bobhhh
but i would like to point out that many people here like to imagine there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats.

That you think there IS a practical difference between the two major parties shows your partisanship.

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

bobhhh

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

Man, that's a drag. You'd think general incompetence would be a perfectly good excuse to get a new president. I can see how a president would stay in office by having other people take the fall for him.

Hawk

bobhhh

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

Man, that's a drag. You'd think general incompetence would be a perfectly good excuse to get a new president. I can see how a president would stay in office by having other people take the fall for him.

Neglect is a crime, so is treason and sabotage. Impeach the bastard for that.

Keep in mind Hawk that before you can impeach a president - and all impeach means is that he or she is put on trial before congress - there first has to be an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing. But before there can be an investigation into alleged wrongdoing enough legislators have to vote the investigation into being over the objections of their opposite numbers. But before there can even be a vote for investigation there has to be a groundswell of public opinion advocating such an investigation -- no groundswell no political chance in hell of getting together the necessary number of votes.

Now this groundswell must either occur through natural forces; i.e., the people simply see for themselves that the office is held by a self-serving cretin and arise with one overriding voice or -- as in the case with Clinton -- there has to be a very deliberate and very expensive partisan manipulation of the free press in order to artificially raise public ire, or at least inspire the cranks to flood congressional offices with anti-presidential hate mail - as the rightwing movers and shakers in the United States managed to make happen with Clinton.

The irony is that once there has been a genuine or artificially generated groundswell of a call for investigation and legislators thereafter vote for the investigation process to occur, the process of investigation itself can last for years. All of which means that it is far too late to do anything about George W. Bush. In so far that he and the real villains of this piece will never be brought to book for their evil, he and they have gotten away with political and policy making rape and murder .

But there has been no natural groundswell call for impeachment of Bush and the democrats simply do not have the vast numbers of political propagandists and their own private media sources to artificially create such a groundswell. Thus - even if it were not already too late - there will be no legislative branch vote to investigate allegations of Bush wrongdoings, and hence no impeachment of Bush. The bastard and the republican party leadership have gotten away with raping this nation.

So what does the nation as a whole learn from this entire fiasco? They learn that in post Ronald Reagan America a republican president can get away with very nearly anything without being brought down while a democrat president can have a bit of tickle and cuddle with a legal age intern and wind up impeached.

Oh, and to answer the original question, High Crimes and Misdemeanors are merely legal window dressing and cover for the reality that you impeach a sitting president for any damn thing you want to impeach him for as long as you can make it 'seem' that he broke a law somewhere. Since it is factually impossible for any adult citizen to go through life without breaking some obscure law by utter accident there is always something that everyone is guilty of doing. Legally that is all you need to bring a president up on impeachment charges.

After all Clinton WAS impeached for lying about having sex with a legal adult outside the sanctity of his marriage vows no matter the legal fiction that partisan republicans hold dear that he was brought up for having lied under oath. That was merely the legal excuse. The additional fact that his sexual actions with another legal adult were also none of their business and certainly did not harm the nation also made no difference where political expediency was concerned. The fact that he was Bill Clinton and was doing an excellent job as a democrat president was the real reason that he was investigated and then railroaded into an impeachment and this was a fact that more than half of the population of the United States and most of the rest of the world recognized at the time.

Also the republican leadership wanted to get political revenge for the fall of president Nixon and the black eye the republican party got from Watergate. The fact that Clinton did not deserve all those years worth of fishing expedition investigations and post investigation impeachment did not matter to the republican party leadership.

Ultimately the fact that Bush is going to get away with having twisted around intelligence data and then outright lying to the American public in order to start the unnecessary war in Iraq means that some future republican president will also feel perfectly safe doing the same thing during his or her term in office, feeling confident that since he or she is a member of a party with a vast network of professional propagandists working for them there will never be an investigation or a vote for impeachment. So the Iraq fiasco may occur again in some future form.

The only ongoing hope for democracy in the United States is the fact that so far the republican party leadership has not managed to begin taming the Internet and shutting down this venue as the final bastion of truth telling in this troubled nation. Of course we can be certain that this is on their 'to do' list for the future.

So it goes.

wasn't the clinton impreachment the work of just a few?

TnTComic
wasn't the clinton impreachment the work of just a few?

I think the point he was making is that in lieu of a groundswell, a few people in power can manipulate the media and fan a minority of zealots to create the impression of a popular groundswell, and thus influence the populace at large, who are unfortunately easy to persuade when it comes to political fiction.

