Impeach to Win. Refuse, You Lose.

[pat_k]

In politics, Strong and Wrong beats Weak and Right any day of the week.

And it crushes WEAK and WRONG.

Impeach and be strong.

Refuse and be wrong.

Impeachment is the only moral, patriotic, and politically viable option.

[onenote]

1. impeach and acquit -- you lose

[EFerrari]

3. Just like the Republicans did. Oh, wait, they didn't lose. n/t

[onenote]

4. oh, wait, they did lose

In the House, they lost five seats in 1998 and 2 more in 2000. In the Senate, they failed to pick up any seats in 1998 (despite expectations that they would do so) and lost 4 seats in 2000. And but for the intervention of the Supreme Court, they lost the presidential election in 2000.

[magellan]

8. Oh yeah, they lost big

A grand total of 11 seats over two election cycles -- supposedly as punishment for impeaching Clinton. Compared to the 36 seats they lost just last November, I'd hardly call that off-putting.

[onenote]

11. how many Senate seats can Democrats afford to lose in 2008?

Can you count to zero?

[magellan]

13. And perhaps you're wrong

...and the reason the Dems won back so many seats in '06 is because people are fed up and would support impeachment. If the excuse for not taking that risk is to protect seats, then the Dems would do well to reconsider. Their sinking poll numbers and the rebuke they're facing for their "get along" attitude is a strong signal that patience for their no-risk "political calculations" has run out.

[onenote]

15. LOL!!!

"The reason the Dems won back so many seats in '06 is because people are fed up and would support impeachment".

Really...please provide some links to all those Democrats who, during their campaigns in 2006, spoke favorably about impeachment. After all, if it why they were elected, they must have been talking about it. It must be dozens and dozens. Oh wait, its virtually no one and of the handful who did talk about impeachment, most lost.

You really should plan to a trip to reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Tell me, what was the bumper crop in '76

forget about Clinton, which was a poltical impeachment, think Nixon

[onenote]

19. The premise of this subthread is the consequence of impeachment and acquittal

Not impeachment and forced resignation.

Let me be clear: I think that chimpy deserves to be impeached and removed from office (either through conviction or by his forced resignation). I also believe that there is no way that is going to happen unless/until some bi-partisan support for impeachment arises and that, as in the Watergate example, such support is only go to arise if the bases for impeachment have light shed on them through hearings/investigations that are not specifically related to impeachment (see, e.g., the Senate Select Committee on Watergate). And if that happens, I have no doubt that we will see a bumper crop of new Democrats in 2008. But if we pull the trigger and misfire, I think we will pay a price.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I will correct your history here

Nixon was NEVER impeached.

Still it stands, people, even our Congress critters, are afraid of impeaching because of Clinton

Now let me reach for my tinfoil for the moment. The reason the Rs went after Clinton, starting well before he was sworn in, was to take away any possible impetus for impeachment, since they knew what they wanted to do... if memory serves, one of the most extremists in the US Senate said in 2000 that now they could do what they always wanted to do

So if we want to move the discussion AWAY from what the Pubbies want, we need to look at the ONLY effort to impeach in US History where the party that followed it, did not a political price. In many ways this is more like '74 than '98.

[onenote]

25. I stand corrected, although it doesn't change my point

I was sloppy. Nixon resigned after articles of impeachment were adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, with 41 percent of the Committees repub members supporting at least one article and with indications that support amongst Senate repubs also was weak.

And even assuming that the repubs pursued impeachment against Clinton in hopes that they would lose so that it would be harder for Democrats to pursue impeachment against the repubs after the 2000 elections (do I have that right?), I'm not sure how that makes the situation where impeachment is pursued and fails more like 1974.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. this is where it is more like '74

the reason why the Rs joined the Dem's was not love of country.

hell the Dem's didn't want to do it either in '74

There is popular support for it right now

They don't, they'll pay at election time

As elections get closer you will see more Rs open up to it

We might even get the numbers to convict

If we do... I suspect the liar in chief will resign before he faces impeachment in the hopes of a Ford Pardon

;-)

The parallels to '74 are just astounding... except for one... our representatives lack the political will, or courage to go there at the moment.

And it has nothing to do with votes... when it started in '73, they didn't have them either.

And yes you are entitled to your opinion, so am I... and I am increasingly becoming a hawk on this... because if we have no consequences, the Republic is dead.

[onenote]

31. I understand your point, but still think the big difference is bipartisanship

In February 1973, before impeachment was being formally considered, the Senate voted 77-0 to establish the Select "Watergate" Committee, chaired by Sam Ervin. At the time, there were 54 Democrats in the Senate, so that was a significant bi-partisan vote.

The Select COmmittee's work helped build support for impeachment as it produced various revelations. However, the real impetus for a formal impeachment came from the October 1973 "Saturday Night Massacre". It was not until February, 1974, however, that Congress voted to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment. That vote also was overwhelmingly bipartisan -- 410-4. And as previously noted, when the Committee, in July 1974, adopted articles of impeachment, it did so with 40 percent of the Committee's repub members supporting at least one article.

What sealed the deal for Nixon, however, was the disclosure of the "smoking gun" tape in the days following the adoption of the articles of impeachment. With that revelation, all of the repub members of the House Judiciary Committee indicated that they now supported impeachment and Nixon was done.

THus, while bipartisan support for impeaching Nixon grew to irresistable levels over time, there was a level of bipartisanship in the investigations and ultimately the impeachment process that we simply do not have now. In that regard, I see today as more like 98 than 74. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I do believe that the bipartisanship

will grow as the elections near.

The question will be, will it grow fast enough?


;-)

And it also grew by popular pressure from bellow

[magellan]

17. ROFL!!

You conveniently misinterpreted what I wrote just so you could dismiss me! That's very clever! And without the last six years' experience, I might have fallen for it and let you totally derail the conversation!!

The sinking polls and the backlash over the Dems caving last week IS reality. And whether you like it or not, the ongoing failure of the Dems to stand up to Bush** and the Repugs IS what's behind it.

[Senator]

30. Sorry, But That Is Pure Non Sequitur

Because no Dems campaigned on impeachment, the voters did not support it and cast their votes against Repubs/Bushcheney?

It not only evades logic, but also reality.



And even among the minority 44% who did not support impeachment, many were self-identified Dems presumably in agreement with their "leadership" -- agreement that would follow should their beltway insiders finally see the light.

--

[jgraz]

24. You're right!!! For God's sake DON'T DO ANYTHING!!!

We might piss someone off, or :scared: Fox News might say something mean about us. Oh sweet Jeesus! We should all just go home now and crawl under our beds!

[H2O Man]

36. Don't even

walk out of doors! A television might fall from a passing airplane. Yikes!

On a more serious note, the price of cowardice far outweighs the risks associated with trying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Which is hte point I made with my senator today

over a paper letter

I feel though that those words are truly falling on deaf ears

That does not mean though that I will stop writing them

No sirree, I will continue to

Until they get it, or the death of the republic is complete

[EFerrari]

28. That's true. They had to rig 2000. Point taken. n/t

[truedelphi]

32. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was a huge asset to the Repukes

As the cover story that they used day in and day out re: Gore not winning.

He didn't win because
1)not because it was a stolen election
2) But because he couldn't get people to go back to the Democratic ticket after they left it due to Clinton's BJ's

[pat_k]

5. = the opposite of reality.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney, win or lose, demonstrates courage, strength, and commitment to the treasured principles embodied in our Constitituion. It is a very real, very concrete victory.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

Every Member of the House who votes to impeach breaks the bonds of complicity.

Every Senator who publily declares themselves for rremoval, whether or not it ever goes to a vote, breaks the bonds of complicity. (In all likihood, it won't even go to a vote because Republicans will toss the Pariah in Chief and his partner in crime overboard -- more on that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=966473#970030">here.)

No hearing or investigation will ever get the level of coverage an impeachment hearing will get.

No "politics as usual" maneuvering will capture the attention of the beltway aristocracy, the "opinion-makers," and the nation.

Whatever the outcome, each and every Member only impeachment says "We will NOT tolerable the intolerable."

There is no question more profound than the question of who we are as a nation. Only impeachment confronts the nation with that question.

