It's a drastic political remedy, and using it promiscuously cheapens it. It's unfortunate but true that part of the reason not to pursue it is that Clinton was just impeached. Moreover, pursuit it makes no sense. The country isn't for it, and Dems will look like whack-job extremists for pursuing it. We can't even get the much weaker censure, after all.
I read him as making a zero-sum game argument. People who oppose the president have x amount of energy to devote to political activities. Devoting it to impeachment means it's not devoted to electing a better congress at the midterms.
The traditional way to dispute this is to say that the quantity of energy people are willing to devote would change if they could channel it into impeachment and into electing liberal democrats.
Well, shoot. If I can't have impeachment or censure, I'll just have to settle for war crimes trials.
Or just hand Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld over to Moqtada and the Iraqis, for the Flower Ceremony of Eternal Gratitude for the efficient liberation of their country.
If we don't get the censure, I'm going to go down to the National Mall and throw rocks at anyone wearing a suit.
Make sure you stretch first, 'Smasher. You're not going to get censure.
Doesn't not pushing for this make the dems seem weak? I mean they are sitting still for misdeeds of the worst kind and not doing a thing. Isn't that weak and doesn't that play into the meme that dems are spineless and always checking to see which way the wind is blowing before doing anything.
"As a general rule, though, bad faith and worse policy should be subject to political remedy, not criminal prosecution, unless there have been crimes so unambiguous and momentous that no political remedy is suitable."
By any standard the Bush (and Blair) administrations have comitted crimes that by any standard are deserving of criminal rather than political remedy.
It may be that a hard-nosed political calculus tells us that criminal prosecution may not produce the best outcome but it seems transparently obvious that the moral and legal case -- that these people are heinous criminals who launched an illegal and unprovoked war of agression -- is airtight. The fact that the motivations of some, but by no means all, of those involved may have been essentially honourable is neither here nor there.
While I think it is unlikely that Bush and Blair will serve terms in jail that extend for the rest of their natural lives, I, for one, will be disappointed that they do not.
I thought this post was about ogged's performance over on Kevin's blog...
I'm not so good at the inside-the-Beltway strategy thinking, but I'd like to see it become a commonplace that of course Bush would be impeached if it weren't a foregone conclusion that the Republican majority in Congress would block it. Not a serious effort toward impeachment, just a background rumbling.
the only reason that impeachment of clinton was a viable political option was that people were yelling crazy things about him for so long that it shifted the popular baseline of opinion.
Yelling crazy things makes the yellers look crazy in the short term. But in the long term, if they keep it up, they shift the popular conception of the landscape. I really think that's what has happened in the past ten years or so. Sometimes mere indefatigability is enough to lend credibility to your position.
I don't know how this speaks to the situation at hand. But I suspect that getting animated in favor of impeachment would not hurt the democrats. Right now, actual politicians don't need to call for impeachment; people like al franken do. Then, after enough time passes, actual politicians can say: the public has been calling for impeachment, and therefore, we must have impeachment.
The way to beat the republicans is to get less reasonable and more crazy. Therefore:
Condi Rice drinks liquified, aborted fetuses.
You only say that because you don't like black people.
Bill Frist personally put Terri Schiavo in a coma, when she caught on to the deviant affair that he and Michael Schiavo were having.
You only say that because you don't like cat murderers.
Condi Rice isn't actually a black person, but rather hypnotizes all of us in order to give that impression.
Also, she is not a woman. And she's not really very tall.
"cat murderers" s/b "queers"
now we just have to repeat these things in different forms.
The streets are abuzz with rumors that Bill Frist put Terri Schiavo in a coma to uncover the deviant affair he was having with her husband. Is it true? Is it false? Well one thing is for certain. It can't be completely false, or else people wouldn't say it.
several drinkers of liquified fetuses write to say that condi rice does not represent all liquified fetus drinkers. But, sadly, she is the very face of liquified fetus drinking today.
This is why I say that I have come to hate the DC Dems. They wouldn't know a political advantage if one dropped its pants and gave them a lapdance. If you can't take a swing at the President now, of all times in the past 5 years, you need to get the hell out of the ring.
We are all lobsters. It's only because Condi Rice has hypnotized us that we are fooled into believing we're sentient human beings who exercise free will when we "elect" a president.
which leads us to our next story: president bush's cock ring. does he use it for e-stim? did he or did he not contract hepititis b during its installation?
I think that in the standard story, Republicans weren't helped by the impeachment. Also, it was a silly time - we had no major outstanding issues (like a war), and it was fun to speculate about which way the Clenis tilted. I suspect that Dems see a small chance for major pickups in '06, and don't want to blow the opportunity by taking actions that may cost them relative popularity.
every night Condi Rice has her way with all of us, and because we are hypnotized, none of us remember it in the morning.
that's right, Gore and the house and senate democrats totally rode the backlash to the impeachment to victory.
23 was in poor taste and not funny. I retire for a brief period of time.
Impeachment is the only thing that will pull Bush's polls out of their death spiral. I bet the guy breaks into the 20s the next year or so.
every night Condi Rice has her way with all of us, and because we are hypnotized, none of us remember it in the morning.
They call it "Tuning".
An interesting e-mail from a reader notes that he has heard discussions among highly placed sources about why Rick Santorum chose to name himself after such a disreputable substance.
Censure is not impeachment, though. And Clinton was a popular president whose "crimes" had nothing whatsoever to do wiuth the execution of his office.
There is no downside for the Democrats in voting for censure. None whatsoever. Just as there would have been no downside to filibustering Alito.
"There is no downside for the Democrats in voting for censure. None whatsoever. Just as there would have been no downside to filibustering Alito."
How do you know? This seems like a version of "the pundits fallacy" (Believing that the action you would like politicians to take would also be popular.)
I would very much like to believe that it's true, but the fact that so many people who's jobs depend on correctly judging the truth of this assessment do not believe it is true gives me pause.
I could also be convinced by the argument, "even if there is a downside, it's worth it on the merits." but that's different than arguing that there is no downside.
(or are you just arguing that there is no downside by definition because things cannot get any worse than they are at the moment?)
I'm pro-censure. But Feingold should have cleared it with Reid before mentioning it, and he should have found some others to sign on with him. Right now, it looks like grandstanding.
For me the most important question in judging the electorate is, "does the recent electoral success of the Republican party signify that the electorate supports / agrees with republican positions or is it a sign that the republicans have successfully concealed their positions and the consequences of their policies from the electorate."
I think there's evidence for both answers.
I have been trying to decide which way to answer this question for the last year and I still don't know and I think it's desparately important.
If the country is, in fact, becoming more conservative (contra Hacker & Pierson) then it is appropriate for Democrats to "tack right" and we should figure out the best/ least painful ways for them to do that. If the Republican success is built on lies and gaming the system then, of course, the Democrats need to start shouting from the rooftops that GWB has not delivered on his promises.
Obviously I prefer one of these scenarios to the other, but I'd really like to see evidence that it's true. This is why I was so excited to read Off Center but, ultimately, I found it unconvincing specifically because it ignored presidential politics.
The problem is that impeachment is a really big gun to pull out on a bluff. If we call for impeachment and it fails, we look silly and weak; if we DO manage to impeach him, there's no way we'll find 67 senators to convict him. So we end up giving Bush a free political victory.
There is such a thing as a political defeat you can score points from, like floating an anti-corruption bill that gets killed by Republicans (which you can then use to further make the case, come election-time, that Republicans are corrupt). But I don't think impeachment is it in this case. Most Americans are weirdly reverant towards the office of president and weirdly passive about throwing someone out of it; this president in particular has wildly desensitized the country to egregious abuses of executive power. I really think he'd have to be caught on tape molesting a fetus before we could get a popular consensus for tossing him out of office, which is what we really need to score points with an impeachment whether it succeeds or fails.
What happened to Ogged? I haven't really been here in at least a month or two and suddenly he's gone and there's umpteen zillion posters and they're all talking about him like he's their old dead aunt or something, which clearly can't be the case because your old dead aunt doesn't post to Kevin Drum's site. What gives?
Off topic, but this is an interesting post by Sandy Levinson about two old articles on the last Republican extra-Constitutional imbroglio, Iran Contra.
He left us -- there's some speculation, not strongly founded, that he developed a social life. (Snf.). And then Alameida recruited a bunch of commenters to post, mostly to have something to hang comment threads from in ogged's absence.
Drum inviting him to post at Washington Monthly was completely unconnected, as far as I know.
33: This is true. Censure only gets us anything if it looks like it's coming from a lot of people and if a lot of people vote for it. As it is, I'm guessing maybe thirty democrats, tops, vote for it. Without the organization and muscle of the minority leader's office backing it up, there's just a ton of chickenshits in the party who'll bolt at the nearest sign of controversy.
Oh. Now I feel all sad and stuff.
Don't worry, nobody blames you.
Much.
The Democrats have rode caution and conciliation right to powerlessness. There's no way a censure motion passes, because no Republican will vote for it. Everybody knows that going into the game (impeachment is even worth mentioning on Capitol Hill).
The Democrats can't engineer a legislative victory on anything. That's a given. But they can turn the conversation, and presenting a united front on censure, even in failure, will change the conversation. I agree that this would be better if Feingold hadn't gone off and surprised the "leadership," but on the other hand, the leadership, such as it is, is just about useless anyhow.
What damages Democrats further is appearing afraid of a lame-duck, sub-40% president who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. And yet they've managed to present that very image. The Democrats have no downside to the censure debate, because they are in a nothing-to-lose position. And yet, they keep grabbing their ankles for fear that Bill Frist may say something nasty about them. It's all about image and politics right now, and nobody seems to understand that.
The only, only, explanation I can even begin to understand is the one about not gettin your enemy's way when he's busy shooting himself in the foot. But they don't even seem willing to hand him a bullet.
impeachment isn't even worth mentioning, that is.
By the official "I" followed by two consonants rule, this thread is obliged to hit at least 600 comments.
I will read the comments now.
I really think that we need to push the line in 10-18, along the lines of this thankfully resurrected site.
Tom Coburn is actually not insane.
On the substantive point, I think we should be calling for investigations. (That is, that's what I think is right, I don't know about winning.) "These are very grave allegations, that Bush deliberately violated the law. They need to be investigated. AND THE STINKING REPUBLICANS AREN'T DOING THAT, BECAUSE THEY DANCE TO BUSH'S TUNE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY'D LIKE YOU TO THINK THEY DON'T. That's "34% approval" Bush whose tune they dance to."
Once the investigation reveals that Bush violated the law like he said he did, then you impeach him.
44: I looked, and you're correct as to the rule as stated, but I meant to say "I" followed by a doubleing of the same consonant.
A high proportion of Americans are ok with impeachment early on in a Presidency but after too much time has passed they'll only make exemptions for the health/life of the country. In any case, impeachment really boils down to "do you trust members of Congress to do the right thing?"
That's good, w/d, because eb just won.
The real reason impeachment doesn't make sense is how far down the line of succession you'd have to go before you hit somebody worth replacing Bush. Goes like this:
Dick Cheney
Denny Hastert
Ted Stevens
Condolleeza Rice
John Snow
Donald Rumsfeld
Alberto Gonzales, and so on.
I don't know much of anything about Snow, but I don't like any of the rest of that lineup much better than Bush
If impeachment were possible, Pelosi would be #3. And if we could get Bush we could get Cheney too.
If impeachment were possible, Pelosi would be #3. And if we could get Bush we could get Cheney too.
Impeaching a president doesn't remove them from office, you know - you need a two-thirds vote to convict in the senate for that. Even if we take back the senate this fall - which requires us to gain six seats - we'd still need to find sixteen Republican senators willing to vote to remove Bush from office. That's just not going to happen, period. So if we're talking about impeachment, we're talking about basically pulling a political stunt - it's just a question of whether or not it's a stunt that would benefit our side.
53: That just the kind of comment that drove ogged away.
w-lfs-n, is there some sort of program you can write that will determine whether I've ever written a single proper sentence on this site? In the interests of science, of course.
Can I be wingnut here? I feel mean picking on hilzoy and Katherine too often. Just read Digby on Brazile on Censure, and the possible seriousness of the situation struck me again.
Bush always has the "military option". If Senators get too for out in opposition to Bush, Bush can order a bombing of Iran in late summer, Moqtada Sadr manages to retaliate and kill 30-50 thousand American soldiers in Iraq, and trust me, Democrats are utterly and completely fucked.
Is this what I think of Bush? Killing two divisions to win a midterm? Duh, 2002. So try to cut the Senate just a little slack, Republicans and their controlled media are truly evil and hard to handle.
Bob, I really doubt that's the way a bombing of Iran would shake out. Certainly, there would be some immediate and bloody reaction from Iraqi Shi'ites, but Sadr seems to be playing a longer game these days than he was in 2003-4, and I doubt he identifies Iran's interests exactly with his own; he's been willing to accept their aid, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he'd be willing to fight for their honor, exactly. I would guess that Iranian reprisals would be later and more indirect than your scenarnio predicts. The obvious immediate response from the Iranians would target US economic interests: the strait of Hormuz is awfully narrow.
Of course, what I'm offering as an alternative scenario is worse for the Democrats. If there were a widespread association between a Bush-admin decision to bomb Iran and a subsequent Shi'ite uprising in Iraq that slaughtered thousands of US soldiers, then Bush might have a few questions to answer.
The country has already soured on this war. I don't think Bush wins any love for ramping up another, more difficult one. I suspect it would result in very, very bad things for GOP candidates.
58:I agree with your assessment of Moqtada, but will says that whatever passes for leadership in Iraq these days have mobs barely restrained.
59:apo, there remains a part of me that still believes Bill & Hillary and the rest know what they are doing, and overt confrontation on the war or national security is very politically dangerous. In fact I always assume Senators know more than I do. I simply don't ever remember a general election being lost by hawkishness, and I don't see anyone running one this year. I guess Finegold is doing an very fine deed.
Bill & Hillary and the rest know what they are doing
Since the Clintons came to national power in '92, the Democrats in the Senate have gone from being up 57-43 to being down 55-44 (45 if you count Jeffords). In the House, from up 258-176 to down 232-202 (203 with Sanders). If they know what they're doing, then their execution leaves something to be desired.
overt confrontation on the war or national security is very politically dangerous
Sure. But coming across as neutered ain't doing 'em any favors either. They need to make the case, forcefully and aggressively, that Bush has damaged national security, that he doesn't know what he's doing, and, moreover, that the Congressional GOP hasn't done their job to taking up the slack, allowing all the problems to snowball.
I simply don't ever remember a general election being lost by hawkishness
It has been a very long time since we were mired in an unpopular war with no obvious way out. My opinion is certainly open for criticism or debate, but from what I can tell, the Democrats' biggest problem is that they don't appear to have any fight or any principles for which they'd fight. They just look to be trying to figure out how to timidly hang on, me-tooing, 'til the next election.
It's killing them and it's driving me batty. Everything, everything gets shoehorned into national security, no matter how questionable the fit, with the upshot being that if the Democrats oppose any little thing (e.g., federal labor laws applying to desk jockeys in DHS) the GOP labels them soft on security. And then, not only does it silence them, they fucking apologize. It's a sucker's game they are playing and there ain't no winning it until they stand up and stop taking the abuse.
the GOP labels them soft on security.
I think the proper response is, "Your cock is soft on security." Because it's true. Republican cock is soft on security.
I don't want to think about Republican cock.
OK. Don't think about Republican cock.
Don't blame me, blame George Lakoff. And of course, Republican cock.
Wow, Republican Cock is surprisingly small. (NSFW)
Oddly enough, with SafeSearch off (the preferred liberal setting) I get 23 search results. With Strict Filtering (the preferred conservative setting) I get 131,000. So that's it, the secret to getting some Republican Cock.