Question for the "Impeach Bush Now!" folks

[BootinUp]

Considering the fact that there is no chance an impeachment would succeed (conviction), and considering that a significant percentage of people in the country would oppose such an effort at this time...I ask you the following question:


Your age:


This is the first in a series of polls
Thank you for your participation.

[Stand and Fight]

1. 28 n/t

[RoccoR5955]

38. What does the n/t mean?

Sorry for the stupid question, but I have to know.

[achtung_circus]

39. It means

no text in the message box, EOM means the same (end of message). It helps people from clicking on a message needlessly. Some people are on dial up.

[RoccoR5955]

41. Thanks n/t

[rep the dems]

42. I've actually wondered that for a while. N/T

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Right now the threat of an impeachment than actually starting

one is a better weapon. But on down the road, things could change and I think that was the message Nancy was sending today.

I'm not telling you my age save to say it's more than half a century. I know, I'm about done for.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. We who lived through the Iran-Contra era and were bleeding hearts

back then in regards to Reagan, regret being soft. Maybe if we hadn't, maybe the neo-cons never would have gotten the second wind to "screwn" another generation of Americans.

[Wickerman]

4. sounds interesting

look forward to see what you'll eventually get at. Any chance of coming back to this thread and posting links to the subsequent polls?

[BootinUp]

10. Sure, there will be links to previous polls

As to what I am gett ing at, I don't know what to expect, but I want to profile people that are pushing for immediate impeachment hearings and share the results for discussion.

[mtnsnake]

5. No chance for impeachment? It's a certainty if the House votes it. Conviction

is the only question and most likely wouldn't take place, but I want to see the asshole held accountable and impeached, regardless of whether or not it goes anywhere.

[pat_k]

14. Bush&Cheney will probably reisgn to keep WH in Repub hands. . .

. . .as soon as the threat of impeachment becomes real.

If Democratic members continue to be the only ones who recognize the threats, all they need to do to prove their motives are not partisan is to point out that Bush and Cheney can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed and therefore must meet with our approval (through the people we elected to represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress who recognize that rescuing our Constitution requires the removal of Bush and Cheney need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

[mentalsolstice]

24. Impeachment - yes, conviction -no

B*shCo won't resign if they're impeached, because they know there is statistically no chance of a conviction (and thus a removal from office). Since Clinton was impeached, the stigma of such has gone way down. He survived, and now he's a much beloved in many parts of the world. He doesn't seem to be losing any sleep over it. I just don't see these assholes going away easily...not with Poppy's syndicate in charge now.

[pat_k]

31. Not many months ago, winning the House was supposedly "statistically impossible" . . .

Of all the rationalizations for inaction, some form of "it won't happen, so shut up" is perhaps the most insidious. Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight. Fortunately for the nation, the question for Members of Congress is not "will we win?" The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

If you told people who are fighting to eradicate AIDS or poverty or hunger that "it won't happen, so shut up" I can't imagine you would expect -- or even want -- any of them to listen to you.

Your desire for people to give up the fight is apparently based solely on your pronouncement that the fight is futile.

To fulfill their oath each Member of Congress must be on the lookout for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other Members of Congress might do. Rather, they have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Hopefully you and others promoting the "Won't happen, so shut up" mantra will recognize that when principle demands action, outcome expectations do not enter into the decision to act. The choices are simple: you act or betray principle; silence is complicity. Whether or not the establishment continues to be immobilized by rationalization, we can hope that more and more ordinary Americans choose faith and courage over pessimism disguised as "realism." (Though not that many more Americans are required as the new http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek poll shows a majority want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress.)

-----------------
BTW, If they are not found guilty by the Senate, so what?

We all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

History is a harsh judge. When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

At our founding, some who claimed to "hate" slavery were nonetheless complicit in the morally indefensible "compromise" that allowed our fellow human beings to be enslaved in the United States. Undoubtedly many believed they "couldn't win" if they drew a line in the sand and so did not draw the line.

We may never stop paying the price for that horrible compromise.

We face another such defining turning point.

[mentalsolstice]

32. Wow! You sure do jump to assumptions don't you?

Where in my post did I say "shut up". You don't know me from Adam...I'm a polite person who never tells someone who is simply participating in a debate to "shut up". I'm very interested in your POV, until you start swiping at my character and making broad generalizations that I wouldn't put up a fight on issues such as racism, slavery, etc.

I simply stated an opinion (as you have)in a matter that is being widely debated all over this forum. Actually, I hope the debate keeps going, here and in Congress. I think getting the House to impeach is very realistic, I never implied in my original post that impeachment wouldn't happen. However, for a conviction, to remove from office, you would have to have 66 senators, meaning all Democrats and independents (including LIEberman), plus 15 republicans. And, it is my "opinion" that Chimpy won't resign simply because he has been impeached. Clinton didn't.

Hey, this is simply my opinion, I'm do not intend on standing in the way of anybody...by all means let the games begin. However, I hope my representatives concentrate more on getting us out of Iraq, education, universal health care, social justice, the environment, etc. And winning back the WH in 2008. Frankly, I'm sick of it being all about Bush, terror and Iraq. My hope is that he goes on trial for war crimes and is convicted and locked away...that would be better justice than an impeachment with no conviction (even with a conviction all he would do is go back to the pig farm), and it won't muddy the Democrats for 2008.

[pat_k]

37. Apologies. . .

. . .The "won't happen, don't bother" rationalization is so ubiquitous, I hope you can excuse me for "hearing" it in your post -- where it didn't actually exist.

With regard to ". . .would be better justice than an impeachment with no conviction."

Impeachment is a defensive act. The most urgent requirement is ALWAYS to "disarm" (e.g., pulling over a drunk driver and taking the car keys to keep them from harming others; getting the gun away from a shooter (or "removing" the shooter); defusing a bomb. Prosecuting the perpetrators must follow if justice is to be done, but that requirement is secondary to the need to render a criminal harmless.

Impeachment is about stopping the destruction of our Constitution by taking the power to destroy out of the hands of the destroyers. When the Constitution is safe from further harm, investigation and prosecution must follow (i.e., "bring to justice.)

Just as members of a police force are sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to protect ("support and defend") the Constitution. Even if the police don't successfully disarm or apprehend, they are duty-bound to try -- and Members of Congress are duty-bound to try to rescue the Constitution, whether or not they succeed.

Although you have not argued this, others have argued that failure to convict in Congress would "exonerate" them. The problem with that argument is that failure to accuse is tantamount to exoneration. When they fail to call for impeachment and removal they are handing the fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress, who are sworn to defend it, would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Not only are they NOT calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of the charges coming from the "looney left."

If you are interested, you'll find additional points in the following post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2595234&mesg_id=2595474

[mentalsolstice]

45. Let's just agree to disagree (somewhat) & call it a draw?

I think we agree that we both want these mo'f'ers to get what's coming to them...it's just when and how...I'm being optimistic that Pelosi & Co. can keep 'em at bay until we can turn them over to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague...you want to see them fry immediately here on our soil. However, we both agree that they're very bad people and need to face some kind of retribution, it's just a question of when and how. That's the beauty of DU!

Friends!

[leesa]

6. Irrelevant. It's their job to impeach him if he has committed crimes.

[happydreams]

8. YEP!! Check this out....

It's what people want to!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2947884&mesg_id=2947884

[pat_k]

21. 21-Oct-2006 Newsweek poll says it all. . .

http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html

[baldguy]

7. Why should the threat of impeachment remain a political weapon?

Impeachment was originally meant to be a judicial procedure to remove a criminal from office. I can't think of any better fate for Bush & his minions.

[pat_k]

22. Removal from office as defensive act to protect the Constitution, yes. . .

. . .but impeachment is a political process -- and a weapon.

