If Pelosi didn't have enough DEMOCRATS to vote for impeachment charges, how should she handle it?

[yurbud]

I heard Maxine Waters speak this weekend, and she said one of the reasons they haven't ended the war is there are Democrats in DC who aren't really Democrats, and others who have good intentions but buy into the crap about cutting funding for the war will look like they are hurting the troops.

While she didn't say it directly, I wonder if the same dynamic isn't even more relevant to impeachment since the war can be stopped by simply not bringing a spending bill to the floor, but impeachment requires a vote to get started.

Pelosi's behavior and attitude on the issue is still unacceptable, but I wonder if this isn't part of the explanation and she doesn't want to connect the dots because it would undercut them on getting cooperation with the investigations and legislation they do have the votes to get done.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Yes, it's the same dynamic.

Conyers has said this a dozen times -- including directly to Cindy Sheehan who refused to assimilate his words.

If we can't override a veto on SCHIP and can't make any traction on Iraq, how the hell are we supposed to impeach Bush?

[bryant69]

2. Well there's a couple of responses

1. She has to do it whether or not she thinks it will work or not - same as a Cop who knows about a crime has to arrest a criminal even if he or she thinks the perp will slide. She knows crimes were committed she has to begin impeachment procedures; it's her duty.

2. Once they start impeachment procedures, and the details are dealt with, the American people will demand that Democrats and moderate Republicans move to support impeachment.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Buzz Clik]

3. "American people will demand that Democrats and moderate Republicans move to support impeachment"...

Well, that isn't how it went with Clinton. His numbers went way up in the face of the impeachment.

I'd be satisfied with no action on impeachment if the "leadership" could rally the troops to rein in Bush and his steady erosion of privacy, rights, etc.

(How difficult should it be to override the veto on SCHIP? The concept is hugely popular!)

[lame54]

16. that's because the clinton impeachment was a sham

and the american people knew it
this impeachment would be more than just
and the american people know that too
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

[Bitwit1234]

4. Republicans will NOT VOTE TO IMPEACH BUSH

No matter what their constituents say. Look at the child health bill. The republicans WANT the bill they TOLD their representatives, but yet they voted to support bush and to hell with what the people want.

And you can tell me all you want that if they start impeachment republicans will fall in line and I say BULLSHIT.

And just think of the disaster it would be if, they started impeachment and did not have the votes. THEN the republicans would have a propaganda tool to beat the Democrats with in the 2008 election.

[AndyA]

11. Looking the other way when you know a crime has been committed,

and it's your responsibility to deal with it, is just as bad.

Dems in Congress need to start the impeachment process because it's the right thing to do. Not to earn Brownie points, but because they have an obligation to protect the Constitution. By allowing crimes to go unpunished and without a proper investigation into the matter, they themselves are being negligent and are aiding and abetting the criminals.

The American people by and large are not stupid. Yes, the Kool-Aid drinkers will always do what Rush tells them to do, but the majority know when things aren't right, and they don't like being taken advantage of.

Once the crimes and infractions are revealed, Americans will demand impeachment continue, and the Republicans WILL go along with it if they want to keep their jobs. They know Bush/Cheney are bad news, few approve of the jobs they're doing, but it's all a power struggle in Washington right now. Closer to the election, things will change dramatically. Support for Bush will wane, it already has to some degree, but I think the Republicans are going to cut it as close as possible.

Let Bush's approval numbers drop a few more points, and let Congress' numbers drop as well. They will change direction quickly once they realize their careers are about to end.

[truckin]

5. Totally agree.

[bryant69]

6. To clarify - I support Nancy Pelosi's decision not to impeach at the current time

I am just repeating arguments I have heard other make.

Should have said that above.

Bryant

[truckin]

13. Totally agreed with your first post

[renie408]

7. Out of curiosity...where did you stand on the "Old man with brass knuckles" argument?

Cause here you are saying that people in positions of authority have to uphold laws whether there is any real point or not.

About that second point...not necessarily. Impeachment could work out to be a double edged sword. It would fire up the base, but it might fire up BOTH bases. There are a lot of people who are going to be convinced by that 'it is unpatriotic to bring impeachment processes against a war time President' meme that is certainly going to start up as soon as the impeachment does.

[bryant69]

8. I don't know what you are talking about with Old man with Brass Knuckles

At any rate, the first argument falls apart, in my opinion, because of course cops choose who to pursue and who not to - and if they don't the DA's office does. Pelosi isn't a beat cop, she's the District Attorney, and if she sees a case that won't succeed, she isn't going to waste her offices limited resources pursuing it.

Bryant

[renie408]

9. There was a big thread a couple of days ago

about an old man who accidently tried to take a set of brass knuckles through JFK. He was detained and questioned, the sargeant in charge was reported to have acted like a jerk and in the end the old guy was allowed to leave with no charges being filed. It was a case of cops upholding a law without a whole lot of point to it. People came out strongly on both sides. I was just wondering where you had fallen because in an abstract way, it would be similar to the impeachment thing.

