Been spending a lot of time in my yard lately. Damn weeds - I hate 'em. We're redoing our backyard - tore up the whole lawn; we're gonna replant native xeriscape plants, put in some low-maintenance pathway, and install a little bit of sod so we can still have a "lawn."
Spent a whole day behind a 13-hp Barretto tiller a few weeks ago. Great exercise. Worked my butt off, sweated like a lady of ill repute in a house of worship. Huh. Actually dug up a little dirt in the process. Felt pretty proud of myself. Figured, Heck, no way that crabgrass is coming back. Sprayed it good with Roundup® two weeks before that. Took about five days for the whole lawn to turn the color of straw. Dead, dead, dead. Beautiful. Couldn't've killed it deader if I'd tried - and I've killed plenty of green, living things without trying, that's for sure.
So that Barretto and me put that dead lawn a foot underground. Figured I'd never see it again.
My landscape maintenance guy told me a story. He got a call from a property manager. The guy had a problem with a parking lot. There was this one spot on the lot, an area a few dozen feet square, where this crabgrass kept coming up through the cracks in the pavement. The guy tried everything - slurry coat, Roundup®, slurry coat again - and no matter what he tried, he couldn't get rid of it. Sometimes he thought he had it licked: the damn stuff would lay low for awhile - but then, a few weeks or months later, it would come up again. And it was only in that one spot; the rest of the lot was fine. Couldn't figure it out.
So my guy comes in, takes a look, has an idea. He gets a backhoe and digs up the parking lot in that one spot - just, WHAM! - parks the tractor, drops the backhoe, busts up the pavement, base and all, and starts diggin'. The property manager is not happy, but what's he gonna do? My landscape guy's about six-seven, three-twenty. Plus he's got a backhoe. The property manager keeps quiet.
Pretty soon, my landscape guy's dug down a few feet, and he finds what he's looking for. Sure enough, there's like a buried treasure down there. Only, it's not treasure - it's crabgrass. My landscape guy asks the property manager how old the parking lot is. A few years old, he says. What was here before? my guy asks. A big lawn area, the property manager tells him. There's your problem, my guy says. Whaddaya mean, the property manager says. So my guy tells him:
See, whoever the contractor was who put in the parking lot back when, did a crappy job. He tried to cut corners. Instead of making sure that the grass was really dead before he paved over it, he just took out the lawn, dug a big hole, and dumped it in. He figured, no way that lawn's gonna come back up through five feet of dirt, three inches of base and four inches of asphalt. No way.
But that crabgrass is some tough stuff. It finds a way. You've gotta kill it dead if you wanna make sure it never comes back. My landscape guy says you gotta hit it with Roundup® a few times, let it grow back each time, then hit it again until it stops coming back. Kill it to the roots. Kill the seedlings. Make sure the stuff doesn't have any germinating left in it. Then you can turn the soil, he says.
So my landscape guy tells me this as he's looking around my backyard that I've just spent all day tilling. Sweating and grunting behind the controls of a 13-hp Barretto. Are you sure it was dead? he asks me, in a kind of pitying way. Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure, I say. I think I can taste my Taco Bell combo meal again. I need some water.
Well, okay, then, he says, I guess you're good.
Four weeks later (I'm a big believer in stretching out these home improvement projects), I'm in the backyard with my wife, looking down at a yard full of crabgrass.
Shit. It's back.
Kagro X nailed it the other day in his article, quoting Charles Pierce, who wrote of his forebodings way back in 1988 about the inevitable effects of glossing over the Iran-Contra crimes of the Reagan administration:
I was in the late, lamented Eliot Lounge in Boston, chewing it over with a friend who'd reported extensively on the scandal. I told him that the country was going to pay a fearsome price one day for having let these crimes go unpunished. That the whole business lodged something malignant deep in the government that needed to be roughly, and bloodily, excised. I believed an impeachment inquiry should have been opened on both the president and the vice-president . . .
Tell me we're not paying for that now. Tell me we're not paying for tolerating a renegade theory of Executive power. Tell me we're not hearing how inconvenient and cumbersome and counterproductive the impeachment process of the Constitution is. Tell me the Democratic candidates aren't soft-pedaling the whole issue, preferring to micromanage the end of the kind of war that the renegade theory of Executive power makes not only likely, but inevitable. (Go back and read the minority report of the Iran-Contra committee. Go see who wrote the part about how the president has an inherent right to do stuff like this. Hint -- he has a lesbian daughter, a bad heart, and lousy aim.) Tell me the press isn't running away from the gravity of the whole business. Tell me you haven't heard some anchor-drone or another sigh about how hard it all is to understand. Tell me that Bush presidencies don't invariably come down to buying the silence of the people who can put you away. Tell me Alberto Gonzales isn't Edwin Meese, except less competent. Tell me that Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, Michael Ledeen, and the rest of the Iran-Contra Legends Tour ever would have found their bloody hands back on the levers of government if we'd done what we should have done as a nation 20 years ago.
Like most people my age, I remember exactly where I was when Nixon resigned. It was a watershed moment in American political history. I remember thinking that, in fact, our long national nightmare was really over (as Gerald Ford would so cynically say a day or two later); I felt comforted knowing that the grownups were in charge, that boundaries had been set, that order soon would be restored, and that we could all get on with our lives, safe in the knowledge that our democracy had been cleansed, the evil cancer removed from the body politic.
What I couldn't have known at the time was that, buried in the old Nixon administration, and subsequently in the new Ford administration - and not even buried very deeply, mind you - were the seeds of the Bush II administration and its insane "unitary executive" doctrine. Those seeds were fertilized by the resentment they soon felt when, in reaction to the excesses of the Nixon administration, Congress convened the Church Committee and passed laws designed to rein in presidential power run amok. (One of those laws was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, better known today as FISA.)
In what at the time no doubt appeared to be a sensible, pragmatic, realistic decision, the entire cabal behind the classically tragic and venally criminal Nixon administration was essentially left in place when Nixon left office, and in turn inherited by Gerald Ford. Ford quickly pardoned Nixon pre-emptively, and thus ended the possibility that any measure of justice would be done to those who perpetrated such high crimes upon the Constitution and the people of the United States of America.
Instead, many of those responsible - as well as their acolytes - were left in the soil of American politics, free to send out roots, and, when Republics were turned out of the White House two years later, to lie dormant for a while, or to position themselves in friendlier soil, to bide their time, and eventually to work their way toward the surface, finally to emerge, first in a limited way during the Reagan years, and then full-blown in December 2000, when George W. Bush was elected President of the United States by a one-vote margin.
One of the arguments that has been used by some who oppose the impeachment of various members of the current administration goes something like this:
The whole process of impeachment was so cheapened and sullied by the Clinton experience that we should avoid it like the plague. It'll be seen as a political witch hunt, and Democrats will pay a terrible price for it in the 2008 elections.
The argument that we should not use impeachment because the Republics made a mockery of it in going after Clinton is, not to put too fine a point on it, absurd. A few months back I wrote a snarky, sarcastic diary entitled, We must not pursue the "i"-word:
Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration abused the "i"-word. They cheapened it to the point where it lost all meaning. For that reason, we Democrats must be very circumspect and cautious before we go bandying it about, or - God forbid - suggesting it as a possible course of action.
I agree with that position. In fact, after having read all of and participated in some of the debate on this issue, I've come to the conclusion that, despite whatever mandate some would have us believe was delivered to the Democrats on November 7, it would be foolish for those of us here in the progressive blogosphere - and indeed anywhere in the Democratic universe - to push too hard right now for the use of the "i"-word.
After Republicans in Congress during the Clinton years made a mockery of congressional procedures and powers in their single-minded, obsessive, wild-eyed, slavering obsession to Get Bill Clinton, Democrats in the 110th Congress risk being tarred with the same brush of irresponsibility, political axe-grinding and vendetta.
If we do not wish to be accused of abusing congressional powers for political ends in exactly the same manner as the Republicans did during the Clinton administration, we must avoid using those powers, and we must avoid speaking of using them. The use of such powers must be off the table until it is clearly demonstrated that we have no choice but to use them; otherwise, we run the risk of being labeled the same kind of political opportunists as the Republicans in Congress were during the Clinton years - and who wants to run the risk of that? Being labeled "shrill and vengeful" by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Britt Hume is not something any of us wants.
Regardless of what the Constitution might say, regardless of whatever powers might be granted to Congress, regardless of whatever "mandate" the American electorate might have sent to congressional Democrats on November 7, we should, in fact, heed the well-considered and nobly motivated advice coming from much of the mainstream media, and indeed, from many of our well-intentioned colleagues on the Right. We must - at all costs - avoid the appearance of operating from political motivation. We must, in spite of the almost unbearable temptation to do so, refrain from the discussion - indeed, refrain even from the thought - of pulling out and using the Big Gun, the "i"-word.
I am speaking, of course, about -
INVESTIGATION.
During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led Congress made a mockery of the process of investigation. A quick examination of the list of some of the ill-founded, politically motivated, expensive, divisive fishing expeditions instigated by an irresponsible Republican party machine bent on discrediting an opponent in the White House bears this out (for a more thorough dissection of these wasteful investigations, see this 2001 report (PDF file) from Rep. Henry Waxman's office):
Today, Democrats, with our newly earned clout in both houses, must avoid at all costs the appearance of politicization or revenge-seeking. Since through their actions during the Clinton administration Republicans have so cheapened, so sullied in the public mind, the process of investigation, turning it into nothing more than a political sideshow designed to impugn and impede political foes for the purpose of derailing their policy agenda, a headlong rush to wield that power would convince the public that, indeed, Democrats seek only to "get back at" Republicans for their own politically motivated excesses during the Clinton administration.
For that reason, "investigation" is not something to be taken lightly, to be bandied about, to be brandished in the face of the administration and the American public. We must wait and see whether there is sufficient cause to investigate. Investigations divided the country, used up valuable resources, took much of the attention of Congress. Nothing got done. Money was spent. Mud was flung. People were subpoenaed and called to testify. We want to avoid that at all costs. What Republicans think about us is very important.
The logic does not stand up. The logic that holds that we should not use impeachment because the Republics made such a mockery of it would hold that we should never use FEMA again, because Republics have made such a mockery of it, or that we should never trust federal prosecutors again, because Republics have made such a mockery of them, or that we should never believe anything NASA says, because Republics have made such a mockery of it. Hell, by that logic, we should abandon the institutions of religion and marriage, since Republics have made such a mockery of those. Okay, how's this one:
We should never hold elections again, because Republics have made such a mockery of them.
Give the public credit for being smarter than that. Republic Kool-Aid® drinkers might not be able to tell their ass from their elbow, or shit from Shinola® - but most Americans are not Republics. Most Americans can tell the difference between a true political circus like the Clinton "impeachment," and something of profound consequence to the nation, which sober impeachment proceedings against any member of the current administration would be - and that difference would be obvious to anyone watching.
"Oh, no!" some impeachment opponents cry. "Republics lost seats in Congress after the Clinton impeachment!! That never happens in the sixth year of an opposition presidency!!!"
Just so. This exactly proves my point. How? Simple:
In contrast to what happened to the opposition Republics who impeached Bill Clinton, Democrats in the 1974 midterm elections picked up 49 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate, three months after - for all intents and purposes - impeaching a sitting president who just 21 months earlier had won re-election by the biggest electoral margin in modern history.
"But wait!" the skeptics will cry; "The 1974 elections weren't midterm elections!!!"
Wow. Gonna hang your hat on that? Okay, let's walk through that: First, and most obvious: Were they presidential elections? No. Second: Gerald Ford had been in office a total of three months; he had pardoned Nixon two months earlier. Are you seriously going to assert that Democrats - who, had Nixon not resigned, then would have been either (a) in the middle of impeachment hearings, or (b) just finished convicting Nixon - would not have seen similar results had Nixon still been in office?
Please.
Oh, but don't get me wrong; I get it: Those Republics are clever bastards, for sure. For more than 30 years, they have been successfully eroding public confidence in government and the tools of government to the point where now, with an administration in office that has arguably done more to harm this country than any other administration in history, people are seriously maintaining that we should not use the one unassailable tool available to us to halt this malfeasance and restore the possibility of a government that works for the benefit of the general public.
Grover Norquist had it right: The Republics are looking to shrink government to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. The way they intend to achieve that goal is by continually providing evidence of how awful government can be. The past six years alone have seen a U.S. attorney scandal tarnishing the reputation of the Department of Justice, the aftermath of Katrina make a mockery of FEMA, everything making the Department of Homeland Security look stupid, election fraud turning the most hopeful voters into cynics, Halliburton receiving multi-billion-dollar no-bid contracts to supply our troops with $45 cases of soda, breathtakingly cynical and corporately corrupted federal "oversight" over the environment, product safety, and mine safety, Republic "stewardship" of the economy, even NASA and the National Weather Service - formerly two of the most respected, nonpartisan of federal agencies - being populated by Soviet-style "political officers" who spout the Party line in obvious and breathtaking contravention of reality.
See, the truth is, the Republics' impeachment of Bill Clinton succeeded brilliantly - the fact that anyone is even seriously discussing the advisability of impeachment, given the misdeeds of the current crowd in power - not just in the White House, but scattered throughout the federal government and the judiciary - is astonishing. The Overton Window regarding the use of impeachment as a tool of governance was ripped out, plastered over, and moved to the other end of the house, in a project begun by the Republics in 1974.
Seen in that light, the so-called "failure" of the Clinton impeachment was no more a "failure" than a sacrifice fly in baseball is a "failure." Sure, the sitting Republics in the House lost a little ground - though they kept the majority - but more importantly for the Republic agenda, they advanced The Cause of Eroding Public Confidence in The Government. Cynicism cranked up several notches. As a direct result of the circus that the Republics turned the Clinton impeachment into, more Americans - including many on this site - saw impeachment as merely a political tool that essentially should never be wielded, because of all of the (newly added) negative connotations it (newly) carried.
And that is a tragedy for the future of our government.
A tragedy that was the goal of the Republics who carried it out. One less tool for ensuring accountability in government?
Mission Accomplished.
I believe that to oppose impeachment because of the way the process was debased by the Republicans against Clinton is to give in to cynicism, which will only further degrade our democracy. I believe one of the best possible ways for Democrats to raise the level of political discourse in this country - indeed, to raise the hopes of all Americans who believe in the ideals espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, toward what is possible, toward what a government that works can do - would be to go forward resolutely and soberly with impeachment proceedings against various members of this administration, beginning with Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. You want to give high school and middle school kids something to look up to regarding what their government is here for? I have a strong suspicion that impeachment will do just that – and that can only bode well for our country.
For a glimpse into just how pervasive and pernicious the Clinton Stain's effect has been on the discourse about the present situation, consider this exchange between ablington and Kagro X from a few days ago:
Not entirely true.
It's a mixed bag. My 60 yr old father, my 80-something maternal grandparents, and my 45 yr old brother in law (the only 3 Democrats I know who are not interested in impeachment), all cite the Clinton impeachment as part of the reason for why it would be a waste of time at this juncture. My brother in law is especially active in his local races and is going to an Elizabeth Edwards meetup this week (he's Liberal with a capital L). The attitude from all of them is almost dismissive, and it's clear (to me) that the Clinton debacle colors their views.
I guess my point is that the Clinton impeachment permeated it's crapulence throughout all demographics, for what it's worth.
by ablington on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:17:37 PM PDT
Amazing.
I don't know how you could have lived through Watergate and not be able to tell the difference.
Though I suspect it becomes easier with prompting. Like having your Congresspeople tell you it's all about Clinton so you'll get off their backs, already.
by Kagro X on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:31:13 PM PDT
They all know the difference between
Watergate and Clinton, and they all hate Bush. My grandparents switched affiliation during Bush' first term out of disgust. All smart people who follow politics and voted against Olympia Snowe despite the odds, etc.
I think ultimately what happened is that the Clinton impeachment fatigued people, and even savvy folks connect the event (in the absence of an ironclad smoking gun) with partisanship and pettiness. They may not even realize this consciously. In this respect, the GOP did themselves a preemptive favor.
I think that these leftover feelings in part explain why the poll numbers for impeachment aren't more on par with W's approval ratings.
My mother, on the other hand, would probably cut off a foot if it meant impeaching W.
by ablington on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:41:49 PM PDT
They probably do explain it.
Which is why we need to undo that perception. And the only way to undo it is to impeach someone who deserves it, using the process as it was meant to be used.
Otherwise, it's off the books forever, which was probably part of their aim in the Clinton fiasco.
I mean, has there been a Republican administration from Nixon on that hasn't spent its time pushing the boundaries of executive power -- or even one that hasn't used the same cast of characters to do it?
[snip]
by Kagro X on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:56:08 AM PDT
Another argument that has been floated by some anti-impeachment advocates goes something like this: "These guys are gonna be out soon enough. Instead of wasting our time trying to impeach them, let's use it passing legislation, getting things done."
First of all, they will not be "gone soon enough." Like crabgrass that won't go away unless it's killed all the way down to the roots, they will, if not rooted out and eliminated from positions of even middling power, bide their time, waiting - sometimes many years - to resurface later, when the time is right.
And as far as "wasting our time trying to impeach them," how about let's talk about the real waste of time: trying (a weak, powerless word if ever there was one) to pass legislation that means something, and will survive a veto by BushCheney? As someone wrote several months ago,
[T]he presence of George Bush in the Oval Office is the biggest stumbling block there is to fulfillment of the Democratic Party agenda in this country. If George Bush will not observe - never mind actively enforce - laws that have been duly passed by Congress and signed into law - signed, in many cases, even by himself - what possible reason on earth does anyone have to believe that he will (a) approve, or (b) abide by, laws over which he has veto power and with which he fundamentally disagrees? To believe that fulfilment of a Democratic agenda is possible with George Bush in the White House is as delusional as the man himself.
So - why don't we spend our time rooting out the weeds that have spread throughout the executive branch of government, so that we're not still fighting - pardon me, so my kids are not still fighting - their pernicious effects 20 or 30 years from now?
Besides – if you think it doesn't act as a deterrent to go after these guys, down to the lowest possible level, if you think the survivors just look on and go, "Hmmm - I just need to be smarter next time so it doesn't happen to me," if you think for that reason that it doesn't make sense to go forward with full, thorough and diligent prosecution, then why bother ever pursuing any prosecution, ever, against any criminal? That reasoning just does not hold up.
So - why use impeachment now? Why not just let these issues run their course through the legal system?
It is clear - and has been ably pointed out by Major Danby, Kagro X, and others on this site - that the Republics would loooooove for the whole "subpoena the White House and the Department of Justice" thing to "go to the courts" - they know that that will (a) take a long time, and (b) give the Republics a better-than-even chance - actually, I'd be willing to bet right now that their odds would be, oh, say, 5-4? Mmmm? - of winning, in the event that whatever the legal question is having to do with executive privilege, makes it to the Supreme Court.
That's why I said above, impeachment is the one unassailable tool available to us to halt this malfeasance and restore the possibility of a government that works for the benefit of the general public; it is beyond the reach of Republic influence. With a simple majority in the House, Cheney and Gonzales can be impeached.
I don’t want my children and their children pulling the weeds from the U.S. government that our generation has been given the opportunity to dig out. Congress must begin impeachment proceedings against this administration now.
Peace