Impeachment: WTF is everyone afraid of? And why? nt

[babylonsister]

[lligrd]

1. Anthrax??

Just sayin. :shrug:

[babylonsister]

2. Nah. That's an excuse, not a fear. I just don't get it. nt

[lligrd]

3. Got To Be Some Reason

And it has to be bad because it just makes no sense at all. I have been racking my brain trying to figure out what it is too.

[grasswire]

4. I believe that Dems are afraid...

...it will lose them elections in 2008. They see impeachment as a great big "tarbaby" like in the Brer Rabbit stories. Afraid that if they reach out for it, they'll get stuck.

[babylonsister]

5. I 'get' that, and thanks for responding. Do you think it woud be a

'tarbaby' or a necessary result of what's been going on? I think people might applaud them for their hutzpah/cojonoes/balls/resolve to get to the truth?

[bleever]

6. If we know better, why the hell don't they?

The whole "backlash against impeachment" didn't happen for Clinton, and *'s ratings are much lower.

I don't understand why that would be the prevailing opinion.

[babylonsister]

7. Thanks. I don't either. nt

[bridgit]

8. they're afraid of watching bush skip away with a smirk out from under the sniggers...

of a 50/50 senate...that's what they're afraid of believe it!!

[babylonsister]

12. If the truth was really told, that would never happen. Seriously,

Oye. How great is it to know you're smarter than the average bear when no one cares?

[bridgit]

13. what would never happen? what bear are you talking about?

[babylonsister]

20. They ARE getting away with it. WHY? nt

[bridgit]

27. apathy...the apathy of the people who think they care...

a long time message from me to DU, yet no one after these years can see it...apathy, it is a form of sloth, and therefore a sin, and by that sin of apathetic omission they have slipped, slid & sidled up beside 'we the people' ourselves and *now* they are here who knew :shrug: but hey!! we have broadband & new Levi's so what's the problem

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Many, many reasons

opposition research... waht do they have on them (Ah the frirendly NSA you know)

Anthrax

They truly believe, just as they did in 1988, that they make waves and it wil be trouble...

You do remember surely the Democrats sweeping the WH in 1988, don't you

And for some... well they simply don't want to make waves of any sort

[Bitwit1234]

10. I frankly believe that first

they don't have enough votes to impeach. And if they go thru the process and don't impeach it will make it look as if bush did nothing wrong. And I think if that happened the republicans would pounce on it.

He is not going to be impeached, I think the best thing to do is try to get enough evidence to indict and arrest and try the three S.O.B.'s after they leave office. I bet you any damn thing they would be found guilty and locked up for life.

[Bitwit1234]

11. Remember after Clinton left office they went to court and took his lawyers license

[133724]

14. TRY THIS FOR AN ANSWER

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x62137

[babylonsister]

17. I think not - try this!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2043703

[napi21]

15. They have no chance of winning a conviction in the Senate!

There's a possibility they could get the votes in the House, but since the CJ of the SCOTUS heads the Senate in an impeachment hearing, there's NO CHANCE they would ever get a conviction.

If you think back to the impeachment of BC, you'll remember he was even stronger AFTER the House ruled to impeach but the Senate ruled not guilty. Are yu sure you want to give the most arrogan Prez we've ever had even more reason to be MORE arrogant????

[JeffR]

16. I don't think it's fear, exactly

The impeachment of Clinton was - among other things - intended to cheapen the process, to de-legitimize it in the eyes of the vast majority who don't pay much attention to politics. That, at least, became Mission Accomplished for the GOP. As transparently phony and unconstitutional as the Clinton impeachment was, it served to make impeachment something most people don't want to hear about again, at least in the near future. Just a theory, but I think I'm right.

[bridgit]

18. disagreed, the impeachment of BC was 'pay back' for running the only...

republican out of DC on a chopper in contemporaneous memory...we all know the name, republicans wanted to pin a nefarious tag onto some dem and Clinton was their guy

lowering the bar with respect to what is required vis-a-vis impeachment was just what they were willing to do to reach that end therefore among others...

republicans are simply not capable of civil governance, nor discourse imo

edited for: nor

[JeffR]

19. I think you're right, but

by cheapening the discourse surrounding impeachability - the vagueness of the historic phrase, "Other high crimes and misdemeanors" - they ensured that another impeachment proceeding would be greeted by the public with even greater skepticism than the Clinton impeachment was. Coincidence? Quite possibly. But it's all been suspiciously convenient.

