[Sosfbay-discuss] More on impeachment & Democrat's position

[Gerry Gras]

Bob Alavi wrote:

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



I agree, it is pathetic.

Here is a response to Pelosi:

     http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17


I want to keep trying to talk to my Reps about why impeachment
is a good idea.  And to do that it would help to know what
they are thinking, what their reasons are for not taking
action.  So I am going to do a little speculation here.
Feedback would be appreciated.

If you don't want to read all this, then at least skip to the
end and follow the link to a relevant article from Herbert.

...

I have heard before that the Republicans do think that it would
be helpful to them if the country believed that the Democrats
were planning to impeach Bush after taking back Congress.
Apparently they think that many Republicans would campaign harder
for Congressional Reps if they were afraid of impeachment.

So it might be that the Democrats are afraid that if they talk
too much about impeachment, then they won't do as well in
November.  They might think that if they talk about impeachment,
then they won't take back Congress, and then they won't have a
chance to impeach him.  So there is no point in talking about it.
In other words there could be some logic to their thinking.


1) They don't think that the Bush Administration has committed
    impeachable offenses.
     In that cas they should get some legal advice.  I believe
     there is plenty of existing advice to show that there are
     impeachable offenses.  And at the very least, they should
     do an Impeachment Inquiry, which is what Conyers resolution
     is about, with only about 35 Democrats supporting it.
     NOTE: Zoe Lofgren is the only person who signed and then
     unsigned.

2) Otherwise they do think that the Bush Administration has
    committed impeachable offenses.
     I think they should review their oath of office and realize
     that they are in dereliction of duty.
     So why might they not act?

2a) They might think that the offenses are not serious.
     That possibility is hard for me to comprehend.  I don't
     know what to say other than they are clueless.

2b) They don't believe that impeachment is possible
     because the voters don't care, and Bush has too much support.
     I disagree, and I'll give an example of why not:
     - in June 1972, the Watergate breakin at the Democratic
       National Committee's office happened
     - in November 1972, Nixon won 49 states, everything but
       Massachusetts and D.C.
     - in August 1974, Nixon resigned in order to avoid being
       impeached.

2c) They don't believe that impeachment is possible
     because Bush has too much support, and the media won't
     tell the truth.  (I did hear Anna Eshoo complain about
     the media at one of her town hall meetings.)

2c) They think that the best strategy is to be quiet until
     November, win back Congress, and then impeach.  This
     would mean continuing the same old strategy that has
     worked so well for the last 10 years (NOT).

2d) They are intimidated by the Republicans.
     Then the question is why are they intimidated and
     ... what good are they?  aren't they just useless?

2e) They are intimidated by the DLC (Democratic
     Leadership Council?).
     They may be worried about not getting enough campaign
     money if they don't cooperate with the DLC.  And again,
     what good are they?  aren't they just useless?

2f,g,...) Other?

I know Mike Honda is one of the 30+ cosponsors of an
Impeachment Inquiry.  I know Zoe Lofgren agreed pretty
early to be a cosponsor and later changed her mind.

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@@P
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush


I assume everyone knows enough about Pombo that I don't
need to say anything about him.  Anna Eshoo says that
any impeachment attempt will go nowhere.


Someone I know is not very concerned about what is going on
because he believes that we are reliving the 50's and soon
we will be reliving the 60's.  I hope he is right.



Here is an appropriate article from Bob Herbert of the
New York Times:

     http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-20.htm



Gerry Gras