Are we basing blame for lack of impeachment on an imperfect picture?

[jpgray]

It's absolutely true that assuming our leaders know more than we do and therefore our judgments may be off is incredibly dangerous (cf. a shamefaced 70+% of th US, around five years ago), but I think we have some evidence that this is the case with regard to why the Democrats haven't impeached.

To me the strongest evidence is the lack of rah rah support from Conyers, Bernie Sanders, Gore and other progressive folks, representatives or no. They all say the same thing--the votes aren't there, and failed impeachment carries risks. Some further clarify by saying there are too many skittish freshman reps (and freshman terms are notorious for "don't rock the boat" mentality.) Conyers in particular resonates for me because he's been involved in the successful takedown of an administration before. The process against Nixon was admittedly quite different than the process that is suggested here (investigation gutted and disarmed the admin and the party's solidarity in Nixon's case prior to a single impeachment hearing.) If there isn't time to go the Nixon route, should we impeach immediately? If we can't do the investigation properly, what are the chances we will succeed at impeachment? Or does it simply have to be tried as a matter of principle?

Also, if the votes truly aren't there, it is on some level a failure of leadership. Assuming the votes are immune to persuasion at this time, is it also a failure of courage on the part of the reticent but safely anonymous wallflower Democrats? Is it fair in that case that Pelosi, Conyers and other leadership figures shoulder almost -all- the blame here? Obviously the Republicans deserve the lion's share of blame for all that's happened, but that's not the debate here, since we agree on this. Who gets the blame? Can it be focused or is it diffuse? Do we lack a big enough majority, do we lack the unity, do we lack the leadership, or do we lack the will? Or is it a combination of most of these factors?

I guess I'm just tired of hearing "x is a traitor!" just for opposing impeachment. It could well be the case, but I'd like a more thorough examination of the issue before we wholly divide people into heroes and villains based on a single issue.

[Echo In Light]

1. Reading some Chomsky may provide you with some insight into the fairytales of American "democracy"

[jpgray]

5. I don't have many illusions, and I'm well familiar with the works of Chomsky

It's precisely the insidious corruption in Washington that is causing the skittishness among the freshman Democrats and very likely among the leadership, but Conyers? Sanders? Gore? Do you think so?

[Echo In Light]

15. It's no different than w/journalists: it doesn't matter what their personal view is, they have to...

Serve the interests of the system/their corporate pay masters, first and foremost as a means of ensuring their positions of power/influence/affluence. That's why there's no big establishment push for the astonishingly long overdue impeachment/war crimes; no one is going to compromise the overall system and disrupt the apple cart to that drastic of an extent, because it would open up everything, election fraud, 9/11, you name it. 'They' certainly don't want anymore light shed on those criminalities.

[fascisthunter]

2. Sorry You Feel the Need to Defend Their Cowardice

but folks are fed up with the excuses and inactions. This situation should rise above political machinations, however our congress has revealed to us all that they are more interested in politics than the country itself. For if they do not try to impeach this president, they will have conceded to criminality of the highest office in the land.

All the arguments so far against those who are using rhetoric like "traitor" means nothing at all to this country. What does mean something "concrete" is Congress's unwillingness andinaction to do what they were placed in office to do. Represent us all, protect the Constitution and hold criminals in our own government accountable, whether they be a President or a Tom Delay.

If they are not strong enough and feel the need to peddle weak excuses they better grow a tougher skin or get out of the way!

[flashl]

3. When will a mass of "the people" pour into streets demanding impeachment?

[onenote]

10. not any time soon, probably never.

IMO

[jpgray]

4. OK, you're Pelosi. You make the rounds, and you don't have the votes

What next?

[MonkeyFunk]

6. It makes no difference to many here

They don't care if it fails. They want some symbolic, cathartic attack on this administration, consequences be damned.

Luckily, we have more rational people making the decisions.

[fascisthunter]

12. "fail"? This Leadership Already FAILED

and you want them to look like enablers and cowards. How is that "better" than possibly failing hold a President or any other criminal accountable. You are more worried about IMAGE. Wow. And how do you know it will fail? You don't.

Dems right now look WEAK due to inaction.

No reasons for not going after Bush have more to do with fear of being dragged into something that might implicate others in the dem party and possibly themselves. I do not buy your theory.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Regardless of your opinion of the leadership

impeachment would clearly fail, and we would have gained nothing. Bush would benefit.

[flashl]

17. If there is the problem in Congress what do you think is happening in states?

ANY State legislature can initiated impeachment.

[fascisthunter]

7. I Push for it and Announce My Support for Impeachment

That's a start. This game is getting old. I have discussed this on other boards and it never ceases to amaze me as to how far folks will go to excuse their party's leadership. It's really bad form to lower the bar for leaders.

[jpgray]

9. Could you point out where I am excusing anyone?

[fascisthunter]

16. Sure You Are

You use the excuse that there maybe a lack of votes and that there may be some valid reason for not holding criminals accountable. There are no excuses for not holding or trying to hold criminals accountable. You allude to the idea that there maybe, I'm saying there never is.

The laws of the Land are never to be excused regardless. We cannot aford as a nation of laws to sweep this under a rug. This is the tipping point.

[jpgray]

21. I'm asking people if they think it warrants consideration, and I can understand why some don't

I'm not going to pretend "I'm right and you're wrong," as I'm not wholly sure what the causes and effects are myself.

[mmonk]

8. I'm tired of hearing there are valid reasons

[onenote]

11. because you don't think they're valid or because you do but don't want to hear them?

[mmonk]

19. Sorry, I was interrupted and didn't get to finish my post.

There are no valid reasons not to impeach from a citizen's standpoint.

[jpgray]

13. Well, that's why I asked if it's a matter of principle in the OP

I understand the position that risks and obstacles, even if perceived as severe, shouldn't matter. My question is, assuming you go ahead with impeachment, how do you convince those representatives not already convinced? How do you get the 218 votes?

[mmonk]

20. The weight of the evidence being exposed

to the people.

[warren pease]

18. Fixing the imperfect picture would require a complete overhaul of government as we know it...

I mean everything, starting with eliminating private money in campaigns; imposing severe regulatory restraints on lobbyists; forcing candidates and office-holders alike to accept frankly draconian limits on their behavior, their freedom to associate and their privacy (but since that's exactly what they've done to us, they can damn well experience it first-hand themselves); imposition of some kind of term limits for Congress; elimination of media monopolies and adoption of equal-time, equal-access provisions for ALL candidates of ALL parties; eliminating the two-party lock-down imposed by the FEC, media and the campaign bribery system... and that's just for starters.

Anyway, re your question and how impeachment can succeed in such a corrupt environment... I hate to keep repeating myself and restating the obvious, but voting for articles of impeachment is simply the equivalent of assistant district attorneys convening a grand jury in any other criminal case. It just begins the investigation and doesn't assume all facts are known or all crimes have been exposed It just opens the door to gather evidence and question witnesses, issue subpoenas and impose contempt penalties on those who refuse to comply with them and, of utmost importance when dealing with BushCo, eliminating the executive privilege dodge per the Supreme Court decision in the Nixon tapes case.

So passing articles of impeachment just jump-starts an investigation to determine whether a member of the administration has committed one or more impeachable offenses. With the present administration, even a deaf and blind warthog could find at least a dozen "high crimes and misdemeanors." A real investigation may well turn up many more. But if they don't impeach, they'll never find out the full extent of BushCo's crimes and neither will we.

A real investigation, which even the hideous US mass media would be forced to cover, could magically result in getting "the numbers" for conviction. As people learn how royally they've been screwed by these bastards, millions will call or send an email to the Representatives and Senators demanding conviction. It might turn out that House members and Senators who failed to vote for impeachment/conviction -- both republicans and democrats -- would find themselves fighting for their political lives next election cycle.

But all of the above is legally impossible without following a set of defined procedures that begins with affirming articles of impeachment, getting witnesses under oath, flipping off executive privilege, compelling testimony from hostile witnesses, issuing search warrants and subpoenas with actual teeth, and hounding the bastards every single day and night until the noose tightens enough to make escape impossible.

There are at least five really good reasons to impeach, even if the votes never materialize:

1 - There must be public recognition in the form of an official, itemized list of all their crimes against humanity, the Constitution and a civilized world. And they must be held accountable for these crimes using the full force of the US police state they themselves created.

2 - There must be precedent set through the impeachment of these thieves and traitors, lest future megalomaniacal fascists get the idea that they can get away with this crap, too.
And

3 - Fighting impeachment would keep them busy with legal matters when they would otherwise be spending their time as they usually do: figuring out new and ever-more damaging ways to screw up the country and the rest of the planet.

4 - Somebody has to put a stop to their murderous schemes before they can nuke Iran or shed any more blood in Iraq or Afghanistan.

5 - Impeachment may be the last means of domestic self-defense. It’s getting a bit urgent, and all the pieces -- the latest being HR 1955/SB 1959 -- are in place to install a pure fascist dictatorship.

But again, I have a general suspicion that, once BushCo's crimes are laid out for public examination, the people are going to be so pissed off at what's been done to them over the past seven years that more than enough votes to impeach and convict are going to be there in both the House and Senate.

And if not, and the whose process fails, so what? I doubt the public is going to hold democrats accountable for failing to coerce enough republicans to abandon the sinking BushCo ship. If anything, their approval rate is likely to rise, since people aren't criticizing the 110th congress for pursuing BushCo too aggressively, but for not pursuing them aggressively enough. And with Cheney at 9 percent approval and Congress at about 15 percent, where's the downside?


wp

[jpgray]

22. Public financing for campaigns and media ownership regulation are two essential responses

Without those, there is just too much inherent opportunity for corruption.

[warren pease]

23. And I forgot to mention...

...getting rid of electronic voting machines, optical scanners, punch card readers and any other technology that comes between a voter and a human vote counter. Instead, we need paper ballots that leave a paper trail, hand-counted at each precinct under the eyes of bipartisan observers (if there is such a thing anymore), ballots securely transported (armored cars escorted by local cops and the bipartisan observers?) to the county seat or state capitol for another tally.

That total must match the precinct count exactly. Any discrepancies automatically trigger a precinct-wide recount. And so on, with checks and cross-checks at every step, all the way to the state level -- and to the federal level for national offices.

That level of scrutiny would require hundreds, maybe thousands, of new election workers in each state and would definitely cost more per certified vote than we're paying now -- at least once the debt on those useless machines is paid off. But it's cheaper than losing what's left of our democracy, which is already on life support and could easily die if one more election cycle produces one more militarist, fascist "leader," like St. Rudy of the Multiple 9/11 Terror Orgasms.

It would probably piss off TV and radio since they'd have to work later and might not have a final official tally until a day or so after the vote. But to hell with them anyway; the consolidation and corporatization of US mass media is among the top five most destructive, anti-democratic developments in the past 50 years. So they can damn well go to the back of the line and wait for official, ACCURATE results like everybody else.

They can always fill the time with the stuff they're really good at: running fluff pieces like a story on Elizabeth Kucinich's height or tongue stud or red hair or their autumn/spring marriage (as I've actually seen it called) -- anything to save us from having to deal with actual issues on election night.

Have I mentioned our despicable mass media and their roll in ruining what's left of our democratic institutions? Did I mention their causal role in creating a country of politically illiterate narcotized sheep who vote for presidential candidates based on whether they'd be good drinking buddies? Stupid shits. They voted for good old uncle Georgie with the lampshade on his head and they got snarling old uncle Dick, a mean drunk if ever there was one and a vicious sociopath to boot.

Thanks, media, for framing the issues for us. Can we get back to unfiltered examination of the candidates and their positions and apply a little critical thinking now, or is it time for yet another six-minute word from our sponsors?


wp