Gore does not support impeachment

[Qutzupalotl]

Many here (myself included) were upset by Obama's statement that impeachment was counterproductive, and some vowed not support him. But Gore, perhaps the most popular candidate-in-waiting, said virtually the same thing:

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."
. . .
"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/B77EB82F-FD25-494A-9280-F074A55BC17F/


My question to those of you who protested Obama's comments is...whom do you support now?

[thereismore]

Gore/Obama Ha!

[AtomicKitten]

4. yahtzee

:thumbsup:

[Qutzupalotl]

21. Right there with ya

Just maybe 3% less enthusiastic than before.

It's worth noting that neither are in a position to vote on impeachment. If it comes to that (and it should), Obama should vote to convict.

But maybe they have a point. We can more or less hold the criminals in check, investigate the hell out of them, embarrass them, tarnish the Republicans, and still get much of our legislative agenda through. Oh, and win in 2008.

My hope is that the first item on the new congress' agenda in January 2009 is an impeachment for the sake of posterity, without a vote on removal being necessary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Kucinich

but I've always supported him. He's the only candidate walking his talk by introducing legislation based on his ideas.

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Me, too

GO DENNIS!

[Qutzupalotl]

26. Can't argue with that.

For once, I'm speechless. :-)

[aquart]

2. I support the constitution. I wish the candidates would.

[Joe Fields]

34. Thank you!!!!

:toast:

[BOSSHOG]

3. I want bush and cheney to stay in the public eye to keep fucking up

to ensure that the gop becomes the minority party for decades to come. I think that would be a better outcome then impeachment. My states (Mississippi's) primary is irrelevant so I don't involve myself in the dem battles now. My only wish is that General Clark become Secretary of State regardless of the nominee.

[DURHAM D]

8. I pretty much agree with you while keeping a hopeful eye

on the health of certain Supremes. If it looks like Bush is going to get another appointment than I will admit that I supported the wrong path.

[BOSSHOG]

9. I think we are just about at the end of the rope for bush

to force another neocon on the bench. If Stevens can hang on for just another few months, bush will not put another person on the bench unless they are dem senate approved. Maybe wishful thinking on my part but he ain't got the support to do anymore ruination on the judiciary. He's done enough damage already.

[Larkspur]

5. Bush-Cheney really needed to be impeached in 2004

I agree that impeaching Bush now will drag on til 2008 election day, but I would not have removed the threat of impeachment. If impeachment is "impractical" the Dems still need to hold Bush accountable. The Dem leaders suck at PR and that is my main argument against them. I don't have a problem wiht Dems losing some legislative battles, but they continually lose the PR battles with the Repukes.

[shance]

6. I have just become an Independent. Of course there is consensus for impeachment.

Except for the elite and the those profiteering from the bloodshed in the Middle East.

[mdmc]

7. Isn't Kucinich great

:toast:

[lovuian]

14. Yes he is

I think Gore realizes the reality of the situation and is trying to cover Obama

But alas its not what you think AL its what Americans want Congress to do
Do their job

When Al makes these statements it makes me realize why he didn't win the 2000 election and had Liberman as his vice Prez

Al I love him but sometimes he doesn't think wisely

Kucinich is honest

[mdmc]

27. I live in NYS, so my electoral vote went to gore in 96 and 2000

but I don't vote for drug war supporters unless it is too close to call.:kick:

[xultar]

10. I'm waiting to see all the Gore people post their removal of support....

I won't hold my breath.

[NYCGirl]

28. I think Gore's right. I also think Obama's right.

Are you breathing now?

[xultar]

39. WHEW! Thank gawd.

[theoldman]

12. I live in an extremely conservative area where many

Republicans are no longer strong supporters of Bush. I still think that an impeachment would make them come to his defense. Chaney and the other crooks are a different thing and I believe most of the Republicans would not care if they are kicked out of office. Maybe Bush can be prosecuted after he leaves office in 2008. I do not think that a President is safe just because he is no longer the President.

[Neshanic]

13. I am going to play cult of personality like others here. Gore can do NO wrong.

Nothing. Not say anything wrong, not do anything wrong. He is the man that needs to run and be the next president.

Besides, who are Obama and Clinton and our sorry gang of nitwits running have that Gore has. Nothing. No experience. No trangulation issues, and he has it all.

I don't care if he says that everyone should be pardoned. He's the guy that will win this for us...with CLARK.

[bleedingheart]

15. I am voting for Kucinich

I think people should be punished for their crimes....especially crimes like starting an illegal war and trying to use the US Government services in a manner to further your own personal interests and those of your party...like firing lawyers, rigging elections...etc

[Individualist]

41. Ditto!

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Doesn't change a thing for me...

since none of the serious leaders, whether running for President or not, seem to know of a way to impeach with impunity, I am assuming they know more about it than the blog warriors or the peanut gallery here on DU.

In the entire history of this country, NOT ONE President has been successfully impeached and removed. Nixon resigned because he knew he probably would lose his trial by Senate, but that he was the ONLY President ever to lose his job should give some hint at just how serious and difficult a Presidential impeachment really is.

