home

Let's Talk About Impeachment

by TChris

Yes, impeachment is unlikely in a Republican controlled Congress, but Bonnie Erbe is nonetheless frustrated by "[m]edia inattention to the growing American pro-impeachment sentiment."

[G]rassroots passion for impeachment prompted by this president's circumvention of Congress and the Constitution is what's driving growing public support. And America's transition from "Bush fan" to "Bush foe" is being ignored by the mainstream media.

Surprisingly, the media did anything but ignore the Republican-led impeachment movement against former President Clinton, even when the public was decidedly more supportive of that president than it is of the current one.

As Erbe asks, why aren't members of the "liberal media" clamoring for Bush's impeachment?

< Questions About Germany's Role in Khaled el-Masri Rendition | Selling Control of Our Ports to Dubai Company >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:23:57 AM EST
    I'm broadly with Bonnie Erbe when she rates warrantless snooping low on the long list of impeachment counts, but what could be more Bushy than "It's legitimate. You better legitimize it."

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:16:08 AM EST
    Want to make Bush's last 2 years his best? Impeach him. That will rally his base and bring anyone on the fence to his side. Get ready for the 80% approval ratings again. Thank goodness even looney's like Reid, Pelosi and Biden know that the only thing that will garuntee a republican controlled congress and Senate for would be an impeachment fiasco. Also thank goodness the reality of dems actualy winning back congress let alone the Senate are slim. Even if they did win a slim majority in congress a republican senate won't impeach and innocent president and if the congress tried republicans would hammer them in '08. However democrats and their liberal backers have tried some pretty silly things before so I wouldn't put it past them. Clinton was impeached but he hung tough and do you think Bush is the kind of president that will say...Oh you got me..uncle? He'll fight tooth and nail because unlike Clinton he isn't actually guilty of a crime, just unpopular. To quote the Bush man "Bring it on."

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:35:12 AM EST
    From the post:
    As Erbe asks, why aren't members of the "liberal media" clamoring for Bush's impeachment?
    Because they don't want to look stupid? Jesurgislac writes"
    by the time it had been definitively established that yes, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in Florida,
    Proof please. Claims don't count.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    I pray for impeachment because nothing would doom the hysterical left anymore. It almost be worth them controling congress for 2 years becuase that's as long as it would last. Are you again arguing the 2000 election? I cannot take anything you say seriously after that comment. Wow.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:31:03 AM EST
    You know what I would love to see, is for the right to release its list of Liberal Media elitists. That way, I will know who to watch every night. Because as I watch and read, I just am not seeing enough for a baseball team, let alone enough to create and control a conspiracy.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    Impeachment would set a good example for Iraq and Afghanistan, too. Show them that democratically-elected leaders are held accountable for their actions.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    Uh... Instead of a "free" encylopedia in which anyone can post anything, how about some of the media re-counts? I mean, not that I don't trust your source. Uh huh. Sure. Yeah.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#8)
    by aw on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    why aren't members of the "liberal media" clamoring for Bush's impeachment?
    Because they are now feeling strangely confused and excited, flapping their wings a bit, sensing a dam about to break.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:01:49 PM EST
    Ignorance, like nuclear fusion, is a difficult state to maintain ;)

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:09:43 AM EST
    Jesur probably thinks the Seahawks really won the Superbowl too.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:31:34 AM EST
    I dunno, Slado, you could remove all doubt in this area by asking him, or you could countinue your trollish ways ;)

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    His panties are still in a little bunch about Vietnam and "the sixties" and shilling for the current moron (who's starting to make Nixon look good) is part of some kind of misguided revenge project.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    "Get ready for 80% approval ratings." No wmds, thousands of casulties, Katrina, and Abramoff didnt "rally his base" but impeachment would. Christ youre far gone Slado. Bush couldnt get 80% now if he came marching down Pennsylvania Ave with Bin Ladens head on a pike.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    aw writes:
    Because they are now feeling strangely confused and excited, flapping their wings a bit, sensing a dam about to break.
    Well, you've got half of it right. Jesurgislac writes:
    Jim, determined to stay ignorant at all costs of the knowledge that Gore won in 2001. :-)
    You then wrote:
    could it be that he prefers ignorance? Or that he deliberately feigns ignorance of the truth to cause trouble?
    Speaking of being ignorant, you should try this. Jondee wrtes:
    His panties are still in a little bunch
    Look. Just because I turned you down there is no reason to be angry. I am sure someone would be glad to provide you a little training. Boots, spurs and whips are optional. Shall I pass your name to a desperate friend? BTW - They are in a LARGE bunch... ;-) Dark Avenger - Well, if you want to shed light, why is your moniker, "Dark?" Are you trying to tell us something?

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    Slado:
    I cannot take anything you say seriously after that comment. Wow.
    So what? We're not taking anything you say seriously even before we read your comment. And your comments don't wow us, either. They're just the ususal predictable RW heckling.

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Johnny on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    BTW - They are in a LARGE bunch... ;-)
    Diet and exercise...

    Re: Let's Talk About Impeachment (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:48:48 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - Well, if you want to shed light, why is your moniker, "Dark?" Are you trying to tell us something? I never said I wanted to shed light, I made an observation. As for the origins of my monicker, I could be misleading and tell you that I stole it from a Bulgarian virus writer. I will repeat myself and say that it was a nickname of a pulp character I've read about since I was a young teen with whom I share a number of traits, including a passion for justice. Any other questions?