Harry Reid "Impeaching the president is so far-fetched it's ridiculous,"

[bridge_to_nowhere]

"Impeaching the president is so far-fetched it's ridiculous," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told me last week while in Phoenix for Democratic Senate candidate Jim Pederson.
advertisement


Reid said he was "very glad" for the opportunity to debunk the 350-page "investigative report" released last week by Conyers in anticipation of a Bush perp walk out of the White House.

"Regarding Conyers, he's been called into (House Minority Leader Nancy) Pelosi's office," said Reid. "Don't worry about that (report)."

Desire is strong in Dems to impeach
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0813maceachern0813.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Long Live The DLC

Hillary's gotta be ecstatic that Harry's giving her something to triangulate against... so predictable...

[Rosco T.]

2. "Please Don't Throw Me In Der Briar Patch"...

.. said B'rer Rabbit.

If the Freeps think you won't, they'll rest easy.

[MisterP]

4. curiously, I heard the exact same phrase flung about

during the Gang of 14--and we all know how that turned out!

[ReadTomPaine]

3. This poster is already gone.

[DeSwiss]

5. And then on down further in the article.....

"But if Reid really believes that, once in power, House Democrats will be able to resist hearings of the sort that invariably morph into impeachment hearings, he's not paying attention.

For one thing, Pelosi can bark at Conyers now all she likes, but Conyers will become House Judiciary Committee chairman following a Democratic takeover. When that happens, Conyers won't need Pelosi's blessing to convene hearings."

The DLC had better batten down the hatches and re-group. One of their traitors has already been pitched out of the party. Its time for the Dems to clean house!

[never_get_over_it]

6. Like Nancy Pelosi is going to stop John Conyers

please you're killing me

Both Reid and Pelosi make me sick - this isn't so much about impeachment as it is oversight and investigation and where that leads it leads - but thanks to the voting machines we'll never know because the Dems will not take back either House or the Senate.

And I will be ever so happy to say man was I wrong on that one - but that is my gutt feeling....

[nealmhughes]

7. Better bribe a lot of Representatives, then Harry...it's not up to you.

You get to be the jury. The House investigates/indicts/impeaches... or at least that's the way I read my old copy of the Constitution, not the new abridged one that YOU, Harry Reid voted for...

[NVMojo]

8. Ah, one of those Reid/DLC moments

[Raydawg1234]

9. I wonder if Repubs thought that whey when they Impeached CLINTON

Fuck no.

If there ever was a time for impeachment it is now.

I am sick of these coward Dems who Internalize RW views. If we listen to them Dems will loose.

[dweller]

10. god i love the gossip columnists

MacEachern
what the hell is a MacEachern?

"Patty Weiss said she, too, had been "talking to Conyers." But for sheer, unbridled passion, none could top retired Air Force Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, who said he'd happily serve as "an expert witness" in hearings.

"Bush and Cheney both need impeaching," he said.

Do the more circumspect Democrats really believe that simple "hearings" wouldn't lead invariably down the impeachment path?

Do they really think a party base that just dumped Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut for anti-war candidate Ned Lamont isn't aching to drag the nation through Clinton's revenge?

If so, they need to read up on recent history. The New York Times reported in June 1994 that the Senate would hold Whitewater-related hearings that "will be limited to three elements that are not likely to embarrass President Clinton."

And we know where those hearings went.

maceachern,
dp

[Warren DeMontague]

11. OP is gone.

Buh-bye!~!

[theHandpuppet]

13. Why? Am I missing something here?

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

14. 11 posts, Thread linking a RW op-ed piece about "crazies" who want

impeachment...

I dunno. Seems pretty cut and dried to me, Joe.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. On Edit -- Ok, I saw your other post, I still think

folks should have the chance to explain themselves before we
make assumptions, or you have a fearful security culture where
newbies are constantly checking themselves for criticism...

Is he actually gone?

Some folks who live in small towns and are forced to get info
filtered thru local right wing rags should not have to apologize
for the messenger,

(On Edit: I'm not one of them, but I know people who are, and they shouldn't have to apologize for where they get their news.)

unless the intent of the message is clearly
meant to disruptive... Even demoralize is a bit iffy, I mean,
if the news is demoralizing to those of us on the left... well,
I can understand in the middle of a heated presidential campaign
folks wanting to be careful, but...

We should not be afraid to point out the forces Conyers
is up against, assuming as we all do that the Dems win in November.

I think it's good that Right wingers are crowing about this already.
All the better to call the right wing Dems out of their hidey-holes
and insist that they take a stand, one way or the other.

I hope criticism of Harry Reid is not verboten.

I don't care what the writer of the article thinks, it's a column from a right-winger in a right-wing state adjacent to another right-wing state that happened to elect Harry Reid.

I'm more interested in what Harry Reid thinks.

Edited to be less hostile -- I remember being called a freeper once
when I had a low post count a couple years ago -- I was issuing criticisms from a left standpoint.

I don't think I quoted right-wingers to point out that some Dem leaders are too lightweight, I can see how that would rankle moderate DEms.

