No. Impeachement was considered by the founders to be a political tool to remove a president. Not just simply a tool to remove a criminal from the oval office. That's what all the consittutional scholars I've listened too say. The word "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a different meaning in 18th-century english, than it does in modern language.
House Passes Stem Cell Bill
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
No. Impeachement was considered by the founders to be a political tool to remove a president. Not just simply a tool to remove a criminal from the oval office. That's what all the consittutional scholars I've listened too say. The word "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a different meaning in 18th-century english, than it does in modern language.
I am unready to assume positive outcome in the Senate and that every single D is all on board. Unless they are "expected" to vote a certain way and will for the "party". If so, then I lose respect for them.
That still doesn't change even one iota of my original assertion that I doubt a veto of this would hang Bush or even effect his ratings as those who support him now are likely the ones that would most approve of such a veto.
There are also a good 3 to 4% that are "against" him currently that would jump sides if he "took it to the Ds" and acted "conservatively" on this....
Seriously, this wouldn't hang him. Not solely this as was asserted originally.
I think there are 60 voted for the stem cell bill. Plenty of Republicans are for it! There are Republicans everywhere looking for a place to sepperate themselves from Bush.
Anyway they would not fillabuster this, because that would be BIG news and it would portray the Republicans as WAY out of touch if they were seen fillabustering this bill.
Why would any democrat vote against this? Every major democrat I've ever heard of, has consistently supported funding for stem cell research. In fact, I've never heard any democrat be against it.
It is one of the likely vetoes that Bush would do though. It is a religious thing and therefore he'd act "conservatively" (IMO radically to change the course that was previously done is not conservative) and kill it. However I think there is at least 35% that would be happy with the veto for different reasons and his approval would likely not change much.
Then you've never heard of Bill Ritter the pro-life governor of Colorado. This is like saying all Democrats support unbridled abortion funded by the Government.. and all because you had never "heard" even one Democrat who didn't support that.
I think he will loose 2-4 % if this is his first veto.
All those spending bills he did not veto... but this was important enough to veto? Its the economic conservatives and libertarians he would offend with such a veto.. The Religous social whacko conservatives will always Love Bush. I just dont belive that 35% of Americans are social whaco conservatives!
All those spending bills he did not veto... but this was important enough to veto? Its the economic conservatives and libertarians he would offend with such a veto.. The Religous social whacko conservatives will always Love Bush. I just dont belive that 35% of Americans are social whaco conservatives!
He's not in congress is he? And What does "pro-life" have to do with blastocysts that are going to be destroyed anyway.
"Pro-life" generally refers to ones' postion on abortion.
BTW: I just googled Ritter's postion on stem cell: Wikipedia says he supports stem cell research
Right, but the Economic Conservatives and Libertarians are not happy with him already. Hence my assertion that those currently happy with him would be those most likely to remain happy with him after this veto. There would also be the 2 to 4% that would like the confrontation and "strong leadership" and would come over from the other side. Hence those he might lose would likely be replaced by those...
The whole idea that he would drop to 20% because of this and 80% of the population would be demanding an impeachment all because of this one veto isn't even supported by the 2 to 4% numbers you give now. Seriously, this is not the most dangerous thing for him to veto. Now the unfunded security measures like the cargo searches would be. Those would drop his approval even further and fast.
He is a religious D who believes that destroying those "blastocysts" would be destroying a life. He supports the research gaining stem cells from other areas such as umbilical and amniotic fluid cells...
But that's all good, the idea that every single D on the planet supports this particular version of getting new lines to research with is all good. You can sit with your eyes shut and pretend that nobody in your party could possibly disagree with you on this issue.
I never ever claimed he would drop 20% because of this. I agree that would be a silly idea!
I said I've never met, or heard of a Democrat against stem cell research. In a nation of 300 million, there certainly are some. I don't think there are any in the Senate against it.
And Ritter's not against it. He has a relgious view, that he's not going to let interfere with public policy. He will support it as a matter of public policy.
Please don't lie to me again Damo, and make me google to find out the truth
Ritter would vote for the Democratic bill:
BILL RITTER: "I support Rep. DeGette’s bill, and believe that it is appropriate and in the public interest to use embryos that otherwise would have been discarded for stem cell research that may lead to cures for serious and debilitating diseases. However, I am opposed to the creation of new embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell research."
http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogs.com/colorado_political_news/2005/06/bill_ritter_qa_1.html
No, you claimed he would drop into the low 20s. Hence I said, "to 20" not that he would drop "20%"...
I never said vetoing this bill would cause him to drop to 20.
I can see how the inartfull way I wrote what I said could be confusing. It was two seperate sentences...
The first said vetoing stem cell bill would cause him to drop.
The second sentence should have been more clear... IF he drops into the low 20's I do belive that the Democrats would explore impeachment ideas. They were two seperate ideas inartfully joined together.
Last edited:
I'm not lying to you. I took it from his positions that he held before he was running for Governor. It was one of the reasons that the Ds nearly ran against him.Please don't lie to me again Damo, and make me google to find out the truth
Ritter would vote for the Democratic bill:
BILL RITTER: "I support Rep. DeGette’s bill, and believe that it is appropriate and in the public interest to use embryos that otherwise would have been discarded for stem cell research that may lead to cures for serious and debilitating diseases. However, I am opposed to the creation of new embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell research."
http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogs.com/colorado_political_news/2005/06/bill_ritter_qa_1.html
Don't be so disingenuous. It's not like I disagree. I think that we should even use stem cells from those fetuses that don't survive if we ever implemented my compromise on abortion...
However, before he compromised his position, and therefore was able to circumvent a challenge in the primaries, he nearly was rejected for a run for the office because of his stance on this and abortion. He also changed from not supporting state funding of clinics that provide abortion...
In that positioning he was nearly identical to pro-life republicans and hence was my mention of his pro-life stance...