Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    37

    Default Impeachment - good thing or bad thing?

    What do you think.....im certainly for impeachment but lets look at both sides of the coin and have a intelligent (including the conservatives...if possible) discussion if possible:

    There are plenty of reasons to advocate that impeachment will do much for the long-term moral and legal good of our country, I offer that we're better served having the "right people" in power than the right ideas out of power.

    So we'll look at this through a political lens. For me, it comes down quite simply to this: does impeaching the president, even with the likely failure to convict, improve Democrats' chances up and down the board in 2008 and beyond? This is my understanding of the political arguments on either side.

    YES
    Impeachment will bring out the worst of Bush's crimes in such a spectacular setting that low-information voters will come to dislike him & Cheney. High-information voters probably know enough to make their decision. We're going for low-information voters, here. The inherent drama of impeachment and consequence will amplify the message that the Republican administration is corrupt and disconnected with the American people on energy, the environment, Iraq, terrorism, US Attys, etc. This message will reach voters and influence them.

    Supporting this will be the Republican nominee. Combined with Democratic efforts, the stain of impeachment will spread to anyone connected with the president, even if such link is being in the same party. Links between Bush and the nominee will be strong enough to influence voters, and hopefully will cast enough of a shadow over other Republicans (Domenecei, Sununu, Warner, Collins) to shave their support. This will be the overwhelming message of 2008, and motivate voters to support the Dems.

    NO

    If Bush is impeached, the debate will focus not on "why is the president being impeached?" to "should the president be impeached?" This will open up charges that this is revenge for Clinton's impeachment, and that Democrats are doing a campaign stunt for strictly political ends. In short, it adds confusion and noise to a case that can be made without impeachment. Hearings and subpeonas from Democrats can focus more strictly on the issues (wiretapping, secret meetings, torture) without getting caught up in the inherent drama of impeachment. The same case is made, without the distraction of a failed effort at conviction, and without firing up a very demoralized base. Impeachment will remind alienated Republican why they fell for Dubya in the first place, and reverse Democratic fortunes in new blue states such as Virginia, Colorado, and Montana.

    Under this more varied attack, more precision can be brought to bear as well. Without Bush as sole defender, more aim can be taken as enablers such as Collins and Sununu. The scope can be broadened to mistakes not strictly Bush's bailiwick (one thinks of the consequences of David Vitter, Ted Stevens' corruption or Liddy Dole's stupidity). Local races become more local, and Democrats can more easily stress their independence when necessary.

    One other consideration that may fall into either bin: The impeachment will overhang the 2008 election. Depending on the nominee, that will include voting on whether to charge or convict. Without that, the Democratic nominee can step more into their own, and offer themselves as something beyond the receptacle of a vote to punish Bush. this may be a risk in 2008, but impeachment will be exhausted as an issue by 2010.

    What arguments on the political importance of impeachment am I forgetting?


    One problem for the Democrats is that our guys always look as if they are doing stuff based on political calculation. Bad consequences here:

    It makes it look as if we have no principles -- and at least our leaders don't.
    It makes it look as if we are spineless: if we cannot stand up for what we believe, will we stand up for America? Why are we so afraid of the accusation that this is "just revenge for Clinton"?



    Final thoughts...

    The downside of not going forward with impeachment deserves the same kind of hardheaded analysis. I suggest that the damages this administration has inflicted on the Constitution and the nation will be much much worse and persistent the more unchallenged, and that vigorous leadership in their defense will lead to meaningful reforms even if the Senate fails to convict.
    .
    It would probably be better for the Dems in the House, and possibly Senators like Leahy, to aggressively pursue a strategy of investigation and disclosure. So far, as far as I can tell, except for Leahy, the Dems have been fairly quiet.

    The problem with impeachment and removal is that, unlike the Nixon experience, we are far too close to the end of the Bush II administration for it to mean anything. In Nixon's case, cries for impeachment came at the beginning of the second term, not the end. Note that it took more than eighteen months into Nixon's term for Nixon to exit, stage right, and he wasn't even impeached, much less convicted. Another difference is that, even then, the Republican party was led by adults, not quivering sycophants such as we see today, and it was the Republican congressional leadership that got Nixon to resign.

    I hope others have really thought about it......



    Grow your own dope, plant a republican!

    Intelligent conversation with Conservatives is bound to fail because they are always ready to defend their most precious possession -- their incredible ignorance.

  2. #2
    Guest

    Default

    Not gonna happen. If there's one thing I can tell you about Democrats is that they are ultimately a bunch of pussies.

    Why just look at the demtards that stink this place up. Mostly unemployed or under employed pussy-boys, complete with all the cowardly blustering of a liberal.



  3. #3
    Veteran Poster Cuchulain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    538

    Default

    There was an excellent discussion on impeachment on the July 13 edition of Bill Moyers Journal between Bill, John Nichols (author of 'The Genius of Impeacment') and Bruce Fein. Mr Fein, a noted conservative, is a former DOJ official and has been a scholar at several conservative think tanks. He is adamant that Bush must be impeached in order to protect our constitution. The tape and the transcript are here:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/tr...pts/index.html

    excerpts:

    Bruce Fein: ...he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law. ....

    BRUCE FEIN: It means asserting powers and claiming that there are no other branches that have the authority to question it. Take, for instance, the assertion that he's made that when he is out to collect foreign intelligence, no other branch can tell him what to do. That means he can intercept your e-mails, your phone calls, open your regular mail, he can break and enter your home. He can even kidnap you, claiming I am seeking foreign intelligence and there's no other branch Congress can't say it's illegal--judges can't say this is illegal. I can do anything I want. That is overreaching. When he says that all of the world, all of the United States is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your homes and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda or drop a rocket, that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn't make--.....

    BRUCE FEIN: Yeah, of course, the-- difference is one thing to claim that, you know, Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was too broadly drafted. But we're talking about assertions of power that affect the individual liberties of every American citizen. Opening your mail, your e-mails, your phone calls. Breaking and entering your homes. Creating a pall of fear and intimidation if you say anything against the president you may find retaliation very quickly. We're claiming he's setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons anytime there's another 9/11.

    Right now the victims are people whose names most Americans can't pronounce. And that's why they're not so concerned. They will start being Browns and Jones and Smiths. And that precedent is being set right now. ....

    JOHN NICHOLS: You-- we're at this table because the fact of the matter is that impeachment has moved well up the list of things we can talk about because of the Scooter Libby affair. Now, should it be the-- one that tipped it? I think Bruce and I would probably both agree no. There are probably more important issues. But the Scooter Libby affair gets to the heart of what I think an awfully lot of Americans are concerned about with this administration and with the executive branch in-- general, that it is lawless, that-- it can rewrite the rules for itself, that it can protect itself.

    And, you know, the founders anticipated just such a moment. If you look at the discussions in the Federalist Papers but also at the Constitutional Convention, when they spoke about impeachment, one of the things that Madison and George Mason spoke about was the notion that you needed the power to impeach particularly as regards to pardons and commutations because a president might try to take the burden of the law off members of his administration to prevent them from cooperating with Congress in order to expose wrongdoings by the president himself. And so Madison said that is why we must have the power to impeach. Because otherwise a president might be able to use his authority and pardons and such to prevent an investigation from getting to him. ....

    BRUCE FEIN: Sneering in isolation is not but this is combined with all of the other things he's done outside the law. The intelligence gathering, the enemy combatant status, the kidnappings in-- dungeons abroad, all in secret and never disclosing anything to Congress or the American people. Indeed, we couldn't even be discussing some of these issues here like the foreign intelligence collection program if it weren't leaked to THE NEW YORK TIMES. If he had his way, this would be secret forever.

    JOHN NICHOLS: Sneering is not an impeachable sentence. But the founders who had recently fought a revolution against a king named George would tell you that monarchical behavior, the behavior of a king, acting like a king, is an impeachable offense. You need not look for specific laws or statutes. What you need to look for is a pattern of behavior that says that the presidency is superior not merely to Congress but to the laws of the land, to the rules of law. And that is why we ought to be discussing impeachment. Not because of George Bush and Dick Cheney but because we are establishing a presidency that does not respect the rule of law. And people, Americans, are rightly frightened by that. Their fear is the fear of the founders. It is appropriate. It is necessary.



  4. #4
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default

    Hey, if you can impeach a president for lying to a grand jury about a fling with a bimbo, you can impeach one for lying us into a war that's kill over three thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

    I agree, however, that it's not going to happen. Nevertheless there are countless reasons why it should happen. Just one practical reason is this:

    by taking up all their remaining time, an impeachment would obstruct white-house efforts to further erode our democracy, undercut our protections and hand our wealth over to a handful of loyal private individuals and corporations.


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  5. #5
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trish
    Hey, if you can impeach a president for lying to a grand jury about a fling with a bimbo, you can impeach one for lying us into a war that's kill over three thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
    YES.

    IMPEACHMENT NOW!



  6. #6
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    279

    Default

    as i see it, the real upside is that dick cheney would be president and then all these whiney liberals would REALLY have something to moan about.
    guyone is right, of course, george w bush is the greatest of all american presidents, but dick cheney....now that would be a thing of beauty.


    we're always a step out of time,
    now ain't that a shame

  7. #7
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default

    As we know from the Clinton example, impeachment doesn't always end with removal from office. But if it did in the case of bush, cheney would have a heart attack, or shoot someone in the face and Pelosi would become the first woman president.


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  8. #8
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    279

    Default

    unless of course he shot nancy, huh?
    perhaps if he was president dick would just have the secret service guys shoot folks for him.
    for some reason this brings to mind a hike through the mountains a few years back....as it turned out it was the first day of deer season. i swear it seemed like there was a cocked and loaded deerslayer behind every fuggin tree, and i imagined a few bars of looney tunes music accompanying a deer crashing through the forest and about thirty guys wheeling out from cover and mowing each other down. needless to say, we scampered the hell out of there.


    we're always a step out of time,
    now ain't that a shame

  9. #9
    Professional Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    most 3rd world city in america.
    Posts
    1,591

    Default

    they could probably get dick darth vader cheney,especially with his popularity with the public(9% approval rating)but i doubt shit will happen...and if you dont think they havent offed a few people to get where they are at well............p.s.do you think they offed jfk jr.?...how bout paul wellstone?..............they seem to fear singular male figures with media prominence and public trust............



  10. #10
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Would we really be better off with Dick Cheany (sp?) as president instead of vice president?



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •