The Senate or Impeachment

[sandnsea]

If the House were to pursue impeachment, and actually sent it on to the Senate and forced Democrats to vote to impeach, which cost Webb, Tester, Casey, Landrieu, Pryor, Lincoln, the 2 Nelsons, Salazar, and others their seats - would you prefer impeachment to the senate?

[dchill]

1. What on earth...

makes this a valid question?

[sandnsea]

6. What doesn't?

[Starlight]

15. It's a ridiculous poll. You're assuming that your bizarre assertion is correct.

[dchill]

16. What you said. Thanks.

[sandnsea]

18. So you choose impeachment

Which is fine. Prove to me that these states that vote in Dems on generally razor thin margins won't punish Democrats in the long run. You can't use polls unless they're state specific.

[Starlight]

24. I didn't choose anything. Like I said, it's a ridiculous poll.

[longship]

2. Artificial dichotomy.

No Vote.

[Vidar]

44. Exactly.

[uppityperson]

3. If if if if if if ifif ifif ifififififififififififif if? Edited to add another question

as we used to ask as children: would you rather slide down a 50 ft razor blade with no pants on or suck the snot out of a dog's nose until its head collapsed?

Investigate and see what happens.

[sandnsea]

4. Investigating is fine

I'm referring to the people who act as if we should begin impeachment hearings in January without any regard to the consequences. Losing the Senate is a very likely consequence, even if the House impeached. It has to be considered.

[uppityperson]

7. Indeed, in which case I agree with you.

start doing investigations and see what happens. There is so much to work on that is so important, impeachment can wait. I want to see them tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. Impeachment is too easy.

Edited to add, perhaps put what you just wrote in the original posting to clarify might help clarify why you ask this. Thanks.

[sandnsea]

9. No

Because people ought to be able to weigh things and think issues through all by themselves.

[earth mom]

17. Ah, but you're assuming that "not impeaching" will keep dems in office...

when it will more than likely tick the public off and lead them to believe that there is NO difference between the rethuglicans or democrats in office.

Which will in turn lead to another house cleaning simply because the dems did NOT impeach.

If dems want to stay in office, they'd better do what the people want or they will suffer the consequences themselves.

[sandnsea]

19. Prove it

Prove the people of these specific states want impeachment.

[earth mom]

20. How about YOU prove they don't? You started this thread after all. nt

[sandnsea]

21. Who ran on impeachment?

I don't have to prove that, nobody ran on it. Nancy Pelosi said on a regular basis that impeachment was off the table. People voted for a change of direction in Iraq, real economic change, and open government. Real solutions. They were sick of mud-slinging and partisan attacks and gotcha games, all over the country. If we don't deliver, we're going to pay for it in 2008 and beyond. The Senate is harder to win seats than the House.

So which is it - impeachment or the Senate?

[earth mom]

38. You're wrong. Conyers has been discussing Impeachment for years.

Those of us around here that were paying attention know that. However, Pelosi stated shortly before the election that impeachment was off the table which came as a shock though the consensus was that it was simply a ploy to calm people-mainly the GOP-down.

No one-not even you-knows what's really going to happen in 2007. Impeachment could very well be back on the table by then-especially if people demand their representatives in Congress to do so. At that point, Pelosi and Congress will have no choice but to do the bidding of the people.

Not only that, but as OperationMindCrime posted upthread, half of the senators you listed aren't even a concern for 6 years, so that makes the point of your entire thread absolutely moot.

[sandnsea]

40. Conyers had to actually campaign???

No he didn't. I said who RAN on impeachment - NOBODY. Sure people around here thought impeachment off the able was just a ploy, I never did. Credibility is way too important for her to go back on her word.

I already said impeachment should come from the people. That's the whole point. DU should calm down and consider what demanding instant impeachment proceedings would mean. They should consider WHO would be voting, thus the list of senators AND OTHERS, listed in the OP. Which I also already explained.

This ranting about impeachment is exactly what the left does which leave us with no unity and a target for the GOP.

Back in May of 2005, the left was screaming 'out now' 'out now'. I suggested that we simply change the name, military disengagement. Lo and behold, a few months later, that's exactly what Murtha did, with redeployment. The left got on board and the country rallied around the idea of getting out of Iraq.

Same thing goes now. Investigations and oversight. That's what we should be calling for, and making the case. The people will call for impeachment a whole lot sooner if they think it's THEIR idea.

[earth mom]

42. The term "Investigations and Oversight" is not something people are going to respond to.

Those words are just more political rhetoric that makes people turn away in boredom and want to turn the channel back to Survivor or CSI. People understand the word "Impeachment" and they know the seriousness of it. They will sit up and take notice and that's what WE want.

Also, Why worry what the GOP thinks about us? Sorry, but who gives a damn what they think?! I don't! What I care more about is that in recent days, there are people who have come on DU trying to sway people to NOT want impeachment. That's what I'm fighting against. I believe it to be a concentrated effort by DLCers, DINOs and freepers to get us off our game by messing with our heads simply because impeachment is the last thing they want and the death noll for their party.

Well, so be it.

[sandnsea]

43. That was the election for chrissake

That's what they just voted for. Oversight and accountability.

Nobody ran on impeachment. I don't know what in the hell you're talking about or where you got that idea.

There are NOT people coming on to DU to sway people against impeachment. I've been here since 2003. They're the same people who keep trying to pull the left in about two steps so we can win some elections and get shit done.

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, we finally did it.

[earth mom]

45. Let me say it again: The average voter doesn't pay attention

to political rhetoric. That's simply NOT how they vote. They vote from the gut and they vote their ethics, values and morals. They see corruption and they want that frickin cancer out and out now! That's why the election happened the way it did. NOT because some politician "ran on" an "oversight and accountability" platform.

BTW-Pelosi doesn't know best. The people do. Pelosi and the rest of Congress work for the people. If Congress doesn't do what the people want this time around, they will be out on their asses too.

p.s. The naysayers are here and here in force, it's obvious, so don't deny it. FYI-Pulling the party further right happens to be the DLC m.o. by the way.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Investigating criminal activity with no consequences is pointless.

Everyone who can be convinced that Bush is breaking the law right this minute, partcularly with respect to domestic surveillance, already knows about it. So there's no point in doing it simply to look righteous and "speak truth to power" and all that garbage.

Far more likely the Congress will vote to legitimize Bush's domestic surveillance in order to avoid a constitutional crisis, since he is
so clearly breaking the law on that. As for lying us into Iraq, they
have created the meme that it's not a crime because we bought into it.

[sandnsea]

31. Let the people demand the impeachment

In every state across the country. They aren't there yet and throwing Congress into partisan gridlock with an impeachment is not what people voted for. Investigations to tell them what is going on is what they want. If people want an impeachment, it'll be clear.

I'm shocked so many people don't consider the consequences of pushing an impeachment too soon. We will lose the senate if we do that, no doubt about it.

[pinto]

5. Sorry, but I don't get the point of this, unless it's meant to create

a divisive strawman scenario. Or am I misreading something? Just my personal 2 cents.

[sandnsea]

8. Point: Thinking

Following a train of thought to its logical conclusion.

[pinto]

10. My point is that only 2 of the Senators you mentioned are up for re-election in '08,

(Pryor and Landrieu), 2 are up in '10 (Lincoln and Salazar) and the rest aren't up for re-election 'till 2012. That's why it seems a strawman argument, imo. Thanks.

[sandnsea]

11. Baucus is up in 2008

So he gets punished instead of Tester - whatever. The point is to get people to look at who they're asking to make this vote and get some common sense about them.

[pinto]

12. Now I get your point. Thanks.

:hi:

[porphyrian]

13. I reject the premise of the poll.

That won't happen.

[upi402]

14. huh?

false choice

[survivor999]

22. Would you keep the Senate or lose your dingdong?

What kind of question is this? ... :)

[gollygee]

23. Why would it cost them their seats?

What?

[G_j]

25. silly

poll
:shrug:

[mmonk]

26. .

[sweetheart]

27. The lynch mob gathers for a hanging

It was once a big popular event, those executions around the tower of london,
hundreds of years ago, the mobs where massive, exuberant to be entertained by
the demise of others. Oh, let the sherriff to his work and lessa move on to
splainin' how the post neo-con economic world order is to be organized under
our ascendent imperium.

[mmonk]

28. Let's see.

We're going to compare the Clinton impeachment where the public didn't want the impeachment to begin with and an impeachment process where there were no crimes committed against the constitution with this situation? I need to go to bed.

[Jcrowley]

29. False construct

no vote

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. You Realize Half Of The Ones You Listed Ain't Up For Re-Election For 6 Years Right?

Cause it seemed like you may not have been aware of that, based on your reasoning.

[sandnsea]

34. See #11

I don't think people who are screaming for impeachment have thought through who they're asking to do the voting or what would ultimately happen to them if they did vote to convict on impeachment.

[Clarkie1]

33. The House is not going to impeach, so the poll is irrelevant. nt

[sandnsea]

35. Just trying to get the screamers to think

about exactly what it is they want to set into action and where it could ultimately lead.

[earth mom]

36. Screamers...yes the in your face pot calling the kettle black.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

37. I didn't scream at anybody

I asked a simple question. If impeachment means losing the senate, is that still what you want to do. Simple enough. :shrug:

[earth mom]

39. Well you haven't been exactly friendly either....

Note: I just replied to you upthread. See my post #38

[sandnsea]

41. Prove the people want impeachment?

Oh how unfriendly of me. :eyes: