Newsweek: 51% of Americans support impeachment

Remember all the pundits laughing at the notion of impeaching president Bush? Remember all the pollsters refusing to even ask that question in their oh so serious polls? Well, a majority now approves of Democratic plans to impeach president George W. Bush. 28% think it should be a high priority, 23% think it should be a lower priority, 44% disapprove of the idea. Wow.

Thats one finding of the latest Newsweek poll I just found at msnbc.com. LINK And while the lead on issues has shrunk a little bit (moral values, WOT etc.) it still holds. And on the generic congressional ballot Democrats are still leading 55 to 37%, while 55% want Democrats in control and only 32% Republicans. Bushs job approval remains at a dismal 35% (up 2%).

Its hard not to be optimistic now. But we were optimistic in October 2004 too :-(

•  From your diary to God's ears!!!

  by mombadanes on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:30:46 AM PDT

  •  Before you all spout this number

    I would decide for yourself whether you think this diary accurately reflects the content of the Newsweek article.  This is the relevant passage.

    Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.

    In my opinion it is putting words in Newsweeks's mouth to say that means most Americans support impeachment.  (Newsweeks never draws that inference, so it is putting words into their mouth.)

    by greenreflex on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:27:05 AM PDT

    •  In any case you can damn well say

      that they DESERVE to be impeached.  (thought i might add that for good measure.)

      by greenreflex on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:29:31 AM PDT

    •  This is called math

      you learn it in school and it works by adding numbers. See, Newsweek cant do it, bloggers can :-)

      Just because they are spinning their numbers in a different way the numbers wont go away...

      The question IMO is not whether my diary correctly reflects the content of the Newsweek article, but whether Newsweek correctly reflects the results of their own poll.

      Or maybe both questions are valid...

      by MarcTGFG on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:34:55 AM PDT

      •  I just came to this realization.

        thanks!  (here)

        by greenreflex on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:42:55 AM PDT

        •  classy, greenreflex!

          reviewing the evidence and deciding to change your stance...if only everyone was so grown up...

          by grrr on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:19:28 PM PDT

      •  Good point!

        Though, my reaction was to the phrase "democratic plans". Have any official plans been publicized?

        The more they can downplay impeachment until after the elections, the better I feel.

        by IL dac on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:04:29 PM PDT

        •  No plans.

          The leadership specifically said it's "off the table" and prior supporters like Conyers have gone silent. Not too many believe them though. Conventional wisdom is that the leadership hopes that they'll get findings in the investigations - which are planned - which will support a successful impeachment.  They do need something more - 51%-44% in favor is not enough to get impeachment through the Senate.

          by curtadams on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:16:14 PM PDT

          •  Investigations are the key!!!

            While I firmly believe that impeachment should be at the top of the agenda, it should follow the investigations.

            The investigations must be thorough and methodical.  Once they begin I think that the evidence will be so damning that public support for impeachment will be overwhelming.

            by Josiah Bartlett on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:55:29 PM PDT

            •  Exactly

              We investigate, provide evidence -- THEN impeach.  Both Bush and Cheney.

              Removal is another matter -- the American public may consider it petty of us to try to remove him with only two years left in his term.  Or, looking at the mounting evidence of his crimes, they may insist he and Cheney be removed ASAP.

              And it has to be both of them.  It's a package deal.

              by Phoenix Woman on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:27:50 PM PDT

              •  the same american people

                who are 51-44 in favor of impeachment?

                i say impeach cheney and rumsfeld first, then move on to bush, then clean house with bolton, gonzales, rice, poindexter, and anyone else involved with the iraq war group or torture or wiretapping.

                salt the earth so that they're permanently barred from office.

                by wu ming on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:06:55 PM PDT

                •  permanently barred from office

                  in fact, that's part of impeachment.  Also worth noting that you're right that other officers, besides the President and Vice-President, are subject to impeachment.  As Kagro X ably spelled out in his "Necessity of Impeachment" series

                  We are where we are today for lack of having drawn a line at Watergate, then again at Iran-Contra. The same perpetrators -- and in many cases they really are the very same perpetrators -- are back for a third bite at the apple, and will be back for a fourth if they don't get what's coming to them. Remember, impeachment isn't just for presidents. It's for all "civil officers," as RonK ably reminded us.

                  But that wasn't all Ron told us. We also learned that the Constitution bars both future eligibility for high office and presidential pardons in the case of impeachment. Given that many of the very same people have been at the heart of the last two rounds of Constitution-shredding, I would urge early and clear action. How many more chances do you want to give John Poindexter? Elliot Abrams?

                  I really recommend the whole series -- an excellent education on why impeachment isn't just a rabble-rouser (it's that, too) but an important and substantive issue at the heart of keeping our democracy intact.

                  by emptypockets on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:33:12 PM PDT

                  •  It's a consequence of conviction, not impeachment

                    And conviction requires 2/3 of Sneators, and even after this election there will be 34 Republicans Senators who would rather eat their own young than vote to impeach Bush and Cheney.  I'd love to see President Pelosi in 2007 as much as anyone else, but we can't confuse impeachment and conviction so as to make it seem more possible.  What we can do is build the case that Bush should be removed from office and let that case sit on the head of whoever the GOP nominated in 2008.

                    by Major Danby on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 01:36:02 AM PDT

                •  Thats not true

                  51% of Americans are not in favor impeachment.  Its a misreading of a badly asked poll question.

                  by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:08:59 PM PDT

                •  Bolton will be gone as soon as the Democrats take

                  the Senate. It's sorta what happens at the end of a recess appointment.

                  Bush won't get impeached unless there's another "Katrina event." I have no idea how the country reacts, however, after another terrorist attack.

                  by Sam Spencer for County Commissioner on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:40:31 PM PDT

              •  Package deal: essential

                If Cheney is impeached first, Dubya can appoint another VP.  If Bush is impeached first, Darth becomes president and can immediately appoint a new VP.  Either way someone is annointed to continue the Dynasty after Dubya and Darth are impeached, convicted and removed from office.  As far as I can see, only if both are impeached and convicted simultaneously, can the presidency pass to the third in line of succession, the Speaker of the House.  After January 2007, that might be someone considerably less Republican than Denny Hastert.

                by deepeco on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

                •  But ...

                  Dubya has to get the Senate to go along with his VP "selection".  President Liberman????

                  But, in addition to Bush-Cheney, how many judges merit impeachment?

                  by besieged by bush on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 07:54:29 PM PDT

                  •  almost none

                    the standard for impeachment is HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ... a judge not ruling the way we'd like does not merit impeachment proceedings ...

                    FOCUS, PEOPLE!

                    this kind of wild-assed buffoonery is precisely the kind of behavior that shuts down support for Democrats ... far too much hard work needs to be done before this country will have the political will to actually support the Democrats in attempting to remove an executive branch member through impeachment proceedings ... that WE want it isn't what matters ... vengeance does not well-suit our side ... our metaphor works through nurturing, respect for the rule of law, and respect for justice ... until the American public believes that removal from office is truly merited, rather than just an impudent ratfuck, our side cannot do it ...

                    i still recall the results of a poll from (iirc) 2005, when only about half the voting public supported impeachment IF IT WERE TRUE that the president was shown to be guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor ... in other words, if it were given that Dubya met the qualifications for impeachment ... any american truly paying attention should have answered YES to such a poll question ...

                    that was not the question posed by this poll ... clearly, there's stronger support for going forward on removal right now, but, without official evidence gathering, it's not yet time ...

                    by wystler on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:42:40 PM PDT

                    •  Excuse ...

                      Actually, to be honest, my academic training included significant time with some of the top scholars as to impeachment (who spent many hours testifying re Nixon, Clinton, and otherwise).

                      High Crimes and Misdemeanors ... Please define ...

                      At the end of the day, these (especially "Misdemeanors") are whatever one vote into a majority define them to be (at least for impeachment).

                      Now, sadly, I do not think that there will be the courage to try to remove some of the worst judicial appointees even with a 60+% Democratic Party House and Senate.  

                      One of the things that has been going on in the past 5+ years is the embedding of ideologues in the judiciary and within the civil service. These will be obstacles (serious obstacles) toward achieving a better future.

                      In any event, my comment was a throwaway joke line, but before you shout it down as a concept, make sure you get the facts straight ...

                      by besieged by bush on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:48:52 PM PDT

                      •  Pay no attention

                        to the man behind the curtain.

                        Yes, I would prefer a Democratic congress and Administration.

                        If the people have allowed high crimes with the puppets of the corrupt cabal in visible, "elected" positions, what do you think we will be able to do when they are "underground" and supposedly "out of power?"

                        They have the resources to fuck us up from their strongholds, and they are ready to do so.  

                        If this statement makes your head spin, good.

                        Communities will have to be prepared to take care of themselves, which is a deep subject, and has nothing to do with party politics.

                        by RichRandal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

                •  No need to worry about the logistics

                  Removal will never happen.  The Republicans can kill it in the Senate.  George Bush will not be forced out of office.

                  The relevant question is whether or not it helps Democrats politically to go through the impeachment process.  I tend to think it doesn't help, although its a tough call.  I personaly believe the Democrats would do better to focus on passing positive health care, education and environmental legislation.

                  That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate.  We should.  And we should fight corruption and cronyism.  I just think an actual impeachment hearing would be counter-productive.

                  by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:12:17 PM PDT

                  •  But...

                    If they investigate, find all sorts of corruption, war crimes, etc, etc, and don't impeach, that's a big negative for Dems... the old 'look, they ignore corruption too, they're just as bad' crap.