Had we intended it to be a judicial process, we would have vested it in the hands of the Judiciary.

We did not. We vested it in the hands of Congress -- specifically the House, the body best equipped to represent the will of the people. As a political process and expression of our will, We the People are the "deciders" of the INTENT of our law, whether or not the letter of the law was violated.

Impeachment is a weapon. It is the weapon we gave Congress to allow them to fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution against certain types of threats: those that come from within the executive or judicial branches. (And when Nancy Pelosi took this weapon "off the table," she declared herself incapable of defending the Constitution and thus violated her oath.)

Too many lawyers in DC have injected legalistic interpretations that pervert the intent.

If We the People decided a President's stupidity posed a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Democracy, we could impeach and remove for stupidity -- something there is no "law" against.

The branches are NOT co-equal. No member of the Judiciary or Executive Branch can remove a member of Congress. (Law enforcement can jail, sure, but not remove from office.) When we gave the power to impeach to Congress -- our representatives -- we put a big fat thumb on the balance to tip it in OUR direction.

Notifying us that there is a threat is their First Duty

The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to lead the fight -- to "support and defend".

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

Bush and Cheney are leading their tiny faction in an all out attack on our Constitution. The ONLY way to turn them back is remove them from office. Win or Lose, that is the fight we face. Members of Congress, in whom we vested the power to impeach, are duty-bound to call us to arms.

Any member of Congress who sees the threat but won't speak up is enabling and empowering the attackers. No rationalization, whether it's the edict from their peers that "talk of impeachment is off limits," their fear of being snubbed at the next cocktail party, their fear of losing votes, or pronouncements that they "can win," excuses their dereliction.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. My name is Stinky. I'm a 60 year old impeachment HAWK.

[Andrea]

11. It's a progression --

We all know that he is guilty of crimes and needs to be impeached. Some people don't see it that way. And, you are right, it would not succeed - right now.

What has to happen is that we prioritize the things that Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have been talking about - raising the minimum wage, taking care of health care, etc., BUT we also fulfill our responsibilities in the way of oversight. Everything starts to come out, a piece at a time. Our public face is that we are doing oversight - not trying to impeach.

It gradually becomes clear that we have no choice but to impeach. Support builds up over time. By the time we get to the point of starting proceedings we are there or almost there as far as getting a conviction. By the time we get done with the hearings, we will get a conviction. The reasonable Rs (and there are some) will realize that Bushco is far dirtier than they realized and MUST go.

Remember who told Nixon that it was time to go? That he had to resign or he would be impeached and convicted? That he had to go for the sake of his party and country? It was Goldwater. That's the way it comes down. We "reluctantly" bring it all out, step by step, until Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe or John McCain, or some group of them goes down Pennsylvania Ave. and meets with * and tells him that it's quit or be fired.

[pat_k]

23. Here's how we win right now. . .

. . .by telling them:

I don't want my new minimum wage when the massive power of the American Presidency is in the hands of War Criminals.

I don't want affordable health care if "rule by signing statement" and Bush as unitary authoritarian executive is left unchallenged.

I don't care about breaking the link between law makers and lobbyists while Bush and Cheney wield ever more unconstitutional power to force the wishes of their tiny faction on the rest of us.

I don't care about enacting the 911 commission recommendations until habeas corpus is restored and the men behind nullifying it are removed from power.

Lifting the restrictions on stem cell research imposed by a small faction can wait until the War Criminals Protection Act is struck down. That act in and of itself is a landmark achievement in their conspiracy to violate our Constitutional rights.

As long as you allow Bush and Cheney to abuse their power by picking and choosing the laws they execute or enforce, you will not get my support to pass more laws for them to ignore.

If you do not seek to restore legitimacy to the White House, I cannot imagine how you think the United States can help to end the conflict and chaos that is spreading inhumanity and destroying lives in the Middle East. As long as you leave governing power in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, options that would be available to a legitimate American President are closed to us.

I am one of the majority of sensible Americans http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">who want SENSIBLE priorities. There is nothing partisan or radical about inaugurating a President and Vice President committed to fulfilling their oath to execute our laws BEFORE we worry about passing more laws.

BTW -- you don't even have to WAIT to engage the stakeholders in finding solutions to the critical problems we face as a nation. You and your staffers can fight to remove Bush and Cheney from power and design and pass legislation AT THE SAME TIME. Multitasking is the name of the game. Just make sure Impeachment never takes a back seat to those other tasks.

[dchill]

12. I'm 55. I am a white male...

Are you going to turn this data over to the NSA? Oh, that's right: you won't have to.

[pat_k]

13. What "significant number" would oppose?

. . .and what does convicting in the Senate have to do with accusing?

The Congressional oath to defend the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to lead the fight.

To fulfill their oath they must be "on the look out" for threats (turning a "blind eye" is not an option). When they identify a threat, their First Duty is to notify us and tell us what they believe we must do to defend against it. (Not what they think we will do; not what they think they can do; not what they think other members of Congress might do. They have a duty to tell us what they personally believe the nation must do.)

In our current crisis, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing Bush and Cheney from office through resignation or impeachment.

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion. The process ends with removal from office by resignation or by force through impeachment. Between those two points things can play out in an infinite number of ways. There is no way of knowing.

A majority of the nation already wants impeachment http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">to be a priority in the Democratic Congress -- and that is in the face of desperate opposition from the Democratic "leaders."

[Ino]

15. I don't agree with your premise

Once investigations start exposing the depth of crimes committed, a HUGE percentage of citizens will be VERY angry. I do think conscientious Repugs and those in fear of losing their seats in the Senate will either support conviction or urge Bush to resign just as they urged Nixon.

[ProudDad]

16. You've got your facts wrong

a majority of the people (over 55%) have said that if bush lied us into war he SHOULD be impeached!!!

Thanks for playing the game...

[AJ9000]

17. There would be a chance of conviction after an investigation exposed them

[primative1]

18. I'm not for Impeachement ...

I am 100% for investigation and oversight.
Its what those investigations discover that would decide the proper course from there on out (firing squad?)
Admit it. Dont you want to know how we got where we are today?
Here's your chance. Do you actualy want to remain clueless?

[BootinUp]

19. I think any investigations should be justified by something other

than we are looking into impeachment. We should use our political capital on an investigation that is unlikely to result in removing the President. Is there a way to investigate without spending the political capital? Sure.

[primative1]

29. Plethora of Possibilies

My guess is you can open any garbage can and find that the cans are all connected by tunnels.
We could start anywhere, its all in the public interest.
Personaly I prefer Iraq.
Dont look at history, look at the present and the future.
Like why doesnt any of the money we spend on rebuilding there infrasturcture/economny actualy accomplish any desired result. Tens of billions of dollars vanish. Why? Where?
If we want out of Iraq then the best place to start is find out what exactly about the Bush plan is causing such miserable failure.
I knoew he was incompetent but the results have been far worse than anyone could have imagined. Why? There must be something really rotten in the cash pipeline. Lets find it and when we do think of how many rats we will find along the way.
People will love such an investigation. Everyone wants out of Iraq and most people want it done properly. Its an investigation that needs doing years ago.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

20. For impeachment

to pass it would need a majority of the US in favor. This is very unlikely because people are proud of the US heritage of the presidential office. So even the new majority democratic congress is not going to vote for impeachment. What we need is sanity. Lets work with Bush to sort out the problems. Remember our new congress is now campaigning for a '08 democratic president together with trying to keep their jobs beyond the 2 year term limit.

[jpwhite]

25. no impeachment

I say no to impeachment. We need to be more mature than the Republicans. The only reason they went after Clinton is because they were mad that they couldn't beat him in an election. I hate to burst your bubble but John Kerry was not the best candidate for the job. He talks with this monotone voice that would bore people to death. He lost. We need to focus on setting an agenda and making America a better country. Right now, America is with us on the issues such as raising the minimum wage, providing oversight on spending in Iraq, ending corporate subsidies, and coming up with a viable plan to end the violence in Iraq and getting our troops home. We need to lead by fixing the problems.

