Finally - The Republican Revolt Against Bush Begins (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Republicans in both the House and Senate are getting ready for a showdown with the administration on the 4th Amendment, and they are ready to take bush on, all the way. It didnt take long to get to this point; After all, some Republicans didnt sell out their Conservative values.

To the Bushevik supporters on this board. Dont be so smug about a Bush impeachment not happening yet. If Specter stays the course in the Senate, there may very well be enough votes in the House to launch it. Probably not enough to convict in the Senate, but you all saw what happened to Clinton's popularity when he was impeached. The only problem with impeachment at this point is finding enough Democrats with a set of balls to match those Republicans who are willing to put their own partisanship aside. Want to know why I never vote Democrat, despite not supporting Bush? The reason is obvious. Democrats, as a rule, have no spine, no convictions, no purpose, no stable positions, no courage, and absolutely no patriotism. Want to know the truth? As much as I dislike Bush, I am even more terrified of what the Democrats could do to this country. That is why, if Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons go, I would still vote for a Republican presidential candidate over a Democratic one. Come to think of it, it might even be better if Bush remained in office, if the other choice is one of today's gutless Democrats. Third party is better though. I think I will stick with that.

Let the revolt begin.

Article is here.

Article is here.

 

[Kandahar]

Wait...you dislike Bush, you want him powerless, you acknowledge that any attempt to remove him from office would most likely be unsuccessful, and you back up your argument with this?

Probably not enough to convict in the Senate, but you all saw what happened to Clinton's popularity when he was impeached.

I did see. His approval ratings were at the highest point in his presidency while he was being impeached.

So why would you want to impeach Bush in an effort that you acknowledge is futile?

 

[danarhea]

Wait...you dislike Bush, you want him powerless, you acknowledge that any attempt to remove him from office would most likely be unsuccessful, and you back up your argument with this?



I did see. His approval ratings were at the highest point in his presidency while he was being impeached.

So why would you want to impeach Bush in an effort that you acknowledge is futile?

Gore did not win in 2000, did he?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by danarhea
Let the revolt begin.

What's the status of 635?

 

[KidRocks]

Gore did not win in 2000, did he?

Actually, more Americans voted for Gore than for Bush so yes, Gore did win the popular vote. Many say Gore won Florida but...

 

[Kandahar]

Gore did not win in 2000, did he?

Which is a better indication of Bill Clinton's popularity during his impeachment:

A) A poll that measures Bill Clinton's popularity during his impeachment.
B) The outcome of an election, two years later, between two people who were not Bill Clinton.

 

[oldreliable67]

Last I checked (a couple of days ago), HR635 was still in the Rules Committee, said committee being composed of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. A total of 22 Dems have now signed on as co-sponsors. There are as yet no Repub co-sponsors - despite a DP poster starting a thread saying that 22 Repubs had signed on.

 

[danarhea]

Last I checked (a couple of days ago), HR635 was still in the Rules Committee, said committee being composed of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. A total of 22 Dems have now signed on as co-sponsors. There are as yet no Repub co-sponsors - despite a DP poster starting a thread saying that 22 Repubs had signed on.

True. No Republicans have signed onto 625 as of yet. Whether they do or not depends on the outcome of the Judiciary Committee hearings. If they determine that Bush broke the law, which is likely, then impeachment is going to become an issue which Democrats will push during this year's election campaign. A few Republicans will sign on out of principle, and a few more will sign on if they see a no vote as threatening their reelection chances.

 

[oldreliable67]

Whether they do or not depends on the outcome of the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Don't think so. IMO, the hearings held by the House and Senate intelligence committees are much more important in this regard. Remember, the Judiciary Committee hearings are public. The House and Senate intelligence committee's hearings are private, meaning that more detail will be provided about the NSA surveillance program. This added detail will both inform and convince (or not) those legislators as to the value (or lack thereof) of the program. I don't have the link at hand, but in one of the articles following yesterday's committee meeting, one Dem legislator (wish I could remember the name)) was quoted as saying that he had gained a new appreciation of the program and that his thinking had "changed direction".

There are a couple of members of the intelligence committees who are also members of the Judiciary Committee (Biden, for example). These people will assist in (at least informally, behind the scenes, if not up front) carring a message back to the Judiciary Committee as to their impressions. If convinced of the value of the surveillance program, expect the Judiciary Committee to fold its tent on this matter (perhaps after a bit of face-saving rhetoric). If not convinced, then expect the Judiciary Committee to harden its position more along the lines of your expectations.

Bottom line: the important committees here are the House and Senate intelligence committees (and one or two respective subcommittees), not necessarily the Judiciary Committee.

 

[danarhea]

Don't think so. IMO, the hearings held by the House and Senate intelligence committees are much more important in this regard. Remember, the Judiciary Committee hearings are public. The House and Senate intelligence committee's hearings are private, meaning that more detail will be provided about the NSA surveillance program. This added detail will both inform and convince (or not) those legislators as to the value (or lack thereof) of the program. I don't have the link at hand, but in one of the articles following yesterday's committee meeting, one Dem legislator (wish I could remember the name)) was quoted as saying that he had gained a new appreciation of the program and that his thinking had "changed direction".

There are a couple of members of the intelligence committees who are also members of the Judiciary Committee (Biden, for example). These people will assist in (at least informally, behind the scenes, if not up front) carring a message back to the Judiciary Committee as to their impressions. If convinced of the value of the surveillance program, expect the Judiciary Committee to fold its tent on this matter (perhaps after a bit of face-saving rhetoric). If not convinced, then expect the Judiciary Committee to harden its position more along the lines of your expectations.

Bottom line: the important committees here are the House and Senate intelligence committees (and one or two respective subcommittees), not necessarily the Judiciary Committee.

Then a good indication would be Biden, and he is loaded for bear.

 

[oldreliable67]

Then a good indication would be Biden, and he is loaded for bear.

Could well be. Biden has never completely stifled his Presidential ambitions, so his take on the secret hearings and what he carries back to the Judiciary Comm. could be important. I can't help but wonder, though, if Biden's Pres. ambitions\political survival instincts come to the fore, and if he believes that the Repubs continue to gain favor with voters on the security issue as the polls continue to suggest, if he won't - after an obligatory face-saving interlocution - temper his criticism.

 

[danarhea]

Could well be. Biden has never completely stifled his Presidential ambitions, so his take on the secret hearings and what he carries back to the Judiciary Comm. could be important. I can't help but wonder, though, if Biden's Pres. ambitions\political survival instincts come to the fore, and if he believes that the Repubs continue to gain favor with voters on the security issue as the polls continue to suggest, if he won't - after an obligatory face-saving interlocution - temper his criticism.

I would counter that security and the fourth amendment are not interlocked so tightly whereas either one has to suffer for the sake of the other.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Last I checked (a couple of days ago), HR635 was still in the Rules Committee, said committee being composed of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. A total of 22 Dems have now signed on as co-sponsors. There are as yet no Repub co-sponsors - despite a DP poster starting a thread saying that 22 Repubs had signed on.

I posted the info on GOP support for HR 635 from an Atlanta paper here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=225563#post225563

The interesting part of this is that IF the Dems win majority control of the house in 06. John Conyers would be in charge of leading the impeachment procedings. I'm also guessing that he wouldn't have to hold hearings in the house basement anymore.

I think you will begin to see more moderate republicans speaking their minds on issues now that the leadership's power to hold the party in lockstep is diminished.

 

[oldreliable67]

I posted the info on GOP support for HR 635 from an Atlanta paper here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=225563#post225563

The interesting part of this is that IF the Dems win majority control of the house in 06. John Conyers would be in charge of leading the impeachment procedings. I'm also guessing that he wouldn't have to hold hearings in the house basement anymore.

I think you will begin to see more moderate republicans speaking their minds on issues now that the leadership's power to hold the party in lockstep is diminished.

You did start that thread and you titled it "22 Repubs for Impeachment". My post in that thread was as follows:

"Ah, say there hipster, where are the 22 Repubs you cited in the thread title? The only 22 pols that I see are listed in the article are Dems. Want to change the name of the thread, or am I wrong and there are 22 Repubs in there somewhere that I didn't see?"

I still don't see any 22 Repubs signing on to HR 635.

Something we agree on: it would be good to see more moderate repubs speaking their minds on issues. The more pragmatic any politician can be, the less slavishly or dogmaticaly devoted to a party line any politician can be, can only benefit us, the people. Solve problems - if the right solution is consistent with a party belief, fine; but don't embrace the wrong solution just because it is the party line.

 

[RightinNYC]

Which is a better indication of Bill Clinton's popularity during his impeachment:

A) A poll that measures Bill Clinton's popularity during his impeachment.
B) The outcome of an election, two years later, between two people who were not Bill Clinton.

Hahahahahah, very nice.