                    If they can produce the evidence of the dirt, I think they need to try to impeach, even knowing they'll fail...  Then, in the next round of elections, they can put out ads about their  opponents blocking impeachment despite evidence.  Although we should do our part as evidence is uncovered to put pressure on remaining R congresscritters to vote for it.

                    by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:00:25 AM PDT

              •  Pithy or not, they could do untold damage if left

                where they are for two years.

                Every day, every signing statement, every wiretap, every time someone is whisked away in darkness for rendition and secret tribunal and every opportunity that the current Republican majority has to push through "protective" measures, a little more is chipped away at the foundations of freedom and accountability, and the light of liberty and truth shines a little less brightly.

                The self-serving corruption is blatant.  The arrogance and contempt for the "quaint" principles of law, of equality, of accountability and for the need for oversight within the framework of checks and balances is unbridled.

                The moral and social outrage should be palpable; it grows daily.

                Not a minute longer than absolutely necessary as dictated by proper procedure and observance to the process of responsible government should these people remain in office.

                The "petty" principle pales in comparison to realities on the ground.  Any cries of outrage at an attempt to impeach, to try, to convict and imprison these criminals should be met with the scorn and contempt for our nation that has been foisted upon us for these many years, times three.

                Times ten.

                ...but, then again -- you, and I, and we already know this.  It will be incumbent upon the new Congress to take this charge of realigning our government with our founding principles, and to do so with expedience and efficiency that belie the paramount importance of the task.  For if we do not find it within the next Congress to right the wrongs of the past six years, and if these clowns of ultimate buffoonery are permitted to complete their terms unchallenged, unchecked and undeterred, then we will have well and truly lost that which our forefathers bequeathed to us; the "American Dream" will be lost, replaced by a cheap imitation born of marketing genius and built by cheap offshore labor.

                And most likely stamped "Made in China" somewhere on the bottom.

                Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                  Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                Tempest even in reason's seat.

                by GreyHawk on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 12:50:53 AM PDT

            •  investigations are superfluous

              there is no controversy that Bush broke the law.  In fact, he admits it.  Bush's position is that the President is authorized to disobey the law.

              This is not my framing, but spelled out by Greenwald via Kagro X here.  The reasoning is that all an investigation will tell us is that he broke the law -- which we already know, and he admits.  What's left is legal argument about the Constitutional powers of the Presidency -- but there is no need for an investigation in order to have that argument.

              As Greenwald wrote

              Thus, no investigation could even conceivably shed further light on the question of whether the President broke the law. We know he did that. The sole question which Senators have to answer is what they think the consequences ought to be, if any, for a President to order eavesdropping on Americans citizens which Americans, through their Congress, prohibited by law.

              An investigation cannot answer the question as to whether U.S. Senators ought to take a stand against deliberate and ongoing lawbreaking by a President. Only U.S. Senators can answer that question, and they already have all the facts that are relevant to that question already before them.

              by emptypockets on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:42:02 PM PDT

              •  It might shed light on _how many_ laws he broke!

                by oscarsdad on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:17:57 PM PDT

                •  Bush says he'll break 750 laws

                  as of last May, anyway, Bush has claimed he is free to break 750 laws:

                  The Bush administration has quietly -- quietly! -- claimed the authority to disobey more than seven hundred and fifty laws enacted by Congress.

                  Win back the Congress? What Congress?

                  What exactly is it you hope to do with a Democratic Congress, given the fact that Bush ignores the existing Republican one at his convenience?

                  Oversight? Subpoena power?

                  So, yeah, we can investigate to see how many of the 750 laws Bush has claimed authority to break he's actually gotten around to breaking so far.  

                  Or we can just impeach the turkey.

                  by emptypockets on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:35:11 PM PDT

                  •  The total to date is closer to 870 laws. n/t

                    by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:36:26 PM PDT

                  •  all well and good ...

                    but that doesn't rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors yet ... not saying he cannot qualify, but until the records are in the hands of House members, and they've been vetted appropriately, there ain't nothing there ...

                    (i wouldn't at all mind seeing it happen, but it's just too damned soon)

                    by wystler on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:45:25 PM PDT

          •  Hmmm, I wonder if...

            ... the same "off the table" answer would refer to the impeachment of Mr. Cheney. Hmmmmm

            Hey, ya gotta admit it'd not only be a very creative if not pragmatic way to bring down an American presidency.

            IMO, it'd probably be totally unexpected too. The hearings would virtually shut the administration down -- thus the whole Bush agenda. Shrub wouldn't dare attack Iran or anyone else for that matter in such a tenuous situation at his doorstep. He'd be paralyzed.

            And, does anyone really believe Cheney impeachment hearings wouldn't draw Shrub himself into the mix at some point?

            I also think silence is golden here. The less talk about impeachment in the press the better.

            by Flirtin with Disaster on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:24:11 PM PDT

      •  nevertheless

        It's a misrepresentation of the poll to suggest what you are suggesting.  Social Research 101 stuff.

        by neo marxist on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:45:12 PM PDT

        •  Really?

          28 strongly in favor plus 23 weakly in favor doesn't equal 51 in favor?

