This has been a pet project of Rep. John Conyers

Back in 1971, Conyers wanted to impeach Richard Nixon, for bombing Cambodia without congressional approval. Later on, when Bill Clinton bombed (or cruise missiled) Sudan, Afghanistan, Serbia and Iraq (the "Desert Fox" campaign), all without congressional approval, Conyers had nothing to say.

As for Pelosi, consider the following quote, from 16 December 1998:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Maybe she's afraid that when she accuses Bush of "lying" about WMD in Iraq, this statement might come back to haunt her. It's interesting how the Democrats accuse Bush of lying for saying the same general things that they themselves were saying before he became president.

Okay... so IF they win, do they think the President won't veto things he disagrees with? They aren't going to win 2/3 or 3/4 of both Houses; so they won't be able to override ANY vetoes so if they want to run in 2008 on failure) go ahead. So... nothing will get done, and I'm sure with the vindicative nature in Washington, they'll try and impeach Bush because they have nothing else to do.... OR perhaps they'll try to go after Cheney since they see him as the "evil-devil-puppetmaster pulling the bumbling idiot that is Bush."

Except Bush seems to be a genious when it fits their stereotype of him coordinating massive conspiracies on EVERY subject since the founding of our Republic.

Matt,

The Democrats know they can't remove Bush, since they won't have 67 votes in the Senate. Very likely that even if they capture the Senate they wouldn't get 50 votes for removal. Pelosi knows this. Your assertion that the Dems don't know the difference between 67 and 50 is just bannanas.

The Republicans will be considered the "Party that George built" for many years to come. There is nothing more powerful for Democrats in the upcoming years that the slogan "Don't go back to the party of Bush." Bush is the ultimate poster child for the Dems and the Dems are gleefully looking forward to milking him for all he's worth. They are NOT going to kill the golden goose, as you suggest.

I suspect you know this already and your post is just a lame attempt at fear mongering the base. I bet you are hoping that Peolosi makes this boneheadded move so you can rally the troops in George's defense. Unlike the Dems of the past Pelosi is waaaay to smart for that...it just aint gonna happen.

Jim:
You've proven you're a little more on the ball then what the actual ELECTED officials and the Leftist Blogs have been saying for years now.

It's interesting how much you assume the American people support your views. You're smart enough to know that polls aren't really accurate as there aren't 12% more Democrats then Republicans in EVERY district and State in the country.

So... if the polls are to be roughly believed, Bush's favorability is between 44% and 39% with the Dems being oversampled, Bush's support is right around 45 to 50%. If the Iraq situation changes and Bush is viewed by reasonable people as being witch hunted against while showing all the accusations Democrats make now are things THEY were saying BEFORE Bush was elected, you'll be playing right into the Republicans' hands.

Trust me, Republicans are better at politics than the Democrats, even smart ones, like the grandma worth 15 million dollars who doesn't seem to be giving that money away for the good of the poor.

wawilliyo,

Not all of the polls are oversampled for the Democrats. THis one for CO-7 shows a toss-up of 47% each, but sampled the Republicans at 40% (!) even though they are the third most popular party in the district, behind the Dems and independents. They claim that the number is based upon voting patterns in 1998 and 2002...but it is not 1998 or 2002. Mark has been claiming recently that the polls are all wrong...perhaps, but some may actually be underestimating the Dem wave.

Mark is right that you can't trust a single poll or even several if the methodology is wrong. But if they are as useless as he claims, why do the Dems and Republicans incessantly use internal polls to guage their campaings? And if all the Republicans really know they are going to win, as Mark seems to, why all the gloom and doom from the Rebpulican establishment? (Summarized nicely here).

The Dems may not end up with a huge majority, but it only takes +1 seat change everything. The house is not a fun place to be for the minority, as Dems have learned over the last 12 years.

I always thought elections came before acceptance speeches and impeachment proceedings by democrats.

Did I miss something? Or do the democrats automatically know they are winning, and we can all just stay home on election day.

Sorry...that CO-7 poll is here.

dl,

You can stay home, if you like...many of your friends are. ;)

Sorry...just couldn't resist...

Yep, they are so smart those democrats. Seems like they won in 2004 and 2000 too If I remember right. No reason to vote in this country anymore, the democrats are so smart they'll just bypass that step.

We own the Diebold machines. Muahahahahaha!!!!

ah yes, another choice nugget from the Republican scare bag.

Look, Bush severely deserves impeachment, yes. But, the reality is that even if the dems make strong gains in the House, they won't have the votes for impeachment, and in any case would never get a conviction in the Repub controlled Senate.

The Repubs were able to get an impeachment for something as utterly inconsequential as getting a bj, yes, but that's because the they are disciplined automatons who vote exactly as Delay used to tell them to. Do you really think the Dems are disciplined enough to get anywhere near the unanimity they would need for impeachment?

A lot was said here yesterday about the Democratic agenda if they win the House. But the reality there too is that the Dems will be hard pressed to pass any legislation. They might get enough Repubs to go along with a bump in the minimum wage just because it's pretty popular with voters. But beyond that, the dems will not be able to enact much legislation against Bush's veto and a disciplined Republican front.

So that leaves us with this question: if the Dems can't really pass much of an agenda anayway if they get the House, then why would people vote for them? I believe the answer is that the American people are increasingly wary of a Bush admin that has weilded far too much unchecked power for too long. Post-9/11, the American people were willing to grant the Bushians the benefit of the doubt on almost everything. But these days Americans are seeing for themselves the often catastrophic consequences of over-reaching by the Bushians, who have constantly exploited terrorist threats to justify sweeping changes to our founding principles.

Those of you who fume that the Democratic agenda and is either evil or non-existent are missing the point. The American people are taking their ire out on a rubberstamp Republican congress that has consistently shirked its most important responsibility: to provide a check on the power of the executive. The American people distrust such unchecked aggregation of power, and they are increasingly unhappy with the results it has wrought: a debacle in Iraq that we never should have gotten involved with in the first place, incompetence in responding to national emergencies, a world community that has never been more hostile to the US, and domestic programs that are a boon to corporations while doing very little for the average American (read: budget-busting "prescription drug" corporate welfare handout, in which the govt is specifically prohibited from negotiating with Big Pharma over prices).

In short, the Republican congress cannot be trusted to provide the necessary checks and balances our nation was founded on, cannot be trusted to protect our Constitution from a power-hungry Executive, cannot be trusted to police themselves, and cannot be trusted to defend the interests of regular Americans.

So no, the democrats won't be able to push through much legislation, and won't be able to impeach Mr Bush. But they will have supoena power, and will put the breaks on the Bushian power grab.

This election is about counter-balance... and about righting a ship that has been steadfastly driven towards a reef.

Jim,--- Are you one of them smart democrats, that are gonna save the world? I hear all ya gotta do is hate Bush and that fix's everything. Sure is a good plan ya got, can't wait to see what happens after you impeach down to Dick Cheney. You know he's got a weak heart and Nancy with her whip may just push him over the edge. Is that plan B?

please recall that the house votes the articles of impeachment & the senate conducts the trial. so unless both houses flip, nothing's gonna happen.

the clinton impeachment trial, in which he was acquited on both articles, opened the door for paritisan impeachment.

I feel impeachment should be delayed until after the person leaves the office, barring a significant offense (& I aint talking lying 'bout a hummer either).

paritisan impeachment weakens the office & unnecessarily preoccupies the federal govt at the expense of the people.

govt serves st the sufferage of the people...& we're damn sure suffering as it is.

Jim - cause you're smart and all, did you load up on HAL stock? I know you knew it's gonna break that 42 annual high real soon --- Like in early Nov ;) ;)

It's one thing to be a democrat, but another to make wise financial investments. I've moved all my ss money into it, betting the farm and all.

Remember the story about the scorpion that persuaded the rat to take him across the river and then stung him in the neck because that's what scorpions do? Well, I have a rat-like instinct for survival, and will not let that happen in the first place! Word to the wise: In the unlikely event Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House, she will not suddenly give up her stinger, her divisive ways, or her vindictiveness.

Get serious with this Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox scare tactic. The only person in the U.S. that seriously wants Bush impeached is Dick Chaney. With the Bush family out of the way, this evil doer would attempt to rule the world. Only Batman would be able to stop him.

dl,

One more thing on the impeachment. If the Dems were able to do it, they'd get Cheney, too. So that would leave Pelosi in charge (note collective shudder among the right, center and a few of the smarter lefties.)

Do you really think Pelosi wants to inherit the Iraq mess? Do you really think she wants all the blame and scorn that go with the commander-in-chief job? If she got the job the Repubs would hae an out--they'd say "Iraq was going just fine until SHE messed it up". Bush has made his bed...Pelosi most definitely doesn't want to lie in it (ooo, just had a REALLY scary thought there...)

The next 2 years are going to be brutal for President, whether the Dems win congress or not. Pelosi may want to be president, but not in 2007.

Again..not going to happen.

Jim --- The rich lady from San Francisco with a whip is gonna be there to fix Iraq. Yep, sounds like that democrat plan I heard about --- A grandmother who is going to have order in the house --- as in her whitehouse.

We own the Diebold machines. Muahahahahaha!!!!

Posted by: CJ at October 23, 2006 01:40 PM

that's the second time i've seen that kind of statement and it's sickening to think that there are plenty of 'ken blackwell' types who actually condone the employment of illicit vote-manipulation and suppression tactics to produce a result otherwise not possible outside of tampering.

Pelosi is right. Impeachment would be a colossal waste of time. The government has better things to do; there is one hell of a mess to clean up and the sooner the better. Enough people have been killed in the name of democracy. The time has come to stop the lunacy.

Bush should stay in office to remind everybody *daily* what happens when you do not care about your country.

Wade

Jim Oliver - orangealert - Canadian Observer -

Democrats can only obstruct, and we need to have a bowel movement in congress to get rid of the obstructions. "Bring it ON".

Democrats can only obstruct

Posted by: dl at October 23, 2006 02:44 PM

I only wish. Where were they to obstruct the Iraqi debacle? They bought into the FEAR, FEAR and more FEAR propaganda spouted by Administration as much as any Bush bungler. With a few exceptions (Feingold, for one) the Democrats did nothing give their blessings.

Aaron touched on it when he said, "the reality there too is that the Dems will be hard pressed to pass any legislation." Let me expand on that thought. In my opinion, November is going to result in control of both chambers by razor thin margins. Maybe the GOP will retain control of both, or maybe one, or maybe neither.

But in any case, neither party will have much of a mandate. Thus, two things could happen: (a) members of both parties will find a way to work with each other, or (b) legislative gridlock will occur on all sorts of issues, large and small. The former would be nice, but unlikely. The latter is more likely, but not very nice. And if it happens, then it becomes a question of who gets blamed for it. And it seems to me that the party who will get blamed will be the party perceived to have the most power. That's the way it happened back in the 90's anyway. At least in the House. The Senate managed to stay above the fray. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

dl, they would need a cranial rectal flush to be a little more accurate.

Compared to hurtling over a cliff, merely applying some brakes sounds pretty damn appealing at this point.

Don't be a lemming - Vote Democrat Nov 7.

Orange

If you couldn't tell I was making fun of the liberals, I know it's hard to pick up on since liberals are self paroding.

Let's just 'stay the course'. oh wait, that was never said by anyone before according to Bush. Keep back pedaling.... Flip Floppers!

Yeah, you can trust Pelosi, not! If the Dems get hold of congress things are going to get bad. Does anybody think Ted Kennedy is an honorable man? George Bush has given this country six years of economic progress. If the Dems get control we'll all be eating lame duck for two years. How is that good for America?

Jim,

I do think that all of the polls are wrong - but we'll see, shan't we?

At any rate - Blinded by hatred, awash in corruption (I know: I've co-written the book on it) and entirely irresponsible, the Democrats could not stop themselves from pushing impeachment if they were to secure a House majority.

CO,
Dims were there to obstruct the Iraq "debacle", but didn't! They voted for it! And changed horses midstream, nothing new there.

Remember Pelosi's 1998 statement about Saddam and WMDs? The far Left can't be center for long, the yellow streak down their spine always surfaces. Just like in Canada.

CO:
You have no idea how the United States Federal Government works do you? You're aware that equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (even though most of the Democrats SKIPPED the meetings) on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees saw ALL the data the President saw. Sooo... if there was SOOO much evidence to show they didn't have weapons of mass destruction why didn't those few lone members speak out.

And why don't you read up on what Feingold REALLY said you hoser. You'd discover he TOO thought Iraq had WMD; he was just happy with the idea of Saddam Hussein having nukes and giving them to Al Qaeda who he was training in the deserts of Iraq.

It's illinformed people like you (and the CBC who seem to has as much credibility as the local Topeka, KS CBS affiliate news team) who have for MONTHS said Democrats should seek impeachment and now all y'all are backing away from the calls... why? You scared of what that would do to the chances of winning? Run on that as part of your platform you dimwits. See if you'd win.

Mark is right only in part though. You're blinded by hatred for Bush. I've determined a vast majority of anyone who has the Daily Kos bookmarked has also been driven dumb by their hatred of Bush. Blind and dumb. Now if we could only get you mute.

By the way CO... somewhere in Saskatoon there's a riding missing it's idiot.

Orangealert

We say Diebold because you fruitcakes actually believe that nonsense. It's just to get you idiots into a lather.

It's not like we have dead people voting, or people voting more than once, or bribing homeless with cigarettes....nah, only one party does that.

Heh... Pelosi takes away one of the Republican's voter scare tactics (the dems will impeach Bush!) and all they can do is call her a liar.

Let it go, guys. Just makes you look more desperate.

You do realize the GOP is telling America the best person to lead the house is Dennis Hastert, a person when charged with the safety of 15 and 16 year olds covered up information that could have stopped pedofilia just to stay in power. Go for it your the self described moral party.

Oh, how I love the Loony Left. Yet again we have one of their mouthbreathers posting, in effect, "LOOK AT ME!! LOOK HOW STUPID I AM!!!"

The thing is, Errortime, we already KNOW. So you don't have to come up with the inane, insane, old canard that "The Repubs were able to get an impeachment for something as utterly inconsequential as getting a bj..."

I always wonder, do you guys really BELIEVE thar, or do you just say so because you like the way it sounds? If you believe it, you are pathologically stupid. If you know better but say it anyway, you are just a Liberal.

Did you ever READ the charges against Clinton? Or did you just absorb the pap spoonfed to you by your minders?

Because no charges were ever brought against Billy Boy for any of his consensual sexual escapades, in or out of office, in or out of the Oval Office. Ever. No where, no time, no way.

But there's this pesky little concept called "perjury" and your boy was guilty of same. Not to mention suborning perjury, though he skated on that one, albeit narrowly.

And the perjury occurred during his testimony in a criminal action, which was separate from and unrelated to, his sleazy antics in the Oval Office. The questioning about his OTHER extra-marital sexual romps was allowed, by a Clinton appointee Liberal judge, based on HER ruling that the charges against him, of sexual harassment and misconduct, were of a nature to make testimony about other similar conduct admissable.

But you just gotta rub our noses in your abject ignorance, don't you, Error? As if we hadn't already caught on to the fact that you have no clue.....or integrity.

After Errortime's explanation that Clinton was impeached by robotic conservatives for having a little innocent fun, he goes on to another favorite Dem position---the "unchecked power" mantra.

Of course, to get there they have to simply ignore, or deny, the determination of the Bush Admistration to involve Congress in every step of the Iraq decision-making process. All those speeches? All those Congressional votes? Didn't happen---just didn't happen. All those returns to the U.N. ? Ditto. All those speeches to the American Public? What speeches?

No,the Orwellion revisionist history, according to the Loony Left, is that Bush, all by his own self, with just a few handpicked aides, marched ahead without any discussion, any approval, or (new keyword here---) OVERSIGHT.

I guess he DID just go it alone, with nothing more than the advance knowledge of about 654 members of Congress (in both houses, dontcha see..) and the Pentagon and the United Nations and nearly 300 million Americans, or at least those who paid attention.

So now the poor Libs have to fall back on the multi-contradictory but evidently satisfying explanations that they voted on military action but didn't know it really meant military action and they were misled though they had the same information the President did and the intelligence was bad though they had been basing their own speeches on it for years and it was only lies when the Right said it but not when THEY said it and no matter how many speeches Bush made about how WMD were only a part of the reasons we needed to invade Bush really said it was the only reason and though no Administration offical said Sadaam was responsible for 9/11 (and in fact said he was NOT) they really TRIED TO IMPLY that he was, etc etc etc

So the NDP is the Pretzel Party...what's new?

Now if you had a Socialist (red) who was also a coward (yellow), what color would he be?

Got it in one....

And he might even be prattling on about the evil infernal corrupt manipulated Republican-driven electronic voting machines. Do Ya Think?

It's been two years since we last heard the Diabolical Diebold whine. So, orangies of the Left, tell us---what exactly have the Dems, ANY Dems, ANY where, done in the past two years to make sure these machines will not be used in '06? '08?

Easy---the DNP has done nothing. They have fought like furies to block efforts to halt voter fraud that actually DOES occur, by fighting efforts to demand photo IDs to vote, efforts to curb fraudulent voter registration, and anything else that might slow down real voter fraud. But they have just forgotten, I guess, the very existence of those electronic machines.

Wonder why? It's sooo easy, folks. Those machines are all the Dems have to fall back on when they get their beeehinds whupped. Without the ability to convince a few drooling mouthbreathers that they really did win but the election was STOLEN from them by (check one---or two, or three, who's counting??)
Corrupt election officials
Corrupt voting machines
Corrupt Supreme Court
they got nothing but the sour tastes of defeeat and rejection.

But at the same time, they have to shore up their base, which in the past two elections seemed to consist to a high degree of drunks who sell votes for cigarettes, felons, and those who follow the old adage of Vote Early---And Vote Often. Oh, and the dead. So they will fight to the death to hold on to these votes, and conveniently FORGET about those voting machines till the last minute, when they know they can haul out the Diebold Manifesto and get a bunch of orange and red and yellow fanatics ready to light their torches and pick up those pitchforks.

Sorry...that's NDP

If the Dems win the House it is no guarantee that Pelosi will become Speaker. Apparently there are rumors that Pelosi won't have enough support to become Speaker. Even if she does, she won't be able to garner the votes for impeachment. That does not mean she won't bring it up to appease her ultra-liberal base back in San Francisco. Even though Dean may be a basket case, the majority of Democrats in the upper-echelon realise that if impeachment happens *if* Dems take control it will mobilize the Republican base and hurt their chances in 2008.

One thing that is guaranteed if the Dems retake the House is they will delay any and all conservative bills, appointments, etc. especially if it originates from President Bush.

Josh..
a small thing..but try and learn how to spell the VPresident's name....
It's Cheney..not Chaney...
You may want to brush up, in case, he becomes the POTUS..your biggest nightmare!!!

So they will fight to the death to hold on to these votes

Actually Almiranta, even death doesn't stop them, heh.

Nancy Pelosi (D – California) could be the new Speaker of the House. That's 3rd in line to the Presidency. This is her record:
• Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut.
• Pelosi voted for the largest tax increase in history.
• Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.
• Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes
• Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco ).
• Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting.
• Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots.
• Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.
• Pelosi has voted at least 12 times against the death penalty.
• Pelosi was one of only 67 House members to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• Pelosi has voted at least eight times against banning partial-birth abortion, at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci's law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
• Pelosi voted against a bill that would "[b]ar the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian or judge."
• Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
• Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists.
• Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds).
• When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion.
• The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States , remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs.
• Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against the $87-billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that included extra money for body armor for our soldiers.
• Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department.
• Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism.
• In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.

Don't be a lemming - Vote Democrat Nov 7.

Yes, vote DemoCRAP--it sure beats thinking!

Leslie Stale did a puff piece on Piglosi last night on 60 Lib Minutes--as I stated in an earlier thread, 1H8L1BS because they can't be themselves and get elected. Piglosi was portrayed as a mainstream mother/grandmother. At one point in the interview, Piglosi denied that the war on terror was being fought in Iraq, and stated that Afghanistan was where the WOT was.

And this beyotch may be two heartbeats away from the White House, if we don't GOTV...

oh my, it never ceases to amaze me how Pavlov's dogs are trained to foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Clinton. Still gets you in a tizzy after all these years - huh Almiranta?

Down, Almiranta, down boy. You're getting slobber all over my computer screen. A few more rabid outbursts like that and we might have to take a trip to the pound for a distemper shot.

1H8L1BS -

yesssss, I can feel your hate! Give in to your hate, my boy. Feel the power of the dark side!

"Piglosi" - yep, she's really deserving of total unbridled hate.

You know, I've never been a big fan of Speaker Pelosi (nor of either one of the Clintons). But I really fail to understand what Hillary or Pelosi ever did to you and your ilk to earn that kind of raging hate. I mean, we on the left go so far as to accuse Bush of being a liar (um, because he is), and well, quite an idiot at times - but there's nothing I read on the left that anywhere approaches the raging, visceral spew that's directed towards Hillary and Pelosi. Maybe over in freeper land it's become something like the "5 Minutes Hate" sessions out of George Orwell's 1984.

In any case, 1H8, you really need to take a good hard look at yourself. Are you even aware of how angry and ugly you sound? It borders on psychopathic. I really hope you get the help you desperately need.

Is it 1H8 or is it 1*8**BSs? Or both?

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Is it 1H8 or is it 1*8**BS? Or both?

