Poll: half of Americans say impeach Bush

[tristano's ghost]

And 54% favor impeaching Cheney:

Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll Fri Jul 6, 6:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.

Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

Count me on board now--whatever the political consequences. It needs to be done for the good of the country's future.

[patricia]

But, 1/2 the country being in favour of impeachment is a long way from kicking the Bush Administration to the curb.
First you'll probably see a lot of impassioned speeches from both sides of the aisle seemingly verbally chastising the administration for their transgressions.
If you recall, there were impassioned speeches imploring Bush to hold off on invading Iraq.
Then, everybody lined up behind Bush to "support the troops."
It takes more guts to vote against this President than most members have displayed so far and time runs short.
Don't expect a sudden display of courage, with members putting their jobs on the line if it only means saving people's lives and preventing the country's treasury from bleeding even drier than it is now.

[guy]

Perhaps this is a nitpick but 45% is not half.

Guy

[Gary Sisco]

The snail's pace they work, there'd not be enough time left in his term. My old mom was furious when Leahy told her that, but it's likely true.

For myself, I'd rather see them charged with war crimes. Impeachment just removes them from office. Time will do that by itself and either way they'd be let off. I want to see them face criminal charges.

Very likely of course neither will happen because the dims don't have a couple between the bunch of them.

[tristano's ghost]

A new Rasmussen poll shows a little less support for such a move, but as TPMemo's Steve Benen notes, more people now support impeaching Bush than supported impeaching Clinton--and that the pro-impeachment contingent is sizeable enough to make this a mainstream topic. (Though God knows our center-right media will continue to treat it as a "fringe" movement, much like they do the 60-70% anti-war majority.)

All of a sudden, pollsters think enough of the impeachment question to start putting the question in the field. The latest comes by way of Rasmussen Reports.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.

Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half. In December 2005, 32% believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) took the opposite view at that time.

A majority of Democrats (56%) now believe the President should be impeached.... Republicans, by an 80% to 16% margin, say that the President should not be impeached.... Among those not affiliated with either major party, 40% now favor impeachment while 45% are opposed.

This is the third poll I've seen on this in the last two months, and the results are similar enough to bolster their collective reliability. An American Research Group poll released this week showed that among all U.S. adults, 45% support the House initiating impeachment proceedings against Bush (the percentage was 54% in relation to Cheney impeachment). And an InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll taken in early May showed 39% of American favor impeachment.

First, for a "fringe" idea that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand, 40% of the electorate sounds like a fairly substantial number of people.

Second, more Americans support impeaching Bush now than supported impeaching Clinton when he was actually being impeached.

And third, I think Matt Yglesias is right about the larger political dialog: [I]nsofar as Bush appears determined to use his constitutionally granted authority to shield his subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law, I would say that removing him from the office which grants that authority is something that should be discussed."

Are there 67 votes in the Senate for removing Bush from office? Almost certainly not, a fact that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. For that matter, the prospect of a President Cheney is, shall we say, disconcerting.

But given the circumstances, there's no reason to dismiss the notion as some radical flight of fancy. Reasonable people, debating in good faith, can disagree about the utility, implications, and grounds for impeachment, but as Yglesias put it, the concept should probably "enter the mainstream conversation."
-- Steve Benen

Original post with links here.

[GoodSpeak]

I'm in.

[Pete C]

What are the specific charges? And if there are none, who's going to volunteer to give him the blowjob?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Pete C

What are the specific charges? And if there are none, who's going to volunteer to give him the blowjob?

Please.


Like every president gets a BJ?



Haven't you been reading the right wing press? Only the Demon-crats get blowjobs.










sheesh

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by Pete C

What are the specific charges? And if there are none, who's going to volunteer to give him the blowjob?

Condi?

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Pete C

. . . who's going to volunteer to give him the blowjob?

Hasn't Cheney already worn out a set of kneepads?

What's one more?

[gonzo]

the really sad thing is that 46% aren't for impeachment....

[julieswi]

Originally Posted by hornplayer

Condi?

dont think so, she's gay isnt she?

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Pete C

What are the specific charges? And if there are none, who's going to volunteer to give him the blowjob?

He doesn't want one and that's the problem!!!!! Once Clinton got it trouble for getting a blowjob it took the incentive away for anyone competent enough to be president, from even wanting the job.

[Scott Dolan]

Clinton was charged with receiving a blowjob as much as Libby was charged with leaking Valerie Plames name.

Pete's question remains the most important. What will the charges be?

That said, I've now crossed over to the "in favor" of impeachment camp. Arguments for and against are very strong and convincing. But, I don't want to continue to see future administrations go as unchecked and unchallenged as this one has. A messga e needs to be sent, IMO.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Clinton was charged with receiving a blowjob as much as Libby was charged with leaking Valerie Plames name.

Pete's question remains the most important. What will the charges be?

That said, I've now crossed over to the "in favor" of impeachment camp. Arguments for and against are very strong and convincing. But, I don't want to continue to see future administrations go as unchecked and unchallenged as this one has. A messga e needs to be sent, IMO.

Scott, how much of what has been done, eg. pre-emptive invasion of a country not an imminent threat for the first time by the Bush Administration will stand as precedent for future Administrations?
Will future administrations feel free to send bothersome dissentors, or those they decide are suspected of unspecified offences to foreign countries to be tortured?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I think that letting Libby off the hook, and he was being saved from any real punishment, is a serious error in judgement by President Bush.
How much will be considered by future administrations to be business as usual?

