Well, there you have it... Chris Dodd tells why we won't get impeachment.

[Skidmore]

Right now, John Mercurio on Washington Journal read a quote from a talk Dodd had with a group of Dems. We won't get these criminals impeached because it "will suck the oxygen out of the room" and they won't stand a chance of getting elected.

So the precedent is set to allow an future office holder to do anything they want and subvert the rule of law in the process. It was the political aspirations of Daschle and Gephardt that lead to Congress handing over the war powers to * to start a war, and it will be the Dems in this Congress and Senate who will refuse to impeach a blatant criminal for the sake of a title.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/NEWS09/708210398/1001/NEWS&template=printart

Dodd: Impeachment a bad idea

Democrats could lose control of Congress if they turn away from the nation's problems to try it, he says.

By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER


Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, a U.S. senator from Connecticut, said Monday it would be a mistake to launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Dodd said Democrats could lose control of Congress in the 2008 elections if they pursued that course, because many Americans would object to Congress spending 14 months on impeachment proceedings rather than focusing on other problems facing the nation.

"Impeachment proceedings suck all of the oxygen out of the room," he told members of STAR PAC, a group dedicated to political action against war, at a Des Moines appearance that marked the end of an eight-day campaign swing through Iowa.

.....

"If we become preoccupied with an impeachment process, I think we could turn off an awful lot of people who might otherwise be willing to support Democrats and be willing to change the direction of the country in the fall of 2008," he said.

[Perry Logan]

1. If there's no impeachment, how would that exonerate some future President for his/her crimes?

I would love to see these guys impeached--not to mention prosecuted and hung. But I'm not convinced the lack of impeachment is a slippery slope, allowing for unchecked future crimes by future Presidents. Impeachment seems to be very much a function of the political situation, which is screwed up but getting better.

[tom_paine]

7. Disagree. For the same reason that allowing a safe cracker to get away with their crimes

in broad daylight encourages future safe crackers.

You may not be convinced, but history is.

Impeachment IS a function of the political situation, that is true, but the more urgent the crime, the more heinous and repeated, the less the political situatiuon matters as regards to impeachment.

To take it to it's logical conclusion, if Bushler were caught on film running down the Pennsylvania Ave. with the dripping, severed head of Howard Dean in is hand, would not the severity and heinousness of the crime mitigate the political considerations, and should not then impeachment start the very next day?

Living in Imperial Amerika these last 6.5 years, I am little convinced that even in such an exaggerated scene, if it would be allowed to happen, impeachment would begin at all. And that is NOT an exaggeration, but just an example of how far we have fallen.

You wish to gamble on 2008 by letting criminals go free to aid electoral fortunes which will change the political landscape, allowing investigation and impeachment. I believe that is the most dangerous gamble since the German People said, "Just ignore that little man, he will go away eventually."

Time will tell which of us is correct.

[pacalo]

78. I'm glad I read your post.

I'm one who believes that if this dictator isn't impeached, this government is going to get progressively worse because we're in effect putting down a big welcome mat for future Nixonian presidencies.

You do have a good argument because I was comforted by your words, mostly because I believe the impeachment this dictator most richly deserves will never happen. Going a step further than you did, I believe it has something to do with a powerful shadow government of which the boy king's father has been a member since the JFK assassination.

[tom_paine]

86. Thank you. And yes, I think it goes back to JFK and before.

I never bought any of that JFK/RFK/MLK Conspiracy Theory stuff before, although I always believe the Official Stories were all or partly false.

But NOW, well let's just say watching Caesar vs. Roman Republic and Hitler vs. Weimer Republic unfold in slow motion before my eyes has suddenly shed new light, in retrospect, on events long past.

The same way finding out about Livia murdering Augustus with poisoned figs sheds new light on how everyone else ahead of her son Tiberius, for the Imperial Throne either died mysteriously or were banished, no?

As for future "Nixonian" presidencies, I think Bushonian has rendered Nixonian quaint. Nixon was Mother Theresa compared to BushCheney.

What is worrisome, as history says almost certainly will happen, one day possibly in our lifetimes, we shall see the coming of Leaders who make BushCheney look like Mother Theresa.

Yes, right now you and I and 200,000,000 Americans would be so very happy at the relatively mild corruption of a Nixonian President, compared to a Bushonian Emperor.

[pacalo]

115. If there is absolutely no accountability, whether through Congress or through the court system,

there's no doubt that we'll see far worse than the Bush nightmare.

I wasn't able to read your reply until after I got home from work -- another excellent post, tom paine. I almost used the term "Nixonian/Bushonian" in my earlier post but changed my mind because I didn't think the "onian" would work on "Bush", but it looked perfectly fine & appropriate when you used it. The most despised "president" of our time will be the catalyst for many negative terms. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes to see the glares when he's in the private sector.

[NavyDavy]

2. i agree

[WinkyDink]

3. If I may: That would be~~~"Allow any future REPUBLICAN office-holder...."

Democrats will STILL BE AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKED, INVESTIGATED, and IMPEACHED.

[Perry Logan]

4. Yes, the system is unbelievably rigged for the Right. And yet they still screwed.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. "Democrats could lose control of Congress if they turn away from the nation's problems to try it"

All the nation's problem would be SOLVED by impeachment.

Whatever ......

[Karmageddon]

32. You beat me to it. Impeachment IS the solution to the biggest problems facing the nation.

[H2O Man]

6. The crimes

of the Cheney administration is sucking the oxygen out of the room that houses our Constitution.

[spanone]

21. You said it H2O Man....that is the truth.

[Cha]

47. And I'm more than a little

surprised that the Dems don't comprehend that?!!

[wordpix]

58. good quote

[TahitiNut]

75. Amen

:applause:

[Mandate My Ass]

99. Amen

And the political backlash cop-out is the lowest of all of the lame excuses why impeachment is not on the table.

Where is this omniscience coming from anyway? The republicans impeached a popular president and won handily next time around. :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Get over it

Impeachment is simply a pipe dream.

[OzarkDem]

12. We won't get over losing Congress

or the Presidency. While we realize that in spite of Dem losses some Dem leaders will keep their current seats, they won't have much respect or support from Dems nationally and it will only be a matter of time before the party reclaims those seats for candidates who support democracy and the US Constitution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. How many members of Congress were elected on a pro-impeachment platform?

:shrug:

[King Coal]

26. All of them, in this case. Why are you shrugging your shoulders Freddie?

If not now, then fucking when?

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Can you back that up with any quotes prior to November 7, 2006?

:shrug:

[King Coal]

36. Freddie, the point is that it went without saying.

We expect them to do their duty. Sabe el burro?

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Actually, the leader of the Democrats in the House was very clear about impeachment

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

And AFTER Pelosi made that promise, voters elected a Democratic majority in the House.

[OzarkDem]

41. check the public opinion polls

News flash for you - those people answering the poll questions about impeachment also vote.

And if you tell them to forget impeachment because they didn't have it on their "to-do list" in 2006, they'll tell you to tell Congress to fuck off and find another job.

[Freddie Stubbs]

Pelosi specificlly promised that impeachment would be "off the table"

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

And AFTER Pelosi made that promise, voters elected a Democratic majority in the House.

[Skidmore]

52. Well, she's wrong. Abolutely wrong.

This is the recourse reserved for the people, and they are the representatives of the people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Apperently the voters last November did not believe that she was wrong

[Skidmore]

77. This is the type of thinking is so Little Bootslike.

Frozen in time we are. Unable to adjust to the changing tides. Well, I cast my vote to end the war and to impeach.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Leaders actually keeping their campaign promises?

How is that being frozen in time?

[Skidmore]

90. I don't recall anyone promising not to hold people accountable or

not to impeach.

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Pelosi promised there would be no impeachment attempt

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

[King Coal]

81. Here is a word for you Freddie:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynamic

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. What would be more dynamic and refreshing than a politician actually keeping her promises?

:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

96. Thank you for your concern

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. You are more than welcome for your concern

[Kingofalldems]

101. Why does it bother you so much that some DUers want impeachment?

Just asking.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. It does not bother me

Those who are so strongly for impeachment do not have the power or means to take the Democratic Party down such a foolish path.

[King Coal]

104. Freddie, why do you consider impeachment to be a foolish path?

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. Because it would be unsuccessful

Impeachment is a risky political maneuver. If successful, it would end this administration. If it fails, it could cost us the House, the Senate, and the White House next November.

Democrats were elected promising that they would not try to impeach. If they were to go back on that, they better make sure that it is worthwile. Is there evidence that Bush and Cheney themselves actually committed any crimes?

Do you really think that there are 17 Republican Senators who will vote to remove Bush?

But I doubt that it would even come to that. Are there enough votes in the House to actually pass articles of impeachment? Take a look at the results of the FISA vote and tell me how united the Democratic Caucus is in opposing Bush at every turn:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

An unsuccessful attempt to impeach an remove Bush and Cheney may only embolden them.

[treestar]

118. Since the election, there have been other developments, though

Based on Nov. 2006, that is one thing, but it is just stubborn republican-type behavior to stick to it after all the facts learned since then.

It's like Bush sticking to what he decides on Tuesday no matter what happens on Wednesday.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Yet those developments don not overshadow the simple fact that

there are nowhere near enough votes to impeach and convict.

[GOTV]

108. Show me a poll and I'll show you a different poll, we'll see who runs out of polls first n/t

[GOTV]

106. Wrong. Nancy Pelosi did not run on impeachment. Therefore your statement "All of them" is wrong...

... just making facts up?

[Skidmore]

9. For what it's worth, I just sent Dodd an e-mail via his site.

I told him that I will not consider any candidate who will not defend the Constitution and who will justify leaving criminals to run the nation into the ground. I hope someone from Obama's team is reading my post, too. I will not support the people who defend this bunch of crooks and protect them by being passive.

[Cha]

49. Thanks..they seem to be

acting like a bunch of burros.

[OzarkDem]

10. Then none of them will win

I can't imagine the electorate would support any candidate unwilling to defend the Constitution and take necessary steps to stop a dictatorship.

Bush is very unpopular right now as the call to impeach grows stronger each week. Any Dem opposing impeachment will likely not get support from voters. 2008 could be a very good year for 3rd party candidates.

[Skidmore]

11. In our little village there are only 4 Dems...my husband, myself, and

another couple. At the last town meeting, everyone was commenting on the need to impeach * and his gang. EVERYONE! Some of those people in that room had never voted for a Democrat in their lives. EVERYONE!!!

[OzarkDem]

13. I heard the same comments

the other day during casual conversation in the grocery store - also in a heavily Republican area. People who voted for Bush want him impeached.

Dems would look like heroes if they took Bush on, especially now that the economy is foundering.

[mod mom]

23. They should do it sooner than later. The war is getting worse. The economy is getting worse

and the criminals are looting more of the coffers and hiding/shredding the evidence. We need a war crimes tribunal if we are ever going to reclaim prominence in the world's eyes again.

These are historical crimes that must be dealt with, NOT SWEPT UNDER THE PROVERBIAL RUG FOR POLITICAL GAIN!

[Individualist]

39. Voters don't vote for weakness

Obviously, Democratic congressmen don't got it - or maybe they do.

[wordpix]

61. that's right & that's why so many voted for BushCo---* has power of conviction

and that is powerful to a readerless sheeple.

[Perry Logan]

15. Dodd seems to think impeachment would be disastrous politically. I wonder why he thinks that...

...especially when so many people here believe the opposite. I sure wish we could sort this out.

[Poiuyt]

42. Dodd should study some history

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

[bdamomma]

16. it's all about the election, and no accountability to this insane

regime. nothing like setting your priorities. unbelieveable and sickening.

[Perry Logan]

17. Then again, it's hard working within such a rigged system.

[lisa58]

18. If they're not going to impeach...

...they should prosecute the entire administration after they leave office.

[bdamomma]

24. yes, they shouldn't be left to slide off making their millions or billions

like Karl Rove, and being on the Sunday talk shows for promoting their sick propaganda. Sickening, how these thugs are getting away with it.

[Vinca]

19. Well, at least Dodd is being honest in admitting their jobs are more

important than the nation.

[mod mom]

20. Didn't they SWEAR to uphold the constitution? WTF? They are helping to make mockery

out of justice.

IMPEACH THESE F-ING CRIMINALS ALREADY! THEY DESTROYED SO MUCH AND HAVE RAIDED THE PUBLIC COFFERS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL SICK AGENDA. THEY NEED SERIOUS JAIL TIME AND WE NEED TO RECLAIM THE WAR PROFITEERING FUNDS TO REBUILD THIS COUNTRY!

[bdamomma]

25. apparently, may be the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"

to these self proclaimed Dems, Impeachment is a tool to use for impeachment, our forefathers put it there to use!!!

[mod mom]

28. They are defintiely rolling in their graves over these weak arguments of putting

their own political careers over the rule of law. It sets a very bad precedent. They are nothing more than enablers.

[kath]

72. They are all in violation of the oath of office. They swear to uphold the constitution,

but now these fuckers have decided that it's not politically expedient to do so. Jeebus H. Christ.
My disgust for them knows no bounds...

[Solly Mack]

22. ...

During campaign speeches and the like, candidates talk of how bad Bush is, how he has abused his office, how much harm he has caused with his abuses and crimes...and they say this so the target audience can get all hyped up and cheer, and then come away from the campaign speech feeling good and telling themselves so and so really understands

and then Bush goes along his merry way....


But there's always another speech coming to give people the warm and fuzzies to hold them over until the next time...

that Bush Inc continue along their merry way

But rest assured, another speech on how criminal and how abusive Bush is is on its way


What's not on its way is accountability...but those speeches - so full of promise -that offer up release - that channel the frustration... just feel so good

until the next time...

[Fla_Democrat]

27. Makes you so proud, don't it?

I know I can hold my head a little higher. :eyes:

[Vinnie From Indy]

30. The Big Lie told by Dodd is that impeachment would take 14mos.

It could be done in far less time.

[EFerrari]

37. That's right. And it was repeatedly with a shrug and a sigh

this morning on Washington Journal by the editor of Hotline.

[OzarkDem]

43. What else do we have to do?

Sit around and watch Bush invade Iran? Watch the real estate market, banking system and the economy go down the tubes?

Impeachment proceedings would be a nice distraction.

Americans deserve to feel like someone in their government is accountable to them.

[bdamomma]

44. I only wish we could run them out of DC, this is total BS

that we have our own government making excuses and not protecting the Constitution, or will they wait until this insane regime does something else and then act in the people's interests.

[Raster]

65. You know it's too bad Congress can't fart AND chew gum at the same time!

Millions of Americans work two or even three jobs at the same time to survive, and members of Congress can't do more than one thing if they impeach bush*? Members of Congress now spend more time FUND RAISING then they do anything else. Perhaps if members of Congress weren't so concerned about filling their "war chest" for the next election cycle, they might find more time to devote to urgent matters at hand, like dealing with the MOST CORRUPT AND TYRANNICAL ADMINISTRATION THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN! Congress can't impeach because they have other business to attend to? Surely, they jest!

[Gold Metal Flake]

31. Then Dodd is on the payroll.

Zero tolerance for tyrants, zero tolerance for appeasers.

[burythehatchet]

33. Memebrship in the club trumps all else.

Get used to it.

[davekriss]

34. Turn away from our nations problems?

Dodd, Bush-Cheney-Gonzales ARE the nation's problems. Impeach them and there is hope again for millions. This "suck the oxygen out of the room" is such a dodge of their constitutional responsibilities and their duty to every citizen.

[emmadoggy]

70. You beat me to it...

The Bush administration IS the BIGGEST PROBLEM we have. Once they are out of the way, the other problems become much easier to address and focus on. Right now they are accomplishing nothing.

For me, this really hits home just how COMPLETELY out-of-touch our politicians are with the wishes of their constituents - the people they work for and respresent! They are only serving their own agenda, not ours. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[The Stranger]

35. They're base is going to punish them for this.

They will pay for betraying the Constitution.

[Philosoraptor]

38. There you're havin' it.

[stirlingsliver]

40. O.M.G.

An man who illegally stole the Presidency away from the duly-elected candidate, and then orchestrates a terror attack against the United States, and then lies in order to drag this country into war so that his rich oil-baron cronies can make more money by screwing the average American will NOT be impeached because some Democrats -- some Democrats -- think that they might not get re-elected???!!!!

What a sad day this is.

What a sad, sad, day this is for those of us who feel that the must be accountability at the highest level of Government.

[Cha]

45. HELL-O DODD!

The reasons for IMPEACHMENT are the biggest problems facing The Nation Square ON!!

Whose crystal Ball are they lookin' at?

[bdamomma]

46. it's unbelieveable how they (repigs) went after Clinton with

impeachment, and these Dem Senators are just calling impeaching * a bad idea, unbelieveable, sickening too. Don't they know they have a nutcase sitting there doing nothing and just does not give a shit about the US. oh, never mind..........sigh.

[Karmadillo]

50. Our cowardice now is proof of the courage and principle we shall

exhibit at some future moment. Trust us. It's not like you have any alternatives.

[Orsino]

51. I agree, but...

...since there's no other possible check on the unitary Executive, it needs to be done whatever the political danger.

I think he's exaggerating, anyway, and that impeachment would improve the public's perception of Congress, if it were seriously pursued.

[Marnieworld]

53. How is protecting the Constitution and the rule of law not working on the Nation's problems?

It's the biggest problem a democracy can have when their president thinks he's a king! Unbelievable. He should not be re-elected if he can't do the job.

[helderheid]

54. all politics, Constitution be damned. n/t

[debbierlus]

55. No. The reason they lose or get elections stolen is BECAUSE they don't fight

They lay down & take it.

Cowards or complicit & I am not sure which is worse.

[wordpix]

56. if we don't impeach, BushCo will literally get away with murder as * pardons every criminal who ever

helped him over the years.

[wordpix]

57. The Libby pardon is a preview to coming attractions if BushCheney aren't impeached

Pretty soon Dodd et. al. won't be able to ignore the calls to impeach the rat bastards.

[RiverStone]

59. History will remember Dodd and other wimps

Who refused to even make an attempt to impeach a corrupt President who has abused the power of the "executive branch" absolutely!

[rudy23]

60. THIS IS SO LAME!!!!! Dem consultants are so OUT OF TOUCH with real people!

We can do better.

[many a good man]

62. Meanwhile bush* sucks the life out of America

Funny how Republicans frivolously impeach Democrats for purely partisan purposes while Democrats DON'T impeach Republicans for purely partisan purposes. Even when there are grave Constitutional issues at stake.

[Gregorian]

63. If they don't impeach, everyone will leave the room. (Dodd doesn't know what he's talking about)

And nobody will win.

This is their last opportunity. Pull together and show us that they stand for the rule of law. The Constitution.

Because, and I hate to say this, but if this administration goes free, not only do they open the door to temptation of the next generation of fascists, but they open the door for Democrats to leave that room.

Big mistake.


By the way, I don't believe what Dodd has said. Not one word of it. Reid is so busy. Conyers is so busy. They're doing everything they can.

[mikelgb]

66. the problem is the politician can only see Impeachment as political tool

rather than a constitutional duty

[Kurovski]

67. It's like the law and The Constitution are taking a backseat to "strategy".

It's crazy-making.

[Skidmore]

68. The Rovanization of US government.

[shireen]

69. except for Kucinich, these Pres. candidates and political office-holders are cowards

I'm so disgusted with them. I knew they were out of touch, but this badly out of touch? The people who voted for Bush feel especially betrayed by him. Dems have a chance to win them over, but they're not doing it.

I sick of (almost) the whole damn bunch of politicians. Really really sick!

[Raster]

74. Cowards and collaborators.

Wake up America!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. I Agree With Him Completely. He's 100% Right.

There would be nothing more self-destructive, futile and illogical then to undertake an impeachment process that would not only result in utter failure (meaning all of the time and energy were for naught), but have a more than likely chance of costing the Dems huge in 2008, thereby giving the republicans even FURTHER opportunity to fuck this country up more than they already have.

You think that's what Dodd wants? What most Dems want? Of course not. We want to put a stop to the abuses of power we've seen and need congress and the Presidency in order to do so. Putting the Presidency and both houses of congress at risk for an action that is ultimately doomed to failure, would be as self-destructive and counter-productive of an act they could possibly do right now.

[Raster]

73. Do you honestly believe that the American people will be upset with Congress over impeaching bush*?

THIS IS THE MOST HATED ADMINISTRATION EVER! This is the lowest-rated Congress EVER! The anger emanating from the American people--which grows in intensity EVERY FUCKING DAY--is for NOT doing anything about the train wreck in DC.

[GOTV]

80. It depends on what gets done,,,,

,,,, if the impeachment doesn't result in removal, and it won't,
and it's clear that congress KNEW Bush would be acquitted
and congress gets nothing else done of substance
and the GOP spends the rest of their time waving Bush's acquittal around as proof of the folly of impeachment...


... yeah, I think people might get mad at the Dems.

[Midlodemocrat]

87. You have to remember, most Americans aren't as well

informed as those of us who follow politics.

Even my extremely liberal friends hadn't heard about the DSM until I pointed it out to them. Not everyone reads the 'net for their news, either. Some folks have jobs that won't allow them to do that.

I would love to see that entire administration put in Jail, but I just don't see how it is going to happen.

[Skidmore]

85. Well, what WILL you risk for preserving democracy?

The nation is pretty fucked up now and it hasn't been helped out by our own reps and senators. I'm thinking back to major votes when one person would have made the difference, but none could be found. I'm thinking back to brazen and flagrant lies during confirmations in which nominees were assured they were honorable and good people and profusely thanked for their service to the nation.

I'm sick of so many of them. Sacrifice it all on the altar of political expediency? We are asking that the principled thing be done. That the honorable and just thing be done. That people act from integrity, not fear. To hell with the lot of them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Preserving Democracy Is Not Part Of This Equation, In The Way Your Making It.

For your 'preserving democracy' meme to contain any validity, there would have to be even a modicum of hope that impeachment could be successful. Since there isn't any, then your point has no validity.

Our best chance at preserving Democracy is to maintain and increase our majority in Congress, as well as winning the presidency. So a risk this large with no chance of reward would be monumentally misguided, counter-productive and self-destructive.

[Skidmore]

95. And what makes you think that people to the right of the divide would

not support impeachment as well? You people are just flat out wrong on this. There are many more people who would stand up for what is right than there are neocons.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. It's Called Blatant Common Sense.

If you think for a second you're going to get 18+ from the other side of the aisle to support this, then I'm not sure I should even waste my time discussing this issue with you.

[Skidmore]

112. On the number 18...18% is the current approval rating for Congress.

You might take note of that one before you dismiss impeachment so handily.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Sorry Pal, That Don't Bring Ya Any Closer To Success.

The point stands: If you think for a second that impeachment could be successful and that you'd find 18 or more from the other side of the aisle to join you, then you are completely unaware of the reality of our politics.

[GOTV]

76. He would sing a different tune.... if most polls showed that people were calling for impeachment....

.... but they're not

[Raster]

94. You're wrong. Most Americans do favor impeachment!

First of all, the premise that most Americans don't want impeachment is wrong. Pollsters WON'T EVEN ASK THE QUESTION.

June 2007: Harris does online poll on impeachment but does not publish results.

June 14, 2007: CNN's polling director comments on impeaching Cheney, but has done no poll.

June 4, 2007: American Research Group refuses to poll, even for money.

May 30, 2007: Harris refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

May 29, 2007: Ipsos refuses to poll on impeachment, even for money.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

Second, the "opposition party" takes "...impeachment of the table..." even before a discovery process could begin. In other words, no matter how bad the deed(s), we still won't even try to remedy the situation. Now that certainly gives hope to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public. Instead of encouraging discussion and discover, the opposition party says it will do neither. NOT ONLY WON'T EVEN TRY, WON'T EVEN CONSIDER TRYING--OFF THE TABLE!

Third, that tired ol' canard about the American public being "mad" with Congress for impeachment:

"Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12662

Cowards or collaborators?

Wake up America!:kick:

[GOTV]

105. So your proof that I'm wrong is links to articles about people NOT polling? There's been polls....

... despite your trying to portray the polling industry as being afraid to approach the question. However, the polls don't say what you want them to say.

[Raster]

111. They are afraid to ask the question. Where are your links?

[Raster]

114. From MSNBC Live Poll Today

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 488510 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
88%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.2%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
5.6%

I don't know.
1.8%
----------------
Unscientific, yes I know. There will be more.

[leftofthedial]

79. yeah, like there is a worse problem in "america" than the bush cabal

and like the "democrats" are doing anything constructive about our other problems

the succession of right wing military coups (1964, 1972 and 2000) have rendered the US Congress irrelevant

[windbreeze]

82. WHY weren't the Rep's afraid of this, when it came to Clinton???n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

89. Because it was sex. And, they're the family values party.

:eyes:

So many people got so hyped up about his consensual relationship with another adult, they felt that Congress had a Duty to impeach him. Never mind that it was for lying, to a lot of Americans, it was about the sex.

[Bucky]

109. And nothing is more dangerous to having healthy families than sex!

Why, if it weren't for sex, we wouldn't have any unhealthy families at all!

[warren pease]

88. It's really about time for alternative parties...

This is simply intolerable. Despite claims to the contrary, they were elected in 2006 to do two tasks: end the Iraq occupation and put the brakes on this runaway pack of thieving corporatists and their boy who would be king.

They've done neither; internationally, they've caved, enabled, sanctioned and funded the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan at every opportunity. They passed by a 97-0 margin the Lieberman resolution, which states that the same set of lies used to excuse the Iraq disaster now apply to Iran and are suddenly credible (and which earned Joey big props from Carl Levin). They even gave BushCo another $100 billion or so to murder Iraqi and Afghan civilians with no time line for withdrawal attached.

Domestically, they've been just about as useless. They refused to stop obvious BushCo nut cases like Roberts and Alito from further shaming the high court. They refuse to bring HR 333 to the floor, even though it now has 20 more co-signers than did the resolution to impeach Clinton -- which was zero. They refuse to interrupt the flow of dictatorial directives and orders emanating from the white house, even though anyone with normal curiosity and internet access can connect the dots. They won't even impeach Gonzales, who's either a serial liar or a mental defective, since he claims he can't seem to remember anything that happened prior to the past 15 minutes.

I don't suppose feeding at the same corporate trough as does the GOP has anything to do with this, do you? I refuse to believe that the tens of millions of dollars that flow through the Clinton and Obama campaigns are intended to buy anything except good government.

Still, on the off-chance that all this largesse might buy a little regulatory favoritism from the next president, it's really about time for public financing of campaigns, which would open the purse strings and enable third, fourth and 27th parties to participate in the US political process. Might even lead to coalition governments, in which pretty much all points of view, no matter how non-mainstream, are represented. Can you imagine watching George Will sputter and huff about the citizens taking charge of their own government? That alone would be worth the whole thing.

Anyway, I would hope this sinks Dodd's foundering campaign. It'll be interesting to watch his poll numbers over the next few days.



wp


Edotid fur tpyos

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. No It Isn't.

[warren pease]

98. Well, what would you suggest to get the attention of this pack of candy-asses and appeasers? n/t

[Elidor]

102. This is the unspoken strategy they've developed: wait him out

It stinks to high heaven.

[walldude]

107. So he's worried about his job.. what a surprise

"Democrats could lose control of Congress if they turn away from the nation's problems to try it, he says"

Yeah cause they are doing such a good job of handling things now.
I admit though, it must be tough to face down a President who is taking health care away from children, I mean what kind of American would stand for making sure kids have health care... :eyes:

[CT_Progressive]

110. "Democrats could lose control of Congress if they turn away from the nation's problems to try it"

He doesn't seem to think that the crimes Bush is committing *are the cause* of the nation's problems...

I am sad to have him as my Senator today.

[Kurovski]

116. Kick. (nt)