Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Concern's Journal: A curse on both your houses. 7

Journal by Concern

This is, already, turning out like I predicted. From the wire:

"She [House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi] said she would be "the speaker of the House, not the speaker of the Democrats." She said Democrats would aggressively conduct oversight of the administration, but said any talk of impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

In the Senate, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, the head of the Democrats' Senate campaign committee, said, "We had a tough and partisan election, but the American people and every Democratic senator - and I've spoken to just about all of them - want to work with the president in a bipartisan way."

Fuck it. Give me the Republicans back. At least I can respect them on a "political demagoguery" level.

The serious prospect (no matter how futile) of justice for all is the only thing that would shock this complacent nation out of its stupor.

Compare and contrast:

Whitewater, Enron
Lewinsky, Warrantless Wiretapping
Travelgate, Haliburton

You could say we've impeached for less.

Where is Kenn Starr when you need him?

This discussion was created by Concern (819622) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A curse on both your houses.

Comments Filter:
  • Successful impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Dems nominally control 51 seats, and gained some of those by knocking off moderate Republicans. So tell me, where are the sixteen Republican Senators that will join a vote for impeachment? 'Cause right now, they don't exist.

    I know a lot of liberals want blood, but Impeachment is madness. The lesson to be learned from the impeachment of Clinton is that it never should have happened. It was a horrible thing to put the country through and it was not
    • by Concern (819622) *
      Let me use a little metaphor here.

      There's a mafia don. He has some people killed, some protection rackets, prostitution, gambling. It's all well known, and the guy is so "untouchable" that he even brags about a few of his crimes to the press. (Bush has literally done this, for instance with respect to authorizing warrantless wiretaps.)

      Picture Elliot Ness saying, "look, we're going to work together on this. I'm going to watch this mafia guy very closely. But arresting him and putting him on trial? That's off
      • And if Elliot Ness knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was absolutely no way that the mafia don would be convicted because he already owned enough of any possible judge or jury? That by going ahead with an indictment without a probable conviction the Don, once aquitted, could never be prosecuted for those crimes again? That indictment without conviction would make Ness and the police look like fools to all the town, instead of just half? And worst of all, that a successful conviction would leave th
        • by Concern (819622) *
          I start to see. We just have some assumptions that we diverge on.

          You think it was a tactical mistake for the Republican's to have impeached Clinton. I think it was brilliant. (Clinton "survived," as of course he was meant to, and both he and the Democrats received an epic, almost destructive, stain.)

          And you think, in the (I freely admit, impossible) scenario that Bush was actually impeached, we'd get a president "five times as [bad]." That one I really lose you on.

          I see us flushing down the toilet, and the
          • "You think it was a tactical mistake for the Republican's to have impeached Clinton."

            Oh, no. That's not it at all. I think it was a demonstration of the Republicans valuing partisan political gain more than the good of the nation. It was tactically and strategically successful: it probably led to Gore's defeat in 2000. But it was far worse for the nation than letting a President lie to Congress about something personal and inconsequential and get away with just an apology.

            "And you think, in the (I freely ad
            • by Concern (819622) *
              But it was far worse for the nation than letting a President lie to Congress about something personal and inconsequential and get away with just an apology.

              OK - so we impeached for something inconsequential and let a number of major, history-making crimes slide. I see that as the worst possible thing for the nation.

              Confidence and credibility are our most valuable national asset. Once lost, almost impossible to recover.

              No matter what one might say ill of Bush, he seems at the very least to be preferable to P
              • "OK - so we impeached for something inconsequential and let a number of major, history-making crimes slide. I see that as the worst possible thing for the nation."

                It surely isn't good. But what the Republicans did was trivialize and politicize Impeachment. That has, oddly, crippled the tool now that we need it.

                "Confidence and credibility are our most valuable national asset. Once lost, almost impossible to recover."

                What I'm saying is that it's already gone. We're in the recovery phase.

                "They did not get any

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...