So, Sen. Biden thinks impeachment is "impractical"?

[Roland99]

Well, I say to Sen. Biden:

You're irrelevant.

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. Amen

and is global warming inconvenient, Mr Senator?


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/999005

[Phredicles]

2. Biden = Joe-mentum Lite,

in addition to being an all-around embarrassment.

[Czolgosz]

3. Biden is just one more DLCer seeking the nomination whose corporatist values are out of sync with

the grassroots of the party.

I project Biden as the next candidate to leave the race.

[jbonkowski]

4. Well, you DO need 66 votes in the Senate to remove the POTUS

Even with a few moderate R's voting to remove, we still are short by at least 10 votes.

If a vote goes to the Senate, and Bush isn't removed, he will be vindicated of what he has done. This is a bad outcome, and is currently the guaranteed outcome of an impeachment trial in the Senate. That makes impeachment currently impractical.

A successful impeachment won't initiate from inside Congress, it has to come from a groundswell of public support.

Yes, in this sense, Biden, as well as the other senators, are all irrelevant concerning impeachment.

Get the public interested, and the Senate will follow.

jim

[pat_k]

5. 1) Irrelevant; 2) Removal is very possible; 3) Resignation is more likely

I don't mean to single you out. "Don't have the votes" is a pervasive rationalization for their immoral and politically insane "off the table" edict -- a rationalization that must be challenged whenever possible.

1. Irrelevant
   
   It doesn't matter whether or not there are the votes to convict in the Senate. Failure to accuse is complicity. It gives Bush and Cheney cover ("If we were breaking the Constitution, Pelosi certainly wouldn't have taken impeachment "off the table.")
   
   While we cannot know the outcome, we do know that those who fight for impeachment will no longer be accomplices. The impeachers will be champions of the People's Government and the Constitution. They will be on the right side of history, a place I'm sure they all hope to be.
   
   A couple Analogies:
   
   
   • If the highway patrol refused to turn on their siren and attempt to pull over a driver that was barreling and weaving down the highway; a menace to everyone in their path, we would be appalled. Sure, perhaps the driver will somehow escape, but when they fail to even try, if that driver kills their refusal to act makes them party to the crime.
   
   
   • If a prosecutor had a town full of witnesses and a lynch mob that had confessed to their crimes, it would be morally reprehensible to refuse to prosecute because he believed a racist jury wouldn't convict. It is every bit as morally repressible for Members of the House to refuse to introduce or vote on articles of impeachment. Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. They confess their crimes every single time invoke the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive with unbounded power to "protect us."


2. Removal is very possible
   
   We cannot know how impeachment would unfold until the events are behind us, but we have as much reason to believe there ARE enough votes in the Senate as otherwise. There may be very few Republicans willing to go on the record defending Bush and Cheney's attacks on the Constitition, particularly when those attacks effectively tell the Senators (both Republican and Democratic) to go to hell (e.g., abusing signing statemetns to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate 90-9).
   
   Whether or not there are enough votes, NO Republican Senator is going to be keen on having to choose between:
   
   • A vote to put Pelosi in the White House.
   • A vote to:
     
     • defend torture and the abuse of power to overrule the overwhelming will of the Senate to unequivocally ban torture;
     • defend Bush and Cheney -- pariah's they have been scrambling over each other to "distance" theselves from; or
   
   Which brings us to:


3. Resignation is more likely than removal
   
   Republican Senators, whether or not they are willing to vote to defend Bush's high crimes (and become "accessory after the fact" war criminals themselves), will be EXTREMELY motivated to do everything in their power to force Bush and Cheney to resign to escape having to vote at all. Bush and Cheney could be out stunningly fast. Bush and Cheney are likely to find few Republicans willing to defend them publicly, and many who are pressuring them to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands.

In addition to the above:

• Impeachment is not a one shot deal.
  
  After the House picks one of the many high crimes and votes out articles of impeachment, if Bush and Cheney refuse to resign and the articles get voted down in the Senate, the House can just vote out another set of charges. They have enough for at least a half-dozen impeachments. Even if the 110th Congress adjourns without removing Bush and Cheney or forcing them to resign, there is nothing to stop the 111th Congress from reintroducing any set of articles and calling for impeachment "in absentia." All that would be required is the political will.
  
  In other words, we can't "lose" the fight to impeach until we give up fighting.


• Standing and fighting for principle ALWAYS benefits those who do so
  
  . . .not just morally, but politically.
  
  The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators -- who opposed the Authorization to Use Military Force have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c">caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).
  
  When the Democratic leadership surrendered their power to declare war to Bush, they abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson) The Members who voted for the AUMF are not the only ones paying the price. The failure of the leadership to fight stained the entire Party.
  
  When Pelosi surrendered the ONLY weapon capable of defending the Constitution against the attacks Bush and Cheney are mounting, she abdicated her first duty -- the duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Every Member submitting to her "off the table" edict is currently complicit in the horrors committed by the outlaws in the WH. If they do not wake up to reality soon, like those who supported the AUMF they will ultimately pay an individual price and will staining the Party as a whole.