Comments on 31%

Because they're smart. First off, we'll begin the investigations. As everything we've been talking about for two years suddenly gets media attention, as Bush and Cheney refuse subpeonas to appear before committees, the tide will turn to such a degree, that the GOP caucuses will see it in their best interest to limit their '08 and '10 losses by impeaching him, Cheney, and Rice. Pelosi will lead a caretaker presidency until the '08 elections, which will leave the Democrats with veto and filibuster proof majorities in both houses, and whomever gets the nomination will sail to a landslide victory over the GOP's sacrificial lamb. If it's Hillary, I expect that at a minimum, we'll hold the presidency for three terms.

And this is a good plan. It's not the arrogance of power, saying, "We've got the numbers, so we're going to get revenge." It's saying, "We've got control of the process, and the logical and legal end to that process is that not only will you get impeached, after you're out of office, we're going to try you too." The joy of impeachment is that it's the one case that allows for double jeopardy.

You 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President. The Dems have 51. Where are you going to get the other 16?

Impeachment is a circus. The voters don't want a circus right now - (as much as it would be delightful in many ways.) We want to see some work done on things that matter in practical terms. Immigration! Wages! Tax law! Fixing the unconstitutional laws that the administration passed in the last six years. There is a ton of work to do and I want to see that done first.

And yes, let's see some investigations into the corruption and incompetence of the prior administration and its cronies. Fix whatever problems arise, including ethics issues. Again, do things that have practical value.

An impeachment would be damaging and divisive, and a huge political mistake.

If the Democrats want to parlay their win this November into something bigger in two years they need to spend their time showing the country that they 1) have a plan to begin addressing the country's pressing problems (war, deficit, taxes, immigration) 2) can follow through on said plan.

If they spend the next two years doing nothing more than attacking the administration they'll make zero progress toward winning the white house in 2008.

Agree, agree, agree. While there's a small part of me that would love to see Bush dragged through the mud a la Clinton, it would be foolish for the Dems. This is their opportunity to show they are the better party. They need to capitalize on this and that doesn't mean by trying to impeach the President. First, he wouldn't ever, ever, EVER be impeached because from a strict numbers standpoint the votes wouldn't be there. So why do it? Second, people want a change, that's why we voted the Dems in. We don't want more of the shit throwing that we saw from the Repub monkeys. If the Dems can rise above that, and really make strides, then think of where we can be in 2 years?

Okay, can I modify my post? Or clarify? I didn't say the Dems should impeach Bush, only that they shouldn't promise not to. Let him sweat, Mr. 31%.

Impeaching Clinton seriously hurt Republicans as was shown in the 1998 midterm election. Doing so to Bush now would be the Republican Party's wildest dream come true.

I think the talk of the Dems raising the AMT to help middle class families is GENIUS. That is a good first step.

The Dems don't have veto-proof majorities, and even a 100% majority would not be able to get past Bush's signing statements. There will be ZERO legislative accomplishments this term.

How about a law doing away with signing statements?

Impeachment is for little kids.

Repealing Bush's tax cuts, repealing his detainees policy, ending the war, dealing with Darfur, expanding stem cell research, throwing out Bush's NSA spying rules, dealing with global warming, jumpstarting the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, passing a smart immigration bill, making good on the 9/11 Commission recommendations, raising the minimum wage, extending the assault weapons ban, funding renewable energy resarch, reforming prescription drug rules so that feds can negotiate for lower prices, scrapping Bush's corporate giveaways to big oil and big pharma, getting to the bottom of Abu Ghraib, reforming the PATRIOT Act is for grown ups. Let's get on it.

Without cut and pasting some web article, off the top of your head, let's hear your ideas for PATRIOT reformation Josh.

"He Who Hesitates Is Lost"

The dems should emphasize pushing a legislative agenda that benefits mainstreet america--raising the minimum wage, reforming the prescription drug rules, embryonic stem cell research, and ending the tax breaks for the top 1%. If Bush vetoes all these proposals, The dems can use this against the republicans down the line for 2008 and make them look like the party of the boardroom and not the american people.

Or the dems can blackmail Bush with the threat of supeonas for refusing to sign off on their legislation.

I agree with other posters that this is the smart thing to do. They say they won't pursue impeachment now, but make no promises about investigations. Then, as investigations reveal that there are impeachable offenses, they let the drumbeat for impeachment in the polls and media build. Then, when it becomes clear that the majority of folks are on board, and the evidence is irrefutable, you stand up and say "well, we were reluctant to do this, didn't want a circus, yadda yadda, but the evidence is overwhemling." Then you get your cake and eat it too - you impeach Bush, and look like heroes for doing it. This is clever strategery.

Novembrrrr, you didn't even read Josh's post. he made some good suggestions, or at least listed the topics. I however prefer the wanking over his old album collection. That's where he really shines out his ass.

I'm with Josh on this one.

A slowly grilled-to-perfection impotent but-still-President Bush as a living reminder of 8 years of corruption and arrogance is a great campaign tool for the 2008 Dems. I'm content to seem him contained, paralyzed, and saved for post-presidency prosecution.

El Ganador, Neo-Realist, et al:

Exactly. This is the best possible route for Dems to take, pursuing an aggressive legislative agenda that benefits working families, the elderly, veterans, and those who have been displaced both economically and geographically due to this Administration's disastrous policies.

Shrub still has the veto and signing statements, but his ability to use them as leverage against a Democratically-controlled Congress has been severely diminished; every time he round files or alters legislation sent to his desk would mean one more nail in the coffin for GOP chances for a comeback in '08, and so there's going to be tremendous pressure on him - not the least of which from his own party - to tow the bi-partisan line for the next two years. It's the only shot the GOP has of making any headway in the next election cycle.

And by all means, start investigations, but don't go directly to impeachment proceedings until there has been a thorough process of discovery, and subsequent support from the public. The last thing DEMS need at this point, or in the near future, is to look like arrogant bullies, regardless of how many people feel impeachment is justified. But, as more and more facts come to light, and with the voters solidly behind the process, there's no way the GOP can benefit from a backlash effect down the road.

So Josh, you want to see this:

1. Pass repeal of Bush's tax cuts.
2. Bush vetoes repeal of his tax cuts.
3. Pass repeal of Bush's detainees policy.
4. Bush vetoes repeal of his detainee policy.
5. Repeat. Enjoy.

Oh, and anything he doesn't veto he can just ignore with a signing statement. Double the fun.

So given a choice between accomplishing nothing and accomplishing nothing with an impeachment circus just for kicks, I'll take the circus.

Well, I was going to say something here, but you all said it so well before me. Let him veto all he wants, that'll just give the dems power in 08.

I hope they're as ambitious as hell, so this motherfucker's true loyalties can be seen by all.

Oh, and they're planning to let his tax cuts just expire, no repeal necessary.

What did the GOP's attempt to impeach Clinton accomplish? Jack shit.

It's likely nothing comes of an impeachment attempt.

I'm with Josh Feit. Shake hands, accept the assbag for what he is, and try to find some common ground and GET SOMETHING DONE.

Once that's all done, if you want to find a way to roast him over coals for his crimes, feel free.

Agree with the "dumb idea" posts. As stated before, the Dems will benefit much more in the next two years pushing their agenda (successful or not) than an impeachment. That process would take better part of a year, so you'd probably be looking at the climax of the process in the middle of a presidential election, which is why Dean & Pelosi are against it (for now).

The thing I truly don't understand is this fantasy some have that somehow Pelosi would be president via impeachment. Granted, she will be #3 in line, but I cannot concieve of any scenario with impeachment that would make it happen. Bush and/or Cheney would resign first if they truly thought the votes would be against them in the Senate, which won't have the votes for impeachment anyway.

Also, Dan, why should the president's approval rating be any justification for/against impeachment? If, by some chance, it climbs above 50%, then you'll be getting rid of all that ITMFA stuff?

Ellenchos,

And Cheney's not gonna veto it? (Oh, and add repealing signing statements to my list.)

Look, there was a mandate. Bush isn't going to veto everything: It'll destroy his party even more.
He has to play ball if he wants to help his party in 2008. And it's not like GOP members of Congress want to vote to uphold his vetoes and be seen as complicit on an agenda that just got hosed.

Oh, and speaking of 2008... it's only 2 years away. So, hold on to your horses on ousting the Rs from the W.H. now—and concentrate on getting some stuff done—so there's something for the Ds to run on in 2008.

Novembrrrr,
On the PATRIOT Act: Section 215 (which allows the government too much leeway on seizing private records) and Section 213 (the "sneak and peek" rule on delayed warrants) are good places to start. No?

Everyone needs to just shut up. If this was another country alot of you would be taken out and (rightfully) whipped.

Josh is right. Pass a lot of popular stuff and force Bush to repeal it. Let the Dem run in 2008 on promising to sign all the popular stuff.

Use the wedge issue!

Of course Cheney would veto everything, Josh. As I said, nothing will be accomplished either way. I just want the satisfaction of seeing Bush put on trial in the Senate and -- possibly! -- even removed from office. Not for the good of the country or of the Democrats or anything, but because it would feel good.

The idea that Bush will relax his ideology and sign Democratic bills for the good of the GOP in 2008 is absurd. Maybe that would be the smart thing to do, but he never does the smart thing.

Geroge W. Bush is obtuse. I'm sure you must have noticed.

(BTW, I do think Pelosi et. al. are wise to protest too much on impeachment. It will look much more credible if they are "forced" into impleachment by the weight of the facts their investigations uncover rather than conduct a witch hunt. There should be a fair, impartial investigation and trial before he's found guilty.)

I'm with Dan. All of this "reconciliation" talk from the Dems is making me ill, especially considering how they've been treated by Republicans for the last 6 years.

Taking Bush down is not a matter of revenge. It is a matter of justice, plain and simple. He's the Commander in Chief of our military and nuclear arsenal who also happens to be the 6-year-long purveyor of lies, incompetent policies and outright criminality. If it isn't vitally important to get rid of him, then I don't know what is. Our country needs to heal and move on. It needs "a new direction," as everyone keeps saying. And this is not possible while the face of political corruption, greed and warmongering is still sitting in the oval office.

The Dems openly called Bush a dangerous and incompetant liar on the campaign trail, and won doing so. Therefore, I am supremely disappointed in all of their post-election "reaching across the isle" rhetoric. It is not incumbent upon the Dems to try and impose bi-partisanship on the Republicans, a party who practiced the purest form of partisanship over the last six years and also showed they don't give two shits about "mainstreet America" in the process. The republicans have no interest in bi-partisanship and never will. They'll destroy the Dems again the first chance they get. It IS for the Dems to do what the American people really want them to do: To right the ship, and to force the criminals who caused it to list to walk the fucking plank.

So stop with the reconciliatory talk. It IS time to get shit done, starting with purging the disease that's plagued our federal government for the past six years.

impeachment, while offering a great many of us incredible satisfaction, would ultimately hurt the dems come election time in 2008. not worth the risk. with a very blue capitol right now, and a tremdendous load of work ahead, the smart money is on keeping the moron in office.

Well, it only takes a moment to help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney..

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635). There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of Comander in Chief at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

And if your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time.

Why?

Because Nancy wants to be Speaker of the House for the next decade or two, and Howard has to think about the fact that we'll be drafting him or Gore to be Pres while Barack Obama will be VP.

Seriously.

Re #26: The rhetoric about "reaching across the aisle" is just that, rhetoric. It's in the Democrats' best interest to be seen as the reasonable party in this argument. Sure, the Republicans won't go along with it, but this way the Democrats can claim the moral high ground in '08. The Republican obstructionists will have painted themselves into a corner.

Nancy Pelosi wants to be President - Obama/Pelosi - god, what a ticket.

Then Pelsoi and another as VP.

Obama will be the next President of the US.

Watch Bush veto the new min. wage bill - god, put him in a box and kick it around, lame duck is a kind label.