Do DUers understand the electorate at large? Do they want to?

[jpgray]

Some ideas which have been floated to indicate what Congress should be doing show deep ignorance in my view of the general public, and their likely reactions.

1. Failed impeachment.

Both Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached and imprisoned. But if we lack the votes to win conviction (we may not even have the votes to impeach), we get a disaster. First, all ongoing investigations will suffer as the stakes become clear and beatable GOP candidates get a new lease on life. Why? When the most visible symbol of the GOP comes under the most aggressive Constitutional attack, it will increase their party's solidarity. Even those conservatives who fear connection with Bush and give us reluctant cooperation will drag their heels, and gung-ho Republicans will cleave to Bush even -more- than they already do. (No Nixon comparisons, please--his admin was imploding well before impeachment started.) To the media, it turns all Democratic claims and investigation of malfeasance by the administration into their ugly script of "politicizing the issues" and "partisan bickering." When the conviction fails to appear, the GOP can say "this president was found 'not guilty' of high crimes and misdemeanors." Tell me what -that- does to media coverage of ongoing investigations.

It's not apologists and enablers saying this--Al Gore and Bernie Sanders agree that impeachment in this environment would be a GOP wet dream. Do you know more about progressive politics or the power of media distortion than these two gentlemen? I doubt it, and I tend to trust them. Plus, even the majority that despises Bush will not be satisfied with a failed impeachment that is a symbolic gesture. Every time a subpoena is issued by the Judiciary Committee this board rails against Congress for empty words without impact, so I'm curious as to how an impeachment with no conviction and therefore no teeth would fare just on these -boards-. Based on what I've seen, the leadership would be attacked for failing to convict when so many DUers apparently believe it would be so easy.

2. Defund the war / shut down the gov't.

Again, a massive PR giveaway to the GOP. How any DUer who has rightly complained about the propaganda usage of "support the troops" can expect -positive- results from a refusal to pass a funding bill is a mystery to me. If you were around in 2000 or 2004 you should know Americans can handle nuance, but the media do not provide it. This would be readily framed as "not supporting the troops," "not giving them the equipment they need to do their job," "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," etc. All the cliches which are starting to ring so hollow will be given new relevance by the media, and at the worst possible time. Forcing Bush to repeatedly veto troop withdrawals is great. Refusing to fund the war or shutting down the gov't, however, never looks good in the eyes of the public. I'm sure no one here accused NewtCo of being whiny little boys taking their ball home when their Congress did it, right? Of course we have good reason to and they didn't, but the media perception would be very similar--our media darlings will delight in painting even a noble shutdown as uncooperative sore losers saying "I can't win by the rules, so I quit!" Polls show that Americans do -not- support defunding the war by around 60%. Even as they -do- oppose the war in similar numbers. Do the potential consequences of these numbers mean nothing to us?

So what? Live in fear of what the GOP "might" do instead of thinking about what -we're- going to do? Some things need to be fought for no matter what the cost.

That's a good point, but it only can be carried so far with me. This Congress deserves -plenty- of criticism. It has good members who would do most of what DU could wish, but it has many members (of both parties) who are little more than ambitious cowards and are tied to some districts/states where the above strategies equal electoral death. Principles are more important than a treasured incumbency, but I can't agree with "no matter what the cost." Any strategy that significantly empowers Republicans I will automatically find myself opposed to. You've seen how much damage they've done in a few years of multi-branch control--I can't justify providing them the tools to continue. Too many lives and too many principles can only be destroyed by those in office, and as long as that's true, political/electoral consequences matter a lot to me. If you believe Democrats and Republicans are the same, or subscribe to the "ends justifies the means" idea that we need a disaster to "wake up" the people, then we just fundamentally disagree, and I don't expect anyone can convince you to see it my way.

[Richardo]

1. Allow me to provide the first recommendation.

[Debi]

2. Nice post jpgray

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. The "general" public continues to

disappoint me. This very day, I had to explain to a seemingly smart person that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911. The propaganda works very well. Its a shame that the truth doesn't work nearly as well. It makes me wonder if the majority of the population only believes what it "wants" to be true.

[jpgray]

8. To my mind it is the problem that overshadows all others

[Macchendra]

180. Impeachment is a public awareness campaign of their crimes.

Go look at the freepers. They say that if the Dems had a leg to stand on they would impeach.

They have commited very obvious crimes. You think the Iraq war was self-defense? Just because the 2002 Democrats also acted as if it were doesn't make it so.

[hfojvt]

seems like the general

(public) will betray us.

I still think there are several positives to starting the impeachment process, particularly of Cheney, who is very unpopular. First, it distracts the Bush administration from their nefarious schemes. They cannot plan for war with Iran if they have to answer subpoenas and testify and worry about conviction. Second, it puts the crimes more in the public eye. It forces RW pundits and Republican Congresspeople to defend the indefensible.

[superkia]

44. The media is amazing! Look how many people ignore Kucinich!

The media has ignored him and what he stands for and Americans follow the medias lead. Dennis Kucinich is speaking out on most of the things that all of us speak out on but because of the medias ability to control people, he stays in the shadows. It's amazing to me!

[BlooInBloo]

64. Let your expectations go, and the disappointment disappears. Worked bang-up for me with CT voters.

[truedelphi]

149. I just had the opposite experience

This week at a rather conservative gathering, someone started complaining about the economy.

Can't have a good economy if your whole economic policy is about killing people in foreign lands, sez I.

And what the contracting companies are getting for simple services, like $ 100 for every duffle bag of GI laundry they wash, is a cryin' shame.

People wanted to hear more. I avoided any direct attacks on the Bush King, but just laid out how expensive the war is in terms of life and dollars.

"What about the fact that the same companies that outsource the factories get the biggest tax breaks?" piped up someone in my small audience.

This lead to a heated discussion of how the destruction of any type of manufacturing base means people's kids have only a future at WalMart or KMart where they will be selling imports from China. (In some cases after getting the much valued college degree.)

[IsItJustMe]

150. It's sad, but our Corp. msm has been very effective in mis-leading the people of this country.

I had to explain the exact same thing to my neighbors the other day. And what is really scary is that they are Democrats.

[LittleClarkie]

4. Add Russ Feingold to your list

I tend to trust him too.

[T Wolf]

5. By all means, do not dare rock the boat. What then, should our brave

warriors be doing in DC?

[jpgray]

6. Shutting down the government and impeaching the president are the only acceptable options?

If that's the only standard for "rocking the boat," I doubt many legislatures would meet your requirements.

[hfojvt]

13. sounds like the arguments made by the war-hawks

When the only alternative to war with Iraq was 'doing nothing'. Or 'useless' measures like inspections.

[defendandprotect]

94. GOP has the patent on impeaching a penis and shutting down Government . . ..

[lligrd]

7. I'll Be The First To Admit

that I do not understand the electorate or most people at all.

[rudy23]

9. I disagree on failed impeachment. I think the more facts that see the light of day, the further the

GOP will run from their leader. The American people overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush, and this is without any smoking gun evidence of any real crimes that have come to light. Even with the media on their side, Chimpy can't pull more than 33% of our country behind him. Think of how damaging it would be to them to shine the light on all the cockroaches.

It's the last thing they want, and the thing they're most afraid of.

[jpgray]

12. Haven't we desperately been trying to shine the light on those facts for years?

We have several important ongoing investigations since we gained majority. I've asked people this before, but isn't it true impeachment hearings have no special powers to procure or force the release of documents and testimony? Wouldn't it be the same endless shell game?

Also, how do you account for the opinions of Sanders, Gore and Feingold?

(I'm not trying to ask leading questions to try and "win" here--I'm genuinely curious)

[rudy23]

26. I was under the impression that it was harder to stonewall during impeachment hearings

If I'm incorrect, that takes the steam out of my argument.

[jpgray]

30. From what I've read there's no extra legal leverage, but there would be more press coverage

Presumably, anyway. What the nature of it would be (substantive or RNC parroting) is unclear.

[earthlover]

125. I doubt if the media would do much in the way of substantive....

Heck....Bush pulls back some troops after increasing them and it is called a reduction by the media. Slim chance they would all of a sudden have an epiphany moment and start being substantive.

[onenote]

119. the problem is that we don't have the votes to start the process

There is a common misconception that we can just start an impeachment inquiry which will reveal the evidence that will produce the votes needed. But just to start the process there has to be a vote by the full House to authorize and direct the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry. And while the Democrats have a majority in the House, the Blue DOgs and other members from swing districts are not likely to support such a resolution unless, as was the case in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, it draws at least some bi-partisan support. And at this point, I don't see any repubs jumping ship. So the process that people want as a means of getting the votes can't even start.

My frustration is that the House hasn't done enough in a non-impechment context in terms of exercising its investigatory and oversight powers.

[jwirr]

133. Won't oversight subpoenas and investigation do the same thing?

[Le Taz Hot]

10. No, because we're all so

naive and stupid we couldn't possibly understand the dynamics involved in politics. Aren't we so very lucky that you're here to educate us. Day after day after day. :sarcasm:

[jpgray]

14. I'd rather have you tell me why I'm wrong than just post snark

But OK.

[Individualist]

20. Condescension deserves snark

[LittleClarkie]

24. A civilly worded thoughtful post deserves the same in return

even if you disagree.

