Todd, I think you're exactly right.

I want revenge, too. I'd love to see Bush and Cheney impeached. They deserve it and the Republicans deserve it.

But impeachment seeks to overturn election results and I can never get behind that. Also, it does martyr the impeached. And make no mistake, that will happen here. We impeach Bush now we'll be reading about "Democratic extremists" for years to come. Though, as I type that, I realize that we'll be called "extremists" for years to come anyway. So, I'll drop the martyr angle and just oppose impeachment on the first principle -- you don't use a criminal proceeding to overturn an election. That's just wrong.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Of what good is a Constitution if the people sworn to uphold it do not? Fein is right: impeachment is not bad government - it's the remedy for bad government.

Aggrhhh! You list various reasons why Bush and Cheney should be impeached but then talk about "venegance" feeling good as if putting it on record that all those high crimes and misdeamnors against the state should be verboten is some sort of Dirty Harry move.

The citation to Bruce Fein -- the last person that word brings to mind -- is fitting in this respect. Toss in John Nichols. Neither is concerned primarily about "venegance" as if this is some childish move of pique. I second as well those who note we should just remove impeachment out of the C. if this is how we are going to act. If we are going to worry about "overturning an election." Clearly, impeachment -- except for election fraud (well...) -- is illegitimate!

The constitutional spirit that is req. for impeachment to work doesn't seem blatantly a threat to the Dems. Polls suggests the people are open to idea of it being "on the table." How about for Gonzo? At least the impeachment of Cheney was raised (in fact, Kucinch so moved), so we don't have the "Pres. Cheney" canard.

Likewise, impeachment does address various other issues. It is a clear message sent about what is illegitate in the war on terra (tm), e.g., torture and lying us into war. Likewise, I'd like some sign that w/o impeachment something serious would be done about that subject before worrying about Congress not being about to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Or, did Congress grind to a halt in 1973-74? I was pretty young at the time, but I sorta don't think it did. The move itself also helped the ball get to rolling. But, even w/o conviction, impeachment matters. In criminal trials, conviction isn't always possible, but the move is still made often enough.

And, Clinton's impeachment was a blow to the Dems too ... the failure of removal was really a Pyrhhic victory in the long run, since the people were so disgusted with the Rs, that they made it close enough to make Fl. and B v. G. matter.

This is not to say i. necessarily is sound here. It just means I wish the opposition had better reasoning.

~

Or, did Congress grind to a halt in 1973-74? I was pretty young at the time, but I sorta don't think it did.

Nope ... and that's exactly why I'm still a very, very active CITIZEN. The Congress was not only able to chew gum and walk, but they could walk up a flight of stairs at the same time in those days. Of course they weren't quite as busy back then as the present representatives, wining and dining the big bucks crowd for re-election donations.

~OGD~

(DOB: 09/04/46)

Impeachment was included in the Constitution by people who were afraid of an executive with too much power. They had faith that the leaders of the people would not become so debased that they would put the interests of a political party above the interests of the people in arresting the power of a corrupt executive.

Also remember that the executive was not directly elected in the original Constitution, but selected by representatives of the various states' governors, in consultation with the states' representatives. The executive served Congress, and they could depose him if necessary. The entire structure of the Constitution was crafted to concentrate power in the States and in the representatives of the people closest to the people, and away from the executive.

The framers believed that Senators would be persons of great wisdom, statesmen who believed in the ultimate purpose of the Constitution to prevent dictatorship. The House would be the body most rapidly influenced by the changing interests of the people, with Representatives serving terms of only two years. When the mood of the people changed, the House would be where that change would first be expressed. The Senators were given six-year terms and power to temper the passions of the people, but the guiding principles of the Senate's power would be the Constitution and the interests of their states.

Now we are represented by people like my House member, Heather Wilson of New Mexico, and my Senator, Pete Domenici. Papa Pete chose to use his influence as a Senator to sway the direction of federal investigations into bribery (by the way, a deserving and appropriate cause given the corruption endemic to NM's construction industry), but he did so in a way that was part of a larger, politically-motivated scheme decidely NOT in the interests of his constituents.

Wilson is a former USAF officer who has twice sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, apparently without comprehending the full ramifications of her oaths. As the people of her district clamor for an end to the mess her party has created, she continues to toe the party line. As the people in her district call for investigation into the claimed justifications for war, she backs legislation to eliminate token judicial oversight from an already disregarded surveillance program, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

As do the Democrats.

As long as the leadership of the Democratic Party is more concerned with maintaining a tenuous grasp on the reins of Congress, rather than with reining in an executive bent on total control of the government, with a rubber-stamp Congress and an "anti-activist" SCOTUS to cover their tracks, they frankly don't deserve to have that power any more than the Republicans.

So yes, impeachment is a tool of limited utility, because it only has power in the hands of people who truly believe in the system of government they have sworn to uphold.

Unfortunately those people are sadly lacking today.

Martyr the impeached? Like Nixon you mean?

The line about "overturning the election results" is a load of crap too. What exactly would the President have to do for you to support impeachment? I mean, if the President murdered someone on live TV, impeachment would still "overturn the election results" so presumably you'd still be against it? That's no argument.

So far, the Democrats have just rolled over for Bush every time. Why should anyone vote for such a useless party?

Todd,
Once again you have captured how thoroughly politics drives the national agenda and how thoroughly antithetical the political scheme is to the general well being of the country. Republicans heralded in this scheme under Newt Gingrich, with Bush and Cheney refining it to a high art. Its inconceiveable that we would find ourselves at a juncture where our laws are simply ignored because the political makeup of congress prohibits their enforcement. I find it sadly laughable when I hear any politician, especially republicans, commenting on the ethical or moral decay of our nation. You can't express the absurdity of this in words. I would imagine someone could write a broadway play that is a political satire of this and make zillions. The only problem would be choosing from the wealth of available material. I would suggest the title 'W'. Or maybe for satirical purposes 'WC'. Yeah. I like that. The duality is cool.

There are very, very few circumstances where I'd support impeaching any president. Frankly, I think we should get rid of impeachment almost entirely a move towards something like a confidence vote that could result in a new election.

It's kind of like Jefferson's freezer. He was re-elected to his post even when people knew what he'd done. I don't believe that you can tell a group of people that they can't vote for a criminal if they want to.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I suspect you approve of what these criminals tried to do or you would not be trying to be a voice of reason to save their worthless hides. I suspect you also are an advocate of buisness as usual except slicker under the Democratic half of the establishment duopoly.

Can you mean that?  Do you think Mr. Gitlin is surreptitiously a pro-Gitmo, coordinate construction devotee who thinks that waterboarding isn't a war crime after all?  Or is this just a 'both parties are corporate shills' kind of general rant?

Aside from that, you make a good enough point. 

August 7, 2007

Dear Todd,

I am convinced that we have already lived through a revolution. The American republic, its democracy, and constitution have been peacefully surrendered. We have had a coup d’etat. Current discourse obscures the best appropriate way to describe our current government. It is, in fact, an imperium, a dictatorship, or a fascist state, certainly no longer a republican democracy. By this I mean we already have a form of government where concerns of individual citizens and all social values are subservient to the power and ideology of the state. The ideology and behavior of our country now is to elevate and magnify the power of the corporate sector, especially international finance, the military industrial complex, and the energy i.e. oil sectors. The conservative fundamentalist Christian right has been adopted and cynically used as the base for the mass movement to support the revolution. The pertinent facts which are generally known and all I am really doing is connecting the dots:

(1) George W. Bush won his first election without a voting majority due to an unprecedented, probably unnecessary for resolution of the election, and widely understood to be philosophically anomalous decision of the Supreme Court.
(2) George W. Bush won election in 2004 in a process which had many questionable inadequacies and activities by Republican partisans. These included voting machine vulnerabilities, illegal jamming of Democratic vote organizing phone lines in New Hampshire which lost a Democratic Senate seat, caging of democratically leaning voters (i.e. Jews and Negroes) in at least five states, mal-structuring of electoral procedures at least in Ohio, tactical pre-election fraud accusations by US Attorneys, and loss of ballots preventing retrospective auditing.
(3) After 9/11 President Bush proclaimed a “War on Terror,” a conceptual maximum inflation of how to handle the situation, which allowed him to assume the mantle of Commander in Chief in a “war” that we come to find has no geographic boundaries (specifically including all of the United States and all of its citizens in the theater of combat), no foreseeable end, and no available command structure or state over which victory could be proclaimed. Furthermore while war was proclaimed no contribution nor participation was ever demanded of the general economy or the general public. In fact taxes were cut; social life as usual was encouraged; no national military manufacturing plan was created, and most importantly no military draft was instituted. This last policy both saved the President from a Viet Nam style quick public backlash and condemned him to anemic military unable to ever establish basic security in Iraq.
(4) After 9/11 the President invaded Iraq, at the most only a peripheral participant in issues that impacted the United States, on what are evidently trumped up if not false pretenses with the following favorable consequences for our new corporate fascist state: billions of dollars in military and “reconstruction” payments to favored multinational corporations, access (and initially expected, outright ownership) of major oil fields, the creation of a huge mercenary private army (there are at least 50,000 private militia among 150,000 private contractors in Iraq today), destruction of morale and leadership in our traditional military, and a pretext for the President to accrue more power and discretion. The accrued police powers of the federal government and the return of these mercenary soldiers to domestic shores with their private command structure intact may end up being a greater homeland threat than Islamic terrorists.
(5) The articulate policy of the Republicans generally and this Administration in particular is to let the basic economic, safety, supervisory, regulatory, integrative, social and civic responsibilities of government wither away (i.e. Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security and its total avoidance of any promotion of civil rights, protection of the environment, or regulation of finance capital or communications), to promote the “free market” (which is a euphemism for exploitive economic behavior), and to promote business and corporate values. The major tragedy in this regard has been the ongoing malicious neglect of the people of New Orleans after the hurricane. Generally this political philosophy has resulted in the squeeze on the middle class and the huge income growth of the very wealthy, resulting in greater economic inequality among our citizens than any time since the Gilded Age.
(6) Yet during all this the Administration felt it was appropriate to bring the full force of national Executive and Legislative government in extraordinary session to bear to overturn a Judiciary decision which supported one man’s decision about to manage his wife’s health care.
(7) Manipulative, dominating control of Congress allowed passage of laws which have invalidated the basic Constitutional rights. Specifically this involves the right to the due process of law (habeas corpus). Under the sole discretion of the President the Patriot Act can be applied to any designated citizen and not just Guantanamo prisoners and non-citizen terrorists. Under another law control of the national guard can be federalized, placed under military command and martial law proclaimed at the sole discretion of the President (elimination of the posse comitatus laws). Additionally, as is now evident, the President has initiated what amounts to multiple extrajudicial procedures for gathering information on citizens without due process of law. President Bush has also issued an Executive Order allowing the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to confiscate private property of any citizen (and that of his wife and children) without any further due process of law once the President identifies him as supporting or contributing to terrorism. As an example for you medical people, I hope you are aware that if Homeland Security declares anyone (citizen or not) a terrorist risk, the FBI can come into your office (without a warrant) and review and seize that individual’s medical records AND you will be in criminal violation of the law if you tell anyone about this occurrence. (Librarians have protested this more than any medical organization has.) Finally it is clear that in violation of international law and our own domestic values and precedent, individuals can be incarcerated at hidden sites (“extraordinary rendition”), denied access to lawyers or any legal system for unlimited periods of time, and tortured without any civil mechanism to intervene.
(8) The Department of Justice has been politicized to the extent that alleged voter fraud, illegal immigration, and political vendettas have clearly taken precedence over such core domestic issues as the biggest bribery of a Congressman ever, legal sanction and financial punishment of the fraudulent behavior of both big tobacco companies and pharmaceutical firms, minority civil rights, environmental and occupational safety, among other issues. The Department of Justice has undertaken to question the tax exempt status of liberal churches for their political speech, while ignoring the many fundamentalist congregations involved in political action. Clearly career Department of Justice employees have been hired, promoted (or not promoted), and received awards based on brazenly narrow (and illegal criteria.) Finally the President and Vice President continue to imperially refuse to be or to allow their staff, former staff, or records be subject to Congressional oversight in these (or any other matters).
(9) Through brazen obfuscation and political manipulation, the Supreme Court which was already so derelict in its Constitutional role as to assume responsibility for anointing a President, has been reenforced in its undemocratic values by the addition of two new members. In one short term it has sharply veered away from well established Supreme Court case precedent in area of personal and medical control of abortion, civil rights and desegregation, and corporate discretion. You will not be surprised to learn, although it was not well noted at the time, that Chief Justice John Roberts contributed or accrued his values and perspective as an assistant to Fred Fielding (currently the White House Counsel who is defending George W. Bush’s “Unitary Presidency” and “Executive Privilege”) when Mr. Fielding provided the same service to Presidents Nixon and Reagan when they were under Constitutional scrutiny. Although the Supreme Court has restrained the Military Tribunal Law, it is less than certain that the Court will further impede many of President Bush’s clearly unconstitutional assumptions of power.
(10) Irregardless of the due process of law, the President has chosen to intervene to pardon Mr. I. Lewis Libby, the only government official in this Administration who has in any way been held legally culpable and accountable for this Administration’s habit and practice of operating outside the law.

These ten items are well known through main stream media and until recently I, like most others, was content to let time, Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, and the rest of the Democratic Congress and an eventual election exert their corrective action even while President Bush firmly resists their inquiries, bringing the Constitutional crisis to a head. Then two items, one theoretical and one factual, focused my thinking to conclude that the coup has already happened and perhaps the push for impeachment is too late and waiting for an election is unwise. Furthermore, I realized that most discussion of ongoing contemporary events and planning actions to resolve these problems, even by sophisticated people, elected officials among them, is wholly inadequate. It is important to advance the frame of analysis, comment, and action to account for the fact that our form of government has likely been permanently changed and harmed.

(1) Theoretically, lean back, close your eyes and try to contemplate that (with the horribly low polling approval of the President and the Republican Party generally and in the absence of any credible Republican nominee for President in the 2008 election,) the Machiavellis who brought the Administration this far outside the box would peacefully surrender these extreme new found powers to, say, Hillary Clinton in an open fair election. They have been honing their election tilting skills in two Presidential elections. Or contemplate what domestic steps our greatly empowered President would take to create or react to new terrorist tragedies within the United States or instabilities in the Middle East.

(2) Then, I said to myself, the only thing lacking for the full expression of this new imperious national government is the application of these new extra-Constitutional powers through military or police force against common American citizens. Then I found out about Operation FALCON, coordinated if not directed by Alberto Gonsalez. This is the factual keystone for the final creation of the fascist state and has not been well covered in main stream media. There have been three FALCON Operations: “I” covered the whole United States from April 4-10, 2005, involved 3,100 peace officers from 959 agencies from all levels of government and resulted in 10,340 arrests; “II” covered half of the USA from April 17-23, 2006 and involved 2,126 officers from 787 agencies and resulted in 9,030 arrests; “III” covered the Eastern 24 states from October 22-28, 2006 and involved 3,100 officers from 1045 agencies and resulted in 10,753 arrests. Among the 30,000 arrests, major catagories of crime included drug offenses, child pornography and other sex offenders, gang related offenses, and homicides, in sum producing about one third of the arrests. I am as glad as anyone to see these criminals taken off the streets. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to see these task forces as training exercises or dry runs for massive interagency coordinated police actions against other target groups, such as citizens who may want to protest possible future deviations from the American Constitution. You may want to read U.S. Attorney General Gonzales’ remarks to the U.S. Marshals Service Award Ceremony on Wednesday April 20, 2005 at 3:00 pm. He said, “Operation FALCON is just the beginning....We have much to do.” and he goes on to the application of this massive interagency police technique against terrorists. It is, in fact, a mechanism already prepared to establish marshal law. In all the Congressional inquiries into the Attorney General’s activities which often questions his competence, his responsibility for and successful management of this complex operation has been overlooked.

In short, I am connecting these dots to point out that time is short, the usual courses of action may be inadequate. If these observations, taken together, are not remedied by impeachment of the President and Vice President what contingency plans must we have to deal with the national government as it already has become a government routinely operating outside Constitutional bounds? The paradigm has already changed and we must start developing sophisticated responses and means of resistence. Discussion of these issues MUST rise to a vibrant level of discourse among us and throughout the land, especially in the 2008 Presidential debates. Wake up America!

P.S. For further validation read Matthew Rothchild’s new book “YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS: America in an Age of Repression” which contains 82 cases of violation of individuals’ Constitutional rights by officials of the government since 2001.

Those who are so gung ho about impeachment haven't explained how the Democrats are going to rein-in Bush or Cheney using impeachment, since the GOP won't allow a conviction.

If the GOP won't even vote for perjury charges against Gonzales or for any measure that would pressure Bush into firing him, or vote to end a war that is worse than useless (actually harming American security), then you will not get them to vote for impeachment.

Impeaching Bush (and/or Cheney) without a conviction reins-in no one and the GOP is not going to convict.

Impeachment doesn't stop the war.

Impeachment doesn't stop the assault on American civil liberties.

Impeachment doesn't stop the bleeding at the DOJ.

Impeachment doesn't stop the loss of American lives in Iraq.

Impeachment doesn't stop torture, warrantless electronic surveillance, or any other abuse of power by the Bush administration, because YOU CAN'T CONVICT.

Impeachment would be a rhetorical statement only, without any effect whatsoever on presidential excess, either by the current or a future president.

Indeed, an unsuccessful impeachment (one without a conviction, which is a given) would merely embolden Bush and future presidents, not "rein them in."

As for impeachment being useless, one must consider that the current situation exists in a time of war, whether we like it or not, and that constitutes special circumstances that makes it difficult to get defections from the other side who cannot abandon the president without abandoning their own positions on the war.

Nixon proved that bipartisan impeachment is a valid and attainable option, when the circumstances merit.

They do not here, again whether you like it or not.

"The flaw in Gitlin's otherwise excellent reasoning is this: as the Democrats continue to make ineffectual political calculations, the impeachment movement grows, and it does Democrats, Congress and the country no good to address impeachment as being politically unwise or impossible."

So we should, like Bush, cater to the base by engaging in ineffectual political grandstanding so we can say "we hear you and we care," regardless of the actual consequences to the country?

Well, that pretty much sounds like the SOP of the Bush administration - don't weigh the costs or the practicalities, but merely do whatever will generate a positive response with the base and give you political cover with the most vocal of your supporters; do whatever you can stand up and say was the "right thing to do" (now, where have we heard that before?).

Impeachment ain't gonna happen because the Democrat party is too weak in the knees to stand up for itself, never mind principles of any kind.

The problem with the 2008 election is that my only choices are Republicanazis and Dem-O-crats.

Given what the Democrat party just did with surveillance, what difference will it make whether I vote in 2008. (And until now, I have never missed an opportunity to vote. But at the moment, it's clearly futile.)

D=R

Todd, I am fully in favor of impeachment, for the many reasons you listed, illegal wiretaps, etc.

The vengeance card is actually unfair, and hurts your argument. No one "hates Bush," just like no one "hates America." People who are are against Bush, or are in favor of impeachment, take that stand for very principled reasons, not vengeance or personal hatred.

But all that said, while I'm in favor of impeachment, I have been very recently convinced it does not matter. Impeachment is a dead end.

Why?

Because the Democrats are *incapable* of pulling it off.

Their failure to end the war, I can almost understand. Votes and all, the Lieberman factor...

But this recent FISA vote -- in which *more* power was given to the Attorney General, yes, the same AG that they all said committed perjury and was unfit to hold office -- was, for me, the last straw.

I am convinced the Democrats just won't do it, no matter how much We The People demand it.

Half of the country now supports impeaching Bush, half supports impeaching Cheney, 75% against the war...and it's all meaningless right now.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I don't see, politically, how you even talk about impeaching Gonzales, when you just confirmed his role, and gave him even more authority. 

I'd say start small: impeach Gonzalez. That bursts the dam. The resulting torrent of revelations may not sweep away Bush & Cheney, but it will leave them up to their necks in sewerage of their own making & totally discredited. It should also clear out many of their subordinate enablers. Otherwise, like the zombies of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the likes of Goodling, Feith, Addington, Schlotzman, & Sampson will resurface in some future Republican administration to take up where they left off (like the Iran-Contra finaglers squirelled away throughout this administration). A question--- once out of office is there any way to hold Bush & Cheney accountable for their acts while in office ? I suppose, if it were possible, it would have to be through the courts, but how ?

"Impeachment ain't gonna happen because the Democrat party is too weak in the knees to stand up for itself, never mind principles of any kind."

Sure, getting a boatload of corrupt administration officials to resign after 6 years of no oversight by the GOP Congress, is "weak-kneed."

Not.

In principle, removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

In practice, it was neither warranted, given the balance of benefits versus the disadvantages, necessary, or achievable with any measure of ultimate success.

In principle, impeachment and conviction are the right things to do; in practice, even if the former happens, the latter will not through no fault of the Democrats.

Pursuing accountability through impeachment in this instance is no less simple-minded than pursuing peace in the Middle East and the destruction of the root causes of terrorism through the invasion of Iraq.

" . . . what difference will it make whether I vote in 2008."

If you truly believe that there is no difference whatsoever between the oversight that the Democratic Congress is undertaking and what the GOP Congress undertook or between the policies that the Democratic Congress is pursuing and those pursued by the GOP Congress, then I would have to say you are delusional.

This demand for perfection in accomplishment and lockstep agreement on issues in the politicians one supports is the epitome of arrogance and self-absorbtion and a prescription for the same type of party loyalty that we see in the Bush administration.

No thanks.

But impeachment is one those apparently golden ideas that tarnish in the bright light of day. Take consequences into account and you too will be concerned, like Michael Tomasky in yesterday's WP, lest an apparent short cut to justice turn into a dead end.

i just can't disagree with this statement any more vehemently.

first off, impeachment is not an "idea". it's not something that you plan, or only undertake when it suits your political agenda. it is a constitutional standard that is required of congress. it is, essentially, law. to not impeach a president who has committed crimes is unconstitutional.

we do not take the constitution when it suits us and ignore it when it does not suit us. we take it as it is: the written code by which we govern our nation.

all this namby pamby nonsense about impeachment not being the right thing to do, or not being politically expedient, is the kind of stuff that drivels out of the mouths of people who don't have faith in our country, its laws, and its system of justice.

you impeach the president because he broke the law. that's it. that's the only "standard" that needs to be met. not some nebulous standard of "will it backfire on us in 08" or other such nonsense.

If we could get public financing of campaigns and thus get the influence of big money out of them things would be different.

Tom

This is because some Democrats such as Bob Casey are almost as dopey as the Republicans.

Tom

Good summary. Sounds like op-ed material to me.

Tom

After reading more of the comments on this page, i have another point to make.

The comments posted here are an example of why the Dems are virtually a powerless majority (I apoligize in advance for the crass remark) We have no balls!

Many of the comments above focus on what would happen if impeachment failed. It is a defeatist attitude. Failure should not be a concern. Failure to act is the big concern. Failure of the process after it has been engaged has innumerable explanations that would not hurt us politcally. For instance, one possible effect of a failure to impeach after taking up the process would be similar to a failed criminal prosecution -- the failure to win a conviction in a criminal prosecution does not legitimize behavior like a failure to prosecute because - failing to obtain a conviction may only mean that the evidence was not strong enough to succeed. (i.e. we failed because we could not overcome ridiculous claims of executive privilege, state secrets, which is exactly why we took impeachment up in the first place.etc.)

However, not even trying to impeach means that we have already lost this country. Think about it -- we won't even engage (or are afraid of engaging) the process contained in the constitution to rebuke and remove OUTLAWS - for fear that we won't succeed. (And we're not even in a country where this requires risking life and limb. )

We are in a fight for this country and thankfully it has been political and legal without actual violence - but at what point does this change? When our elected officials in congress fail to use the processes in the constitution to enforce the checks and balances?

I submit that if we don't impeach under the current circumstances then we may be far down the road that ultimately leads to physical confrontations because the constitution appear to to be meaningless to both the executive and legislative branches.

What are the latest poll numbers on the percentage of Americans who support the impeachment of Bush? Cheney?

Tom

*

How does NOT impeaching stop the war?

How does NOT impeaching stop the assault on American civil liberties?

How does NOT impeaching stop the bleeding at the DOJ?

How does NOT impeaching stop the loss of American lives in Iraq?

How does NOT impeacing stop torture, warrantless electronic surveillance, or any other abuse of power by the Bush administration?

I think these are all red herrings. How does the current "math" of the Senate make impeachment the wrong thing to do?

Do you think the Founders considered the "math" when they started the revolution, and signed the Declaration of Independence? Do you think they thought this was a "sure thing"?? I don't think so. I think they thought it was the right thing to do, and it had to be done, whether or not it worked out in the end.

That's how I feel about impeachment.

-- ARG

If you strike the king, you must kill the king.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

I disagree. You have acknowledged that these people deserve impeachment and have gone so far as to cite high crimes and misdemeanors, then advocated doing nothing for fear of making Bush sympathetic to voters. That kind of thinking may be pragmatic, bit it subordinates the Constitution to politics, and that's just plain wrong.

It is oversimplifying, of course, to suggest comparison to violent criminals, but if you fear O.J. will be found not guilty, or if you feel he may be made a sympathetic character to some, do you simply choose not to try him for murder?

At any rate, did impeachment make Clinton sympathetic? I think not. The problem here is that we have failed to explain fully to the public the nature of the misdeeds that would result in impeachment now, whereas everyone repeatedly heard and saw clips of Clinton lying to the cameras or prevaricating over the meaning of "is". We can blame that on the press, but part of the problem is a weak (or lazy) opposition, one that has yet to articulate the need for impeachment or advocate for it.

Finally, impeachment must be made viable first, It can never happen as long as people (especially those like you who understand its merits) dismiss the idea for the sake of expediency.

The Tomasky article Gitlin referenced states that it was 45% for Bush in July 2007 and 54% for Cheney in the same month.

Hardly overwhelming numbers, particularly since this is before any real GOP PR counter attack which will start the minute the Democrats get serious about impeachment.

Apples and oranges. Iraq was rationalized by lies and deception, impeachment would be justified by exploration and exposure of lies, deception, and corruption. Iraq was a lie, impeachment is justice. There is a difference.

=== It doesn't in and of itself, but Congress is also not wasting time on efforts that are doomed to failure, taking time away from efforts that ARE effective, such as forcing the resignation of numerous corrupt administration officials, uncovering for the public instances of corruption and malfeasance, ===

sPh

Sounds like something a king came up with to me.

I hope your blind trust in their successors is justified, because the law mean nothing in this scenario.

It's also before the impeachment process, which could make those numbers higher.

See, I can play that game, too.

No one pay any attention to Todd Gitlin. Despite the Raoul Duke-style photo, he sees himself as a floating conscience of the left and is here in his historical role of policing its alleged excesses. If impeachment is "off the table," we're all that much more respectable. The instinct is protective, but the result is the opposite. If the only incentives for Bush crowd's good behavior are ruled out as a matter of course, whether they are pursued or not (and no, impeachment is not going to happen, everyone has to face that) then we're all in that much more danger.

You know what's funny? How the very same people who are in favor of a weak and ineffectual Democratic policies are so indignant that anyone might possibly do such a terrible thing as voting for the Green party.

Memo to Dem strategists: Your party has to deserve to be elected. And that will take action, not just empty talk.

On point 4, you seem to forget that many of those who oppose the impeachment of Bush & Cheney also oppose the impeachment of Gonzales or Rice. It's not that they oppose this impeachment at this time for this President...it's that they oppose all impeachments. They oppose the tool of impeachment itself.

And I find that idiotic and disgusting.

More stupid advice for Democrats.

Shorter Todd Gitlin: Don't do the right thing, or you'll face consequences.

Pretty dumb advice to give to Congressional Democrats whose approval is tanked precisely because they are not raining in the "Mayberry Machiavellis" hard enough.

Exactly what would Republicans need to do in order to merit starting impeachment proceedings?

Americans want their constitutionally based government back!

I keep coming back to two questions:

1. If not this President and Vice President, then whom?
2. If these actions don't consist of high crimes and misdemeanors, then what actions do?

These make me think that the impeachment article might as well be revoked if it isn't used now.  Caligula is dead, last I heard.

I confess to not being up on my New York liberals, so I went to find out a little more about Michael Tomasky.  His arguments here may be "cogent"...but his arguments across his career of helping us distinguish between goodthink and badthink seem less so.  Here's some advice from 2002:

Why the news from Iraq poses a moral dilemma for Bush-bashing Democrats

But today there’s a glaring moral catch: Bad news is likely to take the form of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, as it does daily. And who can cheer for that?

No one can, and no one does. And yet, let’s be honest: Where is the anti-Bush Democrat who doesn’t guiltily sneak a nervous glance at the latest poll numbers to make sure, with an approving harrumph, that the problems in Iraq are reflecting badly on the incumbent? The moral dilemma here is clear, and vexing. A Dow Jones slump is one thing; one can quietly chortle over that without ever being tapped on the shoulder by one’s pesky conscience. But loss of life and catastrophic policy failure with potential consequences reaching deep into the future are, you know, serious things.

 

Happily, there is a guilt-free interpretation. First of all, hoping that Bush will pay the ultimate political price for the problems in Iraq is a legitimate partisan yearning. But it’s also, it can be argued, a legitimate moral one: After all, he started the nastiness. He suited up to declare victory just as, it turns out, the war’s second phase was beginning. And then he foolishly—incredibly, actually—said “Bring ’em on” when questioned about the attacks on U.S. soldiers back in July. So maybe it’s not liberals’ consciences that should be guilty here.

Can anyone split a hair with more finesse?

And there's this:

After the war, what’s a good New York liberal to do—much less to think?

Was opposing the war wrong? Yes, if you opposed it because you thought it would become a quagmire. But not necessarily—so far at least—if you opposed it because you weren’t buying the whole weapons-of-mass-destruction thing. Yes, if you opposed it just because you despise Dubya and haven’t forgotten Florida. No, or maybe not, or it’s too early to tell—or something—if you feared that the administration would prove more adept at the un-building than the rebuilding.

Being a liberal who opposed the war and is now questioning that stance is tough enough. But over the long haul, it may be even harder for the liberal who supported it.

Hamlet would have been proud of this soliloquy

So why this? 

Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake -- the only thing they could do that might, in one stroke, convert Bush from the figure of contempt and mockery he is now into one of vague sympathy. Just as bad, it's the one move that would definitively alienate nonideological voters and, therefore, harm the Democrats' otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008. And that's just what impeachment would do to the Democrats. Even worse is what it would do to liberalism and to the country. (My emphasis).

No splitting of hairs here, no Hamletic uncertainty.  Tablets of stone come down from the mountain, engraved with holy writ instead, and all in the name of a theoretic political expediency.  I suppose I should be impressed, but my liberal guilt won't let me be, and there's too much Hamlet in my own character to accept either Mr. Gitlin or Mr. Tomasky on this one.

aMike

Democrats won't impeach Bush or Cheney for one simple reason, they fear for their seats. Nancy Pelosi made a monumental political blunder when she said Impeachment is off the table. Pelosi gave Bush a blank check to add to the blank chek he's already written to himself.

Political cover your ass votes cause more harm to this country than the Bush gang does because its these kind of votes that enable the Bush evil empire to do their dastardly deeds and it gives Bush/Cheney and their Republican cohort political cover because they then boast that their latest piece of skullduggery is "bi-partisan." It was this kind of vote from Democrats that helped Bush to invade Iraq and also to give us the Patriot Act.

As I said a number of times before, if the Dems don't do something drastic like Impeachment or using the power of the purse to punish the Bush gang, they're allowing a Kingly precedent to be set for the next President, who might be Giuliani, a cretin who is just as much an authoritarian as Bush/Cheney.

Its disheartening to see that your party has so many people who put the welfare of the country third, behind protecting their seats in Congress and loyalty to the party.

The original commenter makes a good point, though: if Todd Gitlin really does oppose all these things, what does he think we should do about it? Wait until the next election, thus condoning these activities and handing these powers over to future, unknown Presidents?

Gitlin essentially condones these things because he doesn't want to oppose these things. Sorry, but that's the way it is- either oppose it or condone it.

Make your choice- Gitlin already has.

What you don't understand is that Gitlin, Thomasky, and other anti-impeachers don't just oppose the impeachment of Bush or Cheney. They oppose impeachment itself.

Let that sink in for a moment. These people think that a Constitutional tool granted to Congress is wrong and should just be taken away forever.

I can't stand with those people, since they not only show apathy towards defending the Constitution, but also show hostility to it.

"If the only incentives for Bush crowd's good behavior are ruled out as a matter of course, whether they are pursued or not (and no, impeachment is not going to happen, everyone has to face that) then we're all in that much more danger."

This is a strawman argument.

Impeachment (of Bush and or Cheney) is not the only incentive Congress can bring to bear - saying so is simply silly.

No one is ruling out impeachment, merely pointing out that currently the circumstances don't support such an action.

Excellent post. Impeachment springs from a presumption that the vast majority of any given Congress would be willing to view the crimes of the executive apart from their short-term political interests. Our current political situation, but especially the scorched earth, support the leader at-all costs position of the contemporary Republican Party, have rendered that presumption null and void.

It's important to remember that the majority of Republicans either supported or acquiesced in the proposed Nixon impeachment. Men and women of principles higher than the failure or success of their political party are no longer welcome in the Republican Party.

Shorter Todd Gitlin,

I am a coward with no principles. I can't be bothered to do the right thing if it might be politically inconvenient.

My feeling is that the constitutional abuses of this administration cannot be corrected politically. New precedents have been established arising from the administration's executive privilege claims and its claims to have the right to interpret and selectively enforce the law. I fear that the survival of our republic depends on impeachment as the only way to establish that the executive branch is not above the law. If this administration's overreaching is not repudiated, this administration will have succeeded in pushing the ball that much further down the field towards its goal of a one branch government.

The ONLY reason impeachment would fail is the sniffling worry-worts such as you.

First of all, mpeachment is absolutely needed to preserve our democracy. The message HAS to be spelled out tht NOBODY gets away with this stuff. In my mind, impeachment is just the beginning for these a--holes, and it ends in prison.

You seem to have a short memory, in the context of what the actual process will be like. Did bringing a halt to all other government operations do anything real bad to the repubs? Now think about how every excruciating detail about their misdeeds will be broadcast around the world, live and in color. Any republican senator that decides to vote no would be making retirement choices. Failure of the republicans to convict, after the parade of evidence that everybody will be tuned into [do you really remember Watergate?] would simply be the end of their party

Our failure to impeach is a message to the world that what has happened isn't nearly as important as these things Mr Gitlin has pointed out.

Damn

dc

There is no false premise that Saddam was a bad man and was committing human rights violations.

Everybody believes their justifications are okay but the other guy's are wrong, even though they are the same in the end:

"Its the right thing to do, and damn the consequences or practicalities."

-------------

BTW, since merely "attempting" to invoke a process described in the Constitution is worthy and meaningful, then I think you will agree that Democrats mere attempt to end the war by merely introducing legislation to bring the troops home was "meaningful" and that Congress's mere attempts to investigate the administration are "meaningful."

Oh, wait, you are your pro-impeachment friends DON'T think that mere attempts are meaningful.

I'm so confused . . .

Apparently attempting to use constitutional tools is only meaningful when pro-impeachment forces say such attempts are meaningful.

I wonder why impeachment is even in the Constitution. It can only be used, if we accept these arguments, when the party in power in the Congress has substantially more than 2/3 of the senators, or when a president's own party does the impeaching.

We tend to forget that parties at the time the Constitution was written did not wield anywhere near the power they do today.  Senators were considered more like ambassadors who represented their State's interest first.

Dave,

excellent post. I want the Dems to act as Patriots, not chicken shits. This timidity may get the Democrats what they're trying to avoid, minority status.

Democrat message: We can't Impeach Bush because it may cause us to lose our seats and our majority, in which case we won't be able to Impeach Bush.

takes time away from more pressing congressional responsibilities

Like what? Caving into the Executive Branch over FISA?

What Grand Work have the Democrats actually gotten done? There's been minor work, but on the important issues, nothing.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Here is how it plays out in a Bush first scenario:

Articles of impeachment against Bush will be introduced.

The House might actually approve the articles, but it is not a given.

If they don't, then all the pro-impeachers here will once again spit on the Democrats for not waterboarding enough House members into voting for the articles.

Democrats lose with moderates, with liberals, and of course with conservatives, the latter being no loss and they will be painted as losers by the very people here demanding that they impeach!

If they do approve the articles, it will be along party-line votes, with less than a handful of defections, if that.

There will be much cheering from pro-impeachment supporters and they will get out their "Mission Accomplished" banner and pat themselves on the back heartily.

Of course, we're also begging the question of what evidence of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" can actually be found to include within said articles, but let's not let reality intrude too much.

Meanwhile, virtually every other legislative and investigative hearing will come to a halt as Republicans raise procedural obstacles and impeachment fever forces Democrats to focus on nothing else.

Then the articles will go to the Senate.

Again, prodecural obstacles will be raised by the GOP.

More delays; no congressional action on pressing issues; troops still stuck in Iraq.

Finally, the Senate might actually vote before the end of Bush's term, but the vote will be primarily along party lines and Bush will be acquitted.

Bush and the GOP will crow about how partisan the process was and about how Bush's vision of the executive and the war on terror has been upheld.

For the rest of his term, Bush will be free to do anything he wants. He can spit in Congress's face. There will be no stomach (or time) for another attempt to remove him from office.

The troops will still be in Iraq, since congressional Democrats will have lose any hope of wooing moderate Republicans to legislation in any way restricting Bush's actions in Iraq.

Because Democrats focused on impeachment, instead of continuing to pressure for changes in Iraq policy and forcing administration officials to resign or come clean, they will be rightfully accused of abandoning our troops and our other constitutional institutions in favor of revenge.

Pro-impeachers will again spit on Senate Democrats for not getting a conviction. Don't think for a moment they will be satisfied with the mere attempt.

There will be no stomach for impeaching and trying either Gonzales or Cheney.

Democrats lose with moderates, liberals, and conservatives yet again.

No one will ever remember that Bush was impeached except of course the pro-impeachers who will, like Bush on Iraq, continue to pat themselves on the back and shout to the world how righteous they are for having "tried and failed."

You seem to have a short memory.

These misdeeds have been broadcast around the world live and in color through numerous hearings and media articles and stories.

As for the Republicans, they aren't supposed to be getting anything done - their whole modus operandi is to shut down as much government as possible because government is bad - they get rewarded by their base for doing nothing.

Can you say the same for Democrats?

"Any republican senator that decides to vote no would be making retirement choices."

With 45% in favor of impeachment and 46% against?

And that's across the nation as a whole, not polling in their own safely conservative districts or states.

You seem to have trouble crunching numbers.

"Failure of the republicans to convict, after the parade of evidence that everybody will be tuned into [do you really remember Watergate?] would simply be the end of their party"

If that's true, then the multiple hearings on administration malfeasance with GOP obstructionism and refusal to vote for things like subpoenas and contempt and perjury referrals, would seem to be accomplishing the same thing.

And if it isn't, then why should impeachment be any different?

You seem to be confused about what actual evidence is available that hasn't already been made public.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American essayist, poet, and leader of the Transcendentalist movement in the early nineteenth century.

A king of letters, but, alas, not a king of men.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

J. McCutchen

If ever there has been a case for impeachment this is it. Just to take the most recent example check out Executive Order 167

Problem I see is that by the end of this year, early next things that are FUBAR now will be even more screwed up plus a few unknown knowns and Allah only knows what the political fallout will look like but the public could well be in such as state of anxiety that to add to it......

Damn those Democrats.

Things weren't any worse at all when both houses of Congress were ruled by the GOP.

We might as well go back to a time when Gonzales was free to operate under the radar without any investigation or oversight.

We might as well go back to a time when GOP operatives could violate the Hatch Act at will without any investigation or oversight.

We might as well go back to a time when no legislation to bring the troops back home even made it out of committee.

We might as well go back to a time when no raises to the minimum wage even made it out of committee.

We might as well . . .

Sorry, thought I was talking to something other than a basaltic cliff face.

My mistake.

~

Sen. Susan Collins said...

Well she's correct. But at the time was the Honorable Senator holding hands with her bi-partisan foil, Joe Lieberman?

(Those two remind me of a primary-school principal and vice-principal speaking to us adults like we're a bunch of 1st graders...)

~OGD~

I apologize. That wasn't constructive.

On the other hand, it is not a fear that Bush will be acquitted, it is a certainty.

With OJ, it wasn't a certainty when they went to trial.

Again, I'm willing to be convinced if you can point to 18-20 GOP votes to convict.

If you can't, you are blowing smoke.

You think it's constructive to demand an action that is doomed to failure and hold Democratic congress members accountable for not pursuing charges for which acquittal is inevitable?

Democrats can't even find enough GOP votes to support a perjury charge against that lying weasel Gonzales, so exactly how are you proposing Democrats get enough votes to impeach and convict Bush?

How exactly is supporting impeachment constructive?

No pro-impeachment supporter has yet to describe some constructive end point that is capable of being attained, beyond the ability to bloviate self-righteously about how they've futilely stood up for constitutional accountability, while taking time away from legislative and oversight tasks that are doable.

There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY WITHOUT CONVICTION, so put up and describe an end game where something constructive is accomplished.

Heck, even the dim-witted Bush has done a better, poor as it has been, job of describing a successful end game for Iraq than pro-impeachers have in describing a successful outcome for impeachment.

What positive outcome, besides making yourself feel good, do you envision as attainable?

ANYONE!?

You all keep saying we need to impeach to hold Bush accountable, but describe how mere impeachment without conviction holds Bush accountable.

~

We should begin to force the 16 Democrats who voted for the FISA revamp out of office immediately. They are political traitors to their supporters and are in violation of their oaths of office to protect the Constitution.