I do appreciate knowing what the Right-Wing MSM think about Dem leaders without having to read them, however! It's gotten to the point where I can't even read the Washington Post, they are so pro-war, pro-developer, pro-free trade, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Uh, jack... *I* didn't alert on the guy.

Actually, if you look upthread, he was gone long before I got here.

Funny you seem to think I'm somehow rippin' on Conyers, or against impeachment. :rofl:

I mean, look who you're talking to.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. I can't see you, my computer screen is in the way!

Seriously, I edited the post you just replied to to come off less hostile. Security culture on websites always rankles me. I mean,
good discussion comes from a good community. I've seen cool discussion boards with both Right Wingers and Lefties, obviously DU is not supposed to be about that, but I hope folks don't get too paranoid or they'll have no skills left to cope with the obvious disappointment that is sure to occur if and when the new House and Senate Majority Leader decide to be "bipartisan" with the extremist Bush regime... :evilfrown:

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Gotcha. Replied to edited post.

This is like phone tag.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. 2nd Reply. Again, I agree. And I'd be surprised if he got banned

just for posting this thread. Maybe he did something else. But like I said, I didn't alert on the guy. I actually went the other direction, and assumed that since he was banned, the purpose of posting the article was ridicule/demoralization of those of us -a LOT of us- who think these clowns should be impeached. That was my assumption.

Peace.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. I'm cool with that! :-) n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. What, for pointing out that the DLC

Is trying to undermine talk of impeachment and get the leadership in line for a narrow, "bipartisan", pro-corporate majority of "moderate Dems" they've been looking for ever since 1988? The last thing they want to do is undermine the Bush legacy. Take credit for it and blame Bush for any faults, is more their style. (the DLC that is.) The DLC do NOT want Dems to impeach, do NOT want an end to warrantless wiretapping, withdrawal from Iraq, or any other major change.

It's stuff that they themselves wish Clinton would have done.
And if Clinton had done warrantless wiretapping, Iraq, etc. they would have praised it as a Nixon-to-China moment for the Democratic party.
Next on the DLC agenda would have been the final disassembly of the labor movement. That's just reality od who we are dealing with, who the older Dems like Conyers are up against...

Perhaps the original poster was tombnstoned for some other reason (because he posted an excerpt from a conservative columnist?)

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I agree with everything you say.

Except I don't know if the intent in posting this right-wing attack piece was to call out the DLC. I think it was to make a demoralizing point about how nutty those of us (wasn't it 87% on a recent MSNBC poll?) who think Bush should be impeached are. Just a hunch.

[LSK]

12. the author of this is a right winger

Look at a previous article he wrote, a slander piece on AAR:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0805maceachern05.html

[bananarepublican]

16. Harry... just say no! Until you are in a position to fry the bastards! n/t

[proud patriot]

20. Shoot for the moom that's my motto

B-)

[Buns_of_Fire]

21. Of course it's far-fetched -- TODAY

Come November 8, though -- if all goes well -- it might be within the realm of possibility with a Democratic-controlled House.

I really wouldn't expect Reid to come out and say, "You're damned right if we get control we're gonna impeach the sorry sumbitch!" That would only galvanize the disciples of Emperor Chucklenuts the Unitary and give the election a new single-issue to turn on -- which would suit the rebubbalcans just fine. Turn it all into a referendum on whether or not their Lord and Savior should be turned over to the bloodthirsty Democrats to rend asunder. Scare the Mushy Middle.

Besides, he knows it wouldn't be his call, anyway.

[Rosco T.]

28. Bingo. On All Counts. n/m

[Quantess]

26. It's probably true.

Unfortunately.

I was hoping for the A-hole to get thrown out, soon after the ridiculous 2000 election. Sadly, it never happened. And sadly, disappointment keeps coming. Then the 2004 "election". I was pinning my hopes on Kerry, big time. I prayed for Kerry, and I am not religious!

The hold on B*sh is too great for him to be impeached now.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. We couldn't even get a censure passed, let alone impeachment

30 years ago, impeaching Bush might have been practical but today it is simply not. We have a media that is far more interested in getting ratings by running stories about mothers drowning their children and Lance Bass's homosexuality than they are about holding our leaders accountable. 30 years ago there were statesmen in both political parties who would put country over party. No longer is this the case.

There is nothing that we can do to change this overnight, it can only be done with time. Right now our best hope is to take back congress and make Bush an official lame duck so that he can't do anymore harm to this country.

All of that being said, I don't see why Conyers needs to be called into Pelosi's office. The Republicans have plenty of people who make absolutely bastshit insane comments and they aren't silenced by their leadership. What Conyers is saying isn't even crazy, it's simply just impractical. There's no need to shut him up, especially since nobody outside of Michigan or the blogosphere even knows who he is. I hope that next January he will become Judiciary Committee Chairman and perhaps there is a possibility that his investigations will find something so horrid that impeachment will happen.

[marions ghost]

29. I knew this sounded fishy...

the Right is desperate. Watch out for lots of disinformation. Don't believe anything until proven is my motto. Don't react.