Wow, what a process. Thanks for explaining that, CharleyHorse.

Hawk

bobhhh

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

Man, that's a drag. You'd think general incompetence would be a perfectly good excuse to get a new president. I can see how a president would stay in office by having other people take the fall for him.

Yes it would seem logical if a guy is a rotten pres that you could just oust him. Trouble is what is the definition of rotten or oustable?? Political realities are spun so often they almost could be tapped as an energy source.

And if that were the only criteria it would end up like a witch hunt with fingers flying at the first transgression against any special interest. Our president needs to do his job not spend his entire presidency fighting impeachment. That is why it is so important to hire the right guy in the first place. And in Bush's case, we had our chance in '84 to fire him, but all the Democrats could muster was Kerry.

Of course they could have went with Howard Dean, but he yelled at a pep rally once. Shocking!!

Bob
I think the point he was making is that in lieu of a groundswell, a few people in power can manipulate the media and fan a minority of zealots to create the impression of a popular groundswell, and thus influence the populace at large, who are unfortunately easy to persuade when it comes to political fiction.

Yes, that is precisely what I was trying to say. Thanks Bob!

I've followed the WTC for a long time now, and I feel there is already enough evidence that you really don't need anything in paper (especially with all the paper shredders out there) to accept the fact that it wasn't something totally out of the blue.

what I didn't know was the thing about Hunter S. Thompson, a man who I've held a deep respect for, for a very long time. In fact, I'm so disturbed and angry and distraught right now that it's leaving me quite speechless...

fucking bastards...

CharleyHorse
The only ongoing hope for democracy in the United States is the fact that so far the republican party leadership has not managed to begin taming the Internet and shutting down this venue as the final bastion of truth telling in this troubled nation.

I think the other ongoing hope for democracy is that eventually the truth comes out. The McCarthys and the Roves and Bushes and Nixons and Gonzaleses and Thurmonds and Cheneys in America's history will have their day in the sun temporarily. But eventually the truth comes out. We eventually realize the fear-mongering of McCarthy is destructive, the paranoid secrecy of Nixon must be exposed, and the incompetence of Bush cannot be ignored. America is not immune to those who would use fear to divide us and intimidate us, but eventually we will remember what this country should be about. Eventually the lies won't be believed anymore and the truth will come out. The decisions made over the last 7 years will bear its inevitable fruit for all to see. The day will come when the truth will be known. And I hope that this day will be coming soon.

This used to be correct Arteestx:

arteestx
I think the other ongoing hope for democracy is that eventually the truth comes out. The McCarthys and the Roves and Bushes and Nixons and Gonzaleses and Thurmonds and Cheneys in America's history will have their day in the sun temporarily. But eventually the truth comes out . . . The decisions made over the last 7 years will bear its inevitable fruit for all to see. The day will come when the truth will be known. And I hope that this day will be coming soon.

Unfortunately this was before the republican Party leadership created the vast network of mutually interactive talk radio shows and Fox News to spin reality 7/24/365. The end result being that even many of the knowledgeable and politically savvy citizens sometimes question the validity of what they KNOW to be true and tend to give even the clearly criminal people such as G.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney much more judgment leeway than they give people such as Hillary and Bill Clinton who are ATTACKED by these professional propaganda outlets .

Thus today most U.S. citizens KNOW that Bill and Hillary Clinton are dodgy characters - even though when they stop and think about the accusations flung at them from the rightwing propagandists they discover that nothing holds up - because these two are relentlessly attacked. On the other hand people tend to give Bush, and company, much more in the way of judgment latitude because they are aggressively defended day in and day out by the rightwing's professional propagandists. Also don't forget that only a hand full of years ago the Right tried to repackage the memory of Richard Nixon as a great statesman and benevolent president filled with sweetness and light. They NEVER give up on an image rehabilitation project or on spinning distortions and lies . . . NEVER!

The upshot of the above explanation is that today even history text books will tend to give a dramatically evident thug and/or incompetent such as G.W. Bush more than a little benifit of the doubt whereas Clinton will simply be labeled as the 20th century president that was impeached for misdemeanors.

As I stated before - particularly since our mass media abnegated their duties by accepting the massive bribe of embedded reporting slots to become cheerleaders for Bush's invasion of Iraq - only the wild and woolly internet still serves as a lone source of truth and reality to be circulated among the populace. Certainly after our free press sold out this nation in exchange for those embedded reporting slots and after the republican leadership actually tried to suborn Public Broadcasting I no longer trust the media to be truth tellers. Oh, and as for history texts, for decades now it has been the habit of most publishers to accept 'interpretations' of historical events from the Left, Center, and Right affiliated authors and then to place those in the information packets so that everyone can decide for themselves what they want to think of as the truth.

Oh yeah, and I recall that uber rightwing nut case Michelle Malkin passionately defending Joseph McCarthy only a few years back as being a 'real American patriot and great statesman' and thereafter her fellow propagandists actually giving her rendition of reality spin a try. It did not take among the general populace, but it may very well do so the next time they try to spit polish the animal's image.

So, yes perhaps the truth does surface from time to time, but immediately upon doing so the right professional propagandists begin their patented spin techniques so that ultimately people in general are not quite certain what the truth of anything is anymore.

I know that my assessment is very bleak. But there you have it.

CharleyHorse
This used to be correct Arteestx:

arteestx
I think the other ongoing hope for democracy is that eventually the truth comes out. The McCarthys and the Roves and Bushes and Nixons and Gonzaleses and Thurmonds and Cheneys in America's history will have their day in the sun temporarily. But eventually the truth comes out . . . The decisions made over the last 7 years will bear its inevitable fruit for all to see. The day will come when the truth will be known. And I hope that this day will be coming soon.

Unfortunately this was before the republican Party leadership created the vast network of mutually interactive talk radio shows and Fox News to spin reality 7/24/365. The end result being that even many of the knowledgeable and politically savvy citizens sometimes question the validity of what they KNOW to be true and tend to give even the clearly criminal people such as G.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney much more judgment leeway than they give people such as Hillary and Bill Clinton who are ATTACKED by these professional propaganda outlets .

Thus today most U.S. citizens KNOW that Bill and Hillary Clinton are dodgy characters - even though when they stop and think about the accusations flung at them from the rightwing propagandists they discover that nothing holds up - because these two are relentlessly attacked. On the other hand people tend to give Bush, and company, much more in the way of judgment latitude because they are aggressively defended day in and day out by the rightwing's professional propagandists. Also don't forget that only a hand full of years ago the Right tried to repackage the memory of Richard Nixon as a great statesman and benevolent president filled with sweetness and light. They NEVER give up on an image rehabilitation project or on spinning distortions and lies . . . NEVER!

The upshot of the above explanation is that today even history text books will tend to give a dramatically evident thug and/or incompetent such as G.W. Bush more than a little benifit of the doubt whereas Clinton will simply be labeled as the 20th century president that was impeached for misdemeanors.

As I stated before - particularly since our mass media abnegated their duties by accepting the massive bribe of embedded reporting slots to become cheerleaders for Bush's invasion of Iraq - only the wild and woolly internet still serves as a lone source of truth and reality to be circulated among the populace. Certainly after our free press sold out this nation in exchange for those embedded reporting slots and after the republican leadership actually tried to suborn Public Broadcasting I no longer trust the media to be truth tellers. Oh, and as for history texts, for decades now it has been the habit of most publishers to accept 'interpretations' of historical events from the Left, Center, and Right affiliated authors and then to place those in the information packets so that everyone can decide for themselves what they want to think of as the truth.

Oh yeah, and I recall that uber rightwing nut case Michelle Malkin passionately defending Joseph McCarthy only a few years back as being a 'real American patriot and great statesman' and thereafter her fellow propagandists actually giving her rendition of reality spin a try. It did not take among the general populace, but it may very well do so the next time they try to spit polish the animal's image.

So, yes perhaps the truth does surface from time to time, but immediately upon doing so the right professional propagandists begin their patented spin techniques so that ultimately people in general are not quite certain what the truth of anything is anymore.

I know that my assessment is very bleak. But there you have it.

Bleak indeed. I agree, except that argument works both ways. A rightwing nut could say the same inflammatory things about leftwing figures. Do you posit that there is no aggressive defense in media outlets for leftwing transgressors? Do you believe that honest republicans never get as many unfair shakes as Democrats?
Both sides have Spin doctors and brain trust propaganda machines. The trick is to pick the facts out from the junk and flotsam, instead of simply choosing one side or another to believe in.

imshard
Bleak indeed. I agree, except that argument works both ways. A rightwing nut could say the same inflammatory things about leftwing figures. Do you posit that there is no aggressive defense in media outlets for leftwing transgressors? Do you believe that honest republicans never get as many unfair shakes as Democrats?
Both sides have Spin doctors and brain trust propaganda machines. The trick is to pick the facts out from the junk and flotsam, instead of simply one side or another to believe in.

