Anyone else think we're hesitant to impeach because the GOP tarnished the impeachment process?

[Hippo_Tron]

I'm thinking about the impeachment and the political ramifications. And I'm starting to think that the reason I'm so hesitant about it is because I fear a repeat of Clinton's impeachment.

I realize that Clinton's impeachment was a mockery and that if we were to do it with Bush it would be because of serious crimes. But will Americans see it that way, or will they just see it as another waste of time? Is the evidence overwhelming enough to overcome the fact that Americans don't view impeachment as anything more than a partisan waste of time because they only impeachment they've ever seen was a partisan waste of time.

And what kind of precedent will it set if two Presidents in a row are impeached, both by an opposition party congress?

Simply put, if the Republicans hadn't made a mockery of the impeachment process in 1998, would people be so hesitant about it?

[Erika]

1. Exactly the GOP used the impeachment process stupidly

against Clinton. They've weakened this country now that a true case exists for impeachment. Impeaching for a blow job is different from W blowing away over 3,000 of our troops.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. I am as certain as can be...

That was one of the strategy points discussed. They planned on making the thought of another impeachment as distasteful as possible. Doing so would give "their guy" IE: the next Repuke President, as much latitude as possible.

[pnwmom]

16. Actually, it suited their purposes quite well.

What they did was convince a large part of the public that an impeachment is just another tactic from the bag of political tricks -- not the most serious sanction that exists in our government, short of removal from office.

With the impeachment process so discredited, their President can, and is, getting away with murder.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. yes. but, they impeached clinton as revenge for Nixon.

[librechik]

7. the Clinton impeachment was a partisan travesty,a misuse of the process

Bush impeachment would be proper, but yes, the Clinton farce but believe it,they will label it as partisan too, and take away its authority.

[windy252]

4. I actually think the country would understand at this point.

Even when I was kind of politically ignorant, I felt impeachment was going a little too far under Clinton. You'll need to make sure you can get a conviction in the Senate first. I actually think we may be close to that, though. And, would John Roberts have any influence on the conviction process. I know the chief justice usually presides over the trial, if I'm not mistaken.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The Chief Justice has no real influence over the process...

The only reason that he presides over the trial is because it is considered a conflict of interest for the Vice President who will become President if the President is convicted.

[agincourt]

5. The votes just aren't there,

the public might support it because this administration is composed of criminals and looters. If we had solid evidence that Bush and the brass hats helped the GOPig crony network embezzle 75% of the Iraq war funding, the public would be behind impeachment. LIHOP proof would be great too, but it would be a tougher sell. But as long as x amount of seats are GOP controlled in the House and Senate, impeachment is a futile venture. The republicans never eat their own until forced to and since Clinton wasn't removed from office, they'll probably figure Bush will make it as well. It's the make up of the Congress even after the successful midterms that prevents impeachment more so than 1998. Though the Clinton impeachment made the process a circus, nothing happens until all the goods and the seats are there.

[Mind_your_head]

13. That's funny

The republicans never eat their own

YES, they do.....b/c they don't have any truth to stand on, so they do it ALL the time and EVERY time they are CAUGHT!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rebel with a cause]

14. I thought I read where Lott was smacking his lips

as he talked about the administration "pushing" intelligence on the republicans and democrats in congress so as to go to war. I bet he even held up his pinkie finger as he sipped his tea inbetween bites of bush, cheney and rumsfield. :sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. We first need to investigate

study watergate... the process was organic and the People demanded it

That is what we need, investigation, impeachment, conviction

[Erika]

10. I think www.icasualties.org says it all

W never had a reason for us being there much less keeping us there.

The disgusting way he allowed Hussein's death was hideous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yes but impeachment is an indictment

and then you have to convict.

Most Americans have no skin in the game... so they don't care, and will not care until they have skin in the game

For them it is all about SHOPPING

[unblock]

9. substance matters

the disgraced republicans can set the table for the spin relating to the LAUNCH of the impeachment process.

but once the public hears the accusations, the testimony, the evidence, etc., then they will quickly forget the petty clinton accusations and draw the parallels to nixon.

[Mind_your_head]

11. No, I think the hesitation at this point comes from the fact that

there are too many issues to address. The GOP has caused SO much damage that it's difficult to know where to start. We're in "triage" mode now. That's why (correctly) the hesitation.

Definition of TRIAGE (per Merriam-Webster):

<2> the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/triage

Peace,
M_Y_H

[ellisonz]

21. Seconded. Although we've finally got the supplies to start patching up the patient.

:hurts:

[pnwmom]

15. Not only tarnished it. They trivilialized it. Now, if the House impeaches

another President -- especially if a "not guilty" verdict occurs in a Senate trial -- it will be "been there, done that -- no big deal. Look at Clinton, he bounced back."

The only way to really put the power back into the impeachment process is to raise the stakes -- there must be a real possibility of a Senate conviction.

[Mind_your_head]

17. Yes, I think you're right....

If the impeachment process should begin, it must end SUCCESSFULLY. We are *lucky* in the fact that no other president in the history of our country has been so 'ripe' for such a dubious honour.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Good point

[Atman]

19. 100%

Maybe that was part of the plan :shrug:

Who knows. But yes...they "cheapened" the process so that anything we do looks simply like revenge. It means nothing now. You can remove a president for a blow job. Oooooooooooooh. Big whoop. Impeachment is obviously a joke to some Americans. And they all happen to have (R) next to their names.

.

[mmonk]

20. Whatever the reason, it's not adequate to deny us our rights.

You may as well shred the constitution for political expediency....oh wait, that IS what is going on. I forgive no one.

[sandnsea]

22. We need to build the case

and do that through investigations. If impeachment is right, the public will make it known. I do think people are hesitant because it would be the 3rd impeachment in 30 years, which doesn't say a lot for this generation.