Impeachment and "battered Democrats syndrome"

[pat_k]

A question for those who believe impeachment would "galvanize the Republicans" or "make the Democrats look vindictive" or lead to some other "bad thing."

Where do you think "backlash" capable of overcoming the overwhelming disgust with Bush could come from? What faction that is not already "galvanized" against the Democrats could be "galvanized" by impeachment?

The truth has a power of its own. No matter how "good" the Republican noise machine may be, the truth about Bush and Cheney -- their theft of our elections, criminal occupation, torture, looting of our treasury, corruption of our institutions, and indifference to the victims of Katrina -- it out for all to see. No amount of propaganda is putting the genie back in the bottle. (Today we have yet another editorial that reflects Republican disgust -- excerpts below.)

The Democratic establishment suffers a terrible case of "battered Democrats syndrome."

They can begin their recovery by immediately impeaching on torture -- the most blatant and horrifying of the offenses. The indefensible case that Bush and Cheney have make against themselves could be presented in days. Whatever the outcome -- whether or not the Republicans force the outlaws to resign and hand the keys to some confirmable successor; whether or not the Senate renders a verdict consistent with the truth -- they can rescue themselves and our self-esteem as Americans if they could just put aside their irrational fears about how "they" (the fascists) would react.

Like an abused spouse who finally escapes their abuse, they would come out of it strong and connected to their power. The lesson -- that they must stand and fight if they want to survive -- would serve them, and the nation, for a long time to come.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2763">Friends don't let friends discuss politics
June 22, 2007
By DOUG THOMPSON

Met an old friend for lunch the other day. We worked together in GOP politics in the 80s, helping elect Republicans to Congress and state offices. . .

"Must be difficult being a Republican these days," I said. "You look like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."

He winced.

. . . The conversation shifted to the number one obstacle faced by any Republican seeking office in 2008: George W. Bush. . .

American disgust with Bush is so high that the only President in history with a lower approval rating is Richard M. Nixon - also the only President to resign from office to avoid impeachment.

Nixon may not hold that honor much longer. Bush is only three percentage points away from topping Tricky Dick from the top rung of most-hated Presidents.

And that hatred is not limited to Democrats.

"The White House is a disaster," my friend said. "Bush may end up doing more damage to the Party than even Nixon."

The Party. Always the Party. I shook my head, looked my friend in the eye and tried to control my temper.

"Yes Bush is a disaster. Yes he has severely damaged the GOP. But who gives a rat's ass about that? . . .What about the thousands of American men and women dying in Bush's illegal and immoral war? What about the loss of freedoms we used to accept as rights as Americans?". . .

He went back to Washington and worried about his political party.

I went home and worried about the future of our country.

[Senator]

1. Kick!

[ShortnFiery]

2. No way! No Slack! Our Democratic Representatives are merely looking out for THEMSELVES!

Don't kid yourselves. Our illustrious Democratic representatives, with a few very admirable exceptions, are ONLY looking out for their careers that they hope will last "a lifetime" in Congress.

The ones who constantly "keep their powder dry" know that it's just one big millionaires' club open to bringing in all their friends and family members in for raping hard working Americans tax dollars in favor of Big Corporations who donate oodles to their Campaign Chests.

They think that "the average American" can be led by the Corporate M$M who is constantly explaining away all their cowardly sulking and ass-grabbing compromises with the CRIMINALS on the other side of the aisle. However, the Millionaires' Club KNOWS that is our mal-functioning Congress is one big fraternity with the M$M in their back pockets, TOGETHER moving forward in 100% support of their corporate masters. :wow:

After all, it matters not if it's the DLC's corporate Goddess, HRC or a republican like Fred Thompson, our millionaire Congress will not have to worry about THEIR investment portfolios. The rest of us Peaseant Classes will have to fight each other for the scraps. And Oh how they love to see us fighting with each other while they RAPE us for our hard worked tax dollars. :grr:

At that point in time, our beloved country will have fully morphed into "a kinder, gentler" FASCIST STATE, i.e., the complete merging of government and business. That is, if our illustrious Democratic Leaders don't do something *real soon* ... something truly profound, such as file Articles of Impeachment against Gonzo or Darth Cheney, I will consider them PART OF THE PROBLEM.

The only long term solution I know of is to WORK FOR fair elections and slowly Vote the Bums OUT: http://voidnow.org :shrug: :( :grr: :shrug:

[pat_k]

3. If we can't "cure" them before the primaries. . .

. . .they must go.

I didn't intend this to be a call for "slack." The opposite in fact. We can't wait until the next elections.