Then in 2008 we need to nominate a candidate who is not a liberal from the northeast. That means no John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. We have some great leaders in the democratic party such as Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Personally any combination of these would be great. I would also add Wesley Clark into the mix as a possible future secretary of defense. He has plenty of experience as far as the military is concerned, and it would show the voters that the dems are not soft on defense.

We need to lead by doing something positive. Impeachment would only show Americans that we are still mad about losing the presidential election in 2004.

James
[e-mail]

[TheWatcher]

27. What an utterly ridiculous Post

Especially this gem:

"We need to lead by doing something positive. Impeachment would only show Americans that we are still mad about losing the presidential election in 2004."

I don't know about you, but after all the laws that Bush has broken, after leading this country into a WAR based on lies, after stealing two elections, after all the death and destruction he is responsible for, and after the draconian, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, legislation he has signed, I can't think of anything MORE positive than impeaching this bastards.

It would show the American People we believe in THE RULE OF LAW, that we believe The Constitution is more than a "piece of goddamn paper." That we believe in checks and balances.

How anyone could argue against impeachment at this point is beyond me.

But thanks for playing.

You still don't get it.

[Barack_America]

30. Which post was ridiculous? His or Yours?

If his was so ridiculous, then why is that exactly the course of action the Dems are proposing?

I'll give you an argument against impeachment...it's futile. There is no way the Democrats could get a conviction. Furthermore, Chris Shays(R) just today described the Republicans' impeachment of Clinton as pointless show of power that only served to drain the momentum to accomplish their agenda.

If you want to hand control back over to the Republicans, then call for impeachment. Personally, I vote for select, probing investigations and no impeachment (but setting the Democratic agenda to the be first and foremost priority)

[TheWatcher]

36. So what do you propose we do, Let them get away with everything?

Shall we just leave all of their legislation in place?

Shall we just leave all of their crimes unanswered?

I've been watching your posts on this all day, and you seem to have an obsession with no impeachment. I have a question for you.

Should we make this administration accountable for it's crimes?

And yes his reasoning was ridiculous. As is anyone who thinks we should give these criminals a pass.

It's beginning to feel to me that now that we've won something, people wish to let everything go.

And if that's the case, you can't count me out of ANY party that would excuse what these people have done.

And if that's ridiculous, then we have a real problem.

[Barack_America]

44. Not necessarily.

I'm for investigations, that's for sure. But FOCUSED investigations, not witchhunts.

I'm definitely against this congress going for impeachment because 1). There isn't time 2). It won't work (no 2/3 majority) and 3). It will destroy the Dems chances in 2008.

I could potentially be for impeachment after 1/09, if the evidence warrants it and the public supports it. Impeachment could work then because it wouldn't involve removal of a sitting President so the 2/3 majority might be there.

[Auntie Bush]

46. Welcome aboard JP

Hang in there...it gets better or worse depending upon "Whether you're for it...or against it." lol :hi:

[happydreams]

26. Facts? You have no facts on what the people think.

Do you have a crystal ball to look into the future and see what the vote is after everyone is made aware of what the Bushboy and friends have done?

[Zhade]

33. Exactly.

And the rule of law is not up for political debate.

[Seabiscuit]

28. The over-40's have it! And a big wave to my 61+ compatriots!

:hi:

[anitar1]

34. Thanks , I voted for justice . Impeach. n/t

[NJ Democrats]

35. First in my age bracket

I'm 15 as of 3 days ago

[nam78_two]

40. 27/nt

[primative1]

43. I notice that us 40 somethings rule here ....

I wonder if it has something to do with our fond memories of Watergate summer. :)
Ah those were the days.
Imagine the impossible. It can happen.