          That is standard polling mathematics.

          by Andrew C White on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:49:46 PM PDT

          •  No

            You are reading into it what you want it to read.  It does not say "in favor," it says "priority".  There is a difference there and it's more than semantics.  Polling language must be precise to avoid conflation.  This poll was poorly worded, and thus people are conflating its results, as is evidenced by this diary's headline.

            by neo marxist on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:16:14 PM PDT

            •  if it's on the list of priorities

              (even if dead last on that list) it is FAVORED!!

              by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:21:31 PM PDT

              •  no

                If the poll asked "do you favor impeachment" I guarantee less than 51% would say yes.  Wording absolutely matters, and it's the reason why people say that you can get the statistics to say anything - because by using ambiguous, leading, or manipulative wording, you very well can.

                by neo marxist on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:34:51 PM PDT

                •  its not hypothetical

                  the question has been asked.  and a majority of people do not favor impeachment.  

                  by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:15:23 PM PDT

            •  OK... so...

              51% think impeaching the President is a priority.

              Your correction on the wording is duly noted and applied.

              You are quite correct that there is a big difference in the wording. I stand corrected.

              by Andrew C White on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 07:53:49 PM PDT

              •  its dishonest to talk about it that way

                if you asked me to rank a series of activities and one of them was "banging my head against the wall" i would probably rank that last.  then would you say i favored this activity because i ranked it?  no obviously not. this isn't an exact analogy to this poll because there was a no priority choice, but i think the wording of the poll question was misleading, causing many people to rank impeachment as a low priority when they are actually opposed to impeachment.

                this is the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the other public polls on the question.

                so the truth is that impeachment would be enormously devisive.  shouldn't the democrats focus on doing popular things?  i think they should.  raise the minimum wage, vote to expand medicare to everyone under 18, give more pell grant, improve the interest rates on stafford lones, do somehting on energy, etc. etc.  all of these things are popular and not a waste of time.

                by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:19:57 PM PDT

                •  Except that there WAS

                  at least a third choice. 44% Disapprove.  This means that 56% did not disapprove of impeaching him, and as stated, that leaves 51% calling it at least a priority.  (The other 5% are neutral to the idea, or is that a +- 5%?)  They did not have to say it was a priority, they CHOSE to call it a priority by not choosing to disapprove of it as such.

                  So I'd say it's not 'dishonest to talk about it that way' in terms of the math.  It may, however, be incorrect based on the selected polling sample.

                  As to the other polls, unless they're WILDLY different, then several questions pop up.  Who conducted the polls?  When were they conducted in temporal relation to each other?  How were they conducted?  How large were each polling sample?  Did they represent a full spectrum of Americans economically, socially, ethnically?

                  Despite researchers best attempts to 'randomize' the polled, certain factors skew polls.  Time of day is one such.  Depending on the time of day you call people, certain segments of the populace will be unavailable.  For instance, anyone who works night shifts is unlikely to be represented in many phone polls, as they'll likely be asleep during calling times and unwilling to answer the phone.  It can also impact the availability of people in different time zones to answer.

                  Even having said all that, if they are even CLOSE to half, the Dems need to start tons of investigations if they get into power, as that number should tip fairly fast if evidence of wrongdoing starts hitting the media, and should probably approach the split between hardcore bushites and everyone else if enough comes out.

                  by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:15:35 AM PDT

      •  Both questions are probably worth asking.

        I would like to see exactly how the question was asked. While I understand, from having studied math, taught social science statistics, and done a hell of a lot of survey research myself, how you can add 28 and 23 and get 51, I'm not convinced that's what we see in this poll. Could be, but I don't see it in the article.

        The phrasing of the question is critical on a point like this. For example, what were the options given in the question?

        My guess is that even the semi-brainwashed sector of corporate media wouldn't bury this issue in the last paragraph of an article, if it were really there.

        Now, having said all this, the percentages in favor a pretty damned interesting. Compare them with similar questions regarding Clinton.

        by rhp on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

      •  Its not a question of math

        Its a question of a badly conceived poll question.  A vast majority of Americans think impeachment should either be a low priority or not a priority at all.  The question is what does it mean for something to be a low priority?  

        by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:07:46 PM PDT

        •  It means they don't disapprove n/t

          by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:16:12 AM PDT

    •  Then I hope that God is listening

      more than ever...and acts to bring the rest of America to the right conclusion.

      IMPEACH BUSH

      by mombadanes on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:35:43 AM PDT

      •  Let's be fair about it.

        As much as I hate the things this administration has done, we need to do the investigation.  The media needs to be on the scene and reporting to the American public.  Once the truth is told and once the people of America truly understand what this group of gangsters have done, THEN they will all support impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.  This is one reason we MUST win the House and this is one reason why John Leasch (IL-14)must smash Hastert!  All of this is critical to taking our country back.  

        I think that Americans aren't stupid.  They are either in the "hibernation" mode or the "I have no power, voting means nothing" mode or worse, they kinda like Bush without knowing the truth.