I agree with this assessment. Impeachment is a dog and I think Pelosi knows it. I feel certain that Pelosi knows something I don't, at least. For the time being, I am holding judgement on whether or not impeachment should be pursued. I just don't feel like I have enough information or insight into how politics works to form a good opinion.

[goclark]

10. I'm with you ~ it's not what they are doing but the way

they are doing it.

They don't have the votes but they can still talk about issues in a strong way.

What were the last meaningful/memorable words that you recall coming out of the mouth of a Democrat?

I'm talking about words like "vast right wing conspiracy."

That was Perfect!!!!

[yurbud]

22. if she doesn't have a simple majority, she can't start procedure

[stirlingsliver]

12. She Should Do Her Duty

This is a real no-brainer.

Speaker Pelosi should do her duty.

She should introduce a bill of impeachment against the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Failure to do this is really just shirking her duty.

[onenote]

15. why is it more her duty than any of the other 434 representatives?

[stirlingsliver]

20. Point Taken.

What Speaker Pelosi should do, as Speaker of the House, is actively encourage hearings that will lead to impeachment. She should NOT actively try to impede impeachment.

[Pale Blue Dot]

14. Get. Them. On. Record.

Period.

[cali]

17. a decisive vote against impeachment would be a HUGE

gift to bushcheney. I'm reluctantly OK with that, and willing to take the chance, but I understand that there are other valid points of view.

[renie408]

21. Ding Ding Ding. Survey SAYS.....

This answer is 100% correct!!

I think there is a risk that pursuing impeachment right now would take the focus OFF where we need it to be right now...on GOP candidates and winning in '08. It would also fire up THEIR base.

[Javaman]

18. Ugh, first you have an investigation, then if enough wrong doing is found...

then you bring up a vote for impeachment.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

this is why, it's still a fucking mystery to me, no one wants to enact impeachment proceedings. Arrrrggg!!!

just assign a fucking investigation. I just don't fucking get it.

[yurbud]

23. even the investigations seem designed to nibble around the edges instead of go for jugular

[Javaman]

24. sad, but true.

here's drinking to what was! :beer:

[Peace Patriot]

19. If Pelosi doesn't have enough real Democrats to stop the war or to impeach Bush/Cheney

for their many crimes, then she should condemn, and work to overthrow, our fascist vote counting system, with its electronic voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and she should condemn and work to overthrow our filthy campaign contribution system, by which "Blue Dog" Democrats (who want to cut everything in the budget except war spending--in other words, Bushite 'Democrats') got substituted in for real Democrats, effectively denying those voters an anti-war, pro-people choice.

The truth of the matter is that our Democratic Party establishment DIDN'T WANT sufficient votes in Congress to stop the war or to impeach Bush/Cheney, or else they would long ago have burned down Washington DC to expose and attack 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting controlled by Bushite corporations.

As for the filthy campaign money system, they're in the game, big time, and rake in billions of dollars from Americans who want change and desperately hope that the Democrats--our only alternative--will deliver it. Money down a rat hole, I'm afraid. I remember contributing a hundred bucks to the DNC on election night 2004, upon the cry for help to insure that "every vote would be counted." I wrote Terry McAuliffe to get my money back, after the Democratic Party plainly demonstrated that they didn't give a fuck if all the votes were counted in Ohio or anywhere else. He didn't write back.

I think that this fascist/corporate vote counting system, combined with the political money system, now have even our best representatives by the throat, with teeth and talons sunk deep into carotid arteries. One peep out of them and they are sucked dry and end up as zombies haunting Beltway airports and bus stations late at night. You can see the ghostly visages of the un-bought on surveillance cameras, haunting the newsstands and gazing blankly at Washington Post headlines about "the WMD program-related activities" in Iran. Really, ask Homeland Security. All these weird ghostly images of honest Democrats haunt the transportation centers and show up as just barely identifiable streaks of light in the video footage, and no amount of "cleaning up" of the footage will make them go away. They are stamped indelibly on the midnight records of traffic in and out of our nation's capitol--exhausted, drained of life, wondering what happened to their dreams of public service and good government.

Nancy Pelosi could save those undead legislators--and our country--if she really wanted to, by fessing up to the inherently fraudulent vote counting system that the Democratic Party enthusiastically supported, and still protects, and by wielding a mighty sword against the filthy political money system. But she won't, you know. Cuz our political establishment DOESN'T WANT real Democrats in Congress, or in the White House. They whine about "not enough votes" in Congress--that lie, that charade--when they themselves are responsible for 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting and billion dollar 'campaigns' for president.

[yurbud]

25. also, by not charging now, they can avoid daisy chain of resignations & pardons

So Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzo, & Condi can ALL go to prison.