Time to impeach

In the past, I have been a tepid opponent of impeachment for a number of different reasons. However, after listening to Ron Suskind's interview on Fresh Air- I think there is compelling evidence that the president committed some egregious acts in getting us into war with Iraq and keeping us there. I am not sure if Suskind's case is iron clad, but there is certainly enough there to at least start impeachment hearings.

Something everyone can agree on

I watched some of the lowlights from the Gonzales hearing today, and I all I can say is that impeachment proceedings should start on him immediately. If the President won't get rid of him, we will get rid of him ourselves. I think this comment from the Washington Post blog sums it up perfectly (from Atrios):

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill-- especially his miserable exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning-- can any longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and credibility. And no one who hears him say that he is what's best for the Department right now should forget that on the eve of his testimony (and a few days after he urged his subordinates to work diligently to regain their morale) the nation's top law enforcement official reportedly left work early to go for a bike ride Monday afternoon-- at about 3:50 p.m.

Anger and the Democrats

I was going to reply to Disco in the comment thread of my last entry, but I thought it would be better to leave it as a post. As he notes:

The numbers are low because of Congress's inaction on 1] failure to substantially move towards redeployment in Iraq, 2] failure to move towards Impeachment, or 3] both issues.

I think 3 is probably right. However, I do worry that Democrats are somewhat misdirecting their anger. In the Senate we are operating with the thinnest majority possible. As of now, we have 50 Senators to their 49 (with Johnson of South Dakota still recuperating). However, on some issues we are actually in the minority as Lieberman sides with the Republicans on a lot of foreign policy issues. We also need to remember that the Senate provides the minority party with a lot of rights, hence the recent dust-up over the usage of the filibuster by Senate Republicans.

Even if we do pass something, we then must contend with the veto. President Bush has made it quite clear that he will veto just about anything now that the Democrats are in charge and with the current Republican Cult, overriding a presidential veto is damn near impossible.

I worry that over the next 16 months, many Democrats will forget that we are in a tough position on so many important issues. And as a consequence, will stop supporting good Democratic candidates. As I wrote about a few days ago, there already seems to be a disturbing trend where liberals are throwing up their hands in disgust over the fact that things haven't changed immediately. We need to stop doing that. Otherwise, I fear that we will end up losing big in 2008, and go through another 8 years of destructive Republican rule.

All Impeachment All the Time

Here is the link to the video Disco posted about yesterday.

I recommend viewing it, as it is perhaps the most well reasoned presentation I have yet to see regarding impeachment. I won't say that I am entirely convinced that we should head down this road right now, but it certainly softened my stance against this course of action.

What I will say about it, and I think most sane people would agree, is that this is a conversation that needs to move beyond PBS and onto CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. The American people are certainly open to having a broad conversation about impeachment and it is time for the major news networks to have it.

My concern with the broader debate (and it was actually brought up in the Moyer's video) is that the frame of the debate will be on punishing the President rather then on upholding the Constitution. There is ample evidence out there to show that the major news networks and pundit class will make this a very silly affair. We will have shouting heads rail about how this is payback for Clinton, or how it is sour grapes over 2000 and 2004, when it is really very simple. It is about protecting this country's most sacred principles.

Mandatory Viewing

Just finished watching Bill Moyers Journal [PBS],which was Tough Talk on Impeachment. Moyers brought together progressive John Nichols [editor of The Nation] and Constitutional law expert and Reagan official Bruce Fein. Highlights included:

1. There is ample evidence already provided that would be grounds to open impeachment hearings on both Bush and Cheney
2. Both the enemic Congress and the lax press bear responsibility for not moving swiftly to overdue impeachment hearings
3. The very Constitution hangs in the balance
4. Not holding Bush/Cheney to account would allow the next president, whether Democratic or Republican, unprecedented power to trample the civil rights of all Americans.
   
5. Pelosi squandered her Constitutional duty by taking Impeachment "off the table"
6. Impeachment is bigger than partisan battles, and calls for true statesmanship, not political calculations.
   

I'll post the video as soon as it becomes available.

Flurry of Impeachment Posts continued

Bill Moyers' Journal on Impeachment

Bill Moyers' Journal on Impeachment

via AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! on Jul 12, 2007

On PBS everywhere Friday evening July 13

Topic: Impeaching Cheney and Bush

Guests: Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan; John Nichols, author of "The Genius of Impeachment"

Check for local broadcast times.

