The only way for impeachment to happen is to convince Pelosi it's politically beneficial

[EFerrari]

for the Democrats in this election cycle.

No other appeal will work. Agreed? So, I'm not thinking of morality or, even, the law in this post. What are the best political arguments?

Why would impeachment proceedings be a net gain for Democrats in November?

Inoculation may be one benefit. The crimes of the current misAdministration are piled high and deep. The Democrats could inoculate themselves against consequences by at least appearing to be serious about holding the CIC responsible.

Inoculating Obama. Impeachment proceedings could inoculate Obama against the Carter Effect -- where the sitting Democrat is tarred for the negligence of the out of office Republican. We can assume Little Bush is going to drive this bus into a ditch before Obama takes office. And we need a lever to get that bus out.

The Democrats get a louder forum. As it is, every day the Republicans accuse the Democrats of all kinds of stuff and it goes unchallenged. Impeachment proceedings would give Democrats a louder, more visible forum to talk to the electorate than they have right now.

People respond to right doing. Surprising as it may be, some people in this country still care about and respond to acts of justice. It's been a long time since there's been so many people engaged in the political process. The timing is good for engaging those people and for reminding them why they don't want four more years of McSame.

If nothing else, these hearings attract attention. (Yes, I know I sound like a Republican but what the hell.) It's true, though. What are Democrats voting for right now? CHANGE. Let's offer change -- even vicariously through following the hearings and talking about it among their friends. How much more receptive to change are voting Democrats today compared to the Clinton years?


Can anyone else think of other / better arguments?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. You're right

that might do it.

But it's a hard, if not impossible argument to make.

[JDPriestly]

40. Here's my contribution: We need to make sure that Bush

cannot strut and swagger around the world after he leaves the White House. Can you imagine the snickering confusion and downright damage that a Bush retired from the presidency without so much as a verbal reprimand from Congress could inflict on future generations?

Bush must be fully retired. Giving him a generous pension, Secret Servicemen at his beck and call and the modern equivalent of a venerated title would be downright stupid. Bush has not earned it.

Bush's father was unpopular, but he did not bring shame on our country. Even Clinton with his embarrassing conduct in the White House did not bring shame on our country. In fact, Europeans thought we were odd for being embarrassed. After all, rumor has it that French President Mitterrand may have appointed his mistress to his cabinet? Now that's multitasking for real. Probably saved a lot of taxpayer money in the long run.

GWB is a known liar, torturer and thief. He should not be allowed to cavort through the rest of his life at taxpayer expense. Alexander Hamilton suggested in the Federalist Papers, No. 65, that impeachment could mean loss of the benefits of office. I don't know just to what extent that would be the case, but at the very least, impeachment would put the world on notice that Bush does not bear the stamp of approval of the American people now that his crimes have been outed more fully by the Intelligence Committee, Scott McClellan, the Waxman inquiries, the investigation into the Justice Department and the list goes on and on.

[loyalsister]

41. Can you imagine how he would strut

after a failed impeachment?
I think that impeachment hawks overestimate their support both in congress and in the general public.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. Personally, I think revenge is a dish best served cold.

Rather than focus on impeachment, we should wait for the little swaggering turd to get out of office,
and then invite some up and coming federal prosecutors to do some serious criminal investigations. You
don't "loose" tens of billions of dollars in graft without any trace, and I see the possibility of GWB
not being in on that kind of money as essentially nil. But even if so, Cheney has got dirty
money sticking to him - enough to put him away, if he doesn't pull a Kenny Boy and die on us first.

But all that depends on Democrats not pressing anything until Bush looses his power to pardon.

Nobody's going to be swaggering when all their friends are looking at long jail sentences.

(Just a little advise from the other side of the party.)

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ClassWarrior]

2. BINGO! I tell people it's about not about people, it's about...

...our precious Democracy and the Constitution that guides it.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

7. Nancy won't go there for the Constitution. She might go there

for the election.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Yeah, but that might turn enough of her voters to make her take notice.

NGU.

[leftofthedial]

3. AND to grant her immunity

[crikkett]

5. LOL we have a winner! Considering that DLC was SO SURE that Clinton would get nom.,

they should be reconsidering ALL their strategies.

[darkmaestro019]

4. Hmmm.

McCain has STATED "I'm running for Bush's third term" yes? If that could be tied to this--do we want four more years of high crimes and misdemeanors...I'm not quite sure this is an argument, let alone a better one, but if somebody with better videofu than I have could play McCain saying that and then Dennis reading the really sharped-edged easily understood bits...

Yeah, I know, that's an "attack" ad, but I've never quite figured out what's wrong with that. Everyone likes to accuse the Dems of being spineless, maybe it's TIME to attack.

[EFerrari]

6. The Republican base is trotting away from McMore.

How could impeachment help that along?

[tekisui]

10. If the pukes were smart, they'd push for Impeachment.

They'd say(and a lot of voting pubs think this), "chimpy is a special case of abuse of power. He is not a real repubbie."

[EFerrari]

11. DING! You get to choose anything on the top shelf.

:)

[MissWaverly]

26. I think the only thing that would work

would be for the GOP to dish all the dirt they know of about stolen election in 2000 and 2004, then they can say that the presidency was stolen from them by a "cabal" of people, then press for impeachment. If the Republicans moved on it, then Nancy would move, she is not one to intiate action, she reacts so don't look for the Dems to jump in the deep water first.

[EFerrari]

34. If the Republicans could be given an opportunity to run away from Bush

I think they're smart enough to take it.

[MissWaverly]

35. well, yeah, remember they had an easy bump after Watergate

they were not locked out for generations but back in power after 8 years of Jimmy Carter who they smeared. The best
thing would be to just release the truth now; they could not do any worse than they are. This way, they could move
away from the Abramoff, DeLay, Norquist thingee as well. Saying they were the victims of the cabal. Republicans
are good at blaming people, they could save Bush, Sr. saying he was out of it and Junior was exploited by the
evil Washington insiders.

[jberryhill]

46. Carter was four years, btw /nt

[EFerrari]

53. Yes, we know that. But, thanks. n/t

[MissWaverly]

64. yes, that's right, Iran hostages ended his presidency

[jberryhill]

45. Except McCain didn't say that

The "Bush's third term" line originated with the Obama campaign to characterize a McCain presidency.

What McCain said in response was, "If I'm running for Bush's third term, then Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second."

[tekisui]

8. IF Impeachment Hearings were held, the War Crimes Administration

would have to appear and testify. An Impeachment Hearing has no "Executive Privilege" bullshit. IF Impeachment Hearings were held, the evidence would be so overwhelmingly clear, that the Country would be behind the Dems damn near 100%.

We have to give the People a chance to hear and understand what these crooks have done to Our Country. They already feel it, they need to see it on their tv sets.

Impeachment Hearings are the ONLY way to get the facts to the People. The M$M ignore everything else.

It would be a landslide in November for the Dems, the "Culture of Corruption and Crime" would embarrass, disgrace and disgust anyone from voting for a puke.

[EFerrari]

9. So, the political argument would be, the people get to hear

Bush's failures recounted for weeks.

That can't hurt Democrats.

[tekisui]

12. Not just failures, but CRIMES!

Crimes that repulse and sicken us all. Honestly, if they just started Impeachment Hearings on chimpy or dickie, the scum in their misAdministration would fall over each other to resign.

[lonestarnot]

14. Yeah exactly! So why do we have to put up with all this bullshit talk around. Just get to it!

Damn, I'm sick of this.

[EFerrari]

17. Me, too. But we don't have the political power to just get to it right now.

That's why I'm asking, what are the political arguments?

You know, of all people.

[lonestarnot]

21. Isn't this just insane? WTF do they need to be shown?

Don't they have copies of the Constitution there in D.C.? Just makes me want to vomit! :puke:

[EFerrari]

32. They need to be shown how they can do this without losing in November.

It's not my idea but their worry.

And, I know. :(

[MissWaverly]

37. all they think about is their own jobs

they all are in permanent campaign mode which is why they need us and the little donors to break the hold of the
military industrial complex that has enslaved Washington, the War Lobby is what is driving this.

[EFerrari]

15. What is the political difference between a failure and a crime?

A crime is not political -- it's a breach of law.

A failure is political, i.e, Bush let his base down when he spent all that money in Iraq for no reason and here they are, losing their homes.

[tekisui]

18. Many of chimpy's crimes were political.

The Dems owe it to themselves and their base to hold him to account for his political crimes, the politicization of every Department in the Executive Branch.

And, We, the People will be more apt to get behind prosecution of Crimes. The public support, and votes will be for the ones who prosecute the Criminals.

[EFerrari]

22. But I'm asking for political arguments that might sway Pelosi.

Because I agree with you about what Bush has done 100%.

How does politicizing every department of government translate in political terms?

What about, George Bush has six more months to destroy the infrastructure of our government that Republicans will blame our new Executive for, as well as our new majority?

[tekisui]

25. Power from the Criminals. Power to the People. Only the Democrats

can and will do it.

Vote Dem '08!

[EFerrari]

28. Works for me.

:)

[truedelphi]

61. Yep I am very convinced in what you are saying.

It may be that we are up against a fast approaching deadline - but guldarn it! Most of the country now dislikes/hates George Bush.

When even Bill O'Reilly thinks it okay to interview Dennis Kucinich, and offer him approval on his approach to leading our nation away from dependence on oil, and then saying, "If you can offer more proof, maybe I'll consider the need for impeachment" you realize how much Bush has FUCKED up.

[mirrera]

13. Great Civics lesson, Obama should be on board.

His campaign has been all about the process of grassroots Democracy. Clinton's strong support taught us ALL, more than we wanted to know about caucuses, primaries, delegates, and super delegates.

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country. Let us have a lesson on what an Impeachment SHOULD be, as in NOT about a partisan witch hunt that uses a legal justification and a blow job to shame the entire country. NO, lets show these awesome young, new Democrats what Impeachment is designed for.

To quell the abuses of a runaway executive branch. Period. One article is needed, just one. Kucinich padded it out nicely.

Fuck politics, I do not think we will find the right political argument, even though you are right in all your points.

It is the only possibility, if we are to retain Impeachment at all.

The world is watching.

[EFerrari]

16. If we want this to happen, I don't think we can fuck politics.

We have to master them. :shrug:

[tekisui]

20. Our government has had such contempt for the law, and such devotion

to their personal politics, that Impeachment would be the first, and maybe necessary step to mastering, or Reclaiming the politics.

Take the Power away from the Criminals, through Impeachment, and give it back to the People. Fit it on a bumper sticker and run to November.

[EFerrari]

27. I see no downside to rehearsing in public how bad Bush has been for us.

Do you? :)

[tekisui]

29. None at all.

We have so much material. It would be great to put it out there. If they did hold the Hearings, I would like for them to go through each one of the 35 Articles. One every 4 or 5 days would end it at November.

[mirrera]

31. Law HAS to come first. It should be a no brainer...

They should be able to say... "You know I really would rather not do this politically, but the law clearly states that when evidence of high crimes and mis-demeanors seem apparent, we MUST hold Impeachment hearings, to investigate"... something like that. I am not a constitutional scholar or a lawyer.

The politics should only come in when figuring out how to make what must be done palatable. We do have the law on our side. the Bush admin did not.

[EFerrari]

33. But here and now, law doesn't come first. We're not there

or Bush would be in jail.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Nancy Pelosi must recuse herself due to conflict of interest regarding the "Gang of Eight"

[librechik]

23. Yep--great post at Kos about this

[EFerrari]

24. But you know and I know, that won't happen.

Don't get me started on Pelosi. I'm trying to think like a hostage negotiator. :(

[mirrera]

36. You are right.

[slipslidingaway]

38. It's your vote...

"The only way for impeachment to happen is to convince Pelosi it's politically beneficial for the Democrats in this election cycle.

No other appeal will work. Agreed? So, I'm not thinking of morality or, even, the law in this post. What are the best political arguments?"

[EFerrari]

39. No. My vote doesn't have the same power as the party leadership

or the way they are funded.

[slipslidingaway]

63. Agree one vote here or there may not amount to much...

collectively our votes do matter.

They know that most Democrats will vote with their party regardless of what they do or don't do so there in no incentive to hold anyone accountable.

[cynatnite]

43. You need two thirds of senators willing to vote for it. That's why it won't happen n/t

[EFerrari]

51. Wrong. Conyers needs the green light fron Nancy.

[jberryhill]

44. The Carter Effect?

the Carter Effect -- where the sitting Democrat is tarred for the negligence of the out of office Republican

Umm... you do realize that Carter came in after impeachment proceedings were started against Nixon and he resigned, leaving Ford as an appointed president, yes?

If nothing else, these hearings attract attention.

...and for those who haven't been paying attention until now, the message is "election year stunt".

And speaking of an election year... How many of the majority-Democratic representatives do you want to tie down in Washington for how long, while their Republican opponents campaign back home?

[EFerrari]

52. You do know the antecedents of the Iran hostage "crisis" right?

And you seem not to have read my OP at all.

The question was, what are the political arguments for impeachment.

[jberryhill]

60. Yes...

...Iranian identification of the United States as the principal patron of the Shah and his increasingly repressive rule.

And yes I understand your question. I don't think your "Carter effect" point is an effective one, since his elected predecessor *was* sent packing.

The really difficult challenge that Obama must face - and which is worse that what Carter faced - is that we had already wound up the Vietnam conflict when Carter came in, and the wingers could only blame the "liberal media for eroding support for the war when we were just about to win it". No matter what happens in Iraq, it will be labeled a "defeat caused by Obama for pulling out just when we were winning."

Pelosi is probably firmly convinced that impeachment would be "too divisive to win a majority in November". To the extent it is justified on "politcal" grounds instead of legal ones, then the notion epitomizes the Bush approach to government - "it's all political."

People want their families re-united after multiple tours of duty in Iraq have kept them apart. People want to see an end to their loved ones being put in harms way to serve a pack of lies on which this war was sold. People want to be able to keep their house, or even to get a roof over their head. New Orleans still needs to be re-built and healed. People want access to health care, to be able to get to work without spending the day's wages on transportation, or to have a job to go to at all.

I personally would love to see Bush and Cheney get what they have coming to them. But to make a "political argument" you need to connect the rationale for impeachment to the motivation of the vast majority of people who are not political junkies to vote for Democrats. How does an impeachment proceeding demonstrate that Democrats are working on those concerns. I think there is material there for the grist mill, but the argument you seek has to demonstrate that impeachment is going to light a fire under Joe Average's ass to vote Democratic in November.

[KoKo]

47. You live in CA...what do her constituents think of her....?

I know she doesn't like "Code Pink Activits" because according to her they were "hanging clothes in her shrubbery around her home"...but aside from "Code Pink's Report" she seems to be popular in her District...even with the "challenger (whose name must not be mentioned.)

Her supporters much feel that her "not Impeaching Bush" is the way to go...or she would be getting "much heat" for "change of her position" on that.

I'm East Coast and have no idea what goes in in CA...except what I read here.

Why is she still "popular." I have to say...after expecting so much from her as Speaker...I feel very let down by her..:shrug:

[MzNov]

48. It was such a surprise to me that she won her primary by 84%

I didn't think that Shirley Golub would get the needed votes, but 84%?? San Franciscans are so anti-war, but they just seem to love their Pelosi. Feinstein also won 2 yrs. ago by 80+ %.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

56. Major burn out all over the district and no money. n/t

[KoKo]

50. Well...maybe it's the "incumbant is good because we know them" issue or her

supporters feel that in the end....she's going to do what they feel she will to end the war. From the "outside" maybe it looks differently than on the "inside." :shrug:

[BlueJac]

49. What if she is guilty too?

Her and many Dems were told about actions being taken and did nothing but enable. Then what?

[EFerrari]

54. That's not the question here.

What are the political arguments for impeachment for the Democrats?

[Psyop Samurai]

55. Ruling out morality and law is a good place to start...

...but as far as coming up with a persuasive "political" argument, I don't see how that could be done in "upside-down world".

The collusion of the Dem leadership has no more to do with what's politically advantageous (in "right-side-up world" terms) than the media's collusion has to do with ratings.

[EFerrari]

57. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

[Psyop Samurai]

59. No, because I wasn't using sarcasm. Read what I said.

[cascadiance]

58. The problem is that this is a hypothetical. It's hard to "prove" that it is politically beneficial!

And just as equally hard to prove that it's not politically beneficial. So they themselves will define that it "isn't politically beneficial" and noone will argue with them, and how can they if the complicit media reinforces that. So that for whatever REAL and secret reason that they don't want to pursue it, they won't be challenged, and they know it, because in their books, noone really can "beyond the shadow of a doubt" prove it's unbeneficial.

Some would say that you need smoking gun evidence of crimes like the Watergate tapes were that tipped things over against Nixon, but many would argue that this smoking gun evidence exists already in volumes, but the problem is that the liklihood that it will be heard by the American public by a complicit corporate media this time around is probably unlikely to force a sufficient difference in the election, as it might back in the days of Nixon when the media wasn't as complicit. In the past news like that WAS politically beneficial in argument of either a resignation or impeachment, but now Nixon probably would have gotten off the hook.

It will be interesting to see what Scott McClellan says under oath. That at least seems to be getting through a lot of the M$M filters that would normally gag others talking about impeachable crimes would.

[pacalo]

62. Once the facts are presented, the people will overwhelmingly get behind impeachment.

[Cleita]

65. How about it's an election year and she has Cindy Sheehan and Shirley Golub

lusting after her seat in Congress and, oh well, we the people are generally pissed with her aiding and abetting a bunch of treasonous criminals. History will judge her as a collaborator making her guilty of treason as well even if she doesn't go on trial for it. I'm writing a letter to her right now pointing these things out to her.

Also, a one time slew of phone calls, emails and snail mails isn't enough. We have to renew the attack weekly until she changes her position. We need to do the same to the Judiciary Committee.