Making friends and influencing people; moving from screaming to strategizing

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Curtis Haley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • lrf (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 1:26:45 PM Yeah, 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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Curtis Haley | Aug 15, 2007 1:30:52 PM In 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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 2:36:52 PM

    BINGO.

    Very good comment and solid points.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

    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.

  • Stumptown Scribe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I believe the Constitution says, "Shall Impeach", does it not? What does "shall" mean to you?

  • ErinPDX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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?
  • ErinPDX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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

  • (Show?)

    "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?

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    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)

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Blueshift (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 15, 2007 4:35:04 PM 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.

    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.

  • ErinPDX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?)

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Blueshift | Aug 15, 2007 4:38:43 PM 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.

    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?

  • ErinPDX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bravo lestatdelc

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari wrote:

    "Screaming at people just isn't often a very effective strategy for getting elected leaders (anybody, really) to agree with us."

    Actually, screaming is quite effective when the viewpoint espoused reflects the opinion of a large part of the American people.

    Kari wrote:

    "Yeah, but we don't even have a majority in our party that support impeachment right now. How do we get there?"

    Bring the issue to the floor of the House and hold hearing that make public the crimes of the Shrubbery.

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think the first place to start to make Bush and Cheney accountable is to try to form some unity in the Democratic party....or the rest is pointless. Somebody call Nancy and clue her in.

    Kari....you told me in another post that we were not talking about FISA there....well I was, as an example. Because the FISA vote is a heartbreaking eye-opener. You can lead a candidate to Congress but you can't make him/her vote your will. What good will it do to start a groundswell here in Oregon if DEMS from other states are enabling the president in his power grab? Does anybody even know if those reps who assisted Bush with FISA are being called to task by their constituents? Were they voting public sentiments in their states? Can we in Oregon take our case to other states? Lord knows special interest groups from other states have no compunction bringing thier cases here to test the waters.

    Unfortunately the FISA vote was like a light bulb going off...."hey the DEMS are NOT united". Out here in the wilderness where I live and interact, a lot of voters were appalled...a growing angst since January when our hopes were so high. Damn right we feel helpless.

    And history shows that most of the time "shrieking", or the demonstrative equivalent of, was the only way to get the attention of those in the ivory tower. Changes are cultured in noisy discontent. Back in the day we could take it to the streets, but now we might legally be called terrorists for that sort of activity.

    So maybe another move to make Bush accountable would be to restore our constitional right to assemble and complain loudly, in places where someone might actually notice. Because it's going to come down to film footage at five, with a sound bite. That's where you'll find most Americans...in front of the tube.

  • ErinPDX (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, Practical strategies? Well, after leaving that meeting I called every tv station in town to ask why they weren't covering the event. You know darn well they like the local angle and visuals. From now on, somebody on our side should be making damned sure the media is at these things. And I shouldn't have to plot to burn my bra or create a sideshow for the media to actually cover Our Own Senator when he is addressing our most pressing problem: Iraq. Shame on the local tv stations (except koin).

  • Voter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

    Frankly Kari, I'm not that impressed, except for a few comments in this vein:

    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

    There are several concrete things we should be doing:

    1) Get in the face, screaming as loud as you can when necessary, of any whiner who calls themselves a Democrat - voter or elected official - and tell them no more excuse making for utter incompetence and cowardice. Democrats are still making the argument we will win if we let the Republicans continue to destroy things because too many of them have nothing on their own to commend themselves to the electorate (that is true in spades for most of the Oregon delegation and their suckup supporters like Kari and Jeff), including having the backbone to stand up for true Democratic Party values. This is for real: Our country and the lives of many people all over the world are at stake. Those who are part of the problem need to be shamed and intimidated until they are disempowered. We need to clean house right here in Oregon and elect some real Democrats.

    2) Demand the Congress use their subpeona power mercilessly to investigate every aspect of what this administration has been doing -- impeachment will come in due time once the truth is drug out into the light of day. The excuse the Atty General won't enforce the subpeonas is pure deceit: Congress gave that obligation to the Atty General long after the Republic was founded, circumstances now demand they exercise their inherent authority by having the appropriate official from the House or Senate apprehend and detain for as long as it takes those who refuses a subpeona. Even under a claim of Executive privilege since a strong executive is what the Founders feared most. Throw their miserable, lying butts in the D.C. jails and let them rot there until the next Congress is seated since the D.C. jails are under the control of Congress.

    3) Force Merkley to go on record strongly and uneqivocally denouncing the DSCC, DCCC, and DLC Democrats who have failed to act against the adminstration's crimes against the people, and to end both wars, before voting for him. There is plenty of troubling evidence is that he sold his soul a long time ago for his own career. With the nod from the Party power elite in this race, there is little obvious reason to believe he will be anything but another pathetic weasel from the Oregon like most of the Democratic delegation. Take a close look at what is going on right now with Arizona Dem. Rep. Harry Mitchell whose story as a former state legislature and anointed D.C. pick has a lot more similarity to Merkley's than Tester's does. Right now the Democrats who elected him are exploring a revolt from the Democratic Party because he has turned out to be the full blown sellout Merkley has demonstrated clear potential for being in his state Congressional career. Far too early to tell about Novick, but better safe than sorry: Make him go on record with aggressive anti-war, anti-DSCC, anti-DLC, anti-corporate Democratic stances that he would be shown up as a hypocrite and run out of office if he abandons them. And demand he make clear he won't play Democratic constituency groups against each other as many Democrats are cynically doing right now.

    There is plenty we can do. It's just that some of the biggest talkers, and whining suckups like Kari and Jeff, don't really want action because that just might show up who the real Democrats with the best interests of working people and the country at heart are, and who they aren't.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am reminded of the recent discussion on the Bill Moyer TV show on OPB about impeachment.

    We have a two-party system that ends up with loyalty to party at too high of a level. Loyal party members are left between a rock and a hard place when a party member violates a higher standard, like say, the Constitution.

    Do you go after your elected official? Well, if you believe that your party will ultimately have the answers and reverse the damage of the other side, then you really have to think about it. And it is in this pause, and think, that we have our problems.

    For me, I stopped 90% of my involvement in the State Democratic Party one day in January of 2006. On that day, Sen. Wyden's aid came to the State Democratic Party Platform and Resolution Committee meeting, where we were reconsidering a resolution condemning the Senate's actions to vote against the bedrock Constitutional provision for habeas corpus. He said that since this resolution targeted that vote by Sen. Wyden we were acting as the "star chamber" (reference to the Catholic Inquisition). On the spot, I did a pause and think. I authored an amendment to the resolution to condemn the action, but not to single out Wyden - and I believe this resolution eventually passed in Astoria a few months later (I was not there). During this period of this issue (this went on for over a month for the Platform and Resolutions Committee members), my health went rapidly downhill, and only now over a year later am I getting back up to speed - and the stress from this issue was clearly part of my health issue.

    And I have only been to two State meetings since then, and have no plans to go to any others in the future. This is an unresolvable issue for me in the paradigm of Party Loyalty versus Constitutional Principal.

    So, Kari - your question. I am looking for a way out. I don't yet know what that way is. I don't have the energy/health/time to take on the Democratic Party and make it more loyal to the Constitution than the elected official. I would consider a third party if it was viable, had values similar to mine, and put Constitution above politics.

  • Voter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He said that since this resolution targeted that vote by Sen. Wyden we were acting as the "star chamber" (reference to the Catholic Inquisition).

    It may help you out to go and read some history what the Star Chamber really was (it has nothing to do with the Catholic Inquisition), and why what the Committee was quite legitimately trying to do was not even close to what that term means based on that actual history. It is the role and duty of the Party, just like it is the role and duty of every voter, to do exactly what that scumbag aide was whining about - cast judgement and ultimately do whatever is possible to cause faithless representatives to lose re-election.

    Nothing could be further from a "Star Chamber" because you were not acting arbitrarily, and you were not exacting punishment. Punishment is loss of liberty, property, injury, etc. Suffering the condemnation of voters or having the privilege of representing the people withdrawn is not punishment in any honest sense of the word.

    Frankly Steve, you should have kicked that miserable dirtbag aide out and told him/her that he/she or Wyden had better NEVER come to a Democratic Party function EVER AGAIN or you'd have them arrested for trespassing. Then you should have found a candidate to run against Wyden and endorsed him/her in the primary so we could work our butts off kicking Wyden out of office. Beyond that, the fact that the people who profess to represent rank-and-file Democrats like me were apparently either too stupid or too cowardly to do that strongly hints at some serious moral decay in the soul of our Party. Your story, strongly suggests we need to really scrutinize Merkley before even considering voting for him.

  • Rose Wilde (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, join the most positive and progressive social movement in Oregon. We aim to please our volunteers, by getting results (we're 9/10 statewide, not bad eh?), having a good time (socials, beach party themed canvasses, state of the union drink game), and avoiding shrieking, telling people they are shrieking, or anything in the shrieking family (we have been known to chant, however, Get on the Bus!)

    Bus stations are in Portland and Eugene, but we'd love to help more frustrated activists get engaged in positive and productive social and political change all over Oregon. Plus, we'd like to have a beer with you.

    www.busproject.org

    and... because I can never resist... hey "Voter" -- interesting choice of words: "1) Get in the face... 2) Demand... 3) Force".

    In the domestic violence movement I learned that these are "power over" terms that have nothing to do with assertive action but only aggressive imposition. Not okay with me.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My fellow Dems, most of you appear to be overlooking the 5 fundamental truths of modern American politics which are, of course, M, O, N, E, and Y. Politicians need incredible amounts of money to survive, just as you and I need air, food and water. They get virtually all of what they need from corporate interests, wealthy individuals, and lobbying organizations. Do you hear the CEOs of Pfizer, Citibank, Chevron, IBM or ADM shouting for impeachment? Neither do I. And until you do, you are wasting your time talking about this subject.

    When big corporations open their wallets and shout "here boy/girl", every politician within earshot - regardless of party - will sit on his/her hind legs and beg for a treat. It would be funny to watch if it did not mean the end of Democracy as we knew it.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

    The difference is about the status quo in November 2008: if it's a mess (and there will be a mess regardless of who is in power), how many voters will blame the incumbent and vote for the party that represents a change. Putting a Democrat into power at the beginning of 2008 lets the Republicans point fingers at Democrats, at least in the eyes of particularly stupid or inattentive swing voters.

    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.

    This is the great benefit of the House drafting articles of impeachment and sending them over to the Senate. Even if the Senate doesn't remove Bush from office, the Republicans will have to stand up and defend him. The key is to make sure there is an ironclad (or as close to ironclad as possible) case that this administration has committed transgressions of constitutional magnitude, as opposed to playing partisan games of "gotcha" over marital infidelity. If the House Democrats can't make that case, there's no point going ahead with it.

    As I mentioned earlier, it's in the interest of the Republicans to get this particular albatross off their necks. But if they don't (and I'm sure they won't) they'll have to go on record as saying that orchestrating an administration-wide conspiracy to mislead Congress on national security issues is not an impeachable offense. It's pretty easy to spin that at election time as "Bush lied to start a war and Senator Smith says that's okay."

    Let me reiterate: polls show 30% to 40% support for impeachment right now, and there's been almost no discussion in the mainstream media. As long as the Democrats present a strong case for it, that number can hit 50% pretty easily.

  • (Show?)
    Putting a Democrat into power at the beginning of 2008 lets the Republicans point fingers at Democrats, at least in the eyes of particularly stupid or inattentive swing voters.

    Unless, of course, the Democrats pin the tail on the elephant with some very ugly impeachment hearings. You see, if they impeach Bush and Cheney, they get to go through a litany of everything they've done to abuse their authority. That builds up a record -- sort of like how a case was built up against Nixon -- and creates something that every Democratic candidate can point to.

    The Republicans are going to point fingers at the Democratic Congress in 2008 no matter what. Anything that happens from here on out isn't Bush's fault -- he doesn't even have ol' Karl Rove to help him out any more -- it's that damn obstructionist Democratic Congress.

    Have you seriously not noticed that was the strategy? It's only been under way for six months or so.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [correction: i see on John Bradach's post that the protest at Blumenauer's office goes from 10-2 TODAY and every Thursday, 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland . Anyone seeing Wyden in Eugene, noon, Lillis Business Complex, Rm 182 should tell him to call his congressman!]

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ok, i have my morning coffee substitute now. Soory for the previous glitch.

    I have another idea how we might make progress on the impeachment issue. Has there ever been a BlueOregon beer bash or kaffee klatsch? I think we would have a more productive time talking to each other if we actually knew each other. There are a couple of recent posts i wish i could take back. [Speaking of which, why can't we edit or delete our own comments?] It's easier to shoot of a snarky rejoinder to strangers and there seem to be a lot of strange folks around here [head of the line].

    p.s. pdxskip, when are you taking me out? for a pint, that is?

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kismet! TJ at Loaded Orygun just dropped a plug on KPOJ for "drinking liberally."

    <h1>First and third Thursday of each month</h1>

    (next meeting - tonight - August 16), 7:00 - 10:00 pm

    <h1>Lucky Labrador, 915 SE Hawthorne Blvd</h1>
  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: john F. bradach, Sr. | Aug 16, 2007 7:20:42 AM

    12-2 pm today is the correct time in front of Earl's office at 729 NE Oregon.

    My stubby fingers sometimes get it wrong. Sorry.

    I am sure having people there beginning at 10 a.m. wouldn't hurt anything. I know that LoneVet Joe has taken to visiting the site on Wednesdays at noon at well.

    We'll just start calling you "Big John" then.

    I met ol' Joe last week with the Veterans for Peace and was so encouraged to hear him address Wyden: "Do you have any idea how angry so many of us are at the Democrats?!" I mean to tell him how proud it makes me feel. Not of Joe necessarily (like he needs my props). Joe makes me proud to be an Oregonian. Noon on Oregon street (just 3 blocks south of Multnomah) between NE 7th and 9th Ave.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A realistic outcome of an "impeach them both" strategy in the House:

    Senate Republicans split the difference by removing Cheney and keeping Bush. They get to express public displeasure with the administration, while keeping control of the White House and having a new Republican Vice President finish Bush's term.

    I can also see Senate Republicans who may want to distance themselves from Bush agree to censure him rather than remove him from office, under the cover story that "we disagreed with the some of the questionable things he did, but gosh darn it, they just weren't impeachable offenses."

  • lrf (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A team of folks calling the local TV stations would help before and during these events and then calling them if they fail to cover the story.

    Also, I thought you'd enjoy these: possible ads<?a>

  • DisplacedOregano (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If impeachment is the goal, the first step is congressional investigation (house) into impeachable offenses. Lying to the public isn't one. Starting horrible, stupid, unwise wars isn't. Bankrupting the treasury isn't. But unwarranted domestic spying is. Investigate, get the evidence, make the case.

    That said, I think it's not a useful effort. To stop this war, stop the funding. Bush only needs 41 senators to stop democratic initiatives, but he needs majorities of both houses to pass legislation, so write the funding authorizations this fall to defund the Iraqi occupation in a certain but orderly manner.

    Politically, there's a year plus to expose all the misdeeds, lies, abuses, incompetence, theft, etc. of the shrub regime, and plenty to run on. Keep in mind we won't be running against Bush, though.

    I believe the Democratic Party would do well to unite beyhind a positive message, though: the economic well-being of the avrerage citizen. This means universal health care, more progressive taxation (don't ignore the regressive Social Security tax), environmental regulation, renewable energy, and NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT policies. I propose ths definition: If you are paid by the hour (or were before you retired) the democratic party is working for you. If we can unite most of the 80% of the population making less than $100k (or whatever the number is) behind policies that will make everyone's life better (except maybe the very wealthy), winning elections should be a wee bit easier.

    Assuming a Dem President, Congress, and Atty General in 2009, I would love to see Bush and Cheney investigated further and prosecuted for treason for their failures to defend and uphold the Constitution (trampling on civil rights generally, and again warrantless spying seems a very strong case). Prosecuting these crimes, even after their term is up, will help restore America's international image and begin to rebalance the branches of government.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If impeachment is the goal, the first step is congressional investigation (house) into impeachable offenses.

    Minor correction. The first step is to get our Representatives interested in impeachment investigations. Our entire Oregon delegation is currently in lock step with the Democratic "leadership" off-the-table plan to give Bush, Cheney & Co. a pass.

    "House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings."

  • Adrian Rosolie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thom, good point on the anonymity of this all, considering this isn't World of Warcraft and we all live in the same damn state (and for many, metropolitan area). Unfortunately I'm legally 5 months too young to attend a progressive beer hour (which is too bad because I would be interested to see how this impeachment conversation infused with liquor turned out). But it seems most definitely appropriate to take on some of these big roadblocks we're now running into with face to face talking to hash it all out. (And I really think it'd be cool to get screamed at in person.)

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Prune Bush - Impeach Cheney The practical necessities - find a Congressman with Cajones of sufficient girth to present Articles of Impeachment to the floor of our deliberative body based upon these crimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEzPVP6EVRk Even if it does not succeed, at least we can count the votes, take names, and kick @ss.

  • (Show?)
    If impeachment is the goal, the first step is congressional investigation (house) into impeachable offenses. Lying to the public isn't one. Starting horrible, stupid, unwise wars isn't.

    Actually, like many people, you're wrong on both counts.

    Lying to the public is an impeachable offense, particularly if you use your authority to lend veracity to a claim that causes some sort of disaster. It's "abuse of power" and forms part of the bedrock of impeachment through history.

    The "horrible, stupid, unwise wars" part is covered by "incompetence" which is also widely-referenced in histories of impeachment.

    Too many people -- including Congresspeople like Ellen Tauscher who recently was corrected about her statement that Alberto Gonzalez couldn't be impeached -- really don't know much about the process or grounds for impeachment. I heartily recommend to you a report from February 1974, when the House Judiciary committee first took up the question of whether or not Richard Nixon should be impeached and what reasons would be proper to do so.

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excellent citation darrelplant. From "intent of Framers" "Grounds for Impeachment" "I, section 9. 62 In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

    [I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63 Remember Scooter Libby????

  • (Show?)

    One minor historical note for folks... We're seeing a lot of references above to the "Nixon impeachment."

    He actually wasn't impeached. The Judiciary Committee voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor - at which point, he resigned.

    The only two presidents to have been impeached in the House were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

    Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

  • (Show?)
    One minor historical note for folks... We're seeing a lot of references above to the "Nixon impeachment." He actually wasn't impeached.

    Kari, what's the point of this? I think most of the comments that mentioned Nixon above also mention he resigned. The only one that has the words "Nixon impeachment" in that order was the one in which I quoted Barry Goldwater talking about how Nixon might be impeached. I'm sure he actually meant to say "convicted in the Senate", because mere impeachment wouldn't have removed Nixon from office. I'll let you take that semantic issue up with Sen. Goldwater.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    More on the snow job against impeachment:

    Clinton and Johnson were impeached, but not removed. The presidents elected after them were from the other party. Nixon was about to be impeached. The next president elected was from the other party. So Democrats are afraid to impeach Shrub and Cheney because...?

  • (Show?)

    Impeachement makes baby Jeusus cry.

    ;-)

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom, about this: "Actually, screaming is quite effective when the viewpoint espoused reflects the opinion of a large part of the American people."

    Who ever convinced you to vote their way by screaming at you? And who did you ever convince to vote your way by screaming at them?

    A little remedial reading of the Aesop fable "The Wind and the Sun" is in order (the message is that persuasion is more effective than coercion).

    On what do you base "the opinion of a large part of the American people"? Poll results?

    My favorite history professor said to always distrust the use of phrases like "the American people". He said replacing that phrase with "people like us" would usually give a clearer meaning of the sentence.

    If you really believe everyone is hot for impeachment, try this experiment in a store parking lot. Walk up to people and ask them if they think impeachment is a good idea.

    My guess is that most haven't given it any thought, and those who have given it thought might just be of the "nice thought, not practical at this time" persuasion. Or else of the "let's not be like the Rove crowd, let's put forth a positive agenda to show how different we are" persuasion.

    On one of these topics, paulie has expressed a similar sentiment.

    And Tom, I've been screamed at politically. All it did was strengthened my opposition. And in one case, 2 people were angry at me for my state central comm. vote on a resolution concerning a ballot measure. 2 people who weren't at the meeting yelled at me that I wasn't a real Democrat for the way I voted. I had friends on both sides of the ballot measure, so I had been publicly neutral.

    After being yelled at, I went home and wrote 2 letters. The first was to the folks on the side of the ballot measure who my state central comm. vote had sided with involving the resolution (I didn't think the party should have endorsed the other side) enclosing a contribution check. Second was to my friend who was an officer of the side which had won the scc vote, saying I had tried to be neutral but after being yelled at I had sent a contribution check to the other side. I told my friends to spread the word what I had done. Next time I saw one of the people who had yelled at me, it was obvious from her sheepish tone of voice that she'd heard her yelling had caused a contribution to the other side.

    Maybe yelling works in some circles, but it sure doesn't work with me.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just to clarify a common misconception: Congress doesn't need to prove any kind of "criminal" action to impeach. A president can be impeached for "misdemeanors." A "misdemeanor" in a constitutional context doesn't need to be a specific crime. It could be exceeding the constitutional bounds of power, behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with public office, or using the power of the office for improper gain.

    So lying to the American people, or abusing the public's trust, or misrepresenting national security issues to Congress are all impeachable offenses. It's sufficient for Congress to stand up and say "this behavior is utterly incompatable with the high standards of conduct the American people have a right to expect from their President."

  • (Show?)

    "If you really believe everyone is hot for impeachment, try this experiment in a store parking lot. Walk up to people and ask them if they think impeachment is a good idea."

    Isn't that what scientific sampling and polling are for? And haven't those results shown we're talking about anywhere from 35-50% of the voting public who DOES think it's a good idea? A clear majority want to start with Cheney, at minimum.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ, maybe you could skew the poll by conducting it the parking lot of a Wall·Mart?

    Hey, thanks for the tip on "Drinking Liberally." I did!

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ, your point is valid if every candidate ahead in the polls always wins.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT,

    On political screaming:

    I was referring to affecting elected officials, who are moved by certain forces

    • real concern for making things better

    • what the money people think about them

    • what large numbers of voters think about them

    Public opinion is measured in two ways. First is percentage, which is easily quantified. Second is intensity, which is less easy to quantify, but important in which issues determine votes. If polls show that a large portion of voters want impeachment, and many voters are willing to express their opinions energetically [screaming is one way to do that], elected officials will take notice. It's not about reasonable persuasion, it's about inspiring fear of the voters. In a democracy, that's a good thing.

  • (Show?)

    "TJ, your point is valid if every candidate ahead in the polls always wins."

    No, actually it's valid regardless--a scientifically sampled portion of the electorate will always be a more robust way of determining public opinion than going into a parking lot. Randomizing intercept interviews is nearly impossible.

  • (Show?)

    First, I think some people are getting really snarky and I hate to see that. This is suppose to be a discussion not a flamming match.

    Second, I myself am lukewarm to the idea of impeachment, but as I said in the other discussion (both of which I'm kind of late coming to because I haven't been reading as much lately) that I'm not sure it's the best or only solution (which some seem to be advocating).

    Third, I am against the war and think we should do everything to bring our troops home. If that includes defunding the war by not giving Bush a blank check, then so be it. Let everything shut down if necessary to force his hand.

    In terms of the idea of impeachment, I think it's quite a bit more complex issue the some would like to believe. Certainly nothing will get done without all of the D caucus and some moderate R's.

    If my memory serves me correct, the majority is 51-49 in the Senate. Assuming enough votes were lined up to pass an article of impeachment in the House, there would be a need for several Republicans in the Senate. And remember that 51 includes Senator Johnson (who is still absent and recovering from his medical problems) and Lieberman (who is for all intensive purposes a Republican). Therefore your talking about finding 18 Republicans out of 49 to vote to impeach either Bush or Cheney.

    Personally, I like Feingold's centure resolution as a better option. No, it's not impeachment and yes I do think Bush and Cheney are criminals and should be removed. Is it feasible? I think if you are really reading this closely then then answer is no.

    So to recap, my feeling is:

    1) Defund the war, bring the troops home

    2) Centure both Bush and Cheney

    Now if anyone wants to make a non-snarky reply feel free.

    Ps-Someone mentioned Drinking Liberally. I was also there last night as well.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey, David. That was me, across from you to the left of Carla at the end of the table. I know where i'm gonna be every first and third Friday for the next while...

  • (Show?)

    It's funny the arguement I made above was before I read this article which says some of the same stuff. Here's a link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201767.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    for more on that take a look at my post over on....

    http://www.oregonbluestorm.blogspot.com

  • (Show?)

    EBT,

    Ok, now I know who to slap.

    just kidding

    All joking aside, it was nice to FINALLY meet Carla. I was beginning to think she was a ghost.

    David

  • (Show?)

    David, if you think that you can trust Bush to work with Congress to end the war while he's still in office, then of course impeachment is not a priority. Ending the war should come before that, no matter how many transgressions against his authority he has made.

    On the other hand, if -- like myself -- you think Bush will do everything in his power to delay an end to the war while he's in office, and you think that he might further push into a war with Iraq, and that he might find even more ways to screw this country up between now and January 2009, then an attempt at removing him from office to bring an earlier end to the war and prevent other disasters is sort of like a Constitutional equivalent of bridge maintenance. Do it now before the thing collapses.

    The thing missing from a censure resolution is hearings. Hearings in the Nixon impeachment process took place over two months. In hearings, a case is made for conviction by testimony and the uncovering of evidence. That doesn't happen for a censure resolution. Nor does a censure resolution have any weight. It doesn't actually do anything.

  • (Show?)

    Darrel,

    No I don't trust Bush farther then I could throw him (which in my current physical state would be possibly off the sidewalk). My thought is (and I'm sure you see my point because this is what the people pushing impeachment are trying to do) that there is going to be a larger groundswell of support (yes I know the polls, but let's forget those for a second) toward actually doing something (taking action) rather then a small minority of people screaming about it.

    In some respects, I find myself on the fence about impeachment. Over at my blog I posted a link(and I think I linked it here as well) to a Washington Post piece where the author said that impeachment is probably the stupidest thing the Democrats can do at this point (unfortunately I picked the worst time to post since Lefty Blogs was down and thus I'm sure no one saw my post). I honestly find myself agreeing with the author of that article. While there's nothing more then I'd like to see then both Bush and Cheney skewered (no I wouldn't eat them), my line of thinking is that the Democrats in Congress need to get serious about ending the war, no matter what it takes.

    Whether or not you or I see impeachment as a consititual means is irrelevent. The fact is that much like the impeachment of Clinton, it will be seen as a political act.

    I have no problem with impeachment being an option, the problem I have is with it being made the ONLY option.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One way to get Republican support for impeachment: make the impeachment about abuse of power and reigning in the executive. After all, if Bush gets away with all this stuff, we're essentially handing vastly increased presidential powers to all of his successors. Pose the question to Republicans: do you want President Hillary Clinton to wield all of this power? Because if you declare that the President has not exceeded his authority by doing all this stuff (by opposing impeachment or removal from office), you're giving the next President a blank check to continue.

    Forget "crimes" and focus on "misdemeanors" and abuse of power. And publicly, keep up pressure on Republicans by making the discussion as much about the next Democratic president as the current Republican one.

  • Illuminatus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    djk said: "...it's in the interest of the Republicans to get this particular albatross off their necks. But if they don't (and I'm sure they won't) they'll have to go on record as saying that orchestrating an administration-wide conspiracy to mislead Congress on national security issues is not an impeachable offense. It's pretty easy to spin that at election time as 'Bush lied to start a war and Senator Smith says that's okay.'"

    This can also be the spin of non-corporate parties if Democrats refuse to impeach, such as, "Blumenauer and Wyden say it's okay that Bush lied to start a war" or "Hooley and Wu say it's okay that Cheney committed crimes against humanity."

    Which would be equally true.

  • (Show?)

    David, after a couple of years of talking to people about impeachment, I've heard just about all of the ideas and considerations people new to the conversation seem to be discovering as if they were new flowers blossoming from a fresh cow pattie.

    Tomasky may not be the person you want to turn to for accurate prediction. Here he is from March 2003, just a few days after the invasion of Iraq (my emphasis):

    This may sound self-evident, but it feels like it needs saying because I'm picking up, as I browse some of the liberal Web sites and follow the protest actions, a certain "Aha!" mentality with regard to the alleged "quagmire" that now looms. The mentality is understandable on one level. To a considerable extent the hawks' credibility hangs heavily on a smashing and quick success. No reputation is more on the line than that of Donald Rumsfeld, who has spent the better part of the last year and a half pooh-poohing the career brass in the Pentagon and its quaint 20th-century ways. Seeing Rumsfeld and all his allies taken down a notch is a tempting thing to hope for, to say nothing of the more important fact that a quick success in Iraq will go some distance toward greasing the skids for Iran, North Korea or wherever they decide should come next. But it's wrong to think this way, and not merely for the obvious reason that such a view amounts to hoping for more death and agony. First of all, the use of the word "quagmire" after five days is preposterous. Vietnam became a quagmire after about three and a half years. This war, even with the Iraqis displaying a stiffer upper lip than we'd been led to believe they would -- and even with the prospect of house-to-house combat in Baghdad -- is very unlikely to take more than three and a half months. (If it somehow should, I'd venture that George W. Bush will be in deep political trouble.) Besides which, one should not have opposed the Vietnam War because it became a quagmire. One should have opposed the 1965 escalation, if not the 1961 mini-escalation in the number of "advisers," on principle. Now, as then, concerns about a "quagmire" reflect a response to circumstances -- is the war going poorly or well? -- rather than an expression of principled belief. So there will not, in all likelihood, be a quagmire.

    And that was from a guy who was against the invasion, supposedly.

    Most people were predicting a quagmire at the time not because things were briefly bogged down on the drive to Baghdad. They were predicting a quagmire in the long term because we were invading a country of 25 million people with no clear strategy for succession and a new government.

    People did oppose the Vietnam war on principle before (in Tomasky's opinion, about 1968) it became a quagmire. People protested the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. There were protests throughout the Johnson/Humphrey portion of the war ("Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?") Martin Luther King spoke out against the war in 1967 on moral and ethical grounds as well as on the right of a people to self-determination.

    So I'm not particularly impressed by Tomasky's prognostication or his historical knowledge.

    Tomasky's view of impeachment doesn't take into account information that would be exposed at the hearings or trial. He's presenting the case as if the vote would be taken immediately, without any case being made against Bush and Cheney that would build pressure on reluctant legislators to remove them from office.

    But forgive me if I don't share your appreciation of the quality of Tomasky's judgment.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someone sent me the link to this Frank Rich column. The title and a quote from it are below. Seems like a good contribution to this discussion. Rove has left and perhaps it is time to work hard on taking advantage of 21st century ways of changing people's way of thinking and of campaigning rather than just yelling in frustration at elected officials willing to appear in person in these days when that has become increasingly rare.

    http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19rich.html?ex=1187668800&en=7ca560e05d77c85e&ei=5121&emc=eta1

    Op-Ed Columnist He Got Out While the Getting Was Good By FRANK RICH Published: August 19, 2007 .................

    The rise of YouTube certifies the passing of Mr. Rove's era, a cultural changing of the guard in the digital age. Mr. Rove made his name in direct-mail fund-raising and with fierce top-down message management. As the Internet erodes snail mail, so it upends direct mail. As YouTube threatens a politician's ability to rigidly control a message, so it threatens the Rove ethos that led Mr. Bush to campaign at "town hall" meetings attended only by hand-picked supporters.

    It's no coincidence that this new culture is also threatening the Beltway journalistic establishment that celebrated Mr. Rove's invincibility well past its expiration date (much as it did James Carville's before him), extolling what Joshua Green, in his superb new Rove article in The Atlantic, calls the Cult of the Consultant. The YouTube video of Mr. Rove impersonating a rapper at one of those black-tie correspondents' dinners makes the Washington press corps look even more antediluvian than he is.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon