Skip to main content

[Cross-posted from The Left Coaster]

Reading Billmon this afternoon--I knew that not even Father's Day could keep he or I away from the keyboard when Condi commits our children's generation  to further death and mayhem (in Iraq, or Iran, or Syria, or wherever the hell these bloodthirsty freaks dream of inflicting war crimes) one of his sentences struck me:  there are 1,211 days left for Bush's term.  The next Congress will be sworn in approximately 600 days.  In 630 days the House could impeach Bush--the war felon could be gone and well on his way to being chained only two years from now.

After some consideration I've joined the growing chorus to impeach Bush now.  I frankly do not care how ludicrous the charge seems with a Republican House and corporate media; the observation that this will seem petty payback for Clinton leaves me unmoved, and I'm unconvinced any political energy or capital expended this year is wasted.  Immediate impeachment is the only correct and moral stance this Democrat can take.

I do think the inevitable thwarting of any impeachment efforts this year will only ratchet up a growing roar of discontent and anger at Bush, which the Democratic Party would be absolute fools to ignore in their House strategy.  Lord, we're only 17 House members short of impeaching Bush!  How is this not a blazing opportunity to tap resentment and rejection of this insane, illegal, lying murdering war?

A Kos diary ran up the Chinook ladder of leaping entries over there to flop in the nirvana spawning of the recommended list just as I started this, calling for Bush's impeachment now.  A commenter said waiting for 2006 is lame and I agree, if that means just sitting there now and thinking The Election to Impeach Bush is next year.

That election is now.  If Pelosi and the rest of the leadership make the specific call to impeach Bush with a House win now the base will respond in ways they cannot imagine.

A base PAC fund targeted at the blogosphere could bring in at least $20 million dollars to critical House races--money completely free of filthy corporate strings.  As quickly as possible the DNC issues software and blog tools to challengers, gives out server space, and hopefully has a talent base of remote coders that challengers could draw upon.

There's a challenger up in Pombo's district I like.  Many of y'all have patiently read through my rants of that foul, foul man, The Marlboro Man, Bush has nicknamed him.  After redistricting in 2000 his district, incredibly, jumped the Line of Hick (Central Valley) right into Pleasanton and the Livermore Valley, the place of my upbringing.  Every time I think of the valley represented by Pombo I want to throw up.

About once a month I dream of cashing in my disaster recovery plan (a year's salary), code for a challenger for 18 months and then decide if I really want to move to DC, go back to contracting or find another candidate.  The only reason I never do it is the alleged stability of my corporate paycheck--I'm not abdicating my family duty lightly for a Democratic party that has over 20 members vote for the bankruptcy bill.

But if I knew a House win would  impeach Bush the first item of duty I would very likely become the citizen I should be and hook up with the best House challenger who would take me (I'm a web producer).  If the Democratic leadership got real and did what was necessary to rally the base and win by calling for Bush's impeachment, I'd be there.

So would the rest of the party and the country.  We really can impeach Bush if we just stop sitting here saying and doing nothing for 2006.

// 1950.32 PST Update: // Concerned commenters below have stated that calling for impeachment now will create a negative backlash among swing voters.

I believe this is incorrect internal framing. The time to investigate is right freaking now. Trust and follow the leadership of Pelosi, Slaughter and Conyers. In 18 months impeachment will be inevitable with the right investigative tactics now, but the end result of impeachment after 2006 must be stated. Why else investigate?

I am leery of the premise anyway. Polling consisently shows Democrats "need to stand for something." We suffered through impeachment for a blowjob but for vast war crimes we just earn our polling problem some more? I don't think so. We stand for the rule of law and common human decency--the only answer is to impeach.

Lastly, a comment outlined our incumbency problem and gerrymandered districts. To which I say: to admit defeat before starting is the surest way to lose.

No Republican is safe who supports the war felon Bush. Think DeLay is safe? Think again. Pombo is not safe--no one is safe to whom we bear our full resources and attention with a mission to take down these grossly un-American war felons and their enablers. No one.

Originally posted to paradox on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:17 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  DIng Ding Ding! (4.00)
    Nail smashed directly with hammer.

    This is exactly what we should be focusing on.

    •  Yeah (4.00)
      It really isn't a fantasy at all when you think about it.  If we can't get 17 seats for impeachment, why are we a party at all?

      Not hard to do.  I'd help.

      •  It's probably early, (3.80)
        but I'd bet that a lot of people are already starting to think about who the most vulnerable and beatable Republican House members are. I hope so, at least.
        •  In olden times... (4.00)
          Back in the day, a 17-seat turnaround could have been easy or even a significant underachievement.  But with the district lines drawn so well to protect incumbents ... well, it's going to be harder this time.

          And, remember, they're doing exactly the same to us.

          Still, this is where the fight is.  The House is the most important, the Senate is a close second, and the presidency is a distant third.  IMHO.

          2006 - America Wakes Up

          by socratic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:24:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Bush is Impeached or Steps Down (4.00)
            before we take Congress back, it won't matter one bit - Hatert is the successor by law after Cheney.  You are right, Paradox, what we need to do is win in '06 and ten impeach the SOB when we will be able to take power.  You are also right that the election - the campaign for '06 has to begin right now!  

            I would love to hear from people around the country about who may be challenging GOP candidates (especially "safe" who could be "endangered/gone") if we get the word out.

            This Congress is very vulnerable.  Let's keep it that way...

            •  Yeah, and ... (4.00)
              If we hear of a district where the local DP isn't running a candidate, we need to challenge a person from the kos family who lives there just to put his or her name on the freaking ballot.  They wouldn't have to put up any money or even really advertise (though, I'll be happy to buy a couple hundred bumper stickers and yard signs for any of you who want to run in an "unwinnable" district in '06.. I'll design 'em too), but the DP needs to show up.

              2006 - America Wakes Up

              by socratic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:42:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Showing Up is the ONLY way to Campaign (4.00)
                Socratic you and I so agree on that.  My parents are moving back to Alabama.  We'll enlist my Dad.  He doesn't really have anything better to do with his time.
                •  Awesome (none)
                  And that's how we'll win America... the "I didn't have anything better to do with my time" strategy!  :)

                  But, really, that's exactly the sort of person we need around.  Folks who have nothing to lose, because Americans still like that type of person, and even ONE upset would send a message.

                  If your dad runs, I'll come over from Georgia and door-to-door.

                  2006 - America Wakes Up

                  by socratic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:14:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Cool (none)
                    I am afraid he'll be tough to enlist, but I'll do my best.  He was on the Hill for years.  They are actually moving back to AL from DC so that would be quite ironic if he won wouldn't it?

                    Anyhow he is good Democrat and he has indeed telegraphed almost every Bush move and been utterly disgusted.  He'd definitely vote for impeachment.  The other good thing is he doesn't give a damn about anyone not liking him because he is a Dem...

                    •  BUSH IS JUST A FIGUREHEAD... (none)
                      It's the greedy and criminally myopic POLICIES of the right that PUT CORPORATIONS AHEAD of the American PEOPLE that we need to focus on.

                      My guess is that when he has outlived his usefulness to his sponsors, Mr. Bush will be retired by them.

                      And perhaps conveniently scapegoated away..

                      If we fall for that, we're fools.. and we deserve to lose..

                      ITS THE STUPID POLICIES, STUPID...

                      •  Totally agree that Bush is a figurehead (none)
                        That is why I am such a passionate advocate for winning Congress back - it is presumed that we would win it back with people who share our beliefs on policy - or shall I say POLICY.

                        Look this has been a discussion of the reality that impeaching Bush won't do shit unless we win Congress.  I have spent a lot of time today in another diary talking about the FACT that impeachment isn't really what we want because it won't change the POLICY.  These people are like pod people.  Easily replaced by some other pod person who is going to try and advance the GOP agenda just as vigilantly, but because Americans are so forgiving we'll have to start all over proving that the next was as bad or worse that the last on POLICY.  They are a team - they have team spirit and they will eat their young or old for the good of the team.  So impeaching Bush until we have a clear line to power is a waste of time.  Turning the American public against hima AND all of the OTHER POD PEOPLE is the goal that I feel offers the best outcome for real POLICY changes.

                        My Dad yells louder than you which probably makes him a bad candidate, but man on POLICY and not incidently HONESTY I am pretty sure you'd be well represented.

            •  Investigate or Impeach? (4.00)
              Impeaching might be a real leap for most people who are just getting the whiff of a bad deal.  45% of the public still give Bush good marks for war on terror.  I think we stop the impeach talk and stay focused on an independent investigation of the Downing Street memos. Weren't we supposed to get the second half of the 9/11 investigation after the '04 election. Where is Jay Rockefeller on this? Screaming impeachment now seems premature.  The Dems should then use the PR about  the lies and corruption big time to get the house to flip to our side so we have the possibility of impeaching after the '06 elections.  I don't think it will work otherwise.
      •  One of my worries is... (none)
        that we could gain 17 Bush impeachers only to realize that we have 18 (or more) apostates already in the House. How do we get rid of these existing DINO traitors?

        The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Dump Chafee in '06.

        by jayatRI on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:27:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ACT NOW (none)
      How many more of our babies are we going see murdered to uphold an administration that is guilty of treason?
      They endangered the people. They committed the grossest violation of their sworn duty to the nation.
      The representatives of the people who refuse to move for impeachment, who willingly, deliberately allow ever more of our children to die are complicit.  
      We the people who fail to take this message to every one of our representatives and demand action, are failing to our duty to our fellow citizens.
      Push to draw down our troops now. Any further funding to Iraq should go to it's own government to determine how THEY wish to use it to hire their own people to rebuild. Funding foreign contractors, with foreign workers, who hire militias that fire on the Iraqi people is in direct contradiction to assisting the citizens of that nation that we have so heavily damaged.
      This adminstration has proven itself corrupt, inept bunglers, both at home and abroad.  We must not dally, for we ensure further damage to our own nation as well as Iraq.
      •  I'm biased (none)
        because it's MY BABY that could easily be recalled to active duty and sent to Iraq. I'm not a chickenhawk...I'm just another one of those parents who's unwilling to grieve.  She wouldn't be putting her life on the line in defense of the nation, just in defense of Halliburton's profit.
  •  Litmus test time (4.00)
    To every candidate running for Congress in 2006.

    Will you vote to impeach George Bush?

    Note to waffling candidates:  This doesn't mean you have vote to convict him.  This is just about having an honest inquiry (under oath) into the Bushman's statements to Congress and to We the People.

    Let's start building the list.

    •  Oh. (4.00)
      And please recommend. This is a big idea. Let's not it slip away into the diary black hole.
      •  Recommeded (none)
        And yeah, I can definitely see this as "Vote for those who are accountable and those who will hold the transgressors accountable."

        With the approval ratings so low on the incumbents (they all loose from Georgie's failures), how can the voters not reflect this in the voting booths?

        Chaos. It's not just a theory.

        by PBnJ on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:27:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Or a litmust test for the voters (none)
      "Do you want to send the same Republican back to Congress when he [or she] was so easily deluded by either bad intelligence or outright lies?"

      Vote for a clue...

      2006 - America Wakes Up

      by socratic on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:26:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lied to Congress and the public about the war (none)
        Look, these greedy lying crooks obtained authority for war on false pretenses.

        They presented Congress and the public with false evidence for their WMDs case and Saddam=9/11 case. They continued to lie, dissemble, equivocate -- whatever giftwrap you want to put on it -- and were presenting false premises for the Iraq war as recently as a few days ago.

        Ask any wobbly voter, pol or member of the Mousy Media what's worse: lying about an affair or

        • premeditated lying to breach the separation of powers?
        • lying to engage in an illegal war that's killed over 100,000 people?
        • lying to fill wealthy pockets on these deaths?

        Damn straight we should say "impeachment" and attach the phrase "impeachable offense" to every instance of, well, an impeachable offense that turns up in the news. And there are plenty. It's not a partisan issue.

        Rule of law, restoring checks and balances, demand immediate impeachment proceedings.

  •  President Cheney (none)
    Yikes!

    From the frying pan into the fire.  Careful what you wish for kinda thing...

    As thrilled as I would be to see the Feeb-in-Chief impeached and convicted (and I would dance naked in Times Square if it happened), I'd much rather see a Democratic majority in 2006 to make the remainder of his (or Cheney's, I suppose) term impotent.

    The whole administration would have to go.

    •  Seems like we might need to impeach (none)
      his lying ass too.
    •  If this scenario plays out (4.00)
      Cheney goes down with Bush and next in line is Speaker of the House - presumably Nancy Pelosi.

      Is America ready for the first woman President, especially one named Nancy ? ;)

      Freedom does not march.

      by ex republican on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:54:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow (none)
        I had not thought of that.  Hmmmmm.
        •  Cool! (none)
          Go Nancy..

          She's great..

          But hell, I'd take any Dem..

          Really, Bush/Cheney is like Nixon/Agnew

          We know how that worked out..

          This is a test to see who in the GOP is not a crook..who actually cares about America..

      •  wooohoooooo (4.00)
        That'd kick ass. I had my brain wrapped around Hastert but if we win in 2006... We could steal the presidency right out from under their slimy feet and apoint a woman in their place. HA HA. All these paternalistic neanderthals would be crying all the way home. It'd be beeee-Utiful.

        Man, that'd be sweet sweet justice. Yeah, we've definitely gotta put this off till 2006... not that we'll be able to so anything but put it off of course.

        "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:05:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  President Pelosi in 2007 (4.00)
        I've been telling all my friends that this could happen for two weeks now.  

        And if we don't have President Pelosi in 2007, I'm afraid we'll have President (Jeb) Bush or President Frist in 2009.

        If we can't muster the moral outrage to impeach Bush and Cheney and a few others in this administration now, 6 years after Clinton was impeached for trivial reasons, then when can we?  Why wait until 2006?  Put those Republicans who voted to investigate and impeach Clinton to the test:  will they do the same for Bush and gang for much more serious offenses?  Force them to decide, on the record, now.

        •  If Clinton had never been... (none)
          ...impeached for crappy reasons, I would never buy a scenario like this. But after '98, every possibility is on the table.

          The truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with that. Except it ain't so. --Twain

          by MichaelPH on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:11:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Couldn't they get around that... (none)
        if one of them resigns first, and the other appoints a replacement VP before he resigns?


        Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by Abou Ben Adhem on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:16:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh...... (none)
      Solving this little problem isn't hard.  Impeach Cheney too.

      Impeach them both and bring our servicepeople home.  Why more death for utter futility?

      Whomever ends up President would be the greatest quacker of all time, far surpassing Ford, and the White House would be ours in 2008, along with Congress.

      It's time to get serious--only 630 days, people, not 2008.  2008 is too far away.

    •  I never understand this reasoning (4.00)
      And I understand that you aren't saying to NOT impeach.  You are just saying, "Yikes!"

      However, many people are saying that we should not work to impeach Bu$hCo because the next in line is worse.  To that I say, "We get rid of the tyrants, one at a time or all together."  It is wrong to leave a tyrant in power because there is another tyrant.  There will always be another tyrant.

      The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

      by TXsharon on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:15:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Notice how Reagan had Bush, and Bush 1 had Quayle. (none)
        But any impeachment should apply to both.. as both particiapated in the intentional deception..

        I mean they tried to impeach Clinton for lying about Monica.. this is around 10,000 times more relevant..

        How ironic...

    •  Impeach Bush/Cheney & Co. (none)
      that will take a year or two.

      Then in 2006 maybe John Conyers will be Speaker of the House....then President.

      Touche.

      HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

      by annrose on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:38:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Whole administration has to go. Appointees too. (none)
      Nothing less. Those who advocate no impeachment instead of policy have it completely wrong. We have have perfect candidates for impeachment, conviction and prison time. Talk about
      criminal deferral of creating dog shit policy and law. It doesn't get any better.

       If Policy and law is not about the people of the USA , instead of  of corporations, then it's worthless policy anyway. If we don't have the power to make that policy, all the protests  about wingnuts ruining the country is as worthless as a fart in a strong wind.

       Ignoring and lying to the only constituents you have is  a crime. Doing it to congress gets you jail time. The penalty along with jail time;  No retirement pay. No speech circuits. Probation officers for 30 years. No book deals. No sleazy lobby work and "Think Tanks" jobs...ALL Banned.

      No  Government work for life of all the administration and the facilitators in congress and make that law hard core all the way down to the local level.

      Also, let's not forget Gitmo for the Ring leaders.

      Then we will get is good policy that will serve a diverse group of people.  It's a terrific approach. It re-inforces the D's as the party for the "Rule of Law". (Notice how  get  to what we stand for down  to 3 words) It will endear us to our allies who desperately want this administration gone.

      It will bring fiscal sanity back and finally it will make all those commentators who claim D's don't have a spine (a Combo quote coming) to "shut the fuck up". This takes balls and for those of you who want to "investigate" more. That's what the impeachment process is for except this time it's with
      Subpoena power and oaths that will get those shit heads jail time if they lie...

      Let's get it done. The 2006 Election is going to be here before we know it. Two more years of blood and death and a broken country? Or do we get this country back on track?

       

      Oversize Rants Available Overnight at
      The Image Factory

      by Dburn on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:37:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree (4.00)
    The election should be a nationalized referrendum to INVESTIGATE all the wrongdoings of the Republicans. Dems running for office should not let the word IMPEACH pass their lips. Nor should national Dem spokespeople.

    Let the Republicans claim that Dems want to impeach - Dems should be on message, all the time - investigate, investigate, investigate. Let your Republican opponent claim that the investigation will lead to impeachment. (meta response: "why would it lead to impeachment if nobody has done anything wrong? This is America, not some two bit police state - you are presumed innocent till proved guilty.")

    I think this is the best way to frame it.

    Comments and controversy always welcome - it is not like anyone is going to do what we say here anyway.

    Freedom does not march.

    by ex republican on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:02:15 PM PDT

  •  Will we only have one shot? (4.00)
    After our late-90's experience, it is instructive to remember that whoever strikes at a king had better kill him.  If an impeachment effort fails, Bush may well garner sympathy from normally-inattentive voters, and his retribution wouldn't be something I'd like to see.

    I'm all for talking about impeachment, accumulating the evidence, and making the case to the country.  The stronger the case, the better chance we have of either snagging wavering Republicans or having Bush as a 2006 campaign issue.  But this is a process which will have its own momentum and life, and we must be careful not to push it before it ripens.  We risk a catastrophic backfire if we do.

    Lies are the new truth.

    by Dallasdoc on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:03:18 PM PDT

  •  overreaching (4.00)
    I think impeachment, or an attempt at impeachment would be a disasterous move from a political standpoint. Just beccause the public is increasingly  unhappy with President Bush's "leadership" does not mean that people would support impeachment. For proof of this, just look at Clinton. Republicans thought they could use Lewinsky to destroy him, and instead people rallied around the president. And before I get attacked, of course I think that lying a country into war is 1000 times more serious than getting oral sex. But I just can't believe the public will support impeachment. Dems can should and will use the disaster in Iraq to great effect in the midterms, and they might even take back the house. But actually impeaching Bush, or threatening it? That could easily cause a backlash against Dems and cause Bush's plummeting approval numbers to rebound.  
    •  People rallied around Clinton because, (none)
      after all, he was doing a good job as President, the economy was going well, and -- even if the self-righteous moralists don't like it -- I think they realized that a married man's lying about a possible affair was not that big an offense.

      Now it's different: people are starting to realize they have been lied to repeatedly and directly, and they are not going to want their kids and spouses to continue dying in an illegitimate war.

      I think people were mainly titillated, scurrilously amused, and pruriently curious about the Monica story (like with Michael Jackson), all the while feigning being righteously scandalized. But now they are -- or at least have the potential to become -- pissing angry and fed up.

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by Donna in Rome on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:22:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Votes (none)
        Can you honestly tell me you think there are enough votes for impeachment? Enough in the house to draft articles for impeachment and enough in the senate to actually convict bush? And if not, why shut the government down for months over an issue that voters probably aren't going to fully support dems on? Instead of making 2006 about impeachment and trying to punish bush for screwing up so badly, I say we propose a positive agenda on everything except social security. Appeal to voters hopes instead of their anger over what has already been done. Say "these are the 2000 issues President Bush is out of touch with ordinary voters on, including iraq. This is what we'd do differently, and we wanna kick his ass out to actually help people". That highlights everything Bush has screwed up on without creating a "rally around the president" mentality.
        •  I definitely don't think there are enough (none)
          votes for impeachment... at least yet. But if things start warming up too much, it's possible that some rats will want to jump off what they see as a sinking ship, and distance themselves from someone who would otherwise drag them down with him. They'll be looking out for their own hides, if the case against Bush becomes stronger.

          As for a hope-based agenda, I'm afraid that just sounds like the usual heads-on-our-shoulders, reasonable Democrat logic that simply has not been working in recent years. People don't listen to the calm, constructive voice of reason. They respond to sound bites, to catchy phrases, slogans, and insults. We were already trying to reason logically in the last election, but they didn't listen. They listened to the mud slinging and Swift Boat liars, and voted for the "war president" because there was a war in course (and that probably won't change in the near future), and they were easy prey to the Repugs' plays on their fear of terrorism.

          Especially if we don't fix the voting system, I'm afraid such a campaign just wouldn't work. We have to make more noise -- not in the same way as the Republicans, but noise just the same.

          "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

          by Donna in Rome on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:19:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I could not agree more (none)
          It is vital that 2006 be about ideas and hope. Even among the staunch republicans I work with hear in the Deep South, I find that there is an amazing amount of common ground once party labels are dropped from the discussion. Talk about corrupt corporations (Wal-mart draws the ire of both the left and the right) and reform. Talk about investing in science and technology research so that we can regain our lost competitive edge. Talk about petroleum independence.

          Talk about independent investigation and political reform. Everyone that is not a billionaire is leery of corporate lobbyist. Revisit the Medicare and prescription drug fiasco. Only hope will conquer the fear that is driving soccer moms and suburbia to support the Repubs.
        •  I just now found this N.Y. Times (none)
          article linked on Raw Story under the title "Times: Bush 'close to fiery wreck', ebbing".

          It says:

          "The political capital he thought he had has dwindled to very little, and he overstated how much he had to begin with," said Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington.

          "Congress is like Wall Street - it operates on fear and greed," Mr. Lichtman said. "The Democrats don't fear him anymore, and they're getting greedy, because they think they can beat him. The attitude you see among Republicans in Congress is, my lifeboat first."

          And it doesn't even mention the latest, and most dangerous, problem: the DSM.

          "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

          by Donna in Rome on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:56:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there's a difference (none)
            that says that people are unhappy with him and that his capital is spent think that it automatically translates into support for impeachment. I think it's a huge step from dislike to impeachment and that threshold isn't anywhere near being crossed in my opinion.
            •  Of course, I know that's true. (none)
              That's not what I meant here. I just added in this piece because it mirrored my analogy above of the possibility of rats wanting to abandon the ship ("The attitude you see among Republicans in Congress is, my lifeboat first"), with the first paragraph included simply to introduce the second... I had run across the article right after I had written that.

              "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

              by Donna in Rome on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:16:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong Wrong Wrong (none)
      The Rethugs impeached Clinton, and used it to destroy Gore. Now they run this nation with an iron fist.

      Turnabout is more than fair play, it's necessary.

      •  the republicans impeached clinton (none)
        and Clinton was the first president in forever to have his party pick up seats in the midterms in the 6th year of his presidency. THe impeachment backfired big time on the republicans. Explain to me why that couldn't happen this time? this has to be more about revenge and anger...political reality has to come into play at some point.
        •  Backfired in the midterm (none)
          but was gloden in the next preidential election and in all eceltions since. Minus some blowjobs, Gore would be President today, and Osama Bin Laden would be in custody or dead.

          We can use our anger, focus, and direct it like the wingnuts have done.

          •  nonsense (none)
            The country still loves Clinton. look at the polls saying bush would get killed by clinton. Gore lost because he ran away from clinton as fast as bhe could instead of letting Clinton campaign for him.
            •  Bullshit (none)
              Any Dem would beat Bush right now. Dennis Kucinich would stomp the bastard.

              That doesn't help us come election time. The Roves and the Russerts will kill us with innuendo, lies, irrelvancy and trivia. Because they can and because it profits them.

              The idea is to stain them irrevoacbly. Watergate only kept them down for only six years because we didn't push it and got all weepy and bipartisan.

              Hurt them. Maim them. Smash them. Jail them. Repeat.

              •  explain to me please (none)
                how impeachment does ANY of those things. You're not going to hurt them, you're not going to maim them, you're definitely not going to jail them because there are nowhere near the votes in the senate, and you'll be letting him up off the mat by allowing the public to rally around their "president who is under attack from vindictive democrats". Which do you think is easier for rove to spin: an impeachment, or a litany of sins of the Bush administration accompanied by a list of ways democrats would do it all better?
                •  Defeatist nonsense (none)
                  How exactly did Clinton's impeachment hurt the Rethugs? They paid no price and gained immesurably.

                  As far as spin goes, will the public rally to Chimpy's defense in the face of a massively unpopular war and a weak economy? Why?

                  •  How did it hurt them?? (none)
                    They lost seats! They lost seats in a way that no party ever had before! Clinton's approval rating went through the roof. That's paying no price? What sort of price did you want them to pay, I mean really, how do you hurt a party worse than causing them to lose seats and stall the momentum of their glorious "Contract With America"? Even republican elites will say that the impeachment of clinton backfired. I don't know what else you're looking for.
                    •  They lost because (none)
                      they had, in the end, nothing but Monica to work with. We have REAL issues (plural).

                      Not the same situation, not the same result.

                      It's the Neo-conjob, stupid.

                      by nargel on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:51:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  find me 20 republican senators (none)
                        who will be willing to convict the president of anything. 20. Dems are lucky if they can peel off 6 votes for something like medicaid. Hell they can't peel off 6 votes to stop ANWR. But they're gonna peel off 20 votes to remove the leader of the Republican party?
  •  Sorry to be dense (none)
    I live in Manhattan. Traveling to PA and OH for Kerry was an amazing experience for me.

    Where could I best help? Tight Senatorial race? House races?

    Help me out...

    George Bush prancing on the aircraft carrier: one of America's worst moments

    by grushka on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:09:27 PM PDT

    •  Pay attention (none)
      to the lists of senators and reps who need help near you. There are commonly polls about various approval ratings on the front page - call their campaigns and ask who needs help.
    •  NY arrogance (none)
       there's no place like home. plenty to do in new york. the spitzer race. sue kelly cballange in westchester.  a long shot right now...but who knows. in '04 republicans relied on local infrastructures. i also went to OH and PA...and relize the error of my/our ways.
  •  Half the House is not enough (4.00)
    If the House votes to impeach, there's a trial in the Senate, with a 2/3 majority required.  Barring some massive new revelation, that simply isn't going to happen.  There are probably at least 34 Senators tightly tied either to the pseudochristian fundies or to the administration's corruption, and that's enough to acquit.  Impeaching Bush will be nothing but a show trial.
    •  Not necessary to prevail (4.00)
      The investigation would bring out such damining evidence that mass resignations would ensue. President Pelosi indeed.
    •  Forget About Convicting Him (4.00)
      It's the revelations from the hearings, conducted with subpeona power, that would get the truth out. And impeaching him in the House would go a long way toward telling the world, and history, that many in America finally realize what a criminal Bush is. He would forever be tarnished with having been impeached, having his crimes enshrined in detail in the bills of impeachment, and having his name forever linked with Jackson and Clinton. A Senate conviction is not required for these things.

      While removing him from power would be better, it would accomplish plenty to hold hearings and to impeach him.

      "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." — Thomas Jefferson

      by schuylkill on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:29:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not the same (none)
        I agree with all the sentiment saying that pursuing impeachment would be a political catastrophe.  That said if things get bad enough with the public to make impeachment feasible, Bush will not be linked to Johnson and Clinton.  Johnson and Clinton are both remembered for being persecuted pointlessly by their political opponents; for Bush (as it would have been for Nixon) impeachment would have more legitimacy.

        A question: is lying to the public considered a 'high crime' or 'misdemeanor'?  I don't recall Bush ever saying under oath anywhere that he was taking the country to war over WMD, or that he waited until the bitter end until taking our country to war.  The only thing I can think of is perhaps some violation of the Geneva Convention, or some sort of argument that he violated 1441 or something...

        •  The GOP lies like most of us breathe.. (none)
          Now, if we don't have a problem with that, and can't do something about it, there is something seriously wrong with us..

          Its criminal for government officials to lie to Congress.. if it 'isn't', we need to change something, now..

          Or all of us should just move elsewhere and let them talk to themselves.. this wont be America..

        •  Diverting Afghan war funds is impeachable (4.00)
          $700 million was assigned by Congress to the Afghan war/aftermath and was diverted to Iraq preparations.  That's the constitutional violation (only Congress allocates money), and there's a paper trail.  No hair-splitting over whether there was a lie under oath or whatever.  Bonus: it was a really bad idea too.
          •  Yep (none)
            Bingo - you are most definitely correct about that (can't believe I forgot about that; I guess the laundry list of misdeeds is so long it's hard to keep them all straight).

            I still think impeachment would be a politically bad move, but it would definitely be on sound legal footing.  Thanks for reminding me.

        •  The actual charges would be... (none)
          Conspiracy to defraud the United States Congress

          Conspiracy to defraud the American People

          Both are felonies and are, therefore, impeachable offenses. These are also, ironically, the charges leveled against Clinton.

          "A journalist is someone who cannot distinguish between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization." George Bernard Shaw

          by green917 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:49:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hearings don't require impeachment (none)
        The show of hearings could be very useful, but impeachment isn't necessary.  Congress has subpeona power anyway.  Remember the goofy idea of subpeonaing Terry Schiavo?  I suspect it's like chess - the threat of impeachment is more useful than an actual act, which can be parried.  Remember that a useful impeachment requires impeaching Cheney only then Bush and refusing to confirm a replacement VP until the whole thing is done.  That's a rather blatant power play and will carry political costs - Dems will do worse in '08 than they otherwise would.  I think it's better to keep investigating to show the Repubs for what they are.  If something really outrageous comes up, like an intent to go to way with Iran or covert aid to OBL, then impeach.

        Fundamentally, impeachment is political (sadly).  If the public is clamoring for it, do it.  But if there's not consensus that Bush should go, it's probably counterproductive.  

    •  A very useful show trial (none)
      The Rethugs have milked Clinton for 8 long years on the back of 10 blowjobs.

      We can do better in the name of 1700 dead Americans.

  •  Diebold (4.00)
    This all works if we can make sure they don't STEAL votes in 2006...  
  •  With all the cooler heads prevailing here (4.00)
    I guess that leaves us radical extremists to beat the Chimpeachment drum.  

    But this is good. We can have our cake and eat it too. This will make all the even-keeled practical types look sane and reasonable. God bless you and thanks for holding down the middle of the road.

    I however am sick of being reasonable.

  •  What legal remedies... (none)
    ...are available after Bush leaves office?

    Can he be accused and tried as a common criminal for crimes committed while in office? Always presuming, of course, that the little bugger doesn't pardon himself as his last official act.

    "Salvation is by way of the truth, not by way of the fatherland" -- Chaadaev

    by sagesource on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:03:09 PM PDT

    •  Not necessarily. (none)
      However, if the Dem. Congress were to make joining the International Court their first act in power, we could hand them over to the Hague for violation of about 17 International laws. Remember, one of the most damning portions of the DSM was the part dealing with the Barristers finding a way to make it legal. Preemptive military action solely for the sake of regime change violates several treaties and laws that we (the USA) are a signator of.

      "A journalist is someone who cannot distinguish between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization." George Bernard Shaw

      by green917 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:55:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This isn't the first time Rice made (none)
    this "generational comment. She made it as well back in 2003.

    Diary plug:
    Rice's Generational Iraq Timetable

  •  Brillant idea, (none)
    Impeachment would rev up the base like nothing else. Officially we call it "investigating" though. I think alot of people were really turned off by the Clinton mess, and are inclined to think the Dems are just returning tit for tat. When it comes, it must not look partisan.

    We are all wearing the blue dress now.

    by PLS on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:13:19 PM PDT

  •  Someone needs to do a round of polling (none)
    along these lines:

    • If Bush did X, should he be impeached?

    • If Bush did Y, should he be impeached?

    • If Bush did Z, should he be impeached?


    However good we may think the idea of impeachment, most Dems aren't going to move on it unless they see significant public support. And such a poll might be helpful in establishing which particular charges should be pursued.


    Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by Abou Ben Adhem on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Yeah! (none)
    Because President Cheney will be much better!

    ==== The More You Know *

    by ZT155 on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:49:23 PM PDT

  •  Impeachment vs. Investigation (none)
    That horse has left the barn. Anyone who watched the Conyers DSM Hearing on CSPAN heard impeachment a bunch of times. Hell, with the Downing Street Memos there isn't much of anything left to investigate. Bush lied, GIs died.

    For my money, every single Democratic Senator except Kennedy has forfeited their right to claim the mantle of leadership by their failure to get out in front on the DSM.

    Extremism in defense of NPR is no vice!

    by JollyBuddah on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 07:54:04 PM PDT

  •  1st test date Aug 2, 2005 OHIO (none)
    The seven-county district has the most lopsided Republican advantage of any congressional district in Ohio, having produced a 2-to-1 margin for President Bush in 2004 and routinely sending Portman back to Washington via 3-to-1 landslides

    Jean Schmidt's unofficial 705-vote victory over former U.S. Rep. Bob McEwen, the second-place finisher in the GOP primary, makes her the odds-on favorite in the special Aug. 2 general election in the heavily Republican district, positioning her to write an improbable political comeback.

    Paul Hackett, a 43-year-old Indian Hill lawyer and Marine reservist who returned from Iraq in March after a seven-month tour, was "still embracing my wife and kids" the day he got home when a close friend told him of Portman's unexpected resignation and encouraged him to run. After discussing it for a day with his wife, he did.

    This is the race Pat DeWine lost, Senator DeWine's son........

  •  Paul Hackett is a Democrat..... (none)
    Sorry left out the information .....
  •  Conspiring to wage aggressive war (none)
    That's what they got Admiral Raeder for at Nuremburg.

    Something to share around the water cooler tomorrow.

  •  I have a devilish little idea... (none)

    From Wapo-

    ""   Suggest a Sketch
    What scenes of Washington politics would you like Dana Milbank to write about? E-mail your suggestions of people, places or events -- along with your name and hometown to-

    Sketch@washpost.com   ""

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html?nav=hcmodule

    Here's a first foray:

    Sketch this...

    --Why the publicly discredited, humiliated, and scorned Shama Milbank threw himself off of your L Street Building this weekend...

    --Or why the WhiteWash Post lost a huge swath of readership/ subscriptions over their abysmal, juvenile coverage of the DSM...

    --Or how many journalists at your hallowed whitewashing outfit are cashing clandestine bonuses for serving as this sorry Administration's stenographers and useful idiots...

    --Or how Milbank's shoddy reporting has summoned the legacy of his look-alike Stephen Glass...

    --Or recent revelations that Milbank is in fact Glass...

    any other possible sketches out there Kossacks?

    'Tis better to Diebold...than to slink away quietly!

    by traitorbushchimp on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 09:04:43 PM PDT

  •  Fuck the swing voters (none)
    If they can't figure out how horrid these thugs are, and are STILL undecided, they shouldn't be voting.
    •  Swing voters... (none)
      Swing voters are dumb sheep. They will respond to whichever is the strongest message. The responded to the message that Kerry was a flip-flopping traitor to the nation. They will respond to the message that George Bush is a god damned liar eating American GI's for breakfast.

      Really, people. They're SWING voters. Whoever pushes the hardest wins.

  •  impeach his dumb-ass brother too (none)
  •  I agree - (none)
    Impeachment and elections are 2 different issues.
    We need to keep building NOW on the building outrage!!   and not let up!!  They didn't.
  •  Fine (none)
    Fine.  Impeach Bush ....

    Who's next in line for succession?

    Just remember that.

  •  Campaign Demands Resolution of Inquiry (4.00)

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

    by SarahLee on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:35:02 PM PDT

  •  2006 election is precisely why we should start now (none)
    All the bad news that impeachment discussions would bring is exactly why we should start now, because some of it will surely rub off on GOP candidates. I don't think we'll be viewed as partisan radicals because, when you think about it, the evidence is too strong against Bush. And I suspect that many people would give us a break even if that wasn't case, simply because it's ludicrous that we would impeach a President for lying about a sexual escapade and not for leading us to war.

    Democrats -- Progress for the Working Class

    by rogun on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:47:39 PM PDT

  •  Tippecanoe and torture too (none)
    I think this is the most sensible idea of all.  Impeached by the voters.  What a truly superb and appropriate denouement.  Proving once again that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.  

    It's the only way to regain our good name and reputation.  And no one could ever say it was a partisan effort.

    This criminal regime is filled with lying, murdering, torturing bastards.  Criminals of the highest order.  War criminals.  Crimes against humanity.  Crimes against rationality.

    If we don't have the courage to demand this, then your children belong in the Cheney Youth.  And you should start learning your Chinese.

  •  Impeachment as a political weapon (none)
    is what the other side does.  Are we really interested in saving America?  Or are we just going to devolve into a squalling bunch of spoiled brats?

    The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:54:20 AM PDT

    •  What are we now? (none)
      Are we all culpable in this current country's war crimes?  I don't know.  It makes me extremely uncomfortable even to ask.

      We're all war felons now, many will say.  They might be right.  Better to seek the the truth and justice than to contiunue to bawl in a corner.

      The other side may be punished--waaaa. Bush is not impeached to punish him, but to replace some of our honor and integrity before the world and ourselves.

      •  In the history of the republic, (none)
        impeachment has been used twice by ideologues who had little respect for the continuity of government and the legitimacy of their indictments.  Are we to become they?  I mean, really.

        Let's imagine the scenario.  We take back the House and/or the Senate in 2006 after two years of George Bush's rating plummeting.  We are primed to take the White House back in 2008.  We effectively have shut off Chimp's ability to govern recklessly.  Why on earth would we shoot ourselves in the foot and risk a public backlash by unleashing the real nuclear option, impeachment.

        I think dailykos is descending into masturbatory fantasies.

        The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:00:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a helluva lot better than the current party (none)
          I'm fully aware of how absurd this seems.  Ask yourself:  what, in empirical fact, has the Democratic Party done to ensure the growth and survival of the party?

          Nothing.  They're actively made it mch worse.  Go look at the voting records for Kerry, Feinstein, Biden and Lieberman to see it.

          What you're seeing here is a rejection of calm rationality and "old" tactics.  There's nothing left for me but to lash out and hope for the best.  Reason, tactics, and calculation by the Deomcrats have brought us total disaster.   Doing it the old way got me nothing but utter despair.

          Trust DC Demcorats to tactically win?  Suuuuuuuure.  What great leaders and fighters they've proven themselves to be.

          •  well, we go back a little ways, paradox (none)
            as I recall, to a flame war where you lost your TU status.  I was a contributor to your climb back to TU status.  I have the impression it's not as hard to get it back as it used to be, but dkos has changed so much in the last year, who knows which way is up.

            The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

            by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:40:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh screw TU (none)
              Hi sir (or ma'am)--

              Losing trused user status is a good thing--it means I'm not living on the board.  I didn't lose it because of downrating, just too much lurking.  It's been hard for me to say anything last few months.

              I appreciate your comments and will examnine this again, hopefully in a new piece that ties in something else I'm thinking about.

              It was strange to leave the world of rational calcualtion, very strange.  I just no longer care--the faith that the system can eventually work as it should again is rapidly diminishing, if any is left at all.

              Fuck this crazy insane rigged system.  I do not know, but I think that's the root of my endorsement for impeachment.  It's all crazy and insane and rigged--why should we try to do the right thing anymore?

              I'll preserve my internal dignity, which will keep me a model citizen, I guess.  Others will have no such constraints.  

    •  It is our moral duty ! (none)
      Forget for a second whether impeachment makes sense for the political fortunes of the democrats or not.

      Myself,  among many, lost a certain amount of pride in America in November 2004.  We saw our country vote for a man who led us into war on lies and misrepresentations.  All Americans may not appreciate this as fact but much of the world does.  With the help of the Downing Street minutes even more now know this to be the case.

      Terrorism also needs to be fought in a war of ideas and we are losing badly in the battle for the hearts and minds of the world: arrogance, unjust war, unjust imprisonment, torture, etc.  The world consumes its own media which is largely free of the talking points of this administration or the Republicans (i.e. criticism of Durbin will not make the image of the US condoning torture go away).  We have to decide if we are better off being defined the way the Bush administration has allowed us to be framed or saying to the world "We were lied to" and this is not who we are!

      In 2006 we have the opportunity to ask Americans what they think our country should stand for.

      Howard Dean speaks for me

      by EuroDem on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:34:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our moral duty (none)
        is to save the country, and George Bush's impeachment will give the Republicans a wedge issue.  

        The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:01:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You may be right but .... (none)
          How do we communicate to the world and ourselves that their behavior was wrong. Or do we not believe it was wrong?  Just having a majority of democrats in Congress does not communicate this.  

          On the bread and butter issues I think we can plainly make clear that democrats have the policies and compassion to make America a better place.  Having said that, this does not fix the misdeeds of the Bush administration.

          The "stain" on American needs to be removed.

          Howard Dean speaks for me

          by EuroDem on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If we were able to take back control (none)
            of the government, and we behaved differently than they have, we would tell a very wonderful thing to the world about our national commitment to renewable  democratic ideals.

            The sharing of joy and happiness can help us defeat the cold and darkness of this administration.--Carnacki

            by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:34:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with waiting for the 2006 elections is (none)
    Diebold & Co.

    Without meaningful election reforms, any election driven reform (impeachment)is a pipe dream.

  •  Research (none)
    How all the Senate and Congress voted on the War.

    If they voted against it, congratulate them. If they were duped and voted for it, lets get them to admit that they were wrong and Bush sent us to war. Each one, and then follow up when they go home in August.

    •  YES! YES! YES! (none)
      Admit they were wrong.  Admit they should have never given their war powers, our war powers, away to such an incompetent bunch of supposed national security experts who twist words to get what they want.

      There are only two kinds of Montanans, those who love Montana and those who want to use Montana.

      by MontanaMaven on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:08:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blue dress: Pre 9/11 (none)
    Impeachment reeks of unsettled times. It would give the Right the ultimate comeback vehicle for 9/11--which finally, finally seems to be losing some traction. The only area where Bush continues to poll over 50% is his handling the war on terror. Forget impeachment, sweet as it sounds. We can only win majorities in the House and Senate by convincing the public that Democrats will make the nation safer. Message for 2006: Republican policies have put our nation in danger, at home and abroad. Then we need a plan for Iraq. The one we lacked in '04.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site