Am I wrong to trust Conyers, Sanders and Gore over DU's "impeach now" brigade?

[jpgray]

Poll question: Am I wrong to trust Conyers, Sanders and Gore over DU's "impeach now" brigade?

Am I wrong in believing them when they say failing to impeach carries serious risk? Am I wrong in believing them when they say they don't have the votes? Am I wrong in thinking that those pushing for impeachment would be crying "cowards!" "complicit!" "corrupt!" if impeachment articles were brought forth and failed due to lack of votes in the House, or failed to convict in the Senate? Am I wrong in doubting the crystal balls of those who explain the lack of impeachment with accusations of cowardice, corruption, or complicity without compelling evidence? Am I wrong to consider the fact that no evidence has been produced to show impeachment would succeed without risk, while current evidence and experts agree that it is a non-starter due to lack of votes? Am I wrong to ask what magic wand the leadership and committee chairs are supposed to wave to solve all the obstacles to a successful impeachment?

I'm bizarrely reminded of the runup to the Iraq war, in the way so little critical thought seems to be tolerated. You have an inarguably bad criminal head of state, for whom removal and punishment is indisputably just. No one disputes this. The lack of consideration for risk, practicability and likely benefits of direct action is understandable given the stakes and emotions involved, but still very troubling. "We will be greeted as liberators" is all I hear from the "impeach now!" crowd on DU, and they make a lame hand-waving case based on fantasy reasoning to claim it would be a success.

Not enough votes to impeach? "Pelosi and Reid are failures." What should they do? "I don't know exactly, but they can do it--they just don't wanna." How will we convict in the Senate given Joe? "Our articles of impeachment will be greeted as liberators." Don't you think the GOP could have a field day with this, given their expert image offensive against past deserved criticism from Durbin and Stark? "This is different." How? Calling an asshole an asshole didn't work too well for those two congresspeople even when Bush was extremely unpopular, did it? If in the face of intense GOP and media pressure an impeachment effort fell apart similarly, am I supposed to believe that in -this- case DUers would be -happy-? Bullshit. Why should this happen if the risks are there and the benefits are almost impossible to realize? "Because he deserves it?" Inarguably he does. Saddam also deserved to be tried for crimes against the human rights of his citizens, but the way in which we attempted to carry that out had few to zero likely benefits and palpable risks. The faithful invasion supporters chose to ignore those risks, believed the long-shot benefits would magically be realized, and look where we are.

Experts who disagree are denounced as unpatriotic, Constitution-hating shills or milquetoasts. I'm sick of the idea that worrying about feasibility means you are a coward incapable of "strong leadership," and that considering both risks and benefits before a risky action is nothing more than a disguise for the weak, corrupt and timid. Fuck that.

So am I wrong? It's not a "fuck you" rhetorical flourish, I could very well be wrong. But I wasn't in 2002, and I feel the same sort of bizarre "nothing will go wrong if they just do it!" cheerleading for impeachment. What are people basing that on? Why are they so sure it would work or be a success on any level? Am I just too dim to see it? :dunce:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What "risk" is there of going ahead with impeachment?

Do you think that it will make Bush more popular? Or that he will declare martial law? Sorry, I don't see a "risk". I don't think Bush would get very far if he tried making himself a dictator in response to impeachment. On the contrary, that would make conviction a foregone conclusion.

[jpgray]

3. That it would implode under lack of Democratic unity, and piss off the base to a far greater degree

That the inactivity and weakness would allow for a GOP media blitz to crow about the Dem lack of unity, to undermine extant investigations as being a "partisan witchhunt," and generally make every conservative area Democrat compelled to make some embarrassing distance from the failed attempt.

You're saying it would work, either in the House or Senate, no? Where are the votes, exactly?

[JuniperLea]

7. That is like saying "I'll not vote my conscience because...

The candidate I like won't get enough votes."

Now, THAT is lame. Horribly, horribly wrong, and disgustingly lame.

It matters not if an impeachment is "successful"! It matters that we send a message to all the people of the world!

[jpgray]

11. "It matters not if the Iraq war is 'successful!' It matters that we send a message to the world!"

That was the neocon philosophy. It's the same exact lack of consideration for risks. That impeaching Bush is far nobler a goal than invading Iraq doesn't blot out the painful shortsightedness and dogmatic black or white logic of that statement. What do you think GOP control of two or more branches would -do- to this country given at minimum two more years? Look what they've done in just seven!

