We have a MAJORITY, why not impeach Dick?

[NightWatcher]

since we are going to get some kind of debate, why dont we just use all of our numbers and toss the bastard out of office. I don not think that bush would replace him with a VP who would run for office in 2008. I would like to see the repubs on the defense for the last year of the bush regime. It MIGHT help stop the Iran war. We need to help the Congressional dems to feel empowered.

-just a thought. Flame on.

[robinlynne]

1. because it isn't on their table.

[librechik]

2. beacuse, although the Majority are Democrats, they are not all "democrats"

in fact they are Villagers out to protect their own (not us, by the way)

[rjones2818]

3. The leadership is full of colaborators.

It's likely that they won't give back W's power grab if we pick up the Presidency and hold on to congress (although Dennis would give it back post haste).

[Bake]

4. Oh, we can DEFINITELY impeach.

That requires a simple majority in the House. What we probably CANNOT do is convict. That requires ALL Dems and 16 repubs in the Senate to vote in favor of conviction. I don't see that happening.

But somehow that's "holding them accountable." Thanks, Dennis.

Bake

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Because dem leadership thinks you're stupid.

The dem leaders think that you're like most Americans, and don't give a shit about politics. They think you care more about Britney Spears' latest overdose than troops dying in Iraq. They figure since they had history's biggest landslide last election, and not because of anything they did but because of hatred for the Bush administration, then if things remain status quo then the same thing will happen next year. So that's why they don't want to stick their necks out. They thing you're stupid.

[redqueen]

8. They hope so many stay stupid...

we'll see how that plays out.

[onenote]

6. Because we don't have a majority on every issue

THere are several dozen moderate/conservative Democrats in the House. That is a fact of life. They aren't going to suddenly become progressives. And they aren't going to support impeachment, at least not unless there is some bi-partisan support for it, which there almost certainly is not. Another fact of life.

A lot of these folks were elected one year ago in campaigns that said nothing about impeachment. Chances are (very good chances, too) that they aren't exactly being brow beaten about not pursuing impeachment by the folks back home in their moderate/conservative leaning districts.

It might be nice if there was some giant cookie cutter that produced identical progressive thinking Democrats. But that's just not the way it is.

Shoot the messenger if you want, but reality can be bitch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. The rational the party is using is that he woudl not get indicted in the Senate

where we need a supermajority

That is like saying we are not going to investigate a murder, since we do not know if the jury will convict

I say becuase they are cowards... dysfunctional et al

This is the kind of PUSHBACK that will pull us from the brink

[Selatius]

9. "Because the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper!" -- George W. Bush

That answer your question?

[Az]

10. Because the Dems are not marching in lock step

In fact the Dems were trying to bury this motion. If things had gone as they figured it would have been tabled and buried. But the repugs reversed it and forced it to the floor. Now the Dems have to move on an action that requires them to be in lock step to even have a chance of seeing through. Its not a simple majority required to push it through all the way. They need a 2/3 majority to convict. That is going to require the Repugs siding with them. Ain't gonna happen.

The upshot is going to be that the some Dems will try to make a go of it and the rest will try to strangle this on the vine. The repugs merely have to apply the breaks all along the way to make it painful and miserable for the Dems. And in the end it will fail because the Repugs will go lock step and kill it. And they get to make us suffer along the way.

[KingFlorez]

11. There's no majority for removal

In order for there to be any change, there would have to be votes for removal. A failed attempt to remove Cheney would serve no real purpose.

[Duppers]

12. yep to all the above