Impeachment Hearing Shocker: Where's the Backlash ?

[pat_k]

For years, the http://talkingimpeachment.com/toolbox/cure-impeachophobia">impeachophobic leadership has been telling us that putting impeachment "on the table" would be political suicide. The chicken little strategerists have been telling us that bushncheney defenders are poised to rise up and crush the Democratic Party.

Well, whatever Pelosi might say to the contrary, the Hearing today put impeachment firmly on the table. And what's the response from "them"?

We have Rabkin. He "just can't believe it." And why can't he believe that bushncheney terrorized us into war? He can't believe it because if it were true it would mean that people throughout the White House engaged in a coverup. Well, apparently he missed the news. The "unbelievable" coverup is public record. (Maybe we should send him McClellan's book -- for starters.)

Rabkin actually helped make the case for impeachment when he repeatedly pointed out the simple truth -- that if a Member has concluded that Bush lied the Nation into war they must impeach. Although I'm sure it was not his intent, when Ranking Member Smith pressed him, Rabkin also acknowledged the fact that impeachment would be the ONLY remedy in such circumstances.

Then we have Presser. He went for the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" defense. When asked if any of the facts cited constituted an impeachable offense, he tells us "Nope, no impeachable offenses here. Nope. Don't see anything impeachable." He's doesn't dispute the damming facts, he simply makes the absurd assertion that an official's crimes aren't crimes if the official claims to be committing the crimes "in good faith."

The dreaded "backlash beast" has always been a mythical creature. Now we've seen the reality behind the myth. The dragon they fear turns out to be a gecko.

[tekisui]

1. I bet the COngress approval ratings will rise.

It can't get much lower, to be sure.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. bet you are right.

YO, NANCY! anyone there? Did I tell you how pissed off I was a netroots? Until Al Gore popped up, that is.

Hint. The FIRST power mentioned in Article One is not the power to levy taxes, but TO IMPEACH. Then again, perhaps you forgot what the Constitution says.

[pat_k]

5. Unlikely to move up until they do it "for real" and open impeachment hearings. . .

Hearing any Democratic Members speak with moral authority and strength can challenge the "weak dem" image. Unfortunately, when the leadership refuses to "get real" any benefit tends to be offset because the accusation that they are engaged in empty posturing tends to stick. (It sticks because it is true.)

That is not to say that hearings like this don't bring the reality of impeachment closer -- they do. They are empty gesture and as such must be rejected as insufficient. But anything that forces Members to put their irrational impeachophobic beliefs into words helps to expose the absurdity of their blather.

[Senator]

6. I bet they attribute the rise to "blah, blah, blah"

They'll claim it's due to "The Great Bipartisan FISA Compromise" or the bailout of multi-millionaire mortgage mongers.

Anything except the reality of impeachment being talked about at long, long last.

--

[thedeanpeople]

8. DC conventional wisdom = the opposite of reality.

When DC insiders tell us "everybody knows" something, it is a almost ALWAYs the opposite of reality. Particularly when it comes to their thinking (or more accurately, their failure to think) on impeachment.

[Hydra]

2. You sure it's even a gecko?

Most of America(including the Red states) are fed up with money flowing to the other side of the world while they have to pay for high gas.

As plenty of people on DU said, the worst thing Bushco could do was take people's TVs or SUVs, and ironically they've done both by pricing them out of it.

It's almost as if they WANT us to.

[thedeanpeople]

7. Actually, the backlash notion is the opposite of reality.

There truly is no political downside to impeachment. There is only upside.

Contrary to the "convention wisdom," the perception that Democrats are weak has almost nothing to do with position on National Security. It is driven by the leadership's repeated refusal to stand and fight for what they claim to believe in.

What makes their dereliction so unbearable is that their "reasons" for refusing to impeach are so horribly wrong.

The potential political benefits of impeachment are enormous. So too are the risks of failing to impeach. The number 1 problem facing the Democratic Party is the perception they are weak and unprincipled. The number 2 problem is the lack of a unifying and inspiring message. Fighting for impeachment and removal, win or lose, demonstrates strength and commitment to principle. It is hard to imagine anything more unifying or inspiring to preserve a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Failure to impeach exacerbates the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party. Impeachment solves them. It is that simple.

There are more benefits that could be named, and more risks of failing. But the political consequences, good or bad, are of course irrelevant. Their moral obligation to impeach is absolute. That's the bottom line. It is demanded by the circumstances, not probability of success.

If Congress was functioning as intended the moral case would be sufficient. Unfortunately, our so-called "leaders" are so immobilized by fear it has become necessary to confront their irrational fears and make the political case.

[KoKo]

9. Good Points....I can't add anything...but worth the read of yours. n/t

[barbtries]

14. i totally, totally agree

it would be a political bonanza. take me for example. as it is, i'm voting for the democrats because bad beats worse. if they impeached, i would vote with a joyful heart. i am so with you and suggest that you send your post around the world because you put it very well. send it to congress. to newspapers. you're right! the people are ready for the bush nightmare to end and it ain't going away by itself. impeachment is paramount.

[screembloodymurder]

4. Rabkin had me in tears.

No one outside of DC thinks Bush is guilty. Rabkin couldn't find piss in a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

[Occam Bandage]

10. It was political theater, and likely dismissed as such by most viewers.

I'm glad you enjoyed your red meat, though.

[femrap]

11. I never watch the msm evening news....

but were the hearings on the news tonight???? thx.

[Trillo]

20. This is a question of mine, too.

I watched the replay on CSpan last night, all six hours. But CSpan isn't really MSM, at least in the sense of giving shorter summaries that gives an overview of the days news. I no longer have access to MSMs DRM broadcasts, I'm no longer willing to pay only for the hope they start reporting the important news instead of which dress the celebrity is wearing today. Consequently, I have no idea whether the TV news channels that most people get their news from mentioned it at all, and further, whether it was reported ON ALL the TV News channels in every 1/2 hour time slot available in one of their so common message force multiplier techniques.

Anyone know?

[femrap]

24. I get the on-line version of

Washington Post....Hearings were not mentioned in the top 5 or 6 headlines under Nation or Politics....it was in a Dana Milbank column and laughed at.

Pisses me off.

I quit watching MSM cuz I would get so angry when important stories were NOT covered. Did my mental health no good whatsoever.

I guess I'll go check the NY Times.

[autorank]

12. There was no backlash, won't be. It was magnificent!

I was the last person admitted to the hearing room. A grand total of 16 were admitted;)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00285.htm

:hi:

[Hubert Flottz]

18. I was impressed by Vincent Bugliosi's courageous remarks.

The man is fearless and he's a patriot. You can see it in his face the hurt that he feels by what the criminals in and around the white house have done to the country and to the world. How can we ever be proud of America again, if these criminals go unpunished. How can the legal system in this country justify punishing Joe Six-pack for possession of a few grams of pot and then let the highest officials in our government get away with crimes like Nazis were hanged for in 1946? About the only crimes that the Nazis did that the Bush Gang hasn't done was to gas 6 million people.

Would the justice system let a person go free, if that person was known to have caused thousands to be killed and crippled? The drunken driver who gets in the car drunk and hits someone head on, probably never sets out to kill the other driver, but that drunk goes to jail for his bad judgment and stupidity. "Ignorance is no excuse, in the real world. We know that Bush and Cheney knew the truth about the degree of a "threat" that Saddam posed to the "HOMELAND" from the many Intel reports, but that the entire administration, for whatever reason, willfully and in all likelihood, knowingly, lied us into a bloody elective war with Iraq anyway.

I believe that the impeachment process will bring out more of the truth and in so doing the will to impeach will snowball, just like it did when the house once looked into Nixon's criminal activity. When the Watergate hearings started out, most of the GOP came out strongly against the impeachment of Nixon, but when the people in this country started to hear the truth, the demand for justice from the people became so strong that the GOP congressional representatives could no longer afford politically, to stand up for, cover up for, nor defend Nixon any longer.

They need to impeach the Attorney General too. ASAP!

[Senator]

13. There Will Be No Backlash In The Public/Electorate Either.

In fact, impeachment may well be the ONLY way to reunite our once-great nation.

Obamania is clearly falling short on its own. His tacit approval of torture and active approval of immunity for the rich is keeping this election close enough to steal.

---

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. My take on Presser and Rabkin was that they had no idea what the facts were and just

spewed rhetoric like good little tools..

[dsotm-wywh]

16. I enjoyed near the end when...

they got the two guys who gave testimony that Bush didn't break the law to admit that Kucinich's evidence is worthy enough of at least a true hearing to delve more into the allegations.

I thought that was truly the most important part of the whole thing which is what the Repubes have done all along. Did anyone read that article by Peggy Noonan right after the McClennan(sp?) book came out? It was titled "What if it's true?" and went on to say that all the Repubes shouldn't just spout out their talking points but just consider for one second whether or not the allegations are true.

That's what happened during the hearing yesterday, they got the two guys saying Bush hasn't broken the law to admit that the evidence is strong enough that it should go to full hearing and impeachment proceedings. That was the main thing that makes me think this won't be the end of it.

[Phred42]

17. FIne - But where do they go from HERE?

If this is it - we're screwed

[spanone]

19. not a peep in my local rag this morning....not a peep

[sattahipdeep]

22. Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder

http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=Vincent+Bugliosi's&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[NashVegas]

21. Right Where Its Teeth Are

In the glass full of Efferdent.

[Martin Eden]

23. Is impeachment "on the table"???

Not according to http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/committee_hears_impeachment_ar.html">the story in today's Chicago Tribune:

Bush un-impeachment bill gets hearing

Critics of President George W. Bush got the chance to air grievances against him Friday at a House Judiciary Committee "non-impeachment hearing" before a packed audience of political activists.

Even Cindy Sheehan, the famous anti-war mother, was there until she got kicked out for being loud.

Committee members and witnesses, including Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, spoke for almost six hours on allegations the Bush administration, among other things, misled the public into the Iraq War, manipulated intelligence and selectively prosecuted Democrats. Northwestern University professor Stephen Presser offered expert analysis.

The session was not an impeachment hearing, because the House of Representatives had not given authorization for such proceedings. Ranking Republican committee member Lamar Smith of Texas called the hearing an "anger management class" that only serves to impeach Congress' credibility.

IMO the "credibility" of Congress will be impeached if they DON'T have real impeachment proceedings.