Podcast this show here.

Beating a barely breathing horse

Rasmussen has a new poll out on impeachment and the numbers are not as strong as the ARG poll. Thirty-nine percent of those polled supported impeachment, while 49% were opposed. The numbers supporting impeachment are up 7% since December of 2005. Considering that Rasmussen is a polling outfit that tends to skew conservative, I think the actual number supporting impeachment is a few points higher than that (maybe 42-43%).

These numbers are important and they allow me the opportunity to clarify why I think having a super-majority of the people behind impeachment is essential. I am not suggesting that we need this type of broad support as some sort of political calculus (i.e. a Clintonesque sampling of the political landscape before assuming a policy position). Rather, impeachment is a revolutionary act. As such, it requires the consent and support of folks across the political spectrum. If this is only the will of a vocal minority, I don't see how it becomes any different from those behind Clinton's impeachment or the tyranny of the religious right. We, as a nation, need to say with one voice- this President needs to leave, now.

I would certainly encourage those that support impeachment to voice their concerns to their fellow citizens. I do think there needs to be a robust public debate about this president's legacy. I would also like to see some more congressional investigations into possible wrong-doing, both now and in the future.

However, I don't want this to become a distraction for our side. Our primary focus must be on why we are better able to lead this country than conservatives. We have better ideas than they do, and we need to make that case every day. We need to challenge conservatives on their opposition to increases in the minimum wage, the war in Iraq, health care, foreign engagement, trade and human/civil rights. We need to fight for these principles so that, in the end, we improve the lives of millions.

Impeachment Tide

From CBS News, and their partner Political Animal, comes coverage of a poll on impeachment, conducted by the "American Research Group, a non-partisan outfit":

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	45%	46%	9%
Voters	46%	44%	10%
Democrats (38%)	69%	22%	9%
Republicans (29%)	13%	86%	1%
Independents (33%)	50%	30%	20%
3/15/06	42%	49%	9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	54%	40%	6%
Voters	50%	44%	6%
Democrats (38%)	76%	24%	-
Republicans (29%)	17%	83%	-
Independents (33%)	51%	29%	20%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Yet, it appears that pollsters are shy about even bringing up the topic:

Independent national pollsters rarely ever ask Americans for their opinions about impeachment. In fact, when Washington Post polling director Richard Morin started receiving questions about it from readers, he got a little snippy about it, and refused to take the questions seriously.

It's hardly a mystery -- the notion of impeaching Bush and/or Cheney is still considered a "fringe" concept that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand. And yet, for a radical idea, a surprising number of Americans seem to think impeachment is a good idea. .....t's hard to compare these numbers against other recent polls -- news outlets are generally afraid of the "I" question -- but once an idea is embraced by nearly half the country, I think it's probably safe to stop calling it "fringe."

I don't get it

Whenever I go to Daily Kos, I can't help but notice the posted diaries on impeachment. It seems like everyday there are 8 to 10 diaries suggesting we impeach the President and Vice President as soon as possible. Upon reading these diaries, and others blog posts in support of impeachment, I have had a consistently mixed reaction. I believe Digby explains it best:

Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach.

She points out three reasons why impeachment is a long shot:

1. There isn't an identifiable 'crime' to impeach him on- some might say the actions that led to war would constitute grounds for impeachment, but we need a specific, easily provable instance of wrongdoing here. I don't see one. The acts related to the attorney scandal may constitute grounds, but that leads us to 2.

2. Time is not on our side- the legal battles related to the attorney scandal would take an extremely long time to settle. By that time Bush would already be out of office.

3. This is the most compelling reason against impeachment- so I will quote in full:

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn't the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won't do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let's not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together.

But even so, that's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. It could be useful, if only to tie the administration up in knots until they leave the scene. But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway. That means many of them will likely be susceptible to the inevitable GOP screeching that the petty Democrats are playing politics, going for payback, wasting time etc. And the media will be thrilled to help the Republicans make that case.

I would also add that before a move like this is made, we need broad public support for it. As of now, less than half of all Americans support impeaching the president. If we get to a point were a full 65% of the American public supported impeachment, then there would be a compelling enough reason to follow through on it. Until that time, however, I would suggest focusing on getting a Democrat into the White House in 2008.