Impeachophobia: False Memes

[Senator]

This is a promotion to its own thread of my response to the thread by RestoreGore which points out that impeachment is be labelled (ghetto-ized) by the Euphemedia as a "left wing issue." The poster correctly characterized this as a "false meme." And in response I listed a few other false memes that the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy is promoting to defend their Impeachophobia Groupthink. Some DUers seem to have fallen under one or more of these rhetorical spells.

A Sampling of Impeachophobia False Memes:

1. "Oh no, we'd get Dick Cheney!" (Sen. Murray, Sen. Reid)

It's these flippant people that are in dire need of cranial-rectoscopy. It's as if they've been comatose for six years. What do they imagine we have right now? Is there something that the bushkid himself has fought valiantly against, that cheney could finally do? If anything cheney's more culpable than bush and there's nothing stopping a double impeachment, or doing cheney first to allow the GOP to move a caretaker in (Danforth, Warner) to finish the term.

2. "Darn, it's just too late." (Conyers)

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.

2A. Various and sundry rationalizations for inaction like: We must "instead do oversight" or "need to investigate first" or "must expose to the public in hearings."

These things are not technically memes, but they do travel from groupthinker to groupthinker with regularity. As noted above, the case-making is already done, but the case-makers are still running around like headless chickens.

When Sen. Kerry says something like it's better "to try to change their behavior" you might realize this as just a humorless version of "we'd get cheney." And of course if anyone actually says this to you in person you need only stare at them for 5 or 6 seconds before they say "Ok, ok ... I don't know what I'm thinking." But responding to media is nothing like a rational conversation.

This is what come when a culture of blather folds over on itself due to a large enough wave of non-deniable reality. The culture operates on the delusion that garnering information and transferring it to others (eventually the electorate/public) is actually acting or even leading. This notion that they can "teach" their way to a solution is just a more "cerebral" form of irresponsibility.


3. "mumble ... something icky ... Clinton impeachment ... mumble, mumble" (Sen. Harkin, entire parroting punditry)

Simply put, any comparison to Clinton is oxymoronic.

3A. "It would further divide the country." (Sen. Feinstein)

Which begs the question, "Further than what, exactly?" This one is usually (again oxymoronically) coupled with the lament of "how polarized" the nation has become. Well, if it's already polarized what are we avoiding?

The reality is that the nation is not any more "polarized" now than at other times. All that has happened is that a scary buzzword has been attached. That and the fact the polar-left has grown in the face of neofascism -- and more importantly gotten angrier and noisier -- thus interrupting the comfortable social life inside the beltway.

4. "It would distract from other priorities" (Sen. Feingold)

If there are priorities higher than stopping war crimes I'd like to hear about them. And even if so, I'd like to hear the magic potion that circumvents "Rule By Signing Statement." Without impeachment, no result can be obtained on any front without "dispensation" from the bushkid.

No pressure is actually being brought to bear at all -- let alome being "ratcheted up." The Dems continue to look like hapless pets and the bushkid allows (and takes credit for) anything they decide would help their side in the polls.

5. But everything is "All About Iraq." We've got to concentrate on "Stopping the War." (an entire movement)

Sadly, the "all about Iraq" meme did its job during the 2006 campaign. Its sole purpose was to distract from the reality that it was really "All About Anti-Bush" or as Curtis Gans put it:

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

The mandate of 2006 was to impeach bushcheney. Polls showed that a majority wanted it before the election and that even more want it "just over" now. The public doesn't care what it does to who's chances in 2008. They even understand it might not lead to conviction/removal (they remember the Clinton farce too).


6. "We don't have the votes." (The Ziskey Doctrine)

Russell Ziskey: "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."

This notion of only fighting if you know you can win is exactly what it seems: defeatism. The reality is that you don't know unless you try.

Are there 30 GOP Senators who will stand up for history to defend war crimes, illegally spying on Americans, and/or terrorizing the nation with a bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds!"? If so, we really need to find out.

What we do know is that the Senate has already voted on this. They supported McCain's Anti-Torture Law by a vote of 90-9. Quite promising. Sadly, their vote was negated by "Rule by Signing Statement." Perhaps they'd choose not to repeat such a public display of impotence.

The American People simply want this never-elected, never-legitimate, war criminal regime confronted -- to have their objection voiced and noted for history. They want (and need) to be let off the hook -- publicly and officially -- for that which they never provided their consent.

This Congress and this once-great nation simply needs to get on with it.


============

[Cults4Bush]

1. Thank you Senator! K&R'd

Id actually like to see someone come into thsi thread and honestly present logical argument without the guilt tripping black mailing toe the party line tone that most seem to take regarding impeachment.

Our arguments for it seem much more sound and significant than theirs.

Id also like to see how many of them support Upper level DC dems doing what they can to crush the impeach movement at the grassroots level.

Anywho... thanks again for making this its own thread:)

[Buck Rabbit]

14. I'll take your challenge.

There are 233 Democrats in the House. Approximately 88 are Blue Dog or DLC New Dems. If you could convince 50% of these to vote for Impeachment along with all the rest of the Dems in the House, Bush would be vindicated of all charges on the indictment by a vote of 246-191. More likely you would lose all 88 and Bush and all his policies would be vindicated by about 290-145. Either of these results would be a smashing victory for Bush and give implied legitimacy to his interpretation of what constitutes torture and illegal combatants.

I fully support any leader who attempts to crush an almost certain though unintended victory for Bush and the Neocons.

I don't oppose hearings. Just don't give Bush a vote on The Floor unless you know you can win.

Pilosi already knows what the vote would be as of today. If in caucus polling, support for impeachment hit the critical mass, it would go right back on the table. It is only off the table because the votes aren't there.

[Mister Ed]

15. Would the Blue Dog/DLC Dems in the House really vote to give Bush such a smashing victory?

And if so, does a failed impeachment effort really amount to an endorsement of Bush's criminal policies?

I ask in sincerity.

[Buck Rabbit]

18. My best guess is yes.

I believe that at least half of them would not consider the actions that we feel are high crimes and misdemeanors to be that, because they supported and in some cases still support those policies. Knowing that conviction in the Senate is impossible, would they vote against impeachment and then blame their intra party rivals, Pilosi and the progressives for even bringing the bill to the floor. I think they might be more than capable of that. Don't you?

As to the second part I am 99.99% certain that a failed vote to impeach in the house would be trumpted by FOX and every GOP media outlet as bi-partisan vindication of the legality of every charge that was on the failed indictment. I can not conceive of them not doing this.

[Mister Ed]

21. Wow. Makes me think that even the harshest anti-DLC rant on DU is too mild.

A Blue Dog is one thing. After all, there are some states and districts that are just too reddish to elect any Dem but a DINO. But if DLC-aligned legislators will really vote against their own party when there's a rumble, then there is some serious housecleaning to be done.

But I must ask you to reconsider that second point. Democrats mustn't let the fear of smear dictate their actions on any issue. If you don't give FOX any talking points, they make up their own. If we never do anything that they might try to spin to their advantage, then we will never do anything at all. Ever.

[Buck Rabbit]

22. Just my opinion and not all DLC would go against the party leadership I imagine.

For example I believe Darlene Hooley is DLC but voted against the IWR. How she would vote on impeachment I am not sure. But as I stated if only half of them staged a palace revolt against the progressive leadership the vote would go very badly. Do you see more than 50% support possible among these two groups based on their voting this session?

What I am sure of is Pilosy knows within a few votes how much support there is for impeachment. If something changes that makes impeachment viable in private caucus, it would go right back on the table.

As to the last point, I agree that right wing smears are a given on everything, that is not what I am afraid of. I am afraid that to the huge masses of the politically indifferent headline readers in this country, that such a defeat could easily be sold and accepted as vindication of Bush's actions. How could you argue that it was not so?

[Mister Ed]

27. I think we're each batting .500 here...

You've opened my eyes to the danger - not the certainty, mind you, but the very real danger - that an impeachment resolution could fail to pass in the House, and not make it to the Senate at all. I'm hopeful that those potentially skittish Representatives can be brought into line as scandal continues to ooze from the punctured Bush presidency, just as you probably are.

But to answer your second question...
"I am afraid that to the huge masses of the politically indifferent headline readers in this country, that such a defeat could easily be sold and accepted as vindication of Bush's actions. How could you argue that it was not so?"

The public simply does not buy every single talking point that the right-wing media spews. Remember when they were trying to spin the 2004 election results as a "mandate" of support for Bush's policies on Iraq, Social Security privatization, etc.? That went south in a hurry.

This week's FOXnews tour-de-force is the meme that Scooter Libby has been unfairly persecuted, and the lie that there was "no underlying crime" in the Plame case. The public might buy that BS or they might not, but neither outcome will cause me to regret that the case was ever prosecuted in the first place.

In this subthread, you've been making the case that the Democratic Party should crush grassroots initiatives if those initiatives might eventually provide grist for FOXnews talking points. Again, I have to beg you to reconsider. If the party stifles its grassroots like that, then we are doomed to the role of perpetual-runner-up that Karl Rove envisions for us.

[Buck Rabbit]

29. Ok, I have reconsidered that last part and you are right on that.

They shouldn't attempt to stifle the grass roots.

I think my error results from my frustration at net people blaming Pelosi, while working under the assumption that our thin majority is composed of 100% progressive democrats like her. Not that I think she is perfect but she is a pretty damn good cat herder particularly considering there is an ambitious Tom Cat Hoyer waiting to pounce should she slip up.

[Mister Ed]

30. Yeah, I'm with you on Pelosi. I admire her and have confidence in her.

I have the feeling she's probably just about the best possible person we could have as Speaker.

Thank you for such a thought-provoking tete-a-tete.

[lonestarnot]

2. kick

[Mister Ed]

3. K&R

[pat_k]

4. Kick & Rec!

[porphyrian]

5. I don't think the people who need to are paying attention. - n/t

[Poiuyt]

6. Great arguments - K&R

[librechik]

7. man, I like the way you talk--euphemidia? Bravo!

K&R

[TheWraith]

8. Despite what you say, number six is correct.

It's not defeatism to get into a fight that you can't possibly win. That's the same argument that Bush uses to defend the war. The reality is that there absolutely are at least 34 Republicans who are willing to stay in lock-step with Bush. A lot more than that, actually. Even if you got every Democratic senator on board--a pretty long-odds proposition already--you'd still not have enough votes to make even a simple majority unless you also drag out the guy who's recovering from a massive cerebral hemhorrage. And that's a long, long distance from 67 votes.

There is simply no way to impeach and convict--or for that matter, to override a veto--so long as the Republicans remain in lock-step behind Bush. Saying "Just do it! Do it!" doesn't change the bottom line reality. Biden was right last night--we simply don't have the votes, and it's a hell of a lot easier to demand that the Dems do something than to actually offer a workable alternative plan, which hasn't been done here.

[Yukari Yakumo]

12. 34 Repukes + 1 LIEbermann {nt}

[Senator]

20. No, not at all correct

The GOP Senators do not always "remain in lock-step behind" bushcheney.

In fact on torture only 9 voted against the McCain Anti-Torture Law.

An impeachment charge over torture -- now bolstered by 2 Hamdan rulings against the war criminals -- could well come out the same.

But conviction/removal is virtually irrelevant. Failure to impeach achieves a better result for the neofascists.

Failure to even accuse (impeach) is approval.

That's the "bottom line reality."

----

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. 9. That's all you're going to get, at best.

50 - 9 = 41

Still more than enough to defeat conviction.

Haven't we learned the lessons of 1998?

[Senator]

26. No. Only 9 supported bush/torture. 40 joined with the Dems and McCain

...to oppose war crimes. They might be expected to maintain their integrity.

However, even if only 9 GOP Senators would support conviction/removal, it still makes it bi-partisan and would make a very strong mark for history -- and the future of the Republican Party.

This is something they might well want to avoid with resignations.

But even a partisan impeachment that fails in the Senate is far better than this silent complicity with war crimes.

"Not proved" is a better result than "Unaccused."

----

[Kurovski]

9. K&R. (nt)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Eh?

"Oh no, we'd get Dick Cheney!"
Is there something that the bushkid himself has fought valiantly against, that cheney could finally do?

No, but there are some elements of the administration on the Bush side that disagree with Cheney, and they do influence policy. They would all certainly be gone. Can you say Secretery of Defense Paul Wolfowitz?

there's nothing stopping a double impeachment,

Except reality.

or doing cheney first to allow the GOP to move a caretaker in (Danforth, Warner) to finish the term.

What makes you think that would happen? Imeapch Bush, and you Cheney and his hand-picked VP. Impeach Cheney and you get another Bush clone as VP. Either way nothing changes. You can't impeach both of them at once, and even if you did a carefully coordinated series of resignations would end you up in exactly the same position, with Bush and Cheney's hand-picked successors running the government.

In case I haven't said this enough times before, impeachment is a lousy tool for changing policy, and the impeachment supporters would have more credibility of they stopped invoking it constantly. So take your cranial-rectoscopy comments elsewhere.

[Senator]

19. To clarify

We've already got cheney. Always have. There's never been a "bush side."

There will be no "hand picked" or "clone" VP replacement, as any nominee must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. And the "change" we'd have is individual who actually carries the consent of the governed -- not having had stolen his/her way to power.

Yes, we can impeach both at once. There's nothing to stop it. If convicted succession is implemented. In fact, the House could even elect a Republican Speaker to rise to POTUS, should they wish to avoid charges of partisan coup.

And impeachment is not to change policy. It is to protect the Constitution from individuals -- like those in this regime -- who would arrogate to themselves monarchical powers.

---

[GOTV]

11. We don't have the votes. It's not defeatism - it's simply the truth. Deny the truth and you lose..

... every time.

[whopis01]

13. fail to take action and you lose every single time. n/t

[Senator]

16. It's not really "the truth," but simply "the fear."

It is the fear that over 30 GOP Senators would stand up to history and declare the US a War Criminal Nation.

I admit that it's scary. But the effect of not impeaching is roughly the same, is it not?

---

[some guy]

17. It's really a pity

that Democrats aren't willing to stand up and say they actually believe in the oath of office they took.

Win, lose or draw the citizens of this country deserve to know who among their elected representatives actually support the constitution. If there turned out to be ennough members of the House who beleve in the oath they took, the question could then go the Senate, and we the people could find out which Senators believe in the oath of office they took.

So far I only know of 4 people who are actually willing to stand up and say they weren't goddamn liars when they promised to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution againt all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[wiggs]

23. Your logical, reasonable, obvious, sane position is too....

..logical and reasonable. Doing what is right is too easily trumped now by talking points, lies, misinformation, and corporate interest. We are way behind the curve on successful governing.

Good lord, we had nearly all GOP presidential candidates spouting pure immoral nonsense about how Libby should be pardoned, acting as though his conviction was the pinnacle of liberals gone wild. Sickening. But this is typical the amazing and impressive effectiveness of the GOP propaganda apparatus. Why do we think that all of a sudden dems and pundits will be honest, courageous, and able to frame issues advantageously?

Having said that, I say impeach then jail. Those who have courage and sanity must try.

If someone could find a way to say that impeachment would be GOOD for corporate America's next quarterly statements, then we would have something done tomorrow.

[Senator]

24. Not that sudden. And we are rounding the curve (yes, really).

The failure to impeach is just the most obvious symptom of the larger crisis you quite accurately reflect in your post -- with the Libby Pardon spectacle being more along the lines of the insanity-of-the-moment type. But all of these things let a bit more air out of the beltway bubble of self-delusion.

The result is that we also have quite a few signs of improvement. The success of the Olberman Show, Gore's latest book on "Reason" (which could easily have been compiled from a review of DU posts over the last couple of years), and the continuing successes in Election Reform (the real hero of '06) are just a few examples.

We simply need to remain focussed on the engine of these improvements. And here you'll have to forgive my nitpicking your post as an example of what not to do (though it's not my intent to single you out for what is a pervasive problem).

We must be more concerned about what our allies and "leaders" are saying/doing than with what "GOP presidential candidates {are} spouting." Our job is to get the people on "our side" to engage in "more violent means" of confrontation -- because that simply is the lay of the current political landscape.

My guess is that the Euphemedia wouldn't touch the Libby pardon if all Dems/Lefties who spoke about it described such a pardon as the criminal act it really would be. If they all immediately brought up Poppy Bush's pardons of his Iran/contra co-conspirators -- and mused that those criminal pardons could still be prosecuted. That wouldn't really fit in with their pleasant pablum blather format, would it?

We on the "outside" must ignore the provocations of the right and simply turn to those nearest us on the political spectrum -- change their minds and actions -- then move further. It's what the real "netroots" has been doing under the Euphemedia radar and will continue to do.

Oh, and BTW ... impeachment is a cure for erectile dysfunction, hot flashes, and pattern baldness. Pass it on.

----

[nealmhughes]

28. All points are in my opinion, correct, however, the nomenclature is not.

A meme cannot be either false or true, it simply develops. Now the bases of a meme can be grounded in either truth or falsehood or a combination, but a meme has a life of its own and is constantly in flux, being the product of repetition, with the multiple nuances incumbent upon any analysis, and how subsequent repetition of a part of the meme is transmitted on down the line.
Talking points are the most obvious "manufactured memes," but even then, they take on their own track, and can often bite those who sought to manufacture them in the ass, exposing the self-serving erstwhile manufactureres' own biases and hypocricy. Hopefully, this current "We can't impeach because of X, Y, or Z" is soon to be exposed for what it is: a meme rooted in fear of the unknown.

[KingFlorez]

31. Where are the votes for conviction?

67 are needed and it's obvious that no Republicans are going to vote to convict. The votes simply aren't there.

[porphyrian]

32. Don't be stupid. You don't count votes before beginning impeachment hearings.

That's like expecting a baby before fucking.

[KingFlorez]

33. It's reality

I suppose after these hearings that Republican Senators are going to turn around and vote to convict Bush. They know what he's done, they know it's illegal and they don't care, holding impeachment hearings isn't going to magically change their minds. That's reality.

[porphyrian]

35. Justify cowardice any way that makes you feel more comfortable with it.

Nothing in life is guaranteed but death, and counting votes for an impeachment that hasn't even begun yet is an excuse. Maybe I'll get high later and be able to see your reality.

[treestar]

34. The Cheney point is fairly

I have been falling for that meme, but it might be somewhat helpful to have Cheney actually stuck in the position he is truly carrying out. His demeanor and his manner and his aims would come much more to the fore, and people would understand what the repukes really are about better, and that could be a big boost for 2008. In fact Cheney as incumbent might even run - he would have the chutzpah - try to cheat, etc., but it would all be more blatant and visible.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. popcorn

:popcorn: