the ghost of Nixon scares Democrats, but it shouldn't

[yurbud]

Democrats talk about the Clinton impeachment backlash as the reason they don't want to impeach Bush, but since many are slightly older folks, they are probably remembering an older precedent--when Nixon resigned to escape impeachment over Watergate.

After a president resigned in disgrace for the first time in our history, you would think that his party would be utterly crushed in the next the presidential election. In reality, Carter barely won against Nixon's vice president, so the lesson seems to be that the public has a very, very short memory. A disgraced and out of power president is like a captured unabomber or Saddam--instantly demoted in the public imagination to a footnote, and since most people don't know what footnotes are, forgotten for them.


But Democrats are missing the subtler but crucial point--Ford did lose.


And it was largely because he pardoned Nixon.

It may indeed be easier for Democrats to win in '08 with a sitting Bush & Cheney, but if (by some miracle) they did impeach and/or remove them, they could run commercials and ask during debates if their republican opponents for congressional seats would hold an out of control president to account, which republicans failed to do for six years, or whether they would use their power to score cheap political points as they did to Clinton.

At the presidential level, they could ask two questions: would their opponent pardon Bush & Cheney (which hopefully President Pelosi had not already done) and which of the impeachable offenses of Bush would they not commit themselves? During the GOP primary debate, they seem to be falling all over themselves to embrace torture (with the exception of McCain), which is practically promising an impeachable offense before they even get in office.

Both questions would force them to choose between independent voters and their base, the latter disagreeing only with Bush's profligate spending and even that is muted because it went to the cause of killing A-rabs. The GOP base actually wishes Bush would have gone farther in most of his offenses and would probably be most comfortable with Ann Coulter as president and James Dobson as vice.


I would rather win a closer election this way than by a wider margin the way Democrats appear to be going at it.

But as much as I hate what the Democrats are doing, it shows they have learned a Machiavellian propaganda lesson from the GOP. They are not trying to sell their product. They are shaping events so the public will knock down their door demanding it.

They just better hope that the crowds knocking down that door aren't like the ones storming the Bastille.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Hell, Cheney should be easier to beat than Bush.

If they just impeach Smirk, leaving Sneer in place, they can have it both ways.

[yurbud]

6. that would be funny.

[KharmaTrain]

2. Nixon Didn't Destroy The Party Like boooshie boy has

First...in the elections of Fall '74, the Repugnicans had their asses handed to them...a definite political fall-out from Watergate.

Next, the Nixon resignation ended what should have been more prosecutions and investigations...it all came to a halt when Ford issued the pardons and claimed "our long national nightmare was over". By allowing Nixon to avoid prosecution, he never was confronted with his crimes and many of his cronies were quickly pushed into the shadows...only to emerge during the Raygun and a few into the booooosh II regime.

Also, the Democratic national party in '76 was a lot more fragmented than it is now. The Progressive shift of the party that led to McGovern's nomination in '72 had turned into a schism that would evolve into the Progressive/DLC rift that exists today. Jerry Brown and Mo Udall split the Progressive vote enough for Carter to slip to the nomination...and then the party never quite united around Carter. Ford completely blew '76...with an inept administration coupled with his pardon of Nixon. Democrats stand a lot stronger now than they did in '76. If anything the roles of the parties are now reversed as the Repugnicans are fraying and it will take years to re-create that "big tent"...if at all.

Cheers...

[yurbud]

5. Democrats have a bad habit of going in for the kill when the beast is injured

they didn't finish them off after Watergate, Iran Contra, the October Surprise (which was really the beginning of Iran Contra), or BCCI, which would have snagged not the pols but their actual masters.

In thanks, the right goes back to their cave, licks their wounds, and comes back with the long knives drawn, meaner, smarter, and more ruthless at shredding the constitution.

[aquart]

3. We have 49 votes in the Senate.

Whatever might happen in the House (and don't hold your breath) we cannot win in the Senate.

Actually, our problem is Clinton, NOT Nixon. Nixon left and took a shred of honor with him. Clinton STAYED, AND WON. Clinton, not Nixon, not Reagan, is the god of the Republicans. He proved to them that disgrace can be ignored. They'll never admit it, but Bill's their model. That treason and adultery aren't remotely the same doesn't enter their heads. Disgrace is disgrace. Clinton ended disgrace so far as they're concerned.

The only way to deal with this is pursue it to the end, make the fight so costly and the end result so devastating that they will resign for sheer fear thereafter.

I'm a simple woman of my people and I forgive nothing.

[yurbud]

4. We don't have to win--just put stink on them so it's harder to rehabilitate their reputations

and it will be harder for the MSM to ignore the hearings if they are occurring in the context of an impeachment.

Once you get that publicity, either some republicans will defect and vote for impeachment, or they will make the walk to the White House and tell Bush it's time to resign.

Unlike Nixon, I don't think Bush has the grace to resign. He would try to declare martial law or something first, even if it was doomed to fail. He will go down like Hitler in his bunker.