We all agree Bush deserves impeachment. So why isn't it happening?

[jpgray]

That to me remains the prominent question, not only with regard to impeachment but other aspects of accountability for the administration, or rolling back of its most repugnant policies. The question isn't whether we're failing to do these things, because we are. The question is -why-?

Either leadership has the ability to do these things, or it does not. Why might it not have the ability?

1. Lack of unity/numbers in our caucus.

There are 47 self-identified Blue Dogs in the House alone. Add to those traditionally skittish freshmen, who will avoid controversy as much as possible, and you have a problem wrangling the necessary votes. Despite our lack of unity, our numbers are quite slim in the House. In the Senate, add Joe to the mix and the situation becomes even more intractable. This president is very unpopular, you say? So it should be easy to wrangle stubborn Democrats if the leadership simply tried? That leads into the other problem:

2. Palpable unity and message control in the GOP caucus is combined with veto power.

Look at the Habeas Corpus vote, the vote on Iraq war funding bills, etc. Very few turncoats from the GOP caucus ever appear to tip the scales in our favor, and even then it rarely takes us to the point of veto-invulnerability. It's frustrating when the Democrats cave and do not take the fight to filibuster on these very crucial votes. Yet, the end result of such strategy would be a true do-nothing Congress, wherein fruitless wrangling is the main event. That wrangling is necessary and deserved? Of course it is, and attacks of "do-nothing Congress" should seem empty and baseless in the face of these weighty issues. That's where the other problem comes in. Message control on the GOP side is such that even when strong progressives like Durbin or Stark use strong language in attacking an extremely unpopular president, an apology is the inevitable result. Unless we can understand -why- such otherwise respectable people like Stark or Durbin retreat on deserved criticisms of an unpopular president or his policies, we can't predict if raising the stakes to impeachment will lead to greater resistance among Democrats or not when they suffer inevitable public GOP attacks. Why does this lack of solidarity exist?

3. The media do not report impartially, and they do not point out lies.

You shouldn't need any examples of this, but I'll provide a few. "Support the troops" as a muffler on war criticism is one ready example of the domination the GOP message has in the media. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is another. The debacle of the 2000 debate wherein Bush baldly lied about his tax plan is probably the worst example--Bush was allowed to call -Gore- an exaggerator for correctly understanding his own tax plan, and the story of the debate was not this blatant dishonesty, but rather Gore's sighing, or rolling eyes. Think about that for a minute, and ask yourself if this isn't a serious obstacle to any strong attack on the GOP. Even if the attack is wholly fair, GOP counterattacks will be reported while their truth will never be investigated. Remember Durbin and Stark, whose honest if harsh criticisms were beaten back easily by the GOP message machine, despite the president's overwhelming popularity.

To sum up

Now of course we can't know for sure if these obstacles are truly major causes of our anemic Congress, but can we at least agree they exist? It could well be that the leadership has the ability to do all we want and has decided for some reason not to, but is it fair to reflexively accept that as the only explanation for this inaction? This inaction is unpopular to all: progressives hate it, it doesn't endear the Democrats to the GOP at all, and middle-of-the-road voters see it as weak vacillation. There is no easily discernible benefit to this behavior for the Democrats. It is possible there are compensations we can't fully observe, but without evidence of some quid pro quo it's hard to imagine why the Democrats would -choose- to behave this way. On impeachment alone, if you posit that all who oppose initiating the process are corrupt, complicit cowards, you have to include Bernie Sanders, John Conyers and Al Gore in that camp. Which I wouldn't do lightly, myself.

What do you think? Am I totally off-base here? Do those obstacles exist, but fail to justify the fact of our caucus' inaction?

[msongs]

1. bush has just vetoed a spending bill - dems should refuse to send him another nt

[jpgray]

5. And in the resultant legislative game of chicken, what side will the media take?

Who will stay unified and on message? What have been the answers to those questions in the past?

[derby378]

2. 4. Sheer unmitigated cowardice

The Democrats on the Hill have had numerous chances to stare Bush down over Iraq, and they have capitulated every single time.

[jpgray]

6. How do they benefit from this? Would you describe Gore, Sanders or Conyers as cowards?

[derby378]

16. I'm speaking about the Democrats in a collective sense

There have been individuals such as Feingold and Boxer who have opposed enabling the Oaf of Office, but unfortunately they are currently outnumbered.

[ClassWarrior]

21. "Sheer unmitigated cowardice"..."in a collective sense"?

