Favorable numbers for Impeachment

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're simply wrong, Nimh. There is other recent polling which supports the impeachment numbers garnered by ARG.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/39_favor_impeaching_bush

Quote:
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.

Well, that is only somewhat comparable. Yes, the 45% in favour of the ARG poll and the 39% in favour of the Rasmussen poll are within the double margin of error, but only just.

And I would definitely not say that a poll showing 39% in favour and 49% against provides for a particularly good basis for saying the people are ready for impeachment. Rather the opposite. Especially since the favourable number has shown only a "slight increase in support".

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When polled last year, before the historic electoral victory that the voters of America handed to the Democrats, what were the two most important issues?

Corruption, and Iraq. To pretend that somehow people didn't vote for all those Dems to work on those issues is laughable.

Uhm, yes, but that was not your argument. Your argument was that the impeachment of Bush, alongside withdrawing from the war, was the second main concern of voters now, and that issues like raising the minimum wage were "little things" in comparison. In fact, you said that there "are no other major issues" BUT impeachment and Iraq. And you didnt say anything about corruption.

But the notion that Joe Sixpack cares more about the Democratic Congress starting impeachment procedures against Bush than about it raising the minimum wage - and that he would appreciate it more - seems pretty outlandish to me. It sounds like a political-activist elite kind of perspective.

It doesnt reflect the numbers, in any case: raising the minimum wage has proven tremendously popular, both in polls and in actual elections when a ballot initiative was up, whereas impeachment, according to your own numbers, is still actually opposed by a plurality.

But then you've said that "every evidence" is supporting your view - so I'm still curious what evidence you were referring to.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
First, for a "fringe" idea that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand, 40% of the electorate sounds like a fairly substantial number of people.

I agree that it is by now definitely more than a "fringe" idea, which is why I gave you in the start that the numbers were indeed unexpectedly high. But they are not remotely high enough to support your contention that it would be a broadly popular move that would boost the Democrats' popularity. Thats just not born out even by the polls you mention.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Second, more Americans support impeaching Bush now than supported impeaching Clinton when he was actually being impeached.

Which means exactly nothing, considering CLinton's impeachment was deeply impopular and sank the Republicans' polling numbers. Being more popular than that doesnt mean much, does it?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You think that the ordinary voter considers a substantial raise in the minimum wage "little stuff", sees getting Congress imbroiling itself in impeachment procedures against the President as the more important "big stuff"? Really?

Well, please report what I said accurately. Iraq is the issue of prime importance with impeachment being second. I guarantee you that any Dem you ask across the country will put Iraq first.

Umm, no. You said Iraq and impeaching Bush were the two main issues, and thats why impeachment would be big stuff in terms of popularity compared to little stuff like the minimum wage. We dont have any beef over Iraq being important - its the other half of your argument that I contest.

0 Replies

Quote:

Umm, no. You said Iraq and impeaching Bush were the two main issues, and thats why impeachment would be big stuff in terms of popularity compared to little stuff like the minimum wage. We dont have any beef over Iraq being important - its the other half of your argument that I contest.

Aaargh, I know...

Impeachment is the endgame of the Corruption issue.

Don't want to argue with you, I respect ya too much!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I appreciate that, Cyclo - but wait, wait just a second, cause I was still typing out some of the arguing that I was doing with you, and I aint just gonna delete that ****! Laughing

So, bear with me.. :wink:

----------------------------------------

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If we saw numbers lke this supporting any other issue, we would say 'yes, close majorities of the public want to see XX happen, so there may be some utility in making XX happen for the Dems.' But not this issue?

If I saw poll numbers on another issue indicating that a plurality of varying size was against Congress doing something, then yes, I would also disadvise the Democrats against pursuing it now.

With the branches of government split and the chance of pushing the balance to the Dems decisively coming up next year, I'd say focus on the popular issues that you can really beat the Reps on the head with now, not the contentious, controversial ones that only a large minority of the people supports. None of it would pass anyway. The goal now is to win the Presidency for a Democratic agenda, so you could properly implement that after '08.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nimh wrote:
Seriously, what do you base your belief on that Hillary and Obama would just love impeachment?

You're right, I'm sure they don't want to see their opponents torn between defending Bush and attacking him. That sure would be a terrible position for any Dem candidate to be in. And why do you think they would blow it by opening their mouths about it? C'mon, man! Why stick your hands in the fire when the other side is burning merrily all alone?

OK, so you base your belief that Obama and Hillary would love impeachment on how you think that they should love it, because you personally believe it would work out brilliantly for them.

Well, I think it would be terrible for them. Especially for Obama, whom I support more of the two, and who has been vigirously campaigning on the premise that he will "change the political culture", bring renewed forward-looking vision and optimism to the office, and will reach across the aisle to get things done. Yep, the Democrats in Congress getting embroiled in a tough as nails partisan fight about nothing less polarising than impeaching the President fits in great with that strategy.

Obama and Hillary have both raised enormous, record amounts of money. They have all the means they could wish for at their disposal to completely focus media and political attention on their candidacies and what they have to say. But if impeachment procedures take place, forget about it - whatever platform or vision of their own they have to present will be completely undersnowed by a massive media focus on the Bush impeachment.

So - you think it would work great for them; I think it would work terribly for them. We each have our reasons, and of course our right to our own opinion. But what evidence do you have that Obama and Hillary believe it would work out great for them?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may note that the only 'negative' reactions this thread is getting from Dems revolve around 'I don't think it'll happen,' not 'I don't support the idea.' Maybe I missed a few, but to me the majority of Dem posters here seem to be on board.

If by "on board" you mean, "mwahh yeah sure whatever, wouldnt that be cool in theory, mind you, wait, what was that other thread I just saw about?", yeah :wink:

No, seriously, wait, I'm supposed to be the anal one so lemme go back.. Apart from Set (as I understood him) and myself both clearly opposed, I've seen Bipolar Bear saying: "I don't think it serves any purpose to impeach at this point"; and Edgarblythe posting: "not worth wasting politcal capital and public money. He'll be gone soon enough." Plus Lightwizard joked, "You want to hobble a lame duck? That's cruel."

On the opposite side, I've seen Username, Roxxxanne and Zippo actually applaud the idea. And Joe Nation sort of seemed to imply that at least, they'd deserve it. Merry Nation I read as being sort of on the fence.

And of course, those are all just, arguably, liberals. Not one centrist or conservative has spoken out with sympathy for the idea. And not a whole lot of people have rallied to the thread in the first place.

Oh, and you do not want Soz to get air of this thread! Laughing

So, I'm still very sceptical about your "guarantee that the Dem base (30-35%) of the country will react positively to this and at least half of independents will."

0 Replies

Quote:

So, I'm still very sceptical about your "guarantee that the Dem base (30-35%) of the country will react positively to this and at least half of independents will."

Shrug. I understand the skepticism but I don't agree with it.

There are varying opinions on whether or not it's more important/more useful to just wait out Bush's term, and shoot for the Dems to take control. I am disdainful of the 'wait it out' theory, because what it really says is this:

Quote:

Doing what is right, and treating politicians like we would treat others, isn't as important as being in control.

I couldn't disagree more with this position. I'd rather do what was right, then do what is expident. Even if it means losing the presidency.

I understand that this makes me young and idealistic, while older, wiser heads will smile and nod and go on supporting the system. But the older wiser heads are the ones who got us into the pickle we are currently in. The Broders and Friedmans of the world certainly agree with you that it's silly to talk about impeachment when the Dems could just wait and get their turn.

This attitude is what got Bush in the WH in the first place, what kept him there after the 2000 elections were stolen, what kept him from being impeached long ago. People are more afraid of rocking the boat - because the public might get angry that you did that, oh no! can't have that happen - then they are of anything else. It sickens me.

It's an attitude that politics and politicians are different, in a different class that plays by different rules, then everyone else. And that holding them accountable doesn't matter. Only winning the next election matters. I'll never agree with this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, I suggest a better candidate for impeachment would be Hillary if by some sad turn of events she is elected, for campaign fraud.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/7/173014.shtml

Word is that Hillary was fully aware of the false reporting.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cyclops, I suggest a better candidate for impeachment would be Hillary if by some sad turn of events she is elected, for campaign fraud.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/7/173014.shtml

Word is that Hillary was fully aware of the false reporting.

I just love expressions like "word is." Whose word? Another favorite: "some say." Who? This is indictment by innuendo.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

okie wrote:
Cyclops, I suggest a better candidate for impeachment would be Hillary if by some sad turn of events she is elected, for campaign fraud.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/7/173014.shtml

Word is that Hillary was fully aware of the false reporting.

I just love expressions like "word is." Whose word? Another favorite: "some say." Who? This is indictment by innuendo.

Even worse is trying to use newsmax as a legitimate source, anyone who does that should just be ignored.

I will go on record as supporting impeachment on principle, it is just not practical at this point. However, there is nothing wrong with holdong impeachment hearings. James Madison said impeachment should be used under these circumstances.

0 Replies

Even worse is selectively picking up on the indictment but not the acquittal:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20050601/ai_n14651183

Typical.

0 Replies

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qcbg72tK_ks

0 Replies

Oh, right, YouTube.com is the standard authority if you want the facts. Laughing

0 Replies

What a crazy world okie lives in...

People are guilty if they are acquitted and innocent of they are found guilty..

0 Replies

parados wrote:

What a crazy world okie lives in...

People are guilty if they are acquitted and innocent of they are found guilty..

He lives in Alice's wonderland.

0 Replies

The he is the Mad Hatter. I thought so.

0 Replies

On a(n even) lighter note:

Quote:

"I've learned you cannot lead by dividing people," a presidential hopeful said in a June 12, 1999, speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, announcing his candidacy. "This country is hungry for a new style of campaign. Positive. Hopeful. Inclusive. A campaign that attracts new faces and new voices. A campaign that unites all Americans toward a better tomorrow."

Forget impeachment. Given how Bush has governed for most of his presidency, can one of those trial lawyers he loathes sue him for product misrepresentation?

E.J. Dionne Jr. contrasts Bush's style with the approach of Nicolas Sarkozy.

0 Replies

Tough Talk on Impeachment

TOUGH TALK ON IMPEACHMENT BILL MOYERS JOURNAL explores the talk of impeachment with Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT moyers

0 Replies

Do it! Do it! Conservative Republicans will applaud your efforts to ensure a Democratic defeat in the upcoming election.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Do it! Do it! Conservative Republicans will applaud your efforts to ensure a Democratic defeat in the upcoming election.

I suppose it all depends on the facts that would come out during an impeachment. If it turns out that Bush DID lie, DID violate the constitution, DID undermine the US government and the conservative Republicans helped him then it could turn into a Democratic landslide.

Be careful what you wish for..... The facts might not be what you expect them to be.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Do it! Do it! Conservative Republicans will applaud your efforts to ensure a Democratic defeat in the upcoming election.

Just like the Republicans were beat in 2000, hmm?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Impeachment is one thing but mass murderers should be prosecuted. Moyers and co. made a sensational case for impeachment. Moyers did another great show on mainstream American media's role in helping Bushie lie us into war. What a guy. "Bill Moyers' "Buying the War" Exposes the Media's Failure to do ...A point-by-point explanation of how the media failed the public en route to the war in Iraq is carefully assembled and patiently related Wednesday by Moyers ...
www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/24/730/ - 64k

0 Replies

Favorable numbers for Impeachment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know