I wish our candidates would stop running until after impeachment

[Doctor_J]

The whole first page of GD-P is taken up with intramural battles over candidates. they're sucking up all of the oxygen that should be used to fuel the blow torch aimed at Smirk.

Focus! Sve the republic while the time is right - there will be plenty of time to campaign.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. None of the candidates (not even Kucinich) favor impeachment

[Luckyduck]

12. Kucinich said congress would think about Impeachment

if Bush attacks Iran....makes no sense I know.

I don't think we should accept their inaction-we must force them to listen to Us like these grannies

Their first event yesterday morning was a news conference with Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic congressman from Ohio and Granny Peace Brigade favorite. "If there's a group that has the power to reach people's hearts," Kucinich said, "it's our grandmothers."

Granny organizers announced that 100 grannies from 21 states had come to lobby Congress. Most of the chapters have sprung up in the last year.

As the Philadelphians left the news conference in the Capitol basement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was walking past. "We're counting on you," said Paula Paul, quickly identifying herself and shaking the speaker's hand.

"Wish I could be with you, but I have to open the House," Pelosi said. "Being speaker has its responsibilities."

As Pelosi, arguably the most powerful grandmother in America, disappeared down a hallway, a member of the Granny Peace Brigade shouted after her, "Impeach Bush."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16494104.htm

[pnwmom]

2. Impeachment isn't going to happen. Certainly not before investigations

are done.

Meanwhile, the primaries start in a year. Of course the candidates have begun to run.

[omega minimo]

4. The two are not mutually exclusive. Repeating this meme is misleading.

Both are part of a process.

That process has begun.

[Zhade]

44. Impeachment BEGINS with investigations. This has been pointed out to you before.

Please stop spreading the lie that impeachment doesn't start with investigations.

[omega minimo]

3. What a great point. Thank you. This leaves the impression

they will continue with the Constitution in crisis perpetually.

They need to be in solidarity to preserve the nation first.

:thumbsup:

[galadrium]

5. There won't be an impeachment.

Bush will go down as the worst president of our lifetime for sure, and his poll #s will be in the 20-30s for the rest of his term, but he won't be removed from office.

There aren't enough votes to impeach and it isn't worth wasting the political capital. I'd much rather have national health care, than Bush impeached.

[omega minimo]

6. Short and sweet but if you believe that you are living in a bubble

"There aren't enough votes to impeach and it isn't worth wasting the political capital. I'd much rather have national health care, than Bush impeached."

Aren't you concerned at all about the crimes committed against the Constitution and the American people?
If you let this go, what kind of nation will you have?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x12472

[galadrium]

7. Yes I am... Its called reality.

I don't approve of much the Bush admin has done, but its a simple reality that there aren't the votes in the senate to convict.

If every Democrat plus Lieberman voted for impeachment you'll still need 16 GOP senators to go along with it. Tell me who those senators are and why you think there is a snowball's change of getting a conviction.

[omega minimo]

8. it's called oblivion

folks counting on rights that have been taken away, and they know it, but somethow think that doesn't matter

[galadrium]

10. It doesn't have anything to do with rights

You still haven't told me where we are going to get these 16 GOP votes from.

[omega minimo]

11. That's not oblivion?

"It doesn't have anything to do with rights"

:wow:

[galadrium]

13. No

Oblivion is thinking you are going to get a conviction when you don't have the votes.

[omega minimo]

15. "It doesn't have anything to do with rights"

OR the crimes committed against the Constitution and the American people OR what kind of nation you have if you let this go....

I see :eyes:

[galadrium]

16. What Bush did is meaningless if you don't have the votes to convict.

You can stand up for principles all you want, but what is the point of an impeachment if it isn't going to be successful?

And you still haven't told me where those 16 GOP votes are coming from.

[omega minimo]

17. Well thank you. You are stating it very clearly..........

but these statements still reflect an apparent lack of understanding (we've seen here time and again) of the realities of our situation. We've discussed it in threads providing good resources for folks to check out. It is fallacious to claim "What Bush did is meaningless" and reduce this to "You can stand up for principles all you want" (making it sound trivial).

No offense to you -- I haven't seen your posts on this before. But DU has been round and round on this.

I have not seen any convincing explanation for why vote-counting (based on impossible assumptions) should be the be all and end all in this matter. And I've asked.

[galadrium]

18. Imeachment precedings would be an exercise in futility if there aren't enough votes

Do you understand the idea of political capital? Thats what it takes if you want support in government. The dems could start impeachment precedings in the house, but I haven't heard anyone in the house talk seriously about doing it. The reason is, they don't want to lose public support going for something that the American public isn't strongly behind... impeaching Bush.

The reason they aren't talking about it is because they know they wouldn't convict him, then it would almost vindicate what he was impeached for. An acquittal would be seen as a total vindication.

Hell, it would be great to get Bush and Cheney both run out of office. But if there isn't a chance of getting it done, whats the point of losing the congress in 2008 when we just took over.

[omega minimo]

19. sorry, but this is a repetition of rote talking points we've seen before.

[galadrium]

20. rote talking points?

So thats your response when you can't answer my questions?

[omega minimo]

21. please see #17

I thought you were trying to answer mine :hi:

[enough already]

47. So you think Bush is going to sign national health care into law?

What color is the sky in your world? Impeach the prick NOW and maybe we have a chance to fix things before he kills us all.

[rinsd]

9. Yes because impeachment hasn't been discussed here at all

:eyes:

[Doctor_J]

14. Of course it's been discussed here. But it's also

a distraction to the news whores, who should be covering the rampant treason and other high crimes that are about to be revealed by Conyers and Waxman. Instead they can run Hillary 55 minutes out of every hour.

[RestoreGore]

22. Impeachment is a moral imperative

And if Congress doesn't have the guts to do it, then the PEOPLE should make them do it.

[Daylin Byak]

23. Jesus get off your kick, all of you

I'll try to say this nicely, do you not speak english? THERE AREN'T ENOUGH VOTES TO CONVICT it dosen't matter all the laws he broke, all the rights he has taken away if you don't have the votes to impeach and convict then it's a waste of time cause nothing will change, do you not understand this. God what is with everyone here people tell all the pro-impeachment DUers that the votes aren't there but you all won't listen.

I have better things I like to see Congress do then playing game with Preaident Manchild like fixing no child left behind, stricted immigration laws, finding a way for alternative energy and getting out of Iraq and none of this will never be acclomplished if we waste our time drawing up impeachment papers on a President we can't convict.

[RestoreGore]

25. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT

So get off my back.

[Daylin Byak]

26. Yes I do

There's a good chance to impeach him if all the Dems in the House stay together. But in the Senate, the chamber that convicts him, that one that means the most, WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES THERE TO CONVICT. In the Senate to convict him you need 2/3 of the vote that means in order to convict manchild you need 67 Senators to vote in favor and how many to we have 51!!!! well 50 if you take away Lieberman.

So enough with all this impeachment stuff, the votes are there to convict him, this is a waste of my time and the Congress's time that could be spent on something useful.

[omega minimo]

28. No you don't. It's "chance" like you say. You don't know what will happen when the time comes

so get off your votecounting kick, all of you!! :hi:

[omega minimo]

27. because this doesn't make any sense:

"it dosen't matter all the laws he broke, all the rights he has taken away if you don't have the votes to impeach and convict then it's a waste of time cause nothing will change..."

and reflects a lack of understanding that not one of you "anti-impeachers" can explain beyond "It's the votes, Stupid."

While you're reading up on impeachement and the Constitution, check out what Gonzalez said about Habeas Corpus in Congressional testimony yesterday.

[Daylin Byak]

29. IF THE VOTES AREN'T THERE YOU CAN'T CONVICT

It won't happen cause we don't have 67 Democrats in the Senate and no Republican there is going to vote there own man.

Congress has alot to do to clean up chimpy's mess and it ain't going to be cleaned up any faster if we go on a goddamn witchhunt trying to oust a guy that we don't have the votes to oust.

Screw the consitution and Alberto Gonzales for a second and have some common sense, we can't impeach and convict if we don't have a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict and the Dems don't have a 2/3 majority.

So drop the subject already, you are beating a deadhorse!!!!

[omega minimo]

30. There's your problem

"Screw the consitution and Alberto Gonzales for a second and have some common sense"


See, none of these simplistic "common sense" arguments EVER give ANY indication (that I've seen) that they understand the realities of the situation or the consequences of this sort of "common sense." And the folks saying "screw the Constitution" or "just standing for principles" and otherwise dismissing the real issues here, just seem uninformed, maybe never learned about government in school............................

None. Not one.

Wonder why that is? :shrug:


Oh and btw: screaming about votes when you have no idea how it would actually come down, but want to give up before even doing anything, is not "common sense." It's (bad) fantasy.

[Daylin Byak]

31. Uh dude, I remember Government from school

I'm 19 years old and i'm currently in college with my major as political science. And I know exactly how it would come down, by the party lines, no Republican is going to buck there own president so in the Senate to convict you need 67 votes and thats something we don't have.

You can go on how I know nothing about the Government cause I don't agree with this chirade of a witchunt but everytime you mention impeachment and the damn constitution on this thread i'll be here with my two cents.

I know plenty to know that impeachment is a waste of time and the Dems have bigger fish to fry and i'm seeing that right now.

I know alot about the Government and that won't change even though i'm anti-impeachment.

[omega minimo]

34. That's cool. Maybe you can help explain it....

The recurring argument on DU about this is seen on this thread with different people saying it just comes down to the votes and that's it. But as much as we hear that and people think it's SOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOOOooooo obvious, as I said above, I have not. seen. one. of. those. arguments. where the person mentions any OTHER aspect of the issue.....................

or explains how they can be so absolutely sure of how who would vote what. There is no way to know it ahead of time. It is certain to never happen if people insist on NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

"And I know exactly how it would come down, by the party lines, no Republican is going to buck there own president so in the Senate to convict you need 67 votes and thats something we don't have."

Prove it. You know EXACTLY? There is no logic in this and people don't offer any other ANYTHING. That's it. Count numbers. Head on, apply directly to forehead :banghead:

And then to make statements like "The Constitution means nothing when you don't have the votes." :shrug:

"...and he gets impeached in the House and then when he gets tried in the Senate he won't get convicted cause theres not 67 votes there and not that many Republicans are going to turn on there own guy so that won't happen and after that the Democrat Party will look like fools cause we didn't convict just like the Republicans when they went after Clinton in 1998 and the MSM will be all over this and will be a political nightmare for us and could cost us the majority in Congress...."

Like I said above, we've heard this before. No offense, please, but this is rote talking points based on right wing spin.. We're supposed to buy this cynical defeatist bullshit and NOT DO ANYTHING.

They win.

[enough already]

49. How do you know we don't have the votes?

The fucking chimp is at 38% approval (tops) and pukes in the Senate are jumping off the war bandwagon left and right. This countty and the entire world HATE bush. Let's see the bastards vote to acquit. It will cost them Senate if they do. I say they don't have the balls.

[enough already]

48. Let me say this nicely...

...do you think President DIPSHIT is going to sign into law ANYTHING that you want???? If we shitcan his sorry ass now, MAYBE we can get things fixed.

[Vidar]

24. Amen to that.

[pat_k]

32. They are trying to pretend the nightmare of Bush World is over. . .

. . .The chattering class's focus on the horserace is just part and parcel of submitting Nancy's "impeachment is off the table" edict.

If they can convince themselves that 2008 is already here, they can pretend the present doesn't exist. It is one of the many ways they keep up their denial:

• Denial that Bush and Cheney put torture on the table and made it "fair game" for opposing forces to torture Americans.


• Denial that Americans are torturing people RIGHT NOW.


• Denial that their failure to impeach makes them accomplices.


• Denial that they are allowing their petty fears -- fear of being called names, being voted out, whatever -- to keep them from fulfilling their oath defend the Constitution, even though they expect servicemen and women to face down fears of death and mutilation to fulfill the same oath.

Just because the MSM is determined to go down the horserace rathole doesn't mean we have to follow them there.

We can start right here.

Resist the urge to post "horserace" posts.

Ignore the ones that get posted.

It sucks, but we must onfront and deal with the horrible reality of the Bush World.

[Daylin Byak]

33. The Constitution means nothing when you don't have the votes

We don't have 67 Democrats to convict this bastard like it or not. But fine lets play this stupid game when John Conyers actually draws up the papers on Bush and he gets impeached in the House and then when he gets tried in the Senate he won't get convicted cause theres not 67 votes there and not that many Republicans are going to turn on there own guy so that won't happen and after that the Democrat Party will look like fools cause we didn't convict just like the Republicans when they went after Clinton in 1998 and the MSM will be all over this and will be a political nightmare for us and could cost us the majority in Congress but I guess that fine will you DU cause we tried to impeachment him.

It's a waste of time when the votes aren't there to fully do what you want to do and you all just have to deal with it, I know I have.

[pat_k]

35. Does the law mean nothing if a prosecutor fails to convict? To fail to accuse. . .

. . .despite having irrefutable proof and confessions is unprincipled cowardice (qualities that Dems demonstrate at their peril).

Bush and Cheney confess to their crimes each time they publicly assert their fascist fantasy that a unitary authoritarian executive is tolerable under the Constition. The proof that they dictated torture and criminal domestic spying is public record.

Fortunately for the nation, the Congressional oath is an oath to fight -- to support and defend -- not an oath to win. Members of Congress have a choice: they accuse Bush and Cheney or they refuse and give them cover. ("If we were doing anything that subverted the Constitution more Members of Congress would be demanding impeachment. Not only are they not demanding it, the Congressional leadership has taken it "off the table.").

You self-defeating prophesy may be correct, but it may never get to the Senate. Bush and Cheney will be under enormous pressure to take the resignation "exit strategy" to keep the White House in Repubican hands. If it gets to the Senate, conviction is not just possible, there's reason to believe that it is probable.

There are more than enough Republicans who are unlikely to be willing to defend the indefensible for long. Bush treats them with contempt with his determination to put more Americans into the "meat grinder" (Hagel). He slapped them in the face when he abused signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes). By keeping torture "on the table" he makes it AOK for opposting forces to reciprocate by torturing Americans. Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar) who may happily convict. These "rational" Repubs could be joined by the reactionaries, who tend to be a vengful bunch.

Even if the dynamics supported your self-defeating prophecy, it is not rational to believe we can know with certainty how events will unfold until they are behind us. We won't find out who will, and who will not, be willing to defend the indefensible until the so-called "leadership" accuses/impeaches.

Discussing the potential risks and rewards on both sides (impeaching or failing to) can help us see what we are up against more clearly, but the bottom line is that outcome expectations are irrelevant when principle demands action. By your logic, a prosecutor wouldn't charge a lynch mob if he believed a white jury would acquit. . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3069280&mesg_id=3069981">More. . .

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. That would mean we went into the next election without a candidate.

Whether or not to impeach Bush is the Republicans' decision, not the Democrats'. There is no possibility of Bush being impeached in the next two years no matter how desirable it would be.

Saying "the Democrats must/have a duty to/have a moral imperative/have no choice but to" do something which is mathematically impossible for them to do is foolish. The Democrats can *open impeachment procedings*. They *can't* (not "won't") impeach Bush.

[omega minimo]

37. Impeachment is decided in the House, not the Senate

The Democrats can *open impeachment procedings*. They *can't* (not "won't") impeach Bush."

"There is no possibility of Bush being impeached in the next two years no matter how desirable it would be."

You can't know that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Only technically.

The House votes first, but for anything substantive to be achieved needs a 2/3rds majority of the senate.

Than needs the votes of 16 Republican Senators.

Any Republican who voted to impeach Bush would be turned on by their own party, would carry the label of "traitor" into their next primary, and would effectively give up all chance of ever wielding political influence in the Republican party. Republican voters - the ones whose support they need most - would turn away from them in droves, and the support they'd gain would be negligable.

I can, and do, know that the chance of sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on Bush's part to make 16 Republican Senators willing to make that degree of sacrifice coming to light, given that even the current strong evidence isn't enough to make even one of them break ranks, is negligable.

It is, of course, technically within the realms of possibility that Bush will be discovered eating babies in the oval office tomorrow. But nothing much short of that, and certainly nothing there's a non-negligable chance of happening, is going to lead to impeachment.

[omega minimo]

41. Same old false assumptions and ignorance of "sufficient evidence of wrongdoing" and investigations

that have already begun.

[LeftishBrit]

42. The question is not whether there's evidence of wrongdoing (there is) but whether 16 Republican

senators would be willing to rebel against their leader. I could imagine this happening if there was a HUGE split in the party (after all, though it's not absolutely equivalent, no one would have thought at the beginning of 1990 that the Tories would depose Thatcher - yet they did by the end of the year). But it doesn't look enormously likely at present. And this also assumes that ALL 51 Democrats - including their unreliable coalition partner the Connecticut for Lieberman Party - will agree to vote for impeachment; and that Johnson will be well enough to vote by that time.

An unsuccessful impeachment wouldn't stop Bush carrying on in office, and even pushing his agenda fairly effectively. After all, it didn't stop Clinton.

[ellisonz]

38. I think it is good because it gives us the time to have a serious primary...

and then build a movement in the general election.

[Infinite Hope]

40. "After impeachment" as if it's going to happen. n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RestoreGore]

45. Thank you n/t

[enough already]

46. Haven't you heard?

We don't have the balls to impeach Bush. It doesn't seem to matter that Bush makes Hitler look like a Buddhist monk by comparison. Our feckless, er, fearless leaders want to "investigate" for a couple of years while the planet burns.