Scenario: Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

[cali]

It's voted on, and decisively defeated. What are the repercussions?

[bryant69]

1. We look like punks, I would imagine.

I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[atreides1]

3. Or Courageous

It would depend on each person's own outlook!

[RiverStone]

26. I vote courageous!

History needs to record that some folks had enough guts to hold this corrupt regime accountable for high crimes. I'm so sick of the argument - "we don't have the votes" - when sometimes the act of trying supersedes the odds of winning.

Trying alone says a lot about who we are as a country. Trying (win or not) means something!

Kudos to Dennis for re-introducing Articles of Impeachment.

[spanone]

5. no, we look like a government functioning as it should.

we already look like punks to the msm, so who cares?

[bryant69]

11. So introducing Impeachment and it being shot down decisively

is "government functioning as it should?" Interesting.

Bryant

[spanone]

13. Yes it is.

[King Coal]

16. And don't forget, some, are crybaby punks. Peter Pan Punks. LOL!

[acmavm]

15. Yes. Doing what's right and best for this country is always

government functioning as it should.

Why would you even ask?

[bryant69]

17. I'm sorry to hammer a point, but even if impeachment utterly fails, it's still government

functioning as it should?

Bryant

[acmavm]

18. Yes.

[bryant69]

22. I guess I would rather see House of Representatives actually accomplish things.

But everybody is different, i know.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

28. I agree. Introducing SCHIP, when bush vowed to veto it was just a big waste of time

and money.

Why don't they just focus on stuff that bush wants so they can accomplish something?

[acmavm]

29. No kidding. But they pretty much do that already, don't they?

[bryant69]

30. No - because forcing President Bush to veto medical funding for children

is accomplishing something - it is showing the lack of moral core in the Republican party.

And, in answer to the obvious question, if I thought a failed impeachment would nonetheless educate the American people about the moral corruption of the the Republican Party i would probably support it. But I think it would have an opposite effect.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Pursuing impeachment might expose the lack of moral core in the Democratic Party?

You might be right about that.

I've often wondered if that's why they are running away from it as fast as possible.

[bryant69]

32. Well I'm a proud Democrat so I can't say I agree with your assessment of the Democratic Party.

Presumably you'd be one of the first "Democrats" sharpening their knives when impeachment failed.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I was agreeing with your assesment that impeachment might possibly

cause the opposite of showing that the Repos have no moral core.

Since I highly doubt that impeachment would show that the Repos do have a moral core, the only thing I could imagine that would be the opposite is showing that the Dems have no moral core.

So you are the one who made this argument, and now you want to abuse me for agreeing with you?

Whatever.

[bryant69]

36. ah i see the difficulty

I should have been more complete in my initial assessment. I don't believe it would show that the Democrats have no moral core because I believe they do have a moral core. I know many people don't, and many of them post at Free Republic. But I believe the Democratic Party does have a moral core.

What i meant by the opposite is rather than exposing the Republican Party it would enable them to create a larger smokescreen to cover their failed positions and programs; they would shift the conversation from being about President Bush's failed policies to being about President Bush himself. It would be an argument about personality and our hatred of Bush. Which would have the OPPOSITE effect from uncovering their moral failings. Rather it would allow them to shroud them even more than they already have.

Sorry to be unclear earlier.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

52. I doubt an impeachment would be about failed policies. It should be about crimes against

the constitution and the country.

I would argue against bringing impeachment charges because of failure, moral or otherwise.

No, impeachment should be about the crimes committed, period.

I understand that you don't trust the people to see the crimes and to process it appropriately, that you believe the people will be suckered by the Repos into believeing that the constitution is only written like it is for one party to be able to beat up on another.

I'm not worried about that. I trust if the Dems were to present a case based on the evidence that people would be able to understand it.

[Atman]

53. No, impeachment should be about the crimes committed, period.

Yes, you are 100% correct. There is no provision in our laws to impeach a president simply because of his poor policies. He has to have actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors. So what are we waiting for?

.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. All i can imagine is that some Dems are somehow complicit in some of the

crimes. So they don't want to proceed, because bush would use that as a defense and they too would be ensnared.

[Atman]

56. At least you have a coherent argument against proceeding.

It sucks either way, but at least you seem to have some real understanding. I, too, am of the mind that Pelosi and Reid and the "people in charge" at the DLC have plenty of dirt on them. No so-called "lawmaker" backs of off enforcing the law just because it might be messy or inconvenient, as Bryant is calling for.

