To Impeach or Not to Impeach...

**Don Corleone** · 11-08-2006, 17:32

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** · 11-08-2006, 17:41

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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** · 11-08-2006, 17:52

Originally Posted by Lemur

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....

**Prince of the Poodles** · 11-08-2006, 21:22

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.