Skip to main content

We've read in several diaries that impeachment and conviction just won't happen because there will never be the minimum 16 Republican Senate votes required to convict (if we got all 51 Senators in the Democratic Caucus). We know it will be tough to get the 67 votes in the Senate, but I believe that, as happened with Nixon, it could happen with the right conditions. So who might these Republican Senators be?

Certainly none of the Senate Repubs would vote to convict today. We only get to that point after solid investigations in the various House and Senate committees and after House impeachment. But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that there will be solid evidence uncovered and publicized by these investigations - maybe evidence of crimes not yet cited in the various impeachment books and diaries. Maybe evidence that the Cheney Energy Task Force really did want to divide up Iraq for oil; evidence that the NSA spied on the Kerry/Edwards campaign; proof that the White House really did collude in the NH phone jamming criminal case; or maybe that they really knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance and let them happen; or that they orchestrated intentional vote fraud in Ohio and New Mexico and Florida in 2004 or 2000. Whatever. The point is that we have yet to see real adversarial investigations, and if and when real crimes are uncovered, the mood will shift, and real pressure will mount to impeach and convict. Impeachment by a majority in the House could become a given with this kind of evidence.

Let's say that under these future conditions, that all the 7 'moderate' Senate Republicans vote to convict (my arbitrary choice):
Olympia Snow (ME), Susan Collins (ME)/08, Dick Lugar (IN); Lindsay Graham (SC)/08,  Arlen Specter (PA), Pete Domenici (NM)/08, John Sununu (NH)/08.

Note: Senators with a /08 are up for re-election in 2008

And that all the 7 expressing opposition to the Iraq War escalation vote to convict:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...

Chuck Hagel (NE)/08, Norm Coleman (MN)/08, Gordon Smith (OR)/08, George Voinovich (OH)/08, Sam Brownback (KS),
and the previously counted: Specter, Collins.

And some of the Skeptical 9: Jim Bunning (KY), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Kay Bailey-Hutchison (TX), Trent Lott (MS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), David Vitter (LA), and the previously counted Snowe, Sununu, Lugar.

Then there are those up for election in 2008, who should at least be considered 'maybe' votes, depending on the weight of the evidence and the redness of their states:
Jeff Sessions (AL)/08, Ted Stevens (AK)/08 , Wayne Allard (CO)/08, Saxyby Chambliss (GA)/08, Larry Craig (ID)/08, Pat Roberts (KS)/08, Mitch McConnell (KY)/08, Susan Colllins (ME)/08, Norm Coleman (MN)/08, Thad Cochran (MS)/08, Chuck Hagel (NE)/08, John Sununu (NH)/08, Pete Domenici (NM)/08, Elizabeth Dole (NC)/08, James Inhofe (OK)/08, Gordon Smith (OR)/08, Lindsay Graham (SC)/08, Lamar Alexander (TN)/08, John Cornyn (TX)/08, John Warner (VA)/08, Mike Enzi, (WY)/08.

So that's a possible 7 moderates, 5 of 7 escalation opposers, maybe 3 of the 6 not-already counted escalation skeptics, and say 3 of the not-already-counted Senators up for re-election in 2008 - Allard (CO), Alexander (TN), Warner (VA), how about McConnell (KY)?

And how about McCain? Yes, how ABOUT McCain?

In any case, I think there are a number of scenarios where we could get 16 or more Republican votes. Not now, but in the future, after several months of investigations and mounting outrage. Let me know what you think. And flame away on my categorization of moderates!

Originally posted to ABQtom on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:30 PM PST.

Poll

How Many Republican Senators might vote to convict?

2%3 votes
31%46 votes
24%36 votes
41%60 votes

| 145 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good Target list (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous



    But before we even concern ourselves with "votes", what we need to do is first just get the thing to a Senate Trial.  The Trial will only take about 2 months, but the sheer shock and awe effect of all these embarassing and heinous War Crimes and Constitutional violations coming out in the open will have a cumulative effect.

    With the 2008 elections coming up, there will indeed be Senators in the GOP that will not want to stay on that sinking ship.

    Of course, Joe Lieberman will oppose impeachment (and even censure), but that doesn't matter.  The Senate Trial will be powerful enough to create more Chuck Hagel's and less Joe Liebermans.

    Let's just have the trial, and worry about the numbers at the very end of the whole process.

    It will be very fluid by that time....



  •  if Snowe or Collins or Voinovich (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MissLaura, feelingsickinMN

    or Specter ever do anything beyond talking the talk I'll eat my hat.

  •  Flames, Tips and Comments (9+ / 0-)

    Time to start counting them up and applying pressure. Might also be a good topic for myDD.

    •  I've been mulling this around as well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, bablhous

      I'd give pretty fair odds somebody on the hill is keeping track of this on a day to day basis. Alas, we'll need seventeen, 'cause after listening to Joe today, there ain't no way he's voting to toss.

      That said, I think it really comes down to what extent they try to destroy the very institution of Congress. The administration could act like Congress didn't exist before, and Congress could put up with whatever the administration did, because each got everything it wanted out of the other. The President would sign anything that sailed by his desk no matter how stinking of rotten pork. The Congress was perfectly happy passing bills written entirely by the White House. Now that there is a "hostile" Congress, there is going to be some fighting going on. The administration ain't giving up squat without a full on trapped-in-a-dumpster-with-a-rabid-raccoon fight. By God they've come out swinging, too. From Tony Snow's little comment the other day to His Evilness Cheney today, they're marginalizing the Legislative Branch as fast and hard as they can. At some point, this is going to start pissing off Republicans, too, because taken as intended, the attack is on the entirety of the concept of any co-equal branch of government, relegating Congress to a puppet role. Admittedly it's a role they've been playing happily for the last six years, but hey, that was consentual, this is rape.

      Eventually, even the most roofied-up Republican is going to wake up shake the cotton out of their head, and wonder why their ass hurts so bad. When they figure it out, well, let's just say I think we know that these are some pretty vindictive sons of bitches, now don't we. Up until about a week and a half ago, I really didn't think such a thing would happen until at best early next year, when an impeachment would seem too electorally motivated to work out well. Now, the way these cornered rats are biting and clawing, I'm thinking we could see a tipping point a soon as this summer.

      The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelly

      by justme on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 04:07:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let us never forget... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    The heart of the republican is filled only with self preservation.  If they percieve Bush as an anchor around their party for generations they will cut him loose.

    Let us hope for a swift impeachment of FIRST Cheney and THEN Bush!

    Bars and Stripes Forever!

    Subvert the dominant paradigm... visit me at http://liberaltruthsayer.blogspot.com

    by liberaltruthsayer on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:38:11 PM PST

  •  Great diary btw (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, dougymi

    A nobel, recommend worthy first effort Tom!

    cara

    Subvert the dominant paradigm... visit me at http://liberaltruthsayer.blogspot.com

    by liberaltruthsayer on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:39:36 PM PST

  •  good analysis (0+ / 0-)

    I might not agree with some of your list (I think brownback and lott are non-starters, among others, due to strict partisan reasons) but this is the type of analysis that the pro impeachment people seem to neglect. A lot of them seem to think that conviction will naturally follow impeachment and seem to ignore the ramifications of impeachment without conviction. That seems, at least to me, to be pie in the sky thinking. I like the way you laid it out. Well done.

    Good diary, thanks.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:27:44 PM PST

    •  Time will tell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, dougymi

      I appreciate your comments. Brownback and Lott are interesting cases. Brownback seems to be more vocal lately in opposition. And if something is uncovered that really gets to his religious principles he might vote to convict. And Lott has no love lost for the Bush clan, not after Bush and Rove threw him out of the Senate leadership for his comment about Strom Thurmond. Under the right conditions, I can see him voting to convict.

      •  True enough for both of them (0+ / 0-)

        but I can see them both making loud noises about "vengeance for Clinton" and using it for partisan advantage for the next pub nominee (brownback, of course, hoping that will be him). brownback has really only expressed misgivings about the war effort, not the rest of the nutty bush agenda, so I don't see him changing much.  As you say, though, time will tell.

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 03:07:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I truly believe that (0+ / 0-)

    If investigations are thorough, we will be able to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.

    However, if you think Jeff Sessions would vote for conviction, even if everyone in Alabama urged him to do so, you are sadly mistaken. It won't happen, even though he is up for re-election in 2008.

    "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by LynneK on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 03:17:04 PM PST

    •  Agree about Sessions (0+ / 0-)

      That's why I am only counting a few of those up for re-election in 2008. But Allard (CO), Alexander (TN), Warner (VA), and maybe even McConnell (KY) might vote to convict. The circumstances would have to be right, the evidence strong and the outrage vocal and loud. But it could happen. Especially if their state consituents demanded it. And that's where the work comes in.

  •  Don't count on Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

    Great idea, and smart to start counting now.  We should be able to get 16 when the true crimes of Bush and Cheney are exposed.

    However, we can't count on Lieberman.  Joe Lieberman, escalation and Iran war supporter, is a NeoConservative.  He is as solid a Bush/Cheney supporter as they come, I think we have to think he'd support Bush and Cheney to the end.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site