Only impeachment declares our identify as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution.

Only impeachment points to the fascists who have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on it's own citizens and says "That is NOT who we are. That is intolerable in a True America."

[onenote]

7. "No hearing or investigation will ever get the level of coverage"

True, but that in and of itself is not a reason to put the cart before the horse. Take Watergate -- there was an impeachment inquiry and ultimately, articles of impeachment. But before that process took place, there was the Senate Select Committee on Watergate -- an investigatory committee that was not established as part of an impeachment effort and, consequently, operated with bi-partisan support. It was through the efforts of that committee, aided greatly by Nixon's own stupidity in making moves such as the Saturday Night Massacre, that ultimately led to the formal impeachment process getting underway.

The issue that divides most people here is not whether chimpy should be impeached, but whether the Democrats, on a purely partisan basis and with no repub support, should start that process or whether the Democrats should conduct investigations and oversight hearings that may build public and at least a modicum of bi-partisan support for impeachment.

[pat_k]

14. There is no "cover up" to uncover.

The sequences of events in Watergate isn't relevant.

Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment is enough to bring down Bush. Cheney's defense of "dunking" is enough to bring him down. Every time either of them (or their minions) publicly invoke the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power they put the icing on the impeachment cake.

Articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney could be on the way to the Senate before Independence Day. (In fact, it would be a brilliant and eminently achievable goal.)

Citing the outcome of the Clinton impeachment (impeachment of a popular President for a trivial offense) as having some sort of relevance to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney (impeachment of national pariahs for crimes so grave they are subject to the penalty of death) is oxymoronic.

People who see that the impeachment of Clinton was a reprehensible act and people who will support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney are one and the same. While "distracting" Clinton from accomplishing things the American people desired was a problem, "distracting" Bush and Cheney from accomplishing things the American people abhor is a boon.

Any residual "bad taste" associated with the concept of impeachment exists solely minds of the DC denizens. Only in DC does the "ickiness" come to mind (the "ickiness" of being glared at at cocktail parties).

Your assertion that "impeach and acquit -- you lose" neglects the fact that the House can take more than one bite at the impeachment apple. Bush and Cheney are committing enough crimes in plain sight for any number of impeachments.

Losing a round isn't losing the fight. And the fight to impeach and declare the regime of Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable violation of everything we stand for need not end when the 110th Congress adjourns. We can vote people into the 111th who will impeach "in absentia." If they won't, we lobby the 112th to.

Republican support will come, or not, when they are forced to answer -- to defend or condemn -- very specific, very grave charges. Actually impeaching Bush and Cheney is the only way to force the battle lines to be drawn.

Leading is not finding a parade and jumping in front of it. Such "leadership" does not demonstrate the strength, courage, and commitment to principle that gains the respect of the American people. In fact, those who refuse to stand and fight until they believe it's safe are disdained.

The choice really is incredibly simple.

Impeach and be strong.

Refuse and be wrong.

While it requires a majority to impeach, and therefore it is the House as a body that acts, the question of whether or not to imepach is not a question for this or that caucus. It is a question that each member must answer for themselves. My use of the word "You" in "Impeach to Win. Refuse, You Lose" is no accident. Each and every Member of Congress takes an oath to support and defend. The oath is an individual oath. The choice an individual choice.

I have been a broken record for years. But I will say it once again. Their oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight; to "support and defend."

Of course, the more members of the Democratic caucus who choice to "Impeach and be strong" the better for the Party as a whole. But it is not about the Party. It is about the power and courage of individuals who have been charged with certain duties, the most critical of which is to reclaim our collective sovereignty by fighting to impeach and remove officials who abuse their power to usurp our authority.

Our representatives have been derelict in their duty. We must therefore step in and make the political and moral arguments to "them" if we are to make impeachment a reality. But ultimately, Impeachment isn't about "them" at all. It's about us and restoring our self-respect as Americans.

[Kurovski]

18. Well said.

And thank you.

-Previously recommended.

[magellan]

21. That's the most beautiful piece of writing I've seen on this subject

Thank you!

[jgraz]

27. excellent reply -- please consider pulling all these responses together

We need more people beating the impeachment drum. Sometimes the pants-wetting on this site can get a bit wearing.

[onenote]

40. getting articles of impeachment to the Senate by July 4 is not an achievable goal

Be realistic. There is no bipartisan support for impeachment. THat means that a signficant number of Democrats from red=leaning districts (blue dogs, etc.) almost certainly are not supportive of impeachment. They certainly aren't going to be supportive of a process that doesn't have broad,bi-partisan support and is rushed through in 1/3 the time spent by the House when it considered the Clinton impeachment and 1/5 the time spent by the House when it considered impeaching Nixon.

In the land of theory, its "achievable" that every member of Congress, repubs included, would vote for articles of impeachment. In the land of reality, its not achievable because just as its the case that repubs won't support it, its also the case that a number of Democrats -- likely more than the 16 that would be needed to defeat articles of impeachment -- won't support it either.

[pat_k]

55. Of course it is. The only thing stopping them is their irrational. . .

. . .and self-defeating refusal to act.

The insanity of groupthink can fall like a house of cards overnight. When they wake up and see that their rationalizations and excuses for refusing to impeach "have no clothes" they could actually do it in a day. A couple weeks is plenty of time.

[pat_k]

60. BTW, already dealt with "Republicans won't support it". . .

In case you missed it. From post #5 (reply to your poat #1):

Every Senator who publily declares themselves for rremoval, whether or not it ever goes to a vote, breaks the bonds of complicity. (In all likihood, it won't even go to a vote because Republicans will toss the Pariah in Chief and his partner in crime overboard -- more on that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=966473#970030">here)

The referenced post makes the case for why we could see a sufficient number of Republicans throw Bush and Cheney overboard. Simply reasserting the belief that they won't is not a challenge to the case.

I also addressed your reference to the Clinton and the Nixon impeachments as relevant models and pointed out reasons that neither case is relevant. Given the simplicity of the case for impeachment against Bush and Cheney there's no reason to believe that the timeline would not also be far, far, far shorter.

And, as for "rushing it through." The leadership has proven they can move with lightening speed when it suits them.

[porphyrian]

22. A-fuckin'-men.

Now, what does it take to get Congress to listen?

[pat_k]

44. Confront them with their own words --

-- at least that's the approach I've been taking. (BTW, confronting "them" usually means confronting a member of their staff.)

Every time they try to "explain" their refusal to impeach they sound like blithering idiots. Inside their insular little world, their nonsensical assertions, irreconcilable statements, and irrational assumptions are never questioned (at least as far as I can tell).

They are so hung up on "what to say" I figure questioning "what they said" is good "hook."

For example, quotes in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1001793&mesg_id=1002029">this article provide some good examples.

For the most part, we email, or fax, or call to say "Impeach them already!" We may make the case, but I don't think that many of us ask questions. Taking the time to voice our demands can be a critical demonstration of numbers, but I fear it doesn't do much to inject reality. Their entire labyrinth of excuses, denial, and irrational "conventional wisdom" exists to defend their self-imposed "off the table" edict and dismiss our demands and arguments.

This is probably more than you bargained for, but here's what i do/suggest.

It can be nerve wracking (at least I find it nerve wracking) but when one of our so-called "leaders" spouts some quintessential bit of beltway insanity I come up with a question/observation about the quote ("On blah blah show, Rep./Sen. said 'yada, yada.' Our membership is mystified. Does Rep./Sen. X actually. . ."). I poke around on the net and identify a likely candidate on the staff to call. Since voice mail is a typical "end point" I have a "voice mail" version of the question prepared.

Before calling, I try to find out what I can about my "target." Sometimes I "shoot too high" and get shuttled to some other person. Sometimes I'm amazed to be put right through (getting put through to voice mail is so typical, it can be a shock to get a "real person")

Identifying yourself by title helps if you happen to have one, but even just citing a group you belong to (with permission) can get you past the gate. A couple times I was surprised to find I had been transferred to the press secty, I suppose because I cited a quote.

I don't have "proof" (no impeachophobes turned into impeachers yet), but I think that using quotes as a hook from which to question their excuses and assumptions is and effective way to seeds of doubt. If they are so hung up about how their "messages" are received, feedback about how assine they sound to people "out here" has a shot at bypassing the "dismissal" mechanism that our demands and arguments for action trigger.

Almost any legislative assistant or senior staffer is probably as good a target as any other. They are all victims of the group think and irrational assumptions that pervade their insular world. They all play a part in defending the group against reality. Someone at the bottom of the heap could prove to be more fertile ground for our "seeds of doubt" then those at the top.

Like the story of the emperor's new clothes, as long as the group delusion remains unquestioned, powerful social dynamics can sustain even the most absurd delusion. But if we can inject doubt, perhaps we can bring their House of Cards down.

[porphyrian]

49. No, that's exactly the kind of answer I'm looking for - something to DO.

I haven't tried it yet, but the logic seems sound. Even if it isn't successful with just one or a few people doing it, a growing number of people doing it may be very effective in raising doubt in, hopefully, the minds of people who are in a position to change things. I hope a bunch of people see this and pursue it. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

[calimary]

46. Yes. And YES. And YES!!!!!

There is NO other option left to us at this point. Not to IMPEACH is INDEED to be complicit in all these crimes. Not to IMPEACH is to send a VERY clear message to future generations, and future wannabe-dictator "presidents" that what this jackass did was somehow just fine. Nobody thought it was worth the bother, so, hey, must not have been all that bad, then, 'eh? If we do NOT at least TRY to IMPEACH this bastard - AND his second-in-command, we will, in effect, be declaring to all of history that this shit he pulled was no big deal and the "wonderful" precedent it set was allowed to stand uncorrected, unchallenged, unpunished.

DAMMIT! I'm SO thoroughly sick and tired of seeing everything my generation worked and marched and petitioned and protested and aggitated for - turned on its ear. We worked like dogs to win a woman's right to have the last word over her body and now that's endangered. We worked like dogs to declare once-and-for-all to the world that NO ONE in America is above the law - NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT. And THAT is turning to shit.

"...but, but, but... we may not have the votes..."

FUCK IT. We STILL need AT LEAST to TRY. Not even to TRY is a crime for which every generation to follow will feel deeply and grievously sorry.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. IB/C!!!!! IB/C!!!!! IB/C!!!!! IB/C!!!!! IB/C!!!!! IB/C!!!!!

:applause:

[ComerPerro]

6. Soooooo many problems with impeachment

for one, we don't have the votes necessary to convict, so the impeachment itself will just be seen as a waste of time and money. And that would be correct, it would be a waste of time.

Moreover, it treats the power structre in the Bush White House as though Bush and Cheney are the main, central leaders, and without them then organization comes crumbling down. You forget that these peoople are just figureheads, there is an entire group running things here. You convict Bush and Cheney, someone else will just come in their place and run things exactly like they did.

Lets not forget that anyone we do manage to put behind bars can still be pardoned.

[Senator]

9. Sooooooo many more problems with failure to impeach

Conviction is virtually irrelevant to making the mark on history. Anything less is approval and reward.

Beyond that, we may well have the votes to convict on torture, as the Senate has already voted 90-9 for McCain's Anti-Torture Law (sadly -- and impeachably -- negated by "rule by signing statement").

And impeachment/removal has nothing to do with putting anyone behind bars. That must come after -- and only if impeachment sets the stage for it.

Failure to Impeach = No Accountability.

--

[ComerPerro]

10. Impeachment with no conviction, with a year and a half left in his second term?

[Senator]

29. Would be a great start. Are you suggesting there's some downside to this?

Or some reason to procrastinate on confronting war crimes and treason?

Nothing precludes serial impeachments on additional charges.

--

[ComerPerro]

34. So during the next few months we are going to:

End the Iraq war somehow, be it by timetable or cuts in funding or withdrawal

Find solutions to the Iraq problem

Pass articles of impeachment and try the President and Vice President for a wide assortment of crimes

Expore alternative fuel sources and try to do something about gouging and gas prices



All with a very slim majority that can't even block fillabusters or vetoes?

[Senator]

37. Impeachment, even with removal, should take weeks, not months

As for the rest, impeachment can only help any effort in those areas.

Or are you implying that the status quo is tangibly better in some way?

--

[ComerPerro]

38. what I am saying is there are lot of people here who don't have a clue about political processes

We have had "power" (as in, a very thin majority) for five months, and they are up in arms ready to leave the party because we haven't done ALL (not just one or two) of the items I mentioned.

[Senator]

39. Well, that's not quite so

The currently high level of disallusionment is far less "result based" than it is "effort based." As I've posted elsewhere, Cindy Sheehan and those who agree with her have really come to loggerheads with the Dem party establishment over their failure to impeach.

Regardless of their "clue level," many people simply want maximum effort from their "leaders" when it comes to confronting this unlawful regime. A recent poll showed 40% wanting the Dems to "go further" on confronting the regime on Iraq, with only 30% agreeing with their current level.

And even among those who are "up in arms," very few are "ready to leave the party." Far more of them are ready to change the "leadership," as they tried in the past with Ned Lamont and Howard Dean.

--

[ComerPerro]

41. I can't even begin to tell you how many "I am no longer a Dem" posts I've seen

And what your saying about effort...

Basically, the Sheehan crowd would rather see symbolic gestures that fall flat on their face than any step towards meaningful progress.

Not a very endearing trait.

[Senator]

50. Perhaps you should begin to compare the number you've seen...

...with the number of those who don't say that -- even among those expressing disgust with the LieberDems in DC. Anecdotal evidence can be very misleading.

Perhaps you can also explain what is more endearing about getting even less than a symbolic gesture?

But the reality is that impeachment is far, far more than a symbolic gesture. (If it weren't, there'd be no controversy.) It is an historic effort -- to at the very least stand in objection to war crimes.

It would make a "gesture" (very real) to the rest of the world, to our children, and to our fellows -- demonstrating that the American People do not accept War Criminal Nation status, and these crimes committed in our names, without at least a resistant voicing of objection.

Many of us think it is a moral, patriotic imperative. Others prefer continued tacit complicity.

Your mileage may vary.

--

[ComerPerro]

51. maybe Cindy Sheehan should have done the same, eh?

you know, compare the number of people who supposedly called her "attention whore" to those who did not.

[onenote]

43. the idea that impeachment and removal could be accomplished in weeks is laughable

The Clinton impeachment effort took three months in the House. The trial in the Senate itself took approximately 3 weeks.

In 1974, the Nixon impeachment inquiry in the House lasted nearly five months, and that was just from the beginning of the inquiry to the appoval of articles of impeachment at the committee level. (The "smoking gun" disclosure a week after the committee vote led to Nixon's impeachment so there was no need to proceed to a full House consideration or trial).

An impeachment effort conducted without bi-partisan support on a fast track would be viewed very negatively by the public.

[pat_k]

52. <deleted>

[Senator]

53. Another evasion of logic and reality.

Simply put, any comparison to Clinton is oxymoronic.

The reality is that, unlike the Nixon and Clinton circumstances, there is NO disagreement as to the facts of the case. The regime freely admits its activities and merely "defends" them as lawful and unimpeachable. There is nothing to "inquire" about, no "smoking gun" to expose, and no witnesses to examine.

The Articles of Impeachment are alreadly written. All that remains is an up or down vote on torture, spying without a warrant, and/or terrorizing the American People into war. It need not even be taken up by a committee.

The Senate trial need only last long enough for the monarchical "Urinary Authoritarian Executive Theory**" to be expounded as the regime's claimed free pass around the Constitution.

Then we find out if over 30 GOP Senators will stand before history to impose Authoritarianism over Americanism.

I'm betting they can't. But even if they do, it's better we know where we stand -- and who's really on which side.

But it really can be done in a matter of days.

(Once cheney's replacement is approved by Congress.)

-----
**Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak) n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics

--

[ThomWV]

12. Strong and Right leads to IMPEACHMENT every time too

Nothing wrong with a good impeachment.

[glitch]

23. Simple enough even for "strategists" to understand. K & R nt

[H2O Man]

33. Nominated.

You really only fail in life when you don't try.

[thegreatcause2]

42. impeach for peace

what can we do? what practical steps, actions can we do to impeach this SOB bush? i feel so helpless and frustrated but i believe there are actions for me to take, but i really do not know what they may be. can anyone give some some ideas to do something to send this asshole bush packing?

[jpgray]

45. It worked so well for Gingrich and co., didn't it?

Oh wait.

edit: This is not to compare the presidents, the cases for impeachment or anything else--just saying that pushing hard on all fronts doesn't always win support and respect.

[yurbud]

48. What happened to George McGovern in '72 then?

I have some ideas, but would be curious to hear what others have to say.

[pat_k]

54. "dirty tricks not ever seen before in the American democracy"

(quote from http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html)

If your question is about where McGovern v. Nixon line up on the strong v weak; right v wrong spectrum, McGovern got slapped with the "weak" label and was unable to shake it.

Until he got chewed up by Nixon's dirty tricks machine, I think Muskie was more widely regarded as a man of courage and strength of conviction. The perception of Muskie as "strong" is perhaps one of the reasons Nixon was so loathe to face him.

In general, on the reactionary fascist v. enlightened democratic spectrum, fascists tend to get "strength points" for being fascists. But fascism is born of paranoid cowardice (e.g., Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine). A fascist political figure perceived to be "strong" one day can become the butt of ridicule the next. (e.g., Nixon's paranoia is the stuff of legend and ridicule.)

Unfortunately, because the Dems mistakenly believe that the "weak" label is related to their stand on national security, their attempts to shake the label by being "tough on national security" have utterly failed. The message, "Don't think we're weak, we're as tough on national security as they are," buys the false premise that Repubs are "strong" and Dems are "weak" on national security. It is classic "don't think of an elephant."

Given the fascist currents in the Republican Party, it should be easy to tar the entire Party with the "paranoid" brush. Unfortunatley, when Democrats take the "We're as tough/paranoid as they are" position they validate the paranoia and makes it impossible to paint the "other guy" as a paranoid coward.

A sad commentary on how "far we've come" is that, all in all, when you compare Nixon's place on the reactionary fascist v. enlightened democratic scale with that of his protege's, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Co., Nixon comes out looking down right enlightened.

We have come to a place unimaginable three decades ago. If our Democratic "leaders" don't wake up soon, I can't imagine where well be three decades from now.

[yurbud]

56. the one percent doctrine is propaganda not an actual strategic doctrine

If they really believed that, they would have already nuked North Korea and sent Green Berets to kill those chimps who are hunting monkeys with sticks.

[pat_k]

57. Since it is impossible to apply it generally in any sense.

. . .it can't be a "strategic doctrine." So you are right, the "One Percent Doctrine" is essentially propaganda. It is an excuse to act on their irrational and self-destructive fears.

It is impossible to apply generally becasue it is a "doctrine" that arbitrarily points to one risk among the countless risks that face Americans each day and says "if there's a one percent chance of X, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

The "One Percent Doctrine" really doesn't care about all the other "high impact" one-percent risks that may be out there. It is a contextless doctrine. The risks or costs of the "response" are irrelevant. The relation of risk X to other risks is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if risk Y becomes a certitude because you must pull resources from risk Y to treat the 1% risk of X "as a certainty in terms of our response." It doesn't matter if the response deemed necessary creates new risks of far higher probability than risk X.

Like other fascist "doctrines," it is an excuse to act that frees the actor from responsibility for consequences. It is only invoked when needed to cut off reason and analysis.

[yurbud]

58. it is only a doctrine in that it can be applied the way cops use the seat belt law

as an excuse to check for something else.

[pat_k]

59. Yep. Although. . .

I suppose that the seatbelt law could be applied generally given the resources and the will. "Not wearing a seatbelt" is an identifiable physical state. If enough of us thought the tradeoffs worth it, we could probably come up with some sort of camera check points that automatically generated tickets. (i.e., a means to remove the arbitrary applicati0on of the law.)

There are no criteria in Cheney's "doctrine" that could be used to sort out the "one percent" risks worthy of "treating as certitude." It is an excuse, pure and simple. It is a doctrine that applies only AFTER you've arbitrarily decided that risk X is your "high impact" risk of interest.

BTW. After posting #57, I made some edits before I saw your response. The original (which is what you probably read) was a bit garbled.