Isn't it at least possible that Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean

[cali]

and others that DUers generally think well of, simply see impeachment as a losing battle? I doubt they're being blackmailed and I have even greater doubts about their being bought off.

One can have profound disagreements about profoundly important issues. And both Dean and Sanders have a perspective we don't have: They're on the inside. If Bernie and Howard are convinced that no matter what the evidence, bushco would skate, that could be the reason they have no appetite for impeachment. You can argue that outcome doesn't matter and they're advocating abbrogating the Constitutional duties of the House, but there is another side to it.

I disagree with them, but about impeachment, but I don't see either one as enablers or collaborators, or owned by corporate interests. In fact, I'm grateful to both of them, and glad they're in public service.

[Virginia Dare]

1. I agree, impeachment will only be possible with bi-partisan support..

as it was with Nixon. As long as the repubs act as a firewall it's not going anywhere. I wish it wasn't so. We've got to move on and concentrate on 2008, let the chips fall after that.

[King Coal]

2. Alrighty then.

[rudy23]

3. I simply do not see how exposing Bushco's crimes, at minimum, is a losing battle

I can't see how public opinion could turn against the Dems with the revelations that would come out of those hearings--regardless of whether or not we lose the final votes.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The people have a right to have this evidence presented

in their legislature for all to see, and not just sneered at and distorted by the false noise emitted by the bulshit media system. I'm sorry that Sanders and Dean do not appear to understand what is at stake and seem to think that if we can't win we shouldn't even try. I'm sorry that they both appear to either not understand or lack the courage here to do what is right.

That does not make these two collaboraters or enablers. They are just wrong. Sanders I'm sure would vote for conviction if impeachment succeeded in the house. The collaborators are the ones who would vote against it despite the overwhelming and obvious evidence that high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of removal from office most certainly have occurred.

[underpants]

5. Yes but we get to shout and holler for what we want

not only is it part of how things work it satisfies the masses hell the Republicans have made a living for the last 30 years of just getting their lot all stirred up and then delivering nothing. Anyway it is good that we have the ability to raise hell and tell them what we want.

[cali]

6. yes, it is.

and I'm all for it, but I'm also for realizing that there's a strong likelihood that there's no nefarious plot behind people like Dean and Sanders being against impeachment.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Of course it's a losing battle, if the goal is removal from office of the VP, or

the Pres.

However, i ask you take a look at Sanders record in the house. Most of the battles he faught were losing battles. From 1997 until 2007, he only authored one piece of legislation that was enacted into law. Only 2 of his bills ever even got voted out of committe in that time, of the 119 he introduced.

There is something else going on here, besides an aversion to fighting losing battles.

I don't believe Sanders is an enabler or a collaborator.

[cali]

8. links?

and you are evidently talking only about bills, not amendments.
I doubt very much that anything else is going on here. I've heard bernie talk about it extensively over the last couple of years. For whatever reason, people prefer the dramatic over the likely- and more often mundane.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Links inside. How many amendments has Bernie gotten enacted into law? I hope a lot,

because he's a good man and he fights the good fight even when unsuccessful, such as if his amendments are removed in conference, he couldn't get a Senate sponsor, etc.

Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship
Statistics: Bernard Sanders has sponsored 119 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Sanders has co-sponsored 2784 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400357

for comparison with other progressives in the house:

Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship
Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 101 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 92 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Kucinich has co-sponsored 3069 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400227

Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship
Statistics: Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 55 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 48 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Pelosi has co-sponsored 1724 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).
(you can look her up at the site, govtracks. I don't have a link on hand, but I do have the details)

[krispos42]

9. the question is, will the republicans stand and stonewall in the Congress?

Many of them are authoritarian, strict-father-model types of people. In other words, they are either at your throat or at your feet.

As long as Dems continue to cave, they will be at our throats. But if the Dems get as bullheaded as Bush is on the issue, I think they'll crumble and vote for impeachement.

The Seven Pillars that support the conservative and neoconservative agendas (Bil Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Agriculture, Big Defense, Big Media, and the Religious Right) ultimately want to maintain power to create and influence the governmental process. They've probably already nearly written off a Republican Presidency in 2008, so they will want to maintain their lackeys in the House and the Senate.

With the mood of the people the way it is, I think all of a sudden the anti-impeachement "wall" will snap like peanut brittle once the Repubs on the Hill start seeing the Big Seven hedging their bets by giving money and other help to Democrats. Once the Big Seven realize that their Repub lackeys will be turned out en masse in 2008 by stonewalling impeachement and defending Bush, they will move or threaten to move their money and influence.

But that's just my opinion.

[cali]

10. Well, you might be right but Bernie who knows both House and

Senate repukes, disagrees.