Ultimatums must be part of the "intervention." "Impeach or face X in the primary" (where X is not just someone who knows the meaning of an oath, but someone who would be a powerful candidate. The threat must be a serious one.) It's an ultimatum Pelosi needs to hear ASAP. If she won't overcome her impeachophobia (whatever the cause) to save the nation, perhaps she well to save her ass.

Threatening Nancy "off the table" Pelosi with a powerful primary challenger long before the election may be just the thing needed to "cure" her.

Their refusal to impeach isn't just destroying the nation, it is destroying the Party. They are self-destructing. They are still suffering the political damage of supporting the Authorization to Use Military Force. I don't think any of them actually want to make the kind of horrible mistake. I think they WANT to be saved (whether they know it or not). I think they can be saved. Whether or not we succeed, we must try.

"Tough love" includes "throwing them out out of the House."

[ShortnFiery]

4. Bravo! Very well put Pat_k.

You put all my frustrations into thoughtful words. I'm with you. :thumbup:

Email. Write. FAX. Call. March. REPEAT the foregoing until they listen.

[EFerrari]

9. pat_k, I'm getting over a bout of burnout. But, when I do,

I'm going to start having meetings with Nancy's SF people about this, hopefully weekly if they'll do it. They met with CP for teach ins on the occupation so, I think it is possible and will turn up the volume on the conversation. fyi

[pat_k]

12. "timeouts" are critical. . .

I'm glad to hear you're taking one. And don't short change yourself. All too often the most effective people (a cohort you belong to) don't take enough time to step back and renew when they need a break -- and end up "broken down."

When you re-engage, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the viability of Matt Gonzales as a challenger for Pelosi. (e.g., Does he advocate impeachment? Would he be willing to run as a Dem? Potential to attract some "deep pockets"?)

BTW, on the subject of "burnout," we're seeing a wonderful rise in citizen engagement, but it's early days. If we to keep it snowballing, we must move beyond an "all volunteer army." It is just not sustainable. We are going to have to affirm the value of effective citizen action by insisting on sensible compensation for the people who "make it happen." I think we can create a sustainable model, but we won't if we don't make it a priority. Unfortunately, figuring out how to pay people, or get paid, is usually at the bottom of the list. (Some of the folks on "our side" are going to have to get over the notion that getting paid for our work somehow makes it less admirable. "Going professional" doesn't need to mean "selling out.")

[EFerrari]

13. I have a slender com line to Matt. He would be perfect.

He's far more representative of this district. He's as smart as they come. He reads as thoughtful, caring and strong.

But, I haven't spoken to him on this topic. Our conversations have been about election fraud since his campaign debriefing that I attended a coupla weeks after 2004.

Don't know what his opinion is on impeachment. I don't know what his plans are but I know what I wish they were. :)

And I agree, an all volunteer army isn't sustainable but I can't go there right now.

Always good to read you,
B.

[pat_k]

22. No need to "go there" . . .

Just a seed I like to plant here and there. Sometimes little seeds prompt changes in thinking that lead to minor shifts in approach, which in turn lead to bigger changes. Transformation often starts in little, unseen ways while people are busy doing "other things."

I'm delighted to hear you have a connection -- however "slender" -- to Gonzalez.

At the moment I hope the only "job" you take on is finding fun ways to be more of a "human being" and less of a "human doing" for a while.

[TheWraith]

11. If you really believe that, then you have problems.

You've bought in to the myth that it's all the same thing, and that all politicians are dirty. You know what? That's the crap that the dirty politicians push to make people think that there's no alternative. But only someone willfully ignorant, or so wrapped in their own world as to be completely blind to reality would really belive that there's no difference between one side or the other.

Does anyone seriously think that there's no difference between the years under Clinton and the years under Bush? Is anyone under the misaprehension that we'd still be in Iraq if Kerry had won three years ago? If you are, then you need to seriously reexamine how cynical you've become. Yes, our Democratic politicians can be disappointing sometimes, but their worst blunders would be considered saintly compared to the best and most honorable things that most Republicans are going to do in their entire terms.

[ananda]

5. Stockholm Syndrome

Dems are more like Reeps now. Ugghh.

[pat_k]

24. + Battered Dem syndrome + Impeachophobia

= dysfunctional beyond belief.

They are people in need of some serious TREATMENT.

We must never forget that DC is essentially a Republican town, and has been for decades. Democrats who venture into the DC establishment are in a very real sense "captives" of in a Republican town.

The occupants of the executive branch do a heck of a lot of appointing and the hiring and firing. Over the last few decades not only have the Repubs held the White House for more years than the Dems, they are far more ruthless when it comes to "cleaning house" down to the lowliest staffer. It's not something that get mentioned much, but within the DC "establishment" Repubs simply outnumber Dems by a long shot. Carter and Clinton had very little impact on the balance.

Whether it is via "Stockholm syndrome" or simply the fact that they live in a Republican town, the Dems certainly buy the Republican propaganda they hear at cocktail parties, and they are reluctant to attack their Republican "friends."

As if that weren't a big enough problem, when you add it to the other factors at work -- the http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/learned_helplessness.htm">learned helplessness of the abused and http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/a_a_learning.htm">anticipatory-avoidance learning of the phobic -- perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising that they are a such a mess.

When it comes to refusing to act when principle demands it, I think " anticipatory-avoidance learning" is the biggest factor . Their behavior certainly looks more like a phobia than anything else.

Phobias reinforce themselves because the person successfully avoids the feared consequences (no matter how irrational or vague) by avoiding the feared situation or object.

They tell themselves terrible_thing_X will happen if we bold_action_Y

They avoid bold_action_Y like the plague

They lose respect for being weak and unprincipled. More Americans give up on them. But they tell themselves

"Whew, at least terrible_thing_X didn't happen. Good thing we didn't bold_action_Y!"

Phobias tend to generalize. Soon anything that looks remotely like a bold_action_Y strikes fear in their hearts. There is circularity to it. Generalized fear prompts avoidance. Invoking terrible_thing_X or terrible_thing_Y or terrible_thing_Z is really just a way to rationalize the avoidance.

Whatever the cause -- impeachophobia, battered Democrats syndrome, or something else -- they are in dire straits. They are self-destructing. Emergency intervention is required. We don't need to know the "real" cause to know "the Cure."

Related:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">Impeachophobia, 5-Apr-07

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8">We're Doomed! Doomed I Tell You! (An Impeachment Intervention), 12-Nov-06

[HowHasItComeToThis]

6. If Gerald Ford hadn't saved Nixon, there would be NO REPUBLICAN PARTY

THIS IS A SECOND CHANCE TO ELIMINATE THE FASCISTS FROM AMERICA

[pat_k]

25. You hit on something that very few on "our side" get. . .

Republicans are out to eradicate Democrats.

Democrats seek to "make gains." The concept "No More Republicans" isn't something they can imagine, much less make a goal.

That's gotta change if we want to be effective. We need to be out to eradicate Republicans. Send them packing. Get rid of every single official or appointee who advocates their Un-American, sadistic, racist, authoritarian, everybody out for themselves, steal from the poor to give to the rich insanity.

The notion that we need to "play nice" because they "will always be there" is VERY destructive. It is time to mount an all out offensive to boot them out of every single office. If we see ourselves getting rid of every single one of them, then we will start playing a WHOLE different ballgame.

Eradicating the Republicans is not only possible, the Democrats have an unprecedented opportunity to make it a reality. They just have to do ONE THING to get the ball rolling. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY. Keep it simple. Impeach on torture and "rule by signing statement." Bush's nullification of McCain's anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate 90-9, is the only example they need. Watch Republican Senators squirm as they try to defend the bushkid's "right" to render them powerless.

[bigtree]

7. it's the vote in the end which we expect to convict them which is to be considered in all that

also. I wouldn't underestimate the response of the public to Congress substituting their own judgment for the votes of the electorate, especially if the charges are presented in a strictly partisan manner. I think that can be remedied by pressing for charges outside the Congress first from some independent prosecution which has the potential to impose actual legal consequences and would remove any taint of partisanship which the opposition in Congress would almost certainly try and hide behind.

[pat_k]

19. Refusing to speak the truth because they don't think. . .

. . .they are the "right people" to speak it is immoral. Silence is complicity.

Fear that speaking the truth will make them appear "partisan" is a symptom of battered Dem syndrome.

Democrats must NEVER hesitate to speak to truth because "the other side" refuses to speak it, or is lying.

We MUST STOP caring about what wrong-headed people -- Republican or Democratic -- may do or say. We must insist that our leaders get out there and speak the truth. Trust the public. Stop pussy footing around. Stop euphemizing.

They have an unprecedented opportunity because the moral principles and truths that make impeachment imperative are so incredibly SIMPLE. Bush and Cheney commit an intolerable violation of the dictates of our Constitution every single time they invoke their fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power. They are turning Americans into torturers in plain sight. Their War Crimes have already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court for goodness sake. (The Hamdan decision was a declaration that their Gitmo 'policy" violated Geneva -- a grim reality that was NEVER in doubt.)

Our Party leaders will never find out how the public will respond until they get out there, fight for principle, speak the truth, and demand immediate impeachment in crystal clear, unequivocally terms.

The so-called Democratic "leadership" has been burying the truth in euphemism and doubletalk for decades. They have refused to give the American people an opportunity to respond to the moral principles we hold dear, or the stark truths of our national predicament. And they have been steadily losing ground because of it.

If our leaders are crystal clear and the electorate rejects them, so be it. At least then we know what we are REALLY up against.

[EFerrari]

8. Impeach Bush/Cheney. K&R

[ljm2002]

10. The Lesson

You say, "The lesson -- that they must stand and fight if they want to survive -- would serve them, and the nation, for a long time to come."

Yes, one of the most empowering lessons that can be learned in an abusive situation is when you realize that nothing you do, and nothing you don't do, will change what the abuser does. In this case, for Democrats to spend any time at all worrying about how the rabid right wing will react is absurd: it is a given how they will react to *anything* you do, or *anything* you don't do: they will blast you, they will rant and rave and lie and just generally continue acting how they've been acting all along. The only way things will change is when we change how we act. And the beginning of that is to really, really internalize the following: "I do not give a rat's ass what some Republic thinks of what I'm doing. I will do what I believe is right, and they can go along or get out of the way."

Sure there are always political considerations. But worrying about how the opposition will react is stupid. The opposition will, naturally, oppose. I know it's hard to believe -- since when the Democrats were the opposition party, there was little real opposition. But we see that is not the case now that the Republics are the opposition party. Welcome to the real world. Now learn once and for all: when you're in the minority, you continue to fight for your positions. When you're in the majority, you do not give the minority -- especially not this minority -- one inch. Not one centimeter. Not one.

[EFerrari]

15. "What are you williing to do?"-- The Untouchables. n/t

[pat_k]

21. Thanks for capturing the simple truth so powerfully

[FloridaJudy]

14. "You look like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-ha-ha-ha----snort

:spray: :rofl:

K&R

[pat_k]

27. I love that bit too. Priceless.

[Phredicles]

16. "battered Democrats syndrome" - Nice!

[pat_k]

23. Can't take credit for it.

I picked it up from a great piece I came across a few years back. Can't find it at the moment. Dang. It was good.

[Morgana LaFey]

28. This maybe?

The Politics of Victimization
(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1395238


or maybe this:
America’s Battered Wife Syndrome
Category: General, Editorial/Comment.
Posted by Advena at around evening time.

Welcome Salon.com, Mike Malloy Show, Kos, and C&L visitors
http://12thharmonic.com/wordpress/index.php/2005/09/07/americas-battered-wife-syndrome/



and this looks worth revisiting as well:

The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity by Stephen J. Ducat (re the "hypermasculinity" of the right)
http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/05/02/pre05024.html

[pat_k]

29. Thank You. Thank You!

I was thinking of Gail Thomas' http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0911-28.htm">America's Battered Wife Syndrome from Sept 2005. (Actually less than two years ago, not "a few years" as I recalled it. But each GWB year is so long and painful, it certainly feels like "a few years.")

Another piece from earlier this year by Terry Leach was good too (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-leach/battered-womens-syndrome_b_40353.html?view=print">Battered Women's Syndrome and George W. Bush), but it was Thomas' that stuck in my head.

"Dear America,

As a friend of the family I can’t sit back and watch you do this to yourself without saying something. Consider this a long distance intervention. . . "

Thanks for finding it!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

17. Invest in our ideals and our future, without fear.

They need get their heads out of the DC ARSE and acknowledge what Americans want most: integrity, openess, justice and a REAL rather than faux democratic nation.

[pat_k]

26. Hear! Hear! Americans can tell a real fight from a sham fight.

And in our current crisis, the only REAL fight is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney. All else is sham.

They promised us a fight. They don't have to win, they just have to give it their all.

[Hubert Flottz]

18. I couldn't agree more.

Being cowards is not winning the democrats a single vote, IMHO.

[EFerrari]

20. I don't think it's cowardice at all.

The Dems have been out of power for some time. Imho, it's a matter of rehabilitating skills.

And the way we finance elections. Who will they attend to -- me with my $50 bucks or Pfizer?

:shrug:

[Hubert Flottz]

41. Greed then?

Too greedy to save their country? It just might be.

[EFerrari]

47. Money buys power.

:shrug:

[ellisonz]

30. ...

67 votes. Do the math.

[pat_k]

31. Yeah, 67 Votes. So?

Did you read the post? Perhaps you missed this part:

They can begin their recovery by immediately impeaching on torture -- the most blatant and horrifying of the offenses. The indefensible case that Bush and Cheney have make against themselves could be presented in days. Whatever the outcome -- whether or not the Republicans force the outlaws to resign and hand the keys to some confirmable successor; whether or not the Senate renders a verdict consistent with the truth -- they can rescue themselves and our self-esteem as Americans if they could just put aside their irrational fears about how "they" (the fascists) would react.

Like an abused spouse who finally escapes their abuse, they would come out of it strong and connected to their power. The lesson -- that they must stand and fight if they want to survive -- would serve them, and the nation, for a long time to come.

[ellisonz]

32. Yes. And I still stand by the fact that we do not have the votes.

You want them out, then let the investigations continue without the hysterics. Then you might actually get a conviction, otherwise it's a pointless, polarizing exercise...I don't care about how the fascists react. I care about whether or not they are actually removed from office, that's what's important. We don't need impeachment to win the political fight, and it very well may be detrimental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_timeline

Patience is still a virtue.

[Senator]

35. But "having the votes" is virtually irrelevant

And inertia is not patience.

There's nothing "pointless" about standing up in objection -- in the name of the American People -- against war crimes committed in their names, without their consent. And there's nothing "hysteric{al}" about applying the Constitutional protection against an already well-known dangerous, criminal regime.

In fact, it is the "investigations" that are pointless. The regime admits and "defends" its impeachable actions. They have already been ruled illegal and unconstitutional by US courts. Consequently, there is nothing to "investigate." What it is do you imagine will be "found out" that is worse than what we already know -- torture, illegal spying, terrorizing the nation into war?? (And the public/electorate is way ahead of the beltway on demanding impeachment. They don't need to be "informed" or "rallied.")

You say you "don't care about how the fascists react" yet you denigrate impeachment as "polarizing" (which is merely a beltway propaganda buzzword). Who else but the fascist defenders of war criminals are supposed to be at the other pole?

But the bottom line is that impeachment is more important than the "political fight." It is a moral, patriotic imperative even if "detrimental."

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime.

Each passing day increases the risk of that final outcome.

-----

[ellisonz]

38. Quick: duck, cover, and roll.

1. You don't need to support an ineffective political exercise to object to this administration and its war.
2. We need overwhelming proof and then we need SCOTUS to get 67 votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
3. Impeachment is a legal procedure, not an emotional procedure, and therefore deliberation is required both practically and constiutionally. Sorry. There is still much to investigate. For example, did you know a month ago that records for 88 White House email accounts were missing, I think not. Time tells.
4. Polarizing is a political scientist's term and will take effect both on the Hill and in the activist communities.
5. I ain't exonerating nothing. Nothing is final except death. You sound like Condi: history will pardon GWB (paraphrase).

"They have already been ruled illegal and unconstitutional by US courts."

Which ones and of what specific crime?

Reason is even under assault on DUh, what a surprise, not. And cut the smears and insinuations:eyes:

[Senator]

39. Why? Are we playing Simon Says?

Not that I'd normally even respond to a post that contains the epithet "DUh," but I'd just like to quickly deal with the factual errors in your post on the odd chance someone is observing.

Your #2 is just false. The (formerly) Supreme Court has no function in impeachment whatsoever. While the Chief Justice (or in this case Just-ish) presides over the Senate trial, this is merely a procedural/administrative function. The Senators, as both judges and jury, are in control of any and all rulings.

Your #3 is also incorrect. Impeachment is a political procedure. The "indictment" being a simple majority vote in the House. And while the Senate trial may by tradition maintain the trappings of a legal process, there are no rules of evidence nor standards of proof. And "deliberation" is no more or less than what the sitting Senators decide it will be. The only constitutional/legal requirement is that 2/3 of the Senators present (so less than 67 if some boycott/abstain/hide) agree on conviction/removal from office.

But as I said, the conviction result is irrelevant. The chips can fall where they may. If more than 30 GOP Senators (and Lieberman I guess) would like to stand up for history to defend torture/war crimes, illegal spying on Americans, and/or terrorizing the nation with a false "bomb threat" of "Mushroom Clouds!!," then so be it.

The Constitution, and common decency, demand that the charges be levied -- as they are clearly warranted.

Failure to do so does, in effect, exonerate the regime. It confirms our War Criminal Nation status to the world. And it leaves a legacy of shame to our children and future generations.

Like it or not, that is the end result.

-----

[ellisonz]

43. Pesky questions.

Did you take your name from James Webb's Fields of Fire because that's the Senator you sound like, childish and over-reactive. Confused about duty both to his comrades and to his country (he volunteered) and then got his platoon decimated in an ambush and of course had to live with the pain as he was only wounded.

2. No, but if one realistically wanted to persuade the GOP Senators to vote for impeachment that would be what is needed.
3. In the sense that man is a political creature. Impeachment techincally is a constitutional procedure (you can't argue that one) and the U.S. Constitution is the ruling law of the land. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides for over the process for a reason. The Congress of the United States ought to be able to do better when it removes an invidual from office than by mob rule.

Again,

"They have already been ruled illegal and unconstitutional by US courts."

Which ones and of what specific crime? Details are a neccessary evil.

You do realize that if you impeach and then fail to convert the GOP get's to play the "not guilty" charge? Think, not feel.

:7

[Senator]

58. Actually, no questions.

The last subject line was rhetorical.

And your question, while not fully comprehensible, seems to be terrified of what the neofascists might say. Action, not fear.

--

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. We didn't have them in '73 either

Oh that pesky history degreee, I tell you...

[ellisonz]

44. Nixon had a guilty conscience.

Bush does not.

Q: If the Dems do retake the House in November, what kind of political considerations will hold Democratic members of Congress from pushing for impeachment?

John Dean: The only political restraint on a Democratic controlled House would be their collective good judgment. There is no question they have a duty to tell Americans what the Bush administration has been up to the past six years – and I have no doubt they will do that through aggressive oversight by all the committees of the House. But, say the Democrats win the House but not the Senate, meaning there is no chance in the world to convict Bush. Should the House impeach a president who will never be convicted? When the House files articles of impeachment with the Senate, it is acting in a manner analogous to that of a prosecutor. But prosecutors do not indict people they know they cannot convict. Should the House adopt a similar standard? Is it not blatantly political to undertake impeachment when there is no chance of conviction? This, of course, is what the House Republicans did with Clinton: They impeached him because they could, although they knew they did not have the votes in the Senate to convict. Do Democrats want to mimic that sorry exercise? I hope not. Another consideration is that Bush and his administration will be in its final years. Should impeachment be launched when a president is headed for the door, and it could take a year or more to conduct the inquiry? Or should it be pursued regardless of the prospects in the Senate, as a statement of what is unacceptable behavior for a president? Frankly, I think the issue of what is acceptable behavior for a presidency (following Bush and Cheney) should be front and center in the next election, for it is more important that voters address this subject than what could be considered an excessively political act by the House of Representatives.

Q: What lessons can we draw from the Clinton impeachment hearings that can be applied to people seeking to launch impeachment hearings, assuming the Dems retake the House?

John Dean: I’ve anticipated this question in my earlier answers. I would only add that if Democrats were to do what the Republicans did to Clinton – impeach merely because they had the votes to do so and because they wanted to tarnish him – it will pretty much make a nullity of the impeachment clause. The founders added this clause to give the people, and their representatives in Congress, a means to control executive (and judicial) branch officials whose conduct threatens the well-being of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. There may come a day when a president’s conduct demands immediate removal, but the impeachment clause has been so politicized (by partisan impeachments) that a dangerously out-of-control presidency can hold on to office given the damage that has been done from these excessively political impeachments (where there was no bipartisan support). Democracy, and our constitutional machinery, is quite sturdy but they cannot withstand endless incautious political abuses. Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment and removal – both of which were near certainties for he not only had the Democrats seeking his removal but an overwhelming number of Republicans agreed. In short, no Congress should do again what was done to President Clinton. The Clinton impeachment was even more shameful than that of President Andrew Johnson. If there is not bipartisan support for impeachment, as there was with Nixon, Congress should only in extreme situations consider such proceedings.
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060912_john_dean_impeachment_president/

John Dean: Refocusing the Impeachment Movement
FindLaw.com
By JOHN W. DEAN
December 15, 2006
There is a well-organized and growing movement to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. On my bookshelf sit half a dozen books making the case for Bush's impeachment. I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater.

At the outset of the 2006 midterm election, Democratic Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Majority Leader-designate Harry Reid, stated on behalf of the Democratic leadership that impeachment of Bush or Cheney would be off the table if they won control of Congress - as they have indeed done. But this position has angered many who want these men impeached.

"Impeachment is not optional. It's not something that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can say is not on the table," Cindy Sheehan, who lost her soldier son in Iraq, said at a recent rally. "It is their duty as officers of the Constitution, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, to carry out impeachment." Her anger is certainly understandable. Her relentless pursuit of this cause is highly commendable. But her energy and effort are misplaced, if not wasted.

Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.

------

There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/dec_2006/john_dean_refocusing_the_impeachment_movement.html

:nuke:

Damn history books! :evilfrown:

[babylonsister]

33. Priorities... So sad.... Unless their kids are involved...nt

[calimary]

34. Great one!

I've enjoyed quite a bit of Doug Thompson's stuff. This is another sweetie! Thanks for posting!

