The Case for Impeachment

[Lindsey]

But it doesn't answer it. Even that Congressman, who co-sponsored the impeachment resolution, doesn't believe it can be done, nor that it would be worth it given the political realities.
I hadn't seen last Friday's installment of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, and I hadn't realized until this afternoon that the entire hour had been spent in a discussion of the impeachment issue and why the House Judiciary Committee should begin in hearings on the issue whatever the ultimate outlook in the Senate. This is well worth listening to -- it is an actual bona fide discussion, and not the three-ring-circus shouting match that passes for discussion on most so-called news programs these days.

Moyers's guests are John Nichols and Bruce Fein, both of whom have studied the Constitutional and political issues associated with impeachment in depth. Nichols writes for The Nation and other progressive publications; Fein has been a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, and writes weekly columns for the conservative Washington Times, among other publications. But though he and Nichols come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are in remarkable agreement on the question of impeachment.

The video on the PBS web site is in three parts, a short introductory segment here (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/watch.html), and two longer segments which are accessible here (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html).

A recent public opinion poll shows that 45% of the American public is in favor of impeaching George Bush, and 54% in favor of impeaching Dick Cheney. I think that's a far larger group than constitutes readers of The Nation, though I'm sure The Nation would be overjoyed to have such a large readership.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

though he and Nichols come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are in remarkable agreement on the question of impeachment.I appreciate the arguments. I can also count the votes. The votes aren't there.

[Lindsey]

I appreciate the arguments. I can also count the votes. The votes aren't there.
The votes aren't the point. The process is the point.

JOHN NICHOLS: The [judiciary committee] hearings are important. There's no question [of] that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.

BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.

JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up. It is not enough--

BILL MOYERS: Well, Bruce is not the only conservative--

JOHN NICHOLS: --and others are. But--

BILL MOYERS: And Bob Barr, who's been here.

<snip>

JOHN NICHOLS: But they do so, by and large, in a cautious way. They say, "Well, the president's done too much." Let's start to use the "i" word. Impeach is a useful word. It is a necessary word. The founders in the Constitution made no mention of corporation[s] or political parties or conventions or primaries or caucuses. But they made six separate references to impeachment. They wanted us to know this word, and they wanted us to use it.

BILL MOYERS: You're-- does this process have to go all the way to the end? Do Bush and Cheney have to be impeached before it serves the public?

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that what Bush and Cheney have done makes a very good case that the public and the future would be well served if it did go all the way to the end. But there is absolutely a good that comes of this if the process begins, if we take it seriously. And the founders would have told you that, -- that impeachment is a dialogue. It is a discourse. And it is an educational process. If Congress were to get serious about the impeachment discussions, to hold the hearings, to begin that dialogue, they would begin to educate the American people and perhaps themselves about the system of checks and balances, about the powers of the presidency, about, you know, what we can expect and what we should expect of our government.

And so I think that when Jefferson spoke about this wonderful notion of his that said the tree of liberty must be watered every 20 years with the blood of patriots, I don't know that he was necessarily [talking] about warfare. I think he was saying that at a pretty regular basis we ought to seek to hold our-- highest officials to account and that process, the seeking to hold them to account, wherever it holds up, is-- a necessary function of the republic. If we don't do it, we move further and further toward an imperial presidency.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The votes aren't the point. The process is the point.I'm sorry. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I see trying to do an impeachment for the sake of a process without any hope of even getting the votes in the House, much less in the Senate, as a total and utter waste of time, plus essentially a guarantee that the 2008 election will go to the GOP. It's a little like being Nader in 2000 and saying that his candidacy was part of the process. The fact that it resulted in the election of George Bush was, I suppose, just the price to be paid for the "process."

[Andrew B.]

Nader's point was that the Democrats are no longer championing Liberal causes the way they once did. And that they have no motivation to change because of they assume Liberals will automatically vote for Democrats to keep Republicans out of office.

Nader challenged this. And the Democrats dismissed the challenge. And they will probably continue to dismiss it because they take no responsibility for why many Liberals think Democrats have become one more big-business party.

[Judy G. Russell]

Nader's point was that the Democrats are no longer championing Liberal causes the way they once did. And that they have no motivation to change because of they assume Liberals will automatically vote for Democrats to keep Republicans out of office. Nader challenged this. And the Democrats dismissed the challenge. And they will probably continue to dismiss it because they take no responsibility for why many Liberals think Democrats have become one more big-business party.Whatever Nader may have thought his point was, whatever the reasons for his and his voters' behavior, the result was eight years of the most oppressive, most repressive, most radically right-wing, anti-consumer, anti-everything-Nader-ever-believed-in government that he could have imagined in his wildest nightmares.

[ndebord]

I'm sorry. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I see trying to do an impeachment for the sake of a process without any hope of even getting the votes in the House, much less in the Senate, as a total and utter waste of time, plus essentially a guarantee that the 2008 election will go to the GOP. It's a little like being Nader in 2000 and saying that his candidacy was part of the process. The fact that it resulted in the election of George Bush was, I suppose, just the price to be paid for the "process."

Judy,

Agree with you totally with one caveat. If Cheney/Bush attack Iran, all bets are off.

(We can repair the damage to the rule of law after these renegades leave office.)

[Judy G. Russell]

Agree with you totally with one caveat. If Cheney/Bush attack Iran, all bets are off. (We can repair the damage to the rule of law after these renegades leave office.)I agree with you on both counts.

[Andrew B.]

I think the Democrats also had something to do with losing the election, and the fact that so many Liberals felt the need to split off. I also think Democrats had something to do with voting for this war. As for Bush, he is the worst I've seen.

[Lindsey]

I see trying to do an impeachment for the sake of a process without any hope of even getting the votes in the House, much less in the Senate, as a total and utter waste of time, plus essentially a guarantee that the 2008 election will go to the GOP.
We do disagree. I don't think an open discussion about the many ways in which this administration has crossed the line and done serious damage to Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties is a waste of time. And if having such a discussion throws the election to the GOP, then we have worse problems than impeachment hearings, because it means that the majority of the American people no longer care about the Bill of Rights; no longer care about the rule of law; no longer care about holding their elected representatives accountable; no longer care about trying to maintain a constitutional democracy.

For me, I think what would guarantee that the 2008 election goes to the GOP would be for the Democrats to sit on their hands and do nothing until then.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think the Democrats also had something to do with loosing the election, and the fact that so many Liberals felt the need to split off. I also think Democrats had something to do with voting for this war. As for Bush, he is the worst I've seen.No doubt the Democrats blew it -- but there's also no doubt that the thousands of Nader votes in Florida sealed the deal, and handed the election to Bush. I hope they can sleep at night.

[Judy G. Russell]

For me, I think what would guarantee that the 2008 election goes to the GOP would be for the Democrats to sit on their hands and do nothing until then.There is an enormous gap between initiating an impeachment process than can't succeed on one hand and sitting on their hands and doing nothing on the other.

[Lindsey]

Nader's point was that the Democrats are no longer championing Liberal causes the way they once did.
Nader's point is a valid one, and it is certainly the topic of much debate, often quite bitter debate, among Democrats. Where I take issue with the Naderites is that they seem to feel that it is somehow preferable to remain ideologically pure, even if it means handing victory to the least liberal candidate, than it is to taint themselves with political compromise.

Ideological purity is a viable strategy where you get proportional representation. In a winner-take-all system like we have in the US, it is utter folly. Naderites seem not to understand this. The idea they floated in 2000 was that it would be good if Bush won, because his extremist policies would drive people away from conservatism and they would then join with the liberals. Didn't quite work out that way, did it? That strategy was disastrous, and to see Ralph Nader continuing to pursue it even now suggests to me that his cause is more one of vanity than principle.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

(We can repair the damage to the rule of law after these renegades leave office.)
Yeah. And in 2000, they said, "Let's not make waves over this election. How much damage could Bush do in four years?"

I'm tired of being told to sit down and shut up.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

There is an enormous gap between initiating an impeachment process than can't succeed on one hand and sitting on their hands and doing nothing on the other.
So what are they going to do between now and November of 2008, if not hold hearings?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah. And in 2000, they said, "Let's not make waves over this election. How much damage could Bush do in four years?"I certainly don't know anyone who said that. The case was fought all the way to the Supreme Court -- and lost there. It wasn't abandoned anywhere along the way.

[Judy G. Russell]

So what are they going to do between now and November of 2008, if not hold hearings?Holding hearings -- investigating wrongdoing -- drafting legislation -- all of these are perfectly appropriate, and very useful not just in the purely political sense. The exposures lately about the FDA are a perfect example. The continuing pressure as to the firings of the US Attorneys is another example. They can keep forcing Bush to exercise vetos to show just how out of touch he and the Republicans are and keep forcing the Republicans in Congress to show their hand with their votes.

It's not the idea of oversight or hearings that I have any problem with. It's the idea that oversight or hearings should be aimed at an impossible goal.

[Lindsey]

I certainly don't know anyone who said that.
Oh, I certainly remember that. Gore and his supporters were criticized from the very beginning -- by some Democrats, even -- for not throwing in the towel on November 8 and having the temerity to ask for a recount.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

It's not the idea of oversight or hearings that I have any problem with. It's the idea that oversight or hearings should be aimed at an impossible goal.
How is it any more impossible than trying to pass legislation past an almost certain Republican filibuster in the Senate, or, if by some miracle it gets past that, a certain presidential veto that the Republicans will never override?

If hearings about FDA wrongdoings are important for what they expose about the Bush FDA, then what is wrong with impeachment hearings to expose wrongdoing in far more fundamental areas?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

By the way: conservative Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein was on Keith Olbermann's Countdown tonight arguing the case for impeachment. From Moyers to Olbermann -- next up: Jon Stewart?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, I certainly remember that. Gore and his supporters were criticized from the very beginning -- by some Democrats, even -- for not throwing in the towel on November 8 and having the temerity to ask for a recount.I certainly remember a lot of Republicans saying that, but that's only to be expected. After all, their attitude was that they'd stolen the election fair and square.

[Judy G. Russell]

How is it any more impossible than trying to pass legislation past an almost certain Republican filibuster in the Senate, or, if by some miracle it gets past that, a certain presidential veto that the Republicans will never override?The difference is between "almost certain" and "certain". There is some hope that some legislation can be passed, even by veto proof majorities. There is no hope of an impeachment.

If hearings about FDA wrongdoings are important for what they expose about the Bush FDA, then what is wrong with impeachment hearings to expose wrongdoing in far more fundamental areas?See the above. There is legislation that even Republicans will support to ensure that the FDA gets back to doing its job. There is no chance whatsoever for an impeachment.

[Lindsey]

After all, their attitude was that they'd stolen the election fair and square.
LOL!!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

There is some hope that some legislation can be passed, even by veto proof majorities. There is no hope of an impeachment.
With this president and this Congress? Only legislation that is so completely watered down that it may as well not have been passed.

There is legislation that even Republicans will support to ensure that the FDA gets back to doing its job.
The way big pharma throws money around in Washington? Not to mention the way it provides post-government employment for executive branch appointees, Congressional aides, and Congressmen themselves? I'll believe it when I see it.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

With this president and this Congress? Only legislation that is so completely watered down that it may as well not have been passed.
The way big pharma throws money around in Washington? Not to mention the way it provides post-government employment for executive branch appointees, Congressional aides, and Congressmen themselves? I'll believe it when I see it.You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there is so much difficulty enacting decent legislation "[w]ith this president and this Congress" and then say impeachment is a viable option. If there are no votes for the former, there are most certainly no votes for the latter.

[Lindsey]

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there is so much difficulty enacting decent legislation "[w]ith this president and this Congress" and then say impeachment is a viable option. If there are no votes for the former, there are most certainly no votes for the latter.
As John Nichols said, it is not necessary to take impeachment all the way through to conclusion to reap some benefit from the process. At this point, I would simply like hearings to get on the record all of the various ways this administration has worked to subvert the Constitution.

In fact, it wouldn't even necessarily have to start with Bush or Cheney. Gonzales would be a proper target as well, and if he can't be impeached, then we may as well just strike impeachment out of the Constitution altogether. Fox News could not find one single Washington Republican willing to go on the record defending the Attorney General this Sunday, and the polls say 70% of Americans think he ought to be investigated.

I want the crimes these people have committed against the Constitution on the official record. If Republican politicians are going to defend them, I want them to have to go on record doing it.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I want the crimes these people have committed against the Constitution on the official record. If Republican politicians are going to defend them, I want them to have to go on record doing it.Nobody suggests you shouldn't want that. Hell, I want that. But it ain't gonna happen, not in an impeachment proceeding.

[Lindsey]

Nobody suggests you shouldn't want that. Hell, I want that. But it ain't gonna happen, not in an impeachment proceeding.
We'll see. There's a move afoot now to impeach Gonzales.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

We'll see. There's a move afoot now to impeach Gonzales.We'll see if the GOP has the stomach even for that. It had no objections whatsoever to impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair, but they never did believe in goose and gander parity. (I at least am consistent: I really do believe that you settle political difference at the ballot box and not through the impeachment process.)

[Lindsey]

I really do believe that you settle political difference at the ballot box and not through the impeachment process.)
In general, I believe that, too. But there are some situations that fixed quadrennial elections just cannot handle effectively, and that's why the authors of the Constitution included the impeachment option.

It will be instructive to see what the Republicans do concerning Gonzales. That Fox News could not find even one Republican politician willing to defend him on national television last Sunday is telling. Let's see how many are willing to take it a small step further. (A couple more rounds of testimony should do it -- he loses support every time he goes up to Capitol Hill.)

Under a more sane political environment, the man would resign or the president would push him out, because he is doing tremendous damage to the credibility of the Justice Department and to the White House while he stays. And yet Bush (or is it Cheney?) refuses to fire him. That must be one hell of a hole in the dam Gonzo is keeping plugged for them.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

In general, I believe that, too. But there are some situations that fixed quadrennial elections just cannot handle effectively, and that's why the authors of the Constitution included the impeachment option.Agreed. But even in those situations, you have to have the votes.

Under a more sane political environment, [Gonzales] would resign or the president would push him out, because he is doing tremendous damage to the credibility of the Justice Department and to the White House while he stays. And yet Bush (or is it Cheney?) refuses to fire him. That must be one hell of a hole in the dam Gonzo is keeping plugged for them. Bush is known for loyalty in spite of, as opposed to because of.

[Lindsey]

Agreed. But even in those situations, you have to have the votes.
That should not preclude even holding hearings to explore the possibility.

Bush is known for loyalty in spite of, as opposed to because of.
I think this goes deeper than loyalty. I think he knows that if Gonzo goes, the whole house of cards comes down around his ears. His ultimate loyalty is to himself and his "have and have more" base.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That should not preclude even holding hearings to explore the possibility.Hearings, yes. Impeachment hearings, no. You can move from hearings to impeachment hearings later.

I think this goes deeper than loyalty. I think he knows that if Gonzo goes, the whole house of cards comes down around his ears. His ultimate loyalty is to himself and his "have and have more" base.You may be right, but he certainly is known for unthinking uncritical "he's my friend and I'm loyal to him" personnel policies.

[Lindsey]

Hearings, yes. Impeachment hearings, no. You can move from hearings to impeachment hearings later.
John Nichols has a piece in the current issue of The Nation on impeachment, a follow-up of his appearance on Bill Moyers a few weeks ago. It's not publicly available on the web, unfortunately, but two key passages:

[Conservative legal scholar Bruce] Fein, an official in the Reagan Justice Department, and I come from different points on the ideological spectrum, but we agree that the Founders intended impeachment less as a punishment for officeholders than as a protection against the dangerous expansion of executive authority. If abuse of the system of checks and balances, lies about war, approval of illegal spying and torture, signing statements that improperly arrogate legislative powers to the executive branch, schemes to punish political foes and refusals to cooperate with Congressional inquiries are not judged as high crimes, the next President, no matter from which party, will assume the authority to exercise some or all of these illegitimate powers.

Clearly, impeachment is not just around the corner; even Senator Russ Feingold's "relatively modest response" to the crisis -- censure resolutions against Bush and Cheney -- faces an uphill struggle. At this late stage, it will be difficult to turn the need for accountability into action on Capitol Hill. But even an impeachment effort that falls short lays down a historical marker; it tells Bush and Cheney and all those who succeed them that an executive branch that imagines itself superior to Congress and the rule of law will arouse popular fury.

You may be right, but he certainly is known for unthinking uncritical "he's my friend and I'm loyal to him" personnel policies.
Actually, I think you could say that Bush is known for unthinking, uncritical policies of all kinds...

There's a piece on the Time web site (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1649013,00.html) that speculates as to why Bush continues to insist on keeping Gonzales in his job.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

John Nichols has a piece in the current issue of The Nation on impeachment, a follow-up of his appearance on Bill Moyers a few weeks ago.A second alternative way to send a real signal that this kind of executive abuse won't be tolerated is to ensure the election of a President and a Congress that will roll back the abuses. And quite frankly the chances of that (IMO) drop precipitously if an impeachment bid is launched.

There's a piece on the Time web site (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1649013,00.html) that speculates as to why Bush continues to insist on keeping Gonzales in his job.And (and all) of the reasons cited could well be true.

[Andrew B.]

My recollection is that Bush and Blair told the international community there are weapons of mass destruction. When asked for proof, none was given. And the CIA even testified later they had no such information. So why on earth did congress vote for this war. They didn't want to look bad in case it was true?

[Judy G. Russell]

My recollection is that Bush and Blair told the international community there are weapons of mass destruction. When asked for proof, none was given. And the CIA even testified later they had no such information. So why on earth did congress vote for this war. They didn't want to look bad in case it was true?They voted for this war for two reasons: (1) they didn't want to look like wimps in front of an electorate that darned well wanted SOMEBODY bombed back to the Stone Age; and (2) they were misled. Slight emphasis on reason #1, I fear, but reason #2 did play some role.

[Lindsey]

A second alternative way to send a real signal that this kind of executive abuse won't be tolerated is to ensure the election of a President and a Congress that will roll back the abuses.
Only if that is the central issue of the election, and it's not likely to be in 2008. The Iraq War will drown out any other issue. But when Bush has been allowed to get away with ignoring any law that Congress passes, why should any other president care what Congress does? They don't need to worry that there will be an impeachment. Impeachment bad. Congress not touch. Wimpy, wimpy Congress.

And quite frankly the chances of that (IMO) drop precipitously if an impeachment bid is launched.
I don't see it that way. The Republican effort against Clinton was an anomaly. It was launched without public support and for reasons that most Americans saw as simply partisan "gotcha," and not because of any gross abuse of executive power. John Nichols, who has studied the history of impeachment in the US, says that typically, the party that undertakes impeachment makes gains in the next election.

But this is not about partisan gains. This is about drawing a line to say that there is a minimum standard that a presidential administration must meet, and that this one has fallen woefully short of it.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

So why on earth did congress vote for this war.
The short answer? Because the president made it a political issue. If you remember, he insisted on holding the vote prior to the 2002 election (unlike his father, who held off the vote on the Gulf War until after the election), and Republicans let it be known they intended to go hard after anyone who didn't vote for it and paint them as traitors. And yes, it's fair to criticize Democrats for being cowed by that, but then again: look at what happened to Max Cleland in Georgia and tell me that Dems were wrong about what would happen to them in 2002 if they opposed the president? Cleland actually voted for the war, but he opposed the administration's plans to deny civil service protections to employees of the Department of Homeland Security. And for that, Republicans painted him as Osama's best friend. Doesn't matter that the mud they threw was nothing but lies. It had the desired effect.

So at least part of the blame lies with us, the voters, for allowing ourselves to be steamrollered and voting our fears instead of our principles.

Bottom line, though: impeachment is not about the war. It may be so for Cindy Sheehan, but the vast majority of people I have heard calling for the impeachment of the president, the vice-president, and the attorney-general are calling for it because of the many abuses of executive power those officials have engaged in.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Only if that is the central issue of the election, and it's not likely to be in 2008. The Iraq War will drown out any other issue.I'm not sure that would be true if there was an unsuccessful (read: drawn out dragged out) impeachment attempt.

But this is not about partisan gains. This is about drawing a line to say that there is a minimum standard that a presidential administration must meet, and that this one has fallen woefully short of it.That's a lovely and idealistic view of the world. And the kind of thinking that had Nader voters tossing their votes not only away but down the tubes in 2000. I care a great deal more about ensuring a Democratic victory in 2008 (with what that means for Supreme Court appointments and all that goes with it) than I do about making a doomed effort to impeach this President.

[Lindsey]

I care about a Democratic victory, too. But if the Democratic party wants to win hearts and minds, they need to be bold and visionary. Not cautious and hesitant. All those guys took an oath to defend the Constitution. "Against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They need to step up and do it.

A fat lot of good it will do any of us for the Democrats to win the election and lose the Republic.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

A fat lot of good it will do any of us for the Democrats to win the election and lose the Republic.But it will do us far less good if we "win" the way the Nader voters of 2000 "won".

[Lindsey]

But it will do us far less good if we "win" the way the Nader voters of 2000 "won".
The Nader supporters of 2000 won nothing at all. I believe their goal was to get whatever percentage of votes they needed to gain federal funding for the next election. They didn't reach that level.

But I don't think the Democrats would lose by showing that they are willing to stand up against Republican lawlessness and mendacity. They do stand to lose a lot by looking like suckers and wimps.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Incidently, TPM Cafe has a discussion thread (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/aug/09/an_alternative_to_impeachment_transitional_justice _for_the_bush_ites) on a proposal for an alternative to impeachment. I don't think the proposal itself has a lot to recommend it, but it's still an interesting thread.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Incidently, TPM Cafe has a discussion thread (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/aug/09/an_alternative_to_impeachment_transitional_justice _for_the_bush_ites) on a proposal for an alternative to impeachment. I don't think the proposal itself has a lot to recommend it, but it's still an interesting thread.I would completely support such an idea, and think it could work.

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't think the Democrats would lose by showing that they are willing to stand up against Republican lawlessness and mendacity. They do stand to lose a lot by looking like suckers and wimps.There we agree. The question is how do they show they are willing to stand up for the rule of law? You seem to be suggesting there is no way at all to do that without impeachment. I think that's extreme.

[Lindsey]

I would completely support such an idea, and think it could work.
But why is anything coming out of such a commission likely to have any teeth at all? Look what happened to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. What's the point of a commission, if all we are going to do is to print up the recommendations and then let them get dusty on the shelves? I have no faith whatsoever that anything more than that would come of it.

As someone in that thread pointed out, the reason a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" worked for South Africa is that both sides had something to gain from it -- those of the ancien régime avoided prosecution for their crimes. What does would anyone in the Bush administration have to gain from one here if they're all already off scott free? They'd just feed it more of the same brazen lies. And Congress, once again, would be shown up as suckers and wimps.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

You seem to be suggesting there is no way at all to do that without impeachment. I think that's extreme.
Dare I quote Barry Goldwater here?

The Constitution doesn't give us much to work with in this situation. Bush has gone a long way to block meaningful investigations, or at least likely delay them until we are past the next election and he is safely out of office. The only thing beyond that is cutting off funds to the administration itself. That might be fun to watch, but that will be bound to subject Congress to a good bit of public criticism.

I'm for anything that would work to cut the presidency down to something approaching its post-Watergate-reform size, but I don't think you can do that if you take the threat of impeachment completely off the table.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

What does would anyone in the Bush administration have to gain from one here if they're all already off scott free? They'd just feed it more of the same brazen lies. And Congress, once again, would be shown up as suckers and wimps.The real potential benefit would be a set of statutory responses ready to go the minute someone who wouldn't veto them all is not in office. And, frankly, if we don't get somebody like that this next time around, what's the point of all of this anyway? The courts -- heavily stacked towards Bush's viewpoint -- aren't going to overturn anything. The Congress isn't going to override a veto. So we either change the executive on January 20, 2009, to someone who'll sign good legislation, or this stuff is going to stay firmly on the books.

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't think you can do that if you take the threat of impeachment completely off the table.It isn't a matter of teaking it completely off the table. It's a matter of not using your "do or die" weapon unless you know it's going to work. Someone said that he who sets out to kill a king had better succeed...

[Lindsey]

And, frankly, if we don't get somebody like that this next time around, what's the point of all of this anyway?
That is my great fear. And if it happens, I'd like not to make it easier for them by having conceded too much already. I want to make it clear that anyone who continues along that path is going to have a nasty fight on his/her hands.

Of course, for that, you first have to have a Congress who will fight. And that is our greatest problem. They have forgotten why they are there. It is not to play courtier to the king.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Of course, for that, you first have to have a Congress who will fight. And that is our greatest problem. They have forgotten why they are there. It is not to play courtier to the king.Actually, our greatest problem is that we have a king (and a few nasty kingmakers); our second greatest problem is a spineless Congress.

[Lindsey]

Actually, our greatest problem is that we have a king (and a few nasty kingmakers); our second greatest problem is a spineless Congress.
Good point. I could go along with that. :mad:

[Andrew B.]

I happen not to agree with this. I think it is necessary for people for people to rock the boat from time to time.

Am I happy with the outcome? No. Do I think this kind of move should never be tried again? No.

If the Democrats don't like having liberals drift away from their party, maybe they need to straighten up their act. Step one would be to start looking at how they can bring Liberals back into what is supposedly a Liberal-friendly party.

[Judy G. Russell]

I think it is necessary for people for people to rock the boat from time to time.I don't dispute that the boat needs to be rocked occasionally. But it's kind of foolish to sink it just to make a point.

[Andrew B.]

I don't think we are sunk. But I would say that all but one sheet has snapped.

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't think we are sunk. But I would say that all but one sheet has snapped.And depending on the outcome of next year's election, that sheet may be gone as well. Which is why I want all efforts and focus concentrated on that election, because I truly believe it's a make-or-break election for anything remotely resembling the America I want to live in.

[MollyM/CA]

And depending on the outcome of next year's election, that sheet may be gone as well. Which is why I want all efforts and focus concentrated on that election, because I truly believe it's a make-or-break election for anything remotely resembling the America I want to live in.

AMEN.

[Lindsey]

because I truly believe it's a make-or-break election for anything remotely resembling the America I want to live in.
That's the way I saw 2000. I don't think I was far wrong.

I don't think Democrats can win by trying to follow the path the Bill Clinton took to victory in 1992. If the Democratic Party wants to win the presidency in 2008, it's not going to be enough just to have a series of 15-point plans. Gore and Kerry both had extensive plans; nobody seemed terribly interested. Democrats need to get people excited about identifying with the party. Temporizing and triangulating is not the way to do that. Not in 2007.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That's the way I saw 2000. I don't think I was far wrong.I agree, and said that repeatedly, mostly because of what I saw (correctly) as what Bush would do to the Supreme Court if he had the chance.

I don't think Democrats can win by trying to follow the path the Bill Clinton took to victory in 1992. ... Democrats need to get people excited about identifying with the party. Temporizing and triangulating is not the way to do that. Not in 2007.We agree on this entirely.

[Lindsey]

I agree, and said that repeatedly, mostly because of what I saw (correctly) as what Bush would do to the Supreme Court if he had the chance.
Yes, that was the biggest thing, because court appointments (not just the top ones, but all the way down to the federal district level as well) are for far longer than the term of a single president. But the loss of the veto was a Very Bad Thing, too, because that was the last brake on runaway Republicanism. (Not that Bill Clinton didn't sign some unpalatable stuff into law, but at least there was someone to stop the worst of the worst.)

I'd sure like a candidate I could feel like cheering about. John Edwards comes about as close as any for me, and he's showing a more pugnacious side these days than he has before. But he's got a long way to go to catch the two front runners.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, that was the biggest thing, because court appointments (not just the top ones, but all the way down to the federal district level as well) are for far longer than the term of a single president.Exactly. Even a President entirely out of step with the country as a whole (gee... who might I be referring to...?) can badly affect the entire country for decades.

I'd sure like a candidate I could feel like cheering about.I'd like to pass a law that the campaign can't start until, oh, say, a year before the election. This is going to be a long long long long long "election season."

[Lindsey]

I'd like to pass a law that the campaign can't start until, oh, say, a year before the election. This is going to be a long long long long long "election season."
Isn't that the truth! And it doesn't make the campaigns any better, just more expensive. I'm ready to consider going back to smoke-filled rooms!!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Isn't that the truth! And it doesn't make the campaigns any better, just more expensive. I'm ready to consider going back to smoke-filled rooms!!They do say that those who love politics and sausage should never watch either being made. I'm willing to go along, at least until sometime during the year of the actual election!

[Lindsey]

At least politicians in smoke-filled rooms would be less likely to be influenced by swiftboating and other dirty tricks. And more free to choose a candidate that had wide national appeal, if not overwhelming appeal to the party's own base.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

At least politicians in smoke-filled rooms would be less likely to be influenced by swiftboating and other dirty tricks. And more free to choose a candidate that had wide national appeal, if not overwhelming appeal to the party's own base.There is a lot to be said for electability...