If It's Only "Perjury" then the Ball's in the Dem's Court.

[DemocracyInaction]

That was the only charge against Clinton. It became a big thing because the Republicans (not in control of the Senate at the time) MADE it the worst, god awful, terrible, bad thing that happened to Amureka--ever. And the country bought it. If it's only 'perjury' this time, then it's "SHOW TIME" for the Dems. They cannot issue statements and write something to a paper and disappear. They have to throw a national "hissy fit" of epic proportions attacking not only the perjury BUT pointing out how this whole thing rips the curtain down and shows how we were lied into war (and right now, the people would love to hear those words since they have turned against the war). If the Republicans could do it to Bill, there is no goddamn excuse..none..why the Dems cannot do it to these bastards.

[the_spectator]

1. Ooh! ooh! Can I be Henry Hyde?

You can be Rogan if you want:

[DemocracyInaction]

5. Unfortunately, we will never get them to impeach or even scold BUT

like I said, we have to make this a hissy fit that goes on and on and on. And, lord, we can't let them spin it as "no big thing". We have to constantly inform the people why it is a big thing and what it reveals about lying us into this endless war. News item today says that Dems are getting their response in order---good. It's just that this "response" cannot be some one day or one week event. It must be used as the defining adjectives every time any remark about Bush or Republicans comes out of their mouths on Capitol Hill.

[the_spectator]

6. Seriously, I think you are spot on in your original post,

and here too. And it will be a long fight. The Dems have to make noise about this up through the 06 Midterms, we can maybe retake the House and then really get it rolling.

And to be honest, I guess the Henry Hyde position is already tentatively taken -- it will be ... John Conyers, the ranking minority member of House Judiciary!

[Francine Frensky]

2. We have nothing to lose, certainly, but remember...

the republicans had 20% approval ratings by the time the impeachment thing was over. It didn't matter to them, the point was to put a permanent black mark on Clinton and they realized the long term benefits would be worth it.

[zbdent]

3. At what point are you saying that Repukes were not in control of the

Senate?

From 1/3/1995 to May of 2001, the Repukes were in control of the Senate.

During the impeachment, the votes came down 55-45 for conviction on one article, and 50-50 on the other.

A supermajority was required for conviction - 60 votes.

In the 1998 election, the Repukes were banking on the impeachment proceedings to garner them a bigger majority of both the House and the Senate. Instead, they continued the slide that had occurred since their high in 1995 - downward. They lost more ground as a result of the 1998 election.

Thus, the House Repukes had to hurry back into session to vote for the impeachment - before their slimming majority shrunk officially.

[the_spectator]

4. They only lost 5 seats in the House in the '98 election

The Senate results were completely "unchanged."
I say go for it.

[AlGore-08.com]

7. Dollars to donuts they won't, because they don't want to remind folks

That Clinton was only one of two Presidents to face impeachment.

Right now, it's all conjecture that anybody will be indicted, and even if somebody is indicted, and even if that indictment is for perjury, unless it's Smirk himself who's indicted and unless he's indicted for perjury and/or something worse, none of them will want to remind the nation that the there was a recent Dem President who (on the record at least) committed a worse crime than Smirk has - - and that is one of the main reasons that Dems still have trouble winning in the South and Midwest.

Book it.