Broder's take: This is just proof that a solid minority of Americans want to put this behind us and get on with immigration reform.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

But ... but .. but what would Friedman say?

"Let's give it six more months to see if impeachment still sounds like a good idea."

If the Democrats were considering serving articles of impeachment, which charges would likely rise to the top is my question?

That said, impeachment is nice, but the Senate would never convict him of anything the House impeaches him for, so he'd be able to run out the clock regardless. It's a sad, sad world.

I tried to find polls from this pre-impeachment period in Nixon's case, but came up empty. Anybody remember? I'd bet they weren't this favorable.

I don't know, i mean he was the House started the impeachment process well after the true cesspool that was Watergate had been revealed. Dean and Butterfield's testimonies that revealed the extent to which Tricky Dick had lied and misled and covered-up were held nearly a year before the House moved to impeach.

Of course the 1970s didn't have the miracle that is 24 News Channels, so maybe they weren't as well informed.

There is a bit of delicious irony in this public attitude: Americans would probably be a lot more reluctant to open the scary impeachment door if the GOP hadn't turned it into a TV gameshow in Clinton's case. Sometimes there really is divine justice.

While I'm glad the American public is coming round to this view, I don't actually want to see impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney. They're just about hitting lame duck territory. I'd rather keep the focus on their failures as we head into the election cycle than give Republicans the gift of a distracting media circus.

It's not really clear that impeaching and removing Cheney would accomplish anything.

After all, all the Constitution says about the vice-president’s duties is that (1) he becomes president if the president dies and (2) he breaks tie votes in the Senate. What Dick Cheney’s actually done in the White House has nothing to do with the vice presidency. If Cheney’s impeached, what will happen? There’s nothing to prevent Bush from allowing Cheney to continue doing whatever he’s been doing even if he’s not the Vice President. After all, look at Karl Rove’s influence, and he’s not even an elected official.

The only reason it would be useful to impeach Cheney would be to prevent him from being president if Bush were impeached. That’s about it.

This is what you get when you appease a bully.

The Democrats have been shying away from opposing Bush ever since the vote to authorize the war.

Imagine if Democrats had been strong in their convictions starting in 2003. Then we would have built up a track record and we'd have some momentum.

Imagine if articles of impeachment had been discussed when it became apparent that intelligence had been fixed around pro-war policy. Then there would have been time to do a full investigation and the Bush adminisration wouldn't have the option of running out the clock.

Now it's probably too late. Now we're probably going to have to hold our noses and keep our fingers crossed that these evil fucks don't get us into another war. They are going to steal everything they can get their hands on. They are going to corrupt every program that they can worm their way into to make it profit their friends and family. They are criminals and they are going to do what criminals do when the police cannot stop them. We didn't stop them when they were gettting going - all the way back to Gore throwing in the towel too soon in 2000 - and now we're stuck with them. 18 months is simply not long enough to go through the whole impeachmnet process with a lame duck president.

This should be a lesson to all Democrats: that appeasing Republican bullies is always - ALWAYS - a losing strategy.

Bush oftens claims the mantle of Churchill. But the truth is, it is the Democrats who need to channel the spirit of a political Churchill so that we never let bullies take over our government again.

It seems to me that the House should discharge H. Res.333 from the Committee, pass it on the House floor and unleash the House Judiciary Committee's full-fledged, in depth investigation into Cheney's illegal, unconstitutional activities.

There is tremendous benefit to a "media circus" (as a previous poster called it) to expose the malfeasance and unlawful activities of the Bush-Cheney cabal.

Whether the Senate would convict is doubtful, but the trial itself would pull back the curtain on Cheney's illegalities and prove beyond doubt that he is unfit to continue in office.

IMPEACH: First Cheney, then Bush.

I disagree.

Cheney has thumbed his nose at the Constitution and at the concept of oversight. Impeaching him would serve notice that the Executive branch can't get away with that.

