Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Matt Towery :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bush-Cheney Impeachment Might Be Idle Talk, But Numbers Show True Trouble
by Matt Towery
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Anti-war Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania is prominent among some Democrats in his use of the "I" word -- impeachment -- about President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Murtha made his comments on CBS's "Face the Nation" and elsewhere.

Few serious observers think things will ever get to actual impeachment. And yet the American public seems more open to the concept than many imagine, according to a new national poll. The implications of this public sentiment could be huge for the 2008 presidential elections.

Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll asked this:

"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"

Favor: 39 percent.

Oppose: 55 percent.

Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.

The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

About four out of 10 Americans favor impeaching the president and vice president. But the biggest news from this survey is not the overall results, but the opinions of independent voters, who usually decide presidential elections.

Forty-two percent of independents want Bush and Cheney impeached. These aren't just voters who disapprove of the White House. Instead, they're for initiating a process that could remove them from office.

To help put these startling numbers into perspective, I turned to the man most identified with the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, former Congressman Bob Barr.

Recall that Barr initiated the Clinton impeachment process by filing what's called an "Inquiry of Impeachment." That's a resolution that precedes an actual "Bill of Impeachment." In the case of Clinton, it was filed long before anybody had heard of Monica Lewinsky.

Analyzing the InsiderAdvantage polling numbers, Barr said, "This indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush.

"I'm not sure we -- [the leaders behind Clinton's impeachment] -- ever really had hard polling numbers in favor of impeachment that were this high when we were in the midst of the process. Perhaps, but I don't recall it."

Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now. That's probably justifiable. Their reasons for impeachment look specious.

Yet one can't help but recall that Barr sounded like a lone voice in the wilderness when he first targeted Clinton. And one of his "charges" against President Clinton was the catchall accusation of "violation of oath of office."

It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge.

Be all that as it may, the main significance of this public opinion survey isn't its potential predictive value regarding the careers of Bush and Cheney. Rather, the poll tells us that the Republican team readying to assume the party's mantle when the presidential campaign kicks off in earnest in the summer of 2008 might be facing insurmountable odds.

Independent voters are the critical demographic in key swing states such as Florida and Ohio. We track this segment of voters carefully throughout presidential contests, and we know it well. Having no true party alliance, independents can drift into either side's camp and thereby elect the president.

The fact that such a large percentage of these voters are willing to support something as drastic as the impeachment of the president and vice president tells me that the depth of the irritation with the president over his handling of the war, and over his political tin ear when (not) listening to the public's rising discontent, is becoming a powerful political force in itself.

Having been close to former Speaker Newt Gingrich when his Republican-majority House of Representatives pushed for the impeachment of a president, I can vouch that pursuit of impeachment can be tricky enough to backfire on those who initiate it.

That's why I don't expect current Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California to allow the nascent impeachment movement to grow much larger.

Nevertheless, the astounding public sentiment expressed in this poll illustrates just how far Bush and Cheney may have set their party back.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Matt Towery's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
an apt description
You are right that favoring impeachment goes far beyond disliking. Most people were angry with Clinton for having an affair in the White House and lying about it. But they recognized that this was not an impeachable offense, and that there was more harm to the country from trying to find an excuse for removing a president than from what Clinton did.

If the democrats look like they are trying to find an excuse to remove Bush they will come out the losers. But if there is really that large a percentage of independents that think impeachment is appropriate Republicans have problems. Of course people may feel freer to support impeachment when there is no chance of it actually happening.

Lon
First of all you have your story incorrect. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and suborning a witness. He was not impeached for having an affair with Monica. Get your facts straight.

I disagree with this author's assessment of why people would be willing to impeach Bush.

How about for not closing our borders and stopping the invasion?

Bush has not committed any other offense irregardless of how the left tries to spin he "lied" us into war.

In fact I think a large percentage of voters would like to see the whole stinking lot of the pols we have right now thrown out of office because they are not performing their duty under the Constitution, protecting us from invasion.

Disturbing indeed
I am about as ardent in my disapproval of the President as one can be. But I have to say, I am absolutely aghast at the number of people I hear advocating for the Bush impeachment. When I ask them on what cause, they invariably answer that Bush lied about Iraq, and besides, look what was done with Clintion. When I ask them to offer proof that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq they obviously can offer none.

Thankfully, these folks are voices in the wilderness. Impeachment is a very serious matter, and the fact that in the past Republicans have abused the power of impeachment is no reason to repeat that abomination.

621?
I am a bit skeptical of any survey of 621 people used to represent 300M people.

I know they "carefully selected" and "weighted", but with such an incredibly small sample, I worry that even the most careful selection can still result in a highly non-representative population.

Not saying the numbers are too anti-Bush, not saying they are too pro-Bush. I just think that a sample that amounts to 0.02% may be a little small for my comfort.

Basically, if you walked into two crowded bars on a Friday night and asked what the patrons thought, you would have sampled as many people as this survey.

Bad math
Sorry, I gave the survey too much credence. 62,100 would be 0.02% of the population. 621 is 0.0002% of the population. Teach me to misread scientificc notation. (I should know that 10^-4 is 1/10000, not 1/100.)

Two more thoughts
I will let it go after this but two thoughts:

1. With the sample size, each person represents 500,000 people, more or less. If the sample is slightly off and two people are selected incorrectly (just two people) the results will be skewed by 1 million people. That is a huge error for a very small mistake in the selection of the sample.

2. If independents are ~10% of the population, then that means there were 62 independents in the sample (representing ~30 million people). If 40% are pro-impeachment, that means 24 people in this group were pro-impeachment. Again, I just worry that even a small mistake in the selection process could skew this in a very big way, especially with the small percentage in the US who self-identify as independent. Given the small percentage of independents and the small sample, very tiny mistakes produce huge skewing in either direction.

Last point: In this sample, (using 2000 census numbers) about two people represented each of the following states (between 750K and 1250K people): Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, and South Dakota. Fewer than two people represented the following states (less than 750K people): North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

Obviously, the groups were not selected in this manner, but it still points out how small the sample is that one person has such weight in the sample that their opinion represents a group equal to the population of Alaska or Vermont.

andrews
I don't believe there are that many people wanting to impeach Bush. The polls are so skewed who can ever trust any of them.

Merits of impeachment
The Constitution warrants impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate if a public official is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, obviously something that meant something different to our Founding Fathers than to us. Their context suggested something very serious which in our modern day was probably exemplified by the well founded charges against Spiro Agnew and of course, obstruction of justice which we saw with Pres Nixon regarding the Watergate breakend.
Although Pres. Clinton's dalliances were well known and rightly perceived as unseemly, his crimes were his lying under oath and suborning perjury, not unnoticed by his home state of Arkansas Bar Association who stripped him of his law credentials. Unfortunately this is a political process so it takes on all sorts of nuances that make it incredibly messy. We suffered (with injury to the country) through the process during Watergate and , except for the fact of Pres Nixon's resignation, would have had Articles of Impeachment drawn up against him. We can only imagine the horror and destruction to the nation if Pres Nixon had stubbornly held on to his office.
Hopefully the leadership in the House, although diametrically opposed to Pres Bush's policies in Iraq, will recognize how destructive this process would be, particularly when the country would see that it was politically contrived with no evidence of malfeasance in office.

High crimes and misdemeaners?
so many explain high crimes and misdemeanors as being a very serious thing. and the dalliances and the like just dont measure up to a serious situation.

I dont read it like that and unfortunately I am not the benevelant dictator of the world see' it aint the offence that should have to measure up to the officer, but the behavior of the officer that measures up to the office.


I'm Independent
and I don't favor impeachment,too divisive.We need to develop more unity and ability to communictae and cooperate across party lines. But I can tell you that just because the investor class is flush at the moment doesn't mean the economy is healthy for the middle class for the long term. The Bush administration has piled up incredibally massive debt,a huge amount of which is held by China,with whom we have a trade defecit. (And who is our only potential rival as a superpower). While middle class jobs have been going overseas. That's a bg part of peoples fear of invading immigrant workers.When our lock on tech support ,IT White collar service ,prossional work seemd a sure thing hungry immigrants willing to work hard for low wages didn't bother the middle class. But that's changing fast. At a time of huge shiftts in global economics and technical developments,the admnistration has not invested in infrastructure. Who ever is in office when the bills for the neocons failed geopolitical strategy come home to roost is going to have a very hard time getting re-elected.The Rs would probably be better off to let the Ds have the mess for a while so they can blame it on them.
Wether the Bush team lied or not,it has been reported numerous times from high ranking intelligence personell that they ignored intelligence about the pending attacks,and that the Iraq invasion was planned in advance of those attacks. The reason to impeach is for incompetence. But when people ask me to support impeachment,I say don't waste energy on pay back, worry about how we're going to clean up the mess we're in.Esp snce more of the world distrusts us than ever before.,We have two dangerous adversaries ,Iran and N Korea,who were essentially threatened with nvasion by the Axis of Evil speech( the author of which Mr Frum has now ,with other neocon architects said the Iraq invasion was a mistake) into hurrying to develop nuclear weapons. The Bush team has for severla years refused to negotiate w/ either unless they meet our demands first.WHo would agree to the other sides demands before negotiating? That leaves no chips. It's not a good faith position on the part of the US to say we'll talk with you if you meet our demands first.
The adminsistration has refused to negotiate w/ China on limits to space based weapons,and so China has sgnalled that the space arms race has begun. The administration has refuesed to negotiate with Russia on shared security arrangements ,and is going ahead with the missile shield despite Moskow's strenuous objections. They first offered to share defenses,we refused ,now they're threatening to base missiles. We could go back into cold war postures. How many enemies can we make at once? We can't fight them all while we fight the whole Arab world. We've already provided the Islamists dream recruiting training scene in Iraq.This is a strategy for leading the world to freedom and democracy?

I'm sorry Matt but this
article is pure speculation and scare-mongering similar to Albore and his convenient lies. We just had an article a few days ago concerning how worthless polls are and here we are talking about a poll that says we will impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney, something that has NEVER happened in the history of the country. Never mind that there is NO evidence whatsoever that they have broken ANY laws, contrary to all of the liberal spew that we see here.

The Dems will not impeach Bush, let alone both Bush and Cheney. People like Murtha are let out of their corner by the Dems to keep their names in the paper and stir the pot. All articles like this do is to aid and abet the Dems in this strategy.

andrews
Sorry, but you're still a few zeroes short.

‘Hijackers of the conservative movement’

This is a great article about why many of us have lost all faith in the Republican party and Bush. This is why the numbers look so bad for Bush. The NEOCONMEN have destroyed the conservative movement!

RAW STORY-He didn’t support invading Iraq. He says national security decisions are too often made for political gain. And he maintains that Tom DeLay used “legal plunder” for the “immoral purpose of holding onto power.”

A Democrat? No – His name is Richard Viguerie, a conservative icon and key architect of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory. Known to many as the godfather of direct-mail campaign fundraising, his four-decade career has succored scores of conservative candidates and grassroots causes.

A balding grandfather with a wry Texan’s smile, Viguerie is a seasoned conservative who confidently brushes aside accusations that his criticism of Republicans is intended for personal gain. On Monday, he sat down with RAW STORY to talk about his new book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.

READ MORE http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/hijackers-of-the-conservative-movement


Impeachment
If there was ever a group that deserved impeachment more than Bush and Cheney, I have yet to hear of it. The list of offenses is long but negligence if not outright criminal lying in taking us to war for false reasons is certainly the top one. This is a war that we cannot win because the fundamental fuel for the war is the preference of the Iraqis people to concentrate on settling long standing antagonisms instead of building a nation. I dont have to mention the obvious fact that Bush repeatedly hid information that questioned the reliability of the information he was publicly spewing about the existence of WMDs, and the connections to those that struck us on 9/11 repeated by Cheney long after it was discredited.
These two have plunged us into a war of their desire for false reasons and that alone would certainly have led everyone on this post of demand the impeachment and even trial of Clinton.
And its not only causalities but the destruction of our military, the growth of massive debt, the massive increase in the power of the chief executive, the assaults on the Constitution, the alienation of our allies and the tarring of our name and reputation worldwide that are also the burden we pay.
There is a double standard among many, although its refreshing to see not all have sold out the ideals of America and the Conservative movement defending the criminal behavior of this administration. If you dont think its criminal,or impeachable, try asking a mother or daughter or wife of a man, or for that matter a woman, who has been killed or maimed in Iraq thinking they were fighting to destroy Iraq's store of WMDs only to find out the President was not only wrong but lied and at the very least criminally negligent.
This is a terrible precedent to let stand and if you doubt it just imagine Hillery Clinton with the powers and the disregard for the Constitution exhibited by this crew! It may happen! Is this Conservatism in action? I dont think so.
The evidence is clear but like the defenders of OJ Simpson, and Richard Nixon and yes Bill Cllinton, some just dont WANT to see it.

Bush lied
You want a list of lies..
Check out what Bush said about giving SH a choice between defiance and compliance and "he chose defiance. He would not let us in"
Fact is the inspectors were in Iraq the day before the attack and wanted to continue saying they were making good progress. But it was Bush who ordered them out not Sadam Hussein even after they went to all the sites Bush insisted held WMDs and found nothing..not even the means to produce WMDs. And we are supposed to believe that a nation, already once defeated by the US, under UN sanctions, continually spied upon by the US and far weaker than at the start of the first gulf war would choose defiance??!!

The Head of British intelligence said the US was fixing the facts around the policy. in other words, cherry picking evidence. Richard Clark made a similar charge. And we all know what happened to Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, dont we? The evidence is plain but for some nothing short of a Bush confession will satisfy them. (Actually it may come years from now like that of Robert McNamara and meet with the same yawn as his did, by citizens who are not even alive today)
How about the simple fact that Bush said, roughly quoting "Whenever you are talking wiretaps you are talking court orders because we protect the constitution", all the while ignoring the Court and the Constitution? Then he lied and said those that were concerned about this abuse of power just didnt want to listen in on terrorists conversations! What a blatant lie and attack on the Constitution!
Its about time we all dropped the name calling and recognized that either we want a government of men or laws and as painful as it may be to admit, Bush and a bunch of others have hijacked the Republican party and the Conservative movement and are going to destroy both of them not to mention the nation itself. You can dismiss me as some wild eyed liberal if you wish but I would hope instead you would look at all the well known Conservative leaders who feel the same way.
You can chose between the Joe Scarboros or the Ann Couliers. Your choice. I was in the USAF in the early 70s in the Philippine Islands and saw President Marcos destroy democracy there ironically because of of Muslim bombings. The groundwork is being laid for a similar assault here and I am not going to keep quiet while it happens.
Have a good day! And remember liberty means constant vigilance.

Bush-Cheney Impeachment
I agree with VietnamVet; After a full investigation on both Cheney and Bush re: their knowledge of 9-11. and the real reason we went to war and the how it was handled with Iraq, I believe an Impeachment for the two of them is in order, and well deserved. I can no longer back Bush for any of his actions now. I believe everything coming out of his mouth are lies and he will try to bully his way through what is left of his term.

To VietnamEraVet
From one Vet to another;

You are just hawking the same liberal lies and mantra over and over again. I have news for you, the "Bush lied mantra" was discredited long ago. Go back to the Kos and DU and find some new talking points. Currently at the Kos it's a comparison between Bush and Truman.

The "I" Word
It ain't going to happen. Wishful thinking from the far left. I will be in Washington if the Dem's try that. I refuse to let Moveon.org run this country.

Everything wrong with Politics
At the risk of offending the mentally handicapped. This article is retarded.

In general, it displays everything wrong with current domestic politics. Rather than discuss the merits of any issue, the discussion is based on what some sampling of uninformed people might think of some scenario, and how that might effect a vote.

In specific, a poll about "impeachment" can't yield any reliable results since there is no such impending action, or specific charge. So the poll question is, "Hypothetically, if someone brought a yet unknown charge of an impeachable offense against the President, would you favor voting guilty?" Without a specific charge, the poll question is little more than an approval rating poll.

Of course no idiotic political rant would be complete without the foolish reference to the "independent" voter, who contrary to this fools opinion are generally of no consequence. Independents are typically uninformed, apolitical, and uninvolved in the process until the day of the vote. They are dust in the wind. They invariably go the direction of the strongest political wind. They decide nothing, they simply go which way the wind is blowing.

The goal of all leaders, especially conservatives, should be to present the best, most informed, and logical positions; and thereby create political energy and opinion - Not follow the whim of fickle uninformed public opinion.

Stand by your man
Conservatives, Bush is your man. The Goldwater blowout proved that America is not conservative. Americans will not elect someone to do what Bush has done. Unmasking Bush as a cowardly incompetent unmasks the whole "conservative" movement.

You have a choice. Do you support honest Goldwater type conservatives, such as Fred Thompson, who have no change of being President? Or do you support the likes of Giuliani?

Loadmaster
" I refuse to let Moveon.org run this country."

There was an excellent report in the NYSlime of all places about Moveon.org and Soros who funds it and many other far left groups in this country. He and his groups hold conferences with top democrats every morning.

Soros is now the leader of the democrat party with his billions. Soros is the propagator of all the lies that the libs believe, no matter how many times these lies have been unmasked.

Soros and his minions want this country to go down the road of socialism and the libs who believe this crap are dupes and idiots.

LGM is way off as usual
(1) Can you prove Fred Thompson to be a "genuine" conservative?
(2) The US has actually elected more C-grade celebrities (including one as president, at least two as governors, several Reps/Senators) than India (so far ZERO as PM, but several MP's, CM's and MLA's)--so Thompson has PLENTY of chance.

What Garbage we has been written here.
Democrats need to concentrate on what's right for America, and store focusing on the war!
Republicans need to do the same.

Idle talk about impeachment is devisive.

Let's unite and protect our Country.


libgman
"The Goldwater blowout proved that America is not conservative."

If you think America is full of liberals I suggest you buy some swamp land I have for sale. Most Americans are not on the hard left and despise their beliefs. Most of America falls in the moderate range leaning right.


LGM gets more insane
every day. Goldwater??? Wasn't that in 1964?

You'll get a lot of responses here because most of us here during the day are old retired f*rts and remember Goldwater.

Most of the US population however probably could not tell you who Goldwater was. Where is the relevancy to anything today other than he is credited with helping to found modern conservatism.

LGM you need some meds.

"Independents"
belong to a group of people who simply don't know the issues and the difference between Dems and Republicans.

They vote by the seat of their pants. Independents include those women who voted for Clinton because he "looked good".

The socialists LOVE independents because independents are easily swayed by demagoguery and propaganda.

Sam & VietnamEraVet (who only got as close to Vietnam as the Phillipines - get a new screen name), come back when you actually have something intelligent to say.

Bush's Poll Number is Up + to Peppermint
Yesterday evening (Monday 5-7) Wolf Blitzer on CNN showed that Bush's approval rating has risen two points from 36% to 38% in the past month.

Peppermint: Let's start with a basic difference: Democrats believe in a strong centralized federal government and Republicans don't, preferring minimal government and at the local level. Can we agree to disagree politely? This different philosophy of government doesn't mean that Democrats are socialists or communists or America-haters or dupes or idiots. We are a two-party nation. Both sides have good points.

There have been references in this thread to Soros' money and to impeachment. Please take a look at David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right". Brock was a card-carrying conservative journalist who worked on the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas by writing and orchestrating to discredit Anita Hill. Because of his success he was later recruited to work on the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton, "Project Arkansas". The MONEY (that commodity you associate only with Soros) was supplied by Richard Mellon Scaife. The plan was to get Clinton under oath as often as possible about anything at all and wait until there was a discrepancy in his statements then use that as an excuse to impeach him. Brock parted company with the conservative movement and wrote this book about it.

If Scaife can use his money to change history, why can't Soros?

PS Please note that Bush and Cheney refuse to go under oath, and I wouldn't hold my breath about Rove accepting it either.

The Republican philosophy of government awards great power to business. This happens in the form of tax cuts, tax incentives, tax benefits, deregulation, letting business actually write laws favorable to itself, and other tactics familiar to those of us who have been following the Bush II administration. In order to get the Republican Party in power and keep it there, so it can give laissez-faire to business, the GOP obviously has to sell itself to the American public. The GOP is not nearly as interested in a social agenda (abortion, homosexuality, evolution) as it is in promoting business but it uses the social issues to inflame people and get them to the voting booth.

I have observed conservatives' wrath when Bush has failed to deliver the legislation the right wants on social issues. But, have YOU noticed, Bush has been efficiency itself regarding all that would help business? For example, in 2004 we all heard him campaign on the issue of amending the Constitution to stop gay marriage---then after he was returned to the White House he dropped the issue flat and turned to Social Security, which had been barely mentioned during the campaign. About six weeks after the election when Bush was interviewed on Air Force One on a Sunday by a Washington Post reporter he was asked about this. His response was candid: "I don't have the votes to support an amendment". The conversation was reported on Monday. Immediately conservatives said, "That certainly isn't what he said before the election" and many blitz-emailed the White House. You may remember that.

You and I probably don't agree on much, but we might agree on the meaning of "bait & switch".

Vic
What's really laughable is most people when showed a picture of Cheney don't even know who he is.

These are probably the same "knowledgeable" people who were asked if Bush/Cheney should be impeached.

Pretty scary when you think these people vote.

Might be GOP's last chance
The refusal to secure the border and deport illegal aliens has this 2 time Bush voter thinking impeachment should be started by the GOP members of the House. It may be the only chance for them to keep their seats and give the GOP a shot at the White House in 2008.

High Crimes
Forget about the Iraq War, which most definitely has lead to a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with this President, and indirectly on the Republican party.

I wonder how much of the willingness to discuss a possible impeachment of the President and Vice-President are based on other actions that have been taken by this administration. Actions that have not yet been determined whether they are in fact legal, or not.

Even if you support the President, you will have to admit, perhaps begrudgingly, that there are many actions that this President has taken that have yet to go before the Supreme Court. Until they do, it is not certain if they are legal.

I am not a constitutional expert, but my guess is that some of these actions could result in the administration simply being given a slap on the wrist and told not to do that. On the other hand, my FEELING is that some of these issues could possibly result in jail time, if it went that far. Given some cases that were pursued after Clinton left office, the same could happen with Bush.

You may not agree with my list, but my feeling is that some of these issues, if not all, will eventually make it to the Supreme Court.

Signing Statements (magnitude of their use), classification of people as detainees, torture, wiretapping, many aspects of the patriot act. From my perspective, all of these issues could potentially put the President and others in jail.

Many of the other "scandals" that are going on are also eroding the credibility and faith in the executive branch. Attorney purge no matter where it leads would simply mean some jail time for mid to lower level managers. The Plame case, etc.

Many here, understandably, feel these issues are just a vendetta against the Bush administration. I'm not going to sway those folks. And that's fine.

For the others, I simply offer these comments for your contemplation.

RE: Barry Goldwater
Goldwater lost the 1964 election primarily because of a huge sympathy vote regarding the assassination of JFK.

The vote wasn't indicative of the country's love of LBJ. Even JFK didn't like LBJ.

And look also at how the country went after the 1964 election. LBJ's campaign promise of "letting Asian boys" fight in Vietnam was quickly forgotten; Goldwater's concept of "total warfare" in Vietnam - which would have saved 50,000 American lives - is also conveniently forgotten.

Even the current Democrat Party doesn't acknowledge LBJ as anything better than po' white trash.

DavidMac
Your comments about independents is interesting.

You complain about how independents essentially don't know anything, but vote on fluff issues for the Democrats.

You are aware of the fact, that if it wasn't for those same independents, that President Bush wouldn't be in power?

Realize that the sword cuts both ways.

dogjudge
"The Plame Case": there was NO underlying crime; the Dems hand-picked prosecutor said so.
Yet you imply it's an impeachable offense.

"Torture": name ONE case where real torture (not embarassment) was used. Yet you imply it's an impeachable offense.

"Wiretapping": Listening in on phone conversations between people in the US and terrorists overseas using electronic listening devices is a LEGITIMATE function of counter-terrorism.

"Signing Statements (magnitude of their use)": What the hell does THAT mean?


DJ, just throwing it out there for YOUR contemplation.

lilly
"Peppermint: Let's start with a basic difference: Democrats believe in a strong centralized federal government and Republicans don't, preferring minimal government and at the local level. Can we agree to disagree politely? This different philosophy of government doesn't mean that Democrats are socialists or communists or America-haters or dupes or idiots. We are a two-party nation. Both sides have good points."

So democrats believe in strong federal government which means socialism. Everything one does is regulated by the federal government. That is not what the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had in mind, lilly.

Big social program taking tax dollars away from hard working people to pay for all kinds of socialist programs is socialism.

Example:
I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for someone's abortion. First I don't believe in abortion, much less want to pay for someone's irresponsible behavior.

Dogjudge
posted, "that if it wasn't for those same independents, that President Bush wouldn't be in power?"


What? Independents voted for Bush? You can't tell why any "independent" voted FOR anybody or AGAINST anybody.

How did Bush "fool" independents into voting Republican?

Kerry was proven to be a liar about his war record. Kerry was also shown to be an elitist socialist who married into wealth.

There wasn't any real ground swell for Bush. Kerry's attiutude and war record (which he was dumb enough to run on) swung the election to Bush.

To Lilly
Looking back over David Brock's life I would have to say he has never really been a conservative. He was educated at the USC-Berkley (yes a real den of conservatism). He wrote a critical piece about Anita Hill, a praise piece about Hillary, and a hit piece about Republicans. I suspect that "getting Bill under oath" was more a factor of all the women that he harassed and attempted to rape than it was anything the Republicans did. And Bill's lies under oath were so blatant that there was nothing even close about it.

As far as business writing laws, the only business that does that is the Lawyers. You see where that has got us. We are now the most litigious country in the world. And it contributes not one dime to the economy.

No Lilly, all you have to do is look at the results of all the socialist meddling in the economies of the world. In EVERY case, the economies begin to slip as soon as the socialism gets in high gear. If left alone the economy collapses. The speed of collapse depends on the degree of socialism.

DavidMac
You might want to READ posts before you start making comments. It doesn't help your case.

If you look at what I wrote, I said that some mid to low level managers might go to jail because of various scandals and cited the Plame case as one of them. You then talk about me implying that it was an impeachable offense. READ WHAT I WROTE! I said NO such thing. Everything else you say about that case is simply wrong. The Dems didn't pick the prosecutor, the AG did. No case, etc. Fitzgerald never said anything close to what you're quoting. If there was no case, why is Libby possibly going to jail.

See that's the problem when you simply assume that everything that is happening is vendetta motivated and there is nothing to substantiate the charges. It's just like the rest of the prison population. I'm innocent and shouldn't be in jail. Think about it.

Torture and wiretapping.

First of all, you again say that I'm implying these are impeachable offenses. TRY READING and UNDERSTANDING before you make comments. Also note that I said the following, "Many here, understandably, feel these issues are just a vendetta against the Bush administration. I'm not going to sway those folks. And that's fine."

These issues, along with signing statements, are already making their way through the court system. I don't care if you believe they've happened, are legal, or not. Your opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of the court matters!

Signing statements. You probably are unaware, but this President has pushed the envelope on this issue. The McCain bill on torture is a prime example. Again, it's going through the courts. I'm interested in what THEY think of the issue, not you.

To Peppermint
I have come to the conclussion that most people, liberals in particular, could recognize a picture of themselves without their driver's license. Does creosote post ring a bell?

To dogjudge
I for one do not give a big d*mn what the current court feels about ANY of those issues you mentioned. The current court still has far too many liberals who don't give a d*mn about the real Constitution and use their rubber variety to accomplish their own agenda.

I trust my own reading of the Constitution. Use plain English and forget torturing some obscure penumbra for a meaning.

As for ALL of the stuff you mentioned, it is nothing more than hit pieces from the Democrap Party repeated by the Kos crowd and the MSM.

N/A
Ok. Then let us assume there are 150M eligible to vote. (With a birth rate around replacement level, half eligible to vote seems pretty plausible.) That doesn't change the issue.

621 people represent 150M, so each still represents 250,000 people. In addition, my state analysis is still valid, as each state percentage of voters is proportional to the population. So 2 people still represent all of Vermont, whether you count total population or voters. The analysis is still the same.

Sorry, 621 is too small a sample whether there are 300M, 200M, or even 100M voters.

If it isn't too small, I took a sample of 1 voter (me) and think no one wants to impeach Bush (margin of error +/- 25%).

Vic
Let me ask you a simple question.

Interpretation of the Constitution.

Whether you like it or not, this is not like interpreting the Bible. Your opinion doesn't make one iota of difference. The only opinion that counts is those folks on the court. You might say that someone is not guilty. Guess what if the courts says that they are tell me if they're are going to go to jail, or not?

Liberal court. Well we disagree there, especially considering the number of judges that have been appointed by "conservative" Presidents. On the other hand, based on what you've posted so far, even THOSE jurists are too liberal for you.

Mr.D
No, I finally did get the zeroes right:

621 / 300,000,000 = 0.00000207
0.00000207 * 100 (to get percentage) = 0.000207 %

So, 0.0002% is a good approximation.


Hard to figure out.
I don't understand why good and decent people such as Bush and Cheney want to run for office, particularly if they have to abandon a successful career. I suppose the motivation is a desire to serve mankind realizing that they would have to endure the onslaught of attempts at character destruction.

At least I can understand people like Billy and his Ms. They are adicted by power and personal enrichment that office can allow. I suppose it also allows Billy a more select choice of extracurricular action.

dogjudge
You know what? Read the Preamble to the Constitution. It starts off with "WE THE PEOPLE" which allegedly means all of us people. We are entitled to disagree with court decisions and it is done all the time. Why else do things get taken to the SOTUS.

DavidMac is right. The courts are filled with activist judges who interpret the law to side with the leftist agenda. That is the only way the left has been able to get anything they want in this country, through activist judges who don't give a fig about the Constitution.

Pressure Them to Go!
Peppermint writes, "Soros is the propagator of all the lies that the libs believe, no matter how many times these lies have been unmasked. // "Soros and his minions want this country to go down the road of socialism and the libs who believe this crap are dupes and idiots."

Hmmm, sounds like someone has been listening to too much conservative talk radio. Watch as the investigations proceed in Congress over the next year or so and see who have been dupes and idiots. There is such a thing as recognizing the FACTUAL information readily available to anyone who can "do the Google" rather than relying on Rovian talking points and the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. Independent voters are just the kind to recognize that, and the evidence against Bush and Cheney of lies and constitutional violations is already devastating.

Conservatives would be doing themselves a favor to insist that their own elected representatives pressure these guys to resign before the stench of the investigations ruins any electoral prospects for their movement in 2008 and well beyond. And they can avoid a Pelosi presidency by insisting that Cheney go first, so Bush can appoint a replacement (and potential successor) who is not tainted by association with this criminal administration.

4 out of 10 are also uninformed
The author also failed to mention that at least 4 out of 10 Americans are totally clueless about anything farther than their nose. All you have to do is set them down in front of main stream media for an hour and they are going to be against anything the President does. Let them try and defend their argument and it falls apart in seconds. Just look at how stupid the Mayor of Salt Lake City looked when he took on Shawn Hannity in a debate about Bush and the war. Also, do the same poll to Rush Limbaugh's 15 million daily listners and see what results you get. A poll depends on the person or group doing it, the target audience, and the result they seek to achieve.

RR

Johninoregon
You mean the way the Democrats pressured actual criminal and disbarred lawyer Bill Clinton to resign when he was impeached?

Oh, that's right, they didn't!

Or how they pressured William "the Refrigerator" Jefferson to resign?

Oh, wait...

yes, I can see why the republicans would want to pressure Bush to resign since the Democrats are setting such a good example!

RE: Barry Goldwater
Barry came to my town in '64 and I got to see and hear him. He "talked the talk and walked the walk" and kept me a Republican through my years in Viet Nam. This pissant excuse of a President wouldn't know a conservative... Words fail me.

He will not be impeached, no matter how much he is disapproved. Stupidity and incompetence in government leadership is simply not a crime.

johninoregon
NO, it was not from talk radio, it was out of the New York Times. I think almost anyone would agree that newspaper is no pal to anyone on the right.

No need for impeachment
The GOP is headed over the cliff with Bush's foot stomped down on the accelerator. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

johninoregon
btw, I suggest you look up the article yourself that I refer to in the NYT because I know that is a paper you libs take stock in.


Eat 39% less food! I bet u'll be hungry!
"About four out of 10 Americans favor impeaching the president and vice president."
...
"Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now."
_______________________

What what what?! This either shows that Towery believes 40% is "fringe", or that our Congress obviously does not represent the people. Impeachment is apparently not a fringe idea at all.

But, personally, I'd rather keep the fools in for their last 20 months, so the timely destruction of the GOP can continue uninterrupted at its current breakneck pace.

Peppermint
Disagreement with the courts.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with an opinion that the Supreme Court has given, that's part of the American way.

That was NOT the way Vic phrased his comments. It was HIS interpretation of the Constitution. There are a LOT of issues where that is wrong.

That's why the internet is so great. It gives us the opportunity to go to REAL sources to have them interpret law for us and then for us to make a decision from there.

As I mentioned with DavidMac and his comments about the Plame case essentially not being a justified case and there was no basis for the conviction. You may disagree with the opinion, but to say that there was NO case is nonsense. Various lawyers involved in the case, on both sides, would disagree with you there.

As for "liberal/activist" courts, I guess that depends on your opinion. If the rulings are in your favor, you don't feel that the courts are being activists. If they are contrary to your feelings, you feel the judges are overstepping their bounds.

I know that we would disagree, but "social" issues such as prayer in school is where you're going to get "activist" jurists on both sides of the issues. Whether Bush broke the law with his signing statements and other decisions about torture is another kettle of fish.

dogjudge
I would not put separation of church and state as an argument.
But, abortion is definitely where an activist SCOTUS interpreted a right that exists NOWHERE in the Constitution.
That is what is meant by activist, liberal judges.

Matthew
I agree about the signing statements.

Beyond the torture issue, is simply the issue of circumventing the constitution.

A HUGE majority of these laws should have been vetoed by Bush. By using the signing statements he has effectively vetoed the bill, but has circumvented Congress's ability to override his veto by using signing statements.

Had he vetoed the anti-torture bill, Congress could have discussed, and potentially, overridden his veto. At that point it then becomes law. By using a signing statement, he prevents the bill from becoming the law of the land even though he has actually signed the bill making it the law of the land.

In other words, he gets it both ways.

Imagine the uproar that there would be in this country if the President was able to do the same with something like declaring a dictatorship in the US and suspending further elections.

"You Say You Want A Revolution"

Peppermint
There are a variety of issues that aren't in the Constitution that still get ruled on by the Supreme Court. It doesn't all fall into activist judges.

Let's see. Price fixing.
Monopolies.
Alcohol.
Taxes.
Integration. Both in schools and the workplace.
Death Penalty.

I'm doing this off the top of my head, but I don't think any of these are mentioned in the Constitution, at the same time are you saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't be involved with any of these?

Please don't nit pick that a couple of these are somehow in the Constitution. I'm not trying to defend a specific issue, I'm trying to discuss the generalized idea.

Peppermint
Oops.

One thing that I forgot.

You keep saying activist/liberal judges.

Please be aware that it can also be activist/conservative judges.

Some of the rulings of the Supreme Court concerning Bush's election in 2000 could be viewed as activist jurists. They certainly weren't espousing a liberal view when they decided to get involved.

I'm not talking about the outcome, I'm talking about state's rights versus the federal government.

Who Cares?
Everyone I have been speaking to are so disillusioned with Bush, they wouldn't care if he was impeached. So, it hurts the country, so what. Have you observed what illegal immigration, cowardly war strategies, incompetent government officials, border guards in prison.......everyone is getting to the we don't give a dam stage.

Goldwater lost in 1964...

...because this nations press personally and politically assassinated the man. The "Daisy Ad" was shown once, and then repeated for free by the major networks as "news" under "Dirty Campaigns". The newspaper warned that Goldwater would start a war in Vietnam. LBJ promised he wouldn't but did anyway. Bill Moyers hair was on fire then, just as it is now.

dogjudge
I re-read your comments. Mine stand as I've written.

Also, I can have an opinion on any legal case, regardless of how far it has proceeded through the system.

Almost all your comments are simply the same old talking points from the socialists, except that they are phrased in a vague manner.

d.j. posted, "Some of the rulings of the Supreme Court concerning Bush's election in 2000 could be viewed as activist jurists."

The USSC ruled that the Florida Supreme Court erred when the FSC upheld the state court's decision to ignore Florida state law. How the hell do you get conservative activism out of that? Maybe you really are a DOG judge, not a real one.

Bush should be impeached-not for Iraq
Not for Iraq bur for America, advocating & promoting a hostile criminal foreign invasion of your own country is treason.

Does anybody want to debate the fact that Bush has promoted, advocated, protected and subsidized a hostile foreign criminal invasion of America?

Does anybody want to debate whether advocating a hostile foreign criminal invasion of your own country you swore an oath to protect & defend isn't treason?

Is there any debate?

Go ahead defend "the decider" I dare you!

Cause for impeachment
It is simple really, and has nothing much to do with Iraq intelligence, or the reasons for going there.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Everyone in the Bush cabal has conspired to violate the Constitution, and has authorized the use of force to carry it out. That is treason, plain and simple. And their arrogance has led them to commit treason in plain sight, on videotape, so there will be no problem with evidence or witnesses.

So, each of us are either for impeaching traitors, or committing treason as well by giving aid and comfort to those seeking to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America, as embodied in the Constitution.

Yes, dearies, if you made a contribution to Bush/Cheney '04, you are a traitor.


To Dogjudge
You and everybody else has an opinion about what an "activist judge" is. You also have an opinion about what is a conservative judge. I would say that what you call conservative and what everyone else here calls conservative is a lot different. I have been studying the court ever since I retired and I have become somewhat of an authority on it.

First off, as I said, everybody has a different definition of "activist". Most rational people consider a judge to be one who "invents" a new right that overrules a law passed by majority in either the Federal Congress or a State Congress OR one who upholds a new law that clear is prohibited b y the Constitution. When I say invent, what I mean is that the "right" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it comes wholly from some hidden recess in the judge's mind. For most liberals, an activist judge is one who issues a ruling they don't agree with.

There is only one real "conservative" judge on the Supreme Court and that is Scalia. About half are liberal, one is conservative, and a couple are originalist to some extent. The best originalist is Clarence Thomas. The reason you think they are more "conservative" is that almost all of the court and it's decisions since the FDR reign have ranged from liberal to communist. SO any ruling that doesn't fit that mold you disagree with.

Personally I don’t want conservative judges either. Scalia ruled (with the majority) that the Federal drug laws took precedent over the California laws under the medical marijuana case. This was based on another torturous interpretation of “interstate commerce”. It seems that some sick guy in California growing a couple of plants for medical reasons effect the price of Marijuana in Poughkeepsie, therefore it’s commerce. Well, I don’t agree with that, but I am sure that a lot of conservatives here do. I want judges who rule on what the Constitution says, NOT what they want it to say.

As an exercise let's take your list of stuff that you maintain is not covered by the Constitution. Some are, some aren't.

Price fixing.

Not covered by the Constitution, if you are referring to the anti-monopoly legislation; IMHO it is all unconstitutional. This legislation comes from the original "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt. This legislation was upheld by an activist court who "stretched" the definition of interstate commerce to allow it.

Monopolies.

Same as above, you can't have price fixing without a monopoly are collusion to make a monopoly.

Alcohol.

That was done by an Amendment, then subsequently undone by another amendment. Why didn't you use drugs because the Feds have no authority there.

Taxes.

Done with an Amendment, the 16th.

Integration. Both in schools and the workplace.

Integration in both places done via the 14th Amendment using the equal protection clause. In schools it is constitutional, in workplaces, other than those run by the Government, it is unconstitutional.

Death Penalty.

Is covered by the Constitution. An activist court ruled it "cruel and unusual". A later court reversed that ruling. Recent activist courts are getting back in to it again. Cruel an unusual punishment that the Constitution refers to is "drawing and quartering" and like minded torture. Not hanging, not electric chair, and not lethal injection.

All it takes to understand the Constitution is to READ it without any attempt to read anything into it. Use the rules for standard English.

Where the courts have messed up is when they attempt to apply fancy legal theory to it. They only do that when they have a preconceived output and they need to stretch to make the law fit their desired outcome.

And no, currently our court does not do that. That is why I will only vote for someone who will appoint like minded judges.

Oh and BTW, you have never seen me try to push a “religious” interpretation on anyone for anything, so don’t try to build any cr*p strawmen from that.


Koolaid
The Koolaid at TH today is a dark deep red. The problem with impeachment is they have broken no laws. So god luck with that impeachment thing. I t will be the end of the Dems.

Mirrored Images
President Bush and Vice President Cheney need to be removed from office, and they should take Reid and Pelossi with them.

Bucko
I remember sitting in the NCO Club in Fort Campbell and having my fellow NCO's tell me that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for war - when I ran up on a few of them in Vietnam next year I tactfully did not bring up the subject - Goldwater was a good man and 55K lives later a lot of folks knew it

Vic
Your views are not surprising.

Given you strict interpretation of the Constitution, please tell me this.

Where in the Constitution does it give the President the right to issue a signing statement? More to the point, where in the Constitution does it give the President the right to essentially veto a law that he has just signed by issuing a signing statement saying that he will not follow the law? I thought that he could only sign bills into law, or veto them.

Campaign Finance Reform
AKA Incumbent Protection Act. Bush first promised to veto it, then signed it anyway figuring the SCOTUS would strike down the unconstitutional stuff. I hope Bush is not impeached, but signing something as blantently unconstitutional as CFR (i.e. can't buy an add that mentions a candidate by name 60 days before a general election) is a good cause for impeachement.

If this poll was conducted with regards to the Democrat president, this is how they would have worde the question,

Given how well the economy is performing, do you think the President should be impeached.

Too bad Bush does not benefit from the growing economy which has been better than Clinton's even though Bush had to steer it through 9/11, Katrina, and funding the "war on terrorism" (oops! do the Democrats even let me use that term anymore?).

To Dogjudge
I guess you also believe that I am a Bush supporter. You actually need to read some of my posts. I think there have been two things that I agree with Bush on. At any rate let's take your questions:

Q: Where in the Constitution does it give the President the right to issue a signing statement?

A: Nowhere, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that he can NOT make a signing statement. It is an undefined usage. If you have actually followed what most legal scholars say they don't mean anything. Although Bush is not the first to make a signing statements he has done more. However, in the past presidents disn't make signing statements, they just made verbal statements saying things like ...here's what congress/the court has said, well let them enforce it. I believe both Jackson and Jefferson did something like that.

More to the point, where in the Constitution does it give the President the right to essentially veto a law that he has just signed by issuing a signing statement saying that he will not follow the law? I thought that he could only sign bills into law, or veto them.

I can not respond to the specifics of that without seeing which law and what the statement was. I don't recall a statement that Bush has made where he said he wasn't going to follow the law.

Dogjudge
You also seem to be attributing a lot more power to a signing statement than they actually have.

Bush can sign and add a statement saying : I will enforce law X in this way...

Then president Thompson is elected and decides to change enforcement. Nothing in the signing statement stops him.

Nor does anything stop Bush from putting no signing statement, yet choosing how to enforce a law.

So, you are basically complaining that Bush is making explicit his intentions rather than just quietly choosing how to enforce the law the way previous presidents did?

Dogjudge part 2
If you doubt me, think of how the past 2-3 presidents quietly choose to not enforce various immigration laws. No signing statement, just a quiet whisper to the various US attorneys and enforcement agencies saying "Don't worry about these guys..."

At least a signing statement gives us some warning of what is coming.

And, in any case, signing statement or not, the president is the head of the executive branch and has total discretion in deciding how to enforce the laws. So, what is there in a signing statement that exceeds his constitutional authority?

Give me a specific example of something that Bush has done in a signing statement that was unconstitutional rather than your innuendo that he is "wrong".

Constitutionla Rights
"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

The position opposing any 'right not specifically stated in the constituion' is refuted by these section of the document itself
If conservative means limiting government to what is stated in the founding documents,these amendments are crucial,large
parts of the superstructure of laws are in contradiction to the original document.

Sam
No argument there. Much of our current law completely violates the original federalist intent of the constitution, as well as ignoring the 10th Amendment, specifically. (As well as violating many others, 1st and 2d most notably.)

Then again, many commenting here seem to have a strangely minimalist view of presidential powers. It is odd, those on the left seem to have a highly expansive view of federal power, but, since Bush was elected, they have been steadily decreasing the powers granted to the executive branch.

Why is that?

To Sam
The problem with what you are saying is that these "rights" that are somehow found usually come at the cost of removing a "right" from someone else.

Originally the Constitution applied only to the Federal Government. It is really nothing more than a contract between the States in which the States divest some of their authority to the Federal Government in order to exist in a more orderly union. The bill of "rights" was added to prevent the Federal Government from overstepping into State functions and abusing the people.

Finding a "right" to have your "right" to a lawyer explained to you on arrest came at the cost of the States ability to catch and prosecute criminals. It came out of the "right" of honest citizens to not be victimized by criminals AND on top of that, it really did not do anything to prevent abuse of citizens by police. Note also that NOTHING in the Constitution says that you have a "right" to be provided a lawyer by the State, that comnes at the expense of the taxpayer.

So just because someone says that there is some right somewhere, it doesn't make it so.

To Sam and Dogjudge
Congratulations, ya'll have succesfully diverted a large part of the article from the true subject to something else.

How about back to the subject. Do you want the Dems to launch impeachment charges against BOTH Bush and Cheney?

Vic and Sam
Signing statements.

I don't want to get into the actual issue of torture per se. Not for this discussion.

From my perspective, the McCain bill (law since Bush did sign it) is an example of where the President signed a bill into law and then turned around and said that he was not going to abide by the law he had just signed. At that point, and still today, Congress has their hands tied. He didn't veto the bill/law, but he isn't abiding by it either.

As far as I know, although other Presidents have issued signing statements clarifying how they interpreted a law and how it would be enforced no other President has signed a bill into law and then turned around and said he wasn't going to abide by the law at all.

I'm aware of Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears and the Supreme Court ruling against Jackson, etc. Didn't make that situation right either.

Democrats and impeachment.

Unless something VERY MAJOR comes up between now and the end of his term, I doubt that the Democrats will go down that road.

I have been very interested in the impeachment of Nixon and some of the players then, who coincidentally happen to be some of the players now. Rumsfeld, Cheney and others.

In order to actually accomplish impeachment, the Democrats would need to have the Republicans lead the charge, at best, or have a significant number on their side, at worst. All of this would have to be similar to what the Democrats did with Nixon, not what the Republicans tried to do with Clinton. I can't envision a scenario where either would happen. Also, I don't think there is enough time for it to happen.

That being said, if the President do something that was sort of outrageous, I think the Democrats could raise the impeachment issue as a negotiating tool.

On a very personal level, I do believe that the President not only authorized torture but has given the orders to use it. For that issue alone, I feel he should be brought up on impeachment charges. At least to investigate it further to see if it is true, or not. Again, that would take a long time to first prove all the points necessary, and then to take Bush through the impeachment process. So, it won't happen.

andrews
Here is a compilation of the signing statements that Bush has issued since being President.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

In addition to this, last year the American Bar Association issued a statement against the way that the President has used these statements.

Another example. In late 2006 the President essentially redefined the terms of a nuclear treaty with India to fit HIS terms. Sorry, but the President can't do that. That power is specifically assigned to Congress. From the President's point of view, it's a yes or no. He doesn't have the authority to change the terms of a treaty AFTER it has been approved by Congress.

To Dogjudge
This is my last post on this subject. Here is what Bush put in that sorry excuse for a Republican's amendment to the bill.

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

I don't see anywhere in there where he said I will ignore this law, although he could have pulled a "jefferson" and said "McShame has made his law, let him enforce it".

Anyway, do you want the Dems to pass the Impeachment procedings out of committee for Bush and add Cheney to them also? That is the subject, impeach or not, go for it.

To Dogjudge
One last point on that Amendment. This was naother case of the Congress adding cr*p to a defense appropriations bill.

If I was the President I would have vetoed it and took money from the Congressional Operations budget until they could not collect paychecks for them or their staff.

I would do that for EVERY bill they pass that has unrelated stuff added.

Vic
Check the last half of my post at 5:11. That will give you my reply about impeachment.

If they ever did go down that road, it would have to be for both the President and the Vice-President.

Five years from now, it will be interesting to see what the perspective is on who was actually running the White House.

Although I disagree with many of your views, it is refreshing to discuss things from an intelligent point of view, rather than much of the parroting of talking points that happens here so often.

To Dogjudge
I think you are wrong about the torture. He has stated many times emphatically that he has not authorized torture and that we do not do torture.

I take it from your response that you think the Dems should impeach BOTH. What would the grounds be for impeaching Cheney? he hasn't "authorized torture".

Kind of a shame, really...
To look at folks slamming each others viewpoints by holding up the most extreme examples of the opposite side as representative of all. We all know how it goes, Liberal being equated with socialist and conservative with fascist.. when its all so much rubbish.

Right and left agree on a lot. We agree that there is, somewhere, a line drawn - a floor level beneath it is unethical to allow our fellow human beings to sink. No matter how they got there. The only thing we disagree on is where that line is and how best to make sure that none of us fall below it.

We agree that unchecked government power (ANY branch of government) is a bad thing, we just cant resist the urgings of basic human nature to be a little less vocal in our opposition to those manifestations of it where we secretly agree with the outcome no matter how the conscience may prick at the method by which it occurred.

We are all so convinced of the rightness of our own moral compass (or we wouldnt hold the moral views we do) that any institution, law or judge that holds a conflicting view is activist and serving some hostile agenda. So strongly do we believe it that we cant see that it cuts both ways and yet we still persist in trying to remove the speck from our brothers eye.

Either America will grow beyond this kind of internal intolerance or history will record it in a very dim light indeed, and probably in Mandarin.

What is a lie?
A lie, by law, is making a false statement knowing that statement to be untrue. Apparently, there is a movement to change it to mean that if you were incorrect you also lied. It is not a crime to be incorrect. It is only a crime to be knowingly untruthful Prior to the alleged Bush WMD lie many well healed democrats made the same statements over and over again. When you ask the Bush haters if the dems were lying when they said that they give a nonresponsive answer to refuse to speak at all about it.

The only real problem I have with our government is the refusal to go after the illegals.

As far as I am concerned the dems want to take over the Presidency without going through an election. They want Pelosi in the White House and they want to remove GWB and Cheney.

Basing your whole political point of view on hatred for one man is really sick. No one has identified any feasible high crimes and misdemeanors to hang on GWB.

Vic
Do you think any of the Libs who are frothing at the mouth and growling for both Bush & Cheney to be impeached have given any thought to how much it would harm Democrat chances in 08 if either resigned this far away from the election?

What Republican would be appointed to replace him and get all that media spotlight and name recognition?
Mitt Romney?
Hunter?
Tancredo?

Right now the Libs would be hard put to find a candidate who could beat Fred Flintstone.
It would be just like them though to build up a very strong Republican candidate by making some stupid pointless attack against lame ducks.

FISA and Unreasonable Searches
When given the opportunity to conduct searches in a legal fashion using existing FISA law, President Bush chose instead to violate Our Sacred Constitution.

For this reason alone, President Bush must be heald accountable and impeached. When he placed his hand on the holy Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, GW Bush made a contract. When he Bypassed FISA and conducted illegal searches on upstanding Americans, he stepped outside the law.

Period.

Vic
Torture - That's one of those issues that won't be resolved for a long time. Not unless the Democrats want to go down that road, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

It has been stated that Bush had the Army manual and other things changed. It appears that he MAY have authorized the CIA to torture (ie. asked for the CIA and all government officials to be retroactively absolved of any torture crimes.) At the same time, I can't ask you to prove the negative that he didn't authorize it.

As for Cheney. He has said so many outrageous things that it's hard to say what's true with him, or what he is saying just for shock/spin value.

IF I ran the Democrats and they decided to go after impeachment of Cheney, I'd probably start with the Plame affair. Beyond that, there are so many decisions that I truly feel have come from Cheney, but since Bush is running the show he would take the fall for them. Another issue could potentially be Cheney and the intelligence lead up to the Iraq war.

As I said, it's all a mute point because the Democrats are far from having the support of the Republicans to go down the road toward impeachment.

Even if many of the issues that are hanging out there come down against the administration, they could be illegal but not high crimes and misdemeanors.

As you probably can tell, on the issue of torture, I'm non-negotiable. America does NOT torture people. If it could be proved that ANYONE in the administration authorized it, they shouldn't be impeached, they should go to jail.

Ticking bomb, or not, we do not torture people.

Just my opinion.

MyOpine
Bush has what now... a 28% approval rating? That means it's not just liberals that do not like the job he is doing.

Gabby
Great post. However we need to talk about the order of those names. I like Paul/Hunter much better. ;-)

Liberty
How did we get to the subject of Bush's approval rateing?

Only the very naive attribute Bush's lack of popularity to our troops being in Iraq.

Many people think he is not pursuing this war with enough force.
Many are torqued at Bush for big government spending.
Many are torqued at Bush for open borders & amnesty.
Many are torqued at Bush for being such a woosie and letting Democrats crap all over him while he keeps trying to appease them.
Many are spoiled Democrats who "HATE BUSH, HATE BUSH"
There are probably more reasons for that low approval than I am aware of.
Don't try to blame it all on Iraq.

http://www.vote.com keeps a variety of polls running.
Last time I checked, Ron Paul was only 2 votes behind Romney.
Check to see how many want us to pull out of Iraq while you are there.
Last time I checked, %88 wanted us to stay and finish the job.

Brujo Blanco
Good comment.

I'd add that Clinton must have known there were no WMD, too, so that the cruise missiles he used to attack Iraq were deployed as an act of war against Iraq.

In The Final Analysis-No
I doubt impeachment will ever be seriously attempted. I believe the Dems will keep flying test balloons with it until the polls tell them that people are beginning to react negatively to the idea. Then they will back off and spin it as though they are being "statesmanlike" and not wanting to kick a beaten man when he's down. They remember well that Pres. Clinton's popularity rose and that of the Repubs fell when they kept pursuing his impeachment.

They might have someone like Murtha rabblerouse the issue and then have Pelosi and Hilary talk him off the ledges "for the greater good of the country". The two ladies would then be hailed by the MSM just before the election as bipartisan, fair, and magnanimous heroines who "rose above petty partisanship to try to unite a divided and fractious nation".

On the subject, the Clinton escapades were a sad commentary on the man, but what seemed to me to rise to a potentially impeachable level was his placing himself in a position where he could have been possibly compromised or blackmailed by enemies of the US. At the time-pre-9-11 - it may not have seemed like a big deal, but after that attack it became crystal clear that we need someone at the top of his or her game in all aspects to cope with the war that had been declared by the other side but not answered by us. Personally, if he were just about anyone but the POTUS, what he did would be between he and his family. However, the jeopordizing of the country's security and not being farsighted enough to recognize the implications of what he was doing and how it could come back to hurt the US was an extremely serious matter and far more than just a "sex lie". This seems to have been totally lost in the shuffle and was what bothered me the most.

Attn: Vic and Welcome to the N.A.U.
Here is Bush's signing statement on H.R. 254 (April 12, 2004). The important thing to note is sections 2(5) and 2(6) of H.R 254 require an anual report be made to the Secretary of the Treasury detailing all discussions and negotiations between the U.S. and Mexican governments.
-----------------------------------------------

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 254, "To authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes." The Act is intended to implement an agreement between the United States and Mexico to accelerate the delivery of environmental infrastructure projects on the border by improving the operations of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank.

Section 546 of Public Law 103-182, as added by section 1 of the Act, purports to direct the President to instruct United States representatives on the Board of Directors of the North American Development Bank to take a particular position with respect to certain grant proposals. Under the Constitution, the President alone is charged with developing the position of the United States in international fora. The executive branch will accordingly interpret this provision as a nonbinding recommendation from the Congress.

Sections 2(5) and 2(6) of the Act purport to require the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury to include a description of discussions between the United States and Mexican governments. In order to avoid intrusion into the President's negotiating authority and ability to maintain the confidentiality of diplomatic negotiations, the executive branch will not interpret this provision to require the disclosure of either the contents of diplomatic communications or specific plans for particular negotiations in the future.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 5, 2004.
-------------------------------------------------
So here is a clear example of Bush signing a bill into law while attaching a signing statement declaring he will not abide by it.

What are they trying to hide?

Correction
H.R. 254 sections 2(5) and 2(6) require an annual report BY the Secretary of the Treasury not TO the Secretary of the Treasury. Sorry for the confusion.


MyOpine
"How did we get to the subject of Bush's approval rateing?

Only the very naive attribute Bush's lack of popularity to our troops being in Iraq."

-----------

Well, we got here because you mentioned it was liberals that wanted him removed from office.

"Do you think any of the Libs who are frothing at the mouth and growling for both Bush & Cheney to be impeached have given any thought to how much it would harm Democrat chances in 08 if either resigned this far away from the election?"

So, I pointed out that he currently had a 28% approval rating and said it wasn't ONLY liberals that didn't like the job he was doing.

I didn't say it was only because of the job he was doing in Iraq, although that surely is some of it. I would imagine it was more from things like illegal warrantless wiretapping, "sneak and peak", the [un]Patriot Act and things of that nature.


Oh, I left out a big one
Allowing our frigging borders to be overrun by illegal friggin' aliens!!

N/A
Don't be ridiculous. Bush and co. don't represent what true conservatives stand for. They're the same BIG government socialist ilk that you have in the Democratic Party. So get over yourself thinking that if a Democrat gets elected as President, all will be well. It will only lead to more of the same, taking us closer and closer to becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America). We all went to sleep. That's the reality. We have allowed our government to be hijacked.

We have to decide if we are going to stand together and throw the bums out of office and do more than pay lip service to our Constitution and the notion of limited Constitutional government/ individual liberty OR just let the final shoe drop and watch our country and our freedom be completely lost.

Decide.

To Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
It looks to me like congress exceeded it's authority here, Busg should have vetoed this bill, not only because it had stupid stuff that is unconstitutional, biut because the entire bill is unconstitutional.

This was yet another stupid hate crimes bill. I guess Rove told hinm it would be bad politics to veto it. This is yet again one og the reasons that I can not stand Bush.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.