[Solly Mack]

36. K/R

[KharmaTrain]

37. If Political Answers Is All You Want...Knock Yourself Out...I'm Out To Get Criminals

This has ZERO to do with "battered Democrats" as much as it does with battered Repugnicans...the ones that will votes over and over to enable this regime to plunder and operate without any oversight or accountability. They're the 17 votes that will keep him in power no matter how many Democrats call for impeachment or removal.

The crimes of this regime are way beyond the political type...they are criminal. They are abuses of power and conspiracy and perjury and a litany of major crimes...ones that a political solution is not justice at all.

An impeachment that doesn't include prosecutions of ALL involved rewards the criminality and the enablers of the past 6 years. I want this regime held accountable, not by 100 spineless politicians...including 49 who are owned and bought by the convicted (talk about a rigged jury), but by real people...peers...a jury who has been given specific charges and have heard testimony...not fillibusters and hearsay.

Now if you want a quick feel good piece of flesh, go for your impeachment that will accomplish nothing. But you won't get what you want...and even less...as many of the crooks who did all the dirty work in this regime will slip away and never face their crimes. Now if that's what satisfies you, fine. It sure doesn't on this end. I want REAL justice, not some political game.

[Hubert Flottz]

42. That would be sweet I agree!

But Impeachment would at least record the crimes on the congressional record for all time! I think we need both!

[pat_k]

49. It's far more than a "record". . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1159484&mesg_id=1168809

[ellisonz]

45. AMEN.

[pat_k]

53. To appeasement and surrender to fascism??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1159484&mesg_id=1168809

[ellisonz]

57. No.

:silly:

[pat_k]

59. The posts rejection of impeachment is appeasement.

Impeachment by Congress and prosecution by the courts have http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1166710&mesg_id=1169099">completely different purposes. To fail to do the former is a surrender of our country without a fight.

[pat_k]

46. Impeachment is a DEFENSIVE act of absolute necessity. . .

. . .to enforce the dictates of our Constitution and assert our sovereignty.

Impeaching to "support and defend" is for Congress. Failure to impeach is intolerable appeasement and surrender to fascism.

Retribution -- prosecution and punishment -- is for the Courts. Failure to turn them over to the Hague for prosecution for War Crimes is an intolerable breach our international compact and our commitment to the pursuit of justice.

Both are of absolute necessity.

There is no other authority -- only Our Congress; Our Voice -- that can unequivocally "draw the line." We can't leave it the next occupant of the Office of the President to "restore" the dictates of our Cosntitution (as Edwards and others promise). To hand over the power to "restore" is just the flip side of handing over the power to "nullify."

Those who know the truth of our national crisis have a moral obligation stand up for it -- to draw the line.

It doesn't matter if the minions of the offenders in the Senate refuse to remove. The truth exposes them for what they are. It is our job to speak the truth, accuse the outlaws in the White House, and expose their co-conspirators and minions in the Senate.

==============================

Re: your "knock yourself out" quip:

Failure to accuse is complicity. If too many Senators refuse to render a verdict consistent with the truth, that's their problem, not ours.

We elect Members of the House and Senate to do a job for us. We charge them with the duty to "support and defend." That's an oath to fight. It is not an oath to win. Our civic duty is to insist that they do the job we hired them to do. The most critical duty, the one the supersedes all others, is the duty is to stand and fight to defend the dictates of our Constitution with everything they've got, win or lose.

People take oaths to do the hard stuff for a reason. We know human frailty can lead us to act contrary to our principles. We take oaths so that when the going gets tough, we remember and act consistently with our values -- that we "just do it" because we made a public commitment to.

The lesson -- that we must stand up for ourselves and our most treasured principles whatever misguided or evil people may say or do -- is one that our heroes and champions teach us by example. Do we really want our leaders to take the path of appeasement? I sure hope not.

If the above doesn't prompt you to reevaluate your assertions, here's the more detailed response I am giving to those who defend the failure of Congress to impeach:

The beliefs that are invoked to defend the "off the table" edict are pervasive and damaging. They must be challenged if we are rescue ourselves and our nation from complicity with the outrages committed by the outlaws in the White House.

Many here on DU have been posting the moral, factual, and logical cases against the various arguments for quite a while. For example, the exchange that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x34242#34533">this Jun 14th post or one that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3146696#3147620">this Mar 16th post covers:

1. The simple truths and moral principles that make the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney a moral obligation for each and every Member of the House and Senate. (This case is the ultimate "bottom line.")


