« Will the Nader of '08 be a conservative? | Main | Center for American Progress: Phony quotes »

February 15, 2006


While I do think it is unlikely that even with a Dem majority in the house Bush would be impeached, I think it would be a good move for the Dems to do it - after all, the Republicans didn't stand a chance of conviction in the Senate when they did it to Clinton for something trivial. This is not trivial. And with the way Republicans have been running the House and Senate, they have nothing to complain about if it does happen. Let them whine all they want. Bush will still be impeached if the Dems have any backbone and take the house.


I think that it is quite likely that the dems in the house, if they gained control and were led by Pelosi, would indeed move to impeach Bush. When I read, "Does anyone actually think the House Democrats would impeach Bush on a narrow party-line vote knowing they will fail to convict in the Senate?" I laughed. Of course they would! Isn't that precisely what the Repubs did? "Barring some sort of blockbuster revelation, this seems improbable." After hearing constantly of "blockbuster revelations" coming from Conyers/Pelosi/Reid, I can't fathom what you're saying? The dems quite obviously feel that there have already been plenty of blockbusters sufficient to warrant impeachment. I think you are confusing good advice - Don't impeach - with what the dems are actually saying and doing. "From Weyrich's perspective, of course, the facts are immaterial." Funny. He points out that dems are holding special meetings (Conyers, Dingle(?) to discuss just this topic, and you seem to imply that he is making it up! "The point is to get the base motivated." And by this you mean that the point with these dems in talking about impeachment is to rile their base up, right?

If the President of the United States committed impeachable offenses he should be impeached no matter the probability of success in the Senate. There is a case to make against Bush of tremendous abuse of power (NSA and torture).

Woo-hoo! Go for it, Dems!! I can't wait!!!

Woo-hoo! Go for it, Dems!! I can't wait!!!

With the organizing principle of the largest factions poised to vote in the primaries and caususes embracing the Bush hatred of the MoveOnians, the Sheehanians, and the Moorites, do you think, Brandan, that anyone could possibly stop the Democrats from impeaching Bush if they got the House?

So, Brendan, based on the responses so far, do you still think a Democratic-led House wouldn't impeach Bush? I know it remains highly unlikely that the Democrats will take control of the House, but the prospect of impeachment certainly motivates the base to try to attain an unlikely result.

Impeachment? Ain't gonna happen, no how, no way. Any Dems with residual amounts of sanity know full well that going down the impeachment path would likely result in a friggin' disaster of Biblical proportions for their party.

Imagine Bush saying this in response to a motion for impeachment: "If you want to impeach me for trying to protect this country, fight a fanatic enemy, and save American lives, then I double-dare you to take your best shot."

George W. Bush ain't no "Bubba," and thank God for that. Point, set, match.

That's what the Dems can't, or won't, understand: life went on for the Republicans even though Bubba got off (no pun intended). However, if the Dems try to pull some half-assed, hare-brained, politically-motivated, dubiously-justified attempt at impeachment--and fail--then their party will quickly go the way of the Whigs. The Dems have no margin for error in this game--NONE.

Capisce, paisan?

"Does anyone actually think the House...would impeach...on a narrow party-line vote knowing they will fail to convict in the Senate?"

I seem to remember, when I was but a young lad, way back in 1997...or was it 1998...?

I agree with Jack. Talk about motivating the base - what about the Republican base? I'm pretty moderate, I disagree with the President on numerous issues (gay marriage, immigration, runaway spending, etc) and by no means do I think that the prosecution of the GWOT has been flawless. But, I would see the attempted impeachment of George W. Bush for what it is; payback for the Clinton impeachement. All rhetoric aside, that's what it would be about. Whats more, I don't think I would be alone in thinking that. Just about every republican and a solid (perhaps as much as 3/4s) majority of moderates would as well. I'm picturing massive (peaceful) street demonstrations in D.C. - packed with men and women in uniform (which the MSM will try to ignore/discredit)and devastaing defeats for the Democratic party in the next election cycle. Which is why I think the talk of impeachement is just that, talk - meant to motivate the dems base. If it isn't then the Democratic party needs to make up with the Boy Scouts, cause the really need to get some adult leadership.

I think it is a Republican pipe dream if they think it would hurt the Dems to impeach Bush. It can only help them. Perception can quickly become reality. Regardless of the outcome in the Senate, Bush would have been impeached. Many who are on the fence would see that as 'proof' of his guilt, even though it technically isn't. Only the die-hard partisans would be emboldened on Bush's side, but then, they are already there. See the post on Glen Greenwald's blog about how today, to be called a 'liberal' the only position you need to take is any position even slightly disagreeing with George W. Bush. These fanatics would never support the Dems anyway, so they have nothing to lose. There is an official stamp of something rotten just for having been successfully impeached in the House that can only hurt Bush. And seeing it as payback for Clinton isn't necessarily bad either - after all, fair is fair. Hard to be terribly upset about something you yourself have done for far less justification (oral sex versus illegal wiretapping of American Citizens).

The comments to this entry are closed.