The abandonment of George W. Bush

[Contrary1]

Will his veto pen be all that keeps him relevant for the next two years?


(My comment: He has never been relevant, why start now?)

"WASHINGTON - While it is not unprecedented for a president to be ostracized by Congress, abandoned by even most of his own party's members, it's still pretty rare.

<snip>

But there is a very distinct possibility that the president might find himself on the wrong end of a resolution opposing any additional troops, with as much as a majority of his own party's lawmakers expressing opposition to his plan.

It is not far-fetched to see upwards of 60 or 65 senators and 250 House members voting for such a resolution. Under such a scenario, Bush would suffer a stunning repudiation on what has become his signature policy and, for better or worse, the legacy for his presidency.

A significant defeat on this issue would codify the president's loss in public standing and the willingness of Republicans to part company with him, even on the issue most closely identified with Bush. And having defied the president on Iraq, it will not be hard to do it again on other issues less closely identified with him. It's not hard to see a cascading effect take hold..."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16675806/

[madeline_con]

1. IMO, the crew knows impeachment can't be stopped,

so they're jumping off the Monkey Boat.

[HockeyMom]

2. What were they so afraid of before?

Why didn't they speak up? What did Bush threaten them with? After all, every single one of these congress people had to ultimately answer to the PEOPLE who elected them.

[shrike]

9. People are basically gutless

I see it here even in local politics, when much less is at stake. People cave, every time.

[qwlauren35]

10. About the "people"...

I met someone two nights ago who supports an Iraqi escalation. His views are pretty different from mine, but I listened closely as he voiced them, if not just to confirm that there are people like him in America.

He is an older man, white, veteran, in a wheelchair. He comes from the Mid West, loves hunting.

He wanted to express his confusion about the fact that he wanted to be able to separate his new spirituality (he is beginning to practice Buddhism) from his views on the "War on Terror". He supports the War on Terror, he is glad that Saddam was hanged, he believes that US intervention in world politics is ultimately beneficial. For example, look at how well Germany and Japan have emerged from WWII.

(:puke: I almost threw up, but I didn't. )

He got a far more compassionate response from the speaker than I think most could have given him. He was encouraged to see how Buddhism is a faith based on respecting all life and the Buddha Nature that everyone has, and it was explained to him that Buddhism conflicts with the death penalty.

(Now, this isn't to say that there aren't plenty of Buddhists who find ways to carve out some kind of spiritual "exclusion" on this issue whenever it comes to certain people or circumstances. I did not mourn Jeffrey Dahmer's death.)

But my point in saying this is that this is probably a man who votes, and probably a man who votes Republican, and probably someone's constituent...

Sometimes I am convinced that folks in DU forget that anyone who comes from, believes in and is voted in by a conservative constituency is highly unlikely to be swayed by NATIONAL opinion.

My last look at the political demographics map showed large Republican pockets remaining around the US.

It scares me when it seems as though we are as determined to be unpleasant to them as we claim they are toward us. I'd rather take the high road.

One of the reasons why love/respect/compassion for ALL is so difficult is because it almost always includes people we don't like, don't trust and don't agree with.

Then again, if it was easy, the prophets and avatars wouldn't have to keep popping up to remind us.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

3. One asks

Why did it take so long.

[Contrary1]

4. I think the answer to this one is simple...

Election 2008. They saw what happened last November.

[lyonn]

5. Yup, 2008 histeria by the repubs, giggle

It could be the strong possibility of impeachment that has them bad mouthing bush, but, they have acted superior, arrogant, ignorant, right along with their "great leader" (sucking up I believe is the proper word) and now, since 11-7-06, are scared for their jobs that they thought were secure. Afterall, the media has been telling the public the dems will not keep you safe! Now, if the media would just be honest and mention the Dems that have set-out a plan for Iraq like Murtha, etc., and Richard Clarke hitting the airways (yeah!!) with a proposal similar to Murtha's, etc. the public will really get the picture of an Idiot President that no one wants to be associated with.

[elocs]

6. Republicans in Congress have to be pragmatic.

In 2 years Bush will be gone, but they want to remain in office for as long as they can. The wind is blowing away from Bush and like good politicians most of them have their fingers to the wind.

[pat_k]

7. Given the bushcheney abuses, what's unprecedented is the silence on impeachment

The DC establishment seems to "get" that the bushcheney power grab is unprecedented. (e.g., "Power Play" segment in CNN's Broken Gov't series). Impeachment is the remedy. Their fears make no sense, particularly when viewed in the context of history.

We have to keep hammering. Such irrational fear cannot be allowed to stand.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html

. . .
Over the past 200 years, members of the House have proposed articles of impeachment against nine presidents. None of these initiatives reached the ultimate conclusion of a Senate vote convicting the president, and a resulting removal from office. Yet in most instances, the threat of impeachment effectively checked lawbreaking, irresponsible, or incompetent executives. When the Founders devised the impeachment process, they created a deliberately broad standard, which has been accepted through history by successive Congresses and the American people. To prove that an executive official is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” would-be impeachers make not a classic legal case, but rather a moral, practical—and yes, political—case that a member of the executive branch ought not be allowed to continue behaving badly. As such, when a president or vice president who is threatened with impeachment quits his office, or simply quits abusing it, the process has, for all practical purposes, succeeded.
. . .

Of the nine instances when impeachment resolutions were filed against presidents, the opposition party secured the presidency in the next election seven times—most recently when Bush succeeded Clinton. After members of an opposition party pressed for impeachment in Congress, that party has almost always maintained or improved its position in the House at the next general election. After conservative Republicans proposed Truman’s impeachment in the fall of 1952, their party took control of both the House and the presidency. Democrats who moved to impeach Nixon in the summer of 1974 dramatically increased their presence in the House that fall. Even after Republicans bungled their impeachment of Clinton, their party retained control of the House—losing just five seats in the 1998 election that preceded the impeachment vote, and just two in the 2000 election that followed it. And, of course, they also captured the White House.

[katty]

8. baby boy Georgie against the world-bah!! IMPEACH