[guy]

Originally Posted by patricia

I think that letting Libby off the hook, and he was being saved from any real punishment, is a serious error in judgement by President Bush.

I don't think it was an error in judgment -- Bush knew exactly what he was doing, protecting a loyal soldier before he squealed.

Guy

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by particia

Scott, how much of what has been done, eg. pre-emptive invasion of a country not an imminent threat for the first time by the Bush Administration will stand as precedent for future Administrations?

As much as future admins want it to. And that, my dear, is the biggest problem.

Will future administrations feel free to send bothersome dissentors, or those they decide are suspected of unspecified offences to foreign countries to be tortured?

I get the feeling here you are trying with all your might to play naive. Since the begining of this country how many future administrations gave back powers that previous ones forged?

Democrats are not angels of light and goodness, and this won't be the last time Republicans are in the White House.

How much will be considered by future administrations to be business as usual?

Hmmm.......so the hunch in my second response is looking to be correct.

Want to use a relatively recent example to point out exactly why your thinking is flawed? Remember how the Democrats were saying they were going to clean up Washington once they took over the Congress, especially concerning earmarks?

Umm....yeah.

The Republicans got theirs, now the Democrats want theirs. This is basic human nature, particia. To sit back and allow this kind of behavior to continue, at any level, could be very detrimental to this country in the long run.

[Gary Sisco]

Guy -- There is no reason it can't be both purposeful and an error of judgment. Judgment fuels decisions, bad or good. Bush hasn't much (good) judgment, clearly. Right now people are killing and dying in Iraq for his lack of good judgment and he may still withdraw the troops because of purely domestic, partisan political concerns -- which would further cheapen all the death and destruction.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I get the feeling here you are trying with all your might to play naive.

Not at all. For the last six years and change I have watched as Iraq was invaded on the basis of lies and the obscene killing and destruction continued it seems because since the military is already there......
I've watched as people were hauled away with no charges being laid, no access to legal counsel and left to rot in jail, being labelled as suspected terrorists.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I wonder how long it will take for the ordinary American people to realize that rights they had taken for granted were only possessed at the pleasure of the President.
Years ago I remember saying to my older brother that the only reason the government doesn't take away everything we own and throw us in jail is that they don't feel like it.

Even with laws in place, much of what we take for granted is easily circumvented, the recourse being that it is challenged in court.
What if, having had our freedom taken away, we had no access to the legal system, our property was confiscated and we were simply disappeared for months, or even years, as many of those grabbed up and whisked away are?
After this administration has served their term, will future administrations be able to do all the questionable things that it did for the last six/eight years?
Will the public still sit back and allow it to continue, or even get worse?
I have always understood that the price of freedom is constant vigilance by those who have it.
It is trust that in a free society those whom we entrust with enormous power will use it to make life better for us, not worse.
Maybe thinking that is the ultimate naivete.
Apathy seems to me to be the last throes of the freedom that was so hard fought for and so little valued now.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Hasn't Cheney already worn out a set of kneepads?

What's one more?

Ron...it's vice versa. You know, of course, that Dubya is Cheney's puppet-Fellator in Chief.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

And 54% favor impeaching Cheney:

I guess the other 46% haven't been paying attention.

[graypencil]

I still find it unbelievable that ginning up a phony war against a country that really had no direct connection to 9-11 and killing over 3500 Americans and an untold host of Iraqis in the process does not equate with a blowjob as vaild reasons for impeachment


..of BOTH Cheney and DUBBya ...

[Scott Dolan]

What's more unbelievable yet is that you still truly believe it's all just that simple.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Guy -- There is no reason it can't be both purposeful and an error of judgment.

Gary, I don't disagree. But until Bush faces some real consequences for commuting Libby's sentence, I'll stick with my statement.

Guy

[tippy]

Every time I hear the word "impeach" I think of preserving the object in a sterilized Mason jar. It may not be a bad idea.

[Gary Sisco]

I don't think there's anyone in power who has the cojones to force consequences on his retarded ass. I can't for the life of me understand why, other than political cowardice, plain and simple, on the part of the alleged opposition.

I think they're going to follow their M.O. and grant immunity to some few flunkies in exchange for testimony, likely most of it behind closed doors.

If they had a couple between the lot of them, Alfred E. would already be in some very deep, and hot, shit.

[Gary Sisco]

From Sullivan's site:

"In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems ...

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk," - John S. Koppel, a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981, in the Denver Post.

[shrugs]

never happen.

b ut I may live to see half say they should legalize it.

[Root Doctor]

I was talking to my 84-year old father last night, who's a lifelong conservative Republican (he still thinks Nixon was railroaded). He says, "You're right, Bush and Cheney are criminals. I think I'm going to cast my first vote for a Democrat in the next presidential race." I kept checking to see if I'd dialed the right number...

[Gary Sisco]

I hear you, Roots. My mother just calls them war criminals and no one is more conservative or more patriotic, either. She wants them jailed.

Unfortunately, they can't vote against Bush again. The party may feel some consequences, and very likely will. Bush and Cheney et al, however, will feel some consequences only if the alleged opposition imposes those consequences in some real way that will be felt as pain.