Am I understanding this correctly?

[Pacifist Patriot]

Democrats don't want to impeach a Republican president because it would make them look partisan? Sorry folks, but this is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I understand not wanting to do to Bush what was done to Clinton, but come on. The comparison of deeds isn't even close and I'm willing to bet the American public isn't quite as dumb as most of us fear.

[BlooInBloo]

1. There are a fair number of cowards in our party (shrug)...

... You fight the fights that are worth fighting - not just those you think you can win.

[snappyturtle]

3. To me impeachment is not only worth it it's winnable. eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. There's no good reason not to impeach.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that their oaths of office pretty much require it at this point.

[NoodleBoy]

4. wait lets do some math: does 51 out of 100 equal two thirds?

To me, it looks like it equals one half plus one.

But it can't be that our Congressional leadership doesn't want to send the country down a path to impeachment they know they'll lose a la Newt Gingrich in 1998; no, that would just make sense.

[geomon666]

11. You're right. Let's just keep having investigations with no teeth.

That'll really solve the problem.

In fact we should apply that logic to the judicial system in its entirety. Let's only prosecute cases that we know we can win. Everyone else can just be let go.

[NoodleBoy]

18. first of all, you must know that prosecutors rarely persue cases they know they can't win. aside

from that, I'd actually like to see how this current debacle pans out as far as the former Bushites being cited in contempt of congress pans out. It'll be very eye-opening for the rest of the American people and could give us a big push toward a possible impeachment. The grounds to impeach on right now aren't strong enough and haven't disgusted the 49 Republican Senators enough to get momentum; the more investigations Congress holds, the closer we get.

[geomon666]

19. There's a difference....

between deciding not to prosecute due to lack of evidence and fear of losing a case. I have never heard of an instance were a DA refused to prosecute a case with ample evidence because he was afraid he was going to lose.


But to your other point, you can hold all the investigations you want, nearly everybody involved in those investigations have already come out numerous times saying they won't impeach. So if you're going to then turn around and say impeach you're painting yourself as a liar and we all know the MSM will have a field day with it.

[crikkett]

32. they have hard evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors

and all congressmen took an oath to uphold the constitution, not just the 51 democrats. if anyone ends up looking partisan it will be whoever votes against impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. I think the real reason

is they know they don't have the votes to convict in the Senate, and might not even have the votes to impeach in the house. And the public support for impeachment seems to be somwhere between 36% and 45%.

[MADem]

15. Oh, now, stop making sense!!!

You're harshing the mellow of the Impeach without Articles club!!!

[alphafemale]

6. I really think if Dems started it. Repubs would glom on.

Especially any due up for re-election.

I still don't think it's going to happen though.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Why do you think that?

They can't even get enough Republicans to support the Webb amendment! You really think they'd vote to remove the President? I don't.

[alphafemale]

14. The Dems Don't have the nerve to lead.

You can't follow a quivering mass of somewhat good intentions.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. that avoids the question

what on earth makes you think 17 Republicans would vote to convict?

[alphafemale]

20. On the same reasoning that repubs turned against Nixon.

The votes to impeach would have likely been there, had Nixon not resigned.

Once a president is threatening to possibly dip into the teens in popularity...staying with the base just isn't going to DO anymore.

Expect to see a mass defection from any r's up for re-election from bush.

I'd really rather the bastard be forced to resign, though. Cheney too.

Impeachment is a tedious process. And it hasn't removed a president in either case.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. I think that's incredibly

wishful thinking.

Nowhere near the requisite number of Republicans have even mildly disassociated themselves with this President.

I just don't see the "if you build it, they will come" argument being true. Party loyaty is everything to these people. They know their best electoral hope would be to ACQUIT Bush and portray the impeachment as just ugly partisan politics.

Nothing in their history suggests they'd say to the Dems "By gosh, you're right! Remove him!"

[alphafemale]

24. I don't think impeachment will happen.

Because Dems won't bring it.

But I do think Repug's up for re-election will begin to run from * like the plague.

Especially if the poll #'s for bush continue to plummet.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. then it's a circular argument

I say the dems won't bring it because they know they don't have the votes.

But say they DID bring it... which 17 republican senators do you think would convict?

[alphafemale]

26. I don't know...who's up for re-election?

Are there 17?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. here ya go:

Lamar Alexander (TN)
Saxby Chandliss (GA)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Cornyn (TX)
Elizabeth Dole (NC)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Michael Enzi (WY)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Jim Inhofe (OK)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Gordon Smith (OR)
Ted Stevens (AK)
John Sununu (NH)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Larry Craig (ID)
Chuck Hagel (NE)
John Warner (VA)

On that list, you might get Coleman, Collins, Hagel, Warner.

But you definitely will NOT get Craig, Cochran, Stevens, Sessions, Roberts, McConnell or Dole.

[alphafemale]

28. If *'s popularity slips much more you might be surprised.

I really don't expect or even want impeachment though.

I'd like for him and Cheney to resign.

But one impeachment in a lifetime is enough.

[Left Is Write]

7. That's incredibly stupid. Doesn't the (D) behind their name make them look partisan?

Isn't being partisan the REASON to belong to a particular party?

I'd say this particular president's misdeeds are a very good reason for a Democrat to "look partisan."

[Holly_Hobby]

12. That makes way too much sense. n/t :)

[SoCalDem]

9. Repubes innoculated themselves by impeaching Clinton

call it a pre-emptive strike. Insiders had to have known even then that there was a real dumb one coming down the pike..They had to know in '98 that junior was gonna run ..Impeach the smart guy, so that when the dumb guy screws up, no one dares to impeach two presidents in a row

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. You raise a very chilling point.

Was it calculated to set up the next Republican president as virtually untouchable in that respect?

[MADem]

10. Well, "Democrats" are not "The Borg." They don't think as a unit.

Some don't want to impeach for that reason. They'd rather excoriate him through investigations in the court of public opinion.

Others want evidence that actually leads straight to the Oval Office and consists of something one could call a genuine high crime or misdemeanor before they contemplate Articles of Impeachment. Not crimes of subordinates, mind you--top dog crimes, that are PROVABLE.

Others want to treat Bush like a cockroach in your kitchen, that you shove into a matchbox but don't kill--keep him stuck in there, still holding the position, but without any power.

Democrats don't have lockstep views. And no Pelosi, no Reid can ORDER them to all vote the same way, absent huge quid pro quos (which is how party discipline is usually enforced). Even if some on the far left seem to think that is the case--that Pelosi or Reid crack a whip, and all of their caucuses bow down. It's just not the way it works, and not the way we do business.

Many times I have asked people who favor impeachment to provide me a list of Articles upon which to impeach. No one ever takes me up on it. Instead, I catch shit like "Naysayer" and "Bush enabler" because they can't answer my simple question.

Go figure!

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. I'm surprised they aren't able to respond. Lists of Articles...

abound on the internet.

[Az]

16. I think the fear is

That it would establish a series of retaliatory strikes. They think it would be as if we were just impeaching Bush because they impeached Clinton which was just retaliation for Nixon.

Its stupid. But I think that is what they are worrying about.

[Marrak]

22. Our Democratic Leaders need to get a clue!!!!

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
From this: :hide:
to this: :kick:

[LiberalEsto]

23. How many more dumb excuses?

It's off the table.

We don't have the votes.

It would make us look too partisan.

:eyes:



So what's the next lame excuse?

That it's July and therefore too hot to impeach?
That we only impeach after every third leap year?
That it would irritate Cheney?

Come ON, already!

[EFerrari]

30. I may be too cynical to live but, are they ALL waiting for Iraq

to sign over half their oil profits? :(

[The Straight Story]

31. The repubs went for impeachment, and they won in 2000 election

(well, they cheated, but still.....)

You only truly fail when you never try.