You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #49: Here's part of a McClatchy article on the subject: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Here's part of a McClatchy article on the subject:
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 12:35 PM by leveymg
It does a good job of laying out the commonly cited rationale for the decision taken in 2006 by Pelosi and Conyers. There's more to this, as Conyers and then Waxman refused to hold public hearings to gather further evidence into the intelligence deceptions that were uncovered by the Agencies. They've been persuaded that the Dems are going to win big, regardless, and that a direct conflict with the White House on any subject that touches on national security is potentially a net political loser. Therefore, they won't engage.

Strangely, that did not deter the House and Senate during Nixon's Administration. There are two big big differences. One is the nature of the crimes. In 1974, the case against Nixon was essentially domestic spying and CIA abuses abroad. Today, the crimes involve treason and collusion with foreign intelligence agencies to invade a foreign country that posed no real threat to the U.S. Second, today there are foreign-directed pressure groups and foreign-controlled corporations with enormous donor clout and strong influence over the mass media that are working to protect the Administration and themselves. That wasn't the case in 1974.

Here's the extract of the McClatchy article from May: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1516 /

Pelosi said last year that impeachment is off the table. Under the Constitution, the House impeaches; the Senate then decides whether to convict and remove from office.

Its also interesting that one of the resolutions came from Detroit, home to Rep. John Conyers, who as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would lead any impeachment hearings.

The Detroit resolution was co-authored by Monica Conyers, the congressmans wife. But she hasnt had any noticeable clout at home: Conyers said last year that he wasnt interested in impeachment - just oversight investigations - and he hasnt changed his stand.

There are both policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base.

One is that some dont see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls high crimes and misdemeanors. They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they havent yet.

Another is that they fear a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

The third is that theyre eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

The political lens theyre looking through is the 2008 election, Carpenter said. They want to see Bush and Cheney dangling so the election is a referendum on them. That is not the correct lens.

To him, the right lens is the last election, when voters threw the Republicans out of power in Congress. Those people, he said, now want Bush and Cheney out.

There is a groundswell here, Carpenter said. Pelosi says its off the table. Its our role to put it on the table.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC