If impeachment is supposedly supported by a majority of the Democratic base

[bigtree]

why would it be 'cowardice' to oppose the process?

It would seem to be counter *to the hyperventilated calls for impeachment from Democratic *core voters to stand against it. Where's the risk that some say Democrats are avoiding? Wouldn't it be a slam-dunk for them to come out for impeachment?

I've seen the polls which suggest that those who registered support for Democrats months ago are now registering their disappointment in party members for their inability, so far, to end the occupation and prosecute the administration. What possible political benefit among their own voters would there be for Democratic legislators to stand in opposition to extreme measures like impeachment?

I believe that for a Democrat to stand against impeachment is to position oneself against the grain of those who would *likely vote for them. Their stand against the procedure is more likely a principled stand based on substantive reasons than just out of some craven political motivation; a far sight from any timidity. If they wanted to shill for votes right now - many who were just recently elected to office - why wouldn't they just bend to the 'popular' opinion among those who would vote for them? Why would they be at all concerned with what republicans or others outside of that frustrated base think of their actions, as some have claimed? Where's the 'cowardice' in taking a stand which is opposite from the prevalent opinion of those who would vote for them?


edit: *

[ClassWarrior]

1. Lakoff maintains that you win when you play to your base.

:shrug:

NGU.

[tcfrogs]

2. Are there polls that show a majority of Democrats favor impeachment?

:shrug: I don't recall one, but if there is, I'm sure someone will correct me. :)

[bigtree]

4. you may well be right

I probably should change the proposition to reflect their response to the will of the Democratic 'base' which is represented so much here as overwhelmingly in support of the action.

Good point though. Good counter.

[tcfrogs]

5. I'm not saying don't impeach - please don't infer that

I know that probably 90% of DU'ers want impeachment, I was merely pointing out that I haven't seen a poll from a cross section of the Democrats in the country, not just who post here.

[bigtree]

6. you're right

and as is typical sometimes, I posted this without considering that.

I imagine they would reflect the majority of overall opinion which isn't as enamored of the remedy as we are here. So, a call to impeach would be against that opposition, and therefore, mostly unpopular. Conversely, in that equation, a call against impeachment is the comfortable position, counter to my OP's premise.

[EFerrari]

3. I'm not going to argue this, bigtree.

:pals:

But I found it interesting that one poll (believe it was Zogby) showed that most people (regardless of political affiliation, iirc) were against impeachment but also, that most people wanted the Bush presidency to be over.

Isn't that a strange dichotomy It's as if people want impeachment until you label it "impeachment". :shrug:

[Rosemary2205]

7. The VRWC did their job.

I would not be surprised at all if the next 4 or 5 presidents slowly move us into a system where there are absolutely no checks and balances at all and no one has a the power anymore to fight for the Constitution.

Take an American electorate who still thinks Saddam had something to do with 911. Take a corporate MSM that refuses to do it's job. Take the fact the Clenis witch hunt convinced everyone impeachment is nothing but a useless joke of a political stunt done by a bunch of congressional 2 yr olds throwing a fit. You put all that together and I doubt any president any time soon is going to get the smackdown, regardless of what he does.

[EFerrari]

8. That would be one outcome, no doubt.

Maybe we can rebrand the action -- since we seem to have a trained seal electorate that responds to brands.

I have no doubt that this is the most corrupt administration in the history of this nation. If we don't find a way to put them on trial, maybe we deserve what follows. :(

[bigtree]

11. if we resorted to impeachment to move Bush

it could also set up impeachment as the inevitable remedy for an inability to achieve goals legislatively.

The attitude among many of impeachment's supporters goes beyond the 'rule of law', the abuses and crimes which aren't exclusively addressed by removing someone from office in a political trial. Many of impeachment's supporters come to the remedy because of our majority's inability to immediately move Bush on Iraq, or immediately compel testimony in the major congressional investigations.

I wouldn't be comfortable at all if impeachment became a substitute for the hard work of reconciling differences to advance goals in Congress; a substitute for the hard work of legislating. That prospect may not be restricted to our own party, and we may well find ourselves at the other end of the dynamic which I think could be created by relying on impeachment to the exclusion of other methods of enforcing law and compelling accountability.

[GOTV]

9. I don't find it so strange....

... they don't want Bush to be president, but they don't want the noise, upheaval and government paralysis of impeachment.

It's as if you went to the doctor with some terrible pain and the doctor said don't worry, it's not fatal, it will clear up on it's own in a year or so but, if you want, there's some expensive, risky and painful surgery that might end the problem in a few months.

You might very well wish the pain would end but choose to let nature handle it gradually, safely and for free rather than opt for the surgery.

That's how I read those polls.

[EFerrari]

10. Thing is, during the Watergate hearings, our government didn't grind

to a halt.

And if it seemed to during the Clinton impeachment stuff, that's because the Thuggery by then owned the media and we were getting a one sided report.

So, the electorate has been sold a load in order to make them flinch away from holding their government accountable. Neat trick.

[walldude]

12. What it is is that the Dems are afraid of being called names..

They keep coming up with all these lame excuses but what it boils down to is they are like little third graders, afraid of what the playground bully (Rove) might say about them if they don't march in lock step. The truth is they care much more about their careers then they do about the American people or what we think.

[EFerrari]

14. I think we're pretty much screwed unless we switch to

public campaign financing. And that feels like trying to do a wheelie with the QM2.

[bigtree]

15. but what evidence do you have that 'Dems are afraid of being called names'

isn't there room to disagree with an impeachment - especially generic calls for some nebulous, future action - without being 'afraid'?

[walldude]

22. How about a direct quote:

"Sanders said the one person who would want the Democrats to focus on impeachment more than anyone else would be White House political advisor Karl Rove, who would twist the impeachment proceedings into an effort to cast the Democrats as extremists squandering the mandate they received from the voters to get legislation moved through the Congress."

Afraid of being called "extremists" by Rove.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1141706


And no, judging from the mounds of evidence that the President violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" impeachment should not even be a debate. The fact that the Neo-Cons managed to make it a "debate" shows how far we have sunk as a nation. If a Democrat did all the things Bush has done he/she would be hanging from the gallows on the White House lawn.

[bigtree]

24. that quote demonstrates concern about more than mere 'name-calling'

Sanders is concerned that voters will view the process as a mere political move instead of a sincere attempt to uphold the law. And, I wouldn't underestimate the negative effect that perception would have on the Democrat's ability to proceed, especially if the effort is just an 'airing' of abuses without any reasonable chance of moving the republican opposition, given the balance of power in this Congress.

edit: sp. quote

[walldude]

29. You are proving my point with your response

Sanders is concerned about how it will look, not about what's right and wrong. Can you really sit there and say that Bush/Cheney shouldn't be impeached? That they don't deserve it? The only arguements I see about not impeaching are about how it's going to look, about perceptions, about how they are going to spin it. I could care less about "perceptions" about careers, about freakin politics. It was the Republican mantra when Clinton was in office, "IT'S ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW". Maybe it's time the fucking Republicans are shown that the law applies to them too.

[bigtree]

33. We want the effort to succeed, not just go through the motions, right?

shouldn't we choose a course which would have some reasonable chance of success? If the process is seen as a mere political grudge match, how would we compel republicans in this Congress to join in the effort to convict? Isn't conviction imperative, or is conviction superfluous to the effort?

If conviction is important, then it could be argued that other less partisan efforts, such as pressing for an outside investigation through the investigative committees already charged, would be just as prudent; even more so given the balance of power which would seem to be an obstacle to any actual conviction in an impeachment?

[EFerrari]

34. The "motions" are very important. Going through them proves

we still have a functioning republic.

[bigtree]

38. then we should respect the 'motions' short of impeachment as well

which intend to hold the Executive accountable, and not assume that a hesitancy to move from those efforts, right to impeachment, is an abrogation of responsibility.

[walldude]

41. I could agree with that if we were holding anyone accountable..

but we aren't. Every time a new scandal came up I thought "this is it, this is the one where we will put our foot down, but it never happens, I gave up hoping that these people will be held accountable for anything after the warrentless wiretapping.

[EFerrari]

43. Just as we shouldn't charge a murderer with murder

because conviction is uncertain?

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this.

[bigtree]

48. No. Congress wouldn't have to assume primary responsibility for a murder charge

that prosecution, of course, would be adequately addressed outside of the political arena, and overwhelmingly supported within the institution for redress. I don't think that we can be so certain that every issue of abuse and criminality that's being contemplated for redress in an impeachment surrounding this administration would rise to that level of concern

[walldude]

39. And not just to ourselves but to the rest of our fellow humans.

While the Neo's would like us to believe that we could wall ourselves in and be a functioning nation without any outside contact, it's just not going to happen, we need to come out of this funk and become the example for which other nations could follow, not the nation the rest of the world fears...

[walldude]

37. OK we are coming closer to an agreement here,

Yes I would like it to succeed, and in any other time, with anything else at stake I would agree with waiting for a proper investigation. The stakes however are not "normal" these idiots are ready to start a new front on the war on terror in Iran, they have ruined our reputation in the world, they have totally fucked up the economy, they have convinced many Americans that torturing people is A-Ok, they have passed laws that they excluded themselves from, which only happens in a dictatorship. We have gone so far down the hole that we accept the fact that we have to be as "evil" as they are to "win" this non-existant war. I'd be happy to wait it out if I knew that in the next 18 months they couldn't make things any worse, but I have a feeling the worst is yet to come...

[bigtree]

13. is gridlock and distraction the public's only concern?

I think the prospect of Congress substituting their own judgment for that of the voters who elected the ones we propose to remove from office with an impeachment may have something to do with any hesitancy. I felt my vote was completely disenfranchised by the actions of republicans in the Clinton impeachment.

[EFerrari]

19. I think that's an excellent question.

And, it's also apples and oranges, imho.

The whole country witnessed the Clinton flaying as a Republican political stunt. In their heart of hearts, few people agree that one's private life should be made a spectacle, let alone a cause for impeachment. (Okay, maybe the 30%ers do. :) )

But the Clinton impeachment, with its many obvious flaws and political overtones, shouldn't be used as a cautionary tale to preclude a Bush impeachment.

You and I both know that the Bush administration is held together with criminals and cronies. They are career scofflaws. And while our Congress may try to work with them, with our new majority, these scofflaws will not fulfill their oaths to preserve and protect this nation.

So, it is incumbent upon our representatives, as our representatives, to hold these law breakers accountable. It is not a substitution for the legislative process but merely a fulfillment of the oath our reps also took -- to preserve and defend our Constitution.

[DeeDeeNY]

45. You hit the nail on the head

The Clinton impeachment IS being used as a cautionary tale to preclude a Bush impeachment by the mainstream media, and the Democrats are falling for this, the same way they listen to the mainstream media over their constituency on so many other matters that the media has so very wrong.

[bigtree]

47. Some of the issues surrounding that impeachment still apply

like the disenfranchisement of votes as Congress substitutes their judgment for the results of the election in attempting to remove the Executive from office. I don't think that's insignificant, and I don't think that concern can be brushed away by just asserting that the Clinton impeachment was false. The lack of public support for that effort had a great deal to do with the fact that it was perceived as a political move. I think that care should be taken to ensure that that impression doesn't prevail in our own efforts. That's why I don't think it would be prudent to just proceed with a partisan effort which isn't buttressed by some outside investigation or prosecution.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. the Watergate hearings

weren't an impeachment - they were investigatory hearings.

[onenote]

55. right. people seem to forget about the Select Senate Committee

I've seen "myth-busting" posts that claim that the Nixon impeachment process only took a few months, which conveniently ignores the fact that before there was an impeachment process there was the Senate Select Committe on Watergate. That investigation was not commenced as a step towards impeachment but became one as information was revealed and Nixon imploded with actions like the Saturday Night Massacre.

A number of us have said all along that the only possible route to impeachment is through non-impeachment related investigations and hearings and only if those hearings build to bi-partisan support for an impeachment effort. That is the model from Watergate that many fail to remember.

[Strawman]

16. Democrats tend to see swing voters and not the base as their reelection constituency

They take the activist base for granted figuring they have nowhere else to go.

They suspect swing voters will see this as more petty partisan bickering because that is how the Republicans would spin it and that's how the corporate media would report it.

That's why it's "cowardice." They're afraid of the Republican noise machine and they think swing voters are stupid. Maybe it is a rational fear, but it's not principled courage that's keeping them from pursuing impeachment.

[bigtree]

17. they oppose impeachment to appeal to swing voters?

perhaps.

But, what of the ones who's seats are more than secure, like House members with solid support in their districts? Like Conyers or Waxman? They're working hard to investigate and expose the crimes of this administration but have yet to get behind any specific impeachment drive. What do they have to fear in ANY stance they take in opposition to Bush?

[Strawman]

18. They're afraid of pissing of their "moderate" colleagues

and wasting time on an effort that they don't think will succeed before Jan. 20, 2009.

And Conyers, who is one of your examples, wins with @ 90% of the vote each cycle and whatever stand he takes on impeachment won't change that.

In his case, on this particular issue, I don't think it's "courageous" opposition to liberal activists as much as it's realism (maybe resignation is a better word) that is driving his non-endorsement of impeachment.

[EFerrari]

21. The speaker has asked them not to raise the question of impeachment

It's worth remembering that the Democrats have been out of power for some time and have rebuilding to do.

[mmonk]

20. First, impeachment is about right and wrong, the constitution

and the integrity of our democracy. Second, we don't know that it is cowardice. If it is cowardice, it just means they fear republican voters and rightwing smears more than they do us who support the constitution that are their constituents. And last, I will not forget or forgive the republican party for all they have done since this abominable administration took office nor the democrats that would not fight for me, my rights, my children's rights or my constitution.

[bigtree]

23. I really don't believe these legislators are against defending the constitution

and upholding laws.

And, I don't think that our legislators have to necessarily support some generic call to impeach the president or the vice just to uphold the law. There are other ways to hold the Executive accountable, including the ability to press for an actual outside investigation and indictment which would have real jeopardy for the target(s), not just a political thrashing.

[walldude]

25. You don't call being impeached "real jeopardy"?

Just a political thrashing??? Once they are out of office then they can start the proceedings to get these people into jail. Right now we are just going to have to sit here while Bush throws more human lives at a failed foreign policy and watch as he veto's legislation that gives hope to millions of people. Good plan...

[bigtree]

28. not if a conviction is clearly going to be blocked by the republicans in the end

that wouldn't happen in ALL efforts to impeach. I could certainly see a litany of charges which could generate enough support fro enough republicans to convict in this Congress, but the proposition from many here is that we should proceed, even if it doesn't end in a conviction; that the process is sufficient and proper to address the crimes and abuses no matter what the outcome. That's what I mean by a 'political thrashing'. That would be the only probable effect of an effort which can be reasonably predicted to fail on a party line vote.

[walldude]

31. So then we shouldn't impeach because the system is so

corrupt that the other criminals in the system will jump up to defend the criminals running the show? So instead of taking a stand against these criminals we should just let them finish out their terms because there are so many of thenm we can't possibly win? To a guy like me that sounds alot like cowardice.

[bigtree]

40. it's not 'cowardice' unless the efforts outside of an impeachment are abandoned

I would be hard-pressed to find any value (or courage) in a process which ended in politicians effectively acquitting the target(s).

[EFerrari]

26. But will all respect, you are defining impeachment as a political

thrashing exclusively.

[bigtree]

30. only an effort which doesn't have the gravity to sway republicans necessary for conviction

for instance, an impeachment which has charges which are indistinguishable from the debates we're gridlocked on so far. To expect a different result from the same body of legislators using the same information that's swirling around right now doesn't seem credible.

That's why I believe the charges should come from an outside source which has real jeopardy for the target, to take any tinge of partisanship off of the process which would harden the opposition and allow the effort to be portrayed as a political vendetta instead of a sincere attempt to uphold the law.

[EFerrari]

32. The charge of partisanship has to be countered by

the affirmation of our Constitution.

And that's is difficult to do since the Thuggery bought up the media. :shrug:

[walldude]

36. The only people screaming about partisanship

are the Neo-Cons. This again takes us back to my point. The main reason impeachment is off the table is because the Neo-Cons are controlling the debate and any time anyone wants to take on the administration they start screaming about supporting the troops. God forbid anyone is percieved as being "against the troops" (a sound bite so asinine that I still can't believe they get away with using it). The other main arguement against impeachment is that it's a waste of time because we can't win. Well what do they call all these bills that they passed that have no chance of being signed into law? While Bush is president no bill that the Democrats pass will make it past Bush's desk, proven again today when he vetoed the Stem Cell bill claiming it's not right to take a life so another can live(that was the funniest thing I ever heard of coming out of this guys mouth)...

[bigtree]

42. I don't think an impeachment is an effective substitute for the legislative process

And we shouldn't become so frustrated by the predictable, initial opposition to our legislative efforts from republicans. They are working against public opinion and we are moving closer to the election season where many will be forced to come off of their initial strident opposition. I believe we should stay focused and engaged in the legislative process and not look on impeachment as a panacea for the republican obstruction.

[mmonk]

44. Impeachment is not a substitute for legislative process

and legislative process is not a substitute for impeachment.

[bigtree]

50. no, but it is being presented by many proponents as a way to move issues

and to address the obstinacy of the administration and their republican enablers.

[mmonk]

52. Personally, I want our constitution back up and working.

If it's not done now, there is a chance it's gone in the form we've known it.

[mmonk]

27. If an official that has committed a criminal offense is impeached,

they then can be arrested if removed from office. These people are going to get away with the longest assemblage of constitutional crimes we've seen. Their lies we've heard over and over will also continue to have adherents, both in the public and government.

[bigtree]

35. Well, I don't think we should give up on the other efforts underway

to hold them accountable, many which could well lead to the impeachment *some seek.

But, again, I don't thin we necessarily need to move to an impeachment if there are other ways we can find to further investigations which intend to prosecute those crimes and abuses. Those functions of Congress are also part of their mandate, oath, and responsibilities to defend the constitution. Why is it seem by some as unquestionably proper (not just preferable) to bypass those other levers of accountability that our legislators are also charged with and jump to impeachment?


edit: *

[MadHound]

46. Ahh bigtree, moving the goal posts again

Rather than go with the will of the American people, now the Dems, in your opinion, should only do the will of those *likely* to support them. What's next, only doing the will of those who send them money?

Whoops, we're already there friend, and this is in fact how we've gotten into the state we're in, the two party/same corporate master system of government.:shrug:

Here's a radical idea, do the will of the people and let the support follow, ie, earn the votes. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's a quaint outdated way of thinking, my bad:eyes:

[bigtree]

49. I think that the efforts of Congress should be centered on what they believe will be most effective

In our political system, often those things which are unsupported by the majority of voters can not be addressed in an effective manner by the politicians. *That's why they often rely on outside prosecutions to take the taint of partisanship away from their efforts and to build support within and without the political institution for the actions they take. Unlike the efforts of an outside prosecutor, their actions may rise *or fall as a result of that 'support' in and out of government. If we are truly concerned with making charges stick - if we really intend for there to be actual legal consequences to lawbreaking and abuse - then we shouldn't disregard the political obstacles to whatever remedy Congress intends to resolve within that political institution.

edit: *

[A wise Man]

53. In all honesty as an American

The process of an impeacement shouldn't come from only Democrats, but from those that truly believe in the constitution and not their party. We should not have to make a choice between party over the laws of the land, corruption, thievery or fascist Hitlerisms. We the people may have to take our country back by force if necessary.

[onenote]

54. good luck with that

Curious for more information about how "we the people" will "take by our country by force".

[A wise Man]

56. Don't get me wrong

but my suggestion just may be warranted. The police want help us with truth, the city counsel want help, the mayors are bought off, the congress and senate aren't worth a dam and the judiciary system are hypocrites. You are right ,maybe I'm reaching, but it seems that the ideal is the only way that we can take back AMERICA with an "OUTRIGHT REVOLT, AND I DON'T MEAN SPEECHES". Sorry!!!