:rofl:

Sometimes I wonder if people read what they post before they post it.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

3. That's a very clear-eyed and reasonable analysis.

Thank you.

NGU.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. But of course it's because Pelosi is keeping Bush in power

Pelosi is so power-hungry that she is keeping Bush and Cheney in office.

[sjdnb]

7. Wealth, Power, and the supportive Network

While I don't believe it's some Brandenburg type conspiracy, I do think the triad of wealth, power, and the network created to further the aspirations of those with wealth and power to attain more wealth and power touches every important institution in the world today - banks, governments, etc.

And, it affects everything - the media, the power of the people, the representatives that are suppose to represent them, etc.

And, for now, it is to their advantage that Bush remain in power. I have no doubt, were it NOT to their advantage, that he be gone.

[flvegan]

8. Fear.

[jpgray]

9. Of what? What is Bernie Sanders afraid of? What is Al Gore afraid of?

[flvegan]

11. What does Gore have to do with the current move towards impeachment?

[jpgray]

13. He's against it. As is Sanders, as is Conyers. What are they afraid of, fear being motive?

[flvegan]

15. Edit: nevermind.

What I say comes across as Dem bashing.

[magellan]

10. The "don't have the votes" excuse is nonsense

Any Congress member who claims they won't vote to impeach before proceedings are even undertaken needs to be taken to task. They aren't upholding their oath of office if they decide how they'll vote before even investigating the crimes and hearing the evidence.

And shame on Pelosi and Reid for accepting this unethical behavior and using it as an excuse to keep impeachment off the table.

[jpgray]

12. How is it nonsense if they don't have the votes?

And taken to task how? Is there some legislative magic wand to wave that automatically convinces everyone to vote a certain way?

[magellan]

14. They're saying they won't impeach before they even look at the evidence

That doesn't seem wrong to you? It sure does to me. If Pelosi and Reid were doing their jobs right they'd be impressing on those who've already decided how they'd vote that they aren't in Congress to serve themselves and their own interests.

[jpgray]

17. In Nixon's case, all evidence was gathered and aired without a single impeachment hearing

I believe the SCOTUS overruled his executive privilege defense just a day after the articles were voted on, no? What makes you believe a Congress which has less numbers/unity and hasn't even been successful in laying such investigative groundwork would be successful in an impeachment process?

[magellan]

25. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over what happened 30

...or even 10 years ago. Things are much different now because those situations and many more were not handled correctly. As a result the stakes are much higher. We're talking about the very foundations of our country and government and how they've been undermined, not a break-in or a blowjob. If the assaults against the Constitution by this administration don't justify impeachment hearings -- if Congress can't get its shit together enough to see the big picture and recognize that nothing is as important as stopping these bastards dead in their tracks -- then it's my opinion that there is no real hope. You can elect a Democrat next year, but nothing much will change...Mark my words. The neocons will still be around. And a Repug is certain to get back into the WH sooner or later, and maybe you'll be here in 5-10 years pining for these "good old days" when there was still hope. Or maybe places like DU won't even exist anymore.

Call me names, insult my reasoning (or lack thereof as you may choose), I don't care. All I know is we won't be the first republic to fall because criminals were given unchecked power.

[jpgray]

26. In that case you shouldn't have ever had hope, starting with Adams's administration

The Alien & Sedition acts were palpably unconstitutional, yet no impeachment was proffered for the president who signed them into law. While Jefferson and Madison agreed as to the violation of the Bill of Rights, I've never read that they advocated impeachment of Adams. Do you believe the founders had a different standard for impeachment than you do? Or did they not care about the Constitution? Then you have Lincoln's or FDR's flouting of the document--should they have been impeached?

[magellan]

33. Ancient history

Who was or wasn't impeached in the past has very little bearing on today as the circumstances are always unique to the times and must be dealt with afresh. I do, however, find it startling that you're arguing against impeaching Bush** and Cheney. I can only surmise you view impeachment as a political act, one to be taken up only at Congress's convenience, rather than as a judicial power which should be asserted whenever significant criminal misconduct is suspected. Unlike your examples from history, that threshold has been reached several times by Bush** and his minions, and not just in crimes against the Constitution, but in war crimes and treason. Do you disagree? Please explain if so. Otherwise, I'd very much like to know why you think it's permissible for Congress to ignore the serious crimes of this administration against country and humanity.

[Disturbed]

18. It was decided by the Power Brokers of both parties that

America cannot lose in Iraq & Afghanistan. Remember "the Vital Interests"? Those interests are Oil & other resources such as natural gas & water in the ME. Impeachment would put those "Vital Interests" at great risk. The Laws that the Busholini Regime have broken do not interfere with those "Vital Interests". Another year of the Busholini Regime is tolerable to the majority of Dems.

[warren pease]

22. The magic wand(s)...

I think if the "leadership" was really interested in getting the votes -- for impeachment as well as anything that might be classified as part of a progressive agenda -- they'd be beating on the blue dogs and freshmen unmercifully. Two ways come to mind:

1 - On the positive reinforcement side, fill their little heads with visions of pork projects coming to their districts.

2 - And on the other side, tell them in no uncertain terms that if they don't vote with the majority, they will be getting no money or other help from the DNC next election cycle, that certain generous "donors" will be told to spend their money on their adversaries in the primaries, that their primary challengers will have the full support of the DNC and that ranking Democrats will actively campaign against them.

And then do it. No second chances, no screwing around. Just purge them from the party. Eventually, we might have a two-party system in this country.

Strong leaders would use the perks of leadership to overwhelm internal opposition. Unfortunately, neither Pelosi nor Reid are strong leaders. And they really need to admit it and vacate their positions before the next Congressional session begins and before they can do any further damage. Either that or they need to be removed in a palace coup and the reins of power handed to people who actually know what to do with them.


wp

[jpgray]

24. Is that a threat we can carry out? If we did, we risk losing the seats to the GOP

And while a blue dog Democrat is bad enough, a GOP stooge is palpably worse. The threat needs to be credible in order to work, and if a stonewalling caucus member has forty-six friends who agree, getting leverage becomes more difficult. The Solid South in the FDR years were necessary to get the New Deal up and running, but FDR notably did not actively force them to renege on racist ideas or policies.

[warren pease]

28. They can certainly carry it out...

But I think the threat would be enough in most cases, particularly if the "leadership" picked one particularly recalcitrant GOPer lite as an example and nailed his or her ass to the wall. And this could begin immediately, with the example in place by mid-summer.

And these Neanderthals don't have to check their bigotry at the door. Hell, this is America, after all. They just need to be on board for the important votes -- impeachment, defunding the occupation, universal health care, telecom immunity, FISA/surveillance issues -- that kind of thing. They can vote against resolutions to declare May 15 National Mayonnaise Day or to honor the contributions ragweed has made to the antihistamine industry. Just the important stuff.

One wrong vote and no more pork, no more DNC money, no endorsements from any high profile Dems. No nuthin'. They're on their own, and good luck running against a well-funded progressive bearing guarantees of regional projects and full employment.

So yeah, I think they could pull it off if dem "leaders" were actually serious about building a progressive alternative to the GOP. Unfortunately, they're not at all interested in creating anything remotely progressive because they and their GOP doppelgangers all feed at the same corporate trough and they aren't about to alienate their employers.


wp

[Rageneau]

19. All I can figure is that Reid and Pelosi are actually alien lizardmen in disguise.

Anybody know anything poisonous to alien lizardmen?

[jpgray]

20. I will not subscribe to the alien lizard men theories until other possibilities are exhausted

:D

[warren pease]

23. That may be sooner than you think...

As Sherlock Holmes said, "...whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth."

I'll give your conversion about an hour. Until then, drink heavily. :toast:


wp

[90-percent]

27. Complicity

I think that all the powerful that could impeach are fearful of their own complicit secrets that would come out of an impeachment. But, what do they have to fear? After all, wasn't it just two weeks ago we all learned democratic intelligence committee members were briefed on harsh interrogation techniques back in 2003 and tacitly gave it their blessing at that time?

It is still a damn shame self interest over rides defending and protecting the Constitution! Oaths just aren't what they used to be! Honor isn't what it used to be, either.

-90% Jimmy

[spanone]

29. blackmail...bu$h*/cheney can wiretap ANYONE at will.

[Selatius]

30. Harry Reid is owned by the neocons, apparently.

He would not have advanced the version of the FISA bill with telecom immunity if he weren't compromised. There were two versions, one with and one without immunity. He advanced the one with immunity. It's a dead giveaway at this point who he really works for.

[sampsonblk]

31. I think you're way off base

If the Dem leadership honestly believed as we do, the least they could do is say so. And they won't even do that. They won't even use the word criminal. They won't even refer to the stuff Bush is doing as illegal.

"If you can't do that which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?" - Jesus Christ

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. 4. They are too frightened of the Bushes?