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Hey, it's not just Nancy "fancy pantsy" Pelosi, it is the whole San Francisco liberal agenda. If she gets any real power be prepared for a steady diet of hypocritical psuedo environmental wack jobs writing laws to abolish toilet paper and all manner of personal hygiene.

Oops sorry for the double post. It didn't show up so after the error message so I reposted. I hate that. (oops now I'ms sounding like a bush lemming)

Hey I have a question for the libs on this site.

Just today Nancy Pelosi said catching Bin Laden wouldn't do a thing to stop terrorism.

Yet she said as recently as three weeks ago said that catching Bin Laden should be the center focus on the war on terror...

So... is the only aspect of the GWOT catching Bin Laden?

If so, tell that to the people of London, Madrid, Bali, New York City, the residents of France...

Is there a war against western civilization or not?

Apparently Iraq (even though OBL says it is) isn't the center front on the war on terror because the NAMBLA loving Nancy Pelosi says it's not.

Well maybe someone should tell OBL his DNC talking points are wrong.

Or maybe someone should tell the millionaire grannie with the whip to get out of San Francisco and actually say how she's VOTED. After all...

money talks, bullshit walks... and Nancy Pelosi has her husband's money, but I think she's got more BS.

The only thing I can possibly imagine that would even come close to an impeachable offense by President Bush is the wiretapping business. It's a bad idea on many levels, and it could have been handled better by him.

As a proud Democrat, and one who clearly disputed the outcome of the 2000 election, and who found it grueling to watch him get re-elected. On some level, it would feel good to get revenge for the Clinton impeachment. But the other posters are correct, the votes will not result in removal. And frankly, President Cheney would scare us far more. I'd rather have a simpleton than Big Brother Dick. And even though we'd probably have more support for that impeachment than you guys did in 98-99. But I will write my leaders and encourage them not to impeach.

I don't believe they will. See, I think my party can do better than what yours has done in the last 12 years, and especially the last 6. I know all of you hate us, but not all of us hate you. Personally, given his record, I think that in 2008, the best thing for ANY Democrat will be to have W sitting in the Oval Office, smirking away. We want that, because we believe that an increasing majority of Americans view him as a failure. Even my right-wing family down in Tennessee turned on him after Katrina. And they were all true believers.

Now, some things could change with the base. If he's able to get one more hardliner on the court and overturn Roe, that will be a big victory for the anti-woman anti-choice crowd. But that too would be a victory for us, because it takes away a huge lightning rod. That's another story though.

I've posted a few times here and I continue to assert that what I want is for you people to stop hating liberals and come to understand that you do not have a monopoly on patriotism. We want the best for our country and we aren't moving to Canada. We refuse to let y'all discriminate against gays, restrict civil and women's rights, and encourage more people to buy assault weapons. We're never going to agree on that, but the good news is that when my son is my age, he'll be as shocked by the homophobic politics of 2004 just like I am when I see hoses turned on Black people in 1961 Mississippi. The conservatives, of both parties, were on the wrong side of civil rights, and it was a liberal Republican that freed the slaves.

My party expelled the Lotts, Thurmonds, and Russells and they went to your side. We still have the Byrd, of course. At any rate, you people need to purge the rest of the bad guys on your side of the aisle. It's too bad the Shays and Chafees are paying the price for the extreme Bush agenda. We need more good Republicans, especially once y'all are in the minority again.

Pelosi squelched Conyers months ago.
Why is this suddenly "news" again?
Are we living in the United States of Amnesia?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it.

DougW

"Even my right-wing family down in Tennessee turned on him after Katrina. And they were all true believers."

OK, so they turned on Bush after Katrina, but will they vote for a Dem...I don't think so.

This is the perception that the MSM and the left are trying to present and I believe that conservatives are too loyal to the party to vote for a Dem just because they're displeased with Bush. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the same happened with Reagan.

One last comment on this impeachment thing.

I think it is pretty obvious that Republicans in the 1990's had impeachment as a goal from the beginning. Although the Whitewater affair turned up nothing, the Repubs kept Ken Starr going with a virtually unlimited budget long after that investigation was laid to rest. Finally, after $60 million and 6 years of random rumaging, Starr got wind of a sordid affair the president was having with an intern. The President lied about it (as men having affairs tend to do!), and so was impeached. The Repubs got what they set out to do from the beginning.

I don't think the Dems should take this same approach that the Republicans did. Impeachment should not be a goal (and we've already discussed how it is not too realistic possibility anyway, given the limited voting majority the Dems might attain in the House). The goal should be service to country. The two goals are mutually exclusive.