[JuniperLea]

12. Your opinion is your opinion...

And your insults show your arguments have no legs.

You cannot clearly define these so-called risks, and you cannot prove these so-called risks exist.

[jpgray]

13. Look at what happened to Stark and Durbin, the attempt to add timelines to the war, etc.

All these failed! And you expect impeachment to succeed? If it is tried, and collapses in a similar embarrassing fashion due to lack of Dem unity, are you going to be happy? Or ten times more pissed off? Would you say pissing off the base isn't a risk? Yet that's exactly what's likely to happen if impeachment fails, irrespective of the "Karl Rove wet dream" Sanders described. Al Gore? John Conyers? They know less than you about Congressional politics?

[JuniperLea]

32. No, I do NOT expect impeachment to succeed! That is the point!

Clearly you have not read what I wrote here...


I would be very happy to have tried and to have failed! I'd welcome that scenario over not trying at all!!!! I'm willing to bet there are a lot like me out there.

[jpgray]

33. Did you welcome tried and failed Iraq timelines? Congressional investigations? Subpoenas?

Did you say "hooray, they tried?" Should I do a search?

[JuniperLea]

37. Strawman!

Congress caved! Not the same thing.

[jpgray]

38. So failing in attempt to impeach cannot be "caving?"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. the votes are with the people

I've even heard Republicans who want Buschco out of office. They are mad, and frankly they say the Dems look weak right now. I'm serious when I say that many are looking beyond the two party system for answers--usually something that we progressives accuse each other of doing.

[mod mom]

69. 1. It's about breaking the laws and acountability for those actions; 2.

There already is a lack of Dem unity over war & impeacment and 3. The process of impeachment is about making the case.

[demnan]

2. Here's why we need impeachment

1. Our elected leaders take an oath of office. That oath is to uphold the Constitution, should they fail to uphold the Constitution they aren't doing their job and should be removed from office.

The Bush administration has broken laws, disobeyed the Constitution, needlessly killed 100s of thousands of people and all for the sake of greed. The rest of the world knows this. If we should ever regain a place of respect in the world, we should give it a try. Trying, if not succeeding, would show the world that some of us realize what is going on and we want to regain a place of respect in the world when this horrible term of Bush is over.

Investigating for impeachment would uncover so many things that you could see the tide turn very quickly. We need to have the crimes of this administration exposed and entered into the Congressional Record. Cleansing could begin. People would be energized to protest and maybe, just maybe, the Republicans running for President would persuade Bush and Cheney to resign.

That's why we need impeachment.

[jpgray]

6. Of course impeachment is warranted and deserved in this case.

I'll make no argument there. But just because a risky action is just doesn't mean it should be tried on the spot. Feasibility and risks/benefits are important considerations, no? Or should they not matter given the gravity of the crimes?

[JuniperLea]

9. No, they are lame considerations... eom

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. excellent argument

and yes, the point is to try. The world is braced to isolate us and impose sanctions for the immoral behavior of our government--and these actions will hurt us all. Better that the world sees that we don't agree with Bushco than to sit silently by.

[JuniperLea]

4. I don't know how you think you are going to get a good response

When you insult half of the people you are polling... Lame? PFT! You haven't been paying attention.

It's not lame to show the world we know we have criminals in the white house and we will no longer tolerate their corruption. We need to heal the bonds we once enjoyed with the rest of the planet.

It's not lame to show future presidents, vice presidents, and others that the American people will not tolerate corruption in their name.

Now, insult me again, please...

[jpgray]

8. Please read the OP. The arguments that impeachment would be successful or riskless are lame

The argument that it's deserved should be self-evident to anyone with half a brain.

[JuniperLea]

10. Just keep it up...

***"We will be greeted as liberators" is all I hear from the "impeach now!" crowd on DU, and they make a lame hand-waving case based on fantasy reasoning to claim it would be a success.***


Like I said, you haven't been paying attention. This is the least of the arguments I've read on DU.

[demnan]

14. Merely having the investigations would be beneficial

None of us can predict what the result would be, however that doesn't change the fact that it is the principled, right thing to do for our country.

[jpgray]

17. I'm fully convinced that it is well-deserved

Principled? Yes. But the right thing to do? In isolation, sure. Yet if it fails and gives us two more years of GOP two-or-more branch domination, I'm not so sure that could be justified as "right." Can I prove that this is what will happen? No. But no more could experts "prove" that Iraq would descend into chaos. Most experts called that correctly, however. And I freely admit I could be completely wrong about what the aftermath of a failed attempt would look like, but I tend to look to smart trustworthy people for predictions, and Conyers and Sanders have rarely if ever failed me in the past.

[immoderate]

61. Yeah. The unsuccessful impeachment sure hurt the Repupublicans!

Oh wait... :P

--IMM

[jpgray]

62. Their approval went down, they lost seats in both houses, and won the presidency only via SCOTUS

[immoderate]

64. Not as much as they should for a phony impeachment.

Meanwhile we have right on our side.

Anyway, there's no harm in having an investigation and hearings. Let's expose the bastards.

--IMM

[jpgray]

65. I agree it would be different

What I believe would occur with the Democrats, specifically, is a similar erosion and eventual collapse of unity and purpose to those we've seen with investigations, subpoenas, and war withdrawal timelines in the past. If such occurred during attempted impeachment (whether right out of the gate lacking 281 or later in the Senate with Holy Joe), how would the base react to such a failure? Favorably?

[immoderate]

68. I'm thinking the people would be outraged as the story unfolds.

In my scenario, Republicans turn against the administration to save their jobs from an angry electorate. I think that investigation would unify the party. I'm not depending on Joe for anything. We would have to have Republicans in the Senate anyway. It depends on the public and how scared they are for their jobs.

The administration could do a lot of damage in the year they have left.

--IMM

[LoZoccolo]

5. No, because the politicians have to actually take responsibility for their decisions...

...as opposed to people complaining on a message board.

[EFerrari]

15. Since when do politicians have to take responsibility for anything?

That's hilarious.

[Occam Bandage]

16. I'll be the first to say you're not wrong.

[ProSense]

18. Impeachment is initiated in the House.

Removal from office is a function of the Senate. Impeachment means nothing if Bush and Cheney remain in office.

Unless someone can point to a bipartisan majority vote in the Senate to remove Bush and Cheney from office, it's not going to happen.

They can't even cut funding for Iraq, which I would settle for at this point.

[Telly Savalas]

49. Hell, they can't even attach strings to funding for Iraq

or get anything in return.

Expecting this useless Congress to impeach is like expecting a drunk guy who's passed out on the bathroom floor to get up and run a marathon.

[bobthedrummer]

19. Most citizens are not DUers and the vast majority are demanding accountability including

impeachment-I'm one of the millions

[jpgray]

21. How would they respond to an embarrassing failure of an impeachment?

Say, not even having the votes in the House? A lack of conviction is even more likely given Holy Joe. Wouldn't it be another in the long line of "Oh ho! Empty subpoenas from a do-nothing Congress!" "Strongly worded letters again!" "Too complicit/corrupt/cowardly to follow through, eh Reid/Pelosi?"

Given that they will be hated for not trying and hated more for trying and failing, and given that success is almost impossible in terms of the votes we can wrangle, what do you expect?

[bobthedrummer]

25. We're going to insist on that part of our Constitution that gives all power to the people. n/t

[jpgray]

26. How are you going to do that?

[Occam Bandage]

28. Um, the 10th Amendment?

[Occam Bandage]

27. That's not what polling data shows. Only 34% of Americans want him impeached.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/

[EFerrari]

20. Yes, apparently you are too dim to see it.

Impeachment efforts have historically not had negative consequences for the moving parties.

But God forbid that the Democrats push their advantage. Our heads might EXPLODE.

[jpgray]

22. Ridiculous. GOP approval dropped heavily after the Clinton attempt, and they lost seats in Congress

They would have lost the battle for the presidency as well, if not for the SCOTUS.

[EFerrari]

23. And yet they retained control. And they are still in control

of Congress, of SCOTUS and of the media.

[jpgray]

24. Your argument was that there were no negative consequences. There plainly were

Want to move the goalposts again? Or is your argument now "If the impeaching party is in power there is a small chance they may remain there, given a friendly Supreme Court and a comfortable majority?"

[EFerrari]

29. I moved no goal posts. The Republics still control this country.

They weren't thrown out on their ear for their hubris.

[jpgray]

31. So you admit there are negative consequences, and given a tiny fragile majority they are serious?

Because the GOP was anything but a tiny fragile force in Washington after '98, yet they -still- lost seats and approval due to their failed impeachment. I realize the two would be very different in terms of the charges and the facts, but you didn't make any qualifications when you said there were no negative consequences historically.

[EFerrari]

34. Legalistic bs. NANCY had to FUND the war with NO STRINGS.

They are still in control. So, no. There were no consequences for the Republics that resulted in a loss of control.

Get real. The reason impeachment is off the table is because the DLC is in bed with BushCo. It has nothing to do with the coming election that will be bloodied with the deaths and injuries of our troops and countless Iraqis between now and then.

And, that's only if the Democrats don't allow the Republics to steal it AGAIN.

Tiny fragile majority, my @ss. I've made the same argument and even I don't believe it any more.

Bush has done everything but eat babies in the Rose Garden. The whore media wouldn't cover if he did and Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and Schumer would be outraged.

Well, their outrage is killing our people, here AND over there. I have no use for their outrage. They have a roof over their heads and health insurance and no fucking IEDs under their vehicles.

Finesse THAT. :puke:

[riverdeep]

47. Some of your examples don't make sense.

Clinton was a popular president at the time being persecuted for a non governing blunder. This president has the lowest approval ratings in over 50 years that would be brought to justice for many, many governing atrocities. Not the same thing at all.

[bullwinkle428]

30. No point in going through with the impeachment process

until Harry Reid grows a spine - maybe it sounds like a one-liner, but it's hard to argue with.

[Asgaya Dihi]

35. There are some things we can't compromise

I wrote a long post yesterday morning, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2496606">here, which explained why the price is too high from the perspective of our drug war history. The same type of arguments could be made from a human rights perspective given the failures in the inner cities and our many wars or proxy wars through dictators, or a number of others, but my angle was the drug war.

I'm not of the mind that we can't talk to the other side or that we can't compromise on the details of how we'll finance or work something out but there's a bright line we should have seen years ago and never should have crossed, a simple difference between right and wrong. We've not only crossed it but done it so many times that we don't even remember it's there anymore.

Win or lose, sometimes we just have to stand up and go on record for what's right. If we don't we are the problem and no longer a part of the solution.

[jpgray]

40. On that note do you view the failure to impeach Reagan as an influence here?

There were different obstacles and risks there, so it's not readily comparable (no impeachment from history much resembles another, actually), but do you think that set a precedent in the way you describe?

[Asgaya Dihi]

43. I honestly couldn't say

Reagan was first elected the year before I was old enough to vote and given my background it took me a number of years to care enough about the world to start paying attention to it. When I did get active it wasn't in politics so much as reform, first the juvenile system and marijuana laws but as I learned more the drug war as a whole really pissed me off so I worked on all of it from then on. Can't say I'm familiar with all the particulars in that case, spent time more researching other issues than politics. I can tell you what politics has cost us clear enough though, at least there.

They can't do everything, I'm realistic. But they'd damned well better do something. Impeach, fix and try to prosecute the domestic spying issue rather than excusing it, defund the war if need be but start getting them home, or more in my area maybe they could look at the sentencing disparity for crack/powder cocaine. It takes 500 grams of powder for the same mandatory a 5 gram rock of crack gets you, science doesn't back up that difference. Just racism and the scare tactics of the 80s. The courts have recently said it's screwed and we need to adjust downward, the sentencing commission made noises in that direction, and there's three bills in the Senate as a result of those. Two repub that would lower the discrepancy and one dem that would remove it I believe.

Problem is it's a dead end issue in spite of it all because there's no movement in the House, word is they've been asked by the leadership there NOT to bring it up. Afraid to look soft or something I guess. If they are afraid to move we solve nothing and it goes on a few more years, out of cowardice. Afraid to impeach, afraid to de-fund the war, afraid to stand up against horrible racial imbalances in the prisons or the laws that caused them even with everyone around them telling them it needs to be done, just afraid.

Stop being so damned scared of their own shadows or yet to be aired soundbites they are afraid *might* be used against them and fucking stand for something. Anything. That's the cost of these type of compromises in the end. We lost our souls as a party, people don't believe we stand for anything anymore. I'm not sure they are wrong. We'll do the right thing if it's easy, but we won't risk anything for it. We don't fight.

Sorry for the long, somewhat off the topic of the question, reply. Wasn't sure how to better answer it though.

[jpgray]

44. Why are they afraid? That's what puzzles me

To me the only things that congresscritters can be de-facto said to fear generally are losing reelection, power, or influence. So losing campaign money? Losing votes? Losing majority? Losing influence? Are those the options? I won't automatically except direct coercion until there's some evidence, but that's also a possible explanation that could explain the behavior. When you throw Gore, Conyers and Sanders into the mix as advising against the pursuit of impeachment, it gets foggier. Gore is certainly not worried about reelection, and Conyers & Sanders don't strike me as the type to nakedly pursue bad policy for corrupt reasons. Party loyalty as motive doesn't apply as directly to Sanders. So what's the lever that keeps these people from supporting impeachment vocally? I believe it is in line with their values, especially in Sanders's case.

[Asgaya Dihi]

45. I don't buy coercion either

My personal opinion? They created a situation then misread it, built themselves a problem. I'll try to explain.

Go back to the post I made yesterday which I mentioned in the first note here and look over the part that details the racial balance in prison and the resulting effects of that on our elections over the years. Thing is we've been taking apart large parts of what used to be the democratic base for years now, through disenfranchisement in large part and in a smaller part just by breaking their hearts, they don't think anyone is on their side so many don't vote at all anymore even if they can.

That supposed rightward move the nation has taken over the years? I think they misjudged at least in the beginning. It was more which voters weren't showing up anymore, not that the nation itself was changing as much as they thought. But yeah, as you mention they had to win elections, get financed, and so on. Not being able to see (or admit maybe?) what had happened they learned that winning elections meant being almost as republican as a republican, or if we can't do that then at least don't piss them off too much. We learned to compromise values and never managed to stop, got to be a habit and one we've practiced for long enough now we don't have many in office now who remembers doing it different. This is the way business is done.

Over time, sure, it became real to a fair extent. Media started to echo it and we lived with the laws of it so we got used to it, and the public saw weakness in us so went with the stronger looking side. But to tell the truth I think we created our own rightward move, at least a fair part of it, and that supplied a lot of the pressure for what we see today. And I don't think it was ever as real or as large as the media and some of our politicians do, based more on misconceptions and being used to things being this way than any heartfelt belief. That can change fairly easily in todays environment if people have something else to follow. If we don't offer it someone else will, they aren't happy with the status quo.

[jpgray]

56. But media influence is necessary, no? Great progressive platforms exist, but in marginal candidates

Nader's or Kucinich's platform is admirable, and would presumably win over those non-voters disillusioned by the two party system, no? Why is this not happening? Is it due to the shunning they receive from the media? Is it the lack of money they have to compete in massively-funded campaigns where $$ = candidate prominence?

[Asgaya Dihi]

58. Cart before the horse I'd think

The media will follow whoever they think offers them the ratings, deals, or whatever else they want. I've no doubt that trying to resist the status quo could cause short term resistance but I've also no doubt that when they see what way the wind is blowing they'll jump on board as if it was their idea all along.

Last few years the dems could hardly get a donation to save them, when the repubs went downhill in popularity the same donations started being thrown at us hand over fist. True, to the more corporate candidates, but just as we always have to pick the least of the evils so do they. If some of our candidates didn't insist on being so right wing the bar would be set at a more reasonable level to start with, if the repubs suck at the polls then they suck and the media and corps have to take what they can get. As long as we're willing to move to meet the corps and the repubs in spite of public support on our side there's no reasons for the corps or repubs to expect or demand anything less of us. We're setting the bar there ourselves and have been for years.

Stand for something and trust the public to support it, even if you're wrong in the first election maybe they'll start to trust you if they start to believe you won't back down at the first sign of resistance. Right now many don't vote at all because they don't think anyone stands up for them and that had a lot to do with the loss of power for the party in the first place. Show them we will, give them a reason to show up.

We want things to be safe, the polls have to lead the party and the media has to cheer lead us along the way. And people wonder why the dems developed a reputation as sworn companions to the wind? Stand for something.

