Jeff,

Do you think that Clarence Thomas gave false testimony during his confirmation hearings?
In the years since, it appears almost certain - at least to me - that he gave untrue answers to questions that he should have been able to easily respond to. Specifically, his statements on Anita Hill and his familiarity with pornography are two of the most obvious areas. There are other issues that arise, if you read the books like Strange Justice or David Brock's books on the subject. I'm sure you are even more familiar with some of the other concerns about his credibility.
So, do you believe that he did give false testimony? And if you do, is there any possibility at all that Democrats may one day raise this as an issue?

Frank

Posted at September 24, 2007 1:31 PM in response to Greetings TPM Cafe . . .

unfortunately your view on impeachment is exactly the posture republicans want democrats to maintain: defensive, worried and immobilized by fear.
you advocate that dems use the political equivalent of football's prevent defense. hunker down and play soft defense and don't try anything too risky. and as any football fan knows, all that defense does is allow the opponent to stay in the game and keep the contest close enough so that you lose anyway.
the facts are undeniable. consider them.
impeachment helped dems in the 70's as voters tended to be swayed by the view that nixon's excesses tarred all republicans.
impeachment helped the gop in several ways in 2000. most importantly, it hurt gore because it prevented gore from running as the natural heir to an extremely popular president. gore essentially jettisoned the very successful 8 years of clinton's administrations and tried to run as someone totally separate from those popular and successful years. the best illustration of that fact is that he did not even allow clinton to campaign in his home state of arkansas.
(an aside: gore ran a terrible campaign and should have and could have beat bush despite impeachment. but the gop's strategy did exactly what it was intended to do: cripple the democratic party. impeachment was a cold, calculated political power play that was ultimately successful even though clinton was not convicted.)
it also carried on and reinforced the "democrat as wimp" narrative, as republicans and bush maintained a basically aggressive stance, while dems and gore were defensive throughout the 2000 campaign and this was a direct result of clinton's impeachment. impeachment was an issue that needed to be managed and handled by gore. many, many strategic and tactical decisions - like clinton's presence in arkansas - were looked at and decided with impeachment lurking in the background. that definitely worked to bush's advantage.
absent impeachment, 2000 is not even a close election, and the florida shenanigans don't matter.
republicans used impeachment like a boxer uses body punches.
the effectiveness of the punches aren't immediately apparent and the boxer may suffer some damage as he wades in to administer the blows, but over time, the body blows are deadly. the body blows ultimately put the other boxer in a defensive posture as the fighter becomes more concerned with protecting his ribs and kidneys, rather than delivering his own punishment. and after a while that boxer is simply unable to fight back because he is so debilitated and tired and exhausted from defending against those unglamorous and unrelenting body blows.
this is exactly what happened to gore and the dems in 2000 and 2002 and to some degree in 2004.
you fail to recognize the danger of not impeaching.
the failure to learn that lesson is evident in tomasky's column.
by any substantive definition ronald reagan's was a failed presidency. he left our economy in a shambles, shackled with record deficits that took another decade to resolve. supply side economics was a cruel sham that still rears its ugly head today. the country regressed on almost all social issues as reagan exploited various divisions for his own electoral gain. racial divisions increased, after years of abating. reagan's policies began the destruction of the middle class in this country. the gap between the rich and poor began to increase again after decades of shrinking.
reagan repeatedly invoked the "i dont recall" line an ungodly number of times, under oath, to avoid responsibility for obvious lawbreaking in iran/contra. top reagan officials were indicted and convicted of crimes.
the one "success" of his administration was not really his success. first, the soviet union did not even fall on his watch and second, the crumbling of that empire - by all reasoned accounts! - had more to do with many other issues, not reagan simply stating, "tear down these walls..." in a speech.
but republicans, through years of propaganda and revisionist history, have successfully propagated the myth of reagan as a great president.
yet, in fact, tomasky obviously accepted that myth, as he states that americans are watching conservatives fail for the first time in 50 years. if one objectively looks at matters, the 1980's were naked proof of conservatives' failures. other than the bogus soviet collapse issue, can you name one measurable success of the reagan years?
and why has this happened?
because dems simply let reagan off the hook in the '80's when they had every right and reason to impeach him. the thought was in the air, it was discussed, but for a number of reasons, the idea was shelved.
because reagan had warm relations with powerful house dems, like jim wright and tip o'neil and others, dems decided that they would let the old cowboy ride off into the sunset.
i recall those debates clearly.
"aw, leave him alone. he's old, he's going to leave office soon. he's harmless."
how wrong those arguments were. because reagan survived and left office unsullied, he has become the icon for today's radical conservatives. instead of being harmless, he emerged as an extraordinarily important and powerful symbol.
the most immediate and obvious impact happened in the 1988 election.
unlike gore in 2000, bush in 1988 was able to run as the heir to the incumbent. while that carried certain baggage, there were also benefits. if nothing else, it allows a candidate to avoid being put on the defensive, as happened with gore.
and reagan's myth and legend is a powerful symbol that is routinely used by the gop today.
just listen to any gop candidate for political office.
that same sort of revisionist history is already happening with bush.
the first installment happened a few weeks ago when william kristol published an op-ed piece in the washington post, arguing that bush would be viewed as a successful president in the future, regardless of what appeared to be the case today.
there has been a slow, steady trickle of articles by conservatives recently that argue that iraq is indeed turning a corner.
the strategy is clear: muddle through the remaining months of the administration and then turn the matter over to the newly elected democrat. the dem will have to make the tough calls on iraq, while bush and his chorus will sing to the heavens about their successes and the fact that they did not lose iraq.
don't believe me?
check out the right wing magazines and blogs. the strategy is in place and it is being implemented right now.
"we are not losing in iraq. the surge is working and we are slowly but surely winning. the next president will inherit a tough, but managable war."
the drug bill will be talked about as evidence of a great achievement, along with no child left behind. the tax cuts will have led to a great economic boom. the tough anti-terrorism stance will be seen to have protected the homeland in a time of great danger.
all of the abuses, all of the transgressions, all of the failures will be glossed over
and recast as minor and understandable glitches.
impeachment would change that possibility entirely. on record, the congress would stamp this administration with the tattoo of failure.
"george bush, the impeached 43rd president..." would begin any discussion of his time in office. and unlike clinton, who could point to real, tangible successes - peace and prosperity and a budget surplus - bush's apologists and propagandists would have an extraordinarily difficult time making their case, with impeachment as an issue on the table.
also, what allowed clinton to survive impeachment personally was the fact that americans understood that, at its core, his transgressions involved an adulterous affair.
what bush has been involved in cannot be dismissed so cavalierly, and most americans understand the differences.
i only wish supposed learned pundits would recognize the differences.

Posted at August 7, 2007 10:44 AM in response to Impeachment Pit