However, a key part of Congress' role in service to country is to provide oversight. The Founders envisioned a vigorous congress that was to be a skeptical overseer of Presidential authority. This republican congress has long abdicated this vital role, becoming instead rubberstamp accomplices to Presidential misadventures, confusing allegiance to party with allegiance to nation. With all the House committees in Republican hands for the duration of the Bush presidency, oversight has been shunned, and investigations have been stonewalled (and elections were won).

Were it that half the amount of time and effort put into investigating and having hearings on an extra-marital affair would have been spent on asking tough questions before we went to war, or before we gutted habeus corpus (and shame on Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, et al who put political concerns ahead of tough minded skepticism of a politically motivated war). To wit, congress under the Republicans took 120 hours of testimony into whether Clinton used Christmas lists to target campaign contributions, but only 12 hours of testimony into how torture became something Americans (Americans!) practiced at Abu Ghraib.

Dems will find enacting new laws tough (to the great relief of conservatives here) but with supoena power and the ability to set the congressional agenda, a new era of oversight is about to begin. The guiding principle of that oversight should be service to nation - it should not be to "get the President". However, with so many questions and investigations into crucially important matters having been left unattended to for so long, it is impossible to say what the light of day might show. Therefore, I too do not believe Pelosi can truthful tell us that impeachment absolutely will not be pursued.

Impeachment should not be a goal a priori. But you can never rule out uncovering a crime for which impeachment is demanded.

One last comment on this impeachment thing.

I think it is pretty obvious that Democrats in the 1990's had obstruction as a goal from the beginning. Although the Whitewater affair turned up indictments and convictions, the dimocrat administration appointed Ken Starr with a virtually unlimited budget long after the dimocrats were shown to be without scruples. Finally, after a cost of $60 million and 6 years of obstruction, perjury, suborning of perjury, lying to the American people, refusing to cooperate with the investigations, Clinton was finally put on trial for breaking the law, denying an American citizen her right to a fair trial where evidence of her employer's serial commission of sexual harassment is admitted, and flaunting his malfeasance in office. He lied about it (as dimocrats tend to do!), and so was impeached, charged with giving false testimony in a civil lawsuit and lost his license to practice law. The dimocrats got what they set out to do from the beginning; prove once again they can lie with impunity, Errortime.

Bane-

Along with your ability to spell and use grammar and vocabulary correctly, your command of the facts leaves much to be desired.

The Clinton Administration wasn't responsible for spending 75, not 60, million dollars on Whitewater(which of course never showed any wrongdoing by the President or his wife). In addition to that, Ken Starr was the SECOND independent counsel appointed by the GOP, only after the first one found nothing of substance to the investigation. Yes, your people got lucky when they uncovered the affair. Had that not happened, no lies about sex, no ridiculous impeachment.

I just wish there were more geniune people on your side of the aisle that would admit a few things. First off, if a Democrat had done the things Bush has done you people would have already succeeded in impeaching him. You would have all become libertarians had a Democrat enacted the warrantless wiretapping program. You would have decried our nation building has a Democrat invaded Iraq after 9/11. And had a President Gore failed to capture or kill Osama by 2002, you would have started a nationwide campaign to oust him.

I just wish one of you people could admit that.

Well dougey,
My post was a parody of aaron, “Finally, after $60 million and 6 years of random rumaging," or can't you read?

As far as "counsel appointed by the GOP" Christ, you couldn't get more facts wrong in a single sentence; Ken Starr was a duly constituted investigator, appointed by Janet Reno to investigate this particular case of possible perjury and obstruction of justice by President Clinton. He was chosen to investigate White Water, and then, Janet Reno also appointed him to investigate this case.

You dimocrats have lied so much I think you actually believe that this was about sex. What is it with you people? Are you all obsessed with blowjobs? You don't care about the rule of law when it comes to one of your own; why should I believe that suddenly you're concerned about the president breaking the law? Hypocrite! As far as the cost; if Clinton hadn't obstructed the investigation started by his own Attorney General the cost would have been far less.

“your people got lucky when they uncovered the affair. Had that not happened, no lies about sex, no ridiculous impeachment” Clinton was guilty of lying under oath, nit wit, not adultery. Just once I’d like you Clinton Dung Beetles to admit that he broke the law; he was caught and tried like the common criminal and serial harasser he is.