[jpgray]

59. Are you also putting forth a "cart before horse" scenario? Take public financing for campaigns

It's necessary. There is simply too much money to be spread around for progressive economic policies to survive, unless they are tied to an inherently very popular candidate. It's true a great candidate (in terms of image, charisma) with a great progressive platform hasn't existed for several years, but would such a candidate fade into obscurity without the financing to compete? If that's the case, don't we need to address the quid-pro-quo mammoth financing of campaigns before we can expect a result such as the one you posit? Is this the cause of Democratic "third way" DLC corporatism? If it is a major cause, and there isn't a mass popular shift against right-wing economics (we're fucking due, but we have been for decades), then don't we need public financing? And how do you get a majority to bring that forth when most pols who make it to the level where they can effect such policy have gained power through the very system such a restructuring would undermine?

It's confusing.

[Asgaya Dihi]

63. To a point maybe

I guess it's a question of who we want leading, them or us.

There's no reason in the world for anyone, be it media, voters or the public at large to follow anyone who isn't leading. There has always been and will always be some risk involved in taking a stand but if we don't start somewhere we end up exactly where we are today. Ron Paul is getting big bucks through a net roots effort, if we got sick of our options there's no reason we can't too. Money isn't the roadblock and never has been. The problem is our sureness that we have to compromise and theirs that they don't. We don't support those in our own party who will lead, we're afraid of what the press might think.

Take my area, the drug war for example. Death rates for the big two, cocaine and heroin, have climbed and by several times since the late 70's when we started tracking them. We never saved any lives, we've lost them. Prices adjusted for inflation have fallen by quite a bit with both, we've hurt no enemy in any way worth mentioning with every cartel we destroy quickly replaced by one or more at least as dangerous as the last, and we've managed to spread production from a few isolated places to many nations across the globe and the violent criminal operations behind them to our own southern border. That meth everyone is so worried about? When the Mexican gangs were well settled into cocaine they looked around for something else they could cash in on, so now we have that too. They started as hippies through the Caribbean, then they were through South America from Columbia, then we drove them to our own borders and got the meth supply as a bonus. That worked out well. We're financing our own enemies in a market we created and in an effort to accomplish all of that we've made ourselves the most imprisoned nation in the world in terms of our own people.

Do you think knowledge of all of that it might make a difference in what they think? Now which of our leaders is telling them any of this?

Take that subject, health care, our wars, support of questionable regimes or whatever else. We aren't even trying to tell people what's really going on anymore, we're instead claiming they just won't understand and letting it happen, or worse helping in some way such as bashing the net roots. If we aren't leading nobody follows. No, it will never be easy or risk free but then again how have our recent tactics been working out, since we disenfranchised or disenchanted our way out of power when we stopped fighting? I don't see more of the same producing better results tomorrow.

[Lilith Velkor]

36. Yes, because not taking the risk makes them look like cowards

There's already been too much rolling over for the GOP as it is, and the base is livid. Demoralize them some more and they just might stay home or vote third party on election day.

[jpgray]

39. Is attempting to impeach and failing due to a lack of unity preferable to that?

Or is it simply more evidence of cowardice? What would the reaction be if impeachment were brought forth under leadership auspices, and then the Democrats retreat due to pressure/lack of votes?

[Lilith Velkor]

54. Yes.

Attempting and failing would show that at least SOME of the Democrats have a goddamn spine, and it would have the added value of forcing those who do not (that would be the 'lack of votes') to be exposed for the gutless wimps that they are.

Because if all the Democrats can agree on is appeasing this administration, they might as well not even fucking exist.

[LWolf]

46. I don't think you are "wrong" to choose one pov over another.

I do think you are "wrong" to trust politicians in general.

Then again, I don't think you should trust any anonymous internet group, either.

Personally, I think you should fully inform yourself, listen to all sides very thoughtfully and carefully, and then trust YOURSELF to make your own choice on any issue.

[riverdeep]

48. A cost/benefit analysis is certainly warranted.

But I'm not sure if that'll solve the problem. Because different people will assign different costs to some outcomes. Some people see a great problem with having a justice department as an extension of the executive branch, some people a great problem with setting a precedent of attacking nations for thinking about starting aggression, some people see a great problem with commuting the sentence of someone convicted by a jury for a crime committed and blocking inquiry into a treasonous crime, and some people see letting people off unaccountable for these sorts of things as a message for future lawbreakers-'the American treasury is yours to raid'. Others believe these are all things they can live with. I things think the things at stake, make the risks worth taking.

Personally, I've never chastised those who've gone to the limit and did everything they could do. Durbin is wonderful. Feingold is wonderful. I support people giving it everything they've got. If they, (and by extension, we) lose, then so be it. History will record our deeds, and misdeeds. There are some thing worth fighting, and losing, for.



"Today is a good day to die." -Tasunka Witko, aka Crazy Horse.

[mmonk]

50. Something's wromng with a party that has enough numbers to

impeach someone from the other party that is one of the worst violators of the constitution you'll live through, but doesn't. I know you love following the leadership no matter what they do or don't do because they have a label named "Democrat". But that is not a good thinking through the situation reason. The constitution should be defended anytime it is under attack no matter the outcome. I don't care if a DLC person was the last elected president and the DLC doesn't want to cause waves with the corporations. It's no good reason.

[Occam Bandage]

51. I don't know why everyone here is in such a hurry to see Bush acquitted.

[mmonk]

53. I don't see why people don't want the press to have cover what

they haven't let the people in on. I am not planning to cast a vote for my House representative this coming election and I'm going to let him know why. I'm going to vote for president, whomever is running against Dole for the Senate, the democrats on the local level, and judgeships. I'm going down fighting those that betray me, the citizen, though.

[Peace Candidate]

52. Failing to Impeach makes the Dems weak and lose votes

The good members of Congress must force impeachment so that we can see whom are the traitors to our country.
Then we know who must be replaced.

http://peacecandidates.com/

[jpgray]

55. And if in the effort to replace them, the GOP is empowered?

Finding acceptable replacements in these conservative areas is one thing, winning the primary is another, and finally winning in the GE is yet another. It can be done, yes, but it will take a great deal of work and probably isn't feasible for next year. Do those blue dogs or DLC-types deserve to be kicked out? In large part, absolutely! Throwing Congress back to the GOP is not something that interests me, and if you target all 47 blue dogs in the House alone, you'll have a hard time finding a good progressive replacement, let alone winning the seat in some of those districts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. It takes a simple majority to impeach.

What you seem to be overlooking is that the Republicans impeached Clinton for "crimes" and failed to remove him from office in the senate.

A great "failure". Followed by Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican 2 term president.

Clinton was a highly popular president. Bush is an highly unpopular president.

Even if the attempt to impeach fails due to the Republican minority in the senate, (plus the Blue Poodles), so what?

The Democrat Party would, at least, be perceived by the public as an alternative to the corrupt system of government now in control.

Not to mention that it would be the right thing to do.

[jpgray]

60. If brought today, would the House Democrats (including the 47 blue dogs) vote to impeach?

If they failed to show unity in an attempt to impeach such an eminently worthy target as Bush, what would the base reaction be? "At least they tried?" Have we seen that said when Congress has tried to add timelines to Iraq? Tried to investigate the administration? Tried to subpoena officials and documents? No. In each instance, the base is even more irate. Trying and failing to do the right thing when everyone believes it should be easy to do will win you no support. And it certainly hasn't won this Congress extra support, perhaps justifiably so.

As for the "failure," they lost seats in both houses in 2000, and would -not- have won the presidency if not for the SCOTUS. Yes there are differences between the state of the two administrations' popularity, the nature of the crimes(!), etc. No two historical impeachment efforts have been much alike, in fact.

However, look to the criticisms Stark and Durbin leveled against this very unpopular president. Both shamefacedly apologized and backed down under intense GOP media pressure. Why? These are two strong congresspeople in my view--not the best of the best, perhaps, but very able. If a similar backing down occurs during an attempted impeachment due to lack of caucus unity and strength, would the base be forgiving? Happy? I doubt it.

[stimbox]

66. Why no, "You're wrong, Walter-- and you're just an asshole." choice? n/t

[Greyhound]

67. You and they are wrong for the simplest reason of all, it is the right thing to do.

Nobody knows what will happen until it happens and those that claim otherwise have a hidden agenda or are fools or charlatans. The crimes committed by this administration are exactly why the impeachment clause was written into The Constitution.

Politicians live in terror of the sheeple realizing just what they do to us a daily basis. A zealously prosecuted impeachment against this cabal would expose far more than any of them are comfortable with and might well upset the whole disgustingly corrupt scam they've perpetrated for generations.

None of them want to give up the free ride, so it's just better if this all goes away.