Have you ever heard progressive talk radio? Liberals just don't have the righteous bite of conservatives. And the left has been on the defensive since Reagan took office. Think about it, when was the last time you heard some call being a conservative the "C" word? Again there is a lot of good and bad on both sides, but to claim the left has its media ducks in a row the way the neocons do is just not understanding the gravity of the right wing strangle hold on the news media.

arteestx
The day will come when the truth will be known. And I hope that this day will be coming soon.

But will that matter? Only those who already despise the right will care. Those who despise the left will continue to ignore the facts. Just like those who despise the right rarely see the faults of the left. Partisanship blinds both left and right in this nation and I doubt that will change any time soon.

bobhhh
Have you ever heard progressive talk radio? Liberals just don't have the righteous bite of conservatives. And the left has been on the defensive since Reagan took office. Think about it, when was the last time you heard some call being a conservative the "C" word? Again there is a lot of good and bad on both sides, but to claim the left has its media ducks in a row the way the neocons do is just not understanding the gravity of the right wing strangle hold on the news media.

Word. Right Wing talk radio is some of the most hate-filled tripe I've ever heard, and its always been that way. Its hilarious to hear people try to claim that the Left and the Right have some sort of equilibrium of animosity.

TnTComic

bobhhh
Have you ever heard progressive talk radio? Liberals just don't have the righteous bite of conservatives. And the left has been on the defensive since Reagan took office. Think about it, when was the last time you heard some call being a conservative the "C" word? Again there is a lot of good and bad on both sides, but to claim the left has its media ducks in a row the way the neocons do is just not understanding the gravity of the right wing strangle hold on the news media.

Word. Right Wing talk radio is some of the most hate-filled tripe I've ever heard, and its always been that way. Its hilarious to hear people try to claim that the Left and the Right have some sort of equilibrium of animosity.

Careful, agreeing with me might get you labeled blindly partisan. ;)

So back on topic, I have been doing a lot of thinking about Wolfe's comments and although the facts she presents should give us all some pause as to the reality of how far we have strayed form our creed as a nation, I find that we are not in immediate danger of ceding our freedom to a dictator.

It's too easy to invoke Godwin's Law and see Fascists around every corner, Real evil is often more subtle. The fact is I am becoming more convinced that the neocons and their corporation buddies have no real secret agenda. They seem to me more and more to just be short sighted, corrupt and greedy with no iota or inclination to care about the future.

I think oppression at its core is abhorrent to Americans, unfortunately we have become a bit too complacent as to our responsibilities as stewards of liberty.

But oppression is also like a rash, and sooner or later its going to get bad enough so people will demand action, if only to stop the itching. Just like McCarthy. I think we're there now, and that's where I think her methodology breaks down. I believe the fall of strong democracy is the exception not the rule.

Her thesis implies that those ten items being realized means loss of democracy is inevitable and I'm just not buying it.

Mister Mxyzptlk
Those who despise the left will continue to ignore the facts. Just like those who despise the right rarely see the faults of the left. Partisanship blinds both left and right in this nation and I doubt that will change any time soon.

True, there will always be partisanship, that won't change. GWBush could go on live TV and shoot a puppy in cold blood, and you'd still have at least 20% who approve of him and the job he's doing. And the same is of course true of the left; Bush could heal a blind person on live TV and 20% would still hate him. But I do think that there does come a time, with the benefit of historical hindsight, when there's broad consensus.

Although some still defend him, most people realize McCarthy was a fear-mongerer whose approach to democracy, if adopted, would make us all less free. Despite his critics at the time, most people today see Lincoln as doing an amazing job leading this country through a terrible crisis (not flawless, mind you). I think most people outside of South Carolina understand that Thurmond's vision of America was racist, JFK was a womanizer and inspirational, and Nixon was paranoid but did some good things (opened China, started the EPA, etc.). Obviously, presidents as humans are more complex than this, but I think there is broad consensus view beyond the hyper-partisan.

It's still rather soon, but I predict history will in the long run see Bill Clinton as a flawed individual whose shortcomings nearly cost him the presidency, but was an overall pretty good president who was unfairly dogged by partisan Republicans. And I think history will be merciless in its judgement on the Bush Administration. I could be wrong, of course, but I do believe the truth will come out and it will be broadly acknowledged.

I hate to be a wet blanket here, but America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The difference between the two is actually quite crucial. Of course, I can't fault anyone for being confused on this issue, our own politicians can't seem to differentiate the two.

RabbitMaster
I hate to be a wet blanket here, but America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The difference between the two is actually quite crucial. Of course, I can't fault anyone for being confused on this issue, our own politicians can't seem to differentiate the two.

To use the exact political terminology we live in a: Federal Democratic Republic.
(as originally coined by Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton)
I agree with RabbitMaster though, folks don't seem to know the difference. Notice that Federal and Democratic are used as adjectives to describe the type of Republic we have. Its not a federal republican democracy or a democratic republic federation.
It may sound like semantics but these are all very different types of government.

I have to admit, that term is new to me and I thought I had read all there was to read on the issue. I'm sure it's valid, although I don't think I've ever stumbled across it before.

Definitions

1. A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
2. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
3. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.
4. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.
5. Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.


I didn't originate that, but it's always been my favorite explanation. It's a lot more fun that hearing me drone on and on about the 'rule of law', I assure you.

bobhhh

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

Actually presidents can be impeached for anything that is judged improper by Congress. Nixon's first proposed Article of Impeachment was that he "lied to the American People".

Also, people often trip over that phrase "High Crimes or Misdemeanors", as if a "misdemeanor" constitutes a serious, felonious criminal offense. It does not. A misdemeanor is a petty crime:

misdemeanor

1. Law. a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
2. an instance of misbehavior; misdeed.


***

Bush is eminently impeachable. Most presidents are, but Bush has a dirty laundry list a mile long.

Hence I would argue that the problem is not that that the public should "pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place", but that Conyers and Pelosi should pay a little more attention to their Congressional Oath of Office.

TitanOne

bobhhh

Hawk
Can somebody clarify something for me? Does the president necessarily have to commit treason or break the law to be impeached? They can't be taken out of office for not meeting the approval of U.S. citizens?

No. He has to commit a crime, the infamously vague "High Crimes or Misdemeanors."

if you don't like a president you can vote him out of office or better yet pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place.

Actually presidents can be impeached for anything that is judged improper by Congress. Nixon's first proposed Article of Impeachment was that he "lied to the American People".

Also, people often trip over that phrase "High Crimes or Misdemeanors", as if a "misdemeanor" constitutes a serious, felonious criminal offense. It does not. A misdemeanor is a petty crime:

misdemeanor

1. Law. a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony.
2. an instance of misbehavior; misdeed.


***

Bush is eminently impeachable. Most presidents are, but Bush has a dirty laundry list a mile long.

Hence I would argue that the problem is not that that the public should "pay a little more attention to the voting process in the first place", but that Conyers and Pelosi should pay a little more attention to their Congressional Oath of Office.

I will grant you that Bush could be impeached tommorrow, but what would that prove? Impeach Him and Cheney and install Pelosi as president, how will that affect our country?

Sometimes its best to observe some moderation. If we were to relax the mores regarding impeachment, then government would freeze to a standstill, and every time some causcus in congress got a hair up its its ass, we would have a witch hunt, and the people's business would take second place to political hatchet jobs.

As a democrat, let me tell you nothing would be sweeter than to get some revenge for the Clinton impeachment, especially since Bush deserves it so much, but realistically, I feel it's best to focus on the upcoming elections especially since there are not enough votes in the senate to convict him. Another partisan lightning rod is not what we need.

Maybe if we smarten up the public enough to make an informed decision, instead of wringing our hands about who cried and who said what about whom, we won't elect a president that won't be under impeachment review in three years. The problem is not what to do after an election, but to conduct the selection of the leader of the free world with a little more care than we do the winner of Dancing With the Stars.

I say this as someone who voted for Bush twice...the President is the head of the Executive Branch and as such is especially responsible for following the law. Any provable deviation from the law is potentially grounds for impeachment. The Founders, in their wisdom, set it up so that it wasn't an easy thing to impeach a sitting executive, but it could be done.
Now, I personally believe that President Bush at least skirted and possibly broke the law in regard to the warrantless wire-tapping program. The law was later amended specifically so they could do what they were already doing. but the fact remains that prior to the amended law, it was necessary to go through the FISA court to do wiretapping. If the President knowingly sidestepped the FISA court, then I would consider that an impeachable offense. Does that necessarily mean impeachment proceedings need to begin? Not necessarily. The members of the Senate decide, by their votes whether or not the charges a)really happened and b) warrant some sort of oversight action. I have to assume that the Senate has reviewed the situation and decided not to proceed.
See, this is what happens when your real loyalties are to the rule of law and to liberty, you wind up having to call your own guys on it sometimes.

bobhhh
I will grant you that Bush could be impeached tommorrow, but what would that prove? Impeach Him and Cheney and install Pelosi as president, how will that affect our country?

