What if it's the REPUBLICANS who initiate impeachment?

[ecstatic]

In fact, such a move would be brilliant on their end.

Are we really going to let them beat us to the punch? How would that make us look?

[mod mom]

1. I agree, this would give the GOP an advantage toward the '08 election, despite

their previous lockstep. Dems MUST make the initial blow.

[Warpy]

2. I think he needs to be impeached by his own party

otherwise Limpbag will have the faithful howling and shrieking about partisanship and payback for Clinton. Remember, they call themselves "dittoheads" and are proud of never having to think about anything.

[ClassWarrior]

7. So what? Why do you care what they think?

NGU.

[Warpy]

17. I care because they won't stay home on election day 2008

like they did this year.

Otherwise, no, I don't really care. They're nuts.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Sorry, but that's plain backwards...

We should strategize how to get MORE people out to vote, not less. This generally-accepted concept that discouraging voting is good for democracy is seriously wrong.

NGU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Guess that sums it up.

[Montauk6]

4. That would be quite the Hail Mary pass on their part

[NYCGirl]

It took the Republicans to get rid of Nixon.

And who cares how it looks, as long as it's done!

[ClassWarrior]

9. Yes, in a last-minute act of desperation. They didn't initiate it though.

And the public understood this.

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

13. They knew it was imminent — so they did what they had to.

And it was right.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Isn't that what I said?

B-)

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

16. Yes.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

24. I thought so.

:hi: you...

NGU.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I really don't care who does it.

Republicans, Rastafarians, Antidisestablishmentarians, whatever. I just want somebody to do it.

[rodeodance]

28. me either. I just want it to be his 'legacy"

[bobbolink]

38. Sign me up in your column.

But add... the Girl Scouts.

:) :hi:

[muntrv]

6. I'd be enjoying the infighting.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Canuckistanian]

8. Interesting question.

There are some signs of it happening. But Democrats MUST take the lead on this. Otherwise, the *real* reason for impeachment will be lost.

[knight_of_the_star]

10. So?

Does it matter? Bush serves our purposes better as a captive target for investigations and two years of neutering anyway. May as well propose opening a ski resort in Egypt.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Yes, what damage could he POSSIBLY do in two years?...

:eyes:

NGU.

[ecstatic]

15. The implications would be tremendous- we would look weak

as the "strong, take-charge" repugs clean up *s mess. What's more, if THEY are the ones who bring all of *s crimes to the forefront, how will that square with Pelosi's "impeachment off the table" comments?

[Canuckistanian]

19. But an example must be made

A precedent, a warning to all others that contemplate this path.

America is not for sale.

You'd think that Watergate would be enough.

[bobbolink]

39. It's not really an "example"... It's a simple question of Justice

Crime must not go without consequences.

This is particularly important for Dems, that we not again be the party of "soft on crime".

"You'd think that Watergate would be enough."

Not to mention Iran/Contra!

NEVER AGAIN!

[MADem]

58. There is a very fancy one in Dubai, actually....

It is entirely indoors.


http://www.ameinfo.com/98471.html

[Kiouni]

12. they would lose the last 30%

of the fundies if they did that and thats all they got going for them.

[David Zephyr]

18. Don't be surprised if that happens.

Once the already planned hearings and investigations by the House and Senate begin, the ugly truth will begin to come out in one sworn statement after the next all televised to the American people.

And then the Republicans will act just as they did in the 1970's during the Watergate hearings. They will begin to openly talk about impeachment.

It must happen.

[tridim]

20. They can't do it without the Dems

And the Dems hold all the leadership posts. It really doesn't matter who initiates it, because the Dems will run it.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Who initiates it will go down in history

Democrats must not be on the weak side.

[tridim]

29. "History" is different than it was in Nixon's day

Lots of Dem politicians, groups, states, blogs and people have already called for Bush's impeachment, and it's all documented on the Internets.

Wikipedia is a history book.

[Canuckistanian]

35. Nope. History is history, 100 years from now

I'm talking legacy here. Does Harding look any better to you now than at the time of the Teapot Dome scandal?

[crickets]

41. Reality check

Who initiates it will go down in history. Democrats must not be on the weak side.

THANK YOU.

[MADem]

22. They can't. They cannot initiate anything, just as we couldn't when they had it all.

They can use their :rofl: moral :rofl: authority, but that won't get them down the Capitol steps!!!

[ecstatic]

25. Scenario: Maverick McCain demands impeachment, all the while Pelosi still insists that impeachment

is off the table. We hold a few investigations and then :wow: we find out * has committed dozens of crimes.

Then like good followers we oblige--we give McCain his impeachment wish--or at least-- that is the way it will appear to the general public.

Then McCain is a shoo-in for 2008---the centrist Republican who saved democracy. :puke:

[MADem]

30. Impeachment starts in the House. McCain would be overstepping, first, and second, he'd be cutting

off his nose to spite his face if he tried that.

When he trolls for votes, he's going for the BushCo nitwits who have stuck with the monkey, along with the disaffected evangelicals who have fallen by the wayside. He's also hoping to grab independents and a few nonthinking Dems, but his conduct of late is pushing those latter groups away.

He's busy hanging himself with his own lack of support for basic human progressive causes, and his absurd support of this failed war.

Last, not least, his wife is not a hundred percent. She's not gonna be as much help to him, and she was a huge asset in the past.

But it isn't for a SENATOR to call for impeachment. They can deliver the bad news once the conclusion is foregone, like Goldwater did to Nixon, but the process starts in, and belongs to, the House. They investigate, and they determine...once that's done, it's handed off to the Senate.

[ClassWarrior]

26. K&R because we need to consider this possibility.

:kick:

NGU.