[jpgray]

28. I'm sorry if you found this post condescending. I didn't mean for it to be

But people believe so strongly in stopping this war (rightly), no matter what, that your attitude is very forgivable. I'd still like to hear more disagreement than snark, however.

[onenote]

120. I didn't think it was condescending at all

And I think it was dead-on with regard to some here at DU.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Yes, very lucky

He posted a nice civil critique. How about a civilly worded rebuttal, eh?

[Le Taz Hot]

23. Because the rebuttals have been posted

ad nauseum. The OP chooses to ignore them and go along thinking that the rest of us cannot POSSIBLY understand these very complex issues without him/her explaining it all to us.

[LittleClarkie]

25. And if some of us don't agree with impeachment we are warmongers

who must hate peace.

It works both ways really.

[Pawel K]

11. Very well thought out post but disagree with you in regards to Iraq

If we stopped funding the war the american people would support us. The latest polls show this and the fact congress has a lower approval rating than Bush does should be your second give away. Democrats need to stop being such pussies, are we really that afraid of lame talking points? The fact we won last November was in my opinion luck, if we don't grow some balls soon we won't be holding on to victory for much longer.

[Odin2005]

54. The polls are also saying most Americans are against cutting the funding.

Last I heard the polls were saying that even though the vast majority wanted us out of Iraq that same majority did NOT support cutting funding. The "CUT THE FUNDS!!!" people seem to be very good at ignoring polls that contradict their beliefs of what "most Americans support," it's like they are in a bubble.

[cali]

15. Even though I support impeachment

(once it began I believe the evidence to support it would be overwhelming), I think your post was eminently thoughtful and sound. k&r

[LittleClarkie]

21. Indeed. This is what we should be doing. Discussing our ideas civilly

But that's sometimes alot to ask on an internet messageboard.

We can disagree, but a civilly worded and thoughtful post should get the same in return.

[blondeatlast]

16. I'd like to hear more than SL criticism from those who don't agree with you.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Anyway, a k&r for some reasonable debate (I hope).

[bryant69]

17. Excellent and articulate post!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warpy]

19. I understand the electorate perfectly well

having been in the position to be able to pick people's brains for a very long time.

I understand they want change. I know where the center is, and so do they. What they see is Democrats who are afraid of change. The way to change this is for Democrats to shop themselves around to chat shows and advocate for change.

While a failed impeachment would help no one at this point, it is important to let people know that articles of impeachment have been drawn up and are ready if Stupid doesn't suddenly find the constitution more than a piece of paper.

Defunding the military in Iraq is not an option. What is an option is tying the funding to a specific withdrawal date and withholding it until Stupid signs on to that date. Fully 70% of the people in this country want us out of Iraq. Doing this is a very low risk thing to do. If Stupid signs on and then violates it, the articles of impeachment can be pursued on that ground.

Business as usual is not going to win the party additional Senate seats in 2008, something we desperately need.

[jpgray]

22. Very true--they do want change. Some change, however, they may not like

And that can have serious consequences, as you note. Whatever one's beliefs are, it's clear that Congress is failing to meet expectations. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[The Stranger]

27. Worst. Post. Ever.

[jpgray]

29. Fair enough, but could you explain the sentiments of Sanders, Gore, Feingold et al?

Why in your opinion aren't they on board for impeachment?

[LittleClarkie]

34. Can. you. elaborate?

.

[cali]

113. Utterly. Meaningless. Response.

[depakid]

31. Sounds like a lot of rationalization to me

Largely using so called "conventional wisdom" that ignores history- mainly, it fails to ask the question: What happened when Republicans did similar things (strategy and tactics) in standing up for the their "principles" in the 90's, while the Dems repeatedly enabled and legitimized them?"

Oh yeah, they gained all 3 branches of government- and the media to boot.

Seems as though the ephemeral electorate had a say- and it's not what you might have predicted.

[jpgray]

35. Their government shutdown was popular? Their impeachment of Clinton was popular?

They took their opposition of Kosovo to the point of refusing to fund the troops? The two situations aren't the same (Iraq and Bush =/= Kosovo and Clinton), but I've seen no evidence that such tactics resonated with the public. The GOP domination was based on media supremacy and catapulting bigoted wedge issues to the forefront of the debate where they didn't belong, not strong stands based on their principles. Their economic platform was shoved under the rug with lies at every instance, it wasn't forced openly via unpopular legislative maneuvering under great scrutiny.

[depakid]

38. Look at the results

-even up and until 2006!

Whether "popular" or not- Republicans (and the rest of the far right) won election after election.

This despite the fact that their positions on most of the issues are NOT (and were not) popular ones.

[jpgray]

40. But given the results, you can't pick out any one aspect of their behavior and claim it is the cause

To my mind, duplicitous manipulation of the media and bigoted use of wedge issues are the chief causes. Are you saying that their deeply-held if unpopular principles were legislatively forced under critical media scrutiny? Not by my memory. They slid those under the door, they didn't hold them up to the public eye. Every time they do, they lose ground with the public. Witness Iraq, Social Security, stem cells, etc. By your logic, Bush should be winning approval on all those "principled" stands.

[depakid]

46. Obviously there are quite a number of variables

but one thing that's held consistent is the larger picture in people's minds (which seems to be that Republicans will fight for their principles)- and many people respond to that vagary, even when they disagree with them.

Holding Bush and the far right to account- even in a losing battle, would have been far better than the opposite- which is essentially stand for nothing complicity.

No one respects that not the electorate at large (particularly those fed up with business as usual inside the Beltway)- nor the traditional party base. Hard to get enthusiastic about candidates that one expects to sell their purported beliefs and values down the river.

[jpgray]

48. The problem is, you may be right. It's speculation on my part too, of course

I think my speculation is better (naturally! :dunce:), and I tried to explain the electoral risk above, but I don't -know- that it will turn out that way. For a more detailed explanation of how murky this can get you can see my response to jgraz below.

[depakid]

58. I guess I've just watched the same sort of things every year

and wondered why the party leadership seemed to follow the same tactics and strategies long after it seemed clear that they wouldn't work.

And you're right- the colloquy below is excellent.

[onenote]

121. actually, the repubs lost seats after trying to impeach Clinton

The reality is that in 1998 (after the impeachment effort against Clinton began, but before the articles were voted), the repubs lost 6 seats in the House and failed to pick up anything in the Senate -- the first time in over 150 years that the non-presidential party had failed to pick up ground in the sixth year of an opposition presidency.

In 2000, after the impeachment process was over and done, the repubs lost 4 seats in the Senate and two more in the House (and they lost the popular vote for the presidency and, but for the scotus, would've lost the electoral college vote as well).


And the repubs shutdown of the House helped propel Bill Clinton into his second term.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-15/poll/poll_txt.html

[Odin2005]

56. The public mood is different then it was in the 90s.

The "culture war" obsession with social issues that the Pukes used in the 90s to get votes in spite of things like the government shutdown is becoming less and less relevant to voters.

[depakid]

59. I'd like to think that's correct

and if it is- it's due to over reaching and ineptitude, not through any actions on the Democrats' part.

[Quixote1818]

32. I agree 100% nt

[jgraz]

33. Gotta correct a bit of spin

Impeachment: I've heard Bernie Sanders speak on this topic and, as much as I respect the man, he's dead wrong on this. When he's challenged, he simply parrots the same talking points you list above. He may believe these to be true, but he's definitely talking to the wrong people. This is one issue where you can't wait for the votes to be handed to you. You go out and make the case to the Congress and to the public. We all know the evidence is there.

By the way, I'd love to hear the GOP spout about this president being found "not guilty" of high crimes and misdemeanors. Please, say "this president" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" as many times as you want.

Defunding the war: The polls you cite are misleading at best. You can read them as 60% don't support defunding, but you can also read it as somewhere near 80% are against more funding without a timetable. Keep sending * a funding bill with a timetable and let him take the blame for the veto. Why is that so hard?

You agree that this is great, yet you focus on the straw man of the extreme position. We all should be pressuring Congress to send * a funding bill with sensible timetables attached. The real scandal is that Congress won't do even that.

Fighting no matter the cost: You frame the argument here as if the "costs" are a given. Instead of "cost", we should be talking about "risk" -- something to which this Congress has demonstrated a near phobic reaction. What they don't see is that a hard fight, even a losing one, will galvanize the left and gain Congress much more support than it will lose from the soft middle (who weren't going to support them anyway). Why aren't we worrying about the risk (cost?) of not fighting the good fight?

Remind me, what's Congress's approval rating right now?

[LittleClarkie]

36. Nice rebuttal.

I should go looking for the approval ratings I saw a while back. Congress was down as a whole, but I think the Dems individually did a bit better, and Nancy herself best of all.

[jpgray]

39. Thanks. I only disagree with you on the impeachment point, and like you I can only speculate

But imagining the media would handle the circus of impeachment admirably, stating the case and ignoring the easy RNC script of "more partisan bickering from a do-nothing Congress," "behold the president, he is wronged" etc. stretches the bounds of my belief.

I -wish- Congress would send bill after bill with timetables. I'm extremely disappointed they don't. As several DUers have recommended defunding the war, I don't think it's a strawman (unless they're sockpuppets of mine :P).

I think a failed fight does nothing to galvanize the left. This board is filled with complaints about issued -subpoenas-. As though it's Waxman's fault or Conyers's fault that they are going nowhere. On DU, an attempt to fight that ends without change gets treated very, very harshly. The public expects no less, I imagine.

[jgraz]

43. Here's the fundamental point of disagreement

As much as I hate the Rethugs, I can see why so many people support them. Yes they lie, cheat, steal and even kill to get what they want, but they never give the impression of backing away from a fight. There is nothing more un-American than backing down from a fight, and people know that.

That's all I (and many others) are asking. That the Democrats show some fundamental American values and don't back down from the fight.

I have never seen DUers complain about fighting and losing. What I've seen is people complaining about is giving up before the fight is over. Where are the contempt charges? Why hasn't this White House been held accountable for ignoring subpoenas? Conyers should know that ignoring subpoenas was one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The people in this country understand losing a tough fight. They don't understand (or forgive) cowardice. We don't treat fight without change harshly. We treat fight without fight harshly.

[jpgray]

47. It's not sexy to say it, but I may be completely wrong

Because all this is speculative. How does the media react? How does the public react? Supposed 'expert' pundits are wrong more often than not, and I can't claim to be more accurate. But with such a fractured majority, wherein Conyers wants to push for contempt and the less upstanding parts of our fractured majority won't, I wonder if the "try it! At least -try- and fight back as a party!" strategy is even possible. Wouldn't it be sabotaged from within at the planning stage? While I think the electoral risks are real, even braving those and going full-steam ahead might be less feasible than we'd like. And though "Democrats" in general get the blame, unfortunately it's the contingent of all-too-hidden, frail, "safe" politicians who knife opposition in the back while the entire party gets the blame.

[jgraz]

51. Hey, it's turning me on

;)

"Because all this is speculative"

Yes, yes yes! That's exactly my point. We can go back and forth all day on what the best strategy is but the truth is that nobody really knows. So...why not just do the right fucking thing?? It's got as good a chance as anything of being successful.

[cali]

114. You know what's funny as hell?

Go over to freeperville or Redstate and you find the same argument reversed. Exactly the same. Every day.

[G_j]

63. right

well said

[emmadoggy]

129. !

:applause:

Especially this part..."Why aren't we worrying about the risk (cost?) of not fighting the good fight?"

[mmonk]

37. Nothing justifies no attempt to preserve and protect the Constitution of the

United States.

[jpgray]

50. In my opinion, having more Republicans in office is the worst thing for the Constitution

So these risks are part and parcel of preserving and protecting that document.

[mmonk]

61. I don't agree with you that defending the constitution from attack

will spell defeat for the party that tries it. In fact, for the constitution to really have any meaning at all, it has to be adhered to. This assault has been of historic proportions. It is at risk. That risk trumps all others. I'm not going to argue this anymore. The more I hear reasons not to protect it, the more the party is at risk of losing me. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. It makes me wonder which party really values the constitution.

The republicans see it as important enough to be worth destroying, while the dems don't seem to see it as important enough to defend.

[KharmaTrain]

41. Another Big K & R

DU is a wonderful safety valve for those who need to rant...and rant they do. But I'm so tired of hearing bitches with few realistic solutions...or how a discussion is twisted into name calling or off onto some tangent far removed from the reality we are forced to live with. It's as though things here must be black or white...we are to be a left wing echo chamber. Sorry, not all of us have or want others to speak for us or appreciate being called traitors or surrender monkeys or worse names when one either plays devil's advocate or takes a contrary opinion.

I want to see this regime removed as quickly as possible...but even more important is I want the crimes of this regime exposed and prosecuted. This may not really happen until there's a Democratic administration as this regime is sure to stonewall and pardon to the bitter end (and bitter it's sure to be). However, I long ago gave up trying to save the world and in my old age now look to see why things are as opposed to what they should be. I want answers and results...not wishes and quick fixes.

Thank you for a very well-stated post. Now we return to our regular flaming...already in progress...

:hide:

[mmonk]

45. Truth isn't really a hard path to advocate for.

Those that won't walk that path will always argue so though. An impeachment inquiry should have begun the minute this House commenced it's first session. But this party had already decided on a different path. Our division in opinion will remain permanent. So we really need to go on to different subjects now and discuss ideas to regain what has been lost. Rationale threads will change nothing nor opinions.

[jpgray]

49. Tell that to Dennis Kucinich.

[mmonk]

60. Dennis's position is the truth.

[jpgray]

67. And he has been marginalized, lied about, and shoved aside.

The truth in our current environment isn't covered by the media. I can show you to plenty of great statements from numerous Democrats on this situation, but it doesn't get out there. Why do you suppose that is?

[mmonk]

84. Because no one that gets coverage has the courage

to tell the truth with him. That's not a positive trait nor a decent trait nor a honorable trait nor an admirable trait. It's a slap in the face. That's why voting will be difficult for me this year. It's like our party is running people who aren't good and brag saying well at least we are the less of two evils. I aspire for and demand more. The fault doesn't lie with Dennis or us who want the constitutional and traditional remedy of 200+ years of American democracy.

[jpgray]

87. Al Gore got plenty of coverage in 2000. He told the truth. Look where it got him

For telling the truth about Bush's tax plan he got called a -liar- by -Bush-, and all the media could talk about were his troubling sighs. If you believe talking truth with coverage is all it takes, read this Vanity Fair article, "Going After Gore":

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

Then tell me it's just because the message isn't being said by high-profile people. It IS being said. It's just not being covered. At all. What magic wand would you wave to make that happen? There's no question the Dems could do better with handling the media, but at least admit the disadvantage is not unique to lower profile truth-tellers like Kucinich.

[mmonk]

96. Your position from the post is don't tell the truth or you'll get

marginalized or at least it seems that way. I'm giving up politics soon anyway. I've lost hope. I'll just support groups such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, and others. When you have scandals of a generation that are historic in nature and threaten our democracy concerning this republican rule and the dems won't do anything about it, something's too far gone (along with trust).

[jpgray]

102. I would never say "don't tell the truth." Tell it, but don't expect it to get out there easily

[John Q. Citizen]

137. Al Gore won the Presidency. But the Dems (as a whole) refused to say that bush stole it.

They still do to this day.

So how would the truth get out there?

[KharmaTrain]

53. V ery Agreed

Many times we are harder on each other instead of fueling our frustration and anger on those who really deserve it.

I have and still favor an impeachment but I also want a conviction as well...and I'll gladly work for getting a Democrat elected to the White House and help enlarge the majorities in both Houses so not only a conviction can be obtained, but also that other prosecutions are followed through as well.

Call it the path of least resistance...picking ones battles. I'd far prefer to use the political "will" or whatever to defund this illegal war for profit. That's a far more pressing need and what we need to either prod on or push Democrats into doing...and focus like a lazer beam. Also to call out the Repugnican enablers and "WINOs" who also stand as this regime's firewall to both ending this insane occupation and then to impeach AND convict.

Cheers...

[stimbox]

80. Whatever happened to Iran-contra?

Oh, that's right. WJC didn't persue it.
I have a feeling when we get the Whitehouse in 08 that the same thing will happen.
The ball will be dropped and the Dems will moveon to something else.
What's a few warcrimes among friends, eh?

[riverdeep]

105. Exactly.

People thinking the current war criminals with get their comeuppance are delusional to the extreme. Look at Don Rumsfeld getting his new position. Wolfowitz would still be at the World Bank if he wasn't so stupid. They will wind up like Henry Kissinger-well respected, well paid, and with a circle of toadies that will get indignant if the truth of what they did is ever uttered.

So know this, if this pragmatic path you wish to follow is taken, these people will NOT be held accountable in any way. And in doing so, we will sow the seeds for another mis-administration in 15 years.

Also, this pragmatism over principle is all contingent on occupying the halls of power in 08, and I'm not so sure that by that time the Pubs can't claim this is just as much the Dems war as theirs. And they'd be right.

[tomp]

138. i agree with you on the exposure and prosecution ...

...of these crimes. it actually see it as the key issue, above all others.

i understand enough about "the electorate" to know that they need a SERIOUS education.

i am not disappointed in what the dems are doing (not doing) now becuause i didn't expect them to come through in the first place. nor do i believe any dem adminstration other than kucinich's would follow up on this after the election. that's why i'm pushing for impeachment now--because it's our best chance of ANY exposure and prosecution of these crimes. but i've learned not to expect much from the democratic party, in general.

[KoKo]

42. Congress seems to want us trapped in the past and in a war without end.

The only vision is coming from John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. What can we do to correct the abuses on our constitution and trade policy. What about the rigged financial systems that are leading to obscene profits by CEO's while they run companies into the ground, collecting large salaries and bonuses, then sell the company off to highest rigged bidder and reap more profits from stock options.

Congress seems to just letting the Think Tanks and Lobbyists tell them what to do than the "people."

[John Q. Citizen]

139. Yes. The Dems (as a whole) aren't telling anymore truth than the Repos are.

Neither are interested in the truth.

Both are only interested in the next election.

[bigtree]

52. very well said, jpgray

thanks

[saracat]

55. Excellent post! Terrific summary!

[Odin2005]

57. Good post. Recommended.

IMO too many DUers push principles over pragmatism so far that their arguments degenerate into a reductio ad absurdum of unrealistic "must-be-done-or-else" Kantian-style moral imperatives that make no room for pragmatic means to the ends we ultimately want.

[Downtown Hound]

62. You can either accept the general public as they are

Largely ignorant of the world around them, selfish, homophobic, terrified of things they don't understand, and easily manipulated. You can accept those traits and suit your agenda accordingly, even in thousands more will die in illegal wars, more will be impoverished, and the environment continue to crumble.

Or, you can pull out all the stops and give them a better choice, and show them why that choice is better. I used to sell advertising for ABC. I was an account executive who also made my own commercials. I understood the public very well, and I understand them today also.

I understood that as a salesman, it was my responsibility to get them to buy. I never once went back to my boss and told him that I didn't meet my quota because the people out there just didn't want to buy. I never told him that it was because the people were just set in their ways and that was that. I never blamed them. I had to make them WANT to buy. And when I took that attitude, I almost always not only made my quota, but exceeded it.

Saying that we can't affect progressive change in America now because of "the way people are" is a defeatist attitude.

We as progressives have to give the people a vision, a real vision for a better America and a better world. And pull out every stop in the book to get them to realize why they want it. As long as our agenda is a watered down version of Republicanism then we never will. The pendulum will continue to swing back and forth with nothing substantial being changed in the meantime. Tell me, when do you think the time will be right for a truly progressive agenda? 10 years from now? 20? 30? 100? Too late for the planet. The time is right now.

[G_j]

65. defeatist

absolutely!
& I don't buy it either. :thumbsdown:

[jpgray]

66. Then why isn't Kucinich tearing up the polls? How long did it take for conservatives to dominate?

Since FDR, it took quite a few years no? Absolutely we should engage a constant campaign to reclaim the debate, but we have to work with the environment we -currently- have, we can't pretend it doesn't exist.

[Downtown Hound]

68. Probably because he's continually painted as an extremist

and the tag works because he and a few others out there are the only ones telling it like it is. If the rest of the party was along for the ride, he wouldn't appear so out there. By cowering to their fears, the Democrats give the Republicans exactly they want: they make liberals look extreme and out of touch. Do you realize that most Americans are pro-choice, pro gun control, pro-environment, and now anti-war? So how is it that Kucinich is made to look like an extremist? Because the media and the Republicans paint him that way, and instead of fighting, the Dems sort of nod their heads, and tone down their message. When they do that, basically what they're saying is, "You're right. He is an extremist."

One of the major reasons why the Democrats had such success in 2006 is because Howard Dean decided to stop ceding the red states to the Republicans. For years, the Democratic Party had basically given up, saying that those states were far too conservative to be in play. Dean came in and said that was bullshit, and he worked hard to get Democrats elected. And guess what? He did. That never would have happened if he had tried to work with the old playbook that many Dems believed they were stuck with.

[jpgray]

70. Howard Dean deserves tons of credit for his 50 state strategy, but it wasn't the only factor

Disenchantment with the GOP in general played a huge role, and Dean's strategy was primed to exploit that. In any case, I am very leery of ascribing such a massive, interdependent bit of human behavior such as an election to one simple cause. But note the ease with which Kucinich is painted as an extremist. Note the problems Dem leadership has when so many ambitious cowards will bolt from any unified opposition when media pressure is so easily applied. You talked about marketing, but isn't a huge part of that recognizing what's workable in the current environment? You need both a short-term and long-term plan, and we are ill-equipped to go all out in the short term because we have antagonistic media and a fractured, skittish majority. Given all that, by what wave of what magic wand can you possibly mount an effective opposition without the significant risk of throwing too much power back to the Republicans? Is it fair? Nope. Is it too little too late, and extremely frustrating? Yeah. But just pretending that pushing hard on the above two fronts is both feasible and would be fairly portrayed is fantasy in our current situation.

[Downtown Hound]

82. The problem is

I don't think the reality is such that we can't win by being ourselves. Oh yeah, I'm sure you could point out plenty of instances where liberals have lost because they're "too liberal." But in the long run, and maybe even in the short, I think we would win far more than we lose if we stopped running from the term. We are on the side of the majority of Americans on almost all issues. What's lacking is both the desire and the means to communicate that fact to the majority of Americans. Our corporate media tells the people the exact opposite, and sadly, many Americans fall for it. But in my experience, gullibility has one redeeming virtue to it: gullible people are often open to changing their minds. If they weren't, they wouldn't be gullible.


I'm not saying we should exploit their ignorance, but rather tell them the truth. All of us. Not a Congress that distances itself from the grassroots. Can you recall an instance where Newt Gingrich would refuse to meet with or publicly condemn Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson back in the 90's, when the Republicans were a new party in Congress? And I think actually they had something to fear from them being trumpeted as "too extreme." But they knew their grassroots was the base of their party, and they knew they needed them. Contrast that to what our Dems our doing. Man, moveon does an ad that merely uses some minor political satire, and our Dems try and distance themselves from it. Our leaders are terrified of our grassroots. And that is what has to change. We need representatives that will stand with the grassroots. And we need more liberal media.

[jpgray]

83. In the long term, going all-out liberal is a winner. Hell, that's where the country is going anyway

The slow (way -too- slow, but stay with me) erosion of discrimination towards gays, the popular support for stem cells in the face of "moral" objections, refusal to put up with environmental destruction and outsourcing--all of these are/were inevitable in my view, and we're lucky to be on the right side of all these major issues. The key in the long-term is to push the debate back where it belongs--where leftists are actually leftists and not just slightly less right-of-center.

In the short term, the problems you state are serious. Cindy Sheehan, like Ralph Nader, is a great activist even while her political campaign strategy isn't likely to be very successful. Being ashamed of radical elements of the party base is something the Republicans need to do more of and Democrats need to do less of. To my mind, the best way to redress that is to maintain a stable majority of Democrats in office, since if nothing else that will be interpreted as a direct refusal of the right-winger ideology. We'll get a lot of lousy Dems along with the good ones at first, but look what FDR could do (economically, at least) with a racist Solid South. More than that, we need exactly what you said: more liberal media. Strike that, just a basically fair media would do. I don't know if you've read Peretz's Vanity Fair article "Going After Gore," but that gives a good idea of what we're up against.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

This is systematic. It needs addressing, and immediately.

[defendandprotect]

100. Maybe you should ask instead, "How many assassinations did it take for neo-cons to dominate?" ---

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. Thank you.

Just what I want to say but I'm too fucking mad to be so articulate.

[mudesi]

69. What an incredible rationalization for cowardice

It is precisely this kind of spinelessness that has contributed to the Democrats' defeat election after election.

They have been taking the safe route described in this OP for years now, and what has it resulted in? Perhaps it's time to try it our way.

Don't blame the general public for the Democrats' inability to lead.

[jpgray]

72. What leads to Nader's defeat election after election? Kucinich's failed presidential campaigns?

"Spinefulness?" Of course not, but this just shows that your logic is waaay too simplistic. You're taking one behavior out of a complex system and claiming it is the sole cause of the results we see. Do you have any evidence, or is that simply what you choose to believe? The public doesn't -want- Congress to defund the war. Experienced progressive politicians agree that a failed impeachment would be a GOP wet dream. What are you basing your theory on? Wishful thinking?

[mudesi]

75. 50% of the public wants impeachment

And that's without the Democrats pushing for it. As for why third party politicians never win, I think you know as well as everyone that the system is rigged to be a two party system.

Experienced "progressive" politicians (as you call them) tend to care not one bit about anything other than their careers, not the welfare of the country.

If you want evidence, take a look at the last 25 years or so of almost never ending Republican rule.

[jpgray]

77. Cite? The closest I've seen to that figure concerns "considering" impeachment

Bernie Sanders and Al Gore are career hacks, who care nothing about the welfare of the country? OK. Do you even remember how the country got to this point? It wasn't through mad attacks on all fronts without healthy respect for the risks (that's what got us into Iraq), it was through decades of manipulating the media, billions in think tanks and policy groups, and devious political maneuvering. We've got our work cut out for us, but why does everyone think this is so easily doable with a fractured majority and a RNC parroting press corps?

[BuyingThyme]

73. Mee to.

[Me.]

74. Hear, Hear

And let's not forget Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ...

[robinlynne]

71. failed impeachment: watch the Bill MOyers Journal on impeachment. It will change

your mind. No such thing as a failed impeachment. Impeachment opens up the investigations. Stop just thinking of it in terms of political plays. It is and means much more.
not going to bother to read part 2, part one is so far off.

[Disturbed]

79. Yes. I blame Waxman, Conyers & Leahy.

They need to lay down Inherent Contempt on Karl Rove, Josh Bolton, Ms. Meirs & that General who failed to appear. Stop threatening with Contempt that would take years in Court. Bring it on!

[MonkeyFunk]

115. No

impeachment does NOT open up the investigations. You can investigate all you want NOW without impeachment.

[onenote]

122. exactly right

[autorank]

76. "If I thought we could win, I'd play" or "Guarantee me the easy path, I'll make the effort"

By your logic:

1) We would still be a British colony or worse. The minority of colonists determined the outcome of the American Revolution, not the majoritiy.

I can hear the words then, "We can't try to achieve freedom from King George, we're in the minority."

2) We'd still be in Viet Nam. The minority of people opposed the Viet Nam war.

I can hear the words then, "We're a minority, we can't demand an end to war funding."

3) we'll never beat the Republicans. Let's settle for second best and just ride out this wave.

I can hear the words then, "Let's not push them too much, they're going to crush us for years."

Read the press and polls, the decent ones. Virginia is going through a populist revival in political attitudes, POPULIST, VIRGINIA.

What do you think the rest of the country is doing - huge support for environmental programs, for getting out of Iraq, for universal health care.

If we're the party of the future, we'd better lead and not sit at home and believe bull shit press clippings.

WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND IF WE'RE NOT NOW, THE PROGRAM OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IS THE PREFERENCE, WE JUST
HAVE TO EDUCATE.

Are you an adviser to the DNC?

[jpgray]

78. Why do people think defunding the war or failed impeachment are the only options?

Do grey areas exist for you? As for your string of error-filled historical comparisons, they aren't worth going through. If you can't see significant differences between your examples and a post which simply outlines the risks of defunding/failed impeachment, I suppose I can't help you.

[Odin2005]

81. It's their "moral imperative" way of thinking getting in the way.

They have a way of thinking that says it is is a duty to follow "Moral Imperative X" strictly and without deviation regardless of any unintended consequences and any deviation from the moral imperative in the direction of needed pragmatic means towards the end most of us Progressives want is equivalent to dealing with the devil or similar sort of nonsense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. I think, maybe, in the years since the labor movement has been

emasculated by the republicans, you've forgotten a basic tenet of negotiation.

You always start with the most extreme position possible - even if it is one you know will never succeed. It gives you somewhere to go from.

Dems, for years, have been offering up the weakest position as their starting point - so of course we've been getting our collective ass kicked.

START with impeachment. If they panic, we might even get it. If not, the investigations will still clean out a lot of deadwood and we WILL get a congressional censure.

Just because there are grey areas is no excuse for blundering around in a fog.

[jpgray]

101. Not even the Republicans started with impeachment vs. Clinton. But yes, we do need stronger stands

My question is, how much of the lack of strong stands is due to the more moderate and skittish Dems running away when the strong ones offer up a potent challenge? I've seen dozens of Democrats say exactly the right thing at exactly the right time, and we've started some of the exact proper investigations that should lead to impeachment. It doesn't get out there. The media are too focused on the image/marketing of the debate to report the actual story. We need a way to overcome the hothouse flowers of the party and overcome the obsessive GOP mastery of the media, otherwise taking a controversial stand on principle is likely to blow up in our faces. All you have to do is look at what happened to Gore, and what continues to happen to Kucinich. Telling the truth as an establishment -or- fringe Dem gets you nowhere in this climate. And in this climate you expect either impeachment or defunding the war to go well? In this era of "support the troops" propaganda supremacy? Even as a bargaining position? There's a reason 60% oppose defunding the war, and it's not because they can't understand Congress's proper role, it's because that role is never discussed. Add that to the unreasoning fear many skittish Dems will have of the upcoming election, and even -making- that stand becomes difficult. Conyers can't even get the contempt charge he needs, and the executive privilege issue should -already- be on SCOTUS briefs.

So yeah, it would be great for Democrats to take such stands and damn the risks, but I am not willing to take the above two stands if they mean another Republican administration or another Republican Congress. We can't take more of that. Long term we need to fix this problem or we've lost anyway, but short-term we need to deal with our horrible disadvantage and make the best of it. It isn't "defund and impeach or nothing," and if the investigations are handled properly, they could very well lead to one, the other, or both.

[autorank]

109. Why do people think between 800,000 and 1,000,000 DEAD Iraqi civilians is an opion?

Failing to impeach endorses these actions. It shames those in Congress who don't speak out.

Any body hear a member make this case - hundreds of thousands of civilians who would not otherwise
be dead, are now dead because of our war (that was the criteria of the Johns Hopkins study).

Pathetic behavior. "Oh we couldn't speak up about those deaths, a bunch of them, because we wouldn't
win a vote.

[Time for change]

85. Impeachment worked pretty well against Nixon

Dems did very well in the 76 elections, won the presidency against a sitting president and did well in Congress too. And Nixon wasn't guilty of a fraction of the impeachable offenses that Bush is.

[jpgray]

86. Nixon's administration was falling apart before impeachment began

It was the Watergate committee that brought on the Saturday Night Massacre, not impeachment. From that point on Nixon was dead in the water. Bush is not nearly so weakened. I agree the right course would be to force the media to cover significantly the investigations that are ongoing. I think they will produce plenty of evidence for impeachment. The possible executive privilege dispute, if Bush is shot down by SCOTUS, could easily produce a similar environment for impeachment as existed for Nixon. We're not there yet, by any basic comparison of the two situations. I hope we get there, and no, the Democrats aren't doing enough.

[Time for change]

128. Nearly half the country favors impeachment

More than half in some polls.

And that's before massive coverage of his crimes on TV, which would be bound to occur if impeachment hearings were held.

Furthermore, Bush's approval ratings are nearly as low as Nixon's were during the height of his unpopularity, after impeachment hearings were well under way.

SCOTUS does not have to weigh in on the executive privilege thing. That is between Congress and the president. I don't see in what sense we're not there yet, that we can't even begin impeachment hearings. Seems to me that we're way past "there".

[onenote]

123. The impeachment effort against Nixon had bi-partisan support from the start

The vote to authorize the House Judiciary committee to commence an impeachment inquiry -- the step that would need to be taken now to start a similar process against chimpy -- was 410-4. WIthout even a modicum of bipartisan support (and I don't believe that there is a single repub that would support a resolution to commence an impeachment inquiry today)-- the process is not going to start.

[Time for change]

130. That's largely because of all the TV coverage of his many impeachable offenses

before the impeachment hearings began.

That needs to be done. If impeachment hearings are the only way to get TV to cover it, then that's what has to be done to get this ball rolling.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. Absolute errant nonsense.

Second guessing what the public might do in hypothetical situations then using those guesses to refuse to offer the public the options of those same situations.

I'd almost call it elitist, to assume the general public does not have the perspicacity to follow the arguments that we on DU offer up on a daily basis.

Congress has a lower approval rating than even * has. Any idea why? Maybe it's because congress is NOT doing what the majority of the public wants. And maybe, if the House does not lay out impeachment charges, or if doing so the Senate does not convict, the public will see that the problem is with the House and the Senate, not with the charges.

The public will not see a failure to convict as being found 'not guilty' any more than the public saw OJ getting off as his being 'not guilty'. The public would, in fact, blame congress and senate for failing to convict which would subsequently threaten those congresscritters' re-elections - republicans, blue dogs and DLC would fall in droves and THAT is why they will not let the charges be brought.

It's not just us - it's not just DU. The general public is really, REALLY pissed. And every argument against impeachment is intended to squelch that pissedness, prevent any progressive movement.

Including this one.

[jpgray]

93. It's not that at all. It's that our sort of discussions -never- make it out to the public

Again, you're ascribing Congress's approval rating to a single simple cause, and one that makes the argument you want to be true, when the reasons for that low approval are a mass of interdependent factors, some very different from each other. One particular aspect of my argument includes a poll that indicates -60%- DON'T want Congress to defund the war. Do you have similar data showing that the public's low approval of Congress has to do with not impeaching and not defunding the war? I doubt it.

The "pissedness" doesn't extend to several radical options, including defunding the war. It does to a greater extent include impeachment, but if we don't succeed, as you say, it will be a disaster. And for the reasons you state the more cowardly or ambitious Democrats don't -go- at opposition at top speed. They're skittish and scared. So if you can't go full speed at impeachment because you can't get the discussion out there, and you can't get defunding because the media won't do "nuance," and your majority is too fractured to mount a united opposition in the face of all that, what do you do? What are your suggestions? Do you not agree that these factors cause extreme risk of granting the GOP (who still maintain vast advantages of organization and media support) electoral advantages?

What we need is to force Congress to make an effort to effect change, and it need not start with impeachment. We need a Watergate Commission style hearing, that is publicly televised, that airs all these issues. We need a strong majority that isn't afraid to force the issue of executive privilege onto SCOTUS briefs, as happened in Nixon's day. We might lose that too, because I don't know how to -make- the media cover what matters and not just cover the image/marketing debate that the GOP has billions more dollars in funding and decades more experience in winning. But in my view we need to make the best of it.

[onenote]

124. Congress' low ratings can't be pigeonholed

Those polled include Democrats, repubs and independents. All three groups give Congress relatively similar scores. But the reasons that the repubs don't think congress is doing a good job aren't the same as the reasons that Democrats don't think Congress is doing a good job.

[MadHound]

89. There comes a time when you stop playing politics with people's live,

Stop worrying about your own political career, and do the goddamn right thing. While the Dems are sitting on their thumbs, waiting for a super majority or a president in the White House, people are dying, countries are being destroyed, we're coming perilously close to economic collapse due to the lack of economic vision and the drain that the war imposes. It is past time to stop deluding ourselves that we're not at the cliff edge, starring at the abyss. Our very existence and the existence of other peoples is at stake and the time to act is now.

Another year and a half, how many tens of thousands dead. Another year and a half, 180 billion plus down the drain. How long before we go into Iran, waste more lives, spread more destruction, waste more money, further weakening our country. Look at your history, look at the collapse of empires. Hell, the Soviets should be fresh in your memory, they hurl themselves onto the rocks of an Afghan war and bleed their economy white. Look at the fall of Rome, endless wars, endless wasteful spending, weakened then gutted like a fish, an empire whose fall took down all of Europe with it. The British and Spanish who wove webs of finance and empire so tight that they strangled themselves.

It has simply come down to the point where we cannot continue with this madness. If our country is to be saved then it is time for our leaders to act, to take that step, forget politics and do what needs to be done. Impeachment may or may not succeed, but it has to be attempted if for no other reason than to show the world that yes, justice and some measure of accountibility still exists in this country. Defunding the war can be accomplished and must be done, not only to save lives the world over, not just to stop the hemmorage of money and destruction, but to save our country's collective soul.

It is time, we are on the edge of the abyss. If we do not step back then we will be destroyed. It is that simple.

[jpgray]

98. 2-4 more years of Republican domination in any two branches can do comparable if not worse damage

First, the media do not do nuance. Defunding won't be adequately explained and it will be a disaster. The skittish variety of red district/state Democrats will run from it and our delegation will not have any unity to follow through. Second, impeachment does not equal a thorough investigation of admin malfeasance. A thorough investigation will do that, as the Watergate Committee (which -predated- impeachment) was the dagger in Nixon's heart. The trick is getting the party unity to keep the skittish Dems from stabbing the good ones in the back, and keeping the media on the actual story, not the image/marketing/PR of the story, an area in which the GOP enjoys tremendous advantages. That should be apparent to -anyone- who witnessed the 2000/2004 elections.

There's no question what the right things to do are. The question is first can we do them? Second, are the risks acceptable? Going all out on all fronts and not giving a whit about the risks is the mentality got us into Iraq. The major difference would be that our cause is a noble one, but it's still boneheaded thinking, because the net result in this atmosphere is likely to be a toothless failed gesture that at best strokes a few egos, who will just claim the Democrats did it wrong and complain more even though they pushed for the processes to be initiated.

If you still disagree, how are you to overcome all those challenges? There aren't magical liberty gnomes that appear with either scenario and make all the obstruction from the media, from the GOP and from our fractured majority disappear. I understand the urge to just try it and damn the risks, but there are serious risks involved here, especially considering neither strategy is likely to net the votes it needs.

[John Q. Citizen]

103. You wouldn't get my vote for anything, because it's obvious you don't trust the voters, you

live in fear of the GOP, and every last one of your decisions is based only on fear, attempting to grasp onto whatever modicum of power you can instead of to do the right thing, and to lead.

You start your post with "bush and Chaney deserve to be impeached."

Why? Why do you believe they deserve to be impeached?

Because you hate them? So Nancy Pelosi can become President?

Or is it because they are war criminals who are out of control and are destroying the Republic, and mudering millions of innocents?


Once you answer that question, why do they deserve to be impeached, the rest should be easy.

I intend to vote for Kucinich in the primary, and in the general, even if i have to write in his name. Because I know why bush and Chaney deserve to be impeached.

I'll leave the mental and moral gymnastics up to you. It's no wonder why voters percieve the Dems as morally bankrupt. They (as a party) are obviously motivated gaining power more than by moral imperative. In that way, they are different from the Republicans how?

[jpgray]

104. "Those opposed to the Iraq war live in fear of the terrorists"

That logic doesn't sound so nice now, does it? Again, -our- cause to hold Bush accountable is noble, but the bizarre exclusive black and white thinking is depressingly the same. Sometimes risks are serious, and need to be considered. You -should- be scared of what the enemy can do, not to the point you refuse to support any action, but to the point you refuse to support extremely risky action that provides few likely benefits. You put forth zero plan to surmount the challenges and be successful, and you put forth no evidence of what -change- the above strategies would accomplish when, as seems most likely, they fail.

If you see a lionization of Pelosi anywhere in my posts on this board, let me know. I refuse to be accused of being some ignorant little pollyanna naif just because I don't agree with the strategy that engaging in every risky unfeasible option is worthwhile just because it strokes somebody's ego. We need to first make sure such attacks are feasible, that they will -do- something, provide plans to deal with the risks and obstacles, and -then- do it. Not just do it without any planning, all while refusing to recognize, consider, or plan for the risks and obstacles.

I intend to caucus for Kucinich. And you think I want Pelosi to be president? Thanks a lot for the stereotype. Perhaps you should take what my post says for what it actually says, rather than just assume I fit your caricatures to a tee and go from there.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. I see, morally, you can always do some gymnastics and turn what is perfectly

understandable to the voters, who rejected bush in both 2000, and 2004, into an excuse.

It ain't that tough.

If you want to strategies about right and wrong, be my guest.

That's exactly why the voters see the Dems (as a whole) as morally bankrupt.

You are scared to do the right thing, unless it benefits you. Unless it's safe to do the right thing.

You still haven't told me why you believe bush and chaney should be impeached.


And given that Kucinich is basing his whole campaign on impeachment and defunding the war as a way to force the administrations hand, it seems strange that you would be proposing the antitheses of his campaign in your post.

Apparently you support Kucinich as you argue against his stands. I think you are confused, and morally bankrupt. And I don't say that to be mean or snarky. I just believe it.

You are saying we shouldn't impeach, we shouldn't defund the war, because it's too risky in terms of winning in 08, which is why I support Kucinich, who advoctes for impeachment and defunding the war? Doesn't that sound a little mixed up to you?

[jpgray]

171. Your logic is dangerous. "Removing Saddam is the right thing to do. Those opposed are cowards."

Can we stop with the oversimplified, ad hominem characterizations for those who dare to outline the -risks- and benefits of proposed action? Why so afraid of criticism and analysis that you must hurl insults left and right?

Those opposed to the war rightly asked "Can we do this? Should we do this? Are the risks acceptable? Do we have a plan for the obstacles?" Which are all great questions to ask before you plunge headlong into a dangerous conflict. Removing Saddam, in isolation, would have been a great thing, as would impeaching the president. Removing Saddam at the horrific costs we've incurred and the murderous damage we've done to Iraqis is intensely stupid, and a failed impeachment of Bush at the cost of further GOP domination is -also- intensely stupid.

Do you just want impeachment articles to be voted on? Or do you care what actually is the -result- of those impeachment articles? Do you have a fanciful "will be greeted as liberators" idea of what will happen if impeachment is attempted right now?

[MadHound]

116. What little faith you have in the public

First of all, more Americans are for defunding the war than are against it<http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030107_Bush_Iraq_Iran_web.pdf> Combine this with the fact that there is an overwhelming wish to win the war, and an overwhelming dislike for Bush and the direction that he has take us, and it all adds up to the fact that yes, the Dems precious political ass can be covered.

Second, you are underestimating the ability of such a nuanced message to get out into the media. Sure, Faux news will excorciate defunding the war, as will other rabid right wing media outlets. But this wouldn't prevent the Dems from going on Olberman, Stewart, MTP, and other MSM outlets and personally explaining what they are doing and why. Write editorials, have speaking engagements, put the full power of the bully pulpit to use. Employ the blogsphere and the other resources of the 'net. And of course it will fall on you and I to do our part, talk to our neighbors, go door to door if need be. But the message will get out if the effort is put forth.

Third, you fear 2-4 more years of Republicans, well guess what's going to happen next fall if we're either not out of Iraq or not well on our way to being out? Oh, yeah, four more years. Right now there is a fragile coalition that is already starting to fly apart at the edges, and will explode next fall. This is a group of liberal anti-war voters, mainstream Dems and moderate, even conservative Republicans who realize the disaster the Iraq war is and who want to see it stopped. This coalition put the Dems in majority power last fall with one express mandate, end the war ASAP. If this doesn't occur, the Dems will lose. The liberal anti-war types will either go Green or stay home on election day, the 'Pugs will either stay home or go back to being 'Pugs, and the mainstream Dems won't be able to hold the center and win. You can already hear the discontent welling up, not just from the left, but from the right also. They want results and if they don't get them, they'll go elsewhere.

Defunding the war can be done, getting the impeachment ball rolling can be done. Both need to be done, otherwise we're in desperate straits. Bushco could very well get us into Iran compounding one disaster with another. And as I said before, the economic damage would topple this country. Having the Dems sit on their ass and keep their powder dry is what got us into this mess, more of the same will not get us out of it. Besides, do you really want to go down in history as the party that played politics with people's lives for a year and a half simply because they valued their own political careers ahead of the lives of innocents and the good of the country?

[jpgray]

172. The public that allowed George Bush to steal elections, the public that gave us Reagan

Your analysis of GOP solidarity is also weak at best. GOP folks are moving -away- from Bush as fast as possible. Newt Gingrich of all people is sliming loathsomely away. Attempt to impeach the most visible symbol of their party without the proper groundwork, and they'll all rush together to say "behold him, he is wronged." And if you don't think they are quite able to twist things to look that way, I wonder if you paid attention to how much coverage Gore's truth-telling got, and how much coverage invented "lies" and "exaggerations" and "image problems" got.

The best way to keep the GOP down is to replace them with a Democratic majority consistently and overwhelmingly, however mediocre. That's the only way the media will see the right-wing ideology as in decline. People not voting for the Democrats will be reported as the -left- being in decline. Sadly, "the left" is represented by the Democrats right now. Nancy Pelosi of all fucking people is considered a radical leftist. Until we can change those disingenuous labels (which could take decades, based on how we've come to where -Nixon's- views seem moderate), may as well make the most of them and try to get our national debate back on track.

Do you folks just care if these empty gestures are tried? Or do you care about the results? If the two efforts are initiated and fail spectacularly in the media and in Congress, will you say "well at least they tried" or will you say "the Dems fucked up again, and now no way will I vote for them." I would wager the second, since even when Waxman or Conyers tries to subpoena administration officials, when those officials don't show up Conyers and Waxman get bitched at. It's fucking bizarre.

[emmadoggy]

134. Good Lord. "The risks, the risks, the risks"

You go on an on about the "risks" of doing something, fighting, taking a stand, drawing a line in the sand. It's this simple...those of us who disagree with you feel the risks of doing nothing, of going-along-to-get-along, of just riding this administration out etc. are MUCH, MUCH HIGHER.

There are risks to both approaches, but the risks in doing nothing far outweigh the risks in fighting.

[jpgray]

173. Yes. We will be greeted as liberators. Never mind those cowards who question our aggression

Thanks. Going to call me an unpatriotic Constitution hater now for laying out the risks and dangers?

[AZBlue]

92. No and No.

Thank you for the brief glimpse at sanity though! Excellent post.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

97. Stop making sense

"we" don't want to hear it.

[defendandprotect]

99. If Al Gore is against impeachment, I'm for it --- and hurry it up, PLEASE ---

[GMFORD]

135. The republican platform

summed up nicely. 'IF THE DEMS ARE AGAINST IT, WE ARE FOR IT'

That's why the Republican brand has lost it's luster. Even led paint from China will not get it back. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a rise in voters and candidates dropping the brand in droves and calling themselves independents. Or like in Kansas and Missouri, joining the viable party and becoming Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

165. You caused me to wonder if . . . .

maybe we don't need national parties --
Maybe we could have state parties which would link together to produce a candidate -- ???

Or am I just really tired at this moment and not seeing that's a dumb idea????

In other words, Democrats who are unhappy need someplace to go --

[eridani]

106. The general public despises Repub attempts to privatize Social Security

And since when has that ever stopped them from continuing to push this agenda? They never quit pushing their agenda, and that's why they they are still winning despite being a minority. When in bloody HELL will Dems get around to pushing POPULAR agenda items?

[defendandprotect]

166. ...but they may succeed in harming it sufficiently and/or actually getting what they want --

the money to Wall Street --

and destroying confidence in a government administrated program --

Didn't Hillary also back some privatization of Social Security -- ???

[Tsiyu]

108. Well thought-out post, jpgray

:applause: I appreciate the way you try to initiate rational discussion. I also admire your ability to handle criticism of your ideas and of your expression of those ideas.

Enuff fluff - onto the subject at hand.

It appears you are advocating the "Wait 'n 'See" approach. If you understand the electorate, you know that they have waited and seen enough. As I predicted last year, Dems took back Congress. Up until the election, however, the media - from Frank Rich to FU(X) News - continued to spread the message to America that the idea of Dems winning the House and Senate was a JOKE, impossible, LAUGHABLE. Did the media influence the electorate in 2006? Hell no.

Your admiration for Gore is understandable given his current popularity, and is politically correct now of course, but remember that Gore did the same thing you advocate in 2000 - he caved to Repukes and the media - and look where we are today. Gore may understand the progressive political game better than anyone but that does not mean he is the best at playing that game to win.

I disagree that all Repukes would rally round their boys. Some would, owing to their own complicity, but they can't run effective re-election campaigns with impeachment on their platforms. Not when 70% of the electorate is fed up with **.

A failed impeachment would look better to the electorate than no impeachment at all. Look at it this way: if you hire an attorney to represent you in court, and he fails to argue effectively for your side, fails to make necessary motions, fails to support your case, you need to fire the SOB and also file a complaint of incompetence.

Legislators are the electorate's lawyers - their representatives. The electorate is not too stupid to realize that they have hired lemon lawyers. We can't dress this up and make it pretty to convince ourselves that the mass of American voters out there are too dumb to realize the Congress is like a timid attorney paralyzed by fear when in front of the Judge.

We may try to find rationalizations for the "Wait 'n See" approach, may try to convince ourselves that a little more time, a careful picking of our footsteps as we cross the creek, a hermetically sealed, arid store of powder will all some day come in handy.

The time is now to lay down the law to the Thieves in Charge. America isn't stupid enough to believe everything the media tells them, or blind to the role of Congress.

But they are silently watching. And they are sick of waiting.

[2rth2pwr]

110. The leaders in both houses knew all this

but the mistake they've made is to signal that they would get us out of Iraq now, they would impeach, file contempt charges, frog march etc..,they would pass important legislation, they would kick Gop ass, etc..etc..etc..

My view is that they already made the calculations you brought up, before the election; now they, we and everyone is paying the price for their dishonesty.

Yes, I said it and no I don't think it has to do with Anthrax, blackmail, corporate largesse, or fear of being "Wellstoned". Those are cop outs and distractions. Conyers promised it and now..what? nothing

[NuttyFluffers]

111. pfft. "I speak w/ authority, for truly, I, understand the will of the people..."

'k, DUdamus, can't argue with that. you set yourself up as the knowing arbiter of the ever-so-disappointing unwashed masses.


... and yet the disapproval is around 70% for the prez. and higher for a congress they think is doing nothing. hmmm! ever wonder what it could be if they did *something*? nah, that'd be scary -- because you already know what they'd do, right?

yeah, there's a position of sense and power to work from: "no sense to act with conviction or principle, it might threaten our tenuous hold on power. the people must understand that i'm being manipulative and self-serving for their own good. they are too ignorant for me to do otherwise."

uh-huh, yeah, and the people are just so stupid that they can't sense this. even work animals can sense distaste. i'd tender that most humans can too. *sigh* don't wander into a mental quagmire of elitist bullshit, otherwise you'll need an enema.

[enigmatic]

112. K&R

Another excellent post, bro.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

117. So no impeachment, HOW do we hold these criminals accountable?

They deserve some form of retribution for all
their criminal acts. And history needs to reflect
this! Hearings are just not enough and you all
must agree with this,yes?

[RainDog]

118. Thank you to all who have participated (so far) on this thread!

I'm also sick of flame wars.

whatever side of this issue I'm on (and I don't tend to agree with the OP) I think it's important to be able to conceive and present your arguments in such a way that you can reach others.... not just those that already agree with you.

One really useful component of discussions like this is that they provide a way to talk to people outside of the democratic-identified demo. We have to be able to make and defend arguments in ways that make it possible to persuade. Screaming insults don't do this. In any discussion, it's important to know the arguments of those you oppose so that you can formulate responses that can create an opening to help change hearts and minds.

[rateyes]

126. You're right. Politics should always trump the Constitution.

:sarcasm:

[Baby Snooks]

154. Ditto

Disgusting that anyone would continue to put politics above the Constitution. But some do apparently.

[EV_Ares]

127. I think a lot of our problems is the "Dumbing Down of America". One

mistake the dems made was not especially making sure our education system remained in tact when they had the powers to the purse, complete control of DC & most state houses. As we all know, when the electorate is truly educated to the facts and has a good understanding of our politics and what "really" is going on, they will vote with the Dem candidate most often.

However, we have a large population that does not understand the complex issues like they used to. Those catch phrases this Bush Admin has used such as "No Child Left Behind"; the ones of supporting the troops, the phrases for various environmental acts of which all receive no funding except for his war of course. The gun issues in middle america, the dems did not explain themselves on that one issue and lost a couple of middle states when Gore ran because of the fear the dems would take their guns away. Another one the republicans and Rove got away with. They use "Orwellian Speak" where it is excatly the opposite of what Bush is saying that they are or will do and it has worked for them.

Also, the destruction of the unions, the middle class and the way that the religious fanatics have gained control while the democrats got fat and lazy and did not pay attention has all contributed to what has happened in this country. Also, unfortunately, greed is a factor as well, the people who have increased their wealth and vote the money instead of their true honest convictions.

The Dems if they would start doing more for the workers of this country, unions, help those against the big banks, large corporations, I think people would look and listen more than they are now. Too often I have heard, it really doesn't matter if it is a democrat in DC or a republican; they both belong to the corporations. And; they are right in a lot of respects right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. I understand two things about the electorate at large:

1. Half of them don't vote, including many who see that things just keep getting worse for them no matter who's in office

2. The voters like feisty. They hate wimpy.

[lonestarnot]

132. You have suggested what not to do; what do you suggest to do?

[Mnemosyne]

136. And it is always about US, isn't it? Doesn't matter

that we owe impeachment and war crime trials to the world. That we owe it to the world to stop the Chimperor's mad march of destruction.

I am neither naive nor stupid. Whether impeachment "has the votes" or not, the entire world is watching and waiting for us to stop these war criminals. They wonder why we haven't stopped them yet and allow *co to continue to plunder and pillage THEIR countries, along with our own.

I don't give a damn about 'practical', we owe the world, and especially the Iraqis much better than that.

No wonder most of the world consider Americans stupid. We don't even try to save our own country.

Impeach, Indict, Imprison. They need turned over to the international courts for their crimes against humanity and the American people.

Right is right. Period.

[Seabiscuit]

140. Is your real name Nancy Pelosi?

If not, you should go to work for her - as her public apologist.

You, like her, are afraid of what the GOP will SAY about the Dems, and afraid how the right-wing bobble-heads will ridicule the Dems if they ever show a spine and do the right thing.

A guaranteed formula for failure and surrender to fascism.

[Seabiscuit]

163. Impeachment "is not a partisan issue. It's a Constitutional issue."

What part of that truth do you not understand???

Your OP is concerned with nothing about political horse-race issues (numbers games excuses).

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=54454&mesg_id=54454

[jpgray]

174. Based on your dissembling in another thread, your views of "Constitutional" are rather suspect

In other words they add up to "It says what I wish it would say." When outlining the obvious risks of impeachment ends up with -liberals- asking "are you a coward who would rather X remain in power?" we are truly through the looking glass. This is the same moronic "I know what's right let's do it no matter what happens" that the conservatives beat their breasts with during the runup to war. Granted the causes (impeachment, bringing the troops home) liberals argue for with it are waaay more just. But come on!

[benEzra]

141. In some areas yes, in some areas no.

The gun issue is a big blind spot; a lot of DU'ers, like a lot of party strategists in the '90s and early '00's, have this idea that most gun owners are hunters and only own hunting guns. Hence the talk-up-hunting, ban-nonhunting-guns strategy that bombed so badly among gun owners in 1994, 2000, and 2004.

Why'd it bomb? Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter; 4 out of 5 don't hunt, and many hunters also own nonhunting guns. At least twice as many people own guns that would be affected by an "assault weapon ban" a la H.R.1022 as hunt, and AR-15's and whatnot are the most popular civilian target rifles in America.

It's not rocket science, but party strategists fell for the "gun owners = hunters" misconception for a decade.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

142. Great Post JP! You're Absolutely Right. Nice To See Something Rational And Well Thought Out.

Very good!

:toast:

K&R

[yurbud]

143. If we were seeing creative, aggressive action in other directions and a unified message...

I might agree.

[yurbud]

144. Democrats have left past GOP crimes unpunished and their reward has been thrashing after thrashing

Nixon, the October Surprise, Iran-Contra, the Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election, attacks on Kerry's military service...

in each case, Democrats had a chance to drive a stake in the vampire and held back, then wonder whey more dead bodies pile up drained of blood.

[yurbud]

145. When Congress doesn't even enforce their subpoenas or make Bushies swear in, they look like cowards

[shireen]

146. the real problem

is the corporate domination of mass media.

The arguments laid out by jpgray are very interesting, and gives me a lot to think about.

But if impeachment is off the table, how do we hold these war criminals accountable? That's why I support impeachment, and feel disappointed that there's hardly any support for it in Congress. I understand your reasoning, and even appreciate that point of view. But I cannot support it.

Right now, all I want to hear are small choruses in support of impeachment, even if the votes aren't there. Why? Because it could snowball. As this president becomes increasingly unpopular, the voices of a few brave people could inspire other legislators to speak out.

But back to the media ... the main problem we face right now is the lack of objective credible sources of information. Republicans have very cleverly trashed the media by attaching the word "liberal" to it, right after they've made "liberal" a dirty word. But the media was never collectively liberal or conservative. They were a diverse group. Thanks to Clinton, large corporations now have a strangle-hold on the big network and cable news shows. News is no longer a public service, but a form of entertainment. As long as news is slanted towards the long-term interests of large corporations, we don't have a chance for a real democracy,

[Gregorian]

147. The GOP is already at the end of their "wet dream".

If you assume that politics is more important than justice and lives, then it's hard to fault your thinking. But it isn't. And don't assume that Gore and Sanders have the absolute knowledge of the truth of politics and it's future. That is exactly what got America in it's present position. People thinking George was telling the truth. Trust. I don't trust Gore any more than I trust myself. But maybe I"m not like everyone else.

Things don't always go as planned. Sense doesn't always make sense. And no, I wouldn't tend to put up a fight when faced with a gang all by myself. I'd run. But this is supposedly a group of intelligent people who are working to uphold the Constitution.

Even if I don't have a deep understanding of politics, at least I know what the right thing is to do. And so do you. And so does the Constitution. If that doesn't work, then this is no longer America.

As for the troops. It's already a catastrophe. You know, we've already had these conversations many times here. Why don't you read them. Wes Clark says it's time to pull out. Kucinich says get out. Biden says simply pull them all out now.

[yurbud]

148. What exactly can we trust Democrats to fight for?

[Larry Ogg]

152. The corporately owned media supported conservative Dems will fight for:

The preservation of the Status Quo...

And they will continue to support and fight for those who financially support them, in other words, the privately owned debt based fractional reserve financial system aka the Federal Reserve aka the World Bank aka the WTO aka the New World Order aka Global Empire.

They will also fight for minimum wage for every American , unaffordable Universal health care that no-one can afford, etc…

Oh, and I should also mention that they will fight to make sure some-one like Dennis Kucinich will never get to much power or air time in the media…

[begin_within]

151. 1) Yes. 2) No.

[yurbud]

155. 1) NO 2) Yes

Democrats are making a big mistake on impeachment, but on the war, I can see how defunding can be used against them.

[Eric J in MN]

153. Impeaching Cheney would be good politics.

A majority of Americans want him impeached.

It would also convey that the US doesn't stand for torture, secrecy, and corruption.

[NanceGreggs]

156. Excellent post ...

... and a LOT of interesting, well thought-out discussion down the line!


K & R, natch!

[yurbud]

157. If Dems won't defund war, they should at least say: we don't trust Bush to pull out if we do

and put the onus on him.

Bush would leave the troops their till the last MRE, bottle of water, and bullet, and let them be slaughtered to blame his opponents for their deaths and hold onto the oil.

[ooglymoogly]

158. Yes yes on some levels and in yesterdays democracy I agree with you, but back on earth

most of the points made are red herrings where we risk Marshal Law at the drop of a hat and all that that entails. Home Security and the very dangerous myriad signing statements are just waiting for such an event. Anyone who does not take this into consideration is just not paying attention. For me this is reason enough to begin articles of impeachment and let time take the hindmost leading us into the next election. Under articles of impeachment he can do none of these things. 75% is something to be reckoned with and must be reckoned with.

[yurbud]

159. Democrats are playing badmitten and Repubs are fighting to death with chainsaws: who's gonna win?

[ooglymoogly]

161. Yes you have hit the nail home.

and we keep saying wake up America and some wake up and say I'm awake and pick up their badminton rackets and go to do battle.

[yurbud]

162. I think it's just the politician playing badmitten because the whole thing is really pro wrestling

and the rest of us haven't completely figured out the game is as rigged as a Harlem Globetrotters game.

[ooglymoogly]

169. yes that works too.

[Kermitt Gribble]

160. As much as I wish to see impeachment AND

a conviction, the OP has alot of good points. We are dealing with a media that gives air time to someone like Ann Coulter instead of someone like Dennis Kucinich.

[Zhade]

164. So, let criminals walk.

Nope, never going to go along with that cowardice, sorry.

[jpgray]

175. Yes, it's either impeach and defund, or do nothing. Black and white! Nothing in between!

Would you be bitching at the Watergate Committee because it wasn't an impeachment hearing? There was a -regular- Congressional investigation that predated impeachment hearings, and it brought down the whole administration. Why impeach before doing that groundwork? Do you care if impeachment fails or not, or do you just want an empty symbolic gesture?

[Zhade]

176. If this congress were actually doing anything other than accommodating criminals, you'd have a point...

Doing the right thing is still the right thing to do, no matter how many empty excuses are offered up to avoid doing it.

And you know, YOU KNOW, that impeachment is a process that begins with investigations. There is no possible way you have not heard this fact repeated ad naseum for months here. To suggest no groundwork would be done by starting the impeachment process is flagrantly dishonest.

[jpgray]

179. If GOP rule weren't so dangerous, and if we had fair, accurate media, you might have a point

And if we were both less pissed-off and frustrated, maybe we'd each see the other's point. :D Seriously though, we've got a fractured majority that can barely maintain party unity for regular ol' investigations (note the delayed contempt charges), we've got a press corps that props up the malfeasance of the admin at every opportunity, and I get in trouble for saying that impeachment and defunding would both be unlikely to succeed and carry extreme risks. Both are of course the right thing to do, but I think we should make sure we don't fail on both counts and in the process create an even bigger mess than we started with.

[EFerrari]

167. These issues seem to me to be a matter of framing, of communicating.

PR giveaway? Sure. Until the Democratic leadership (or anyone of us, for that matter) learns to frame the debate, they will continue to "empower" Republicans -- whether they are fighting for a liberal platform or reactively trying to control damage from the corporate media.

That's the real issue here, imho.

[jpgray]

177. Absolutely true. In anything resembling a reasonable media atmosphere, both options would be doable

[bridgit]

168. no, not imo...

[rucky]

170. I would love to sell you a car!

I'll tell you the price I want. You tell me what you think is a fair price. Then we'll meet halfway.

[Roxy66]

178. Bravo...you hit the nail on the head!!!