MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

[edward]

I don't know about the demographics of those who voted in this poll, but it appears that 87% want Bush to be impeached. I hope it isn't set up so people can vote twice or more. That would be too much like the 04 election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

I am not a Bush fan, but I don't think that impeachment would be good for the country at this point. Perhaps he could just go into rehab with Ann Coulter.

 

[turbo]

I think that impeachment would be a good thing for this country. Perhaps it would generate some unpleasantness in the short term, but it would serve as a reminder to arrogant jerks that if they are elected president they are not automatically the emperor or the king of this country. Bush has trampled on our rights, traditions, and constitution for years with NO oversight from the Republican dominated Congress. After 9-11, the majority of the country was willing to give him a lot of latitude to address terrorism and security issues. Instead, he used 9-11 as an excuse to rampage into Iraq (that had NOTHING to do with 9-11 despite Cheney's recent lies) and destabilize an oil-producing region for the benefit of his friends and donors. That alone justifies impeachment and he's been piling on offenses ever since. He is absolutely the worst president in our history - he makes Nixon look like a piker.

 

[Cyrus]

Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As Mclaughin loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.

 

[denverdoc]

Surely no one can honestly say that Bush's crimes against state haven't far exceeded any presidential hanky panky on Clinton's part. If nothing else it might recapture some credibility in the world that US democracy works. My concern is that it should be a double impeachment, (do we really want Cheney?) if it were to go to completion.

 

[edward]

Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.

We are already in sh#t up to our ears. As much as I would like for it to happen, too many people who have other things to do would be tied up with an impeachment proceeding.

Now if we could impeach Bush/Cheney that would make it worth it.

 

[Cyrus]

And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.

 

[turbo]

And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.

Thank you, Cyrus! Our lawmakers ought to be working on our behalf instead of playing "wait and see" games with the parties and sucking up money from special interest groups. The offenses are public knowledge.

 

[loseyourname]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

 

[denverdoc]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

Perhaps, but it might serve notice to this lame duck president that he needs to get control of himself. Otherwise the implicit message is he can carry on as usual until the bitter end, a somewhat dangerous proposition IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

They could still impeach him, and if convicted, disallow his pension and other benefits.

Probably won't happen though.

Bush can still pardon Libby and others who have violated the laws.

 

[mathwonk]

we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.

For a long time I was more angry with US voters than Bush. I felt like the enemy has taken over the country; you know, people who support the use of torture and spying on innocent Americans. Yes, impeach him at any cost and no matter how long it takes. There is nothing more important; not even the war on terror. Bush has done far more damage than the terrorists of 911 did.

The actions of this administration cannot go unanswered. The Constitution and all that it stands for - the reason that people give their lives for this country - demands that Bush and Cheney be removed from office, and by force if needed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, that poll is meaningless. Clearly the people most motivated are most likely to vote. IIRC, over 30% of this nation still supports Bush.

 

[denverdoc]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

 

[ShawnD]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

Many of us are firmly convinced that any appearance of legality is only an illusion brought to you by a highly corrupt Republican party.

According to pollingreport.com, a nonpartisan compendium of polls, Bush's average approval rating for April 2007 is 34.6[%].[continued]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5696819

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is why it was so important when the Democrats took control of the Congress. Now they can now investigate the activities of this administration -hear testimony as with the fired attorneys, and subpoena documents and other witnesses. While the Republicans held control, there was no chance of legitimate investigations. For example, this whole Gonzales business never would have come up because the testimony that led to the hearings never would have been allowed.

 

[Mk]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.

Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.

 

[turbo]

Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.

He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.

 

[BobG]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

Lowest was Harry Truman at 23%
Second lowest was Nixon at the time of his resignation: 24%
Carter was 28%
Bush I was 29%

Highest poll ratings by a President?

Bush II at 90% (right after 9/11)
Bush I at 89% (during Gulf War I)
Truman at 87% (right after FDR's death during final stages of WWII)
FDR at 84% (after Pearl Harbor)

Could be worse. In an Israeli poll, 3% would pick Olmert as Prime Minister ... with 3% margin of error.

 

[edward]

He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.

Ironically by current definition, Jimmy Carter was the only true born again Christian president in recent history. His greatest failing was that he thought people were as honest as he was, especially his CIA director GHW Bush.

 

[loseyourname]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

It would need to be proven that he personally broke a law, which is probably impossible to do unless he either admits to it or gets ratted out by one of his top officials. It should be possible to prove that his administration broke many laws, but that isn't a ground for impeachment and in fact happens to almost every administration, though the current one is probably only matched by Harding's.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

30% disapprove of him, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him. That all depends on who he is running against. If they approve of him more than they do of the other guy, he'll get the vote without having any meaningful level of approval.

 

[mathwonk]

but who would do something to get rid of him? when i waS YOUNG I pUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE TO END THE WAR IN VIETNAM, now i don't even want to risk my retirement plan.

and sadly, the younger generation is pretty much the same.

none of us really wants to risk much. we do it when there is a reason. the move to a volunteer army was the primary smart move to reduce opposition to war.

when i was a kid i learned that draft deferments were granted to students and clergy to reduce their opposition to war.

now we have granted essentially everyone deferments, which removes almost all opposition to war. there was an antiwar demonstration at my campus friday, and not one person from my class went to it, even though i granted everyone immunity.

in fact even the one kid who helped organize it didn't show up. he said he didn't have a car and his ride didn't come.

 

[ShawnD]

Just to throw this out there again but maybe his approval is the same as during the election if you account for low voter turnout. Say maybe 60% of people vote, he wins with 50% of the vote (this part is true), that would leave 30% of the country wanting him in.

I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president; I would go as far as saying most people don't support their current governments simply because most people did not vote for the current government. For example, Canada's current government won with a minority lead meaning they won less than 50% of all seats (there's more than 2 parties). Even if you said Canada had a 100% voter turnout, that still leaves the majority of the country not liking the current prime minister. Should we impeach him simply because he's not popular? No. He may not be popular, but he's the most popular.

 

[edward]

I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president;

Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.

 

[Astronuc]

One cannot impeach a president or federal/state official for being unpopular.

One can impeach a president or federal/state official for criminal misconduct, or various offenses (e.g. high crimes and misdemeanors), as prescribed by the appropriate legal documents.

To proceed with impeachment requires the initiation by a member of the appropriate government institution. Anyone in the population can claim that a president or government official has committed some act which would subject that president or official to impeachment. Various people have already drafted 'articles of impeachment' against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, . . ., however it is up to member of Congress to act upon one or any of those charges.

The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.

 

[ShawnD]

The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.

That's why multiple party countries (Canada) try to avoid non confidence votes. Sure the conservative government in Canada could be thrown out, but the amount of hatred towards the party(s) responsible for causing another election would probably make them lose seats overall. I think back in the earlier 1900s prime minister McKenzie's government had to call an election due to a non confidence vote, and the result was that he got re-elected, but with an even stronger government than he had before (he won more seats). The same thing could very easily happen to the republican party in the US if the democrats can't come up with a better candidate. Impeach bush and some other neocon will take his place; no real gains there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.

 

[Astronuc]

The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.

Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

IIRC, the president enjoys some immunity from prosecution, even after leaving office, for acts committed while serving as president.