Impeachment IF/WHEN it it is SUPPORTED by the populace.

[baby_mouse]

Some musings for your contemplation...

A media circus beckons. Run by, oh, yeah, THAT media.

George has had no battles to fight recently in which he has been able to play his "aw shucks" card. He buys big points with this card, it may still be a Big Risk to press the buttons that force him to use it, alhtough certainly after recent info on Rush and Rummy it looks look they're trying to play nice and recent election results suggest the populace is giving that "aw shucks" card a Damn Hard Stare. But the electorate is FICKLE, DU.

Most poeple in the States don't know what impeachment is, and if the media tell them what it is is those nasty flaming liberals picking a fight, they'll mostly believe them. It WILL get to the stage where they say: "Aw, gee, poor George, I guess he's not so bright after all, and I guess he DID but why do they have to flame him for THAT? HUH? I thought they were supposed to be hippes and all about love," and their arguments WILL be EXACTLY that banal and signifant numbers of shockingly stupid people WILL BUY IT. You KNOW this if you've been looking at ANY US media at all and observing ground floor reaction to it over the last 6 years.

BREATHE FIRST, then strike.

Part of me says: IMPEACH if you will, Dems, They are your Houses now.

But another part says: you'll feel really damn dumb IF the country votes for YES THAT'S RIGHT a DIFFERENT Republican presidential candidate in 2008 GEORGE CAN'T RUN NEXT TIME on the grounds that "those liberals are only interested in vengeance" (and YOU can call it what you like, the Right still owns the media, this could not possibly be more apparent than over the last few days, and THEY WILL call it vengeance and THAT WILL stick TOO...)

My advice? UNsolicited, I know...

Concentrate your power in the Houses. There is no medica cirus there. The DEMS own the Houses. The Pubs own the TV sets... Take the battle to the battlefields where victory is guaranteed... you have only two years before the next election.

TAKE THE MONEY, says the hungry progressive in me... DO NOT OPEN THE BOX...

However, I must point out that this situation *may in fact* entitle you to take the money AND open the box...time, and possibly only a *little* time, may very well tell on that. I DO NOT BAR IMPEACHMENT.

Is it possible or sensible to time impeachment proceedings with the next round of election campaigning, or, more properly, near its beginning? They can't be interested in supporting George at that point, they'll have to be pimping some other poor schmuck and the poor schmuck's going to have a terrible time of it shaking off the image of George the Crim. Impeach NOW and you might unexpectedly give them a boost, impeach during the campaign cycle and things MIGHT be different... George the Underdog could have time to recover and get his base back, George the Irritating Thorn in the side of the Republican Party could very well spell Near Permanent Doom for BOTH of them.

I want to have my cake and eat it, is all...

Please just be very sure that everyone's on the same page with this impeachment thing... you could be handing them a pistol for their last stand when in fact you've already got the bastards disarmed and in custody...

Of course, I have no idea how the populace feel ATM. It's entirely possible that the whole lot of them, pubs included, genuinely WANT him impeached ASAP to get rid of the taste... Although I must say I think that's a little unlikely...

[mmonk]

1. I know of no party that was swept into congress

because the electorate wanted the party to emulate or be nice to the party being swept out. The electorate gave their reasons when asked and those reasons were the Iraq war and corruption. In other words, clean up this Iraq war thing and end it and use your position to clean up this government. Our party leaders misread this at their own peril.

[baby_mouse]

8. Yes. I don't think anybody voted for another media circus.

I think they voted for change, and impeaching George, while wondrously cathartic, will DELAY the change, not expedite it.

[mmonk]

12. It's a betrayal of the people and the constitution and our laws

and the oath of office not to impeach. If they want me to sever my relationship with the party, they are doing a good job.

[baby_mouse]

17. That would be a pity.

And, you're right. Really, it WOULD be a betrayal of the Constitution... My country doesn't have one, however, so I can't *entirely* relate to your position, though I can see that if everyone in your country felt as you do it would certainly be better than mine...

It would be good to establish law and order again, wouldn't it? Yes, if impeachment can be SHOWN to be the clean-up operation that the populace voted for, it's *certainly* worth it.

...and as for politicans breaking their oaths of office, I'm British and our democracy is VERY old, and we don't really think about politicians in terms of oaths any more...

[AlinPA]

2. We should spend our energy, passion and time on increasing the size

of our majority. The Senate could shift in two years if we don't work on that lead and good legislation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. I like that! WHEN AND IF! It's the way you tell 'em.

[baby_mouse]

5. Oh, okay IF and WHEN.

Sorry.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. The fact that there is a Democratic majority doesn't

necessarily mean that either impeachment or conviction could garner the necessary votes. That's a whole lot of wheel spinning, I think. One charge leveled at the Clinton admin is that they dropped the ball on OBL because they were distracted by the impeachment hearings. I am concerned that something similar could happen in the future. I personally don't want to see GWB fail at the next two years just for the joy of watching it. I would rather see him reined in a whole lot and forced to work WITH the opposition and see something worthwhile come out of Congress. I would rather the history books say he got real after the 2006 elections and gave up the cowboy act. The phrase "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" comes to mind.

I guess this is the issue for the forseeable future here on DU. Maybe it needs its own forum eventually, like 9/11.

[baby_mouse]

6. Agreed, TG

I don't think the issues are at all as simple as the TRIAL NOW poeple seem to think. It's not really the same as a trial, it's much deeper and more symbolic, it'll be rife with conflations and will come to symbolise an entire viewpoint being on trial.

[Jawja]

7. Nicely put.

K&R. :thumbsup:

[rocktivity]

9. Impeachment if investigations produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't like Nancy Pelosi saying that impeachment is already off the table. Oversight is a congressperson's JOB. You don't ignore wrongdoing just because people might think you're motiviated by selfishness!

:headbang:
rocknation

[baby_mouse]

14. No, I didn't like that much either.

I don't think the situation has fully sink in yet.

The Dems now have SIGNIFICANT POWER. There is TIME TO CHOOSE how to spend that power. With some consideration, impeachment could look really damn good, tossing it out after a day or two was a leetle premature, although my instincts tell roughly, uh 65% that she's probably right.

It may take a little time to get out of the reactionary phase of "VICTORY!" after a long suffocation of powerless, to emerge into the constructive phase... actually getting down to work. This work could be impeachment (It should be, really, you are right), but I would want the impeachment to WORK, which will mean thinking about what it's FOR. It's not just a trial, and never will be.

There are other forms of oversight.

Basically, my position is that the country and 2008 are more important the GWB. Hamstringing the silly little bugger and USING the power the Dems now have COULD be more constructive. Find out what the populace want. If they want impeachment, smear the bastard against the wall with a sledgehammer and don't spare the sauce. If they want real CHANGE and not a symbolic castration of the right, you could still impeach, but there will be a cost... That's really all I mean.

Hey if it was simply down to me I'd have him up for War Crimes straight away but it's NOT down to me, we're not dealing with just one simple-minded criminal (much as we have enjoyed painting him), we're dealing with one simple minded criminal who happens to be the president of the most powerful nation in the world still supported by a *somewhat* significant proportion of his country and we're considering giving him a trial on TV when the TV sets are all pre-programmed to make him look all small and innocent and vulnerable...

[antonialee839]

16. I think Bush should be impeached, but I also think that this

is probably the right kind of attitude for Pelosi to have right now. Let's let the investigations take us where they may and perhaps the public will be so horrified with the results that they will demand impeachment. At least I think this may have crossed the minds of some of our congress members.

[baby_mouse]

19. I think this is a good deal more likely to work than just barging in with it.

In fact, this may very well be her leetle plan....

:-)

[mmonk]

10. And I'm curious, where is that line in the constitution?

[baby_mouse]

15. Sorry? NT

[FogerRox]

11. If we make the case for Impeachment & Removal

And if the the country supports Impeachment & Removal, then it will happen. And the first step is to investigate.

[baby_mouse]

20. In this fashion, victory will be assured. NT

[FogerRox]

23. YEs, for the good of the country

[Individualist]

13. The Constitution has priority over the will of the people,

and the Constitution mandates impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Don't piss on the Constitution the way the criminals in the White House have.

[baby_mouse]

18. Shrug.

I'm from a country with no Constitution with priority over the will of it's people.

Certainly it would be best if the Constitution and the will of people were in alignment. If they're NOT, there's a Problem. Don't look at ME, I would have no idea how to solve such a problem, I think probably the best way would be to work to bring the people back to sanity (if that's necessary, of course) and THEN impeach, otherwise there may be even worse pissing on the Constitution to come...

My point - check the alignment...

[grizmaster]

21. No, impeachment, when/if it is supported by THE EVIDENCE

if he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors and we don't act we're neglecting our responsibility to protect the Constitution

[mmonk]

22. And you're not going to present evidence

for impeachment without impeachment proceedings.

[baby_mouse]

24. I'm afraid you and I disagree.

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm from a country that has no Constituation.

In fact, I have to say this, generally speaking when the Consitutional rights of your citizens have ben violated, mostly what I hear about is the damage to the Constitution and NOT the damage to the citizens.

To *me*, this is odd.