Could you see yourself changing your position on immediate impeachment?

[bryant69]

By immediate impeachment, I mean the idea that Democrats in the House of Representatives (and Senate, but the process starts in the houses) should take up the impeachment of the President within the next fifteen or so days, dropping other issues in order if necessary in order to focus on getting an impeachment resolution to the floor.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[snappyturtle]

1. Sorry but your link is confusing....for this topic anyway. n/t

[bryant69]

4. The link is simply self promotion - i'm what's called a blogwhore

Among my many other despicable and objectionable traits, I promote my blog constantly.

Bryant

[snappyturtle]

15. It is nice....OK....good for you! n/t

[MrModerate]

2. I would *love* immediate impeachment, but . . .

I don't think there's enough interest/energy to drive it forward.

Kucinich looked foolish today -- and of course the MSM is painting him as a bit of a crackpot; centrist dems don't have the appetite/backbone; most 'Licans still believe Bush is an OK president; and the people are not engaged.

Right now, the Bush administration is slowly bleeding to death. For impeachment, they'd need to open a few veins. Not entirely unlikely, given their manifest guilt and incompetence, but they haven't shot themselves in the foot with the smoking gun -- not yet.

[mmonk]

3. "Immediate impeachment" is a made up term.

Sorry if I don't participate.

[bryant69]

5. Yes it is but I defined it

All terms are made up, I guess I don't understand your objection.

Bryant

[calimary]

16. I don't care what kind of definition or wording. It's just a MUST.

I am ABSOLUTELY certain beyond ANY hesitation. And I've felt that strongly about it for far too long to start hedging now.

Let's Get ON WITH IT.

[BuyingThyme]

6. IMFUCKINGPEACH!

[BlooInBloo]

7. LOL! Um, What "immediate" is, changes second by second.

[bryant69]

9. That's why I defined it for the purposes of this poll

Bryant

[BlooInBloo]

10. Yah - I thought you were kidding. Defining "immediate" to mean something other than immediate - lol!

[bryant69]

12. Well what term would you prefer?

For something to happen in the near future?

Bryant

[MadBadger]

8. The focus should stay on Iraq as it currently is.

[porphyrian]

11. Nope. It's waaaaaay past due. - n/t

[WilliamPitt]

13. When 20+ GOP Senators signal willingness to vote 'aye'

then yeah, you'll have me.

It may well happen, but it hasn't happened yet, and thus "immediate impeachment" isn't wise. Too soon, and it'll fail, and won't be able to be repeated.

[mudesi]

14. Put this administration out of its misery. Impeach. (nm)

[calimary]

17. Are you guys calling your reps? As far as certitude, I'm going Gwen Stefani on it.

Absolutely Positively NO DOUBT.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Impeach now. Cut off the head of the snake.

Not that I have any illusions about congress' will to do so.

[bryant69]

20. You don't have any illusions about Democratic Leadership

or about Congress as a whole?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Both.

Politicians, in general, are risk averse. I see no indication of that having miraculously changed.

[bryant69]

22. So even if the Democratic Leadership grew a spine and brought

it to the floor you expect it would fail? Am I understanding you correctly?

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. No. I'm saying that the "growing a spine" isn't about to happen.

Unless impeachment becomes so clamored for by the public that their seats are at risk for NOT impeaching. My faith in the integrity of politicians over their self-interest is about the same as my faith in those guys on TV that sell hair-restoration products or diet pills.

[Bucky]

19. Besides the lack of a 2/3s majority in the Senate to validates it....

... the whole process would be a distraction to the coming election cycle. We have a narrow time table in which impeachment could happen. By next September the political class will be so focused on the 2008 election that no Republican would vote to remove Bush unless he was photographed knocking over a liquor store.

But what could happen between now and September to get a working 2/3 majority pushing for impeachment? Probably only the developments in Iraq coupled with a new scandal that threatens or cheats Republican interests--otheriwse they'll back the monkey. The problem is that matters are arranged that there won't be any real developments in Iraq until October/November. The surge is misnamed because it's really just a delaying tactic to keep the war off the headlines for a few months--that's all it possibly can accomplish. In other words, nothing.

But initiating impeachment and removal proceedings will radically change the subject of the national debate. Before impeachment, the country is seeing a tug of war between continue-the-war and end-the-war interests, with the pro-peace side radically preferred. Time is on our side but attempts to move up the clock on ending the Bush fiasco may backfire. The public could decide that impeachment is tit-for-tatism from the Democrats, erasing our strong advantage in all 06 races.

I know I'm suggesting we let a constitution burner slide for two years, and it bothers me to say that. But I'm more interested in undoing the harm Bush has done to the world than in seeing Bush get punished for those harms. I say put out the fire first, then see about arresting the arsonist.