Seriously. The biggest excuse for not impeaching these nutbags is that it will distract from anything getting done. Are they really getting anything done anyways? Bush/Cheney will just vetoe anything worthwhile, so why not just use this time wisely and make a statement. Let's get nothing done during impeachment proceedings, instead of getting nothing done while the idiots run willy nilly across the world, jacking everything up?

sounds good to me, but aside from Kucinich, Conyers and 2 or 3 others, they are all a bunch of deadbeat donothings...either that or they are in on it.

No, it isn't being done because it isn't possible at this point, why not just wave a wand and make Dubya smart,sane and ethical?

It takes a supermajority to start an impeachment, until something's on the table that a lot of Republicans will vote for it isn't even an option.

The rational, do-nothing response to your questions seems to be, that Democrats in congress do not want to upset the apple cart this close to election for fear of Bush support blowback, leading to certain defeat at the next general election. I'm not sure how many Bush supporters are out there at this point, nor what the volume of their blowback would be.

I am of the opinion, that action can come from below, AND from on high. Where there doesn't seem to be groundswell from the people of of this country for impeachment yet, often times in history, revolutions are headed by elites leading from the top. Sometimes those revolutions get messy, as the vanguard of the mob catches up to the leaders in their moves to toss aside the previous regime. The French Revolution comes to mind. However, our own American Revolution, also started by elites at the top, gained mass support of a reasonable kind, and the job was done.

Absent impeachment now, the Democratic leadership should at least be demanding investigations, demanding a special prosecutor be installed to look into what appears to be crimes, and in even small ways, bringing fire to the feet of this admin.

Are Kucinich and Waxman being derided for being the only ones leading the effort because they are alone and they have no real constituency? Or is it because where they might lead us may get messy? In any case, there are single individuals even now, who are trashing our constitution. If only single individuals oppose them, that's better than no opposition at all.

The reasons not to impeach is many-fold.

First, there has been little evidence developed that Bush himself has made decisions which are knowingly illegal. I know I will get chastised for this and I believe he has committed impeachable offenses. However, the evidence of this has yet to be developed and credibly presented. Thus, before we can impeach we need evidence and the hearings are still in process to gather that evidence.

Second, an impeachment proceeding will be a distraction and there is valuable work to in Congress still.

Third, impeachment would be seen as payback for the Clinton impeachment and not help the Democratic cause in 2008 for the presidency which is the big picture.

Fourth, impeachment would further diminish the public's view of Democratic leadership by poisoning the atmosphere in Washington, DC.

Fifth, the Senate would not vote to convict.

Finally, there is not enough time to do all the evidence gathering and conduct the hearings necessary to adopt articles of impeachment.

I believe this is why Al Gore spoke out against this...

Gee, I hadn't thought of that! Why don't we do that? Obviously people who would argue that this would be a stupid course to take are either in on it, defenders of evil, or at the very least are just too moderate, in favor of incremental change only, without the guts to ever do something big!



Seriously I think this a compelling point. But I am sure that all sorts of hot button arguments can be cited to refute it, whether they are relevant or not.

Taz, I disagree with you. I think the Dems could do good, positive things in Congress and impeach the Bush/Cheney gang. Now they could do it stupidly, and they have a great model of that not to emulate, how the Republicans impeached Clinton. But if they do it right, by investigating and revealing blockbuster stuff that would outrage the vast majority of the public, making them clamor for impeachment, then I would say go for it. Now I don't know if they can find out enough stuff in short enough time, but I suspect that they could, or at least that there is a fair chance for that. For now I would go with aggressive oversight and see where that leads us. And I would like to hear Sibel Edmonds' name in places outside of the Internet.

It only takes one House Member to start an Impeachment process. I think it takes 60 Senators to convict

Yeah, why not?

Go ahead and convince the whole country Washington DC is inhabited by lunatics.

The main thing is to end the Bush Cheney Legacy in America as soon as is practical. Practical means doable. We cannot afford to do anything that will allow this Legacy to be repeated or extended. There will always be the Bushes, and the Cheneys, and the Limbaughs and the Hannitys in America, but the Ship of State must be wrested from their hands and America must be freed from their shouting repeated lying gone unchallenged. They cannot win real debates of ideas. They can only win when there is silence from the rest of us. They have bought the Media so a real debate is unlikely. Forebearance is the only real weapon we have at this point. Impeaching them should be the culmination of a sea change that most of America supports. The cabose if you will of a train that signals a change in America's thinking.


This is our country and it should be led by those who honor and respect a free and brave people. Waving the flag while robbing us blind and lying us into wars for oil is not respect. Fearmongering should be added to impeachable offenses in America, but short of that repudiating the Bush/Cheney Legacy will have to do. We must win in 08.

How many to wave a magic wand?

Seriously, why start something like this until we have a good chance of making it succeed? Congress can do aggressive oversight no matter what is the ultimate decision on impeachment.

You mean they don't think that already?

Is there anyone here who doubts that impeachable evidence can be produced?

My thinking is this. Is it worth it to keep these people in power considering how hard up they are to bomb Iran? I can't help but wonder what a threat Iran would really be if we had different leadership in the White House. I can't help but wonder just how urgent things would be if Bush were gone. If we can impeach them and avoid another war, wouldn't it be worth it?

If we keep them in power and they start bombing Iran back to the middle ages, then we will never know the truth. It could be a catalyst that would throw the entire middle east into chaos. If we can avoid that, I would like to see it happen. At this point, the only way to avoid another disaster is to remove these people from office as quickly as humanly possible.

Well, only those of us who have actually been there and drove in y'alls traffic Arne. The rest of the country doesn't know they let all the inmates of the asylums in Virginia loose to work out their issues on the Center Leg Freeway every morning.

In short, what I am saying is this. Congress is not impeaching Bush because they believe that their constitutional powers can at least limit the damage he can do. I'm not so certain they can.

Along with recent legislation, Bush has recently signed executive orders that give him near totalitarian powers in the event of an emergency. So, if Bush hits another "trifecta" and gets a third Pearl Harbor, we're all screwed.

Who knows though. Maybe he just signed that legislation and issued those EO's because he's just a caring person who wants to make sure his country is taken care of in the event of another 9/11 style attack.

Other reasons for not impeaching him, at least not impeaching him yet, have been offered. Tomyhe provided the basic one. And why aren't any Republicans on board yet? Because no where near enough of the public is on board.

Ignoring this does not mean it doesn't matter.

A majority did not want Nixon impeached until the proceedings began, same thing with Carter.

We already have had some proceedings. They will serve the purpose even if they are not called "impeachment".

The House Judiciary Committee did not officially consider impeaching Nixon until the Fall of 1973, when the Administration was well embroiled in scandal. But they did have the Ervin Committee (a select committee not set up specifically for impeachment) hearings in the Spring, airing all sorts of information.

I think that you mean the impeachment of Clinton, and I have no desire to copy the Republicans when they make stupid mistakes.

Given the emergence of a rogue presidency, where is the nations greastest structural weakness,
in the executive branch, or in the Congress which allowed it to hapen?

In my opinion, the greatest weakness is in congress. They have ceded many of their powers over the past few decades to the Executive Branch or to other agencies.

Thanks Silver, I agree.

Is it all that simple? Certainly Congress has not done its job. The Republicans are the main culprits in that deficiency, but many Democrats are only so so at best, with their petty concerns outweighing big issues concerning the state of our Republic. (Fortunately there are some lions in Congress, with bite as well as bark, who could lead where others follow, and turn the tide.) But in a democracy you cannot focus on the branches of government and leave out society.

Nothing is ever that simple, especially when it comes to politics. If you will notice, a lot of the Democrats with bite have very little power, take Murtha for example. He certainly can pull strings and influence decisions, but the Democratic leadership was loathe to give him any real power after the '06 elections. At least they didn't give him any power where his passions were, namely the Iraq war.

A lot of the softhitters and profiteers are currently in positions of power right now. Last I checked Pelosi has taken in a whopping 600k in special interest contributions. The other Democratic leaders have racked up some hefty corporate donations as well. If we can replace people like that with someone who really cares about the state of the nation then we could see a strengthening of our congress.

I don't disagree but relativly speaking, do you have an oppinion as to which place would be best
to focus a problem identification/solution effort at this time?

True and I think very well said.

You acknowledge it isn't that simple, then keep focusing on Congress, neglecting what is happening in the society! I don't say ignore Congress, but we need to discuss Congress and what is going on beyond the Beltway.

People like Waxman, Conyers and Leahy have bite. We can always decry the mediocre and compromised nature of people like Pelosi, but they and corporate donations are going anywhere very fast. I just don't see a major change in the official Congressional leadership as being in the cards any time soon. Better to promote the best ones. If they are successful, others will follow, including their official superiors, such as Pelosi and Reid.

And we need to attend to the wider society. If the public is not dramatically moved on this, then we can forget it.

You need to move public opinion dramatically on this. Not enough people want impeachment for it to be viable right now. Once the public is moved Congress will fall into place, as it did in 1974. And one of the best ways, probably the best way, to do that is for Congressional investigations to yield up some stunning revelations.

I agree with this. It's really very naive to move too quickly.

It would be so much easier for huge swaths of the American people to get behind impeachment if they can see proof that at least has a chance of conviction. No one likes to be on the losing side, and no Republican (and some Dems) will join unless they think they're going to be seen as winning. It's just not written onto their yellow streaks that run down their backs, which contain their rule books.

Well, rla asked me what I thought the bigger problem was between congress and the executive. So I answered that I thought congress was the bigger problem. I'm not saying there aren't other problems, I was just answering his question.

Yes, I do agree that Conyers and Leahy have bite. But I still stand by the assertion that most of the Democrats in positions of power are soft hitters or just plain profiteers.

Fair enough. I was adding what I thought an important dimension that I thought his question neglected.



I really wouldn't do more than quibble with that. My key point is that even so, if the lions are successful then the jackals will follow (to use a metaphor developed by PP). So we need to promote and support those lions.

The present House Leadership is strong enough and sufficiently focused on the interest of the
Nation-as-a-whole to adaptively follow a strong Leadership in the Senate on Foreign Policy matters--as the Constitution requires. As I see it, the Country's problem now, and by extention, the Democratic Party's problem, at this time, is located in the Senate Leadership.

Should the focus be on what the problem is or what the job should be? You have to look at problems to figure out what job to do. I think we agree a lot on what the goal should be. The question is how we get from here to there.

What if you were right that the main problem is in the Senate leadership. I kind of doubt that, but let us say it is so. Certainly the Senate leaders as a whole are not the kinds of people who are likely to go down in history as the most impressive statesmen of the 21st Century. So what? What do we do about it? Do we try to change the Senate leadership and make it significantly better? Or do we try to move the public, which will move the Senate, even the most mediocre of their members? Which attempt is more likely to be successful?

I think I understand the concern being express by several, that the intervention for a common goal avoid tactics that interfer with common goal achievement. It is my contention that an orderly
impeachment inquiry into, and the public presentation of potential evidence for, impeaching Chenny (at full speed, debth and bredth), would provide an equally powerfully Entity as the major
Congressional Committee Investigations and all would have a strong multiplyer effect on the
common goal of replacing or containing the current admintration. Most of us have enough
experience with committees to know how slow that is. If public prosecutors wait untill they
are absolutely possitive they can win the case, nothing much would get started.

I'm not sure that I understand you.

Concerning committees, well the only way this is going to get done is through committees. If you check into the history of Watergate you will see that two committees were critical in the process that resulted in Nixon being forced to resign. But if you think that committees are going to be too slow, we might as well just give up on the whole thing now.

No one is arguing that nothing should be done until we know that there is a rock-solid case. What some are arguing is that we need the investigations, hearings and revelations that will move the public sufficiently so that there will the necessary political conditions for a viable impeachment attempt. Those investigations, hearings and revelations involve "doing something." There are those in Congress who have already "gotten started" on a process most likely to lead to impeachment.

I generally agree with the attempt to move the public first. It is the most important thing in my mind that the low precidents set by this Administration be known and scorned by the vast majority of Americans. If for no other reason than that we as a nation recognize mendacity and corruption at this level across all political lines and never "go there" again. I know there will be some who will continue to "praise" this governing style to their dying day, and see the wholesale repudiation by their fellow Americans as a"Liberal Plot" against a "good and strong leader". But hopefully they will be marginalized to radical fringe groups who call up the Limbaughs and rant and not much else.

However, the problem I see in moving the people is that the Media is complicit at least at the top and has been so for quite a while or we never would have gotten here to such a crisis. 911 was used in a masterfully sinister way to cow those in the media who had better sense than to go along with what was clearly politicization of the tragedy. The yellow streaks are not only in the House and Senate and we have to remember the Congressional Dems have had little or no power or even say since 94. The co-opted Media enabled the witch hunt for the Clintons and they enabled the lying advent of Bush even before he was"selected". Are they now an obstacle to holding this tyrant they helped create to account?

The media probably is at least somewhat of a serious obstacle. What does that mean? It means that we have an obstacle that must be dealt with, but that cannot be wished or even shamed away. I think that there is still hope.

Given a system as large and complex as ours, there are always many, many jobs with very,
very, very, very high priority, so the best one could do at this distance is...One of the most important jobs is for the Senate to transform herself from a sh** house to the people's house.
This will require a change in leadership. This could be accomplished by the Democratic Caucus,
with the support of Dean and the Democratic Party Organization. We need this change because we are not presently equipped to face the opposition. Just as the People have a right to tell Congress to restore its Constitutional Functions and clean up its own house, before we hire a new set of Administrators, the same rights and obligations apply to political parties (and I'm a pretty
solid democrat). If we don't do that, then we may find out, down the road a bit, that it is just more of the same.

I think that this is an argument that the only way that there can be significant, positive change is by expecting that the politicians fulfill an obligation to make fundamental changes, an obligation that they don't seem to recognize, even in the midst of a lot of noise concerning this obligation. If they don't make these changes, then there is no hope.

Conclusion?

There is no hope.

Now we could consider that what goes on in the larger society as being important as well. If we consider that wacky notion (that people seem to want to ignore) then I think that there is hope. For change in the larger society to occur, we need principled and savvy leaders among both politicians and grass roots citizens movements to do their bits and do them well, and receive support from the rest of us.

The best way to have more of the same is for the primary focus to be on personalities at the top. The best way to avoid it is to think in more strategic terms, with a more bottoms up approach.

Read the last statement in my signature line.

I think the main difference in our views is your conception is consistent with the cultural Default
model for organizing the data which is a linear model and I'm trying to present an alternative multivariate Analysis of Variance model. The interaction of two variables are often more predictive than the prediction of two separate variables, added together (and all of this from someone who almost failed his first statistics class in graduate school). In other words the two strategies are complimentary within even a modestly integrated (mutually supportive) group.
Your suggesting that the committee slowness causes me to think, "we might as well give up,"
seems to me to contradict my proposing a modifier effect to speed up and strengthen the
committees'effects.

No, I just didn't understand you.

Okay, so is your point that public agitation could move the committees to work fast enough? I can actually see that, even without doing a multivariate analysis of variance. (I just don't have the numbers for that.) If you read what I said in the other thread in response to Geewood you would have already seen that I go along with that. Sure, light a fire up the behinds of Congress, especially the behinds of the higher level people. But besides indulging in the joy of Congress-bashing we also need to recognize the strategy that is most likely to work, and support those pursuing that strategy, and push other actors, Congressional leaders, activists, whoever we might think should be an ally, to support those people.

"If they don't make these changes, then there is no hope." Please don't attribute that attitude
to me. My position is if they don't make these changes, then we will elect persons who will, and
in the mean time will do all we can to embarrass them to restrain their power. I was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to talk about these matters without calling names when that is the objective.

I agree as long as the person or persons are leading in the right direction and not the wrong direction. A very large percentage of citizens say the Country in headed in the wrong direction.
Encremental change doesn't help much when your going in the wrong direction, it just doesn
hurt as much as revolutionary change in the wrong direction.
The implication that those who are not right with you may be engaging in congress bashing is
an unnecessary attribution of motivation, in my opinion. The fact remains that Congress is getting an even lower job satisfaction score than GWB. The real question is will the democrats play
it safe and let the current Administration run out the clock, and leave the well being of US
Citizens set on Default, or will they represent the persons they are Constitutionally mandated
to represent?

Who is "we" though? What if someone like Reid does fine by the folks back home as well as the members of the club on the Hill?

Move the public. Move the public. This stuff about who has the clout on the Hill isn't all that important beyond a block or two beyond the Capitol Building. I should know, I am much closer to them than I would guess everyone else here (geographically that is).

Granted your geographical closeness, Arne but that doesn't automatically enhance the
weight of your testimony. It depends upon who you spend time with. The interaction of entities
(space X time) are more significant than the essence of the entities. It is not important to
unelect Reid. It is important to replace him for the Leadership position. I think it could
effect the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections. I'm much more certain that it will negatively affect the Democrats ability to governen if they get in office.

"We" is all of the huminoids presently in the USA but more particularly, I'm speaking of
voting age adults in the USA.

Well my wife works with the daughter of Senator Webb. Does that count?

You are taking my flip comment concerning my geographical closeness to the Capitol way too seriously. The point is, just who runs Congress is of course of immense importance to those people just a few blocks away from me. Since this is an important institution, it is of some real importance to the rest of us. But not so immense. If you walked up to 20 people on the street and asked them who Harry Reid was I would imagine that five or so, but not as many as ten, would know who he was.

Perhaps someone could do better, but given the Senate as it is you are not likely to get someone dramatically different. You would need a different Senate for that. And with a significantly different Senate whoever was the Majority Leader would be a much less important fact anyway.

Then why aren't "we" just as likely to vote for someone who would take us well to the Right? (As "we" actually did 27 years ago.)

Move the public. Move the public. The progressives are not the same as the public, they are a slice of the public. They need to work on convincing more of the rest of the public.

I don't disagree.

In my opinion, Reid's hands are too dirty on the domestic policy side for him to lead an effective reform in foreign policy, even if he knew anything about foreign polioy or had an interest in it,
which he doesn't.

Well if you agree with me on this, many other things follow. No, I am not going to provide a list. Mainly what I have in mind is approach and strategy.