There is a lot of work to be done by a fractured Congress, and impeachment, as enticing as it sounds, would not help and would not be possible without a significant number of Republican Senators on board. As with Nixon-- it wasn't the Democrats who forced him out, it was his own party.

[garybeck]

18. me too. he's not serving right now, he'll never be in a position to vote on impeachment,

so it's irrelevant.

[Phredicles]

17. It is disappointing and baffling to me, but

I still think he represents our best hope right now.

Maybe he wants to avoid seeming personally vindictive, since he was first and most famously shafted by this crowd? Maybe he doesn't want to seem to be telling Reid and Pelosi how to do their jobs (or to start doing them, for crying out loud)?

At this point if Mr. Gore said, "look, I'm not running, dammit, so get the fuck outta my face" (which is about what it would take for me to accept that it's over), I probably would vote for Kucinich. Edwards right now looks the least lame of the big three, but it's not enough.

[npincus]

19. I still love you, baby. Now RUN.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Gore never said he OPPOSED impeachment.

When asked about impeachment, he talked about the feasibility with time constraints.

Just another gratuitously extrapolated talking point.

Thanks for your edit.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Thanks, edited title of thread.

Ulterior motive, if any, is to hold both Gore and Obama to the same standards.

I'd be happy with either or both on the ticket, but the double standards around here are staggering.

[AtomicKitten]

25. It's the Primary War ever-changing rationalization

to boost one contender over another. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If you check your expectation that discussion be reasonable at the door, you should do okay. :)

[JDPriestly]

23. If and when impeachment is really appropriate, most of the

nation including us at DU will know it. We need to take the Bush administration record to the American people in 2008. Impeachment would make that record old news. Why should we erase it? That's not good strategy. Still Obama was unwise to just pretty much take it off the table -- as is Gore.

I think the Democrats are afraid to impeach because they fear that impeachment will be used against them when they are in power. They see the impeachment of Clinton as simply payback for the impeachment of Nixon and believe that the impeachment of Bush would be perceived by right-wingers as political payback for the impeachment of Clinton. They don't want our government to turn into just a game of impeach and remove, impeach and remove. I think they are wrong. I think it is more likely that the government will turn into a game of corrupt and control in which the Republicans cheat and cheat and cheat to grab as much of what is left of American wealth for themselves as they possibly can before we discover just how poor and helpless we are.

Start preparing yourselves to do a lot of tabling and talking to voters over the next year. Read and study the issues and practice discussing them. It is the only recourse we have. It is the only way we can fight the corporate machine that controls the media. I agree it is not much, but it is all we have left.

Personally, I just gave my first donation to Edwards. And, yes, I was moved to do it because of Elizabeth Edwards' gentle confrontation with Ayn Rand Coulter. That kind of intelligent, respectful, polite response to the personal attacks by the Republican mouthpieces is exactly what this country needs and exactly what I believe will win in 2008. I would like to see other candidates taking the same approach. Had Kerry called in when a SwiftBoater was on TV, he might have had a landslide that the Republicans couldn't cheat on. If we stop the ugly discourse, the personal attacks, we can get back to discussing the issues including whether we want four more years of the kind of corruption we have seen in the Bush administration.

I would like to have seen Michelle Obama call in to confront Ayn Rand Coulter about the attacks on Obama. It is not too late. And, of course, Hillary and all the others need to take the stand the Edwards have taken.

Above all, Hillary and Obama need to stop criticizing each other and other Democratic candidates and using little dirty tricks on each other. It is that kind of criticizing your buddies that causes Democrats to lose elections. I oppose any Democratic candidate that uses dirty tactics and rumor mongering about any other Democrat in order to get an advantage. In the end, the Republicans always turn our own primary rhetoric against us. Let's all stop that now.

And let's hear more of the attacks focused on the Republican mouthpieces. Elizabeth Edwards is my hero at this time. Obama's comments have to be seen in the broader scope of things. He was awkward in making them. Gore is not running for president. He can say what he wants. If he runs, we can call him on it. No one should say that impeachment is off the table. You never know what will turn up. There are ways to phrase it that don't commit one way or the other. That is the wisest approach for the candidates.

[Phredicles]

37. "they fear that impeachment will be used against them when they are in power."

I think you're right about this. And it's sad, because today's thugs will will surely use impeachment again, on the same trivial basis they've used it before, whether Democrats resort to it for the Insane Clown Posse or not.

If, in 2011, President Obama finds himself being impeached over an unpaid jaywalking ticket from when he was in college, I hope he appeciates the irony.

[lligrd]

24. At Least He Didn't Say It Was Off The Table

That phrase really irks me. The threat of Impeachment is always on the table just as the threat of going to jail if you break the law is always on the table (at least it should be).

[KAT119]

35. Trying to understand where N. Pelosi is coming from

and remembered that she has close ties to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and found enormous info on Google that is eye-opening re her closeness to GWB!

