Is Impeachment better than letting Bush flail for 3 more years?

[bonzotex]

Clinton left the Presidency with our country strong diplomatically, economically and militarily. That's all a President can really do and history will remember that; especially when compared to the Bush regime. His sexual indiscretions energized the fundie right wing and upset a lot of moderates. That is enough to explain a lot of election losses, but not all.

There was nothing inevitable about the Neocon's rise to power or anything surprising about their policies and priorities once they got there. Sane heads predicted the worst from this administration and those voices were largely ignored. They were still ignored by the Party at large as the Bush admin and the republican controlled legislature exceed in spades our worst predictions. The elected Democrats could have stopped them then. Why didn't they? Why couldn't they? Why do we think the elected Democrats, our leaders, are ready to do it now? We have some strong Democratic voices out there, but we also still have a lot of the Republican enablers left in office.

Here's where the real failures begin. Anyone on the left who looked hard at Bush knew he was a disaster waiting to happen. Even some Conservatives could see it but were willing to give him a hand wave in order to get some of their cherished regressive legislative agenda passed. Your average voter is not that clued in, however. They look at the headlines and what the big leaders of the parties do and say. Leaders in the Democratic Party were afraid to fight him. They were afraid to stand up for Gore when he was being endlessly and ridiculously smeared. They were afraid to stand up and fight for a legitimate recount. Five years later we still don't have any assurance that votes will be counted accurately. Fast forward to 2004, same story.

Except in the intervening 4 years we had two wars and possibly the most corrupt and inept government in the Nation's history. Millions of Americans took to the streets to protest the War in Iraq. Surpluses turned to huge deficits. The economy staggered and stagnated. The income gap widened. More jobs disappeared. Health care became ever more un-affordable for most Americans. Poverty increased. Civil liberties were curtailed. Thousands of people were dead that didn't have to die. The Democrats felt an inevitability that they would at least win the Presidency back.

Democrats, independents, liberals and moderates across the spectrum were energized and mobilized to defeat Bush. More people voted than ever before. More money was raised than ever before and the Democrats had some serious help from 527s and many normally non-partisan groups. Yet Bush survived and the Republicans increased their majority. These guys are not stupid, no matter how they look right now. They still have a lot of power, control of the mass media and lots of money. Their downfall is not inevitable in the same sense that their rise was not inevitable. Someone has to make it happen.

Democrats were afraid to buck the perceived conservative tend in America. They were afraid to question Bush's decisions or fight for progressive values before 9/11. After 9/11 they couldn't rubber-stamp approve Bush's craziness fast enough. Congress abrogated its Constitutional duty to decide when to declare war ...or not. The litany list of Democratic failures to fight is long and disgusting. Republicans legislators certainly were even more craven. A lot more politicians than just Bush and Cheney need to be held accountable.

Do you believe now it's inevitable that Bush will be impeached? His impeachment is the best possible outcome as well? Are you sure that the tide has irreversibly turned? Will impeachment rebuild a reinvigorated, progressive Democratic Party? I'll posit that Progressives always win in the end. The fall of the Conservatives is inevitable but the real question is when and how?

There is a sickness in this country that cuts across both parties and impeaching Bush won't cure it. Impeachment may be part of the solution. Certainly he deserves it. I wouldn't count on it, nor do I think it will necessarily be the best move. Nor am I convinced the Democratic Party as it now stands could pull it off. They could do as much damage to themselves as they do to the Republicans. We need to focus our energy in other ways. We need free fair and verifiable elections for one thing. Most importantly we need to finish the destruction of the whole conservative ideology. Will impeachment speed that process or hinder it?

People don't yet really associate Bush and the neocons with the broader Republican party and conservative thought in general. There is a perception that if we could just get rid of those crazies, everything would be OK. It won't, because the Bush administration is just a potent distillation of the whole American conservative movement.

The conservative "movement" must be defeated in detail and across the board. Taking back the House and Senate are the first necessary concrete steps. This is true if you want impeachment or just better government. It's possible in 2006, but not inevitable. I'm thinking that any talk about impeachment is moot until after Nov 2006. Anybody that thinks the Republicans will assist in an impeachment before then is smoking crack.

In 2006 we need to elect Democrats that have a true progressive agenda and are willing to fight for it. We need to finish building a true Progressive movement that will counter the Conservatives on every single issue. We need to aggressively force investigations and prosecutions of crooked politicians. This will take down a lot more Repugs than Dems and properly stain them for years as the Party of Corruption.

