways that Bush Policy has harmed the nation.

That way the next conservative who runs for office can't try to cover himself with a "Blame Bush" campaign -- suggesting that conservative policies were good, it was just that Bush was ineffective and/or incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
professor_grove Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. too weak and afraid
Pelosi has already announced she wont impeach. Thats why theres little chance of victory, no real guts, not to mention Diebold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
38. i agree...campaigns are supposed to be...
...about the 'vision thing', and what better way to focus the public's attention on the real differences between Democrats and Republicans than by running on an Impeach Bush Now slogan? The trope is very simple: if you supported impeaching Clinton for lying about a blow job, how can you NOT support impeaching Bush for lying U.S. into a war of choice on false pretenses? Adopting this as the unified campaign theme will put GOP incumbents (and challengers) on the defensive--as in, having to defend the indefensible; and only good things can come from that. Let the M$M bray and scream...it's not like they're going to give any progressive Democrat a fair hearing or shake anyway.

On the other hand, i do agree that the DP won't do this for the reasons others have stated in this thread, which is quite the pity...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisainmilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
39. uggghhhhh! I am with you!
Edited on Mon Aug-28-06 08:07 PM by lisainmilo
I truly do not know why this issue is not being brought up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frankly, it ticks me off that it isn't! It doesn't have to be a main theme, but should be a part of it.

I have begun a website that has turned to the sole purpose of impeachment. I have put it up several times on this board and others. I have set up polls to see if people will get involved in this, yes some have shown great enthusiasm, but some (possibly most) tell me to just let it go and put energy into November elections, or comments like, "It won't happen"

However, I will NOT give up my efforts to put the word out there to impeach. I believe that Bush should be sitting in the cell next to Saddam for war crimes. I believe he has thrown the constitution away and does whatever he wants, whenever he wants and however he wants! He has 4 impeachable offenses against him. We, American citizen are allowing our leaders to walk freely and not be held accountable for their crimes! To me it almost breaks my heart and feel we really cant complain about Bush unless we make him accountable for his actions. Why should Bush become a honest, caring leader? Why should he change? He controls the ball, and we let him have the ball! Well, I am trying to take the ball from him. Maybe, just maybe one of you who reads this will join me in getting involved and taking the ball away from Bush.

You know, I just believe in heros I suppose, and I believe in the type of heros who have courage. Who have integrity. Who have honesty, Who have principles. You know, someone our children and our childrens children can look up to, with a sense of pride and dignity. That is who our congress, senators and president should be or at least aspire to be.

I understand, Nixon didn't need average Joe to go to the senate or house with a DIY impeachment. Republicans had no problem bringing Clinton in for impeachment, they didn't ask the republican citizens to send in DIY impeachments. But this is NOT politics as usual! With a republican house and republican senate the issue will not be brought up! So it is up to "average me" to bring it up, and I have. www.johnlisainmilo.com/liberty_1.html and I will continue!

MAYBE IN NOVEMBER, IF WE WIN MAJORITY, MY DREAM WILL COME TRUE AND IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WILL BE HELD FOR BUSH, CHENEY AND ALL THOSE INVOLVED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
41. Sorry, Skittles.
P-u-s-s-i-e-s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 13th 2019, 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC