Skip to main content

I hear all the time X or Y cannot be done because we don't have the votes. For some reasons this does not stop republicans. Well this should not stop Democrats either.

As I was reading Medea Benjamin's article Congressman John Conyers Betrays the American People I stopped after reading

An hour later, they emerged stone-faced and disillusioned. Cindy said that Conyers had told them that "impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes" and that "our only recourse was to work to get a Democrat in the White House."

I lived through the the investigations into the Nixon White House and I find the argument about votes very strange. When the impeachment hearings started no one knew whether or not there would be articles of impeachment much less the votes to support them. Since the articles never made it to the full House we may never know if the votes were there. The point of investigatory hearings is to determine if articles of impeachment should be drawn up. The fact that before Congress, not Representative John Conyers, has determined he will not even investigate this administration for possible impeachment of President Bush is shocking. That he has magically determined the votes are not there is nonsense.

Despite the probable lack of votes to convict President Clinton, the Republicans not only forged ahead and investigated President Clinton, they impeached him. While I agreed with Senator Byrd that Democrats should listen to the evidence before deciding whether or not to convict, conviction seemed highly unlikely to me.

To me this argument about not having the votes is another example of Democratic Leadership cowardice in the face of Republican Hubris. How sad. This cowardice is causing me to re-evaluate if I want to remain a democrat.

Originally posted to Lawrence A. Welsch on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:24 AM PDT.

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

  •  D.C. Democrats' "magic wand" excuse (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jagger, seabos84, LWelsch, marchtoimpeach

    They want us to think that a Democratic president will wave a magic wand and make the previous eight years disappear. What arrant nonsense.

    Do you really think that a Democratic administration will bring people like Cheney and Rove to justice, let alone undo the Executive Branch power grab that unfolded during the Bush years? That's not how I'd bet my money.

    "I call 'em as I see 'em."--the late Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:21:58 AM PDT

  •  I think Conyers and Pelosi know (0+ / 0-)

    that we're on to them.  They tried that with the funding bill and got a backlash they didn't count on.

    Nobody buys it, so you'd think they'd stop trying to sell it.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

  •  Use the actions of Republicans as our guide? (0+ / 0-)

    No thank you.

    •  Now you sound like GWB (0+ / 0-)

      reject everything Clinton. Use what is good and works.

      Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

      by LWelsch on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:47:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Skip the insults, ok? It does nothing to further (0+ / 0-)

        the discourse. Perhaps instead of insulting those who disagree with you, you should, umm, practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

        The impeachment of Clinton was a disaster for Republicans, and the country.  It's not a model I think we should follow.

        •  Just tellin like I see it (0+ / 0-)

          GWB refused to do many things because Clinton did them. He rejected all things Clinton because they were Clinton. I refuse to reject anything because it was Republican. That is a stupid reason.

          Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

          by LWelsch on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:38:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except, that's not what I said, is it? (0+ / 0-)

            Did I say that I reject all thing Republican? no.

            What I said was that is was a disaster for the Republicans, and the country.  That's why it is a bad model to follow.  

            You might want to think about changing your sigline to something that more accurately reflects your style of discourse.

            •  You said (0+ / 0-)

              Use the actions of Republicans as our guide?

              No thank you.

              to which I said

              Now you sound like GWB

              reject everything Clinton. Use what is good and works.

              to which you said

              Skip the insults, ok? It does nothing to further

              the discourse. Perhaps instead of insulting those who disagree with you, you should, umm, practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

              The impeachment of Clinton was a disaster for Republicans, and the country.  It's not a model I think we should follow.

              to which I responded

              Just tellin like I see it (0 / 0)

              GWB refused to do many things because Clinton did them. He rejected all things Clinton because they were Clinton. I refuse to reject anything because it was Republican. That is a stupid reason.

              to which you replied

              Except, that's not what I said, is it?

              Did I say that I reject all thing Republican? no.

              What I said was that is was a disaster for the Republicans, and the country.  That's why it is a bad model to follow.  

              You might want to think about changing your sigline to something that more accurately reflects your style of discourse.

              Now you did say that reject all things republican as your guide. Read first block quote. This to me is just as stupid as GWB rejecting all thing Clinton as his guide. You think about it for a second.

              I do not reject all things from any party. I look at them and accept those things that make sense. I did reject impeachment over lying about a blowjob. I accept impeachment for spying on Americans, rejecting habeas corpus, spending US tax dollars in support of faith, lying about intelligence that lead us into war, . . . Yes I believe impeachment is an effective tool for reining in the president and the Republicans used it to do that. The won the presidency as a result. I would not follow them to use it again for stupid sexual lies, but Bush's breakages of the constitution are far more serious.

              Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

              by LWelsch on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:49:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me put this as politely as I can. (0+ / 0-)

                I've specifically said that I do not hold the opinion you are ascribing to me, and yet you persist in ascribing it to me.

                Therefore, you are an asshole.

                •  You doth speak out of both sides of your mouth (0+ / 0-)

                  You said "use the actions of Republicans as guides? No thank you."

                  that sounds just like GWB saying

                  "use the actions of Clinton as guides? No thank you."

                  that was the similarity I pointed out. Don't reject something out of hand is all I am saying.

                  Now, I accept that may have not been what you intended, but it is what you said.

                  Oh, and the way you said it sounded just like the way you said I said what I did. That was intended. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

                  Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

                  by LWelsch on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:44:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Not once did I suggest impeach (0+ / 0-)

                  GWB because republicans impeached Bill Clinton. I never suggested to follow republicans. Indeed not to investigate is to follow republicans.

                  So follow your own advice.

                  Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

                  by LWelsch on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:39:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I word, not an option ... (0+ / 0-)
    It's imperative!

    theyoungturks.com/ ... 0993

  •  Some may call it cowardice... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philimus

    Others call it strategy.

    Some call the pro-impeachment folks "naive" and "reality-challenged"...

    Why is everyone so damn sure that their side is soooooo right, and everyone else is wrong.

    The bottom line is we just don't know.

    So until history bears one side or the other out...

    Well, dialogue is good. Let's just watch the histrionics and the name calling, ok?

    TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

    by Niniane on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:48:58 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately we don't. This post mindless. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Feanor, Mia Dolan

    Buddy check the maths. In the senate we have 51 votes, one of them is in a hospital bed and the another is called Lieberman. Do stop being silly. It just makes the rest of us look stupid.

    •  cuz we gotta keep our powder dry for that (0+ / 0-)

      big fight and that big win!!

      so ... what BIG win are we gonna get?

      Since RayGun the fascist was elected, with about 47% of eligible voters NOT even voting (how is htat for a mandate to make chickenshits shit their pants?)

      what has gotten better for us bottom 80% ?

      labor laws? health care access? education? energy policies for a future instead of for exxon? ...

      oh yeah, we got a minimum wage increase, as long as the fascists got to get more fucking tax breaks for their rich fuck friends ...

      ummm...

      oh yeah, the Senate voted 80-14 to allow Halliburton to keep the Iraq war going full tilt...

      don't have the vote is NOT the problem

      the problem is craven chickenshits who aren't fighting the fascists.

      rmm.

      Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

      by seabos84 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:44:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Impeachment is about the House (0+ / 0-)

      not the Senate. Until hearings are held, evidence collected, will we know if articles of impeachment are necessary. So far no president has ever been convicted. However, prominent Republicans running in 2008 may all of sudden prevail on GWB to resign rather than continue a constant drum beat of impeachment investigation.

      Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

      by LWelsch on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:52:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site