[bridgit]

25. cheney/bush/rove will have done nothing of not unveil the fallacy...

contained within the nobler poetries of America Herself..."high crimes and misdemeanors" indeed; what? no felonies in a world where a misdemeanor is able to be construed as jay-walking? why crimes? what crimes? war profiteering? murder & genocide by proxy from beyond the horizon? the push of a button? a contractor/contracted hit?

if not then there are no crimes let alone 'high', no misdemeanors, no felonies

[CitizenLeft]

29. yep

Henry Hyde, just before he retired, admitted as much. Revenge for Nixon - even though he destroyed himself, not Democrats.

[dorkulon]

21. Great pro-impeachment screed here. (hey, 1000th post!!)

When the Republicans impeached Clinton—for a “crime” that clearly didn’t rise to the standard of an impeachable offense (defined in the constitution as “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors”—nothing in there about blowjobs), only a third of the country—nearly demographically identical to the third that still support Bush—approved. Still, they did it. And what consequences did they suffer? Control of congress for eight more years.

Why? Because, although most of us hated the whole sordid ordeal, we were confronted every day with the depressing details of Clinton’s dalliances. It demoralized Democrats and caused a lot of people to abandon them. But Bush’s lies and betrayals go much, much deeper than letting a chubby office slut get the better of him. Impeachment proceedings would drag all of his myriad scandals into the light. The TV pundits would have no choice but to acknowledge and discuss them. This, Democrats seem to instinctively fear, would rally the GOP. But they’re wrong. One the main reasons for the loyalty of Republican voters is that they perceive themselves as winners. They are conformists above all. Make losers out of them, and watch how many jump to the winning team, and how quickly.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3236

[leftofthedial]

22. they're afraid their bosses will cut off the gravy train

[raccoon]

44. You may have something there. nt

[LSdemocrat]

23. 1. Danger of impeachment becoming "routine" for an opposition House

The Republicans impeached Clinton, if we impeach Bush, no matter how strong the charges, impeachments could easily become routine events encountered by every president with an opposition Congress.

2. Total waste of time
Even if we did manage to get a trial in before the end of Dubya's term, the Republicans will never hand over enough votes to convict.
At this point impeaching without conviction would be about as worthwhile as Congress' "debates" so far about the future of the Iraq War.

3. Who wants President Cheney?

4. Even if we did impeach Dubya and Cheney, impeachment would way too easily be spun as an attempted coup by a hostile media to a highly cynical and uninformed populace.

[Enrique]

36. it would be two in a row

I do believe that is a big factor. Two totally partisan impeachments in a row.

If many more republicans would support the impeachment, I would be for it. Unfortunately they apparently won't.

[eallen]

38. And that's more dangerous than imperial presidents because...?

Hell, the Senate hasn't convicted one yet.

:hippie:

[ellisonz]

24. 67.

[Demeter]

26. Hard Work, I Guess

Look at how W goes on about "hard work" as if it were some kind of horrible curse.

[babylonsister]

31. And the rethugs who are retiring (LaHood) because 5 days a week is

just too much work! x(

[earth mom]

28. Could be what Nadar was saying or could be that they know other stuff we don't....

or it could be that they don't give a damn.

I just wish they'd do something honorable, something ethical, for a change.

[babylonsister]

30. "Honorable, ethical," those are words that are music to my ears and

used too infrequently. Thank you!

[autorank]

32. Many of them agree with the way things are going. That's the reason not often mentioned.

Maybe it's true.

[dmosh42]

33. You have the correct answer.....

Our Dem leadership is part of the "swamp", but want to point their fingers at the Repubs for political reasons. Never mind "impeachment", they can't enforce a subpoena! We have plenty of investigations that haven't been completed because the Repubs told the Dems to go F--- themselves and their subpoenas.

[orleans]

34. giving up their pac money? n/t

[Enrique]

35. accusing the dems of being afraid is a tactic

pressuring them to impeach Bush so they don't look like cowards.

So I can't answer the question, since the premise is false.

[Disturbed]

37. Plausible deniabilty.

A Guilty verdict for the Pres. &/or VP requires absolute proof of the crime &/or crimes that the House puts forth. So far, I have not seen any absolute proof. Yes, there are various allegations but not documented proof on either the Pres. or VP. Sure, the House could bring forth the charges. In the end the proof must be supplied. I believe that is why Impeachment of either will not be forthcoming.

[Froward69]

39. ok its not fear its logic

1)Democrats realize the Gop used impeachment to vapor lock Bill Clinton's presidency.
2)Albeit Bushyboy has committed far worse crimes against the constitution, however an impeachment would actually bolster his approval ratings.
3) WE ARE DOWN TO ROUGHLY 445 DAYS left in this term, the last thing we need is to vapor lock our government.
4) simply not enough votes to cram it down Bushy boys throat.
5) do you really want Cheney with his hands directly on the controls of government (he wouldent wash bushy boys fecal matter off first.:sarcasm: )

I advocate simply arresting them both along with their respective cabinets (rove and Gonzalez too)right there on the inaugural podium. declare them enemy combatants, hold them indefinitely. Then watch the GOP restore the constitution.

[porphyrian]

40. They're afraid to try because it could fail. Better to fail without trying, apparently. -n/t

[End Of The Road]

41. Are they being blackmailed? n/t

[bdamomma]

42. they are afraid but someone must challenge these thugs

do they feel that they have too much to loose and we don't, they are cowards if they just sit back and worry about their positions and realize they are there for us. Pelosi has a shitty attitude towards Code Pinkers who just want to talk to her, what the fuck is her problem. They keep on rattling off this not enough votes thing, which is not true, they could filibuster. Something is definitely going on. But * poll numbers are shit, they could get him now, are they afraid what the *'s media will say about them, this is total BS. But I have that horrible vision of Cheney just rubbing his hands together and saying to all of us fuck them and nothing will stop us.

[Gregorian]

43. Dennis Kucinich isn't afraid of impeachment.

Maybe we should ask him to meet with Pelosi and discuss her stance.

Otherwise, I'm at a total loss to answer your question. No. I'm not at a total loss. I'll give you one answer that I have felt is far fetched.

America just might be in more financial trouble than people realize. When you combine the debt with the fact that we have only four years of oil in the ground beneath our own soil, it means we're really in bigger trouble than impeachment. And it may be they just don't want to rock a boat that is about to sink.

There is one other thing. Also far fetched. I just could be that the Bush administration has threatened the lives of all who "mess" with them.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Even Kucinich isn't proposing impeaching Bush

Why not?

[ProSense]

45. Kucinich should just do it!

Stop thinking about it!

[AuntPatsy]

47. In my opinion the only thing that makes sense is that they are terrified,

of what they fear I cannot say but it's obvious that dissenters are not treated kindly by the goons of this administration.

Nothing else makes sense to avoid impeaching.

[whoneedstickets]

48. My fear is that it will turn Bush into a Sympathetic figure..

..I mean if a verbal attack by the president of Columbia U can turn Ahmadinajad into a sympathetic figure, what might happen if congress went on the attack.

The RW thrives on indignation and victimization (even if its false like the war on Christianity). We're better leaving him to destroy himself than to turn him into a martyr.

[Avalux]

49. i think they fear for their lives. Bushco is a mob of criminals.

Everyone knows full well who sent the Anthrax to Daschle, etc. - and probably worse. I guess Kucinich is the rare individual who won't allow them to scare him into submission.

[onenote]

50. Russ Feingold on impeachment (Feb 1999)

But I would like to conclude by just talking a little bit about this impeachment issue in the modern context. When I say that the vote in 1996 is the primary issue, I don't just mean that in terms of the rights of people. I mean it in terms of the goal of the Founding Fathers, and our goal today; that is, political stability in this country. We don't want a parliamentary system. And we don't want an overly partisan system.

I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years?

I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading.

It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. They're not afraid of anything

they just can count to 67.

[cuke]

52. A failed impeachment means "Not Guilty"

A failed impeachment exhonorates *

A failed impeachment means * is "Not Guilty"

Want to complain that * tortures?.....Not Guilty

Want to complain that * lied us into war?....Not Guilty

Not the message I want to send