Printable View
Okay, well, we've handed both houses over to the Democrats. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich has said his first order of business as the Chair of the House Judiciary Committe will be to impeach Bush. More moderate Democrats are suggesting a "work-together" approach but haven't completely ruled the idea out. So, what do you all think? Are Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld headed for prison?
The Republicans went this route in the nineties, and it didn't work out too well for them. Impeachment would be an overreach. Given how many conservative Dems have just been elected, I can't see the party going this route.
They don't have much of a majority. They couldnt suceed if they tryed, marching off on a doomed crusade is a bit insane. Also you don't go around firing elected officials and not expect a backlash. If they impeatched bush you would have Cheney, something no conservative dem wants.
I don´t think they will do it.....but the republicans did go after Clinton for less...much less.
How would they benefit? Bush is already unpopular, and he's gone in two years. I can see a politico making saber-rattling noises to please his/her base, but I can't see even a bare majority supporting such a suicidal move. I'm afraid the impeachment of Bush II will remain a fantasy confined to talk radio.
Personally, I think they will. The Democrats are now facing internal dichotomy, similar to the one the Republicans faced in the 90's. The ardent base of the Democratic party, the 60s/70s style liberals are the ones that contribute, they're the ones that man the phones and they're the ones that volunteer for 'get out the vote' drives. To that end, they're the 'religious right' of the Democrats, to continue the analogy. It was the religioius right that demanded the Clinton Impeachment, and even with smaller numbers in the party, they got it. I don't know if it will be succesful, but I cannot imagine that the Democratic leadership will be able to control the groundswell for it from the Angry Left. They owe their rabid supporters too much. This or a national gay marriage act will be the only things that placate them.
Bush won't get impeached.
And the Democrats only took control of the House. The Senate is still up for grabs and I think the Senate will get split and Lieberman will side with the GOP more than the Democrats. The GOP was really kind to Lieberman whereas the Democrats basically shoved him aside and tried to smear him every chance they had. So look for a gridlocked Senate.
With that said. And Pelosi will most likely be the Speaker. We won't see any impeachment hearings.
Just a question -- when this prediction doesn't pan out, will you be willing to consider the possibility that your gay-marriage-will-equal-destruction-of-organized-religion theory may also be a paranoid fantasy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Nope. :no: Until I see somebody from GLAAD come out and categorically state that they have no intentions of forcing organized religions to perform gay marriage services (which, as they've declared it in the past, this would be a retraction), I'm sticking to my guns on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Again, Lemur, if I'm so crazy about all of this, why does my Civil Union compromise sit so poorly with you? There's only one reason the word 'marriage' itself must be part of the proposal....
I've been an advocate of civil unions all along. When have I not been? Didn't I make a post about that just this week? In the end, I would like to see committed couples with the ability to pass on property, make medical decisions, not get cut arbitrarily out of custody issues, etc. If a state wants to do that with civil unions, great. If a state decides to do that through expanding the enfranchisement of marriage, fine.
I have no doubt that you can find a fringe wacko who wants to sue churches out of existence. This proves nothing. If fringe nut-jobs were representative of all, just think of how the G.O.P. would be perceived.
Here's the thing...
In my mind, a slim majority actually makes the case for impeachment better. Hear me out on this...
You've got a multi-faceted, broad and diverse Democratic party. You have underground Naderites who are borderline anarchists all the way to religious, socially conservatives in the South. There's two things that unite them: a hatred of Bush and a desire for more public spending.
Any new spending programs are going to have to go through Bush, who will veto them (he's not about to give the Democrats ANY victories). They can't even deliver on the two big Democrat campaign promises in this election before the next one: -universal health care and repealing the tax cuts.
So, the Democrats are faced with the possiblity of having to explain to the public in 2 years that "well, no, we weren't able to accomplish anything". What's the one thing they can do without Bush's approval? Impeaching him.
Well, I apologize for touching on the gay-marriage issue in the first place, as this is really an impeachment thread. I just meant that it had to be something big for the Democrats to soothe their angry left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Time and time again, courts have found that civil unions do not meet the bar and the state must confer marriage itself on gay unions. And GLAAD is no fringe group of wackos. They're a very well organized, well connected lobby. I even find myself agreeing with them on some issues.
And GLAAD has never, to my knowledge, suggested suing of churches who won't bless gay marriage. I have never heard anyone outside of right-wing AM radio say such a thing.
As for your impeachment prediction and reasoning, it's a shame betting is illegal in my state, 'cause I would sure love to plunk some money down on you being wrong, wrong, wrong. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, and the Corleone family would pay for them.
