A question for those that currently oppose articles of impeachment

[mmonk]

and argue that Kucinich is grandstanding with an extreme position. If your candidate for president changes their position and supports the articles, will you continue to hold with your current view?

[Donkeykick]

1. It will make it through Congress...

but not the Senate--period.

In the end, it could cost the 08 election. :shrug:

[mmonk]

2. So that's a no? You will continue to hold your position

on the issue?

[Donkeykick]

11. All one needs to do is...

count the number of conservatives and progressives in the Senate, and take notice of their voting records to establish the most likely of outcomes to determine whether or not this tactic will work or not.

Remember the way it hurt the Republicans during Clinton's era?

I say let Bush be Bush; he is going to be a lame duck the rest of his Presidency, and the war with Iraq is hurting him everyday! Hell! The vast majority of the GOP lawmakers want him to get out of Iraq too--as well as the sentiments of the American people. These people(GOP lawmakers) have to run again--George doesn't.

IMO: this strategy--letting George be George--will help the Democrats more than any impeachment proceedings would.;-)

[ClassWarrior]

14. It hurt the Rape-Publicans because THAT was an attempted coup.

THIS is justice.

And your mistake is thinking of it as "a tactic."

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

22. A point worth emphasizing.

The difference between overturning the will of the American people and serving them. They were smart enough - much to my eternal surprise - to recognize the first in '99. I'm sure they'll have no problem with the second in '07.

NGU.

[Stardust]

23. Refresh my memory, please: How did Clinton's impeachment hurt the repubs?

Lose control of the executive branch? no...lose control of the congress? no...lose control of the supreme court? not really...Help me out here. (oops, forgot about the stolen election...nevermind.):eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Yes it did

the republicans lost 5 house seats in a 6th-year election, where by all historical standards, they should gained seats.

They also lost two Speakers of the House during the ordeal, and Clinton emerged from it near the peak of his popularity. His wife also won a Senate seat two years later, in large part due to the over-reaching of Republicans.

[mmonk]

26. So I'm going to take that as definitively no

unless you advise otherwise. Funny you should call it a tactic though. That was my conclusion concerning "impeachment is off the table".

[ClassWarrior]

4. In the end, anything could cost the '08 election. But if it happens because we...

...took a firm stand against an out-of-control, torturing, spying, habeus-trashing "unitary dictator" for the good of our nation and our future generations - I'm willing to make the sacrifice.

And do you HONESTLY believe the Radical RW scum in the Senate won't fold once the public knows the full scope of these freaks' crimes?

NGU.

[lonestarnot]

7. What crap.

[ClassWarrior]

13. What an intelligent, well-reasoned response.

:eyes:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

21. At some point this reaches the level of an abuse victim's logic.

We can't tell the police that he beats us because he might beat us some more.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Zhade]

54. You don't believe in supporting the Constitution and rule of law?

NT!'

[lonestarnot]

6. ooops address to wrong poster.

[Poiuyt]

15. If you look at US history, it would probably GIVE us the WH

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

snip -

The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.

When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.

When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition.

more -

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[ClassWarrior]

20. I'd think taking a strong stand against abuse of power...

...would be a winner in the eyes of the American people.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Zhade]

55. And here, especially, but the number of people willing to let these criminals walk is staggering.

Unbelievable, actually.

[mmonk]

24. Yes. And following the argument against it because elections

are coming up never makes sense if taken to its logical end which would be there is no good time to impeach since we are always within two years of an election.

[mudesi]

40. It would not cost the 08 election

In fact, it would probably make the Democrats more popular.

[bluerum]

3. It's not that I oppose impeachment. Until it is clear that the republicks

in congress and the senate will vote for impeachment, how do we decide what level of effort to devote to it? Should it be a full steam ahead effort - even though we know the numbers are not there?

I would rather, at this point, focus on winning the white house and expanding the majorities in 2008.

Articles of impeachment are of course, a welcome, worthy and important tool to hold over the heads of the criminals. At some point, even the republickers will vote to impeach them. We need to know what that point is. But I fear that if they won't vote to impeach now, they will never vote to impeach.

[mmonk]

5. So that's a no?

[bluerum]

8. Ok - let me spell it out - I support impeachment no matter what candidate

endorses or does not endorse it.

Higher on my list of priorities however, is winning the WH and expanding democratic majorities in the houses.

[mmonk]

12. So you disagree with your candidate or that the reason

for impeachment is conditional and depends on seeking political office reasons and therefore support their decision on that basis?

[bluerum]

16. I have no candidate at this point. I don't need someone else to tell me

what to think.

I want to win the WH and expand the congressional majorities.

Impeachment is a very interesting side show.

[mmonk]

25. If its a sideshow now, then to be intellectually honest, your position

should be any impeachment is an interesting sideshow. Otherwise, why this partcular one?

[bluerum]

27. You are right mmonk. eom

[mmonk]

28. I'm not asking or arguing to be "right".

I take your postion as it stands. You're against it and a politician didn't convince you to take that position. That is fine. My OP was to find out if it made a difference with those that currently oppose it and have a candidate. Mostly I'm interested out of curiousity of how people arrived at the position it's a bad idea.

peace with you

[bluerum]

29. Thats not what I said though. I am an open advocate of impeachment.

Impeach the shrub, the chainy, and the and gondola. Get them the hell out. Put them in jail where they belong.

But I am not openly aware of any politician influencing my position - except the above mentioned scoundrels.

Having said that, I would rather have the WH and veto proof majorities in both houses.

