What not to say.

[SheilaT]

I keep on reading posts suggesting we -- meaning Democrats -- push the idea that a Democratic Congress will impeach Bush. There are a lot of good people out there who may not like Bush a lot, but to whom the idea of impeachment just doesn't float.

If we keep on screaming that what we intend to do is get rid of Bush as soon as we hold the reins of power, it will give a lot of fence-sitters reason not to vote for Democratic candidates in November. Plus, of course, a lot of Democrats in Congress don't seem to have much of a backbone, and consider how much worse it will be with an actual President Cheney.

So let's just cool it, and work on electing Democrats, and then worry after the election what we'll do if and only if we actually control at least one house of Congress.

[enough already]

1. Impeachment NEEDS to happen

We should say exactly what we intend to do. As for Cheney, we'll get him right after we finish with the Chimp.

[SheilaT]

2. Even at the risk of losing?

Besides, we are not the ones who will be doing the actual impeachment. The House would pass the articles of impeachment, then there'd be a trial in the Senate. So we'd need both houses anyway.

As to blithely saying we'll get to Cheney as soon as we finish with Bush, THAT'S easier said than done.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I am **exceedingly** hawkish on impeachment, but I agree with you about ..

.... too-early rhetoric.

There are lots of people who decry our own leaders for not being overtly rabid to impeach. Such talk, in my mind, would be needlessly - and perhaps harmfully - inflamatory. That said, I am also rabid to impeach. And then to try in a court, and then to sentence, and then to punish with 'no options off the table'.

It seems to me that our best course right now, in advance of the midterms, is to simply call for accountability and hearings as appropriate.

And we all know that, should that occur in a Democratically controlled House, the evidence will be clear and irrefutable. With a Democratic Senate majority, impeachment would be the natural outcome.

It seems to me that a message, now, of just calling for oversight and accountability will be seen as appropriate and reasonable to the majority of citizens. The spin the Republicans will use to counter that will hint at impeachment. Our counter to *that* should be the same as their counter to all the spying/intrusiveness: 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'

[roseBudd]

13. Politics is like a poker game and you all are not wearing your poker face

[FormerDittoHead]

4. ...and don't say we will NOT... n/t

[kentuck]

5. Investigations have to precede everything.

The case has to be made and proven before anybody can be impeached...unless you are a Democrat that got a blow job.

[elocs]

6. Prepare to get flamed.

You are not allowed an alternate opinion to those who are shrilly screaming for impeachment now and still be considered a "real" Democrat. Impeachment is not conviction. Conviction will require 67 votes in the Senate and they are not there.

[SheilaT]

7. Aww, shucks.

It's not as if I haven't been flamed before. I constantly post counter opinions, but I have always refrained from personal attacks on those I disagree with.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what will be needed for conviction in the Senate.

[Independent_Liberal]

11. I have a tendency to "flame" people around here who try to say...

...that "impeachment isn't a good idea" or "be realistic and stop living in fantasy." Well, you can be realistic and be a fighter who won't give up no matter what at the same time. You can be realistic and a pessimist as well. I just have to tell people to keep fighting on no matter what.

And about impeachment and the 67 Senate vote requirement for conviction, initially you'd think it would just be a party-line thing, but here's something that DUer calipendence thought of. Once the Democrats get control of the one or both Houses and if they don't have a supermajority in the way of impeachment votes, just having control of both Houses means we have subpoena and investigative power that we don't have right now allowing us to find not only many wrongdoers in the Executive Branch, but ALSO many guilty parties in the House, Senate and Judicial Branch as well. So once all the investigations and proceedings are launched and manage to drag out all this evidence and criminally activity from all branches of the government, the people will rise up and demand that Bush and his administration be replaced. So the Democrats can give the Republicans this little plea agreement that "If you want to stay in the Senate past 2008 and in some cases stay out of prison, you can vote with us on this impeachment." So, by giving the Dems this temporary supermajority to convict BushCo on impeachment, they won't have to worry about the Dems ever having a supermajority under a Democratic president after 2008, one that could stifle filibusters and judicial impeachments on the Supreme Court.

For the Republicans, there would have to be a devil's scenario. The devil's scenario would be having both Bush and Cheney impeached and Pelosi taking over as president. Most likely it would start with Cheney being forced to resign so Bush can appoint an acceptable Republican as VP (like McCain) and then Bush is impeached or forced to resign and the acceptable Republican becomes president. Kind of like Nixon-Agnew-Ford. The criminal Republicans and Federal Judges who get investigated and prosecuted would rather still have some control over the Executive so they are more likely to get pardoned, though I'm generally against pardons and it's one of the reasons why so many people from Reagan's Iran Contra mess (like Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, etc.) keep turing up again in other people's administrations like this one for example.

Gotta go now. Talk to you soon.

[onenote]

8. Exactly right

[RangerSmith]

9. I think we aren't grasping the reality here

We aren't going to win the House because of our candidates or our stance, we will be winning because people are voting AGAINST these corrupt republicans.

If we use this opportunity to tangle up the govt in more red tape and partisanship... or the same old same old........ it will be a short lived stint.

We need to move forward and get things moving.

[SheilaT]

10. The problem as I see it is

that two years ago essentially every single poll indicated we'd win at least the Presidency. Bush's approval ratings were well below any level that resulted in re-election. Over and over again Republicans were stating out loud they weren't going to vote for him. John Zogby himself said on national TV just a few days before the election, said without any hesitation whatsoever, that Kerry was going to win. Exit polls on election day showed Kerry the winner.

And what happened? I won't bother to rehash it, nor will I stir up the whole thing about Kerry conceding long before all the votes were really counted.

If nothing else, I want people here to understand that we really are going to see same old same old in this election. Stolen votes. Complacent media. Underreporting of fraud and stolen votes. Dismissing of polls (especially exit polls) which indicate Democratic wins.

I agree we need to move forward. I just don't see exactly how to do that, given conditions.

[roseBudd]

12. I agree, a lame duck is much more practical, it is congress that makes

laws, a lame duck with a dem congress will be emasculated.