Why is impeachment considered more "radical" than censure?

[Idioteque]

Censure says "the president broke the law."

Impeachment simply says "the president might have broken the law, let's have some hearings and a trial and find out."

For all of the Democrats who say that we ought to follow the process before jumping to conclusions, impeachment seems like a moe reasonable option.

[Skinner]

1. Just taking a stab here,

but it might be the fact that impeachment could result in Bush being removed from office.

[TygrBright]

6. Sure... about like...

...me buying a lottery ticket COULD result in me becoming a multi-millionaire.

But I ain't holdin' my breath.

Until opponents of this misadministration control House and Senate, there is about as much chance of blivet being removed from office as there is of me winning the Powerball. All that efforts at impeachment do is make Democrats look vindictive, retaliatory, and obstructive. (Which is WAY BETTER than them looking supine, sycophantic, and ineffectual, BTW... but still not optimal.)

Censure, on the other hand, is a firm and dignified statement of "He broke the law and should take responsibility for his actions, but we know he won't, so we are just making it clear that we know and disapprove of blivet wiping himself with the Constitution."

Calls for impeachment are much more easily "spun" against us by the diehard blivet flaks and GOPpie hacks. Why do you think they're now spouting the meme?

ruefully,
Bright

[Skinner]

7. True, that.

Calls for impeachment are much more easily "spun" against us

Always a pleasure to see you posting, TB. :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

2. Censure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2522764&mesg_id=2522764

[Spinzonner]

3. Because Bush will issue a Signing Statement for the Censure

that says it's really a High Praise from the COngress

[blm]

4. Actually, censure IS moderate because there's NO LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY

and the president takes his slap on the wrist and moves on. That's why Feingold said he offered it as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment which he claims would be bad for the country during a time of war.

I support censure - but I also think the case for censure is strong enough that no senator needs to sell it by referring to impeachment as some "bad for the country" bogeyman.

Those of us who have supported Conyers case for impeachment since his Iraq hearings, are happy to support censure, but are not happy at all with Feingold's decision to sell it as an alternative to impeachment. That's pre-judging congress' case for impeachment at a time when it's now gathering support.

[uppityperson]

5. Impeachment says "enough of us believe we have a case.."

that he broke the law and needs to be held legally liable. It could result in removing him from office. Censure says "he broke the law and we know it and so should you" but has no legal liability.