.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. I've been an advocate for impeachment from 2000 forward. I still am.

Better late than never, I always say.

[Atman]

35. Yeah, because no one knew he was a war mongering chickenshit before that

Keepin' our powder dry. Chalkin' up them examples to show people just how much of a dick that Bush is! He's such a dick, in fact, that we won't even impeach him. He's soooooo fucking evil, we should let him stay in office to set an example of just what an evil president looks like. Because only then, after five years of illegal war and bankrupting tax cuts and illegal congressional maneuvers, no one has figured out what the GOP is about yet. But if we let them break another 15 months worth of laws, and then let them walk free, now THAT will set a stern example! Good plan.

:eyes:

.

[bryant69]

37. What an incoherent response

Again, we are talking about an impeachment that goes down to humiliating defeat; how exactly does that punish Bush?

Bryant

[Atman]

38. No, YOU are talking about an impeachment that goes down in defeat.

The people arguing against you are talking about all of the positive aspects of it, Ms. Downer. Some of us don't like to trivialize the constitution, or help to legalize law-breaking, even IF a Democratic candidate is elected president in 2008. Some of us. Others are more worried about being laughed at.

.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[bryant69]

42. Than you disagree with the premise of this conversation - say that

Instead other supporters of impeachment seem to be arguing that even if impeachment failed it would still be worth while.

If your argument is that hte premise is flawed because obviously impeachment would be a success, than that's a whole nother discussion. One in which I would disagree with you, but obviously on different grounds (because I think the most likely conclusion to Speaker Pelosi beginning impeachment proceedings would, in fact, be a political defeat).

Bryant

[Atman]

44. Neener neener neener

I am arguing that even if impeachment failed it would still be worth while. What the hell did you think I was saying? I wasn't arguing that your premise is flawed. There is no need to argue that...a third grader can see it. I am arguing that the most important thing is to uphold the rule of law by beginning the process, and be willing to accept defeat if it comes to that, but at least be willing to fight light a mofo for victory.

You just don't want even try cuz you might soil yer knickers.

Pfft.

.

[bryant69]

45. The most important thing is to waste time in grandiose gestures

which make us feel good but lack any hope for success. Yeah pretty childish of me not to agree with that.

Bryant

[Atman]

46. If you feel that defending the Constitution is merely a "grandiose gesture," ...

...then yes, it is pretty childish of you not to agree. Childish as in "I'm going to throw the Monopoly board in the air unless you let me win" childish. Spoiled brat childish. Don't try unless you're guaranteed a win/t-ball childish. Yeah, like that.

.

[bryant69]

51. Laughs - I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversatin

I am pretty comfortable on my throne and you look comfortable on yours. Let's just bask in our respective intellectual and moral superiority and enjoy.

Bryant

[spanone]

20. yes, hammer on

[TahitiNut]

21. Yeah... it looks so much better to do nothing.

:eyes:

[bryant69]

24. You are one of the sharper people on the pro impeachment side

Sometimes you make some good arguments - so why resort to a straw man like this. You know I am not advocating doing nothing - rather I'm advocating effective opposition to the Bush agenda, or my definition of it. Now you might disagree with me (well, you obviously do actually), but to say I advocate doing nothing, is somewhat nonsensical.

I just don't advocate fighting the Bush administration in the same manner as you.

Bryant

[G_j]

58. it looks like

they are AOK with crimes at the top.

[TahitiNut]

61. Just cowards enabling cowards enabling outlaws. Nothing to see here. Typical flamebait.

Empty taunts and baseless prognistications by the effete, amoral brain-dead. :shrug:

[lonestarnot]

47. We will shine like stars for trying to reclaim the Constitution!

[Basileus Basileon]

2. Headlines:

"MAJOR VICTORY FOR BUSH AS DEM IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS"
"BUSH EXONERATED"

Talking heads go on for days about how this is a decisive defeat for the Democrats, and how this proves that both parties believe that he's done a pretty good job so far.

[TahitiNut]

23. OMG! The Corporate media might actually smear the Democratic Party???!

Sheesh!! Well that should CERTAINLY be a key to making any decision. Yeah. Sure. ESPECIALLY since Party is far more important than the whole nation - what gets left to our children and their children. Yup.

:sarcasm: <--- for the ethically and mentally challenged

[Basileus Basileon]

25. Yep. Therefore, it's best to spend all our precious time

engaged in quixotic quests with no chance of success that are sure to bring about massive political fallout, simply because such fallout is predictable.

[TahitiNut]

62. "All our precious" bodily fluids?? Poor baby!

:eyes:

[Vinca]

4. There would be an asterisk in the history books and future generations

would know we at least tried.

[cali]

7. Maybe.

I think it's also possible that the headlines posited by another poster on this thread, materialize. Don't get me wrong, I still think it needs to be done, but I realize that it could serve to exonerate bush, and impede bringing him to justice after he leaves office.

[Vinca]

12. Nothing at all is going to happen to Shrub after he's out of office

unless a foreign entity decides to file charges. That wouldn't amount to Jack Squat either because he's not apt to travel anywhere. I, too, agree with the headlines another poster said might appear. The unknown factor is the number of Republicans who want him impeached. There might be more than we know.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. You forgot the part about broadcast network covered gavel to gavel hearings

Where were you during the Clinton and Nixon impeachment process?

Not watching the hearings, I assume.

[cali]

10. I watched the hearings, and I haven't forgotten that part of

it. I'm just fast forwarding past the hearings to the vote, and presenting one possibility- that it doesn't get out of the House. Hell, we have bluedogs that won't even vote for SCHIP. I think it's entirely possible that they wouldn't vote for impeachment either, no matter what the evidence, and I certainly think that's true for almost all the repukes.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Yes, so then the public sees the evidence, and the public sees what their Rep does.

That sounds good for democracy, if you ask me.

Do you feel the two unsuccessful (in terms of enactment) SCHIP votes in the house have irrevokably damaged the Dems? I don't.

Same with impeachment.

At some point voters are going to start asking themselves why vote for the Dems who vote with the Republicans?

And that will be a good thing.

[TwilightZone]

8. According to many, it doesn't matter.

"Many" are wrong, in my opinion. A failed impeachment could very likely be seen as a vendetta against Bush, and it could lead to a salvaging of his legacy where none is deserved.

To be clear, I think that he is quite deserving of impeachment. I also believe that it would be monumentally unsuccessful.

[tekisui]

9. Good question.

If the Dems voted together on it, I think it would be a win. If too many Blue Dogs went against it, it would open them to ridicule.

It shouldn't fail decisively, though. The Dems should start a well-run campaign of bringing the crimes of this mis-administration to the average American's television sets. Night after night they should clearly document the abuses of power, war profiteering, torture, lies, etc. They need to own the frame on this, and it would go through.

[L. Coyote]

14. Scenario: 1. Articles introduced, 2. Privilige no longer applies

The really important thing about articles of impeachment and the requisite accusation of crime, is that the legal landscape shifts dramatically. Once the investigation is of an alleged crime, executive privilige evaporates and all documents relevant to the charges must be produced and all witneses must testify.

[cali]

19. That's a fair point, though I still doubt that

bushco would comply automatically. We certainly have reason to believe he wouldn't. But it would be interesting to see what happens.

[lonestarnot]

49. Leaving to the people to enforce it should be interesting indeed!

[Atman]

48. We can't have that!

What if someone actually reads those documents and finds out that Bush really HAS committed crimes? Why...why...he might be persuaded to step out of the Republican conga line and vote to uphold the truth as his voting constituents back home have seen it.

Right, Bryant? Oh, wait...there is no possible successful outcome, only failure. Never mind.

.

[Rex]

34. Depends on who decisively defeated the measure.

Was it us or them?

[annabanana]

41. We do it again.

And then we do it again.

[Javaman]

43. ...

:banghead:

there first has to be an investigation long before the concept of a vote is proposed. This is the equivalent of having a grand jury decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.

That's why it's call Impeachemt PROCEEDINGS!!

good god. of course impeachment is not on the table, they have to have evidence from an investigation first.

once they have the evidence, the impeachment procedure can go forward for a vote.

for christ sakes folks read the fucking constitution!!

there is overwhelming evidence, there just needs to be an investigation started!!!

demand an investigation!

:banghead:

[malaise]

50. It's in the H of R records n/t

[mmonk]

54. If articles don't pass in the House,

that means too many democrats support abuses of power and violations of the constitution by a rogue republican party movement. If that is the case, the United States needs a viable law abiding third party to represent the people of this nation and the constitution. As a democrat, that is a hard thing to say.

[mudesi]

57. None. Except that Democrats look like they have a spine, for once. (nm)

[rucky]

59. Congress still sucks?

:shrug: