Why do you suppose Democrats are so afraid to pursue impeachment?

[Poiuyt]

I can understand why Nancy Pelosi has said that she's against it. After all, she's the one with the most to gain. If Bush and Cheney were impeached, she stands to become president. It would come across as self-serving if Pelosi started to talk about impeachment.

But what about the other Democrats? Kucinich is about the only one to even mention the word. Are they afraid of looking like they are only out for revenge for Clinton?

[MadBadger]

1. How bout because it is politically stupid?

[madokie]

2. ???

[MadBadger]

7. The majority of people may like it here

But that doesnt mean the majority of the American Voters will support that. I think most Americans do not want that and it would backfire in the face of the dems.

[spanone]

29. and your opinion is based on what? a feeling? a poll? I think many Americans would support it based

on last falls election.

[MadBadger]

33. Last fall's election doenst mean they want him impeached though.

[porphyrian]

39. No, it means they want this war to end now. How else do we make that happen? - n/t

[GOTV]

44. Impeachment.... but not until a few pre-requisite goals are met first.

1) 60-70% of the American people asking for Bush's removal
2) 67 Senators willing to vote for impeachment.

Then we can remove the president and end the war.

Impeachment now is like firing the gun before you've loaded it.

[MadBadger]

45. You wont get the second one

And with the first one, about that many people disapprove of him, but that doesnt mean they want him impeached. You have to do work on both, and the second one wont happen.

[GOTV]

48. I think the first one will lead to the second one

but by the "first one" I mean 60-70% not just disapproving. I mean 60-70% calling for his removal which, as you point out, we've never been near that number.

[MadBadger]

52. I think it is also politically suicide for any Republican to support Impeachment

[GOTV]

53. Yes, it would be at this point.

Until 60-70% of the Senators constituents tell him/her they want the president removed. Then it becomes political suicide to oppose impeachment.

[jmowreader]

86. It's very possible that we will IF we start now

They impeached Clinton over a blowjob. They knew they didn't have the votes to convict, but they wanted Clinton's record to forever contain the words "impeached president." That's all they were really after.

This case is different--the pResident must be removed from office.

Note I said "very possible." That's not that great:

LEAST LIKELY TO HAPPEN, BUT COULD
possible
very possible
probable
very probable
likely
MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN

My reasoning here is that there are a shitload of Republican senators facing the voters in 2008. We can weld Bush's treason to every one of their backs if we start now. By doing so we weaken their chances of reelection. These guys don't want to go home and do whatever it is they did before, so if we start tying Bush to these guys, they've got two options: do the politically popular and right thing and vote to convict, or stand by Bush and go back to running a bowling alley on January 6, 2009.

[calimary]

87. At this point, I don't even care about the second one. Maybe he wouldn't

be convicted and removed, but IMPEACHMENT in the House of Reps IS possible.

Frankly, last November was last November. And back then, we didn't know what we do now, what with all the investigations, what those investigations are turning up, the abominable scandals and incompetence and nefarious scheming, lying, and ulterior motives.

We didn't have the death toll that we do now. We didn't have Pat Tillman's mom talking on the record to Congress about it then, and we do now. We didn't have ANY questions of ANY substance being asked about ANYTHING these assholes have done, and we do now.

I also think the reason Pelosi hasn't changed her mind is because enough people haven't demanded it of her, and demanded it EVERY DAY. Nor have enough of us leaned on OUR Congressmen/women about it.

[porphyrian]

50. The broken record skips again!

You are absolutely wrong. Impeachment now is like putting flour in the mixing bowl to make some bread. You want the yeast to rise before you take this step, and that's just dumb.

[GOTV]

56. There's always "ignore" if the truth is getting tiresome for you.

Give me the list of 67 Senators you expect to vote for conviction.
Or explain why conviction is not necessary.

[porphyrian]

57. If you'd speak the truth, we wouldn't have a problem.

But you insist on reversing the necessary order of things and saying that anyone who doesn't have it backwards like you is wrong.

[GOTV]

58. THE TRUTH: You don't have 67 Senators ready to convict. - do you dispute or conceed that point?

[porphyrian]

63. I dispute it because it's stupid.

I have no idea who would or wouldn't convict, but that conviction comes AFTER the impeachment in the House, not before it, no matter how many times you want to make it so.

THE TRUTH is that you have no idea either. THE TRUTH is that balking at impeachment for such an asinine reason indicates either ignorance or malicious intent to protect the criminal element in our government running amok. So, are you ignorant or full of malicious intent?

[GOTV]

81. To dispute it you must produce the list that I claim you don't have. You agree you can't. I win.

>conviction comes AFTER the impeachment in the House, not before it,
>no matter how many times you want to make it so.

I never said conviction comes first. If you don't even know what the argument is, you shouldn't get involved.

[porphyrian]

82. No, to dispute it I have to be ignorant of impeachment procedure or a shill.

Unfortunately for you, I know how it really works and how stupid your argument is. Really, give it a rest until you understand what's going on.

[GOTV]

84. You have difficulty with the word dispute. I made a claim, you agreed with it.. I win.

I claimed you could not name 67 Senators who would convict.
You agreed you could not.
That is not a dispute.

[porphyrian]

89. Ha! I want some of what you're smoking.

Let me know if you want to have a discussion based in reality.

[GOTV]

92. Here are the direct quotes. I win.

Me: You don't have 67 Senators ready to convict.
You: I have no idea who would or wouldn't convict

That's agreement, not dispute.

[porphyrian]

97. Nice try.

I also said you have no idea who would or wouldn't convict.

I'm not playing your little game, so can claim yourself winner all you like. I've already repeatedly shown how your argument is moot, just as you've shown you don't understand the impeachment process enough to know what you're talking about in the first place. However, I'll keep kicking it so more people can see how mistaken you are all you like.

[GOTV]

99. Wait. These quotes of your's are even funnier

You: No, to dispute it I have to be ignorant of impeachment procedure or a shill
You: I dispute it ...


You agreed with me. Now I agree with you

[porphyrian]

102. No, yours are better:

"I...don't even know what the argument is. I...shouldn't get involved."

I can take your words out of context, too.

The bottom line is that your argument is a straw man - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

It doesn't matter what Senators think now, they don't vote until after the impeachment anyway, and the process will determine how they vote as much as anything else. It would be a waste of time to count how many would vote to convict before the impeachment, because the impeachment is an integral part of the decision process. When you want to discuss something sensible, let me know.

[GOTV]

106. That's not what "quote" means. Look that up when you look up "dispute" n/t

[porphyrian]

111. Ha! You think you're the one who doesn't look stupid! - n/t

[deutsey]

85. Perhaps if the Dems make a clear case for impeachment first

the 60-70% will emerge, which will then inspire Senators to "see the light."

[GOTV]

93. Yes, that's what must come before impeachment.

To do otherwise would be foolish and doomed to failure.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Impeachment should be the end-product of due process, starting

with a Resolution of Inquiry and House Judiciary hearings. These hearings would go a long way to educating the American people as to the rampant abuses of power and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. committed by the BFEE. Once so educated, the American people would reluctantly consent to impeachment and conviction, I believe.

[mark414]

124. the majority of people said that if it was proven that the claims of

Iraq War lies were just that - lies - that they would indeed support the impeachment of the president and vice president

i'm looking for a link but i can't find one...but that's the truth

[TwilightGardener]

3. No it's not, and that's beside the point. It's the right thing to do. It's

their duty.

[DURHAM D]

5. I see the silly man's silly people are out today. n/t

[MadBadger]

11. Just because you or I like it, doesnt mean that it is smart.

And what makes what I said silly? Because I disagree with the majority opinion here?

[DURHAM D]

17. I didn't respond to you unless you are posting under

two names and you got confused.

[MadBadger]

19. I think you may be confused

You responded to my post.

[DURHAM D]

22. Oops sorry - you are correct.

However, my comment was meant to be an add on to your comment - in other words I agreed with you.

[MadBadger]

24. In that case, thanks.

[chelsea0011]

14. Amen!. It is almost political suicide. The repukes and media

will detroy whoever brings it up. It's almost not worth it this late into the Bush admistration........politcally speaking, that is.

[MadBadger]

16. And probably alienate Independents.

[Zywiec]

21. Agreed. We're going to sweep the '08 election

why risk that?

[Clark2008]

47. Us and what Democrat?

I don't see any of our front runners taking the presidency.

You may be correct in regards to Congress, though.

[Zywiec]

54. There is no way a republican will be in the White House in '09

You really think someone will vote for a repub after the last 8 years?

[MadBadger]

55. Im still afraid of Guilianni

[bdamomma]

59. unless they fix the vote again.

[mark414]

125. since when did people start making decisions

based on what the Republicans and the media will interpret them as?

[MUAD_DIB]

15. Constitutional duty/responsibility is not stupid.

[H2O Man]

18. Exactly

The Constitution of the United States is such a stupid document, politically speaking.

[snappyturtle]

32. Thank you H20 -- your reply helped lower my blood pressure. nt

[Poiuyt]

62. Historically speaking, IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A POLITICAL LOSER

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

[H2O Man]

74. True.

Those who are concerned about the "dangers" of impeachment should stop accepting the republican myths on face value, and look at history. They might also read the Constitution of the United States -- though that might be "dangerous," too!

[Zhade]

96. How so, when the evidence shows they lied us into a war a VAST majority of the public...

...doesn't support?

Do you think police going after criminals is stupid? If not, why is the Congress holding these criminals accountable politically stupid?

You DO want criminals held accountable for their crimes, right?

[MadBadger]

98. I think the vast majority of the public doesnt support the war

Im not sure however that the vast majority of the public is convinced they intentionally lied to get us into it.

[RufusTFirefly]

121. To quote Jefferson Smith

"Dad always used to say the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."

As others have pointed out, impeachment is about adhering to the Constitution, not checking the political winds. If we don't pursue impeachment in a case like this, the Constitution will be rendered virtually meaningless.

Next thing you know, we'll be eliminating habeas corpus... Oops. Never mind.

[niyad]

4. they don't have the votes--it would take time and attention from all the other problems we have to

address, just for starters.

[hobbit709]

9. Votes for impeachment, they probably have

Votes for conviction in Senate, doubtful unless they find a REAL smoking gun.

[Bobbieo]

30. They need 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes

Right now, there are 51 Dems and 49 Repubs in the Senate. If the Repubs want impeachment and to stop the Iraq War, then, they should be working on their Senators. Threats from the home front will get the Rep. Senators to change their minds.

[hobbit709]

80. House only needs a simple majority to impeach

218 votes. Senate needs 2/3 to convict-67 votes

[porphyrian]

38. There are plenty of them if people would stop pretending they aren't there. - n/t

[snappyturtle]

77. What consitutes a smoking gun? n/t

[bdamomma]

61. all those other problems have been sweep under the rug

by this sick administration, they (repigs) have not done one thing to help the American people, all they keep on doing is shoveling this BS out to us. They have been chipping away at everything.

[Fresh_Start]

6. because they are trying to get proof of crimes

through their investigations before they go off half-cocked

[Selatius]

8. The fear of losing big money donors to the Republicans. n/t

[midnight]

13. You are most likely right, because we are dealing with a

idea that bush declared earlier this year. That idea is simple that "money trumps peace".

[Initech]

10. Because republicans really lowered the bar with the Clinton impeachment

[CottonBear]

12. Cheney: his health is very bad & who knows who the next VP would be.

I believe that the congress must approve a replacement nominated by the president.

What if Bush is impeached and resigns or is forced to resign and the new VP becomes president then runs as the GOP candidate? The current crop of GOP candidates is simply awful. The Democrats have a great chance to win the 2008 election (if we can control the GOP election fraud)

I don't think Cheney will make it to the end of the Bush presidency.

[partylessinOhio]

23. Cheney is as healthy as that horse you have there.

These clots, stents, and such as are sympathy ploys to leave Cheney alone. He has a doctor in attendance 24 hours a day at our expense.

The evil one will live on for many years after he destroys America relishing his handiwork.

[CottonBear]

35. Hmmm. Interesting thought.: sympathy ploys. Could be... n/t

[jwirr]

37. Good point.

[mmonk]

20. Since there is no good reason, it must involve something

they don't want people to know.

[illinoisprogressive]

25. 1998. After the Clinton fiasco the republicans got masacred for doing impeachment.

[Jcrowley]

36. That's a red herring

The same did not occur with Nixon.

I'm not sure how anyone can come to the conclusion that there is any comparison here and there would therefore be a similar reaction with the public. That is illogical.

A) One of the more popular presidents committed a dalliance and was impeached and the public reacted against those who were attacking him for political ends.

B) The least popular president of all-time commits war crimes, illegal wiretaps, etc... and the public will react the same as in case A.

Heh?

[PreacherCasey]

72. Thank you. It wasn't the impeachment that wrought a backlash, it was the asinine

reason behind it. Clinton impeachment vs Bush/Cheney impeachment are not even comparable, no matter how much the media says so.

[spanone]

51. They also won the white house and retained control of congress...massacre???

[cascadiance]

120. Impeachment was driven by the Repubilcan Party, NOT the American people

in the case of Clinton. Now it's coming from the grass roots more than anything else. That is more analagous to what was happening with Nixon.

