Gone is the base-satisfying but politically damaging talk about impeachment hearings.
Amen!
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 10:09 AMBut Pelosi's said there will be no impeachment.
Sorry, she's got to go.
Posted by Christopher at October 23, 2006 10:14 AMOh shit, here we go again!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 23, 2006 10:17 AMYup! Throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 10:18 AMSidney Blummenthal, author of "How Bush Rules" made the assessment that the best road for a Dem majority Congress to take would be investigations rather than Impeachment proceedings. His premise was based, if memory serves, on the actions of a series of investigations laying out for public view an entire leadership's actions gone amuck, rather than get mired by a stonewalling impeachment reach-none of us want to see Bush pull a victim card here. Unlike the current Rep leadership, Pelosi will demonstrate that she can lead a do-more-good Congress rather than follow a do-less currently lead Congress at the same time that she sets forth a series of accountability stop signs aimed at pulling out Bush's power roots. Who's to say that there's not a fair amount of Rep's that have good solid ideas, but under Pelosi they'll have to debate the merits.
Posted by mainsailset at October 23, 2006 10:40 AMOh shit, here we go again!
Quite astute of you.
But Pelosi's said there will be no impeachment.
This is not reality. It may be politically expedient speech, but no one who actually understands a thing about politics knows that this can actually occur. The reasons are quite simple.
What it presumes is that no investigations will occur at the congressional level. That is the exact problem we have now. The republi-cons and neo-cons have no check on their actions. When investigations occur what becomes of them? Nothing? Do we say all is forgiven because, gosh darnit, they were just acting like fun-loving frat boys? Do we say all is forgiven knowing the death, destruction and flushing of the Constitution that occurred under the Mad King?
And all of this will occur because it magically differentiates between Dems and republi-cons? The true differentiation is accountability. If the republi-cons are not held accountable for their actions there is no differentiation between the two parties. None. The base knows that. What this would do is sacrifice everything we should be holding dear to appease the small vocal minority who still support the Mad King and his court of Jesters. You think America is tired of Bushco? Wait and see how tired they become under back-biting Dems who have everything vetoed and run through the press labeled as ineffective "liberal" politics.
If the Dems don't investigate and impeach they enable every jackoff who comes into office to do the exact same things to the Constitution and country that Buschco has done. Pelosi is politically astute. I certainly hope that no matter what she says as a political expedient impacts the reality that hearings and impeachment MUST occur for the salvation of our Democracy.
Your world view is pretty. "We'll run some legislation and the vetoes will show America Buschco for what it really is." The majority already know it. The polls show it, for Gods sake. The reality is that you will be seen as weak and ineffective by not only the party, but everyone else. And you certainly will lose the presidency in 08 if that should occur. The incrementalism and delay in the deliberative legislative process will assure it. You either grab this devil by the horns and hammer it flat or it will condemn you to hell for another 12 years of a republi-con congress regardless of what happens at the presidential level. And you'll lose the presidential level also. This is no time to be a Pollyanna.
Posted by phidipides at October 23, 2006 10:59 AMPhid: My take is that Rep. Pelosi can say without exaggeration or lying that impeachment is not on the table. Yet. When the Dems take back the House there will certainly be investigations mounted and subpoenas issued, but not with the specific intent of bringing articles of impeachment. Those babies will take care of themselves when the executive boil is lanced and all the nastiness that's been festering comes gushing out. The only antiseptic powerful enough to kill the infection is impeachment, but you have to lance the boil first with some subpoenas and investigations. Eeew!(:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at October 23, 2006 11:34 AMPelosi for president.
Posted by ken melvin at October 23, 2006 11:40 AMImpeachment is political expediency writ large. The republicans chiseled that into stone with the Clinton impeachment.
And it's a sure way to practically ensure that there will be a Republican ass sitting in the Oval Office come January 2009 with a pen in his hand signing a whole stack of pardons.
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 11:45 AMIf there ever was a President for whom the impeachment process was intended, Bush is the one. Message to anti-impeachment supporters: stop playing politics for once and start demanding actions by Congress that constituents expect and that the Constitution specifically addresses.
Posted by Mike at October 23, 2006 11:58 AMTalking about impeachment at this point is premature. If there is no oversight, there can be no accountability or impeachment. After 6 years, if congress finally starts to perform it's constitutional role, investigations are a given. If the investigations expose impeachable offences, impeachment will a constitutional responsibility. The impeachable offenses will have to been understood and agreed to by most U.S. citizens. Over the long haul, most U.S. citizens are for doing the right thing. The problem has been ignorance and deception.
Posted by smooth at October 23, 2006 12:01 PMIf ever there was a President for whom the impeachment process was designed and put into the Constitution, Bush is that person.
Failure to put partisan politics aside, plus ignoring the demands of Congress's constituency (us) is just as bad (or even worse for not even trying to remove criminal Bush) as what the Republicans have done for 6+ years.
This should not even be a debatable issue with Democrats.
Posted by Mike at October 23, 2006 12:12 PMAt this point, the republicans are using "impeachment" as a reverse "brother rabbit" pyschology to paint the Democrats as bad guys and the bush-cheney criminals as victims. The blaming is a central part of the republican strategy. Incompetent people and crooks are very good at deception and blaming.
The problem is that the Democrats fail to call them out for what they are doing and attack their bullshit head on. I don't think most U.S. citizens equate a rubber stamp congress to a congress that is complicit with a criminal administration and is refusing to perform it's constituional duty. When congress refuses to perform it's constitutional duty, by definition, congress is refusing to protect the interest of the United States.
Posted by smooth at October 23, 2006 12:13 PMI knew this country was fucked when they passed Articles of Impeachment against Clinton.
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 12:21 PMFailure to put partisan politics aside...
So a Democratic Congressman not demanding that a Republican president be impeached is somehow 'partisan politics'?
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 12:24 PM
A majority-Democrat Congress will have a lot of work to do to assert itself as a Constitutional co-equal branch of government. It is not now, the Republicans having deliberately eviscerated it. One of the first difficulties that presents itself is what Tom Mann said was one of the first casualties of toxic partisanship: regular order in Congress. The Republicans destroyed regular order, and ran Congress by ignoring or making up rules to suit themselves. Whiole doing all that is necessary for pollicy and oversight, how does the new Democratic majority re-establiksh regular order, without appearing to be caving in to the Republicans? And what happens to Congress as a branch of government if we don't manage to establish regular order?
Charles
Pelosi made the comment last night that when investigations into Tom DeLay became intense, Hastert fired (or replaced) the Ethics Chairman, (R-Joel Hefley-CO-5th)!
Just the ethics chair alone will have years of investigations! I certainly hope they will make them open door sessions!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 23, 2006 01:12 PMHere's the Nation on Pelosi.
Pelosi's Stumbles
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=84322
Posted by Christopher at October 23, 2006 01:39 PMWho says Pelosi will be the speaker? What if someone else becomes speaker. Conyuer's would be head of the commitee where the impeachment would start! (i Think)
Posted by goose1 at October 23, 2006 01:54 PMImpeachment has nothing to do with partisan politics. It is the Constitutionally prescribed remedy to the aggrieved populace, and the Constitutionally prescribed means of investigating and, if necessary, punishing, politicians who have committed the high crimes and misdemeanors we all know Bush, Cheney, et al. have in fact committed.
Impeachment would be the moral necessity, the moral requirement, and the moral duty of whatever party took control of the next Congress, whether that party were to be the Democrats, the GOP, the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Socialist Workers.
Not to impeach, under the present circumstances, is to shred the Constitution and throw it out once and for all, and to tell the Bushes, Cheneys, and Roves of the world that they can, in fact, get away with any crime they want to get away with; no one is going to hold them responsible.
Also, I'm not sure what's so "politically damaging" about talk of impeachment hearings, given that one recent national poll (Newsweek's) shows a majority of the public favors impeachment hearings.
If Nancy Pelosi hasn't got the guts to lead on this issue, then she truly does not deserve to be Speaker of the House.
Posted by keikekaze at October 23, 2006 02:00 PMthere will be no impeachment....that's like innocent until proven guilty
dems win and start investigating and find something..they'll impeach that son of a bitch ..believe me
Posted by dennis at October 23, 2006 02:03 PMInvestigate. When the evil begins to exude and the shit begins to stink badly enough that the majority of the nation clamors for impeachment, then act. That's an acceptable stance from a D. legislator right now. They'll know when it's time. Unlike the tone deaf GOP in 1998-9.
Personally, I'm going to agitate for the prosecution and removal of this gang of liars, murderers, thieves and cheats until Jan 20, 2009. And then for their extradition to The Hague until each one of them is dead or locked up for life.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 23, 2006 02:17 PMAlso, I'm not sure what's so "politically damaging" about talk of impeachment hearings, given that one recent national poll (Newsweek's) shows a majority of the public favors impeachment hearings.
Here's a recent poll that doesn't show that.
"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research
8/30 - 9/2/06
Should Be = 30%
Should Not = 69%
Be Unsure = 1%
And I'm sure there are others that show different spreads all over the board.
Pelosi may not be a rubber stamp for Bushco, but she sure will be one for Israel and the AIPAC. I wouldn't look for any sense of fairness or empathy toward Palestinians from this Zionist toadie.
Posted by brisa at October 23, 2006 04:42 PMSnark's poll is two months old. Mine dates from the Oct. 21-22 weekend and was published today.
Posted by keikekaze at October 23, 2006 06:52 PMYour poll? Did you give actual poll results somewhere?
I understand that 2 months is ancient history to some. Here's an actual Newsweek poll result from October 18-19;
Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.)
Clearly the nation is crying out for impeachment!
Posted by snark at October 23, 2006 07:06 PMTwo months, to pollsters, is of course ancient history when the nation's opinion on a given question is evolving as rapidly as it is in this one.
The poll to which I was referring, and which you were kind enough to quote, shows that 44% of respondents are still shy of impeachment, which means that 56% are not; indeed, 51% think it should be some kind of priority.
Clearly, the nation is crying out for impeachment, as are the Constitution, decency, and the rule of law.
Posted by keikekaze at October 23, 2006 10:14 PMWell at the very least, CENSURE the sob.
Posted by Judith at October 24, 2006 02:54 AM...which means that 56% are not
You're not a pollster are you?
...indeed, 51% think it should be some kind of priority.
I'm sure a good percentage of those same people think that sending a man to Mars is 'some kind of priority' too but they don't expect it to be high up on the Democrats agenda if they regain the Congress.
Clearly, the nation is crying out for impeachment...
Well, at least 28% of the people Newsweek polled are.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2006 06:05 AMWell at the very least, CENSURE the sob.
Judith, I'm all for in depth, thorough investigations of many aspects of what the Bush administration has been up to the last 6 years. Subpeona people. Hold hearings. Get it all out in the light. Get people on record under oath. George Bush is gonna have 2 years left in office come January 2007. By the time a thorough airing of the last 6 years of bullshit has taken place we'll be practically into the campaign for the 2008 elections and Bush's term will be practically over. The Democrats would have to get both Bush and Cheney removed at the same time in order to get Bushco. out of power. Does anyone think that Cheney would not resign and have some other republican fill the VP's office who would not be subject to impeachment in order to avoid a President Pelosi? Bush will be a lame duck extraordinaire. And if a Democrat takes the White House in 2008 Bush will not be pardoned and he will still be open to prosecution for any crimes he committed. Many like to trivialize the concern that a Republican will be elected president in 2008 but it will guarantee a stack of pardons for all of Bushco. Impeachment is not necessary.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2006 06:16 AM