[DemGa]

29. Different argument

What caused a problem with Obama is his statements about why Bush should not be impeached.

"The Illinois Democrat says he's distressed by the Bush administration's ethical standards and secrecy. But the presidential hopeful says impeachment should be reserved for "grave" breaches of the president's authority."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1203523&mesg_id=1203523

I don't recall this to be Gore's position at all.

To be fair, I would like to see Obama's full contextual statement, not AP paraphrasing. But I think this is the gist of the problem with Obama's comments.

[depakid]

30. It's not about impeachment- it's about opening one's big fat mouth

and saying something utterly stupid about "grave" breaches of the president's authority.

Talk about not ready for prime time. Crikey. Makes one wonder about what they teach in law school these days.

[PATRICK]

31. I deleted a lot of my

long responses to this controversy, but I'll go ahead this time. We all know the entire party line on impeachment and the absence of votes to get anywhere except possibly an acquittal at the chosen timing of the GOP. Of course I and many others on DU disagree with this line. What was terrible in its dedication to the taste of foot in mouth was to go to the absurd lengths to exonerate Bush of having committed "grave offenses" and push the burden naively back on the voters- who were openly swindled, black Americans especially, in such a way that no doubt robbed America of a legitimate president. Both barrels right into both feet in mouth. And the only mitigation for that gaffe of gaffes, worse than Kerry 2004 who seemingly blew off those still adamant about theft 2000, is that the bottom line reluctance to try impeachment is everyone else(except DK) holding the same basic stand.

For many that is a huge mitigation, but for all too many others it is stark, overstated confirmation that Obama is floating too high above the specific crime that will either prevent him getting elected, or destroy his presidency in the lingering corruption, untouchable and perhaps for him invisible- as is the increasingly small matter of the principle of Law. In a brief too generous defense of what everyone basically thinks about attempting impeachment he defends Bush unnecessarily and somehow manages to dismiss vote fraud with the other hand, somehow spreading the irritants thickly about the people who have very just concerns and very crucial demands. People whose vote is not guaranteed to have a last laugh- unless, unless it is in the primary itself.

It was a very profound political error and the in-depth honesty of it is worse yet. We are far from moving all the candidates toward DK's more straightforward, dutiful approach to justice and reform and the outcry this time is muted because those candidates may hold those exact views in that exact way and we don't want them to commit themselves like that as well. So instead of lashing out like was rapidly and indignantly done against Kerry, we hold our breath, understandably. We don't want to hear apologies or praise of Bush the Crook in any kind, any comfort or slack, any tossing out duty for expediency, anything more than we can barely stand to hear already. The other candidates will ignore this gaffe and lessen its effect because they hold the basic premise and ANY in depth defense obviously will get very awkward, very fast. With Bush in dire trouble the media would let this drop as well, so the gaffe maybe is quite survivable in the mainstream. The damage done in DU is not like last time when DK and Dean were offering a big, new and heated challenge to Kerry and the soft selling of critical issues. And no one, I think raised theft 2000 and fraud as much of an issue. Still muted to absence in the candidate slate cortex today

Maybe it is the timing, but the gaffe seems blunted as far as primary heat goes perhaps because we have less hope of much of an alternative regarding confronting this administration, stopping it and holding it to account for blatant high crimes. Like people advocating women priests in the RC Church who work and hope and know the rightness of the cause, we would just as soon not hear the predictable backhand from those currently styled as leaders.

As far as resigning from this or that and rending my workshirt or not supporting so and so as the party nominee, those useless expressions of despair have no place in our current endeavors to move things where they should be and are obviously not. Whether so and so changes their mind, we hang on to change the political scene from top to bottom. or nothing, much less justice, has a future.

[Qutzupalotl]

40. Thanks for a thoughtful post! nt

[Rosemary2205]

32. BWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL -- I love DU!! :)

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

33. Gotta say it...

I disagree with Al on this one. I don't care how "successful" the effort is, that message needs to be sent to future generations that this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable and can not be tolerated, no matter who (or what party) tries it.

Still, if Al Gore announces his candidacy I'm there with him 101 percent. For the first time in my (rather long) life, I'll be working with his campaign. Al is one of the few "visionary thinkers" available to us (as potential leaders), and that's exactly what we need at this time--far-sighted, systemic, big-picture thinkers who know what true, thorough-going democracy is and is not. I believe that if Al were to win the nomination, a Gore/Obama ticket-- combining two similar visionaries with the future of this nation and world clearly in mind--would be landslide winners in November 2008, the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes.

Other than that...I have nothing to say. :-)

Ron

(Moderator, FaithoftheFree.informe.com, UU message board)

[Uncle Joe]

36. I totally second your opinion, UnrepentantUnitarian

:)

[OzarkDem]

38. Congress has nothing else to do

Bush got his money for the war, the budget will get passed just as Bush wishes it.

Dems are now a rubber stamp for Bush and the GOP and they don't plan to do anything substantive.

Doesn't sound very busy to me.

[and-justice-for-all]

42. Well tuff shit!!

The majority of America sure the fuck does.