There are a few things to consider. First of all, perhaps going after the underlings like Gonzalez first might be a better approach, to build more public awareness of the underlying problems, and to hobble the administration in its efforts to circle the wagons or try to do more damage. In the case of other governmental entities, only a simple majority in the Senate is needed to convict which I believe IS achievable with the likes of Gonzales. It might take more work, etc. to go after them one by one, but if we do so, and show the country that this whole administration is infested with problems unless the root of it (pres and vice pres) are brought down, that at that point people will all scream for Bush and Cheney's head.

Also, what we keep needing to remind ourselves, is that unlike last election where we STILL were able to sway enough seats to get a thin majority in the Senate, this time around there are FAR MORE sitting Republicans up for re-election (21 or 22 I think). They have a lot more to lose. If we are able to sway 15-17 of those, and perhaps a few other Republicans that are more principled, we might have enough to convict the president too.

Once it's a close equation too, and the Republicans realize that the numbers AREN'T necessarily in their favor, I think you'll get the bandwagon effect happening then and have others join in, as many won't want to be perceived as having voted in the minority if he does get impeached and is found to be a criminal later. That would seal their fates in the next election in many cases. I believe that realization is also what helped get Nixon impeached too. At that point, most Republicans realized they couldn't stand in the way of an impeachment or risk getting thrown out themselves, which is what prompted them to get Nixon to resign.

[snappyturtle]

26. I'm trying to keep my anger under control here.

How many times do we have to be lied to? I'm not upset about your post....it brings a problem right to the forefront but the replies!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't care if they do think it's revenge....that can be handled very simply: Clinton received a sexual favor.....bad him....it is over and done with. This pres and vp have robbed our national treasury and placed our soldiers in an un winnable situation. They have to go.....the congress must do its duty.

[GOTV]

41. It is simply not possible to remove the president now until you have the 2/3 of the Senate with us..

... unless you are willing to work towards that goal first, before impeachment, you are not willing to do what is necessary to protect the country and our soldiers.

Impeachment at this point would be a masturbatory act.

[snappyturtle]

69. Excuse me?

HOW do you know what you profess? At this point, with time so short before the end of *'s term, I think any move toward impeachment would be heralded by the citizens of this country. The mood of the country is at the pitch of a rolling boil in a witch's calderon.....SOMEBODY give us the sign that he/she is going to actually do this and the support by common citizens and congress will follow. We need leadership.

How do we know that Cheney won't resign as Agnew did if the ball gets rolling? And in his case, if he were to resign, I'd still advocate bringing him into court to explain his thieving position. But, alas, I suppose I should "get over it" and be forever grateful for the talk of impeachment! This administration is thumbing their noses at us and we go, dah? oh what should WE do, lions and tigers, and bears, oh my! Then in '08 the repukes can say,"Well, they could have impeached us but they didn't because they didn't have the evidence to do so"...baloney.

IT IS THE CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY TO SEEK IMPEACHMENT.

[GOTV]

90. You're excused

> HOW do you know what you profess?

The constitution lays out the rules. You need 67 Senators. How do I know we don't have 67 Senators? Because of their votes. More than 33 Senators vote to support the president consistently.

> I think any move toward impeachment would be
> heralded by the citizens of this country.

You have to disregard the bulk of the polling in order to believe that and without polling data you have only guess work.

> The mood of the country is at the pitch of a
> rolling boil in a witch's calderon

Actually no. Most of the country disapproves of the war but they are not ready to do anything about it as evidenced by the majority of people who are not doing anything about it.

> How do we know that Cheney won't resign blah blah blah

We don't know. How do we know he won;t resign anyway? Again we don't know. Not knowing something is not a good reason for an action. Impeachment might work, it might not. That's a confession of ignorance, not an argument FOR impeachment.

> IT IS THE CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY TO SEEK IMPEACHMENT.

The congress should be upholding the constitution which doesn't mean operating at your whim. If impeachment in 6 months will result in removal and impeachment now will fail, they should impeach in 6 months regardless of your view of their responsibilities.

[snappyturtle]

103. You need to do a little research.....

with a simple Google search of impeachment bush and/or cheney you will find a wealth of information regarding the uproar that is and has been going on in the nation on this subject. Ipsos and Zogby have both taken polls. Ipsos found last October that 50% of the respondents THEN would favor impeachment if the president lied about Iraq. Zogby's found 52% of their respondents supported impeachment of bush for wiretapping. Zogby's poll was commissioned by After Downing Street.org.