Sometimes its best to observe some moderation. If we were to relax the mores regarding impeachment, then government would freeze to a standstill, and every time some causcus in congress got a hair up its its ass, we would have a witch hunt, and the people's business would take second place to political hatchet jobs.

Are you sure that's a bad thing? We need presidents who are less insolent and inclined to throw their weight around. We need presidents who worry about public opinion and worry even more about violating the law. IMO, correcting that IS the peoples' business, first and foremost. We are deevolving politically from a republic into a despotism. We should do something about it, instead of following in the footsteps of ancient Rome.

bobhhh
As a democrat, let me tell you nothing would be sweeter than to get some revenge for the Clinton impeachment, especially since Bush deserves it so much, but realistically, I feel it's best to focus on the upcoming elections especially since there are not enough votes in the senate to convict him. Another partisan lightning rod is not what we need.

Maybe if we smarten up the public enough to make an informed decision, instead of wringing our hands about who cried and who said what about whom, we won't elect a president that won't be under impeachment review in three years. The problem is not what to do after an election, but to conduct the selection of the leader of the free world with a little more care than we do the winner of Dancing With the Stars.

I can understand where you're coming from, but look at it from a constitutional perspective. Do you think the Founders would want Bush to get a Free Pass? Especially after his war on the Constitution with the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA law violations, and his suspension of Habeas Corpus?

All of the above, plus the Plame case, the WMD lies, and the usage of torture that violates international law makes an open and shut case for Impeachment. I'm not a Democrat, but if I were one, I'd be hopping mad that Bush-Cheney are being allowed carte blanche while Clinton was impeached over perjury related to a civil court case.

But my issue is with the Constitution, which has been trampled by this White House unlike any other.

TitanOne

bobhhh
I will grant you that Bush could be impeached tommorrow, but what would that prove? Impeach Him and Cheney and install Pelosi as president, how will that affect our country?

Sometimes its best to observe some moderation. If we were to relax the mores regarding impeachment, then government would freeze to a standstill, and every time some causcus in congress got a hair up its its ass, we would have a witch hunt, and the people's business would take second place to political hatchet jobs.

Are you sure that's a bad thing? We need presidents who are less insolent and inclined to throw their weight around. We need presidents who worry about public opinion and worry even more about violating the law. IMO, correcting that IS the peoples' business, first and foremost. We are deevolving politically from a republic into a despotism. We should do something about it, instead of following in the footsteps of ancient Rome.

bobhhh
As a democrat, let me tell you nothing would be sweeter than to get some revenge for the Clinton impeachment, especially since Bush deserves it so much, but realistically, I feel it's best to focus on the upcoming elections especially since there are not enough votes in the senate to convict him. Another partisan lightning rod is not what we need.

Maybe if we smarten up the public enough to make an informed decision, instead of wringing our hands about who cried and who said what about whom, we won't elect a president that won't be under impeachment review in three years. The problem is not what to do after an election, but to conduct the selection of the leader of the free world with a little more care than we do the winner of Dancing With the Stars.

I can understand where you're coming from, but look at it from a constitutional perspective. Do you think the Founders would want Bush to get a Free Pass? Especially after his war on the Constitution with the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA law violations, and his suspension of Habeas Corpus?

All of the above, plus the Plame case, the WMD lies, and the usage of torture that violates international law makes an open and shut case for Impeachment. I'm not a Democrat, but if I were one, I'd be hopping mad that Bush-Cheney are being allowed carte blanche while Clinton was impeached over perjury related to a civil court case.

But my issue is with the Constitution, which has been trampled by this White House unlike any other.

I can't argue with the validity of your points, I may be naive here, but I'm just hoping Obama will be elected and reverse a good deal of the damage that has been done.

bobhhh
I can't argue with the validity of your points, I may be naive here, but I'm just hoping Obama will be elected and reverse a good deal of the damage that has been done.

Awww how cute!, He has hopes somebody else will fix his widddle country for himmm, Isn't that juust Preeecious?

Seriously though, grow up. You were right that really was a very naive sounding statement.