There is a method to the Pelosi/Reid madness. And only time will tell

[pnwmom]

whether they achieve their goal -- or not.

A quick impeachment of Bush and Cheney might have been temporarily satisfying, but it would not have led to their conviction since we would not have gotten a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict.

Impeaching them would have satisfied some of the blood lust that's been building, and would have signified to many people the close of the chapter. Having lost in a Senate trial, we would have been told to move on.

Since we haven't impeached them, anti-Bush and anti-Rethug energy is still building, and should be peaking by the time of the election, only a year from now. If Bush hasn't led us into WWIII by then, and if we're not defeated by election fraud again, next year's election should show strong gains for the Democrats and a new Democratic President in place for Jan. 2009.

[endarkenment]

1. Use these three words in a sentence:

Keeping Powder Dry

[ClassWarrior]

2. So it's okay to piss on the Constitution...

...if you can justify it with political victory?

Watch the videos at the link in my sigline below, then tell me if this is all about "blood lust."

NGU.

[antigop]

3. Pretty unbelievable, huh? n/t

[pnwmom]

4. They're not doing it, Bush is. And without 67 votes in the Senate,

which they don't have, they cannot stop him through impeachment. They could only vindicate him with a declaration of "not guilty" in the Senate. Is that what we want? A once-and-for-all finding that he's NOT GUILTY?

I used the word "blood lust" metaphorically, and many days, I count myself among that group. I hate everything about Bush, but through it all I can dimly perceive -- not necessarily agree with, but dimly perceive -- what Pelosi and Reid may be up to.

[99th_Monkey]

7. You mean like exposing the WH crimes during the General Election? hmm.

taking it to the people, to the voters? well, that sounds plausible .. maybe. the main problem with that,
besides that it's just speculation at this point, is that on the campaign trail it just becomes a "he said,
she said" kind of back and forth subject to every imaginable spin... and therefore would be the MOST likely to
backfire when compared to a series of relatively controlled, detailed, under-oath House Hearings, where Dems wield
the gavel, which would render the charges as publically irrefutable in bold typeface on front pages. In the
House Dems ONLY need 51% to Impeach. By the time it gets to the Senate, the cat's out of the bag, the charges
and evidence to support them are already etched on the public's consciousness for all to see. This would create
a VERY different environment for the debate in the Senate ... who knows what would happen next? They may or may
not get 2/3 in the Senate, but that's no excuse for not trying, and putting this out-of-control Administration
on notice that their crimes will not be ignored or tolerated any longer.

Waiting for the General Election campaign trail is not a good bet in my book ... too loosey goosey... literally
a crap shoot compared to impeachment now. When we have people like Bruce Fein running around with their hair
on fire screaming "please impeach these guys before it's too late", I think it's wise to listen.

Or maybe that's not what you even meant. If that's not what you meant, could you elaborate?

[pnwmom]

8. I think it's a crap shoot either way.

I agree it would have been great to have had hearings -- in terms of airing all the criminality -- but I don't share your confidence that hearings would have changed the environment in the Senate enough to give us 67 votes. And if we had a "not guilty" verdict, they would bellow it far and wide and announce that the same thing had happened to Clinton -- hearings and an impeachment, then no conviction -- and it was time to MOVE ON.

The problem is, we have a large group of people in this country who are too ignorant and/or apathetic or just too plain overwhelmed by their own life circumstances to care.

I'm hoping that IF Pelosi and Reid are right, there will be a tremendous revulsion against Bush which will be expressed in Nov. 2008, and in Jan. 2009 we will have solid enough majorities in the House and Senate to actually accomplish a lot of great things under the next Democratic administration.

IF.

All I can do is hope.

[99th_Monkey]

10. If they let Sibel Edmonds testify in House, I'll bet it would be a slam dunk in the Senate

along with maybe Larry Flint as needed.

[pnwmom]

14. Then you have a lot more confidence in the Rethugs than I do.

I think they still believe in making their own reality. They're in major denial, and they would continue in it no matter what turned up in a hearing.

[ClassWarrior]

42. This is about having confidence in the Constitution that...

...has served our nation so well for more than two centuries.

This isn't about what the Rape-Publicans do. It's about what true patriots do.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Bushco** created the Constitutional crisis, true...

...but IMPEACHMENT is the cure - and who's administering it??! Please watch the videos at the links below. You'll save yourself from saying foolish things.

NGU.

[antigop]

5. Hey, ClassWarrior --- our calls, faxes to Congress must be having an impact! n/t

[LWolf]

6. There is no way to predict the senate vote

before the criminal is charged and evidence has been presented at trial.

There will not even be an investigation into the charges until the charges are made.

The House needs to impeach before the rest has a chance to happen.

[pnwmom]

9. History is the best teacher. And the history of the Rethugs currently in power

tells us that they will follow him like lemmings off the cliff, into what is hopefully the abyss of the 2008 elections.

[ClassWarrior]

12. I see, so we can only do the right thing if the Rape-Publicans allow us to?

:eyes:

NGU.

[pnwmom]

13. We can't convict him without 67 votes, and that includes Rethug votes.

And I'm not so sure that allowing him the vindication of a "not guilty" verdict is doing the right thing.

[ClassWarrior]

17. The only SURE way to lose is to give up without trying to do the right thing.

Are you ready to give up what you're making sure we'll lose?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

23. There's more than one way to win. And letting the public become sick to death

of Bush and most the Rethugs is another way to win.

If the public disgust with Bush generates a Demcratic landslide, we'll be in a much better position to push for change than we would be if we had just had a failed impeachment attempt.

[ClassWarrior]

27. The cost of that victory is our Constitution. What a way to "win!"

:puke:

And if a candidate is not willing to fight to save it now, what makes you think she or he will restore it after gaining all that power?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

33. Your way, we could win half a battle -- the impeachment -- and still lose

the war. If we fail to get a conviction, we lose stock with the public and the Rethugs will be in a BETTER position to regain the White House. Then the Constitution really will be at risk.

[ClassWarrior]

35. So let's not risk the Constitution by USING it? Ohmygawd...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

My loony Aunt Lucy used to keep the living room furniture covered in plastic too, and wouldn't let anyone sit on it, so it wouldn't get ruined.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

38. As I said, I'm of mixed mind about the approach.

But I can see why Pelosi/Reid would not rather win the battle but lose the war -- if winning an impeachment (but no conviction) made them less likely to solidify gains in Congress, to reverse the direction of the S.C. and to put a Democrat in the White House.

[ClassWarrior]

45. If saving the Constitution isn't "the war," what is?

And what does it matter what letter someone puts behind their name once our rights are destroyed?

NGU.

[LWolf]

16. Ok. Let them.

Let them follow him like lemmings off of a cliff.

Let them publicly ignore crimes committed because of partisan politics.

I don't believe that will help them rebuild anything for the next run.

[iconocrastic]

15. You got the "madness" part right.

But it's a sign of weakness, not strength.

I really don't see a method. I see chaos and confusion.

Method implies action. Method is a pattern of action. There's no method in paralysis.

Just my 2 cents.

[L. Coyote]

18. Impeach Reagan and Bush 41 first!

If we are going to get principled, let's do it right!

[ClassWarrior]

19. The fact that we DIDN'T at the time is the reason we're in this crisis.

On the stump, John Nichols tells of the great San Antonio Congressman, Henry Gonzales, who used to bring articles of IMPEACHMENT against Ronnie Raygun on a regular basis. And the Dem leadership would say, "Awwwwww... why are you doing this now, against such a popular guy?" And Gonzales would say, "Because if we don't, we'll have a lot worse in 20 years."

Guess how long ago that was?

NEVER Give Up.

[L. Coyote]

22. There are still several outstanding murders that Bush 41 and the Iran-Contra gang could be hung with

No statute of limitations there! American citizens Linda Frasier and Ben Linder were murdered!!

[ClassWarrior]

20. And who wants a president who doesn't hold criminals accountable...

...just so she or he can win, anyway??

:crazy:

NGU.

[pnwmom]

24. A failed impeachment attempt doesn't hold anyone accountable.

And I don't believe that the Rethugs will stop protecting Bush. If he falls, they fall with him, and they don't want to do that. So they'll vote not guilty no matter what comes out of a hearing.

[ClassWarrior]

26. Failure to do anything at all doesn't even give us a chance.

It's just simply lying down and giving in.

Why are you so afraid to watch the video in my sig line? Because you might be proven wrong?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

30. I've seen the video and it doesn't change my opinion about this.

We're not going to get all the Rethugs to watch it, and they're the ones who will be voting.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Yes, that's why you keep bringing up arguments that the video knocks down.

:rofl:

NGU.

[pnwmom]

34. I have my opinion which is different. The video doesn't prove anything.

I have no confidence that the group of Rethugs in the Senate will ever desert Bush. And the video can't prove that it will.

[ClassWarrior]

36. ROFL

You believe what you believe, and no pesky facts are ever going to get in the way of that belief, huh?

NGU.

[Canuckistanian]

21. So you're on a roll by NOT impeaching?

And you're also meek enough to be chastised by a failure to convict in the Senate?

In other words, to win you must concede.

Wow. What courage. What resolve.

[pnwmom]

25. All the Clinton impeachment did was make him more popular.

And the Rethugs were punished for that in the next election.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Yes, the failed RW coup against Clinton is EXACTLY the same as holding Bush**...

...accountable for his crimes.

:eyes:

NGU.

[pnwmom]

29. It's not holding him accountable unless he is found guilty.

Which he won't be, because his coconspirators will save him in order to save themselves.

[ClassWarrior]

31. So give up? Don't even TRY to do the right thing? Because we MIGHT fail??

:rofl:

Now who's buying into the Rape-Publican reality?

NGU.

[tomg]

37. Pnwmom, I really enjoy reading your

posts, and even where I disagree ( as on this thread), I find your arguments and logic interesting, but the Rethugs were punished not for the impeachment, per se, but for the lunacy of the impeachment charges and the sense that it was partisanship first and foremost. Most people didn't think of perjury and obstruction as the charges - they thought of it as a blowjob. Most people didn't think Clinton should have been impeached in the first place, although polls suggested people felt the country was on the wrong "moral" track when he left. There were also a number of other factors as to why the Repubplicans lost ( good economy, at peace), and even with that, while the 2000 elections balanced the Senate, the Republicans still controlled the House, although by a slighter margin.

Clinton went out with a 68% approval rating. Nothing is going to make George Bush "popular," short of both he and Cheney having heart attacks on the same day and both resigning for issues of health. The mood of the country is different now - the war, the economy is now officially screwed six ways to Sunday, the level of corruption is so high that even conservatives are calling for it, and the assault on our constitution is unbelievable. I would suggest that if the dems don't do something, they could sufferin the next election.

Bill Moyers had a wonderful dialogue on impeachment with Bruce Fein and John Nichols.

Bruce Fein wrote the first articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton when he was asked about Bush and impeachment. This is what he - a strong conservative - had to say:

"he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law."

He says impeachment is necessary.

The full transcript is at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html

[pnwmom]

39. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, tomg.

It's given me food for thought.

But as I think I've made clear, I'm of two minds on this whole thing anyway. I wanted impeachment a few years ago -- but as the possibility dimmed and then faded completely, I've tried to reconcile myself to that. And I want to think Pelosi has a good reason for her approach. At this late date, I can't imagine the Dems changing direction, unless they start finding bodies buried in the White House lawn.

