Making friends and influencing people; moving from screaming to strategizing
Well, well, well... there sure is a lot of shrieking going on in the comments about Senator Wyden's town hall on Iraq.
I'd like to turn down the volume a bit, and try and do something constructive. Let's do a little political strategizing - and see if we can't find a way forward.
Let's start from the assumption that we all agree the Bush Adminstration should be held accountable. I certainly think this war was started illegally, under false pretenses, and that George Bush and Dick Cheney have clearly gone over the line - and should be held accountable.
What does that accountability look like? One option is impeachment, which starts with a majority vote in the House.
Another option, which can start in the Senate, is censure - as Senator Russ Feingold has proposed. It's less than impeachment, but could start in the Senate. It would, however, likely require 60 votes for cloture.
And let's also assume that we're interested in results here, not just high-volume shrieking.
Given that, how should we go about building the political capital to make it happen? How do we actually get a majority vote for impeachment in the House -- or a 60-vote majority for censure in the Senate?
Do we put pressure on our friends who have stood with us against this president? Do we put pressure on the president's friends? What does that pressure look like?
And keep in mind that this would need to happen prior to the next election -- so we're talking about doing it with the members of Congress that are there now.
I'm getting the impression that so much of the anger is coming from a feeling of powerlessness; a sense from many activists that no one is listening to the grassroots base. And while that anger is certainly understandable, it's not a good way to make friends and influence people.
Screaming at people just isn't often a very effective strategy for getting elected leaders (anybody, really) to agree with us.
So, other than screaming and shrieking, how do we organize, mobilize, and effect the change we want? How do we convince 218 members of the House - or 60 members of the Senate to take the next big step for accountability?
Talk to me.
|
August 15, 2007 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (93 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 15, 2007 1:05:12 PM
As a prime offender, I apologize. I actually think what Wyden did yesterday is a great start. We have been royally screwed by the Bush administration's crimes and incompetencies, and it's going to take a lot of time, planning, and agreement to fix the mess. So getting that process started is a good beginning.
I do think it's time to pressure our leaders to formally hold Bush accountable for this catastrophe. It is less important in a punitive sense than to set up the next president. We've been a badly divided country, and Bush's strategy is to keep the divisions festering and leave the mess to the next president while the nation boils. That's clever politics--it puts the question on the successor, not on Bush.
As a matter of assigning responsibility and having a national consensus, Watergate-style, on the problems and the responsible parties, we must begin formal proceedings.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 1:06:31 PM
Um, Mitch, I'm not being dismissive - I'm trying to be constructive.
This is a serious question: If we want the president impeached, how do we do it? How do we build to 218 votes in the House? (Or 60 votes for censure in the Senate?)
Let's stipulate that all the substantive notes about why impeachment is appropriate are completely valid.
Now, how do we get there?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 1:16:10 PM
Then I kindly suggest you not you highly pejorative and loaded terms like "shrieking" to describe the substantive and impassioned debate in the other thread. Shrieking is nothing BUT dismissive.
As to the question on how do we get there... if we as a caucus just voted on party line we would move it form the House to the Senate. The question boils down to making it political suicide of the over 15 Republicans to not vote for censure. Going to the mattresses in the media as a unified caucus and hammering it home that if Smith, Collins, etc. don';t vote for censure, they are validating the most egregious acts in American foreign policy history of this administration.
I think the idea however that censure is an incrementalist move being effective is questionable. If you are going to take the flak for holding this administration to account, then actually do it. I see taking the flak for meaningless statement is not worth it. But then again, I am not in the beltway where such ways of thinking seem to go through the fun-house mirror treatment and come out so misshapen as to be bordering on up is down.
I think bringinggrassroots pressure to bear on our elected officials, even usually progressive ones like Wyden and Bluemenhauer who are flat-out wrong as can be on this.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 1:24:19 PM
I didn't write anything hysterical in the comments. I voiced my opinion. I was polite when I talked to Sen. Wyden. I shook his hand. I had been prepared to give him kudos for his votes and for placing a hold on John Rizzo if I'd had time at the mike (as it was, one of the women who was ahead of me to shake his hand had the New Yorker with her).
Telling people that they're shrieking and screaming isn't any way to begin a conversation, Kari. Even Wyden understands that.
Why is it that this conversation sounds an awful lot like the one leading up to the beginning of the Iraq war, when people who were against the war were accused of foul-mouthed hysteria by the "serious" people?
Posted by: paul | Aug 15, 2007 1:24:37 PM
We continue to hold investigative hearings. We continue to pursue judicial remedies. We try to learn our lesson and de-politicize the intelligence agencies, perhaps making them truly independent and not part of the executive branch. And we pursue a progressive, forward thinking agenda to try to repair some of the damage wrought in the last seven years.
And we win back the White House in 2008.
History will hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable otherwise.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 1:26:45 PM
Fair enough, Mitch.
Now to substance:
if we as a caucus just voted on party line we would move it form the House to the Senate.
Yeah, but we don't even have a majority in our party that support impeachment right now. How do we get there?
I think bringing grassroots pressure to bear on our elected officials...
Yes, of course, but how? It's a tautology to say "we should pressure them" in answer to the question "how do we pressure them?"
What does that pressure look like?
Nevermind liberals like Earl Blumenauer -- how do you get rookies from conservative districts like Heath Shuler to come around on this? Is it even possible?
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 15, 2007 1:30:49 PM
True Answer Nobody Wants To Hear:
Unless you got a mind control ray, you can't. Period.
The GOP is simply unwilling to abandon Bush. Not just the conservative politicians, the conservative media and conservative partisans won't either. They're bound an determined to go down with their sinking ship, the S.S. Bush, because to do otherwise would be even worse for them.
Yes, worse.
You see, if they ever admit that they were wrong, it immediately brings up the question of why we spent so much blood and money. Those are questions too painful to answer. So expect them to continue, forever, in the delusion that we were just on the verge of winning when progressives pulled the plug. (When we finally get elected and do so.)
If Vietnam is any guide, around 15 years from now, there'll be a "Son of Rambo, Part 5", where an inarticulate muscle-bound moron with a bandanna will kill "all the bad guys" in Iraq with a handful of explosive arrows, and then wail that "we could won if we hadn't a been kept from winnin by the libral govmint". And, like the Vietnam Rambo movies, it will set sales records.
So no, conservatives will never admit they made a mistake. They'll crawl back under their rocks and pretend all the damage they've done to our nation is the fault of illegal immigrants.
And anyone who thinks otherwise is just dreaming.
Posted by: Curtis Haley | Aug 15, 2007 1:30:52 PM
I sincerely don't think it's plausible to impeach or censure anyone in the Bush Administration (excluding Gonzo) without alienating an awful lot of voters that will likely decide the next election.
The biggest reason for this is probably just political momentum. The idea of impeachment and censure have just been sitting out there too long - too many prominent people have already brought it up without any fire catching behind the idea or there being any actual push to do it. The hard question to answer is this: What would be the political match that could start the fire needed to get this done? I honestly don't see what it could be.
In terms of it being political suicide, I think it's more likely to backfire on Democrats ala the Bill Clinton debacle on Republicans. It's a sad but true fact that most people see the horrible parts of the Bush administration, but are just not angry enough to move on it. This isn't a Nixon moment, where everyone and their mother is clamoring to throw the bum out - it's mostly just the ardently anti-war or the highly politically involved that are leading the call. If significant time is given to the issue, I think the casual observer will be more likely to be bemused or irritated than actually rallying behind the cause.
On that same note, think of this: Nancy Pelosi effectively voted into President by the Democratic Congress? It's a Republican talking point that writes itself.
If change is wanted and needed, we need to work on securing 60 Democratic voices in the Senate and extending the House majority, in addition to getting a Democrat in office. These are VERY PLAUSIBLE steps that can be taken right now, and which would take ADVANTAGE of the current political situation (which is very much pro-Democrat at the moment) rather than trying to go very hard against the mainstream grain. Then the power would not only be in the hands of Democrats, but it would be vested in us instead of wrested away.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 15, 2007 1:33:15 PM
And let's also assume that we're interested in results here, not just high-volume shrieking.
I maintain that there is a fundamental disconnect here. To many of us there are just some things that are more important than results.
Let's say that an armed stranger invaded my home and proceeded to attack my daughters. Their deaths are imminent and I don't honestly believe that there is much of a realistic chance that I can't alter their fate. Do I willingly sacrifice my life in what may well be a lost cause or do I run and try to salvage as much as I can - my own skin?
I fight! Sure, I want results! But I'm gonna do what I gotta do even if I know that I may not get the result that I want.
There are some things that are simply more important than the desired results. Defending the constitution is one of those things IMHO.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 1:42:06 PM
Over on the other thread, one of the posters mentioned Sen. Barry Goldwater and the Nixon impeachment. He (or she) had the timeline wrong, but here's a snippet of an interview with Goldwater from TIME magazine in May 1973 (my emphasis):
Should President Nixon resign? If the President of the United States lied to the American people, then the question is: Can you trust him? Impeachment would come up. And this country is in too much trouble internationally to have such a gigantic demonstration of distrust in its leaders. I'm convinced he knew nothing at the inception [of the Watergate affair]. But the coverup?If it can be proved that he lied, resignation would have to be considered.
It would be quick. Everything would be over, ended. It wouldn't drag out like impeachment.
That was a member of the president's own party, a year after the Watergate break-in, and a year before the impeachment hearings began in the House Judiciary committee.
"Can you trust him?" That was essentially my question to Sen. Wyden. Barry Goldwater could bring that up after what was in comparison a pretty small operation at the time (most of the abuse of power charges in the Nixon impeachment articles were uncovered after this interview). If the door to impeachment in the Senate is locked -- even by people who vote the right way like Ron Wyden -- there's no impetus for the House to pursue it. Someone has to kick open the door by actively discussing the possibility that it could happen, if they're actually open to the idea.
If they're not, good luck to "getting us out of Iraq, fixing energy policy, fixing the health care system and correcting schools" while Bush and Cheney are in office. That just seems like a political fantasy to me.
Posted by: JTT | Aug 15, 2007 1:59:46 PM
There were concerns before the 2006 election that if Democrats retook control of Congress that all they would do is hold hearings and investigate the administration. Thank G-d they have...the incompetence and abuses of this administration and its allies are much worse that I anticipated. But what has this Congress accomplished policy-wise? They're trying for a massive SCHIP children's health insurance expansion which will likely be vetoed. That's good (that they're trying at least). Minimum wage increase actually signed into law. That's good. And you can fill in the list from there...
While, I support impeachment of Bush/Cheney/Gonzo...I wouldn't want it to:
A) stall progress on important policy,
B) give cause for the Republicans mantra of a "do nothing...investigative Congress",and
C) jeopordize the gaining electoral momentum for taking back the W.H. and gaining more seats in Congress.
So...since I don't see >50% of the population clammoring for impeachment (and I think that it will do A-C), I don't think we can bring weight to bear. However, if you start to see serious conversations about a draft (like the comment by Bush's "War Czar" this week)...you bet your ass people will be rioting in the streets and demanding impeachment. Then, you can effectively use that grassroots pressure (i.e. rioting citizen masses)...until then, I don't think so.
Posted by: lrf | Aug 15, 2007 2:25:45 PM
Several things come immediately to mind to really start having an impact.
First: Identify the GOP and "blue Dog" D's in the House and Senate who might be affected by their constituents' comments.
Next: Target them with a national campaign that includes a few billboards placed strategically in congressional districts that simply ask questions like, "Is this the country you want? Can't we do better? How can we and (list candidate) sit by and allow _________ to happen? Had Enough? .... etc"
Then: Find your friends, relatives, business acquaintances who live in those states and districts and suggest that they write LTE's and contact the representatives directly in places outside of the typical town hall meetings. That can mean bringing up the issues in the grocery store and elsewhere.
And: Find out who the reporters and editors are in your community and the communities of the targeted reps. Talk to as many media folks as you can. Send them notes about the issues. Call the radio and TV newsrooms with concerns. Ask, for example, why no TV station covered the town hall yesterday?
Finally: Money talks. Find out who is planning to run against these folks next year and make it clear that they can get financial support right now. Make it clear to the incumbent and to the challenger that a change will take place. Also make that clear in the organizations already formed that pay close attention to the issues.
Blog traffic is important. Real action means getting out there and talking with people and making it clear to the politicos that the "anger" is real and not just rhetoric that will be easily forgotten.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 2:29:36 PM
since I don't see >50% of the population clammoring for impeachment
"more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney." [source]
Join Veterans for Peace tomorrow at noon (or any Thursday between 12:00-2:00) until Blumenauer agress to hold Bush, Cheney & Co. accountable. 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland or give the congressman a call: 503-231-2300
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 2:35:57 PM
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 1:26:45 PMYeah, but we don't even have a majority in our party that support impeachment right now. How do we get there?
That is kind of the point about holding our own caucus to account and not giving our own caucus members, particularly those who are in 100% safe Dem seats like Blumenhauer. There is 100% zero excuse for Earl not being out in the lead on impeachment.
Yes, of course, but how? It's a tautology to say "we should pressure them" in answer to the question "how do we pressure them?"
It has to start by telling them they are wrong on this issue. It has to start by being vocal and not letting them dismiss the idea.
What does that pressure look like?
It begins with dialog. It begins by having frank conversations that they need to begin taking their job seriously. Ratcheting up from there, up to and including primarying out obstinate members of our cacus. Obviously that is the least desirable and last resort, since we woudl and should be trying to expand our majority, not using resources to replace memebrs in our own caucus.
Many will argue that it is wasting political capital (as Wyden apparently has argued) which I think is fundamentally wrong. This is how you build political capital.
Nevermind liberals like Earl Blumenauer -...
No, you START with alleged liberals like Blumenauer.
- how do you get rookies from conservative districts like Heath Shuler to come around on this?
By getting liberal members in line first. This is why it is so damaging that those who claim to be against this war and against the extra-constitutional abuses of this administration yet do nothing about it like Earl. THis is why Earl and Wyden need a wake-up call.
Is it even possible?
It is if you get the leadership to grow a spine. Well over 50% of the electorate want Cheney impeached and almost 50% want Bush impeached right now. That is not even with any push by the leadership or the caucus to actually move on it. The Dems are taking a huge hit in approvals by NOT impeaching Gonzales as a minimum. To be perfectly blunt, our elected Dems are lagging far behind the public on this. Which is why it is staggering that Earl and Wyden are beating the crap out of this in the media and playing hardball within the caucus and throughout Congress on this. Freshman members in particular can be brought in line if the leadership would just get its head out of its ass. They have really lost their way and took the entirely wrong lessons from the Clinton impeachment instead of looking at the Nixon (almost) impeachment as the model and the mode of thinking they should be in.
We have an entirely over muscled executive branch (regardless of who is in the office).
Want to know the tact for helping Congress find their spine, particularly the GOP members?
Ask them if they want a Hillary Presidency with the powers Bush has.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 2:36:52 PM
At the start, let's not pretend this is some wacko, out of the mainstream idea. Although most major polling outlets refuse to poll the question, this Newsweek poll from October 2006 shows a MAJORITY of Americans would like to see impeachment, 51%.
"How do we get there?"
Firstly, pressure on leadership. Pelosi is blocking discussion of impeachment. I don't believe Hoyer or Murtha are interested in allowing an open debate on it, either.
More directly and manageably, the first step is for us to poll the caucus, starting with Democrats but including all 435 members: do you support beginning the process of impeachment hearings for
a) Alberto Gonzales
b) Dick Cheney
c) George Bush
in that order?
Whoever says no, that's who you begin lobbying. Firstly, as the Ellen Tauscher case implies, you have to provide the proper information that explains to the Members how the impeachment process works, and what it's for. Assuming they fully understand the Constitution is an untenable prospect. Secondly, you have to brief them on the LEGAL allegations against the individuals. For instance, recall that one of the impeachment articles against Nixon was simply his aggressive refusal to have his administration subpoenaed. Sound familiar? Finally, you must show to them a) their duties in upholding the Constitution as they swore to, and b) the prospect of NOT acting is to ask for more years of George Bush, with someone else's face. (That's where your best argument for GOP Members is--two words: President Hillary.) And warn them that they too can be judged on their ability to uphold the Constitution.
This approach worked to hold the caucus together on Social Security in 2005. It can work again.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 2:43:27 PM
Posted by: Curtis Haley | Aug 15, 2007 1:30:52 PMIn terms of it being political suicide, I think it's more likely to backfire on Democrats ala the Bill Clinton debacle on Republicans.
This is excuse making blather which Wyden and others toss out which is 100% bogus. We have an administration whose approvals are at the level that Nixon's was the week before he resigned. Gingrich never had even a majority of popular approval for either him or the Contract of America, which 99% of the population couldn't even list what it was. Shutting down people Social Security checks and shutting down national parks because you disagree on budget priorities is not at all analogous to holding a criminal administration who lied us into the worst policy disaster in our nation's history is not even close to the same thing.
To compare censure or impeachment of the worst presidency in our nations history whose approval is at almost record lows to the Clinton political stunt/overreach is to compare apples to lug wrenches.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 2:45:53 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 2:36:52 PM
BINGO.
Very good comment and solid points.
Posted by: paulie | Aug 15, 2007 2:49:43 PM
We have an opportunity to remind the citizens of Oregon that it is the Republicans who set their own bear trap and now, legs firmly in place in it's jaws must be held accountable. The strategy question Kari asked is a good one. Is it wise to consider draining money and energy from our primary goal to elect Democrats by moving toward impeachment? Will we hand the Republican's a victory in 2008 if impeachment proceedings begin? Will impeachment proceedings benefit our goals to elect Democrats and take back our country?
The horrifying consequences of two wars in the Middle East has cost tax payers nearly 2 trillion dollars. The current administration has throttled state and local governments by under funding or flat out not funding the National Guard, health care, housing, O & C funds, roads, bridges, social services.
I'm certain we have many members of the Blue Oregon community who will have solid suggestions, creative suggestions and winning ideas. Let's get the show on the road.
Posted by: djk | Aug 15, 2007 3:05:02 PM
I doubt the Republicans are smart enough to see getting Bush and Cheney out of office helps them in 2008. As it stands, Bush/Cheney are the face of the Republican party and every Republican running for every office in November 2008 is going to be standing next to them, like it or not. The Bush administration is, and will remain, the best argument to vote Democrat in 2008. I suspect that's why so many congressional Democrats are reluctant to proceed; keeping Bush in office is the best way to pick up seats.
Let's say impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney go before the house this fall, and actually make it to the Senate. Assume the Senate were to hold a trial in mid to late January, and vote them out of office sometime in February. Pelosi loses her speakership and becomes President as a lame duck (it will be too late for her to jump into the primary) with the need to build her administration from scratch in the middle of an election, and inherits the mess Bush created. By November, it's no longer Bush's mess, it's Pelosi's. If the economy is a mess, it becomes Pelosi's fault. If anything disasterous happens in Iraq, no matter what Pelosi does it will be her fault.
Meanwhile, the Republicans still have enough votes in the Senate to block the Democrats from putting any kind of positive agenda through. Yes, those up for re-election would be running as "the Senator who blocked universal health care for children" or whatever, but that's never seemed to bother them before.
Getting Bush and Cheney out of office probably helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats in November 2008. Letting go of the White House for a few months improves Republican chances of getting it back for the next four years. It's like sacrificing a rook to position yourself for checkmate three moves later.
But I expect most Republicans will stick blindly to their own guy no matter what. Which is good news for Democratic election prospects in 2008 and bad news for the future of this country and our constitutional system.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 3:07:09 PM
We have an opportunity to remind the citizens of Oregon that it is the Republicans who set their own bear trap and now, legs firmly in place in it's jaws must be held accountable....
The horrifying consequences of two wars in the Middle East has cost tax payers nearly 2 trillion dollars.
The Democrats are creating their own trap. Don't forget that a couple of the leading Democratic candidates for president actually voted for this debacle because they trusted George Bush to do the right thing (as Sen. Wyden apparently does now). If they just let the clock run out on the Bush presidency without actually holding them accountable, they're not only stuck with a war that's going to go from bad to worse by 2009 but they'll be seen as not having tried to stop it when they had a couple of years to at least try.
The cost of the war in lives and money is only going to add up over the next 15 months of the Bush administration. If you think two wars is bad, wait until we're in three.
They sure as heck won't be able to impeach Bush and Cheney once they attack Iran and try to take out Ahmadinejad. Nobody likes that guy.
Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 3:14:43 PM
Here's a question I haven't seen anyone considering yet: at this late date, what will an impeachment of Bush/Cheney actually do? Impeaching Nixon had the effect of bringing unimaginable abuses (at the time, they seem rather tame now) to light, halting the secret invasion of Cambodia, and forcing Nixon to resign. Let's apply that to this administration. Well, we know about the abuses, and if the impeachment proceedings reveal more, can I get a show of hands of people who will be surprised? We know that the war in Iraq will continue, come hell or high water or impeachment. And this close to the end of Bush's term, there is no possible way that either he or Cheney will resign. It doesn't look to me like impeachment will actually get us anywhere. It isn't going to stop the abuses or remove the abusers. It'll just poison the political atmosphere of this country even more than it is now.
If it were 2005 right now, I might have a different perspective on the advantages of impeachment, but we're just too far into Bush's term. I'd rather use our resources to put pressure on Congress to continue investigating abuse, forcing oversight on the administration, and pushing through our preferred policy agenda. Rather than trying to impeach the President and VP now (the comment about the likelihood of the GOP supporting a move that will create President Nancy Pelosi is right on target) let's get to work on electing solid liberal majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008 which will repeal the PATRIOT Act and all the other disgusting intrusions into the Constitution. Bush seems to be pretty focused on how history will view him. Let's make sure the next generation learns about him as that President whose policies were so bad, Congress obliterated them all as soon as he was gone.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 3:17:45 PM
Posted by: paulie | Aug 15, 2007 2:49:43 PMWe have an opportunity to remind the citizens of Oregon that it is the Republicans who set their own bear trap and now, legs firmly in place in it's jaws must be held accountable. The strategy question Kari asked is a good one. Is it wise to consider draining money and energy from our primary goal to elect Democrats by moving toward impeachment
Yet Democrats are kneecapping themselves by not impeaching. Their approvals are tanking. I posit impeachemnt will help, not hurt our efforts to expand our majority in 2008.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 3:24:41 PM
By November, it's no longer Bush's mess, it's Pelosi's. If the economy is a mess, it becomes Pelosi's fault. If anything disasterous happens in Iraq, no matter what Pelosi does it will be her fault.
And how does that differ from the situation for a potential Democratic president in January 2009? Why do you assume that Bush won't create more mess by the end of his term?
Here's some hypotheticals:
John Paul Stevens -- 87 years old -- dies or becomes incapacitated by next fall, giving Bush another Supreme Court nominee.
Bush launches attacks against Iran, putting us directly at war with a country three times the size of Iraq, with better weaponry, and adjacent to both of the other countries we're already involved with.
A hurricane hits New Orleans this fall or next and destroys what's been rebuilt over the past couple of years. Who could imagine something like that could happen?
Of course, a truly competent Democratic party would have been prepared for something like this. Instead of saying that impeachment was off the table, they would have used it as a stick to get Bush to do what they wanted. And they would have had a Plan B, in case they really did need to impeach Bush, and have people lined up as a Shadow Cabinet to show that they were prepared for that eventuality. They might even have been ready to move on it in January of this year when they first got into office and had impeachment articles at the ready. The impeachment process could have been started by last spring.
It's not as if Democrats have had a lot to do over the past few years.
Instead, we get the people you describe. Shuffling their feet. Saying the dog ate their impeachment articles. That Jimmy's parents don't make him impeach the president.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 3:26:07 PM
Posted by: djk | Aug 15, 2007 3:05:02 PMI doubt the Republicans are smart enough to see getting Bush and Cheney out of office helps them in 2008. As it stands, Bush/Cheney are the face of the Republican party and every Republican running for every office in November 2008 is going to be standing next to them, like it or not. The Bush administration is, and will remain, the best argument to vote Democrat in 2008. I suspect that's why so many congressional Democrats are reluctant to proceed; keeping Bush in office is the best way to pick up seats.
But that is exactly it. If the GOP have to try and pull Bush/Cheney's asses out of the impeachment fire, defending them in public as the election cycle is in full swing will cement them more than anything else with the already staggeringly unpopular administration. It will clearly differentiate which party is are as Democrats change, GOP defending the indefensible and hugely unpopular administration and its actions.
You think Gordon Smith going into the media defending the extremist Bush/Cheney administration is a winner for him politically as he tries to bamboozle Oregon voters that he is a moderate good guy?
Or if he does stick the knife in Bush/Cheney, you think that will charge up the GOP base to vote for him?
It is a lose/lose proposition for Smith and a win/win for Democrats. Differentiating yourself while forcing your opponent to squeeze as tight a possible to the hugely unpopular lame-duck extremists in the oval office is a GOOD thing. Yet the Dems seem to be incapable of figuring that out.
Posted by: Stumptown Scribe | Aug 15, 2007 3:30:19 PM
Kari:
Thank you for trying to shift the discussion to a more constructive tone. As I stated in my earlier post, yesterday on the initial thread, I am as irritated and angered by the actions of this Administration, but don't see the good that impeachment would do at this point beyond annihilating any shred of unity our country has left.
Instead, lets reach across to the various conservative districts that Kari mentioned, unifying behind common anger be it: Iraq, wages not keeping up with inflation, lack of healthcare, etc.
Now this isn't to say that Alberto needs to be thrown out and Congress not do everything in its power to bring our troops home, now, not yesterday, but now.
But lets move beyond calling for Bush's head and instead planning ways to use this whole situation to our advantage in securing a solid majority in all facets of government producing an environment where true reform and legislation is the norm, not the objective.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 3:30:30 PM
Here's a question I haven't seen anyone considering yet: at this late date, what will an impeachment of Bush/Cheney actually do? ... We know that the war in Iraq will continue, come hell or high water or impeachment.
Well, you're making a good case that the Democrats and the Republicans aren't any different from each other. If the Democrats aren't going to do anything other than what Bush is doing, then you're right, there's no reason to impeach. I was operating under the assumption that what Sen. Wyden meant what he said about Democrats wanting to end the war, build up health care and education, etc.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 3:34:40 PM
"Here's a question I haven't seen anyone considering yet: at this late date, what will an impeachment of Bush/Cheney actually do?"
Prevent the abuses from occuring again with a different President, maybe? Reinforce the principles under which the country was founded?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 3:41:01 PM
Darrel, can you email me at loadedorygun@gmail ASAP, please? I'd like to get some more information on exactly how the exchange went with Wyden. His spokesperson got very angry and either denied that it happened, or that he said yes, or that he meant yes--I'm not sure. So could you email me? Thanks.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2007 3:44:16 PM
I would like to reframe the arguement here since few seem able to do so. What Wyden addressed was the practicality of Impeaching Bush. It is impractical because there are not enough votes. Period. We all know this.
However, what he didn't address was the symbolic purpose of impeachment. This process, as most of us know, begins in the House. Even if it could not pass in the Senate to remove the President from office, the process of Impeachment is still MANDATED by the Constitution. Not only is it Mandated, but it is politically the right thing to do. Justice deserves nothing less than a reminder that the President's power is checked. To not Impreach the President is to invite future Presidents to do the very same thing, or worse.
Our nation and our Constitution deserve no less.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 3:56:05 PM
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2007 3:44:16 PMI would like to reframe the arguement here since few seem able to do so. What Wyden addressed was the practicality of Impeaching Bush. It is impractical because there are not enough votes. Period. We all know this.
I dunno. I am not willing to concede this point. In say late fall early winter impeachment comes up and gets into the Senate. You're Gordon Smith, do you defend Bush/Cheney and hand your seat over to the Democratic nominee because you are wrapping your arms in the most visible way you can to defend the hugely unipolar criminal administration your re-election demands you distance yourself?
Or do you vote for impeachment and solidify your moderate image with swing voter suburb voters and piss off your dwindling base?
Do you think the DSCC, the DNC, DPO Novick, Merkely et all will not blow him out of the water no matter which way he votes if he if forced to do so?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:05:20 PM
I don't believe there is any "mandate" to impeach within the Constitution, unless it is an informal mandate prescribed by the general oath to uphold the Constitution. Impeachment is entirely discretionary as far as I know.
On the other hand, I also don't believe that we can say there aren't the votes before we even have the hearings.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2007 4:07:35 PM
I believe the Constitution says, "Shall Impeach", does it not? What does "shall" mean to you?
Posted by: ErinPDX | Aug 15, 2007 4:15:28 PM
Think back to the OJ trial and monicagate. The corporate media covered these 24/7. Ordinary people were well versed in details about the glove, the missing vial of blood and in Monica's case, the kneepads and more. Regular people, Dem and Republic, were fascinated.
Now think about all that each of you know about the crimes of the bushies. Far, far more than ordinary people because each of you reads voraciously and stays on top of the news. But most people don't have time to read the internets. They have two+ uniquely american jobs and kids to haul during their "spare time." The corporate media has totally and utterly failed us. What ever happened to Bunny Greenhouse and her whistleblowing about Halliburton?
The bottom line is that if there were an impeachment proceeding, THE CORPORATE MEDIA COULD NO LONGER IGNORE THE TRUTH. Maybe those baseball moms on bulls**t mountain would finally learn the depth of their depravity. Ordinary people could not possibly continue to ignore the Truth. Republic congresspeople would be forced to confront this truth on a daily basis.
And presto.
You will have the votes.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:16:08 PM
If you're referring to Article 2, Section 4, it does not in fact say "shall impeach." It says "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (my emph)
It says once you convict him, he shall be removed.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2007 4:17:48 PM
Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "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.
Shall, shall, shall....
You want to fight it out behind the church?
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 15, 2007 4:19:44 PM
I realize that torrid NEEDS to be RIGHT all the time. Certainly that would be one of the reasons why your girl friend left you for another job.
Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 4:24:53 PM
If we really wanted Congress to reinforce the principles under which this country was founded, we'd be pushing for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, REAL ID, and the other invasions into our privacy and freedom. We'd be pushing Congress to renew their own authority through new legislation, just as the 1973 Congress did with the War Powers Resolution. We'd be working to renew our commitment to those principles by giving them more teeth and reinforcing the ability of the legislative branch to check and balance.
As I said above, if this were the beginning of Bush's second term, I would consider impeachment a useful tool for us. Right now, I think any hypothetical gain will be outweighed by the fact that these people are already leaving office and therefore don't care what the country thinks of them. If we as a nation are going to recover from the past eight years, at this point the healing process needs to be in the positive direction of policy change, not the negative direction of punitive measures.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 4:30:15 PM
Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 4:24:53 PM...if this were the beginning of Bush's second term, I would consider impeachment a useful tool for us.
So the Constitution becomes null and void when an administration nears lame-duck territory?
Posted by: ErinPDX | Aug 15, 2007 4:31:58 PM
Somebody here sounds an awful lot like Lieberman and the DLC.
The Democrats will make few to no policy gains either because the lieberman/blue dog coalition will continue to block, or because of a veto.
IMPEACH
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:32:03 PM
"I realize that torrid NEEDS to be RIGHT all the time. Certainly that would be one of the reasons why your girl friend left you for another job."
If I'm the one that needs to be right, why are you lashing out so inappropriately when you discover you're wrong? I could also toss out that I don't have a girlfriend but a wife, and it's not Carla--and LO was not a job, so you can't really leave something not a job for "another" job.
I assume since you've now reprinted A II Sec 4 in toto, you can see how you were mistaken. Removal is mandatory after conviction. Impeachment is not mandatory--how could it logically be so? If you haven't formally established articles of impeachment, how could you establish that someone needed to be impeached? Or more to the point, how could you argue someone failed to do their mandatory duty of impeachment, if the process never got to the point where impeachment grounds were substantiated in the first place?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:35:04 PM
"If we as a nation are going to recover from the past eight years, at this point the healing process needs to be in the positive direction of policy change, not the negative direction of punitive measures."
I think where you make a mistake is in assuming this is about punishing a bad President. It's not. It's about renouncing the claims made by this President on the powers of the executive, lest future executives claim them for their own. It's not about ousting this one; it's about making sure there's not another one like him.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 4:35:15 PM
Ugh.
Which is why it is staggering that Earl and Wyden are beating the crap out of this in the media and playing hardball within the caucus and throughout Congress
Should read:
Which is why it is staggering that Earl and Wyden are not beating the crap out of this in the media and playing hardball within the caucus and throughout Congress
When do we get those computers you don't type on but simply talk to like those on Star Trek? (wry grin)
Posted by: phastphil | Aug 15, 2007 4:36:37 PM
There is nothing I would love better than to impeach Bush and Cheney, but look - there is no way that any Republican Senator is going to break from these guys. The atmospherics are totally different from 1974. We were closer to having a real press corps then.
As far as Ron Wyden is concerned - look at his voting record - over the long hall he has been phenomenal. I have had similar experiences where Ron gave me an answer that I was in total disagreement. But usually over time I either came over to his view or visa versa. He has earned my respect and patience.
Look I live in Bend and have the absolute worst Congressman - Greg Walden. East of the Cascades we are so green with envy over your 4 terrific Congress persons - we would do just about anything to have a Peter DeFazio or a Darlene Hooley represent us. How about helping us get rid of Bush boot licker Walden.
Plus when you look at the past centuries progressive successes - Social Security - Civil Rights - Voting Rights - Medicare and Medicaid, Democrats had overwhelming majorities. In the sixties when civil rights and voting rights were passed we had 66 or 67 Democratic Senators, some dixiecrats, but even so it was a tough row to hoe. The only way we can have a real Progressive success is to elect more Democrats. Let's get rid of Gordon Smith and Greg Walden and replace them with Progressive Democrats.
Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 4:38:43 PM
lestatdelc, my interest is in upholding the rights and responsibilities inherent in the Constitution, as, I assume, is yours. To me, it is more important that we do this by repealing the laws that violate the Constitution. I don't think we have the political will in DC to both repeal those laws and impeach the President (if, indeed, we have the will to do either). In the end, no matter what Congress does, this President will leave office. But if Congress doesn't act, the legacy of invasive laws and Constitutional violations will continue long after he heads off to a cushy retirement and speaking circuit job. And that concerns me a lot more.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 4:39:18 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:35:04 PMI think where you make a mistake is in assuming this is about punishing a bad President. It's not. It's about renouncing the claims made by this President on the powers of the executive, lest future executives claim them for their own. It's not about ousting this one; it's about making sure there's not another one like him.
Exactly it. This is about an out-of-control executive branch coupled with an ineffectual legislative branch that is suppose to be an oversight check on it, unable to find the brakes. As you and I have both said, the words that should strike fear in the souls (if they have any) GOPers who think this is about simply hating Bush when we want to reign in the powers of the executive branch there are two words which should perform a 180 on their dismissing impeaching this president... President Hillary.
Posted by: ErinPDX | Aug 15, 2007 4:47:03 PM
Yes, of course, but how? It's a tautology to say "we should pressure them" in answer to the question "how do we pressure them?"
What does that pressure look like?
Nevermind liberals like Earl Blumenauer -- how do you get rookies from conservative districts like Heath Shuler to come around on this? Is it even possible?
A little thing called the Truth.
Which will only be exposed to the American-Idol-Obsessed-Mothers-Of-Bulls**tMountain if it is on their teevee. Which will only be on their teevee if it is impeachment. Iran-Contra was played on several networks. The general public knows little to nothing about all of the investigations and crimes they've committed. The corporate media would HAVE to cover impeachment and put aside their missing white women for a few minutes. (gee, do I sound bitter toward my fellow suburban sports moms and their stupid conversations about reality teevee for hours on end at games?)
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 4:51:27 PM
Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 4:38:43 PMBut if Congress doesn't act, the legacy of invasive laws and Constitutional violations will continue long after he heads off to a cushy retirement and speaking circuit job. And that concerns me a lot more.
I don't disagree with that. But I reject the notion that holding this administration to account by Congress reasserting its Constitutional authorities and duties is mutually exclusive with addressing the legislative damage done. I see them as mutually reenforcing objectives and goals. I posit that you can only really succeed at one by doing both.
I firmly believe that the biggest load of bullshit is that political capital is a finite zero sum resource. As I have said elsewhere in these threads, not holding this administration to account is actually hemorrhaging political capital on the Dems side (witness the slide in Congressional approval ratings for both Dems and the GOP members). I think the Dmes playing hardball and actually pushing into taking action to hold this overwelmingly unpopular adminsitraiton to account will gain Dems poltical capital and muscle. It will earn them the juice to not just address the egregious actions of this administration, but actually put the Dems in a position to address the substantive legislative issues on the agenda which Wyden wants to accomplish, healthcare reform, etc.
In short, the Dems have no political juice because they do not have a spine to earn it by kicking ass. LBJ didn't get shit done on the hill by playing nice, he kicked people in the balls politically. The hand-shy Dems still act like they are in the minority. 70% of the nation wants them to act on Iraq. 54% want Cheney gone NOW. What are they waiting for?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 4:58:20 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. I checked out for four hours, and came back to find 47 comments -- most of them thoughtful responses focused not on on whether they should be impeached, but rather on building a strategy toward making it actually happen.
Thank you. Let's keep it up.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 1:00:40 PM
Talk to you?
Apparently we don't know how.. all we know how to do is "shriek". Nice way to totally dismiss the substantive arguments and discussion (even disagreements) going on in the other thread and label them shrieking. Is this part of the making friends and influencing people thing?