To Impeach or Not to Impeach...

**Ronin** · 11-08-2006, 16:44

I don´t think they will do it.....but the republicans did go after Clinton for less...much less.

**Lemur** · 11-08-2006, 16:49

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.

**Don Corleone** · 11-08-2006, 16:50

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.

**Lemur** · 11-08-2006, 16:54

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

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?

**Don Corleone** · 11-08-2006, 16:57

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Nope.

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.

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....

**Lemur** · 11-08-2006, 17:02

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.

**Don Corleone** · 11-08-2006, 17:06

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

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.

**Don Corleone** · 11-08-2006, 17:04

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.

**Lemur** · 11-08-2006, 17:11

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.

**drone** · 11-08-2006, 17:22

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.

**vizigothe** · 11-08-2006, 16:52

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.