        They will awaken once the oversight starts.  It's guaranteed.  If the Republicans can manage the scam impeachment of Clinton for "sex in the oval office" then we can sell impeachment for the list of high crimes Bush has carried out.

        by victoria2dc on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:44:47 PM PDT

        •  Let's be fair, indeed.

          Clinton was impeached for perjury. But you're right about the investigations. The beginning of those investigations will be the beginning of the end for Bush. I think when they start support for impeachment will skyrocket. At least, I hope so.

          by JeremyA on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:31:18 PM PDT

          •  the clinton impeachment ...

            ... was indeed scurrilous.

            that doesn't make shortcutting, by drawing up articles now (or the first week after the dem majority is seated)

            i hope to hell that the democrats go out of their way to avoid discussion of the clinton impeachment, but it's certain to be part of the SCLM's sound and fury in reporting ... that's one of the key reasons why talk of impeachment is so damned premature ... revenge is not the proper motive, and should not be seen as a prime reason by the indie-voter folk ...

            by wystler on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:50:17 PM PDT

          •  Of course

            EVERYONE lies about sex.

            Forcing someone to testify under oath about their sex lives, knowing their answers will be smeared all over the front pages of the newspapers has got to be about the most ironclad way to insure perjury ever devised.

            by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:19:16 AM PDT

    •  I've changed my mind.

      see here

      by greenreflex on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:40:35 AM PDT

    •  Ok so we get DICK Cheney as Prez??? OMFG !! n/t

      by ajsuited on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:00:21 PM PDT

      •  Impeach Bush AND Cheney

        I can't imagine congress only going after Bush and not Cheney. And keep in mind, just the investigation could be enough to push them to resign, especially if they negotiate  a clemency deal.

        I hate to say it, but that's probably that way it will go, if impeachment gathers enough momentum. Cheney and Bush will negotiate a deal so they don't go to jail and probably will be able to keep the billions they're going to magically "find" when they leave office.

        the good thing is, the Democratic Majority leader of the house will become pres-- possibly Pelosi, if the Dems actually allow it.

        Keeping that in mind, we ought to be telling candidates that if or when impeachment moves forward, that clemency that allows these bastards to keep their wealth is unacceptable. They should be kept under house arrest and kept poor. My fantasy that Georgie get's placed in a high security prison with a 6'6" gay biker as a cellmate probably won't be met. Sigh...

        by robkallopednews on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:32:45 PM PDT

        •  The last time

          The last time, they convicted Agnew and impeached Nixon, then Nixon pardoned Agnew.But these were dems. with backbone...I think we are all appalled that we are even thinking of this, however, Bush is nuts,wants to kill and torture everybody, and if ever a president deserves to be impeached its him..This is the differnce between dems. and republicans, we would never impeach because of sex, but if he puts us in unnecessary war, kills over 655.000 people , will someday be charged with war crimes,bankrupts the treasury etc.,.That is a very good reason to impeach..I expect our dems will keep their powder dry..

          by bayside on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:47:50 PM PDT

          •  Nixon pardoned Agnew?

            Then why did Agnew do time? I think you're wrong.

            by mswaine on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

          •  Not quite

            IIRC, AG Eliot Richardson announced that they were bringing charges against Agnew, Agnew resigned, and his trial went off the front page as Ford got confirmed and impeachment proceeded.

            by Elwood Dowd on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:33:27 PM PDT

            •  How could you have forgotten? Agnew plead...

              ...nolo contenedre.

              by tbetz on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:57:27 PM PDT

          •  agnew wasn't facing impeachment

            agnew had to deal with convictions for crimes committed while he was governor of maryland (iirc)

            by wystler on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:51:56 PM PDT

            •  Don't be

              a "nattering nabob of negativism!"

              by RichRandal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:03:57 AM PDT

        •  That gay biker better be

          black, or no dice.

          by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:51:00 PM PDT

        •  Can they be impeached together

          sort of as one entity? If it has to be done individually, then I say so be it.

          by highlyunlikely on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:36:06 PM PDT

          •  Well, if W couldn't be interviewed

            without holding his Dick, then I say both could be hung together, a la Blazing Saddles horse 'n' rider style.

            by moltar on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:42:53 PM PDT

            •  ROTFLMFAO

              by Sean Robertson on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:01:46 PM PDT

        •  Naw. Bush will take a vacation at his new

          KBR-built "ranch" in Paraguay (where he'll be known to the locals as "All hat, no llama.") and just never come back.  And, yeah, he'll have the means to buy his way out of extradition.

          by sxwarren on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:03:46 PM PDT

          •  Where all old fascists

            have traditionally gone to retire.

            "Himmler Hills;" a gated retirement community with its own private security forces, landing strip, protected aquifer, farming work force, and rumpus rooms fully equipped for the master's evil pleasures. Fresh brown-skinned youth delivered daily.

            by RichRandal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:11:02 AM PDT

        •  You can't imagine what?