Not impeaching him invites more of the same from future office-holders.

-Dave Adams-

I don't think anything will happen in Congress until you actually start seeing people showing up en mass at protests demanding that Bush and Cheney step down.

Come to think of it, thats not a bad idea.

-Dave Adams-

You might enjoy reading this.

Imagine if articles of impeachment had been discussed when it became apparent that intelligence had been fixed around pro-war policy. Then there would have been time to do a full investigation and the Bush adminisration wouldn't have the option of running out the clock.

And just how were they supposed to do that when the Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress? The majority is even in charge of whether or not you can use the meeting rooms.

Yeah, I wish Democrats had stood firmer from the very beginning of this administration. I wish Daschle had been less accommodating, I wish those who had doubts about the case that was being made for the war, like Bob Graham of Florida, had been more vocal, I wish they had been more willing to use the filibuster against right-wing judges. But I'm not going to lambaste them for not doing the impossible. It's the Republicans who are most to blame for not holding Bush accountable when they were in charge.

Impeachment was discussed back then - we first learned the "intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy" when the Downing Street Memo was published in the Times of London on 5/1/05. A few weeks later we formed AfterDowningStreet.org to put impeachment "on the table" and helped John Conyers hold his famous "basement hearings." We've been organizing nationally ever since, and today we launched a video campaign with Brave New Films at http://impeachcheney.org - check it out and sign our petition!

Friedman is for it. Except that he doesn't think the Iraqi gov't is sufficiently stable yet to be able to safely conduct it.

Never mind.

It's a matter of toiming, ass. Politics is the art of the possible -- not of blowing it so uninformed twits such as you feel better.

Get this fact through your head -- even if it means you have to struggle with it because it concerns ethics: third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Pelosi, therefore, is the _L-A-S-T_ person to be initiating impeachment.

Think for the first fucking time in your life:

We the people are the ulimate check on gov't. And impeachment (and (removal) is the ultimate means of checking. The move to impeach must originate with We the people -- not with Congress, as that can not only be seen as mere partisanship, but also be an abuse of power, as it was wtih Clinton.

Do you want to succeed? Or do you merely want to act the fool in order to make an ultimately useless point of some kind?

The only reason it would be useful to impeach Cheney would be to prevent him from being president if Bush were impeached.

Impeaching Cheney would be useful in that it would give reason for him to resign, and allow Bush to appoint a successor who could run for president.  Useful if you are the RNC, that is.

But you know, I guess maybe it's too late for that - anyone whose been in the Bush White House is probably too tainted to gain a quasi-incumbent advantage. 

Where on earth did all this aggression come from?

I most certainly did!

-Dave Adams-

I really agree. We may wish being nice would bring only good things, but it's good to remember that if one chicken goes down, the others peck it to death.

I recommend Dealing with Difficult People by Bramson. He would call these bullies Sherman Tanks, and recommend standing up with conviction to them, and then being ready to be friendly! I've tried it, and it's true, they don't respect you if they can bulldoze you, but if they can't, they're surprisingly friendly.

Kakutani's blazingly pro review of Watergate counsel Schwartz's new book,"Unchecked and Unbalanced," strikes me as being a thorough indictment.

Then, too, Conyers comes along this morning and says, politely, that the White House may take possible impeachment into consideration as it plans its response to subpoenas. But what it sounded like was "cooperate or face impeachment."

"We're seeking cooperation," insisted Convers. This is not partisan in any way." He also told Stephanopoulos, "I didn't put impeachment on the table. I was just telling you that 46% of the American people polled want Bush impeached."

Also worth noting: many may be responding "no" in the poll not because they don't want Bush/Cheney impeached, but because they don't think it's politically viable. They're not against, they're just skeptical about the politics and nervous the effort might not succeed and give Bush, in effect, a victory.

I tend to agree with those who are thinking: Good god! 500 days more of Bush/Cheney -- think of the damage they can do in that time!

And Bush will call them "focus groups"