Hopefully the Democrats realize that they won this not by having the best ideas, but by gaining the votes of conservatives and moderates who have finally realized that the "current" (outgoing) GOP congressional members did not represent them properly. Wasn't that their whole platform anyway, "We are not Bush"? I believe an impeachment would sour those voters, and the Dems would pay for it in 2008. If the Dems decide that they need to appease the wacko-liberal fringe, their majority is going to be short-lived.
I'll support any movement to impeach most any politician, for entertainment. Ought to be fun to turn off my brain and turn into a zealot for a while. It's the simple things in life; sublime.:balloon2:
To be honest, I think the impeachment theory is being put forward as a wishful-thinking scenario. Perhaps it helps soften the blow of losing a one-party lock on the government.
As for the talk about the Dems having a position of "we're not Bush," this is far from unusual. Opposition parties are normally just that -- in opposition. Scenarios like the '94 election are the exception, not the rule, and polling data at the time showed that the majority of Americans weren't aware of the "Contract With America" until after the election. In that round, as in this one, voters were mainly interested in penalizing the ruling party.
I'm with Lemur on the oppossition stance. Running against Bush and linking every Republican TO Bush is a no-brainer. In a way, I lost a lot of respect for Republican candidates running themselves as "indepdent, goes his own way". Two years ago, it was "in lock step for ending terrorism". Well, which is it?
I actually voted Democrat yesterday. Well, one Democrat, John Lynch (my governor). I really think Universal Healthcare is a terrible idea, so I couldn't vote for Carol Shea Porter, but I'm not sad to see Jeb Bradley go.
Actually, you know, I'm forgetting my history lessons here. Impeachment is too soon... if you think back, the 1994/1996 election class was when the Republicans started the Special Prosecuter Ken Starr going. They didn't actually impeach Clinton for another 4 years.
Okay, let me me take an informal 'mini-poll' and change the original terms of the poll. What do you guys think are the odds of assigning a special prosecutor to investegate the White House?
I don't think congress will attempt an impeachment process at all. They have the ability to make President Bush a lame duck for the next two years.
I believe that we will see some softening of President Bush's stands on some areas so that some of his plans and programs get through congress, and some of the more important of the legislation that the Democrates want through will not recieve the President's Veto in exchange. No President wants to face impeachment or be a lame duck for two years. And the democrates are going to want to set the conditions to either fault Bush for things, or take credit so that they have a good chance at the Executive Branch next election.
What we will see however is that no Conservative Judge will be appointed to the Bench.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding contrary this morning, but doesn't a special prosecutor have to be assigned by the Justice Department? Congress can and will launch investigations, that's the obvious route, but I don't think they have it in their power to appoint a Kenn Starr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Should they begin impeachment proceedings?
Of course not. Such a process would rally a Republican base that is frustrated and at odds with itself over some important issues.
Will they begin impeachment proceedings?
Maybe. As Don alludes to above, the Democrat base is adamantly, and in some cases near-rabidly, anti-Bush. I think Pelosi, Murtha, the Clintons, and Reid are quite content with this victory and would prefer to consolidate their hold on both houses with solid efforts to lead, but I wonder if they'll be able to make enough of their supporters see the sense in this and forego vengeance.
I wish the Democrat leadership well. I doubt their approach on a myriad of levels, but perhaps I am wrong and their path for us will yield success. I devoutly hope so.
They'll get Alberto Gonzalez to appoint one the same way the Republicans got Janet Reno to appoint Ken Starr in the first place. They'll hold some hearings, seal some of the evidence and start a litany on the Sunday morning talk shows of :Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"if he has nothing to hide, a special prosecuter will find that too and we can be done with all of this..."
Redleg makes a good point of keeping Bush around as the devil to run against in 2008, but Impeachment doesn't remove Bush. It just makes him stand trial in the Senate (which will then of course vote to find the President not guilty). I think an indepenent prosectur and the hints of impeachment would accomplish a lot for the Democrats in 2008. I can see it now...
Queue scary music....Quote:
Republicans promised us a 'contract with America." Instead, what we got was the most corrupt administration and Congress in the history of the US. Democrats need Congress AND the White House in order to clean up their mess....
They had better not.
Bush's policies are not well liked, but the man has a lot more personal support than some think.
While the voters my have said, "We dont like your policies", they would definately balk at seeing him put before trial.
A lot more people than you would think see him as a decent guy trying to do good.
Heck, I've got no respect for Bush and can't wait for the next election, and I still see him as a decent guy trying to do good.
Ajax
No swearing.