What do you all think of this as a strategy for congressional Democrats?

[WilliamPitt]

Winning elections is pretty simple compared to the work, patience and dedication required to govern effectively. Evidence of this is easy to find; just look at the GOP. They won the last few election cycles with relative ease, but found themselves utterly incapable of actually running the show with any degree of competence.

Sen. Reid in the Senate, Rep. Pelosi in the House, and the new majority they are tasked to lead are faced with a number of momentous decisions before they are officially installed in January. Before all else, the priorities of congress must be debated, hashed out and set upon, and it is in this process that the first real bruises are likely to be raised.

Right off the bat, though, the first choices are no-brainers. The Democrats have committed themselves to raising the minimum wage, passing legislation authorizing stem-cell research, rolling back tax cuts targeted for the super-rich and redirecting that money to the middle class, eradicating the draconian restrictions on debate foisted upon congress by the former GOP majority, reducing the cost of college while cutting interest rates on student loans, repairing the absurd prescription drug follies within the new Medicare plan, rolling back subsidies for oil companies in an effort to push alternative fuels, and establishing a coherent Iraq policy that gets us out of that quagmire before our armed services completely fall apart.

All of these policy ideas enjoy broad popular support among the American people, but have not seen the light of day these last years because many of them are at loggerheads with the ideological extremism that has dominated Republican politics. Mr. Bush will be hard-pressed to break out his veto pen on most, if not all of these, and if he does, he runs the unavoidable risk of relegating his party further into political irrelevancy.

At the same time, however, it is an absolute requirement that a series of serious investigations be undertaken into the Bush administration’s activities since 2001. What were the real details behind Dick Cheney’s so-called Energy Task Force? Was the catastrophe in Iraq truly a result of bad intelligence delivered by the CIA, or do the Downing Street Memos demonstrate a desire for war no matter what the facts were? How were contracts handed out to friends of the administration, most notably Halliburton? How was September 11 allowed to happen, and why, and who is responsible?

Herein lies the tricky part. There is a legitimate concern that if the Democrats charge forth in a gung-ho frontal attack on all things Bush, they will be seen by the American people as being just as partisan and divisive as their former masters. If this kind of war is declared, the Republican votes needed to pass veto-proof legislation along the lines Pelosi and Reid have described will be impossible to secure, thus denying the Democrats a chance to show the American people that they can govern, and that they have our closest priorities first in mind.

Nowhere is this quandary more evident than in the debate over impeachment that has been raging across the left-leaning internet since Tuesday. A thousand voices have been raised demanding that Bush be impeached, and a thousand other voices are counseling caution. No president in recent memory has deserved to be impeached more than Mr. Bush, but at the same time, a push for impeachment could cause the kind of bitter warfare that has so disgusted the electorate these last ten years. That kind of warfare could ruin any chance for the Democrats to define themselves as better and more responsible than the GOP, and the 2008 elections could deliver the kind of jarring reversal we saw last week.

The other issue at hand regarding impeachment is the simple viability of it. The Democrats have secured majority status in Congress, true, but it is not the sizeable majority that would make any impeachment vote a fait accompli. A two-thirds majority, 67 Senators, would be needed to pass any articles of impeachment that come out of the House. As it stands today, nailing down 16 Republican ‘yes’ votes seems a bridge too far, and never mind the question of whether all 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus would vote in unison on the matter. This is in no way guaranteed, and it cannot be forgotten that a failed impeachment push is what destroyed the political career of Newt Gingrich in 1998.

The solution, it seems, is to split the difference. The Democratic leadership should do everything in their power to pass legislation that will put them in the good graces of the American people, legislation that simultaneously forces the GOP to potentially place themselves even further on the wrong side of the popular will. Successful pursuit of these bread-and-butter policies will open the way for a roll-back of the anti-constitutional bills regarding torture, habeas corpus and domestic surveillance that have been foisted upon an unwilling populace.

Simultaneously, however, Reps. Waxman and Conyers, as chairman of their committees, should be given unfettered ability to investigate anything and everything they desire. A good deal of this work has already been accomplished - both men have already completed voluminous research into Iraq in general and Halluburton specifically - and all they need do is exercise their subpoena power and finally get the main actors in these debacles under oath.

Investigate, but keep impeachment “off the table,” and if those investigations create a tidal wave of anger and disgust which makes impeachment inevitable, if the revelations are so gross than 67 Senators have no choice but to vote ‘Aye,’ then so be it. Pelosi and Reid can shrug their shoulders and say, simply, that the matter is out of their hands. If they get caught smiling into their sleeves when they say this, well, that’s what they call in Wisconsin “hard cheese.”

Pursuing this dual course effectively will have a dynamic effect upon the American political landscape. Passing legislation that is popular among the electorate, while displaying the kind of bi-partisanship that has been grossly absent of late, will prove to the American people that the adults are back in charge. Public investigations into Iraq and other administration disasters will finally give the American people an accurate picture of what we have been enduring since 2001. The outrage generated, combined with effective and responsible congressional leadership, will dramatically change the landscape for the 2008 presidential race. If this thing is done properly, the Democrats could increase their hold on congress while securing the White House, thus opening the door for the kinds of changes this nation so desperately needs.

There is enough red meat in this strategy to satisfy everyone - the base, the moderates, the conservatives and the independents - within the Democratic party’s newly enlarged tent. Beyond that is one other simple truth: pursuing this strategy will allow congress to actually accomplish some good, which would be a phenomenon as new and exciting as the election itself. It won’t be easy, to be sure, but nothing worthwhile ever is.

[TAPat]

1. Well said, and the best

strategy in my mind - frankly the best of both worlds.

[Jawja]

2. K&R, Will.

Thank you. Well said, as always.

[bigtree]

3. you explain it very well

the investigations and supoenas are used to leverage action from the Executive. Democrats know how to do this well.

Democrats know how to govern with a republican White House.


Reid gets it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2685963

[nannah]

4. right on the money will

and clearly articulated as always. you set a high standard for both reporting and writing. thanks for your years of effort and clarity.

[StoryTeller]

5. Makes tremendous sense to me!

K&R

[tk2kewl]

6. By Jove, I think he's got it!

But couldn't we just lock them up without a hearing as enemies of the Constitution, and have a secret trial with secret evidence, and be done with it? :sarcasm: (sort of)

I think you have the right idea Will.

[BootinUp]

7. pretty sound reasoning. On the investigation

I think we need to make sure that they are billed as being done to improve our handling of similar problems in the future, in other words its ok to uncover all the shit and corruption and fuckups, but we are only doing it so we don't let it happen again. :)

[Zhade]

108. Disagree. It should not be pre-decided either way.

If the investigations show solid proof of their crimes (as if that won't happen), these criminals MUST be held accountable. The Constitution and the rule of law require this. We don't get to just say "oh, your bad, don't do it again".

[JuniperLea]

8. Thanks for explaining the dynamics

I've been falling all over my words trying to get a point across... now I fully understand my own gut reaction.

:)

[Selatius]

9. Your message is very agreeable.

I stand behind it. Your calm analysis and sober words are a welcome relief to the heated debates about impeachment.

[niallmac]

10. The Sound and Fury of the impeachment debate will continue

but no matter where one stands on the impeachment issue the course you
describe in Congress will proceed regardless.

The idea that we are perceived as a rabid lynch mob is a serious consideration.

Let the investigations proceed. Will this not be like cleaning out the horse stalls?
There will be no diamonds found. It will be a series of consecutively larger shovel
fulls of poop.

An MSNBC poll for, what it's worth gives us over 80% of responders in favor of impeachment
if 'we were lied to about the war.' I wonder what the investigations will reveal about that
subject?

I find no fault with your line of logic I just remain a little ignorant of what legal challenges
Bushco face if: we do not impeach.

The crimes committed by this cabal against world humanity, national law, and the Constitution of the United States cannot go unpunished.
That for me is not on the table for compromise.

[fishnfla]

11. Pass the bread and butter and hold the sour grapes

lets move on towards 2008, get positive things done in the meanwhile.

[The Count]

12. Fix election fraud! Paper trail and sanctions for fraud/suppresion! FIRST!

Then, everything you said is fine by me.

[TahitiNut]

43. Ballot integrity is a HUGE ... but autonomous effort.

There is no overwhelming need to interlink and coordinate Election Reform (auditable/verifiable balloting) with turning the rocks over to expose the nests of corruption. From a political perspective, it should be easy to amplify the GOP base's recent whining about having elections stolen from THEM. No matter how baseless and hypocritical those laments may be, it is in everyone's interest to treat them as valid and use them to propel a comprehensive (bipartisan - lol) national action to REQUIRE validatable election processes.

There's no question time is of the essence, but creating ANY interrelationship between the efforts regarding Iraq, Katrina, torture, etc. is counterproductive. It must be dealt with as a standalone issue.