When we take away the power of the purse from the Republicans, suddenly the President can learn just how limited his powers are. Bush will look even more ridiculous as he flails and screams and hugs his christofascist base even closer. That is not a bad outcome. It would speed the demise of Conservatives across America. The majority of Americans are not on board with the far-right agenda, but Democrats still need to prove themselves as a distinct and obviously better choice.

With Democratic majorities in the House and/or Senate many of the worst and most painful Republican policies can be reversed. Any Repug replacement in the White House will end up getting some of the credit and will still have the bully pulpit of the Presidency as well as the ability to hamstring legislation with a veto. Bush will be easier to override than almost anyone else in the chain of succession. Spare me the speculation on Cheney or Frist moving in. A Bush impeachment would take both those knuckleheads out. The republicans would see it coming and the adults still left in the Republican party will shuffle the deck before Shrub is kicked out.

Many Republicans would love to be rid of Bush and pals. They have become poster children for everything despicable about the Republican Party. Take away his power to spend money. Reverse his disastrous executive order driven governance with real laws. He becomes an albatross around the Republican necks that they can't yank off and can't ignore.

A successful impeachment would actually benefit the Republicans because they can install new, more moderate sounding voices in the Presidency and the appointed offices that come with it. It would be the same shit coming out of a new set of assholes; yet the urgency to "clean house" will have lost it's edge in many voter's minds. There's no guarantee we will take back the Presidency in 2008, but it's easier if Shrub is still there rather than some new, less-reviled figure.

Bush left powerless and raving, still in office, however embarrassing, will only help us in 2006 and 2008. Three years of a wounded and powerless Bush sounds better to me than 7 or 11 more years of a Republican White House and that's just what we might get if Bush is impeached.

Impeaching Shrub won't necessarily get us out of Iraq any faster either. Listen to what our fearless leaders on the Democratic side are saying. There is no groundswell of support for any immediate withdrawal. No republican successor is going to shut off the corporate gravy train that is the Iraq war. Only Congress can do it by shutting down future funding and demanding a phased withdrawal. If we started today it would probably take about 3 years anyway to have any hope of leaving Iraq in any semblance of order. Even Bush will be forced to go along or face utter annihilation of his party in 2008.

Am I being cynical? Hell yes. Am I a defeatist because I'm not sure impeachment is the best move? Fuck no! Do I sound like Rummy when I ask and answer my own questions? Possibly!

What does DU think?

[emdee]

1. If he left today....

it would take a decade or more to undo his messes. In three more years, he could cause a decade more of messes to undo. He's gotta go - now, today. And, so do the RW Talking Heads and pundits and liars. Today.

emdee :nuke:

[serryjw]

4. ...So after $70 million, we will get Chaney

what the hell is the difference?

[emdee]

33. Don't give me a heart attack!

No, they've all gotta go! (I know 'pie-in-the-sky' thinking).

Can the whole lot of them be thrown out on their rears? They need to be.


:nuke:

[serryjw]

35. Chaney is going to step down after 2006

God knows whom will replace him. Fitzgerald is our only hope.

[emdee]

37. I try never to say "it can't get worse"

because usually I'm shown that it can. *But* isn't Cheney just about the worst we could have in such a high position?

Bush is so loyal to his "friends" - his choice could be anyone. Rove? ARG what a thought!

emdee

[serryjw]

38. My guess when Chaney steps down after 2006

it will be the 'chosen one ' nominee to the GOP party for 2008..watch out

[emdee]

39. Not Frist??? Please not Frist????

As a Tennessean, I'm proud he's not running again in 06 - he's a menace! But VP? He's not capable - just like the rest.
emdee

[serryjw]

44. George Allen has my vote

n/t

[bonzotex]

6. I agree, but how do we get rid of them all with impeachment? n/t

[emdee]

34. I don't know....

but after digging through this 'wonderful' Prescription Drug Plan that was the brainstorm of * -- all I know is that he's gotta go. It's so crazy that I think he actually came up with it himself, the idiot.
emdee

[7P Dude]

2. What's the point?

As bad as Bush is, do you really want Cheney to take his place?

[bonzotex]

5. Cheney wouldn't take his place

Cheney will either resign or be forced to resign before any Bush impeachment gets serious. Unca Dick is at the heart of the Fitzgerald investigation and he'll go down before Bush. He may go down even without a Bush impeachment.

