To Impeach or Not to Impeach...

[Don Corleone]

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]

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]

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.

[Kanamori]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?

[Lemur]

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'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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

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 :

"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....

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....

[Redleg]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.