What's the absolute WORST that would happen if we impeached

[Mind_your_head]

the chimp (and the head 'chump' Cheney)....and it didn't 'work out'......what would be the WORST THAT WOULD HAPPEN????

[magellan]

1. Same as happened to the Repubs after they tried to impeach Clinton

There'd be a Dem president and Dem majority in both houses in '09.

[Mind_your_head]

3. ohhh....that would be 'tragic' .....tragic......

:sarcasm:

What else?

[onenote]

7. actually, if you want to play that game

the correct answer is that the Democrats would lose enough Senate seats to lose their majority by 2010 at latest and would have their House majority cut nearly in half by 2010. And there will be a Democrat in the White House only if you believe that this SCOTUS, in the case of a disputed election, will rule in favor of the Democrat.

[magellan]

11. Oh yes, instead of anticipating two years down the road

...let's get anxious about what lies ahead in four years. Hell, the 2020 elections are only 13 years off...the Dems better get concerned about those too!!

There's nothing more cowardly than supposed "leaders" letting fear of what MIGHT happen in the future keep them from doing what's right TODAY.

[madokie]

18. it sucks don't it that so many don't even want to try to get the votes

I for the life of me can't understand how anyone can say with any certainty what will happen. I don't give a hoot what might happen I know what is happening now and I want it stopped then we can go on about our business of getting the country back on track. Maybe I just have too much faith in our system I don't know

[magellan]

22. I've yet to hear a principled argument against impeachment

It's always about ensuring the Dems win in '08 and beyond (a perpetual excuse for not doing their jobs, if you ask me; I've certainly seen it used here again and again as justification to 'hold your nose and vote Dem', which doesn't wash with me anymore). It's also about 'how much of a distraction from the REAL work of the people' it would be.

'Real work'? Isn't what judges and lawyers do every day 'real work'? Or is bringing criminals to account for their crimes now considered detrimental to our country?

Quite honestly I despair of our system at this point. It isn't working. If it were, there'd be a lot more than ineffectual hearings and hand-wringing going on in Congress.

[madokie]

26. I agree

this illegal crew for the most part cut their teeth so to say with nixon and there has been several opportunities to stop them but they let them go and all the while they've gotten bolder and bolder until we're where we are today and its a pisser. Start the impeachment proceeding and let the chips fall where they may is what I say. if we lose we lose so be it at least we tried to stop them. piss on this pussy footing around and worrying about the next election lets worry about today today.

[pat_k]

37. . . .and what is so heartbreaking is. . .

. . .that impeachment is not just the RIGHT thing to do; it is the WINNING thing to do.

There is no "worst thing" that could happen because there is no downside. There are only rewards to be reaped, both morally and politically.

The "worst things" come with the failure to impeach. It is hard to imagine anything worse than surrendering our nation to fascism without a fight.

Bush and Cheney are proven outlaws. The only thing capable of stopping them is impeachment. Our so-called "leadership" has been pretending -- to us, and perhaps to themselves -- that something short of impeachment can stop the rogue administration. Reality is a harsh mistress. It is slapping them in the face. They are being steamrolled.

The only REAL fight the Congressional leadership can engage in is the fight to impeach and remove. All other "fights" are a sham. The American people can tell the difference and their disdain is being reflected in the polls.

In politics, the advantage goes to the offense. Accusing/impeaching is a consequential "attack" on specific grounds that cannot be ignored. If it goes to trial in the Senate, Republicans will be forced choose: vote with the accusers or vote to defend the indefensible. The only way they can escape is to force Bush and Cheney to nominate a confirmable successor and resign.

The number 1 problem destroying the Democratic Party is the perception that they are wimps. Refusing to "fight the good fight" just confirms that perception. Standing and fighting to enforce the dictates of our Constitution, and risking failure (Oh No!!), would demonstrate the kind of strength and commitment to principle the American people are hungry for.

The impeachophobes on the Hill are on a path of self-destruction. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2774207&mesg_id=2776731">It's heartbreaking in so many ways. For the sake of the nation, we must help them conquer their illness before they "hit bottom."

[ninkasi]

81. Any Dem who is for impeachment

earns my vote, and my support. I have very little money to spend, since my only source of income is Social Security, but what little I have goes to the Democrat who tries to get BushCheney impeached, tried, and convicted.

Hearing that "impeachment is off the table", especially when Dems give in to the DictatorTot's every whim, does not make me want to vote for that Democrat.

[A wise Man]

43. Especially when there is more evidence of pure corruption

with everyone in this administration. I don't like the ideal of them getting away with all the mess they've created in this country and the world, while laughing at us as they steal their " ILL GOTTEN BOOTY" from us all.

[Phredicles]

2. Nothing. Just like nothing's getting done now.

[Mind_your_head]

8. Nothing from nothing....means 'nothing'.....

....still trying to figure out why we haven't started impeachment procedures yet.

And I'm not gonna use the 'cute lil meme'.....<squeaky voice> "Impeachment is off the TAE-BULL"</squeaky voice>

There is NO GOOD REASON NOT TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEDEEDINGS.....THIS PRESIDENCY HAS TRULY COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES & MISDEAMEANORS....and HAVE TRULY RUN THIS COUNTRY AGROUND/AMOK!!!!<deep throated, hairy, muscle voice....if that's what it takes!>

[ddbaj]

4. Well

We would give a party that has nothing going for them an issue to run on in 2008. That the dems don't want to get things done and are just wasting time.

Impeachment with a not-guilty would be a disaster for the democratic party. If we could remove then it would be worth it, but impeaching when we KNOW we lack the votes to remove, by a long shot, is really a waste of time when so much needs doing and the democratic party would rightly suffer for it.

I believe a majority of Americans would back REMOVAL, but sadly that is not possible due to our system. I really doubt people would be happy with an impeachment that leads to no change at all. Work on getting our troops home and solving America's problems and winning in 08, impeachment does neither of those.

[Phredicles]

13. But the Democrats aren't getting anything done now.

I keep hearing "we should focus on getting things done". But NOT ONE GOD DAMN FUCKING THING is getting done as it is.

So just what are these wonderful other things that will magically get done as long as holding the greatest criminal enterprise in our countries history to account remains off the table? I have yet to hear a convincing explanation for such.

[Moochy]

49. Did you miss the cheerleading thread?

Contradicting your subject line? I left my pom poms in my locker, otherwise I'd be doing some handstands and human pyramids over in that thread.

[bobthedrummer]

5. A "pre-emptive" strategic nuclear strike on US from an "undisclosed location"??

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Captain Hilts]

6. We'd tie up the government and NOTHING else would get done for months.

The hearings would come to a screeching halt, the minimum wage bill would just flounder, etc. And there's that war over in Iraq....

The judiciary committee needs to be having hearings about Habeous Corpus and the goings on in DOJ.

It's a long and involved process. Barry Sanders - just today - said impeachment just isn't a good idea right now.

[Mind_your_head]

12. Hahaha.......

Hearings about Habeous Corpus.......that has been 'rule of law' for the last 800 years ....oh, the USA Congress can't make any PROGRESS on that!!

HAHAHA......*breathless* Barry Sanders......and YOU.......think (stupidly) that 'impeachment 'just isn't a good idea right now'

People like you.... I'd like to hurl into your soup......:puke: ;-)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mind_your_head]

16. That's an uncalled for comment....but I'll support your 1st Amendment

Right to say what ever comes across yur mind there. :-)

[Captain Hilts]

38. But if Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison say - as they did yesterday - that...

the long impeachment process - that there are not nearly enough votes to support - would bring to a halt a lot of important stuff going on right now - oversight hearings on surveillance, habeous corpus, and 'voter fraud'.

Barry Sanders probably would go for impeachment, but remember all the yardage he lost doing all those end arounds. They deduct those from your total. Let's not make that mistake here, no matter how deserving President Bush and Dick Cheney are.

[TahitiNut]

17. In other words, just as little as is getting done now? FIne with me.

:shrug:

[Poiuyt]

80. Didn't Barry Sanders retire from the Detroit Lions? Why should we care what he thinks?

Now Sen. Bernie Sanders is a different matter. But I still don't agree with him.

[mmonk]

9. You mean not getting a conviction in the Senate?

I don't think it matters. Impeachment hearings would FORCE the media to REVEAL the crimes against the constitution and US. It would be harder for the media to continue to hide or lie for them. I do know this. I'm very unhappy. This is clearly the most impeachable president at least in modern America. There is no way around that fact. Not impeaching IMO is a clear betrayal of trust just as the republican crimes. My trust in any political party is most likely over. I can still vote for honest democrats and will but I can no longer give the party apparatus money or trust or respect. This government is screwing us all up and our children's futures up. They've damned our name in history.

[magellan]

19. That's the best reason I can think of to impeach

The corporate media may be able to ignore the Dem's many hearings, but they will NOT be able to ignore impeachment proceedings and the American people will finally learn the whole truth of what BushCo has done. Then we'll get to see just how suicidal the Repubs in Congress really are.

[mmonk]

24. Yep. That's how I see it.

Congressional dems should never be afraid of the path of truth as an option. It would benefit them as well as the country.

[pinto]

10. The House grinds to a halt to consider articles, legislation gets

shelved, ongoing oversight action gets sidetracked, domestic appropriations lag, the war goes on...

And that's only in one chamber of the Congress. Even if articles were approved and sent on, Senate conviction won't happen.

I realize many stalwart Democrats favor impeachment, and for just cause. I just don't think the benefits justify tilting at the windmill of impeachment.

I favor cutting the right wing fanatics in the federal bureaucracy off from power at the middle layer on up, as far as possible. That is their strength. Looking to remove the joint leaders of the cabal may *not* be as effective as dismantling the structure they've fostered.

[Mind_your_head]

15. It's not like there's a whole lot of important/innovative legislation

going on right now.....it's just "tossing around the pork".

I'm not a stalwart Dem.....not by any stretch of the imagination. *I* FAVOR impeachment.....I *know* there are many more likeminded. Let's "Get the Party Started"!

There's no good reason NOT too!

[madokie]

20. impeachment today is the right thing for tomorrow

theres no way that can not be true, none.

[Mind_your_head]

21. Let's 'get the party started'

with or w/o Ms. Pelosi and the d*mned Dems.

We, the People, DEMAND it!

Peace (is not without some hardships),
M_Y_H

[madokie]

27. you got it.

what is happening on not impeaching the bastards is not right no way shape or form

[pinto]

23. (fwiw) 'A Congress That Acts' - Center for American Progress

GOVERNMENT
A Congress That Acts

The 110th Congress has now been in power for nearly six months. Despite facing critical challenges -- namely, a closely divided Senate and an obstinate, ideological president now eager to use his veto pen -- the new progressive Congress has achieved real, concrete results. The House of Representatives has passed all 10 bills it promised during the 2006 campaign, including enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, landmark lobbying and ethics reform, the first minimum wage increase in a decade, and a stem cell research expansion. The Senate has passed six of the 10; three others are currently being considered. (The White House has signed just two of the bills. It has vetoed or threatened to veto five.) Polls this week showed approval ratings for Congress sharply down after last month's controversial Iraq spending legislation. The country is undoubtedly frustrated that President Bush's conservative allies have blocked a major change in Iraq strategy. But on a wide array of issues, the 110th Congress is proving extremely effective at outmaneuvering conservatives, holding the Bush administration accountable, and winning key legislative victories.

PROGRESSIVES GETTING RESULTS: From tough new congressional ethics rules, bans on gifts from lobbyists, and the most transparent earmarking system ever established, Congress has honored its pledge for more openness and accountability. Both the House and Senate have voted to implement the critical recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which Bush and Congress selectively ignored for five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a cause that Bush has stubbornly vowed to veto for a second time. Congress is cleaning up the system in other ways -- creating new protections for government whistleblowers, requiring greater disclosure of presidential records, and more responsiveness from Freedom of Information Act requests. After a decade of delay, Congress approved a raise in the federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour, benefiting millions of Americans, and Bush signed the legislation last month. After the administration's mishandling of veterans care was exposed, Congress included billions more than the President requested for military health care and research in the 2007 Emergency Supplemental, which he also signed. The 110th Congress has restored necessary checks and balances, in contrast to the dangerous expansion of executive authority granted by previous Congresses. Just yesterday, Congress drove Bush to sign the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act, which repeals an obscure PATRIOT Act provision permitting the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys without Senate approval, a provision which is at the heart of the U.S. attorney scandal. Congress is also examining new ways to curb Bush's warrantless wiretapping system, which even FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledges is laden with "abuses and violations" of authority.

AGGRESSIVE OVERSIGHT: "You must ask the questions. You must do oversight if we're going to keep people honest, if we're going to provide the checks and balances that our Constitution envisions," House oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in a recent interview with The Progress Report. In the previous Congress, oversight of the executive branch was woefully neglected by Bush's conservative allies. For example, in the 108th Congress, the House Government Reform Committee held just 37 hearings described as "oversight," including "only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison." In the first five and a half months of 2007 alone, the committee has already held 33 hearings on previously ignored subjects such as, waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq Reconstruction; political influence on government climate change scientists; and the reliance on private military contractors. Overall, Congress has held more than 200 oversight hearings on issues related to the Iraq war alone. Aggressive efforts by the 110th Congress have already resulted in a bevy of resignations by scandal-plagued members of the executive branch. At the Justice Department, three top aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have resigned as part of the ongoing U.S. attorney scandal investigation. A week before an oversight hearing, Julie MacDonald of the Interior Department resigned amidst allegations that she had censored scientists. Following the revelations of neglect and abuse at Walter Reed Medical Center, the new Congress swept into action with hearings and oversight, resulting in the resignations of the Center's commander, the Army Surgeon General, and the Secretary of the Army -- accountability that was unlikely to happen in the previous Congress.

THE IMPACT OF IRAQ: Six weeks ago, the congressional leadership had a 54 percent approval rating; that rating has now dropped to 44 percent. Conservatives have been gloating over these numbers, stating that they show large-scale disapproval of Congress's priorities. "Democrats who control this floundering and roundly disapproved Congress are paying a painful price for the pleasure of defeating everything that could be construed as in any way an achievement by the president," wrote conservative pundit George Will. But the public's dissatisfaction with Congress is bipartisan; the approval rating for Republicans in Congress is just 36 percent. And as ABC News notes, the recent decline is almost entirely among people who "strongly oppose the war in Iraq." Congress's approval rating began to drop only after May 1, when Bush vetoed the Iraq war funding bill that set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Congress's approval rating fell the most dramatically when it sent a new war funding bill to the President that did not contain a withdrawal timetable, a reality that congressional leaders now acknowledge. "It's the war, I believe so, it's the war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who voted against the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) noted, "I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high." Earlier this week, Pelosi and Reid recommitted Congress to changing course in Iraq in a letter to Bush. "In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed," they wrote. "The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act now."


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/06/a_congress_that_acts.html

Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Who We Are

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We are creating a long-term, progressive vision for America—a vision that policy makers, thought-leaders and activists can use to shape the national debate and pass laws that make a difference.

Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President William J. Clinton and a professor at Georgetown University Center of Law.

[Mind_your_head]

28. Sorry to continue a theme, but "Ick"

The marketing/spin guy who wrote the first paragraph (can't get beyond that) is a future history book author based in Tex-US in the making.....:eyes:

[pinto]

31. No need to apologize. Here's their list of principals:

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Carol Browner, Principle, The Albright Group
Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation
Peter Lewis, Chairman, The Progressive Corporation
Cheryl Mills, SVP for Operations and Administration, New York University
Aryeh Neier, President, Open Society Institute
John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
Marion Sandler, Co-Chair of the Board and Co-CEO, Golden West Financial
Hansjörg Wyss, Chairman and CEO, Synthes-Stratec

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND
Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Judith Feder, Dean, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute
Broderick Johnson, Vice President of Federal Relations, BellSouth
Ron Klain, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Revolution LLC
Tom Perez, Councilmember, Montgomery, MD County Council
John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
Hilary Rosen, Former Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS TRUSTEES
Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
John Adams, Past President and Founding Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State and Principal, The Albright Group
Judith Areen, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Georgetown University Law Center
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President, AFL-CIO
Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander
John Deutch, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Judith Feder, Dean, Georgetown School of Public Policy
Harvey Gantt, former Mayor of Charlotte, NC
Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Bill Ivey, Director, Vanderbilt University Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy
Broderick Johnson, Vice President of Federal Relations, BellSouth
Bob Kerrey, former Senator and President, New School University
Ron Klain, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Revolution LLC
Bill Lann Lee, former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
Dan Leeds, President and Managing Partner, Fulcrum Investments
Judith Lichtman, Former President, National Partnership for Women and Families
Enrique Moreno, Sole Practitioner, Law Offices of Enrique Moreno
Philip Murphy, National Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee
Tom Perez, Councilmember, Montgomery, MD County Council
F. Noel Perry, Managing Director, Baccharis Capital Inc.
Hilary Rosen, Former Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America
Harley Shaiken, Professor, University of California at Berkeley
Anna Deavere Smith, Professor, New York University Tisch School of the Arts
Robert Solow, Institute Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Ph.D., President, Chicago Theological Seminary
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland
Laura Tyson, Dean, London Business School
Roderick von Lipsey, Vice President, Private Wealth Management, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Akila Weerapana, Assistant Professor, Economics, Wellesley College

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer
Melody Barnes, Executive Vice President for Policy
Sarah Wartell, Executive Vice President for Management and General Counsel
Laura Nichols, Senior Vice President for Communications and Strategy

SENIOR STAFF
Cassandra Q. Butts, Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy
Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy
Debby Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Development
David Halperin, Senior Vice President and Director, Campus Progress
Andrew Sherry, Senior Vice President for Online Communications
Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs
Neera Tanden, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Debbie Fine, Counsel
Michele Jolin, Senior Advisor
Brad Kiley, Vice President of Finance and Operations
Susan Lee, Vice President for Economic Policy
Jennifer Palmieri, Vice President of Communications
Peter Rundlet, Vice President for National Security and International Affairs

DISTINGUISHED SENIOR FELLOW
Sen. Tom Daschle

SENIOR FELLOWS AND FELLOWS
Mark Agrast
Eric Alterman
George L. Askew
Spencer P. Boyer
Alyssondra Campaigne
Aaron Chatterji
P.J. Crowley
Maria Echaveste
Robert Gordon
Nina Hachigian
Morton H. Halperin
John Halpin
Bracken Hendricks
Thomas Kalil
Brian Katulis
Lawrence J. Korb
Jeanne Lambrew
Scott Lilly
Mark Lloyd
Carl Malamud
Denis McDonough
Matthew Miller
Jonathan Moreno
Suzanne Nossel
Hilary Pennington
Joe Romm
Fred Rotondaro
Mara Rudman
Shira Saperstein
Gayle Smith
Gene Sperling
Todd Stern
Peter Swire
Ruy Teixeira
Dan Tarullo

SPECIAL ADVISOR
Ivo Daadler

VISITING FELLOWS
Lisa Eckenwiler
Michelle Lewis
Bill Schulz

As of July 2006

[Mind_your_head]

25. Okay.....I'm going to ask this question EVERY DAY.....from now until January 19-20, 2009

"What's the absolute WORST that would happen if we impeached the chimp (and the head 'chump' Cheney)....and it didn't 'work out'......what would be the WORST THAT WOULD HAPPEN????"




?

[pat_k]

56. Impeachment is NOT a "one shot" deal.

If they vote out a charge (e.g., abusing signing statements to nullfy McCains anti-torture amendment), and the Senate fails to render a verdict consistent with the truth, they pick another charge and vote out articles on that.

Bush and Cheney have been waging open war on the Constitution on so many fronts, they could vote out articles of impeachment every month.

And if the 110th Senate fails to remove, the 111th can vote out articles and call on the Senate to render a verdict "in absentia."

The only way we lose -- the only way it "doesn't work out" -- is if we stop fighting.

The USA has been turned into a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. Until We the People unequivocally reject the acts of this rogue regime, we remain a War Criminal nation. If we fail to impeach, we allow the Big Lie of unitary authoritarian power to stand. It won't matter if the new Unitary Authoritarian Executive is a Democrats or a Republican.

And if you think a Democratic President can simply "restore" the Constitution, think again. Believing the American presidency has the power to "restore" the Constitution is just the flip side of the fascist fantasy that the American presidency can nullify by fiat.

The power to impeach is the power to assert our sovereign will and enforce the dictates of our Constitution. We charged the Office of the President with the duty to execute our will. We remain alienated from our power if we look to a given occupant of the to Office "save us." To reclaim our power we must save ourselves.

[LanternWaste]

70. I can't really argue with anything in your post, but...

I can't really argue with anything in your post, but I'm still of the mind that impeachment proceedings against the current administration will, after all is said and done, be more advantageous to the GOP, as they seem to be much better at gaming the system and speaking in a unified voice.

Personally, I'd have moments of pure, visceral joy watching members of this administration testify before congress and the appropriate subcommittees. However, I still think the GOP is better than we are at playing the game, re-writing the message, getting that message to its base, and using that message to unify and strengthen its voting base; which would (I believe) cause much more harm than good.

:hi:

[pat_k]

85. Why Dems fail (and why impeachment is the cure)

The truth has a power of its own. No matter how "good" the Republican noise machine may be, the truth eventually breaks through, as it has with the criminal occupation, horror of Katrina, corruption of our institutions, and the things driving the public's anger at Bush. No amount of propaganda is putting the genie back in the bottle.

The Democrats fail to galvanize the public because they are obsessed with what "they" (the fascists) will do or say. They suffer terrible case of "battered Democrats syndrome." If we hope to recover, our fears about how "they" will react cannot be allowed to play a role in our decisions. Deciding whether or not to stand and fight for our most treasured principles must be based solely on whether or not the goal is worth fighting for. We must go on the offense. We must stop allowing our attackers keep us on the defense.

In addition to the tendency to cower, waiting for the next blow, the rationales and self-defeating tendencies that pervade the Democratic establishment have been so intractable because they are rooted in the type of people Democrats tend to be. Under the guise being realistic, careful, dispassionate, and rational, we find we the seeds of immobility, abandoned principles, and weakness.(If you're interested in more on that, see http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">Saving Ourselves from Ourselves.)

The only thing the Republicans are "better at" is going on the attack. They have no qualms about demonizing people. Democrats tend to be reluctant when it comes to accusation and punishment. They challenge concepts, not people. They "take the high ground" and go after evil beliefs, not the people who promote those beliefs. When officials corrupt the system, Democrats seek only to "expose." They "move on" and declare their intent to "fix the system" and "make sure it doesn't happen again."

Wrong-doers could care less about being "exposed" or "caught" if they don't suffer any real consequences or punishment. Corruption will continue when corrupt people have no reason to fear being caught. And they aren't going to fear being caught when nobody who has been caught red-handed has been stopped or suffered any consequences at all. (Bush and Cheney publicly declare their crimes every time they invoke the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive.)

Whether we like it or not, an interpersonal realm of heroes and villains is far more compelling than an abstract world of concept and process. If our so-called "leaders" want to engage people, they muse to be willing to accuse, unequivocally. Instead of just "making sure it doesn't happen again," they must learn to go after those who corrupt our government and make sure they get the punishment they deserve.

Democrats fail to inspire because they get lost in detail and complexity when broad strokes are needed. They focus on specific "issues" and programs rather than the principles and goals behind the specifics. They refuse to assert absolute knowledge when they have all the facts they need to do so.

The Democratic Party is populated by people who tend to operate on knowledge. The Republican Party is populated by people who tend to operate on belief. For "knowledge people" conclusions are based on factual and logical cases. Conclusions are theories that get tested against reality. For "belief people" conclusions are beliefs. Period. They are adopted whole cloth from the people they associate and identify with. Just listen to Rush for 10 minutes. He spouts a series of conclusions. He never "makes the case."

When "everybody knows" something belief people just jump on board. This is why we often see big swings in polls. When a critical of mass of people see the truth (when "everybody knows"). belief people jump on the band wagon.

We are at the point where "everybody knows" Bush is violating the Constitution. (Or the euphemism for it, "overreaching,") The only problem is that the Democrats refuse to do anything about it. They "expose" but refuse to actually "support and defend" by accusing/impeaching and seeking to take him out. (Impeachment is not punishment. It's defense -- it stops the subversion by removing the power to do subvert. Prosecution and punishment are for the courts, not Congress. But the fact that so many Republicans will continue to see it as punishment, no matter how many times they hear the truth, is beneficial politically. Repubs tend to be more attracted to retribution than Dems.

Another thing Dems suck at is demonstrating strength.. Being clear. Demanding action. Sticking to their guns. Fighting the good fight, win or lose. Americans value these qualities, for good reason. A person cannot be an effective leader without them. (Any legitimate support Bush once had was grounded in the carefully crafted "strong leader" image -- and image that has fallen apart. He has become a whiner. The Pariah in Chief.)

There is no escape from the reality that their failure to impeach is a violation of their oath to "support and defend." That is the real "bottom line."

Impeachment is the cure for what ailes the Democratic Party.

Doing the right thing should be easy because impeaching Bush and Cheney is an unprecedented opportunity for our Democratic "leaders" to demonstrate strength and moral certainty, and to BE EFFECTIVE. Impeachment is going after the villains. Accusing the villains and seeking to "take them out" would make them heroes. They would take on the role as champion. And the "ideas" they would be champions of couldn't be more inspiring. (At least I can't think of anything more inspiring than defending the People's Government, the principle of consent, and the Constitution that embodies our most treasured values.)

The vast majority of Americans are Anti-Bush. Those people are not going back. And any remaining supporters are increasing silent. It is not "all about" stopping the War. The war is part of a cloud of "badness" that surrounds the outlaws in the White House.

It is never "good politics" to suppress and hide from the truth. But that is precisely what the Democrats are doing when they fail to impeach. To refuse to ones duty because they fear political consequences is the kind of cowardice that Americans disdain. Whatever you may think of the public at large, they know when someone is not being genuine. (Tragically, fascists who are genuine fascists can go far.)

It is a willingness euphemize, equivocate, and fail to stand up for principle and truth that is destroying the Democratic Party. It is never "good politics" to be complicit in crime. Despite being smacked in the face with this lesson repeatedly. The political damage of supporting the Authorization to Use Military Force will haunt them for years to come. The damage done by their failure to impeach Reagan and Bush is immeasurable -- it made our current horrors possible.

I'll end with a reference to a great article by Robert Parry, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html">Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!

[MadBadger]

29. Lose One or both houses of Congress and The presidency.

[Mind_your_head]

30. The people don't have the ear/heart of Congress or the presidency NOW....

...so what's to lose? :shrug:

[MadBadger]

32. if you can deal with another Republican administration, then fine, but I cant.

[Mind_your_head]

34. What if your brand new shiny gubmint has a "D" behind their name....

....but lives/dies by the same ole 'R' policies? And do/can you identify the differnces between traditional "D" and "R" policies?

I think if I were to take such a test right now, I might fail...so, I'm not 'calling you out', in particular.

[MadBadger]

35. See I'm one of the people that sees a difference between the Dems and the Reps.

A huge and massive difference.

[pat_k]

41. Then we'd better impeach, or, just like 1987, you'll see a Repub sworn iit.

They were sure the White House was theirs for the taking in 1986 too. They proved their impotence by refusing to impeach. And then they watched, scratching their heads, as Poppi was sworn in.

Their failure then made the horrors of our current crisis possible.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results.
--Unknown

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=142357&mesg_id=142901">It's like Deja vu all over again.

In politics, Strong and Wrong bests Weak and Right every time. And it crushes Weak and Wrong (what the Dems will be if they fail to impeach).

The choice is simple:

Impeach and be strong.

Refuse and be wrong.

Impeach to Win, Refuse, You Lose.

[KharmaTrain]

33. 67 Votes...

An impeachment without a conviction is a waste of time and resources. Resources that are currently being used to investigate all the other crimes happening with this regime. Impeachment would turn into a media circus that would cloud the real reasons for the action with personalities and the constant corporate media harping of how the "Democrats want to overturn an election".

Clinton was able to launch the military action in Kosovo after his "impeachment"...ya think a failed impeachment would stop boooshie boy from going after Iran or continue to plunder the constitution? If anything, he'd feel, to use Darrel Hammond's term regarding Clinton beating his impeachment..."I'm bulletproof".

In the meantime what little is being done by Congress and the investigating would come to a halt...and many of the real crooks in this regime will slip away as people will prefer to just "get this thing over with" rather than do the hard investigating and holding not just one figurehead or two accountable, but everyone in this regime.

Impeachment is POLITICAL, not a criminal proceding...not judged on facts or merit as much as party label. The crimes of the last 7 years require real prosecution and prosecutors...real juries and verdicts...not some made-for-TV spectacle.

[pat_k]

39. = cowardly rationalization.

They believe they "have the votes" to vote out articles of impeachment. They are just refusing to do it.

If they finally stand up and send articles up to the Senate, we could see Bush and Cheney resign in a week. We may never find out whether or not they "had the votes" in the Senate. Republicans will be pulling out all the stops to escape being forced to defend the Pariah in Chief.

When specific charges are "on the table" -- charges Senators MUST pass judgment on (unless they escape by forcing Bush and Cheney to resign) -- the outcome is wide open. We have NO IDEA how many will be more than happy to "distance" themselves by tossing Bush and Cheney overboard or how many will be willing to stand and defend torture and the unitary authoritarian executive's "right" to render Congress powerless (i.e., nullify the laws they pass with the stroke of a pen; violate U.S. Code at whim; pick and choose the laws they enforce or ignore. . . they've done it all).

Declaring the fight a "waste of time" is the opposite of reality. The fight for impeachment, an extremely WINNABLE fight, is the ONLY thing that is NOT "waste of time.

If the Senate fails to render a verdict consistent with the truth, the stain is not on the ones who fought to remove, it is on the ones who corrupted the verdict.

Giving criminals cover is NEVER good politics. And failure to accuse gives them cover ("We aren't breaking the breaking the Constitution; if we were, would Pelosi have taken impeachment 'off the table.")

In politics the offense has the advantage. Accusing/impeaching forces the fascists into a defensive position.

Standing and fighting for principle, and risking failure, wins points with the American people.

They promised us a REAL fight. They've delivered SHAME fights.

Americans can tell the difference between "fighting the good fight" and playing games.

The American people want Bush stopped. Now. Impeaching Bush and Cheney is the ONLY way to give us what we want. The fight to impeach and remove is the only fight that counts. They deliver that fight, whatever the outcome, they are delivering on their promise.

The price of continuing the pretense that something short of impeachment can stop the outlaws will be high. Reality is already smacking them in the face. Let's hope it wakes them up before their failure to impeach destroys them.

The choice is simple.

They can fight and be heros Or apease and be disdained.

They can fulfill their oath to "support and defend",
break their bonds of complicity,
AND reap enormous political rewards by demonstrating strength and commitment to principle.

Or

They can be derelict in their duty,
continue to give Bush and Cheney cover,
AND pay a high political price for their weakness and moral confusion.

[Moochy]

44. Great Post!

"Cowardly rationalization" is an apt description of the stench that passes for "pragmatism" around here.

[pat_k]

61. Certain tendencies on "our side" often make us our own worst enemies.

http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">Saving Ourselves from Ourselves

[TahitiNut]

73. ZERO votes is the worst.

Opponents of impeachment are ensuring ZERO votes to remove ... and I'd rather have 40, 50, or 60 votes than NONE!!

[KharmaTrain]

78. Zero Convictions Are Even Worse

If the votes were there to convict and it wouldn't shut the government down, I'd say let's ram through the impeachment and get this puppy over with...however, we know this isn't where things are.

I'm more concerned with letting the real crooks get away...the Rumsfelds and Roves and Mehlmanns and all the other real "dons" in this mafia. And that's just the top strata...the criminality runs deep and to focus on just the head without going after the real criminals is a travesty.

We saw with Watergate and Iran-Contra, when the crimes go from criminal to political, the criems go un-punished and the real criminals come back to plunder another day.

Now, how are "opponents" (which I assume I am) ensuring Zero votes? Even if I could ensure 65 that still enables boooosh to continue plundering. I'd love to see this regime frog-marched out of the White House...the sooner the better. But I also want thorough justice...not some political fiasco in the hands of spineless politicians who could care less about facts or getting the truth.

Cheers...

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Government grinds to a halt and we can't negotiate the budget

Meaning we can't increase spending on many vital programs that the Bush admin has cut funding for.

[pat_k]

40. Forcing the rogue regime to "grind to a halt" is a GOOD THING.

Under rule by signing statement, what good is "increasing funding" to Departments that have been completely corrupted by the outlaws in the White House?

What good is passing legislation for Bush to nullify with a signing statement. They passed McCain's anti-torture amendment 90-9. That didn't stop Bush from nullifying it.

Leaving the massive power of the American presidency in the hands of outlaws who are abusing that power to turn the USA into a war criminal nation that illegally spies on it's own citizens is itself a crime against our constitutional democracy.

There is no downside. There is nothing that could possibly be worse than surrendering our nation to fascists without a fight.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. The rope would be the wrong length?

Or maybe the chains would be the wrong size?

[Lil Missy]

45. The next Democratic President would be impeached as retaliation

[dogday]

46. They don't need no stinkin retaliation to do that... These people

are mean and will try anything regardless of what we do... I am so tired of hearing what the right might do... They will do it, no matter what...

[A wise Man]

48. You gotta hand it to those Bastards

If this was a Democratic President with the same conditions as that of Bush and his administration, he or she would not only be impeached but tried and convicted of treason....and they wouldn't think twice about the outcome or what the Democrats would do nor what they think.

[dogday]

51. Those Bastards are pure evil and I would never want

to be part of what they do... They are stripping this country and it's people of everything that is good.... Nixon was the one who introduced legislation for HMO's... Regan made a record talking about how good it is.... Republicans kept Hillary from passing a universal health care plan for this country when she was first lady.


I don't hand it to them, they are evil and the me myself and I party can kiss my butt...

[A wise Man]

54. That was a metaphoric statement

maybe I should have written "YOU GOTTA ADMIT". You are correct, they are evil hateful bastards that believe in the party rather than the constitution or country.

[Lil Missy]

53. Excellent point

[LibDemAlways]

62. The ink won't be dry on the next Dem President's

inaugural address before they begin impeachment proceedings. It makes no difference what happens to Bush. They have their own agenda.

[Moochy]

47. What better reason to ignore treason

than for the preservation of future power...
:eyes:

[Lil Missy]

52. I'm not saying it's right or I like the idea.

It's just the political reality of things.

I personally would love to see the whole cabal impeached and publicly hanged.

[Moochy]

55. It bears repeating though

Ignoring treason to preserve or increase power, even if done in the name of a greater good, is treason.

Supporting treasonous politicians seems like the wrong course, whichever party.

[Lil Missy]

58. I know you make a good point and you are right. I do.

I think an am just too numb and jaded by the years of unfairness and crimes of the repubes to think clearly anymore.

[pat_k]

57. How does allowing the USA to remain a War Criminal nation prevent. . .

. . .a fascist faction from finding a pretense on which to impeach?

How does appeasing fascists keep them from attacking at will?

This is not about THEM. This is about US.

The power to impeach is the power to enforce the dictates of our Constitution. We delegated that power to the men and women who we elect to serve as Our Voice. The power to impeach is of absolute necessity to maintaining our sovereignty over the officials in the executive and the judiciary who we have charged with certain duties.

If Our Congress abuses that power, it is up to us to see the abusers replaced.

With her "off the table" edict, Pelosi is attempting to strip us of our enforcement power. It is an attempt to render us powerless to assert our sovereignty. Abusing her power to put down any Member who threatens to champion impeachment is more destructive to the integrity of our constitutional democracy than the cynical misuse of impeachment to advance the agenda of a given faction.

Unless she wakes up and takes up the fight for impeachment, we need to do everything we can to replace her.

[Lil Missy]

59. The question I answered was "What is the worst that would happen if we impeach *

I answered that in my opinion it would result in impeachent of the next Democratic President. I believe that to be true of these vicious and lawless motherfuckers.

The question was not "Should" we impeach, or why.

[pat_k]

60. Since failing to impeach is worse than such "retailation". . .

. . .the risk of retaliation doesn't constitute a "downside."

If that's the worst thing that could happen, we have absolutely no reason to refrain from impeachment.

Which is the point of the question -- to expose reality. No risk we may fear can compare to the consequences of surrendering our nation to war criminals without a fight.

Apologies for responding as if you were asserting "retaliation" as a reason not to impeach. Tragically, the risk of retaliation is something that many actually do assert to justify Pelosi's "off the table" edict. I jumped into "challenge" mode when it wasn't warranted.

My bad. :patriot:

[Rosemary2205]

50. President Sam Brownback??

[LanternWaste]

63. My hypothesis...

The vote to remove from office would fail by a large margin, it would allow the administration the opportunity to re-galvanize its base resulting in the Republic's reclaiming the house, senate and whitehouse in '08.

[pat_k]

64. Or, Repub Senators, loathe to defend the Pariah in Chief, . . .

. . .pull out all the stops to force Bush and Cheney to nominate a confirmable successor and resign. They are outta there the week after the Articles pass the House. President Danforth is sworn in. There is dancing in the streets. . .

Or

It goes to Senate trial. Too many Republicans are willing to defend the indefensible to remove the outlaws. The House votes out another set of articles, the Republicans are again on the ropes, scrambling to defend "the decider's" right to usurp the power of Congress and violate the Constitution and U.S. Code at whim, "to protect us". . .

In either case. . .

Congressional approval goes through the roof because the Democratic leadership has FINALLY demonstrated strength and commitment to our most treasured principles.

Every Democratic candidate gets a boost relative to their Republican rivals because the entire Party has finally defined an overarching message that inspires Americans across the political spectrum -- they have become the champions of the Constitution and the People's Government!

Democratic registrations skyrocket as people who had given up and opted out feel hope again. . .

Impeachment is the ONLY thing capable of stopping Bush and Cheney. Win or lose, the fight to impeach is the ONLY fight that's REAL. All else is sham. The American people can tell the difference.

[ComerPerro]

65. You mean aside from not being able to pass anything else,

looking like partisan hacks, and being called a "do-nothing" congress?

Hmm...

[pat_k]

66. . . .pass anything else for "the decider" to nullify with a signing statement. . .

Impeachment is the ONLY thing capable of stopping Bush and Cheney. Win or lose, the fight to impeach is the ONLY fight that's REAL. All else is sham. The American people can tell the difference. Their disdain is already reflected in polls. Nancy 'off the table' Pelosi and Harry "we'll get Cheney" Reid have earned the lowest Congressional approval in a decade.

Their approval is lower than Bush's.

That takes some doing.

[ComerPerro]

68. Impeachment will pass easily, but you will never convict.

[pat_k]

69. So? What's the problem with fighting for treasured principles. . .

. . .win or lose?

Amd. BTW, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1137128&mesg_id=1138492">don't be so sure they will "never convict."

[onenote]

71. really? easily? With 30 plus Blue Dog Democrats?

A few weeks ago, 59 Democrats voted against a bill to redeploy US troops. I don't think it will be that "easy" to get a majority to impeach. Hell, only eight members have been willing to put their names on the resolution proposing to impeach Cheney.

[martymar64]

79. So we should just ignore their crimes?

Real courageous stand you have there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Dear, dear, some of our "leaders" might be embarrassed.

Tsk, tsk.

[bunkerbuster1]

72. I suppose his popularity could rise to 60 percent or higher

like Clinton's did after Congress impeached him.

I don't think that'll happen, but if there were an outpouring of sympathy (and don't think the corporate media don't have it in them to orchestrate it) it'd be the worst thing, I guess. It'd re-legitimize Bush as "President" for the remainder of his term.

[Senator]

74. Comparing with Clinton is Oxymoronic

(Note: And BTW, it's exactly what the Euphemedia is training people to think/fear. So it is not my intent to single out this poster. In fact, this post is a cut and paste -- including this note.)

It's not just apples and oranges, the circumstances are diametrically opposite.

Clinton was a popular, twice-elected president -- impeached for less-than-trivial reasons -- by a party in danger of being seen as extremists (since having been proven).

Bushcheney is an unpopular, never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- being impeached for torture/war crimes, spying on Americans, and/or terrorizing the nation into war -- by a party that might be in danger of being seen as conscious or vertebrate (currently being disproven).

Realistically, we can expect "Reverse Clinton" results. Perhaps even on conviction/removal.

--

[bunkerbuster1]

75. Probably right. I was just thinking of the worst that could happen.

Obviously, I can think of truly worse stuff, like a nuclear holocaust...

[lonestarnot]

76. Now that is bushit and you know it. LOL

[GOTV]

77. Bush's behavior would be officially sanctioned for him and all future presidents...

... so it's imperative to do your homework before taking the test. Make sure you have all your ammo at hand and your weapon loaded before you point your impeachment at anyone.

Right now we don't have the ammo we need. Our goal should be to get that ammo, not to pull the trigger.

[ContraBass Black]

82. The whole world might explode

Or something.

[BlueStater]

83. Defending the fucking Constitution is NEVER a "waste of time".

I feel sick. I don't recognize my own country anymore. They might as well rip the Constitution up right now and use it as toilet paper because they killed it.

It's been a fine 220 years but it's apparently coming to a close.

RIP The Constitution of the United States of America (1787-2007).

[krispos42]

84. He arrests enough Congresscritters and put them in Gitmo...

to prevent a quorum from being called, halting all legislation and gutting Congress.

Hopefully the military or the National Guard would then decide to imprison them both, free Nancy Pelosi, and make her swear the Oath.