So ... we win the House ... we hold hearings into the runup to Iraq .....

[Stinky The Clown]

.... and it becomes absolutely crystal clear that Bush lied.

Impeach?

I say we MUST impeach. There should be no debate on that, should there?

[onenote]

1. show me the new evidence

To me, that's the biggest problem with this theory. That somehow, a smoking gun will appear in the form of new evidence beyond that which is already known. Unless that happens, I don't see the situation changing. And I don't see a smoking gun appearing because I don't think there is anyone in a position to provide such evidence who would do so and I don't think the WH would give up any such evidence in their possession. If they claim executive privilege (which they will) with respect to documents sought in an investigation, the Supremes will side with the WH. The stalemate might hurt the repubs politically, but it will stymie any thoughts of impeachment.

[rfranklin]

2. Just tying them up in knots would be okay...

Slowing them down would be a plus.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I think what we 'know' right now is enough

I put 'know' in quotes purposely. Thus far, little of what we 'know' has been said as sworn testimony. I think we know (no quotes) enough right now to impeach. But that's us. We need to show the country. And the best way to do that is in sworn testimony in hearings held in the House.

[rubberducky]

3. We absolutely MUST impeach!!!!

To cleanse this country of the corruption that has taken place in the past 6 years. If there are no impeachment proceedings it will be proof to everyonr that the dems are as spineless as they try to portray us.

[brokensymmetry]

5. Nah. Impeachment is way too easy.

First of all, getting the Senate to convict is problematic.

Next, if you impeach *, you get Cheney. Not good, right?
So now we try to impeach both? And the Senate refuses to
convict either?

Better idea: Endless hearings. Rub rethuglican noses in
the mess until they vomit all over themselves.

Then take back the Senate and the White House.

Then pursue criminal prosecution of the whole cabal. Maybe
send * and Cheney to the Hague.

And - most important - start cleaning up the mess.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. "Next, if you impeach *, you get Cheney. Not good, right?"

If we get Bush, Cheney goes down too. In fact, he's probably the easier one to impeach.

So, while we may have a bit of Cheney, we end up with President Pelosi. I can live with that. I bet you could, too.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. President Pelosi?

I like it. Full-blown, boom-boom civil war with the freeps. This house needs cleanin'.

[brokensymmetry]

12. President Pelosi?

Yeah, I like that! It has a nice ring to it.

Can you imagine how the RW would fume? Limbaugh, etc?

:popcorn:

[AX10]

17. That is what I would do too.

We could decimate the GOP by 2008, clearing the way for a Democratic President and more seats in congress.

[elocs]

8. Let's actually win the House first.

I think the Democratic Party has plenty of room for debate. What do we do with those Democrats who disagree with your premise? Cast them out of the party? Call them Repigs, right wing fascist supporters, unpatriotic? Or can they not be real Democrats if they do not agree with your opinion? That there should be no debate on impeachment is your opinion. Good and loyal and hard working Democrats are allowed to disagree with your opinion. But let's at least actually win the House. The election is only a couple of months away.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. What are you talking about?

Was the air 'funny' out there in left field?

[acmejack]

10. That it's bad & unloyal and lazy Democrats that want impeachment

As opposed to "Good and loyal and hard working Democrats" that don't. Got it.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Uh .....

[Lexingtonian]

13. no, don't bother

It's fun to fantasize about, but it's far better to let reality do the work we want done.

First of all, majority in the Senate is not out of reach. If our side doesn't get that, a Republican majority there will be used to stifle and counter what a Democratic House does toward the Bush crew. If our side does get Senate majority, how ever small, don't forget that something like 15 Republican Senators will be representing states that are Blue or tip Blue this election- those 15 are going to be in political quicksand. Without Senate majority powers the Republican Senate minority is deadly vulnerable to massive losses in '08 and will, in any case, be under continuous attack from their Democratic constituents. With a rising and growing national consensus against them they won't be able to sustain filibusters or much else.

As it is, Republican morale is shaky and solid support of Bush & Co continues its running decline. That decline in real support/last real faith in this bunch achieving anything positive is a remarkably constant 1% of the electorate per month across nearly 6 years, and after election day hard Bush support will predictably be under 30%. (There's still a bit of soft support that makes the numbers look less bad, but it's benefit of the doubt.) When the hard support goes to under 24%- which would by trend be sometime next spring or early summer- the Presidency is going to be extraordinary fragile and its last political bloc of support is cracked. That's the Christian Right aka hardcore conservatives.

We'd be fools to attack the Presidency outright and make the debate about the institution. The game is do everything else but that- to expose all the Administration has done and the completeness of its failure and corruption without a direct attack on Dubya. That means to topple and politically destroy one element after another of the Administration and its support after another. That would make it completely impotent and discredit everything it is and stands for. It will have to throw members of the crew under the train continuously until they run out of bodies between us and Dubya. That is Total Victory, is it not? And then Dubya will get the Nixon phone call from his last friends in the Senate, telling him to resign because there's nothing left to prevent his being thrown out.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Lex, I *do* understand that ..... but .......

...... this is arguably and demonstarbly not only the worst adminsitration in history, but also the most significantly criminal. The laws broken weren't simple breaking and entering or the follow-on crimes of the (now seemingly benign) Nixon ear. Their crimes are truly huge. Treasonous. Seditionist.

I don't want us to end this regime with just a simple change of leadership and the usual platitudes that the sanctity of our government allowed for a smooth transition of power. Yes, I know that's a rabidly partisan position. Or is it? It is the duty of every citizen to NOT allow this to happen even again.

[Lexingtonian]

16. very true

but political rejection by his/their own supporters, along with selfinflicted destruction of their political coalition, Party, mythology, apparatus of power, and agenda...that's the utterly fatal rejection.

Being ruined by your political opponents is a chance at martyrdom and allows for vindication and a slew of propaganda attempting to justify what you did in History. Being utterly deserted by your own and ignored by your enemies as pathetic and disproven means The End and a verdict on your life of having been deluded, a complete pawn and a fool to illusions in the important thing you did with your life.

[PresidentWar]

15. Yes, impeachment is a moral duty - not partisan pragmatism.

Thanks for keeping our focus on this.