GOP Congressman Predicts 30 House Seat Loss

People can go wherever they darned well please Roxxxanne. After all this is a ferociously free country (in great part, thanks to George).

30 seats? Nah, I was (and am) predicting 24.

That'd certainly be significant, too.

This will be interesting.

So the Dems have the house and the Repubs the Senate?

That means that there would be no impeachment of the President,and nothing would get done.
Why is that a bad thing?

A lot can happen between now and Nov. I wouldn't put much stock in prophecy.

For example, what are the odds the nation's nutcase in the White House will attack Iran before the elections. What impact will that have on Americans? What will China and Russia do? Is he dumb enough to think this country is dumb enough to support him in another one of his ideological wars? We know the rightwingers on A2K are.

Will China and Japan continue buying the Republican debt that has the potential to bring on an economic disaster? To encourage foreigners to buy our debt we have to raise interest rates. If interest rates keep going up between now and the election, what effect will that have on the economy, the housing market and election.

The potential for a very large earthquake is serious in the San Francisco area, not to mention the coming hurricane season. Will Bush's responses to disasters be a total failure as in the past or has this fool actually learned something and will provide an adequate response for whatever disasters come before the election. This could have a big impact on the election.

I think it's to early to prophetize. Let's wait and see.

In that case, you are predicting a Democratic takeover of the House this fall.

They only need 15 seats to do it.

So you want to try to impeach the reputation of Mark Shields, go right ahead but I might warn you calling him disreputable would certianly constitute libel. And libel is not protected free speech.

Who says the Dems won't take the Senate too? Impeachment is not going to be a partisan act, if it happens, Republicans must be instrumental in the process. Really, doi you know anything about politics?

Not true. I guess law isn't one of your specialties, yet, unlike the music, acting, and business mogul things.

Oh and there is that spelling thing. Don't worry about it, I am sure it has something to do with your disability.

Impeachment is less likely, but still quite politically possible.

Lawmakers naturally try to protect their leader, by heading off or minimizing investigations that might yield embarassing results.

However, if the Democrats take the House-as looks likely-they will be able to investigate anything they want.

If one or more of those investigations turns up things that are really, really bad, then at some point Senate Republicans will begin to vote for conviction.

You pretty much expect a lawmaker to try to prevent investigations of the leader of his party. But once those investigations get underway, what emerges very possibly could cause a Republican lawmaker to vote for conviction. Telling the home voters that you opposed the investigation at first because you didn't think there was anything there is one thing. Telling the voters you supported Bush after some embarrassing things come out is something else.

The Impeachment Process

In the House of Representatives

# The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...

# The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.

# Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.

# The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.

# Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.

In the Senate

# The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

# The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

# A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

# The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

# The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.

# The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

# The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

# Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

# Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

# Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

I liked xingu's list, but I think he missed a couple of likely ones:

Cheney is indicted in the Plamegate case--looks like from yesterday's news Fitzgerald is just about there now--what was Bush's latest swerve on this; wasn't his first statement that if they were implicated they'd have to go, subsequently flip-flopped to something--did he say indicted or convicted?

Good chance Rove is indicted too, as Fitzgerald moves up the ladder.

The Abramoff scandal nets more Repubs, seems to have got the #3 man at the CIA, and shows no sign of stopping.

The majority of Americans already think the NSA went too far, and there are straws in the breeze that say there are more whistleblowers to come.

Looks like it's going to be a hot summer for the Republicans, and I don't mean global warming (tho that's gonna be hot too).

That's exactly what I'm hoping for; more whistleblowers to take down most in this administration. That'll destroy the republican party/conservatives/neocons for many years to come.

That'll certainly be a popular subject in the history books of the world.

If the DNC asked me, I'd argue that impeachment of Bush is an unnecessary goal and likely a counter-productive strategy.

We'll note that the right is presently using the threat of a Bush impeachment in an attempt to motivate their own base for the election in six months. Why would they conclude that this will help them?

First, it furthers the strawman trick they've used consistently to this point...that any critical analyses of Bush or his administration or its policies are driven only by a visceral/knee-jerk/irrational/anti-American hatred of Bush personally and "American values" more generally. Impeachment then becomes merely further evidence that the above is so.

Second, it furthers the divisiveness of the culture war dichotomy...the internal enemy which will destroy true Americanism (Satan to some, liberalism/progessive notions/permisiveness/multiculturalism to others).

Third, and most depressing...it is a simplistic formulation which appeals to people who are quite unable (cognitively, emotionally) to bear much complexity or nuance. It is white hats/black hats, with us/against us, support President or be a traitor, etc. Any of us who have been on this board for a while have seen enough of such stuff to last several lifetimes.

Fourth, we have the recent historical example of the Clinton impeachment with the mix of PR or electoral results. As much as the right wished that the public would turn on Clinton, most did not and the debacle hurt the Republicans too.

So, I think any drive to impeachment will have unpredictable results at best and potentially negative results (from a progressive viewpoint, obviously).

But more importantly, I think impeachment is unnecessary, regardless of whether it is deserved or not, and I certainly think it is.

Instead, effort ought to be directed towards deep and thorough investigations into how this administration has gone about its business over the last six years. On the educated assumption that much will be found that is illegal, unethical, fraudulent, and deeply dishonest then the slow uncovering of such facts (and they must be facts, not slanders for cheap political gain) ought to do far, far more to discredit the administration and the new conservative movement (discredit where appropriate) than would an impeachment.

But if the investigations by the House turn up these nasty things, wouldn't impeachment be the natural next step?

Would Americans be satisfied if they felt that the president is a scoundrel who routinely lies and deceives to get policies through which hurt the country, and nobody makes a move to get rid of him?

Assuming such a scenario exists, the only thing which might head off impeachment is....time.

If the Democrats take the House, the session starts in January 2007. The committees couldn't even begin to start investigating until February or March. Over the course of six or eight months, the bad stuff comes out. That brings us to October 2007.

THEN we hit the big debate-how much was the president involved in this nasty stuff? That brings us up to February of 2008.

Are we going to start an impeachment process when the Iowa caucuses are coming up, certain front runners have already emerged in the race and all these reporters are in certain key primary states reporting on various candidacies there?

By the time you hit February 2008, even if you do impeach Bush the most you can do is have him out by summer 2008, and he's gone in January 2009 anyway. What would be the point-especially since he would be liable to prosecuted once he leaves office?

Impeachment is the only justified ending to a president that used our soldiers and treasury so indiscriminately for goals impossible to attain. He needs to go down in history as the only president to lose office from impeachment. I also want to see the Senate take on some real responsibility.

You need to get a grip. Your insane level of hatred is what will in destroy the Democrats best chance of ever again winning the White House in an election. When you and other whackadoodle liberals scream and rant and rave and holler about impeachment, you bring into focus the main fat filled fact that not a one of you has any real concerns about the REAL issues which the average American is facing every day. When you (or any other whackadoodle) want to seriously approach those matters, let me know. If you want only to go on and on for the rest of all time about impeachment then you are of no better quality than the man you have chosen to chastise.

But the leader of the dems in the house,Nancy Pelosi,has already ruled out impeachment if the dems win the house.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/13/MNG94IRGOO1.DTL

"Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards if the party takes over the House in November's elections."


So,I guess that isnt going to happen after all.

Strurgis, Go take a flying leap; I can say anything I wish about this despicable president. He's responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the unnecessary deaths of over 2,400 of our soldiers, and the cost of this war that is only increasing at astronomical levels that continues to threaten our economy.

Nobody is saying you cant.
You have the right to be wrong,ridiculous,or just plain stupid if you want.

BUT,according to Nancy Pelosi,there wont be any impeachment proceedings anyway,so you wont get to see that happen anyway.