[7P Dude]

9. Then who?

Your scenario sounds a bit more like a dream than reality. Do you really think Rove wouldn't have somebody in place?

Even if your scenario worked out, I assume that would mean Rice would be running as an incumbent in 2008.

[bonzotex]

14. exactly, which a good argument against impeachment.

This administration is in serious trouble. Impeachment gives the republicans the chance to shuffle the order of succession to get a stronger slate in place. Cheney is in more actual legal jeopardy than Bush right now. I think he more likely to have to resign than Bush is to get impeached but in any case Cheney would go first.

Frist is a sock puppet and suffering his own legal problems. If Cheney goes then Bush appoints whoever, maybe Rice, then suddenly 2008 becomes a lot harder win. That argues against impeachment. But as another poster says, wrong is wrong and impeachment is the Constitutional solution. We are alomost obligated to pursue it if we really think shrub is criminal and culpable.

[belle]

26. Then it's what, Hastert. All the way down the line, his replacements suck

The trouble is that there's *no one* in the entire corrupt administration who wouldn't be just as bad. I suppose one could make an argument for letting *Hastert* twist for three years after dealing the blow to Bush and Cheney, and the effect would be much the same. Personally, though, I don't think it's gonna happen. And strictly in terms of effects on policy, there are more effective ways to spend our energy. Net result no matter what is that for the next three years, we will have an increasingly more impotent but still incredibly arrogant bunch of schmucks trying to make, and (sadly) at least sometimes succeeding in, making appallingly bad decisions. There's no quick and easy fix here, unfortunately.

So I tend to agree: may as well leave the fuckers to twist in the wind. Or, maybe, impeach them (if we get the numbers) to hamper their policy-making influence still further (that worked quite well with Clinton, after all, his popularity notwithstanding). But, even if we did, they'd never actually *leave,* I'm betting, short of a literal smoking gun being found and videotaped (maybe even then).

And, so, fine: let the stubborn bastards keep that hot seat. They wanted it; they lied, cheated, and character (at least) assasinated to get it; well, by God, they've got it. Do they like it?? Do they love it??? Are we all having fun yet?

What was that Molly Ivins article right after last year's election; something like, the way you cure a chicken-killing dog is to firmly tie a dead chicken around its neck and let it rot until the dog's nearly crazy of it; by the time it finally drops off, the dog never wants to smell or taste a chicken in any form ever again. Apparently, wrote Molly, the Americans have voted for another four years of the dead chicken; so, okay then. So that's what it takes. All righty.

*please note that personally I think this sounds like a rather cruel thing to do to a dog...

[bonzotex]

32. wow, kick ass visual!

Republicans all trotting around with rotting chickens tied to their necks. Oh if there is a just God let it be so!

[serryjw]

43. Line of succession has nothing to do with VP

If Chaney goes Bushit appoint whom ever he likes with Senate approval

[pansypoo53219]

3. impeach

treason and a war of agreesion calls for nothing less.

we owe it to our forfathers, the soldier, vets, and the world.

this cannot stand.

[bleever]

7. Do you raise important questions? Certainly. Do we know the answers,

definitively? Obviously not. Are we able to form credible opinions about how to proceed, based upon the known knowns? Clearly, we can, within the boundaries of our knowledge of both the known and unknown metrics.


And seriously, your questions are good ones, and not to be glossed over as we seek ultimately not to just remove a rotten president, but to reverse the tide of neocon military-industrial fascist petrification of the miracle of America.

[bonzotex]

8. LOL...thanks for actually reading the whole thing n/t...

[MADem]

10. If I could get my way, I'd like Cheney to resign under charges

right around the time Bush is impeached. Hastert takes over, and becomes the Jerry Ford of this century. A nice guy, won't screw up too bad (Whip Inflation Now notwithstanding), but not enough juice to win the 08 election on his own.

But no one dares throw up a real challenge for fear of being disloyal....the only thing is, we need a candidate with the moral fiber and compass of a Carter, but a bit more of a sonofabitch who can play real hardball with those toads when need be.

[bonzotex]

12. not a bad scenario,,could happen n/t

[The Traveler]

11. I don't think the correct answer

can be found through an analysis of political strategy. If the law and/or oath of office has been broken, then in order to restore our system of government an impeachment must occur. Otherwise, the powers behind Bush will know they can proceed with relative impunity.

[bonzotex]

13. a principled and logical answer.

I'm good with that. Why won't the Democratic leadership (with few exceptions) embrace that stand?

[The Traveler]

17. I could speculate on that

but I will not. I only observe that it is hard to get through life without a backbone.

[bonzotex]

18. Maybe we'll be surprised?

We've seen definite signs of life and spines from a few previously silent Dem leaders lately. If it is contagious and we continue to hold them to that standard, maybe impeachment and whole lot more is in the cards?

I will write, I will call, I will campaign, I will reward good behavior, but I won't hold my breath for some of our alleged Dem leaders.

[longship]

15. He's not exactly flailing.

He's getting legislation through. He has veto power over crucial legislation. He has appointment power. He has the power of the pardon. ChimpCo can do very much more damage in the next three years. There are rumblings that he is drinking, possibly to the point of incapacity. Plus, there's the issue that the man is likely a stark, raving lunatic.

Impeachment is increasingly becoming an imperative. If the Congress Repugs split, we need to use that to bring ChimpCo to account for his lies, his crimes, and the abrogation of his Constitutional requirements.

[bonzotex]

16. good points, Thanks! n/t

[loyalsister]

36. Politics of impeachment

First off, it's too serious to "use."
Unless there is a blatently obvious reason dems will lose in the end.
Investigating drinking behavior would be something to be cautious of.
Starting an actual investigation into something like that based on gossip would be taken as dirt digging.
Clinton maintained high ratings during his impeachment because people thought the dirt digging was ugly. They could relate to someone digging up dirt on them for their bad behavior and they empathized with him. Don't think for a second they wouldn't empathize with Bush. People like him whether we agree or not, people relate to him.

[Spike from MN]

19. Before anything can happen, we need elections that

are hand-counted with paper trails. Without that, all bets are off. Those that control the vote count control everything.

Aside from that, you have broached an interesting question. Bush is essentially powerless and leaving him in office does present us with the opportunity with winning more seats in the next election. Perhaps even enough seats to potentially impeach him. But the issue of winning seats once again brings us around to the need for hand-counted elections with paper trails. Anything less is unacceptable as it can be easily rigged. From where I stand, we need election reform first. What may or may not happen after that is of less concern to me at the moment because, without true election reform, nothing will happen. Once we have representatives that have actually have to answer to the people, that will change matters greatly.

Thank you for your very thoughtful, well-written post Bonzotex. Well done! I have always pondered the same question myself but especially lately since Dubya is so toxic these days. You would think that would be a good sign for the Dems but w/o election reform, IMHO, it's all rather meaningless.

[Oversea Visitor]

20. So screwed

:rofl:
If you waiting for the congress and senate to impeach ..... :rofl:
If they going to do it. Would already happened. :rofl:

Forget about the people too, dont think Americans willing to take that step. Too many just dont care. As for the real people that care
sorry ... just so little and they got it covered under the National Security thingy now going on. :hide:

3 more years :woohoo: Well lets see how much catergory :nuke:
disaster he can cause.

Scary thoughts is he knows he is untouchable. After all this, what can one say. Need look deep deep into his profile and character makeup. That most likely be how he will act.

One think for sure, he rob the country blind for his friends hahahaha :rofl:

[bonzotex]

28. look deep in his profile and makeup?

Ewwwwwwwwwww.... Going to need a long shower after that!

One point you make, I think he is quite predictable. Whatever will benefit the Corporations and uber-wealthy at the expense of the citizens as a whole, that's where he will go.

We can predict what he will do, so it should be easy to contain him.

[jaysunb]

21. you make a good case, and I

totally agree with you. :toast:

[raysr]

22. I think the RNC

would collapse if * was impeached.

[bonzotex]

30. you may be right

Impeachment, if done right, would eviscerate the Republican Party. All the flood of investigations and consequent revelations would tie up their energy and peel back the veneer to reveal the rotten core.

Arguably, this can already happen with the Fitzgerald investigation and the growing Abramoff bribery/money laundering scandal. There's other scandals too, Delay, Noe, Frist. It will take resolve just to push those angles and force out more proof of the republican's unfitness to govern.

Impeachment is a whole other monster. It would require serious guts and unity from the sitting Democrats. I'm not sure thay have it in them.

[Catamount]

23. The sooner the better!

We-the world can't wait! (to borrow that phrase)
:kick:

[fooj]

24. Tomorrow isn't soon enough.

Peace.

[snot]

25. Impeachment would publicize, --

& it might perhaps even entail some actual investigation, or at least a chance to get some cons on the record under oath.

And anything that would preoccupy these folks would be a boon. One of their most effective startegies has been simply to be putting through more shit than we can respond to. We NEED to give them more to deal with.

Ideally, we should try to expand the impeachment/investigation to implicate as many others as possible, however.

"Cause I think the brains/money behind them are fully prepared to switch in new hitters.

[ikri]

27. Impeachment would create a martyr

In the eyes of the 30% who still think he's doing an excellent job.

Look at how many people still think that Reagan was a brilliant president. Bush must be allowed to fall, the neo-con movement must be utterly ruined by the actions of its own followers.

Impeaching the figurehead will allow the neo-cons to shout about partisan politics before withdrawing into the darkness to find a new puppet with whom they can try again in a few years.

Ultimately, it will require the vast majority of the US population realizing now, not 20 years from now, that the neo-con movement is a disaster. That will mean targeting everyone below Bush, but never going after Bush himself. Take out Bush's puppeteers and let people see how useless he is alone. The government must be cleared out root and branch before a new president can move in to rebuild.

[OneTwentyoNine]

29. Impeachment?!?!....dream on,this has been discussed to death on DU

Its simple,read my lips: BUSH IS GOING NOWHERE,he's not resigning,he's not going to be impeached--unless you could tie a murder to him and then it would STILL be iffy.

You have to have 2/3 to get this ass munch out of office,hell...you couldn't get a simple majority at this time. Yawn....

[bonzotex]

31. I'm inclined to agree

My idea was that leaving him in office presents us with a better opportunity than impeachment to dismantle the conservative movement.

Impeachment is a moral imperative if we believe Bush is guilty of 1/2 the malfeasance that has also been "discussed to death on DU."

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. Even with majority Dems in the House and Senate an impeachment might fail.

An Impeachment would be a full house bar-brawl with broken bottles, pool cues and chair legs. I don't think our elected Dems as a group have the stones for that.

Can we use Judo instead to throw the Repugs to the floor each time they make a move? So far, our elected Dems haven't shown enough agility to do that. They have in a few instances; it's possible.

Are we supposed to just bend over and take it until the Repugs get tired and hopefully pass out and bang their head on the edge of the desk? That seems to have been the Democratic strategy for the last 6 years.

[AX10]

40. President Bush will secure a victory for almost any Demcocratic...

candidate.

[radio4progressives]

41. I think you're making an argument that says we haven't hit rock bottom yet

and that we should and need our entire government to crumble completely before we s/could reform and rebuild.

(and it almost sounds like a "stay the course" policy for iraq.)

I think we have hit bottom with a fascism in power - and in control of all branches of our government and the fourth estate - we have to move not only towards impeachment, but prosecution and conviction of both Bush and Cheney simultaneously.

Do I think we have good Democratic Leaders that can roll back on these horrific changes?

Yes i do.

As much as i have kevetched about Kerry and his terrible campaign, I think he would do fine as the leader of the free world - (but no DLC cabinet members please)

In the meantime, We would still have to fight and move our agenda for election reforms and other vital initiatives that have gotten short shrift or completely 86'd as the fascists intended to lay waiste to everything that FDR, JFK, and LBJ put into place.

I would roll back on a lot initiatives that Clinton put into place in terms of trade agreements, and return FCC fairness doctrine among other things too lengthy to go into here.

Bottom line in this thread is that I think we can and should move forward with impeachment immediately with a mind to prosecutions and convictions.

Once this country decides to open up the windows and let the sun shine disinfect that stench, we can and will move forward better and stronger as a nation.

[bonzotex]

42. I hope you are right...

I'm an optimist believe it or not. We've been disappointed so many times, however. Just as I left for work today I hear about the Senate passing a bill that suspends Habeas Corpus for "enemy combatants". It passed with 5 Dem senators voting yes.

Conrad
Lieberman
Landrieu
Nelson (NE)
Wyden

All voted for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5352691

With allies like that we're going to impeach Bush? Democrats are helping Shrub shred the Constitution and build a Corporate Police State. It makes me sick. We have good Democrats, some great new blood coming in,a majority of Americans that support liberal policies, but we need to clean our own house as well as smite the repugs.