2. The facts that contradict the assertion that impeachment is a "legal process," when it is a purely political process.


3. The compelling evidence and confessions that make the case that Bush and Cheney are committing intolerable violations of our Constituiton. Offenses that go far beyond "impeachable." The outlaws built the cases against themselves. It's all public record. (e.g., The fact that the case for War Crimes has already been adjudicated by SCOTUS.)


4. The arguments that not only is continued "investigation" unnecessary, asserting the need to "investigate" undermines the simple and compelling cases that Bush and Cheney must be removed because the claim "we must investigate first" promotes the lie that "we don't have a case" when we do.


5. The reasons that "Can't Win; Won't Fight" is so insidious and politically destructive.


6. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that impeaching Bush and Cheney and fighting to remove them can do more to benefit the Democratic Party than anything they have done for decades.


7. The events, polls, and examples from history that demonstrate the many ways that FAILING to impeach Bush and Cheney will not just be devastating to the nation, it will damage the Democratic Party, and by extension every candidate who runs under the Democratic banner.


8. The analysis of the current dynamics and probable consequences of impeachment that support the conclusion that victory, either resignation or removal, is not only possible, it is likely.

Note: the entire case against the excuses for "off the table" that are so pervasive is embodied in items 1, 2, and 3. The remaining political and results oriented arguments are not essential since the moral obligation trumps (i.e., the duty we have charged Members of Congress with and the facts that trigger that duty). But the results-oriented cases -- that the impeachers can win; that impeachment will politically benefit the Democratic Party; that failure to impeach will damage them -- can make it easier for the political animals on the Hill to see what duty demands, and do it.

Since the details are laid out in the referenced exchanges, there is no reason to repeat them here. Dialog can be an effective way to make a case. The "real life" dialogs demonstrate what lobbying for impeachment is like. (It's kinda like a game of "whack a mole.")

To date, I haven't encountered an argument against impeachment that stands up, but if you believe to be factual and logical counter-arguments that have not already been covered in the referenced exchanges, I'm more than happy to respond.

[EFerrari]

51. kick

[KharmaTrain]

55. You Miss The Point...It's 17 Repugnicans

You don't need to sell me on the need to Impeach. I've been there since the Day One. While I think it's important, I see it as impossible as an Impeachment in the House without a conviction in the Senate is a futile exercize...it won't do a damn thing to stop boooosh...if, anything, it would embolden him as he could continue to operate with impunity. Impeachment didn't stop Clinton from launching airstrikes into Kosovo...do you think an Impeachment without a conviction would stop boooshie from invading Iran?

Impeachment is like finding someone pilfering your business and you fire him. That's fine...he should be. You would be a poor owner if you kept a crook in your employ. But you'd also be a poor owner if you just fired the crook without prosecuting him...or without going after the buddies he fenced your goods to or are those you can't fire. Now add to this, that you have to go to a board of directors to fire this crook...and the board is loaded with the crook's relatives who can't stand him but won't give you the satisfaction or "turn on one of their own"...so in the end you can't even fire him.

Again, this isn't about whether to Impeach...stay on topic here. This is about the reality of such a conviction and its real effects. I'm for FAR MORE than a political show trial...I want REAL prosectutions...going after the real crimes and criminals. I want real evidence provided by supboenas and in front of grand juries. I want convictions and trials conducted in front of juries of peers...not politicians...people who are finders of fact, not running for re-election.

Please understand I'm with you on what you state, but I'm too much of a realist. If you want to impeach with some effect, let's go after Gonzo. While we may not get the 17 votes to kick boooosh out, let's see 17 Repugnicans attempt to defend keeping this crook on the job. The ultimate judgements here will be done in courts of law, at the ballot box next year by tossing out all the Repugnican enablers and by the historians who will rate this "presidency" as the most corrupt and inept ever.

Cheers...

[EFerrari]

48. This reads like a false dilemma to me.

Impeachment is a good place to start and it's hard for me to imagine anyone feeling "good" about it at bottom. But, on the other hand, I can have pretty spectacular failures of imagination.

[pat_k]

50. It's far more than "a good place to start"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1159484&mesg_id=1168809

[EFerrari]

52. Error. You've already recommended that thread.

I won't quit if you don't.

[pat_k]

54. Opps. . .

But no quitting here (breaks and regrouping -- yes. quitting no.) Working to carve out time and resources. I want to be a more active part of a summer offensive.

[EFerrari]

56. Kick for sanity

[treestar]

60. What about organizing a march on Washington to demand impeachment?

It could possibly swell into a huge demonstration.

Without this type of input from the People, the Democrats on the hill have no reason to believe such an extreme as impeachment is viable.