Of course,,, the best of all worlds would be impeachment and the WH and veto proof majorities in both houses.

[mmonk]

30. OK. That's fine. Sorry for the confusion. I understand your position.

[mmonk]

9. I've got to go and take care of some work but will check back.

Hope I can get responses. It's a straight forward question that doesn't require a lot words.

[NoPasaran]

10. I'm currently not supporting any candidate

But anyone who would sign on to Kucinich's idiotic stunt would be anylikely to get my support.

[mmonk]

17. Interesting.

So any candidate that supports the articles impeaching Cheney will not get your support. Thanks for your honesty.

[dsc]

18. I don't have a candidate

but unless I see a path to conviction or at least a bi partisan vote I won't be supporting Impeachment no matter who brings it up.

[BeFree]

33. Too bad

... the republicans who in '97 were putting together their impeachment program didn't feel the same as you. If so, Clinton would have never been impeached.

But they didn't sit back and wait, did they? No, they kept at it.

[dsc]

39. A partisan Impeachment is worse than no Impeachment at all

History would look unkindly upon a partisan Impeachment, even if it was for good reason. Look at Andrew Johnson. He was Impeached by a partisan Congress and the hero in history is the Republican Senator who refused to vote to convict.

[BeFree]

42. Recent history?

Have you read any? Or are you just ignoring it?

The partisan impeachment of Clinton did no harm to the publicans.

So your whole theory is trashed. Try again.

[dsc]

43. actually it did

No one thought we would win the election of 1998 but we did almost entirely because of Impeachment. If not for the theft of Florida the GOP would have been down to the House only after 2000. And that isn't even counting what history will do.

[ClassWarrior]

46. What about Nixon?

His would-be IMPEACHMENT by Dems did wonders for us. So do you think Bush/Cheney** is more analogous to Johnson and Clinton?... Or Nixon?...

:shrug:

NGU.

[dsc]

47. Nixon was bipartisan

it was three Republicans who got him to see the need to quit.

[ClassWarrior]

48. And why did it end up that way? It sure didn't start that way.

Again... who's more analogous to Bush/Cheney**? Clinton or Nixon?

NGU.

[dsc]

51. I have no problem with investigations

but by the time it turned to Impeachment, there were Republicans who wanted to see him go.

[ClassWarrior]

53. Again, because it was legitimate. Thus the Nixon analogy is more appropriate...

...than the Clinton one. And apparently the Johnson one.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Thank you, by the way, for amply proving my point.

That a fraudulent attempt to overturn the will of the American people dressed up as impeachment is no comparison to a real IMPEACHMENT in service of justice and accountability.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

45. You actually buy that talking point?

It's cheap and easy to toss out something like Johnson's name when the majority of us have absolutely no clue about the circumstances surrounding his impeachment. But why let facts spoil a good surface analogy?

NGU.

[dsc]

50. So it is my fault you don't know history?

For the record Andrew Johnson was a Democrat with an extremely large majority opposed to him in Congress. Congress passed a law banning him from firing cabinet members. When Johnson fired the Sec of War Congress decided to impeach him. Johnson was aquitted by one vote. On edit, if Congress had Impeached him for one of the many real things he did instead of ginning up a nonsensical charge Johnson might have actually been removed.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Did I say that?

Or did I say it's your fault that you used an obscure reference?

Just checking...

NGU.

[dsc]

57. Andrew Johnson isn't an obscure reference

Anyone who doesn't know about the Civil War and its aftermath, provided they are a US adult, should have been educated better.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Okay.

:eyes:

NGU.

[LWolf]

19. Of course they won't.

The "grandstanding" argument is, ironically, a form of grandstanding.

[BlooInBloo]

31. I'm all for impeachment, AND I think DK is grandstanding. One *can* think both

[mmonk]

32. If someone else entered articles, would they be grandstanding?

And do you think he supports the articles he presented or does not? Grandstanding by its definition is "To perform ostentatiously so, as to win the applause or approbation of an audience". Also, I'm left to ponder someone's mindset who is running for the office concerning the constitution, remedies for malfeasance and balance of power when they stand silent on constitutional remedy.

[BlooInBloo]

38. (a) I don't know - depends on the details, (b) It's possible to grandstand AND support articles.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. When It Becomes Realistic That It Could Make It Through Both The House AND Senate, Then I'd

support such action. Has nothing to do with which candidate is submitting it. It has all to do with futility vs. rationality.

[mmonk]

35. How do you know what it would or would not clear

once it started? Is that the standard? Certainty as to conviction?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. I Said When It Becomes Realistic, Not Certain. I Hope You Know The Huge Difference Between The Two.

Don't twist my sentiment into being one of certainty, since that isn't what I said. But are you also putting forth an opinion that as it stands right now that the action to impeach Cheney has any realistic chance of success? Is that what you're saying? Do you truly believe that? I'd like to know if you do.

[ClassWarrior]

44. So demanding accountability from our leaders is futile?

:eyes:

Even if we don't convict - and I seriously doubt we won't, once these freaks' crimes are on the record and on the nightly news - it benefits us to take a strong stand against WH abuse of power by IMPEACHING.

NGU.

[MadBadger]

36. I'm against articles, but I dong argue that Kucinich is grandstanding.

[AZBlue]

52. Of course. I'm not a one-issue voter. That would be stupid.

And I'm not stupid.

(BTW, your post is a little misleading - at least I think it is. I'm not opposed to impeachment - far from it. I'm opposed to wasting a lot of time and effort on a proposal that has no way no how of winning).