Wouldn't it be nice if something actually came of this?

Remove all ads!

Too bad it's her swansong. I wonder if anyone will have the guts to keep it alive?

 

I don't have much hope that this will go any where. I am not happy with our current government.

 

Too bad it is just another disingenuous political ploy by a disreputable Representative.

Right, now provide the evidence Cynthia.

Too bad Cynthia can't show us one thing that Bush has done that wasn't done by Presidents Carter and Clinton.

Pelosi only rejects this because she knows that it would never fly, and would backfire in the Democratic Party's face. If real evidence turns up you can bet this will go back on the table in a heartbeat.

This is classic though: McKinney states "My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn’t up to me or any other member of congress – it is up to the American people to decide."

Well, I think her constituency spoke loudly and clearly as to how good a job she is doing of representing them. (She was crushed by 18% points in her run off against Hank Johnson.)

Just in case anyone is interested in the integrity and some insight as to what may be the driving forces behind McKinney's psyche:
McKinney receives campaign funds from representatives of organizations that support terrorism, and then surprisingly defends them on the House floor.
McKinney assaults law enforcement officer.
McKinney admits to violation of strict congressional rules by spending money to fly a celebrity to Atlanta for a campaign event.

I could go on with several more links, but I think the point is made.

Admittedly Bush is a poor President, but there is a long list of those, and I really don't think we should diminish the meaning of impeachment by throwing it around in such a casual manner...it has already been diminished and politicized enough by impeaching President Clinton for perjury when he was probably more deserving of censure.

 

WOLFIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/me pouncehuggles Darkwolf

It's good to have you back where you belong! I know that this was a go-nowhere ploy being thrown out by a disreputable outgoing member, but it's still fun to talk about, no?

 

I'm in complete agreement with Darkwolf here. McKinney is a nutcase and a terrible example of a Democrat. She is IMO the kind of Democrat that makes all Dems look bad. Race baiting, goofy governance, and now...this pointless impeachment initiative, which of course all the right will now use to say "see, all the Dems want is scandal" as if she were speaking for the whole party - which she's not.

 

Thanks Rally, good to be back.

Sure it is an interesting topic...and trust me, I am no fan of the President, but not for the "lied/hyped" reasons.

No President has had so much opportunity and blown so many chances to do things right. Even when he starts to do the right thing he seems to find a way to screw it up. I just don't like this idea because it smells too partisan and too much of revenge for what the Republican's did to Prsident Clinton.

If the Democrats want to drive a deeper wedge into politics in America, then this is the way to go...this is a really bad idea if they want to unify and make changes for the good of the people.

 

Hehe, found some common ground with Darkie! Cheers.

 

Even if he was impeached, he wouldn't be removed from office (thus, it is pointless besides being a public reprimand ) I mean, Clinton and another president (?) were both impeached, and neither was removed from office.

 

I smell a hippycommunist!!!

 

I did agree with the sources you quoted, Darkwolf, until I found this:

*Sigh*

 

One zealous remark makes you doubt all the info provided?

In that case I guess I can only suggest that you do a little research for yourself.

Back to the topic:

The problem with impeaching the President at this point is that, unless he is found with a smoking gun in his hand, it is just going to look like it is payback for what the Republicans did to Clinton. Even if the Democratic media machine was superior to the Republican’s spin machine (and I don't believe it even holds a candle to the GOP's), there is no way that the Democrats could come out of it looking anything but petty and weak. Let's face it, for 12 years the Republican media machine has made the Democrats look weak (Al Gore) and indecisive (flip flop). The Republicans have been far better at telling the American people what the "Democratic agenda" is than the Democrats have been. I am sorry, but I am not convinced that the last congressional election is proof that the Democrats have turned this around. This was a one issue race...Iraq, and the Presidents approval rating on Iraq is below freezing (in Fahrenheit).

Right now the Democratic Party has to show strength...they have to get things that the American people want done. They do not have a mandate...even Howard Dean said that this election was really just a job interview or an internship, and that they Democrats have to prove that they are better than the Republicans if they don't want to give back what they just gained in 2 year. I really don't think that the Democrats will fall into this particular pit.

 

A convincing smoking gun would be his constitutional stance on 'unitary executive powers'. Only problem is that the Dem's have shut up about it for so long as to suggest complicity.

The GOP accusation will be: 'Ah, NOW you complain?' While that will be correct, it will no change anything about the constitutionality of Bush's signing statemenents, contradicting US law and US constitutional law.

The GOP will paint all attempts to restore accountability as partisan politics. Considering that likely the GOP will obstruct and the Bush administration will stonewall that will be as correct as it is pointless.

The Dems will have to resist the temptation to build an impeachment case on: 'Bush lied, people died.' It won't work.
Even though Bush's administration has been so willfully misleading as to suggest intent. In an administration coordinated so well well and thoroughly, defenses like: 'The VP said it, and Rumsfeld, not the president!' are bloody joke. Under the loyalty and don't step-out-of-line-or-else presidency these two are ... loose cannons, and tolerated. And the president has nothing to do without it. Right.

 

The democratic majority in the Senate may not even last until the Democratics take power in January. One of the democratic senators in South Dakota had a stroke, and is in very bad shape. If he dies, or is unable to recover enough to fulfill his Congressional duties, the South Dakota Constitution gives the governor the power to appoint a replacement - in other words the citizens of North Dakota would not have to opportunity to elect their own senator until the fall of '08 where there will be a supplemental election. The thing is that the governor of North Dakota is a republican, making it more than likely that he will appoint a republican replacement. Seeing as how the democratic majority in Congress is by the slimmest of margins (51-49), a republican appointee will take it back to 50-50. Given that Dick Cheney has to power as VP to cast any tie breaking votes in the Senate, a 50-50 split basically gives power back to the Republicans in the Senate.

If this happens it will stop all talks about any possible impeachment, as it is the Senate that does the hearing. Besides, you need more than a simple majority in the Senate to remove the president from office, but rather a 2/3 majority, and the Democrats don't have it, regardless of what becomes if this issue.

To clear up some misunderstandings about impeachment - being impeached does not mean you are automatically removed from office. The impeachment only means that the President will basically be put on trial in the Senate. Being impeached causes you to go to trial - not be removed from office. Here some details:

For more info, linky.

EDIT: Initially said the senator was from North Dakota, not South Dakota.

[ December 14, 2006, 16:18: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Of course the votes are not there to make anything happen. Surely, she really didn't think this through -- if she succeeded in ousting the president we would then have President Cheney.

For Republicans, no big deal. For Democrats, that's the proverbial 'out of the frying pan, into the fire.'

 

I think impeachment would be a political error. Save the anti-GOP enthusiasm for election night '08.

 

I guess it might be useful to keep it as an possibility, though. Nothing wrong with letting Bush know that, as he himself likes to say, all options are on the table