Dear Edwards Supporters: Why will your guy not call for impeachment?

Where's my popcorn when I really need it?

:shrug:

running to bring to the table issues that needed to be discussed and addressed, such as the health care crisis. Therefore, he was unafraid to piss people off by demanding impeachment. Edwards, on the other hand, wants a shot at the nomination and, like the other candidates, is too afraid of rocking the boat.

Assuming Edwards gets the nom then pounds the crap out of the pukes in November, no matter what he may desire he would be in no position to impeach Bush for his crimes. That's not within his power to do.

would it cover, how homeless veterans would it shelter?"

He's too far off the reservation for most anti-fascists, but when he accused and demanded punishment (impeachment is defensive not punative, but most people don't see it that way) for the criminals in the White House, he gave a voice to the deep anger at Bush that is seething across the policed spectrum.

That anger is out there, just waiting to be given voice by some savvy (and hopefully moral) politician. It is just waiting to be tapped and directed into effective action. (And the ONLY meaningful action in our current crisis is to impeach Bush and Cheney.)

Ideas don't commit crimes; people do. There can be no "fixing things" if you allow wrong-doers off the hook. There is no "restoring" the law if you refuse to accuse and seek to punish lawbreakers. Repugnant "personal attack" through lies, scapegoating, and misdirected hate does not make justified "personal attack" repugnant.

Unfortunately, too many folks on our side seem to think 'getting personal" is "low." And that letting criminals off the hook is somehow "taking the high ground."

Thanks! :thumbsup:

As laudable as it would be for Edwards to advocate impeachment, he's running FOR president, not running to boost impeachment.

Anything better than a drive-by slam?

Nice to see we have people here elevating the dialog to such Olympian heights :sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

If any of the 3 are likely to encourage Impeachment, it's John Edwards. He's the only one fighting for WE THE PEOPLE....nothing will happen until after the election anyway. With Edwards, the thugs would pay for their crimes. Obama and Hillary? VERY Doubtful.

There are threads up for the other two's supporters

the front runners who ARE U.S. Senators haven't? And I know that impeachment begins in the House, but they could speak up and haven't and won't.

I'm not bashing. I'm asking the VERY SAME **HARD** question to each of the three candidates' supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2sqwfYBzq0&NR=1
It starts at about 1:17. I've also seen him speak live about this as well, and she says the same thing. You also might consider the fact that he is not in the Senate.

When will, I think you mean.

Glad to see you're asking them all.

Clinton and Obama have much more power to make impeachment an issue.

Only the House can start impeachment.

Any citizen (or non citizen, for that matter) can ask for it.

Along with that Edwards can't do anything concrete to make it happen, he WILL, assuming he wins, have the power after 2009 to arrest, prosecute, convict, sentence, and imprison BushCo and has the will to do so.

Yeah, we all know that he'll have that power. Any president does.

You say he has the will. Has he said he would even go so far as to investigate? I don't recall him saying that.

He probably will start with the war profiteering and go from there.

popular immediate changes. Let's face it, even if the impeachment ball began to roll, it would take so long just to get the witnesses lined up. I still think it's important to make the effort though.

First of all, it is NOT too late to impeach, but let's put that side for a moment.

Will he prosecute for thew crimes they committed while in office? And not just small fry, but up to and including The Monkey and His Dick?

Check it at about 1:17 or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2sqwfYBzq0&NR=1

I've also seen him speak live, and he says Bush and Cheeny should be held accountable.

"Accountable"

Bush himself has said he's 'accountable'.

Has he said he would be willing to imprison a former US president? Has he said he's be willing to turn him over the ICC?

Just askin'.

If you don't like my answer, go find one for yourself. I've seen the man speak and I've seen him speak about this very topic.

He would be a nut to make it a central issue of his campaign. That you're asking the question, in the way you're asking the question, as well as your response to my link, shows you have no interest in real dialog here.

Have any of the candidates come out against beating dogs? Hmmmmm.

But that's okay, givent he lack of an actual answer to the OP question.

I am being just as tough on the other two candidates.

I want people to start hitting the REAL issue in this country .... unfettered Republicanism and unimaginable acquiescence to unfettered Republicans even when Democrats are in power.

Your answer is namby pamby. And maybe that's okay. Look, I think you and I are on the same side. But don't you think we need to do more than just be wussy about some things?

` . . .thing we can do to improve his chances of victory.

Given the powerful hold that http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobia has on the Democratic establishment, the likelihood that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards will come out for impeachment is low, but Edwards is probably our best shot. He is the most "reachable."

He is still surrounded by beltway insiders, but he has spent a good deal of time "out here" over the past few years. He was first of the viable candidates to call Bush and Cheney torturers in clear and simple terms. (Kucinich was of course way ahead of him, but wasn't viable.) And as the "underdog" he is more likely to "risk" it (of course, there is no real risk. Their impeachophobic fears are baseless. There is no downside.)

Demanding impeachment would not only be the greatest gift that John Edwards could give the nation, it is boldest and most effective thing he can do to make victory a real possibility.

By demanding impeachment Edwards would show voters that he truly is a principled outsider willing to take on the Washington establishment. Past opposition to impeachment is not a barrier. Americans embrace the "sinner" who sees the light. (And the "reformed" often garner more attention and respect than those who take the right course from the start.)

A majority of Americans "would love" to see Bush impeached and removed. (Even the impeachophobes in Congress tell us this.) But too many have been silenced by the relentless efforts by the DC establishment to banish impeachment from the realm of possibility. (Why call for something "everybody knows" is impossible?) Too many have become resigned to the mistaken belief that there is no recourse but to tolerate the intolerable, and watch as the DC establishment allows Bush and Cheney the pretense of an honorable exit on January 20th, 2009.

John Edwards is in a unique position to remind the silenced that they DO the power -- and the moral obligation -- to do what they can to make impeachment a reality. He has a big megaphone. Even those who have written him off as a contender view him as a potential "kingmaker." He has earned the respect of Americans across the nation. He has the power and the platform necessary to reach the silenced and put impeachment front and center. And that could potentially transform the public's anger and resignation into a surge of hope and action that could not only make impeachment a reality; it could carry him into the White House.

As long as he opposes impeachment, he will continue to sound like any other DC "stratergist." He will continue to sound http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=334569&mesg_id=334745">as morally confused as the impeachophobes on the Hill.

So, how do we do it? How do we "get through"?

One way is to confront him with his own words. He calls them torturers, and then tells us he opposes impeachment. He is telling us we must tolerate the intolerable. He is telling us that we'll just have to wait for him (or some other benevolent dictator) to use the unconstitutional power Congress surrendered to the "unitary executive" to "restore" our Constitution.

Well, the tenets of our Constitution are not Bush's, or his, or anybody else's, to "take" or to "give back."

Our common contract is in breach. The only remedy is to enforce the terms. And when officials in the executive or judiciary betray our trust and violate our laws, the duty falls to Congress to enforce by accusing/impeaching and removing the violators.

All their rationalizations (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes) fall in the face of challenge. Many of us have been demanding action, but more of us need to be willing to do more than demand. We need to look for, and create opportunities to confront, up close and personal. We need to ask questions, elicit and contradict their lame excuses, get buy in on some basic principles, and keep at it until they are left with no escape from the truth.