heres a twist on Impeachment theories

[LSK]

Everyone keeps thinking that if Impeachment fails, blame will fall on the Democrats. They keep citing the Clinton Impeachment and the blame on Newt for it. However, Clinton was quite popular during his Impeachment and a lot of the public thought it was a waste of time.

Now fast forward to the present, Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular. He can be impeached for valid reasons like wiretapping, illegal wars, torture, signing statements, etc. All issues dealing with his actual job, not his personal life.

So the two situations are completely different.

Let me suggest that if there is an Impeachment, the public will be very supportive of it and if it fails, the blame will fall on the Republicans in the Senate who once again are nothing more than sheep whoring for a very unpopular President.

[knight_of_the_star]

1. We have to make sure of two things if we do that

First we have to prove to the public and convince AT LEAST 60% nationwide solidly that Bush deserves to be impeached, then if we fail to impeach due to the GOP holding ranks in the Senate, we have to make certain EVERYONE in the country knows it and doesn't forget it.

[LSK]

2. I think the public is already there

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[knight_of_the_star]

3. We need to push them past that

And keep that large chunk in question. The only poll that goes past 50% of those is the MSNBC one, and honestly online live votes are statistically very unsound.

[LSK]

4. look at the dates, the trend is more in favor of impeachment

[GOTV]

16. Actually, the evidence that the public is there is pretty weak...

Your first poll is over a year old

Your second poll is even older and the question was a conditional (should we do this IF that - not - Should we do this)

Your third poll is an online poll, therefore worthless for indicating the opinions of people.

The majority of polls done last year show only minority support for impeachment. This year may be different but I've seen no such polls this year yet.

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

[Poiuyt]

5. Polls shouldn't matter. We are a nation of laws

If a president has broken international treaties and subverted the Constitution, then it raises to the level of high crimes and he should be impeached. Even if he is a popular president.

That said, I don't believe that a lousy personal life should have been investigated to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Yes we are a nation of laws

But also one where you have to be able to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt and get the jury to convict. We need to convict him in the court of public opinion BEFORE we go after him in the Senate. That way we make sure he's taken care of no matter what.

[AndyTiedye]

6. What I Sent to My Congresswoman and Senators

Stop the "Surge" in Iraq!

Stop the War in IRAN Before it Starts!

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY!

[Individualist]

7. The House impeaches with a simple majority, the Senate convicts

With a democratic majority in the House, impeachment would not fail.

[LSK]

8. conviction would fail however

and thats where the blame would fall on GOP Senators. Minority leader McConnell is up for re-election on 08.

[knight_of_the_star]

10. And that's where we need to be certain

We have to tie him getting away with it to those Senators without fail.

[GOTV]

17. An impeachment without conviction is worse than no impeachment...

... because Bush will have been proven innocent.

[Mr. Ected]

11. No, Impeachment Could Really Backfire

Impeachment during wartime that fails would paint Dems as
anti-American, whether deserved or not.  A very dangerous
move.  Dammit.

[LSK]

13. its wartime???

Where are the victory bonds?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I dont even think many people believe in this war on terror BS.

[Mr. Ected]

18. I Think Americans Are More Gullible Than You Think

Especially around election time, and especially when the
Commander in Chief is tossing around his message of
nationalism.

[LSK]

19. didnt work last time n/t

[Mr. Ected]

20. Actually, It Did

The last time we elected a Commander in Chief was in
2004...and this was EXACTLY the type of nationalistic BS that
won Bush re-election.

[LSK]

21. Computer says no

1. Kenneth Blackwell

2. 2006 midterms

[Mr. Ected]

22. If You Equate Mid-Terms With Presidential Election

Then your computer model will need to be modified.

[Individualist]

14. Have you enlisted yet?

[Old and In the Way]

12. Whether we win or lose a conviction in the Senate is almost irrelevant.

I assume that the Republicans would vote to protect their King....I'd be surprised if they didn't. But impeachment would accomplish 3 very important things-

(1) It would allow the Republican constituents to evaluate their Senator's vote and make that an important factor in the next cycle. Playing Party CYA will have consequences.

(2) Send a message to the world that Democrats acknowledge the criminal wrong doing of this administration, even if the Republicans are willing to play politics with a conviction.

(3) Send a message to future Dictator-Presidents that there are real consequences in trashing our Constitution.

Sure, I'd love to see the Senate convict...but not impeaching because we might not get a conviction is almost irrelevant when comparing to the reasons/justifications that should compel such a resolution.

[KansDem]

15. I would've thought the Plame outing would unify the nation solidly behind impreachment...

Treason in a time of war can be understood by all Americans.

I mean, most Americans can understand the ramifications of:
1) illegal wiretapping
2) torture
3) signing statements;
4) illegal wars, and other crisis

...but even these can be explained away by a significant minority as "necessary to combat terrorism." (not my words) But "treason during a time of war" should resonate with every American as something that needs to be punished.

[Independent_Liberal]

23. Remember what happened with Nixon's impeachment?

Once the investigations took place and showed all the wrongdoing and criminal activity, almost every Republican turned against him.

Read this old post from DUer pat_k:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2791410&mesg_id=2795558

The Dems just need to make sure the public knows that it is up to Bush and Cheney to "spare the nation" from the disruption of impeachment by doing the following:

Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.

The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.

Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.

New President nominates a VP.

Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this. They need to be clear that they want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be forcibly removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH could be a very effective way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) "debates" about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:
Whether or not Bush and Cheney's claim to have a "get out of jail free" card (unitary authoritarian executive) are absurd;

Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;

Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation into a criminal war of aggression. (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.);

Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

Whether or not they should be turned over to the Hague, given that SCOTUS declared them to be War Criminals in Hamdam.
When the Democratic leadership gets serious about impeachment, Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.