[MADem]

32. It'll only happen if thirty one Democrats get hit by a bus. It's impossible.

Anything that happens in the House for the next two years will be initiated by the DEMOCRATS, not the GOP.

[ClassWarrior]

33. It may be implausible to your mind, but in today's Lewis Carroll...

...political world, nothing's impossible.

NGU.

[MADem]

34. You're suggesting thirty one Democrats, all from GOP stronghold states, will drop dead?

We aren't talking about the Senate by a thread, we OWN the House.

[ClassWarrior]

36. You're suggesting there's no possible way...

...they could be influenced by the RW's "Mighty Wurlitzer?"

Again, it's probably implausible, but not at all impossible.

NGU.

[MADem]

45. Now you're moving the goalposts. The thread is about the GOP initiating impeachment.

Not a small group of 31 Democrats becoming 'influenced.'

Quite frankly, "they" (whoever they are) would be influenced by the RW "Mighty Wurlitzer" only once, if ever. We have a whip, a majority leader, and a Speaker who issue strategic commands and count votes, and we also, like the opposition, have a way of handling traitorous bastards--we cut off their funding when they run for reelection, and we put up a well-funded and charismatic candidate in opposition in the primary.

[ClassWarrior]

47. The OP says nothing about HOW they might initiate it. As a matter of fact...

...in post #25, the same poster provides a perfectly legitimate scenario whereby the Rape-Publicans could start the ball rolling via their Corporate Media Whores. Again, probably implausible - as your response to #25 points out - but not impossible.

NGU.

[MADem]

56. The bottom line: NOTHING happens in the House without the Speaker's say-so.

Any 'initiating' is in Nancy's lap. It doesn't go on the legislative agenda without active approval of the ruling party. That would be our team. So, corporate media, flag waving, parades, none of that makes a whit of difference unless a Democratic House takes it up.

These are rules that have been in effect for years, and the GOP, during their reign, made them even more arduous. So they'll reap what they've sown. They are muzzled now, just like we were for 12 miserable years--they have no voice except for the blathering of an inarticulate President.

[ecstatic]

57. Thanks, that's exactly what I meant

While they might be impotent now as far as actually setting the agenda for what is voted on, they do own the press 100%. All they'd have to do is pay lip service to the idea of impeaching Bush and they would look like they are being tough on Bush.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. Only Nixon could have gone to China n/t

[ClassWarrior]

31. So what if you can repeat Rape-Publican talking points?

NGU.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. ...what?

I wasn't aware that was a "Rape-Publican" talking point. It's a political saying, meaning that people who are historically X have the most public credibility on an issue that looks not-X. Nixon was an avowed anti-Communist, which meant that he was able to go to China and open up a dialogue without suffering any political damage from looking "weak on Communism."

Similarly, the Republican Congress would have a much easier time of impeaching Bush, because they would not be subject to the cries of "Partisanship! Revenge! Playing politics with our security!" If we honestly want Bush impeached, it would have a much higher chance of going through successfully if it were begun by a Republican.

[NewJeffCT]

42. It's not a political saying, it's Vulcan (from Star Trek)

When they offered up Kirk to negotiate with the Klingons, Spock's response to a surprised Kirk was, "Only Nixon could go to China."

[Kelly Rupert]

48. Its Star Trek appearance was something of a joke.

By misattributing a contemporary expression to a "Vulcan," much the same way we often misattribute various quotes.

[ClassWarrior]

46. No it isn't. It's a phrase that was coined to exploit...

...the one worthwhile thing Nixon the criminal did while in office.

NGU.

[Kelly Rupert]

49. Whatever you say, chief.

:eyes:
(You don't think the EPA was a good idea?)

[ClassWarrior]

55. You missed the point entirely.

That talking point was coined to rehabilitate a petty, two-bit criminal into a foreign policy genius in the eyes of the public.

NGU.

[Initech]

40. They'd do it if it made us look bad.

[Perky]

43. Impeachment ought to be Bipartisan

Otherwise it polarizes and excites White Hous'es base regarless of party.

I thin the way this gets done is hearind o manipulation of evidence, war profiteering, and WHite House Overreaching.

Followed by a House Resolution on Censure and House Resolution of bringing the troops homr, and if Bush ignore the will of Congress on that, many Republicans would sign on to impeachment on the grounds of no confidence and Bush being a frain on the party

[BlooInBloo]

44. (shrug) What if pigs fly?

[DixieBlue]

50. If that happens I think I will eat my own head.

Because I will really be living in the Twilight Zone.

It would be a brilliant move on their part but the GOP hasn't struck me as brilliant the last few years.

[porphyrian]

51. That would be a perfect excuse to publicize the already-existing case for impeachment.

We could have the population screaming for it in a month.

[Chiyo-chichi]

52. If they do....

the Dems should stand up and give them one of those slow claps.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slow+clap

[Jade Fox]

53. If they were smart, they would.....

I foolishly predicted that if Bush's poll numbers fell to as low as they are now, the GOP would take him out themselves to reduce the damage to the party. But the Republicans seem bent on self-destruction. Or more likely, they have no choice: Their Corporate masters want Bush, so they are stuck with him.

[nolabels]

54. What if REPUBLICANS don't initiate impeachment?

I am betting that we also now see the spineless side of the REPUBLICANS. Sure we will see the boisterous side of the same old rhetoric from them but as for bold moves like impeachment don't hold your breath.

The Republicans are sitting ducks and the rest of their trajectory doesn't look too keen either. They have the same play book they have had for years and a entrenched leadership that is crusty and stiff

[MADem]

59. I would wager your scenario is far more likely than the original proposal! NT