Newsweek Would Like to Reduce You to a Spectator
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-02-05 17:19. Media
Having determined that a majority of Americans favor impeachment, Newsweek has stopped asking that question and begun asking this one:

At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

58% Total
Yes, wish it was over
21% Rep
86% Dem
59% Ind

37% Total
No, do not
75% Rep
12% Dem
36% Ind

5% Total
Don't know/Refused
4% Rep
2% Dem
5% Ind

The NEWSWEEK poll, conducted Jan. 24-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In conducting the poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and older.
-------------------------------------
There are more. I'd like you to support your claim that the American people do not support impeachment. I'm open to it but am not aware of any.

I was not using the possibility of Cheney resigning to support a reason for impeachment! I do think his resignation might come around if he knew impeachment proceedings were imminent. Sorry,I didn't myself clear.

One more point......33 repukes who consistently vote with the president leaves 67 and according to the Constitution a two-thirds vote of senators present is needed. I've watched enough votes in Congress to know that Reps. and Sens. sometimes don't vote (show up)....or abstain especially if it's politically advantageous for them to do so. eom

[GOTV]

109. I've seen all those and many more....

... Your example are so far reaching as to be silly.

> 50% of the respondents THEN would favor impeachment
> if the president lied about Iraq

That's only 50% AND it contains a conditional. In other words 50% of the country doesn't favor impeachment EVEN IF the president lied us into Iraq.

> do you personally wish that George W. Bush's
> presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

Which is not saying they would favor an impeachment.

Most polls, if you are willing to look at all the publicly available polls, show only a minority support for impeachment. Believe it or not, impeachment is an emotionally charged word and people's opinions change once that word is used.

I'm on your side in wanting to see Bush removed from office, but I've apparently done more research than you and I know the public is, at best, mildly on our side.

> I'd like you to support your claim that the American
> people do not support impeachment.

I don't think even ONE of the half dozen or so impeachment related polls here show more than minority support for impeachment.

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

[snappyturtle]

117. You grazed what I sent you and failed to comprehend

The Newsweek piece prefaced its article by saying they have QUIT asking the impeachment question because the American people over whelming support it and are now just asking if people want Bush's presidency to end.

The Ipsos poll is interesting because in OCTOBER 50% of the people supported impeachment if Bush lied aabout the reasons to go into war.

Watch what goes on in this country on April 28th! There's a lot planned and if the MSM reports it you will see what's going on.

I think you are disingenuous in claiming you want Bush out of office.

Your link is of old polls....some of them over a year old. Times have changed. I wonder why you included scroll after scroll of U.S. Attorney polls....trying to change the subject?

We're obviously not going to agree on the impeachment issue I suggest we watch(and in my case, taking action).....I spent a part of my evening last night writing to Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, Rep. Lamar Smith etc. in regard to impeaching Cheney and Bush and thus removing them from office. According to what you have said, I surmise you didn't do the same. Action speaks louder than words.

edit...spelling

[GOTV]

123. Back up your claims. I did.

> The Newsweek piece prefaced its article by saying they have QUIT
> asking the impeachment question because the American people over
> whelming support it

Link please. I don't believe Newsweek said that.

> The Ipsos poll is interesting because in OCTOBER 50% of the people
> supported impeachment if Bush lied aabout the reasons to go into war.

Without asking if they also thought Bush lied. I can say Bush should be impeached if he sold nuclear secrets to N. Korea which doesn't mean I think he should be impeached. The stement, like your polling question, is a hypothetical.

> I think you are disingenuous in claiming you want Bush out of office.

Shows how little you know

> Your link is of old polls....some of them over a year old. Times have changed.

They are the most current polls I know of. Times may have changed but they have not been reflected in the polls. Feel free to post 6 or so more recent polls if you can.

> I wonder why you included scroll after scroll of U.S.
> Attorney polls....trying to change the subject?

That link wasn't to my page. It's just a page of polls about Bush. I don't have any control over it. Wasn't that obvious?

> According to what you have said, I surmise you didn't do the same.
> Action speaks louder than words.

No I didn't do that because now would be a bad time to start impeachment.

So lets see all those more recent polls that tell me I'm wrong - also please send along the Newsweek link.

[snappyturtle]

126. This is my last reply:

I've re-read this entire thread and you're a spinner. I think it's safe to say you like all your eggs in one basket before proceeding......in which case nothing will get done.

I stand by everything I've posted...period. People like you, those of your opinion, and I saw little of that here, are obstructionists.

Read the May 7, 2007 issue of The Nation....John Nichols article:Impeachment Fever Rises. He is also the author of The Genius of Impeachment:The Founders' Cure for Royalism. In it he writes:
"When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney 'warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office.' Delegates are expected to endorse the measure."

The OP asked why Democrats are afraid of impeachment? We've gotten way off base.....and in my re-reading, you veered when you gave your two conditions for impeachment to happen.

[GOTV]

130. So you admit your Newsweek claim was a fabrication? I have links for my claims.

This is one of the reasons we don't have the results we should by now. To many people confusing their wants and assumptions as facts and not dealing with the reality around them.

The people, the majority who do NOT post on progressive or democratic message boards, are still largely asleep politically. There may be more awake now than there has been since the early 70's but they are simply NOT getting up in arms over what's going on. The most they can muster is "disapproval".

In any case, you ought to be able to back up specific claims, particularly when you mention specific publications - or you ought not bring them up. It leaves you looking non-credible.

[groovedaddy]

27. I asked my Dem Congressman

which he gave better odds to:
1. cutting off funding for the war
2. Impeachment

He answered "I don't think either one has good odds, but cutting off funding has to have a better chance than impeachment. Bush is politically dead. An impeachment proceeding might revive him and I don't want to see that happen."
He did make the claim that voters "punished" the Republicans at the polls in 2000 over the impeachment of Clinton. I asked him to provide evidence but he couldn't. If I'm not mistaken, Repubs made gains in the Senate & House / as well as stealing the WhiteHouse.

It seems to me the real question to be answered is: have high crimes and/or misdemeanors occurred within this administration? If they have (and I believe so) then you impeach, without political consideration. Even with a political consideration, if the impeachment is successful, it could do serious damage to the g.o.p. for years to come.

[MadBadger]

28. Here is the Critical question when it comes to impeachment

Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Bush lied to get us into Iraq? If you can, than impeachment isnt political suicide. If you can't, than it is.

[snappyturtle]

73. Colin Powell, UN, ring any bells? aluminum tubes?

nuclear clouds? al Quaeda training camps in Iraq? Curveball? Downing Street memos? I don't think we're talking political suicide here. imho

[coalition_unwilling]

91. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" -- the U.S. Constitution imposes

no such burden on the Senate, nor even upon prosecutors in run-of-the-mill criminal cases. There, the standard is simply "beyond a reasonable doubt".

With impeachment, the standard is left vague and undefined by the Constitution's framers, precisely because the nature of the trial is political at its core.

Do you really think that the 60+% who now disapprove of BFEE would suddenly swing back to approving him if Dems failed to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" the offenses alleged. If anything, I think a trial with due process would convince some of the 30-40% who still support BFEE to cover over to the Dem side.

[GOTV]

94. The GOP Senators will vote with their party...

... unless their constituents make it clear to them that doing so endangers their jobs.

Right now people are not making that clear.

[coalition_unwilling]

100. At the beginning of 1973, there was no majority to impeach much

less convict Nixon. However, the results of due process (Ervin's hearings, the House Judiciary hearings and so on) proved inexorable to Nixon's chances of surviving.

So, too, it must be here. We must have no "rush to judgment" if we are to show the true majesty of the American notion of "the rule of law."

But the results of due process would, I am convinced, swing many Repukes around.

[GOTV]

101. I'm inclined to agree - and so I think congressional Dems taking the correct path...

... get the info out into the open without the distortion of an on going impeachment.

I think, eventually, people will come around.

[GOTV]

31. Simple. The American people are not yet demanding it - dooming it to failure in the Senate

There. I answered it using only the headline.

[TahitiNut]

34. While the excuses are abundant, I think there's a rationale not yet fully appreciated.

I think that too many members of the Democratic Caucus have been complicit in the lies and frauds - either wittingly or unwittingly - as part of a continuing "political calculus" that digs them in deeper and deeper. Indeed, I think that's been an inherent element of everything the administration has done - to get at least one 'D' to cross the aisle on nearly every vote.

This is, imho, the fundamental corruption underlying a 'pragmatic' ethical perspective. It doesn't take much to corrupt a politician who (1) thinks his constituents are stupid and (2) thinks he'll get a quid pro quo in selling his under-valued soul.

When was the last time we saw a truly principled politician rise to a national leadership position - instead of some 'calculating pragmatist'? (Remember, bank robbers are 'pragmatists' - it's quicker and easier to steal money than earn it. Only people who believe in 'right' and 'wrong' would go about accomplishing their goals in a less efficient way.)

At the same time, what historical political leader do we admire who didn't put principle ABOVE partisan advantage? I know of none.

When party politics gets to the point where people say that doing the right thing isn't worth the cost in personal or partisan advantage, I'm again glad I'm an independent. For me, that's the very reason I believe partisanship is inherently corrupting.

[rox63]

40. They don't have the votes to win

2/3 of the Senate would need approve conviction. We have a 1-vote margin, and that includes LIEberman, who'd never vote to impeach *. In the meantime, other vital things (like ending this damnable war) would fall by the wayside.

[mmonk]

42. Acceptance of excuses given reeks of blind trust,

which, by the way, is how our country got in this situation.

[camero]

43. Anthrax in envelopes

They still haven't figurred that one out yet. Interesting....................

[jwirr]

46. If the investigations find absolute proof that he and his administration

committed a crime wouldn't it work better to just indict him? Try him in the regular courts? Use the law against him? The worse the crime the better.

One issue mentioned here is relevant: If some pug replaces *ss as president he/she then has a good run at the pug nomination and is stronger than the field they have to offer now. Likewise, if we impeach both prez and vp and Nancy Polosi becomes president then we will be looking at her as our candidate. Or at least that is the way it used to work.

[Philosoraptor]

49. It might not look just right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Because they are slowly gathering the evidence

and until they have it, forgot it

[jebediah]

64. I *hope* it's that they don't want to telegraph

the big punch they're loading up. I hope when they make the case it'll be a massive KO and in retrospect they didn't give the strategy away. I hope "taking it off the table" is switching to southpaw until they're going to unload. I hope it was meant to get the admin to drop their guard and procrastinate at the shredders.

I sincerely hope that we have a governmental self correction so dramatic that it'll give us a chance at some truly fundamental changes.

I'll be astonished if reality rises to that hope.

[LibertyorDeath]

65. They know we need the Oil of the ME

They may not agree with Cheney's methods of getting control of it but

like the rest of corporate America they know we need it.

If they impeach what's next? bring the troops home

that raises the question of the permanent military bases America has built in Iraq.

This is about Oil and the control of it the rest is smoke a mirrors

for the masses.

[mmonk]

66. Bottom line is I don't trust politicians that won't defend the constitution

no more than I can politicians that commit breaches of it. What many don't seem to realize here is a precedent is being set, a precedent that means your rights from tyranny won't be defended. That is a dangerous precedent that the founders wanted to avoid when they penned your constitution. While some of you can be comforatable with that as long as you get to play political games, it is a very deep and troubling problem for me I can't reconcile myself to accept.

[snappyturtle]

76. Yes,yes and yes!

Besides H20 man I haven't heard anything that makes more sense than what you've written....our future depends on what you've espoused. Then, there's the "little" matter of world trust....we might get it back if we (the Congress) did their duty.

[GOTV]

83. Bottom line: Defending the constitution means removal from office not failed impeachments

You want impeachment or removal from office?

BTW, there is no precedent being set until a verdict is rendered. Once the impeachment is underway, and the Senate acquits... THEN a precedent is set and it's not a precedent I want.

[DearAbby]

105. At least be on the record we IMPEACH

because it is the right thing to do...Period. Are we playing party over country? It is for the protection of our constitution. This administration is systematically dismantling the constitution, we may not get the chance again, to actually use the constitution to preserve the constitution.

It is their duty, to impeach.

[GOTV]

107. Being "on record" doesn't remove the president. If removal is not important, you can play games...

... but for some of us, stopping the president is more important that scoring a cheap political point.

btw, it is not their duty to impeach.

[mmonk]

108. And where has he been stopped?

If he is not impeached, its because a democratically controlled house refuses to do so. If I'm not given a reason why they will not impeach the most impeachable administration in my fifty years on earth they have earned no trust or support from me. Bottom line, no more donations to the party apparatus as long as I breathe air. I will only support individual candidates for office.

[GOTV]

110. He has NOT been stopped. And neither will impeachment stop him since we don't have Senate support..

... so, do you want to impeach now and fail? Or do you want to do this right and stop the president?

Those are the only choices.

[mmonk]

113. I see impeachment nowhere at any time.

Don't you get it? What part of impeachment is off the table you don't get? They want to do something "positive" whatever the hell that means.

[GOTV]

122. I don't believe that impeachment is off the table permanently....

... I think it will be put back on the table at the point at which Pelosi feels that she can secure a conviction and not hurt our 2008 chances.

[DearAbby]

129. Removal is important

it is vital...but at least it is on record that this president was impeached. They had done their SWORN DUTY to do. Protect the constitution.

It should not matter what future election results will be (future is not here yet, I have no idea how people will vote, it is speculation)...It is their duty, sworn oath to defend and protect the constitution. The GOP didn't have qualms about how impeachment would be seen, when they impeached Clinton on a BJ and a dirty Gap dress. They went ahead and did it.

There is evidence enough a blindperson can find it, trip over it...when is enough, enough?

Just what evidence will tip the scales for you, dead bodies...Got those, via IRAQ the lie.

Illegal wiretapping of Americans. I believe a Federal Judge has already ruled on this matter.

Coverups and outing CIA Agents. Evidence seen via the Libby trial

Violations of the Hatch Act. The corruption of our Justice Dept. The third equal branch of our government is compromised.

list goes on and on...just what is it that will tip the scales for you? A blowjob?

G-Damn it I want my country back.

[WinkyDink]

67. Because they haven't yet determined the public's stomach for it.

[loyalsister]

68. Maybe

For one thing, it's not about gaining.

In order to recover the integrity of the impeachment process, any possibility of it coming off like the last side show should not be present.

And, the evidence has to be stronger than the defense they will mount. Stronger than the defense the country will swallow because it will be televised, and letters will pour into offices urging senators how to vote.

We should be ashamed that we have to worry about this because the impeachment process has been tainted the way it has.
I suppose, congress is in a position of deciding whether to risk dragging it further down because of a potentially viable defense?

Just because we feel convinced does not mean that they would be convicted, and there is a lot at stake here.

[WilliamPitt]

70. 67.

[H2O Man]

75. Mayweather.

[WilliamPitt]

112. No doubt.

[Norquist Nemesis]

71. Have you checked out the media coverage lately?

'nuff said.

[mmonk]

79. Does that mean you wish the media remain the way it is?

[HardRocker05]

78. because they have been complicit in the whole debacle since day 1. nt

[ronnie624]

133. Exactly.

The entire system has been corrupted. Very few have the courage and ethical fortitude to oppose it.

[Zhade]

95. Honestly, I have no idea. Given the crimes the administration has committed...

...it's akin to the police saying they won't go after a serial rapist.

Senseless.

Thankfully, DK is pursuing it, and he won't be the last one, political cowardice for political expedience be damned.

[bemildred]

104. It will be the end of the two-party system.

Which has been in place since the Civil War. It will be a whole new ball game.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

114. Because it could and would most likely fail and be politically devastating.

Why, oh why is that so hard to understand?

[leftchick]

115. elections are right around the corner

Dennis seems to truly care about the future of this country. Unlike most of the other people in congress.

[earth mom]

116. Because the majority of dems in office are corporately controlled.

If they do something their corporate masters disapprove of there will be hell to pay and no money in the coffers. :puke:

[BlueJac]

118. We are in a new era...

We are afraid to stick our neck out for principles and stand up to liars. This nation is in trouble and people just don't support justice any more. The biggest liar seems to win now. We should just look the other way, because that is where our country has gone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Impeachment would not make Pelosi President

Impeachment is only the bringing of charges, like an indictment. There would be a trial in the Senate, where there would be an aquittal, as there would not be enough votes to convict.

[On the Road]

127. Q: Do You Favor Prosecuting the Head of the Mafia?

A: Often, the answer is no. You prosecute ONLY when you can expect a conviction. It has nothing to do with what bad people the mafioso are or how right law enforcement is.

What is needed for conviction (or in this case, removal from office) is support of 67 Senators. That support isn't there now, but it's needed for a successful impeachment.

What is the best way to get that support? The only way forward is to turn Republican Senators against the president.

That is why I believe holding aggressive hearings are exactly the right approach. And it's working. We're seeing more opposition from within the Republican party. That has to become more intense for impeachment to be successful.

I think Pelosi and Reid and doing exactly the right thing.

[NashVegas]

128. Because We're Dealing With a Hydra

That's my take anyway.

It's not enough to take out Bush. The entire support structure needs to come down, first.

[mmonk]

132. That would be extraordinarily difficult.

I think at least part of the hydra is in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3235081

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. Because impeachment without conviction and removal is pointless

And there aren't enough Democrats in the Senate to convict.