Impeachment

An American Research Group poll shows:

* 45% favor “the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;” 46% oppose.

* 54% favor “US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;” 40% oppose.

For context, polls taken in 1998 (about Clinton):

Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%

Remind me again why Nancy Pelosi has said that Impeachment “isn’t on the table?”

12 Replies to “Impeachment”

  1. First, Pelosi obviously didn’t have the effect she intended in saying that on Dennis Kucinich: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:

    Nicely written. And STILL ALIVE!

    Now, problem is, as much as I liked Clinton and hate Bush, there was some pretty rock-solid evidence of Clinton lying under oath. Bush has (unfortunately) done a crack job of covering up evidence or paying off witnesses to make the case a slam dunk. And there are still enough lock-step (goose-step?) Republicans who would keep the motion from surfacing out of a committee. Sucks.

  2. I need to copy edit my posts, obviously. What I meant to say was that Bush has done a crack job of yadda yadda to KEEP the case from being a slam-dunk.

  3. Remind me again why Nancy Pelosi has said that Impeachment “isn’t on the table?”

    My guess is this…

    I think she knows that, even though Bush should be impeached, that there’s not enough support in the House to successfully remove him from office. And a failed attempt at impeachment could certainly be spun, by Rove and the rest of the propaganda machine, into a political victory for Bush, and a failed “harmful partisan political maneuver” on the part of them damn Democrats. :-/

  4. Well, he suspended habeas corpus, and the constitution very explicitly states that it can only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion. Since neither are occurring, that seems to me to be a pretty open and shut case of violating the law.

  5. Slippery slope here – Bush and Co. would argue that 9/11 was indeed an invasion and that their continued operations are in response to that invasion. Again, not that I would agree with that reasoning, but you never know with his slippery legal team.

  6. Exactly. There’s no way whatsoever that 2/3 of the current Senate would vote to remove him from office. The will of the American people stops at the Beltway.

  7. Which is why I’m hoping for some headway on a move to impeach Cheney. Sure there’s no way to garner enough support to successfully impeach Bush, but it’s possible that his VP might not be so bulletproof. And while I’d love to see the puppet yanked off the stage in a spectacle of lights and smoke and wailing and gnashing of teeth, removing the puppetmaster, while perhaps not as viscerally satisfying in the short term, really would be better for the nation in the long term.

  8. Unless, of course, Bush then appoints (or is that annoints?) Fred Thompson as Cheney’s replacement.

    Then again, no matter how I prepare for the worst case, the current administration still manages to surprise me.

  9. You do realize though that Cheyney would preside over his own impeachment, as President of the Senate? The Constitution makes an allowance for the President (the Chief Justice), but not for the VP.

  10. Because, with the exception of Iraq/Afghanistan and various abortion-related issues, Bush is a Democrat? He happily signs just about any spending bill Congress puts in front of him. He really, really wants all the illegal Mexican no-skill, low-pay immigrants to come into the US and destroy our economy. etc. etc…

  11. Because, with the exception of Iraq/Afghanistan and various abortion-related issues…

    And the environment.

    And tax laws.

    And victims’ rights.

    And the death penalty.

    And gay marriage/civil unions.

    And civil rights.

    And limitations on law enforcement.

    And diplomacy with other nations.

    And the separation of Church and State.

    But, you know, don’t let actual facts get in the way of your snark. This is the internet, after all.

  12. Not to mention that in Clinton’s first week in office, he doubled the Border Patrol, and continued to increase its funding and manpower throughout his term… whereas Bush II, in his first week in office, slashed the Border Patrol to less than what it had been before Clinton took over and continued to cut it throughout his term. Which tremendously increased the opportunity for “all the illegal Mexican no-skill, low-pay immigrants to come into the US and destroy our economy. etc. etc…” as the the previous commenter said above. Funny how all the Bush-boosters ignore that, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.