          You can't imagine Congress going after Bush and not Cheney?  But you can imagine impeachment happening?

          On what planet are you living?  Repeat after me:  The Republicans in the Senate will never vote to convict Bush.  Never.  He could have personally tortured children in Cuba and they wouldn't vote.  This whole thread is off point.

          The real question is whether it would help Democrats politically to hold impeachment hearings and to bring charges and vote in the House, know that actual conviction is never a real possibility.

          by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:24:20 PM PDT

      •  Argument as Old.As.The.Hills.

        Don't make it. It doesn't hold any water. Impeach the sons of bitches--Yesterday, if possible.

        by nehark on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:38:28 PM PDT

      •  Missing the big picture

        1. Cheney has been the real President for the past 6 years already.   He's the guy with the Torture/Invade/9-11/Fear/"Deficits don't matter"/etc policy agenda.  Bush is just the salesman.

        2. By Impeaching Bush, the high crimes of Dick Cheney would also be brought to the fore as well as his unique powerful role, and there would be little public support for not also Impeaching Cheney.

        3. Bush would be forever damned and go down in Imfamy as a President (worse than Nixon because Bush won't resign - he'll fight it). And this means that his policies will also go down in Infamy - and that things like Habaeus Corpus, The Bill of Rights, etc. will be much more likely to be immediately restored.

        4. Even if Cheney were to hang on temporarily while Bush was tried and Impeached, he would be at that point a lame duck and disgraced public figure and he would not have any support to pass any new agenda.  While, in theory, he could start a unilateral War - on practicle level he cannot with our Military already overextended and Iraq having depleted the tactical personnel for any new War.

        Bottom line, stand up for the U. S. Constitution and ye shall be rewarded by the American people, the World, and in the annals of history.

        It is the right move!
        
        
        
        

        by PeopleVsEconomicRoyalists on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:06:24 PM PDT

        •  don't take this personally, but

          "deplet[ing] the tactical personnel" sounds a wee bit chilly.  Like spent shells.  Husks.

          by moltar on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:45:57 PM PDT

      •  Read my comment...

        we will get both of them because we have to.

        by victoria2dc on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:45:41 PM PDT

      •  I'm guessing

        Cheney's impeachment numbers are closer to 75%.

        by Andrew C White on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:50:45 PM PDT

        •  Do you wanna bet?

          I bet there under 50%.  

          by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:26:21 PM PDT

      •  Cheney...

        would resign. He's probably more guilty than W is. Even if he didn't resign, he wouldn't be any more effective than Bush would be. He'd still be a lame duck.

        The more likely scenario is President Pelosi, which is exactly what I dream about every night when my head hits the pillow... :)

        by Potus2020 on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:04:11 PM PDT

      •  I think it would actually be COOL

        to have the American people confronted with the image of Dick Go Fuck Yourself, You Asshole Cheney as President.

        The face America puts forward to the world would be a fat, evil, greedy, lying sack of shit asshole to the world.

        And each and every self-repsecting American would look himself/herself in the mirror and vow:

        Never again!!!!

        This could be one of those Tough Love civics lessons we could ALL learn from.

        by bobdevo on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:10:08 PM PDT

    •  I think priority means priority

      51 percent think impeachment is a priority of some kind and and 44 percent oppose impeachement. Maybe if the question has been "do you support impeachment?" the results would have been different, maybe not, but the Newsweek pollsters didn't ask that straightforward question so we don't know. But on the face of it, the diary reflects exactly what the results say.

      by DaveW on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:02:46 PM PDT

      •  You can't expect the America

        people to talk about impeachment without hearing the list of high crimes we need to investigate.  You must not forget that the average Joe or Mary American know about .5% of the truth because they depend on the MSM for their news.  

        I know John Conyers will take it step-by-step and there is nobody better than him to run the hearings.  I feel very confident we will do it ONCE we win the House.  

        Let's do that first and then it's a win from there.

        by victoria2dc on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 01:50:40 PM PDT

        •  A Democratic House could

          vote Impeachment but if we don't take the Senate we wouldn' t have the votes to remove him from office.  Nevermind.  It would be so much fun to watch the trial!

          by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:37:03 PM PDT

          •  Wrong

            We need 67 votes in the Senate.  In other words, it will never happen.  George Bush will be president until January 2009.

            by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:28:16 PM PDT

            •  But...

              (that's my favorite word, apparently)

              If enough evidence piles up (and not of eating babies), then voting against impeachment could become the equivalent of political suicide...and a lot of R's might just vote for to ave their own sorry hides in the next round of elections.  The White House is big on loyalty, not the Senate.

              by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:26:14 AM PDT

    •  The Diarist was accurate-!

      
      
      A full 51% think it should be a priority (either be a top priority or a lower priority relative to urgent policy agenda) to impeach Bush from office.

      Another way if saying this is that only 44 percent of the public think that Bush should be spared impeachment from the Presidency for high crimes.

      We have a plurality in this Country to Impeach Bush (and I'm sure Cheney as well)
      
      
      
      

      by PeopleVsEconomicRoyalists on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:56:33 PM PDT

      •  about cheney

        if we consider his ratings we may have an easier time impeaching him.

        by danger durden on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:59:14 PM PDT

      •  Actually...

        Not to get too picky about it or anything, but 51% is a majority, not just a plurality.

        by bluejeandem on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:56:13 PM PDT

      •  Wrong

        This is not true.  There is not a majority of people for impeachment.  This was a misleading poll question that blended an up-down question with a ranking.  This poll is an anomoly if you look at all the other public polling on this question.  Other polls that have asked the more tradition (Do you support impeachment?) have found that a majority do not.

        Remember we are supposed to be the party of empiricism.  We don't just make stuff up because it feels good.

        by tmendoza on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:31:15 PM PDT

    •  This is now.

      Of course, after the investigations of war profiteering, conditions for veterans, the signing statements as attempt to usurp powers, etc etc ad infinitum, the number wanting impeachment, I think, is going to go into the high-70s, low-80s range.

      by Jim P on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

      •  The one I really want to see is

        an investigation into his opposition to the formation of the 9/11 Commission, his attempts to stonewall it, Rice's perjury, etc. etc. I really want to see him chew on that after invoking 9/11 so many times for political purposes.

        by JeremyA on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 03:41:11 PM PDT

        •  Henry Kissinger?

          HENRY KISSINGER, sir? (Imagine John Cleese.)

          "You want Henry Kissinger to lead this investigation???" ...

          by Prognosticator on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:04:31 PM PDT

          •  Yeah, that was bad.

            And then Bush picked someone just like himself: an oil man absolutely unqualified for the position to which he was appointed.

            by JeremyA on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:22:30 AM PDT

    •  Another view--28% supporting impeachment

      is a hell of a lot--we're talking about impeachment for crying out loud, not how many people just don't like the guy. The fact that more than half consider it worth considering is pretty earth-shattering, too--but what's most apalling is that Newsweek's interpretation that, since it's not most people's "top priority" it's not a big deal.

      by Alice in Florida on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

      •  Yes, but.....

        Impeachment for what? This is the worst question ever asked in a poll, I think. Here's how that dialogue might have gone for the 28%: "Do you support impeachment for Bush?" "Sure, Why not? I don't like the guy!" "Would that be a priority for you?" "Sure. we need to get him out of there." "Do you have any idea what crimes the President should be charge with?" "[Silence]"

        by FischFry on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:30:07 PM PDT

        •  I don't think we know the question

          But impeachment is serious, and I don't think people would favor impeachment (which is the equivalent of an indictment for the purpose of removal from office) unless they felt a serious crime or abuse of office had been committed. If you think people answer questions "why not?" then any question is pointless.

          I stand by my original statement..if Bush had not started a disastrous war based on false intelligence, there's no way this many people would be in favor of impeachment. I cannot believe people would say they favor impeachment because they "don't like" the president.

          by Alice in Florida on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:38:16 PM PDT

          •  I say "Let 'em crash"

            Yes he started a disastrous war on stretched interpretations and manipulations of intelligence. That's not a crime. People don't understand what the question is about, any more than you do.

            You're saying they must have "felt a serious crime or abuse of office had been committed." What crime? You can ask this question if there is a suggestion of an actual crime. Then you ask, as in the case of Nixon, "If there is evidence that the President knew in advance or tried to cover up evidence about WH involvement in the Watergate break-in, would you favor impeachment?" Before there was some indication that was a possibility, you might as well have asked: "The President secretly bombed Cambodia and the war in Indochina is going badly. Do you support impeaching the President?" The die-hards will say "Absolutely." Even though there is no crime involved.

            Once there is some possibility of real criminality, and impeachment is an actual possibility, then you can get meaningful answers to the question "Do you support impeaching the President?" To ask the question now is the equivalent of asking "would you support a recall vote?" Or, alternatively, "do you want the President to resign?"

            You can't answer the question: "Impeachment for what?" So, how would your answer be meaningful -- one way or the other? If you answered no to the poll, it's meaningless, too. They're saying they don't think the President should be impeached -- well, duh! There has been no suggestion of a crime. When and if there is such a suggestion, then go ask the same people that question -- their answers might have meaning then. And they might give very different answers. Or, ask them: "If there were evidence that Pres. Bush....[some crime]..., would you be in favor of impeachment?"

            There is no crime, as far as we know -- neither you nor I could name one. And neither could anyone in the poll. So, the poll can only be a measure of how strongly some people feel about the President.

            by FischFry on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 09:07:20 PM PDT

            •  As they've said in another blog

              The president has made upwards of 800 signing statements now to say he reserves the right to break various laws enacted by congress... Do you really think he hasn't broken any of them by now?

              And not being a lawyer, no I can't name off the top of my head the specific laws broken.  I can't even tell you the exact law broken when I speed.  I just have been told it's illegal.

              But I'm pretty damn sure misleading Congress to start a war that kills 2800 Americans on falsified intelligence does indeed break some law, somewhere.  I'm fairly certain authorizing the collection of wiretaps without FISA oversight breaks a law.  I'm fairly certain authorizing secret prisons, handing prisoners over to foreign countries to torture or authorizing and defending the use of torture of prisoners either violates a law or breaks treaties we belong to (and treaties have the force of domestic laws).

              No, I can't name the laws, nor do I have the luxury of spending countless hours digging through reams of federal law to get you the specific ones, but there are people out there whose job that actually is, and who get big bucks to do so.  Anyone out there one of those, and like to quote some chapter and verses?

              by drbloodaxe on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:37:14 AM PDT

              •  You did name a law--FISA

                That's just one. Besides, ask any historian or law professor, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means, nothing more, nothing less.

                by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:54:02 AM PDT

            •  "High crimes" is not the same as ordinary crimes

              To a great extent, it means what Congress decides it means...there is a long history of deference to executive authority when dealing with diplomacy, national security, etc. That does not mean that the president can do anything at all with impunity. Perhaps you are under the impression that a president can only be impeached for a common crime....not true. What do you know about the impeachment of President Johnson?

              by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:41:33 AM PDT

              •  And just to clarify

                The question isn't criminality, it's what Congress considers criminal. Since there is currently a rubber-stamp Congress, there is zero possibility of anything being considered a crime, and zero possiblity of any investigations. So, as long as we have a Republican Congress, Bush can do anthing (including lie under oath, which I guess is what you consider an impeachable offense based the allegation against Clinton) and it would not be investigated or considered a possiblity for impeachment.

                Incidentally, I suspect you do not have a law degree nor much knowledge of American history.

                by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:52:19 AM PDT

                •  Actually I have 3 law degrees

                  One J.D. and two LL.M.s...and I have taught American history in public school. And I'd appreciate it if you confine your comments to what I have to say, rather than question my honesty.

                  Since there is no judicial review of impeachment proceedings, Congress can decide for itself what constitutes high crimes and misdemanors -- that is undeniable. But, it is a legal proceeding. I was assuming that the lawyers/politicians that comprise much of both houses have some respect for the meaning of the words...and would have a serious concern towards avoiding setting dangerous precedents with respect to impeachment. Obviously, they can cast their votes as they wish, without demanding proof of actual crimes. I just don't believe that they would go that route.

                  We have elections to decide who are leaders are. Trials are to decide culpability for criminal behavior (except of course, civil trials -- but I believe that the impeachment process was meant to be a cognate of the criminal process. History has been rather unkind to the Johnson impeachment because it was so political. The Clinton experience (he was 'acquitted,' after all) would also serve as an instructive lesson against using impeachment for political reasons. As a trial lawyer, I was particularly appalled by his lying under oath (I vainly keep hoping that people would take the oath seriously), but did not regard that as meriting removal from office -- But, my opinion is inconsequential -- what's important is that neither did the Senate.

                  by FischFry on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 01:22:42 PM PDT

                  •  My apologies

                    I thought you were ignorant. Instead it appears you are in fact a conservative, which is not the same thing, of course. It's just kind of unexpected here.

                    by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:21:22 PM PDT

                    •  If I'm a conservative, I've been voting all wrong

                      I haven't voted for a Republican in my 24 years of voting. And I've been working for all the wrong people -- liberal congresswoman, liberal assemblyman, liberal defense policy think-tank -- or maybe, I'm just mixed up as to what's liberal and what's conservative. Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways....

                      Just because I think that impeachment is supposed to be for actual crimes doesn't make me a conservative. It means I respect the Constitution as well as the electoral process. That I believe ends rarely justify the means. That I believe the integrity of the process is the most important thing, because that's the one thing that will outlive us all, if we show it the proper respect....

                      by FischFry on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:23:42 PM PDT

                      •  So, the biggest threat to the constitution now

                        is from left-wing bloggers who want the president to be impeached, and who express those feelings online, not from the president who claims that he has the right to disregard any laws that he considers inconvenient, regardless of what the courts say.

                        And just by the way, I think we both know that the likelihood of Bush being impeached is approximately zero, which makes me wonder why you are so upset about the idea.

                        As far as the constitution goes, it doesn't say "actual crimes," it says "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." There is no case law to tell us what that means as it is clearly left to the Congress to determine. You may say that Congress has yet to get it right, and I would not disagree. Still, it is not up to the courts, but to Congress, to determine what constitutes an impeachable offense where the president is concerned. The President of the US is in a unique position that allows him to do a lot of things that ordinary people cannot. I would like to think that kidnapping, torture, deliberately presenting false evidence to Congress and the UN, might be the sort of thing that would be considered "high crimes." I take it you do not--that there is no check on what a president may do so long as he can cl