[tomg]

40. Well, given this administration,

you never can tell what will turn up. :)

[sampsonblk]

49. I think you learned the wrong lesson from that.

They weren't punished because they tried it. They were punished because the public figured out that it was garbage. What Bush has done is actually a criminal abuse of his office, and it has harmed the nation greatly.

[mahina]

41. I argued this point for a couple of years, till I realized

it was trading incremental gain for the Democratic brand for lives lost, ours and theirs. How many are too many?
I think one is too many.
If we let them get away with murder, we are responsible for it, even more than we already are.

I am not usually prone to guilt but my heart is so heavy sometimes about this.

[enough already]

43. Yeah, the Pelosi/Reid strategy is just brilliant

Roll over and give the prick everything he wants, even while he shits on the Constitution. Just brilliant.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. I agree with the OP regarding impeachment

We cannot remove this President from office. We don't have the votes in the Senate, and people need to get that idea out of their heads. We could have a purely "symbolic" impeachment by the House, but it won't go any further than symbolism. We'll have to content ourselves with the knowledge that someday George W. Bush and Richard Cheney will be rotting in hell.

But I DON'T agree with Pelosi/Reid on just about every other aspect of their so-called strategy. SCHIP should be attached to each and every domestic spending bill sent to the President. A timeline for withdrawal from Iraq should be attached to every defense appropriation. Amendments limiting the Patriot Act should be attached sent to the President on a daily basis.

Now it's possible that the Republican minority might filibuster or use other parliamentary maneuvers to block these bills from ever coming to a vote, and it's likely that Bush will issue vetoes like there's no tomorrow. That's fine. The government will eventually shut down and cease functioning, as it should. When a drunk is behind the wheel, the best thing you can do is pull over.

[ClassWarrior]

47. So you'd rather "symbolically" support SCHIP, but not the Constitution?

:crazy:

What if armed invaders took over your home? Knowing you'd probably be overpowered, would you avoid defending your family because you'd likely lose, and therefore it would only be a "symbolic" defense?

NGU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. Huh?

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

You need to understand something. You're not going to remove Bush (or Cheney) from office. It would require fifteen Republican Senators (and Joe Lieberman) to vote to throw this administration under the bus. Now there might be a half dozen desperate and endangered Republicans who would go to that extreme, but you're still at least a half dozen votes short.

It's frustrating as hell, but removal from office isn't going to happen.

Ramming SCHIP and Withdrawal Deadlines at the White House would not be symbolic. Bush would have to either sign this legislation (getting something positive accomplished) or he would be forced to allow the government to shut down because there would be no appropriations approved (also getting something positive accomplished).

Since it is mathematically impossible to remove this President from office, I'd rather that Congress spent its energy on attempting to get something positive accomplished. This Congress, sadly, isn't doing either one. Given a choice between supporting SCHIP or supporting the Constitution, they have chosen "None Of The Above."

And that's why Congress' approval rating is only slightly higher than Dick Cheney's

[ClassWarrior]

53. You're saying IMPEACHMENT would be "symbolic" because...

...it's destined to fail. So instead Congress should support SCHIP - even though it's destined to fail. :crazy:

Where did you buy your crystal ball, by the way?

NGU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. It doesn't take a crystal ball...

These are not the Republicans of the Nixon era, who went to the President in August of 1973 and told him to step down or be removed from office. This is not the Republican Party of the Nixon era, because they have no intention of doing what's right for the country. They will hold on to power in hopes that they can steal the next election. Harry Reid will not get the votes because these Republicans adamantly refuse to do the right thing.

As for SCHIP and Withdrawal Dates, these are overwhelmingly popular with voters and not necessarily "destined to fail." Bush can veto them, but there's a strong chance that we could actually get the votes to override his veto (especially in an election year). The alternative is that SCHIP would not get passed (i.e., the veto is sustained), but we would have a bludgeon to beat the Republicans with in 2008.

A failed impeachment attempt doesn't provide us with any traction going into the next election cycle. It's old news about the last administration. Health Care will still be an issue this time next year.

Don't get me wrong. If the Democratic leadership would say, "Screw legislation, we're going to impeach his sorry ass" I wouldn't agree with the strategy, but I would support them. My beef with Reid and Pelosi is that they're unwilling to do either one.

[ClassWarrior]

57. It's not a matter of "agreeing with strategy." It's a matter of following the Constitution.

Watch the videos linked in my sig line below.

And you don't have a crystal ball? Then how can you say certainly and absolutely that it won't succeed? For one, it's never been polled the way that SCHIP and the occupation have. For two, how do you know that there's not things like this hiding below the surface?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2318825

NGU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. I can't prove a negative...

and neither can you. But I can count to sixty-six and we don't have the votes. The House of Representatives could vote to impeach Bush (and/or Cheney) and they might actually be successful. But they won't be removed from office because the Senate will not convict.

If you think that fifteen Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) are going to vote to convict, I'd like you to provide the names of those individuals. Straight up. Name names. Who do you think, among the Republicans, is going to throw the Bush Administration under the bus?

[ClassWarrior]

59. It doesn't matter if there's no conviction. To quote Rachel Maddow...

"I don't know what genius political consultant has advised the Democratic leadership that it's a bad idea to spend hours of prime time on the floor of Congress reminding the country that Mr. Eleven-Percent-Approval-Rating is a bad guy of whom they disprove and whom they would like to see held accountable. It's supposed to be Politics 101 that you associate yourself with good things and that you are seen to frequently and rabidly denounce bad things."

As seen here: http://www.milwaukeedems.org

NGU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. Impeachment Dies with the Bush Administration

Given a choice between a failed attempt at impeachment and a failed attempt at getting kids health care, I'd go with health care because you can't campaign against a lame-duck, term-limited administration. If your kid has asthma and you don't have health care, you don't give two shits as to whether the President gets impeached -- come November 4, 2008, you're going to vote for the party that's trying to do something for you and your family. If you're a National Guardsman on your fourth tour of Iraq, you're going to vote for the party that's going to put an end to this asinine foreign policy -- hopefully before you take a bullet.

You can accomplish Rachel Maddow's goal either way (impeachment or legislation). Let me say this again, my complaint with the Democratic leadership is that they're not doing it either way.

[ClassWarrior]

62. The Constitution dies without IMPEACHMENT.

And I agree. My complaint also is that they're not doing either.

NGU.

[riqster]

44. Whether you are reading this correctly or not...

...I still applaud Kucinich for keeping the topic alive. Who knows, it might well fit within the strategy you outline.

[Demeter]

48. There Is Also a Madness to Their Method

and it's driving the nation to anger and despair and fascism, destroying the economy, rewarding the criminals, killing people by the millions, and plunging the whole world into peril..

But that's all right, the powder is still dry!.

[boricua79]

50. there's no method

they're just spineless career democrats who continually put their finger to the wind and worry about their re-election should they get painted as being anti-troop or anything they fear the American people would label them.

That or they fear the John Olver theory on impeachment (that Bush would institute martial law should impeachment proceedings be brought forward).

Either way, their method hasn't worked for an entire year.

[Senator]

51. If True, They're No Better Than Bushcheney

They are refusing to abide by their oaths of office just to gain political advantage.

It is the essence of corruption. And constitutes treason.

===

[enough already]

54. There's a reason why the approval rating of this Congress is in the shitter

And in my opinion that reason is precisely your approach to everything which is capitulating to the Chimp. Hell, even Bush's approval exceeds this Congress. All I see is madness, not method.

[Imagevision]

56. Pelosi's position seems to be, lets just wait until we get a Dem president then

we can make some improvements?!?

[mmonk]

61. My freedom and that of my children is not a political football.

My distrust is permanent to the process now and my cynicism everlasting now.