[onenote]

13. you are right, but people ought to maintain realistic expectations

Many here assume without doubt that the product of investigatory oversight hearings will be a national outcry demanding impeachment. Personally, I doubt that will happen. We will see, but anyone who believes it is an inevitable result should at least consider the possibility that a consensus favoring impeachment will not emerge unless some smoking guns appear beyond the information currently known and that there is a good chance that the administration will successfully suppress the disclosure of such smoking guns, assuming that they exist.

[BootinUp]

17. absolutely correct. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

14. I certainly agree with all of this

We have a mountain of damage to repair and it's going to take a lot longer than just 2 years. We must proceed by quickly establishing our bona fides on the issues that Americans want addressed and could not get the Republicans to address. In that way we can hope to still have our majority after 2008 and maybe the White House also, which we'll need for the larger, harder to pass agenda items. De-Nazification and cleanup has to occur simultaneously but there's no way it could all get done in 2 years, even if that was all we did--and if that's all we try to do for 2 years, we won't have our majority in 3. We are going to be forced to juggle and balance our priorities.

[SutaUvaca]

15. It's a sad state of affairs

that the impeachable (indeed, impeachment demanding) offenses are so obvious, and yet this ordered process of using "ordinary" investigations must be the better, the necessary, approach.

Sad, but true.

Fortunately, it seems to me, that Waxman's and Conyers' and others' investigations, just as you say, will inevitably lead to outcries from the public, outcries that cannot be ignored, for impeachment, even criminal trial, of quite a few of our current administration officials.

Sad, but true.

And it's thanks to the horrible divisiveness, not just in Congress but all through our land, that this evil "uniter" and his handlers have wrought upon our land. So, let the investigation flow! I look forward to maybe a year from now being able to have a civil discussion with my siblings again, after truth has set many folk free.

..edit for typo.

[scarletwoman]

16. This ought to make perfect sense to everyone.

I fervently hope that this is precisely the strategy that the Dems will pursue.

Let the investigations and subpoenas lead where they may -- and if a groundswell for impeachment rises from within the American public as the result of these investigations, then so be it.

But unless and until the demand for impeachment comes from citizenry at large, it will only serve to polarize and divide -- witness the Clinton impeachment when his approval ratings actually ROSE among the public, because they saw it as unjust and counter-productive.

If nothing else, the 2006 election results ought to give us a little more faith in the ability of the much-maligned "sheeple" to eventually recognize bullshit when it piles up high enough.

Let us not adopt the authoritarian attitude of the right in dictating that "we know what's best for you". Let us instead focus on shedding light in the dark corners of the past 6 years and thereby open the space for righteous outrage to grow organically from within the body politic.

sw

[FredStembottom]

30. Thanks, Scarlet........ good point that reminds us all........

that being utterly, irrevocably convinced (here at DU) of what crimes the Bushies have committed is NOT the same as having made a case, composed of hard evidence, to the vast, sleeping populace.

Hearsay evidence is not evidence.

[sutz12]

18. Well said, and from a practical standpoint...

even if we started impeachment in Jan 2k7, the proceedings would eat up the next two years. Remember how long the Clinton affair took? Why waste the next two years? Even if we got the conviction, which as you stated quite well is no forgone conclusion at all, what would we gain? We'd kick the chimp out with a few months on his term. Meanwhile, none of the busines of the people would get done.

The only really bad part of this is that if we let the guy finish his term, he'll get a pension for life. :puke:

But it isn't worth it to me to sacrifice what has been worked for so hard just for what would look like a vindictive witch hunt to the American people.

Yes, work on that legislative agenda, do investigations, and see what happens. If we follow this agenda, the outlook for 2008 should be pretty good. If we launce an impeach at all costs drive, the Repubs will likely regain control. Long term, I don't want to see that happen in the near future. Maybe if the R's return to their true conservative roots and dump the rabid far right Christo-fascists, I could support some of them them. But until real conservatives take their party back, I will not vote for any R.

[dkofos]

19. I fully agree

With subpoena power Conyers. Waxman and others will finally
be allowed to gather the evidence they need to show the bUSH
crime family for what it is.
Impeachment will happen. I can wait until 2008.

[tomp]

20. 1) of course impeachment begins with investigation.

you don't impeach before you investigate. you're contributing to the general confusion on this issue. the two are both required but in one and only one particular order.

2) if the democratic party is the party it wants me to think it is, it will WELCOME open political warfare with the party of the policies of the last six years. it will smash what it can in any way it can of that gruesome fascist machine. frankly, i don't think they are that party.

3) the american people need education, sorely. there are some who will never change but i'm certain the vast majority are willing to listen to reason. how to deliver that education is really the question. while i support "investigations" as a path to impeachment (duh, it is the only path to impeachment, or trials, or tribunals, or educating the people), i think it would suicidal, given past performance (see:bcci) to rely on the democratic party for that.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Impeachment

Impeachment will depend on what the investigations turn up.

Right now, we don't have enough to "sell" the case for impeachment. I can imagine a number of scenarios in which impeachment would be demanded, but a case would have to be made quickly.

The most productive use of investigations, politically, would be to destroy the neo-Con apparatus and grind it into dust. This isn't necessarily at odds with impeachment, and if a great deal of wrongdoing is found, these investigations will grow in size and power. Impeachment then becomes more do-able.

We should be screaming not for Mr. Bush's head, but for investigations. One stone to bring the whole flock down.

--p!

[mmonk]

35. We have enough "to sell". The people don't have the information.

[Dogmudgeon]

57. Same thing, really

You're right, it's the information that counts. People have to be convinced that impeachment wouldn't just be a re-do of the Whitewater/Lewinsky hearings. And right now, they would think it's just retaliation.

BUT ... with a few investigations, and a flood of new evidence of criminal activities, the furor would be impossible to avoid.

Thugs like Bush set the bar very high; people get used to so much abuse and slime that they accept it as the status quo ante. "Selling" them on the misfeasance of Team Bush involves breaking through that numbness. We need to get to the toppling point -- just tipping won't do it.

--p!

[farmbo]

22. A Lincoln/Truman- style "Comm. on the Conduct of the War" ..let the chips fall.

If the investigations reveal profiteering and deliberate deception on the part of Bush and/or Cheney, then the American public will rise up for impeachment.

Bear in mind, the evidence may ultimately reveal that Cheney--and not Bush-- has committed 'high crimes & misdemeanors'.

[Beetwasher]

23. Yup

n/t

[Strelnikov_]

24. First, Address The Voting Machines

If they do not, it will probably be a 2 year majority, with no chance for the Presidency (unless there is another tsunami, of course). Simple legislation, requiring paper record of vote. Machine count of paper record acceptable for initial count (printed votes from touch screens can have bar code for quick tally), with machine count validated by a hand count with completion 'as soon as practicable' following the election, no exceptions.

As for your legislative agenda, it is similar to what I have been promoting. Throw every economic populist bill possible at the Senate and White House to differentiate the governing philosophies. Now the Dems have an opportunity to demonstrate to the public what they stand for that should (hopefully) cut through the Reich media filter.


I agree fully with your 'non-impeachment' strategy. Do we really want * gone at this point? I can think of nothing better than having a low-20's (which I fully expect any day now) president of the other party in the White House going into a Presidential election. Kinda like a Bob Taft or George Ryan hittin the bottle. With a Dem Congress and Senate, this administration has been effectively neutered, and I expect any day that similar orders that went out to the military in the waning days of Nixon's term will be issued.


Let's keep the GOP scum tied to this road apple in the White House. Do the investigations, drive the numbers lower.


Hell, I can imagine a future where the GOP starts to push for impeachment.

[Martin Eden]

25. BIG K&R

You articulated my thoughts better than I could. The Dems must not ignore their oversight duty, but first and foremost they must govern effectively and improve their 2008 electoral prospects if the changes this country so desperately needs are to be implemented.

Conducting effective investigations without stirring up a climate of vicious partisanship and voter backlash will be a very fine line to walk. This will be a real test of the wisdom and leadership of Pelosi, Reid, et al.

[pdxmom]

26. If ethics and corruption are truly the leading reasons people voted

in the Democrats, then natural oversight and investigation is going to only bolster the feelings that already exist. This is a good thing for all of us.

At the same time, we have to balance our oversight with true movement forward, legislatively. Neither can be accomplished at the expense of the other.

I think Will has voiced it correctly. Thank you.

[Laurab]

27. Makes sense to me...

with the addition of voting problems, as some have mentioned - that MUST be addressed ASAP. Really, IMO it's the only way we will keep our majority, and hopefully, the next Presidency as well. Let the investigations lead where they may, and govern FOR the people in the meantime - that would be such a breath of fresh air.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. PERFECT!

:thumbsup:

[FredStembottom]

29. I didn't celebrate Tuesday very much due to these very concerns......

We MUST get this right! And your article spells out why very, very well.

I have been wrapped in thought since Tues - by Friday I was coming up behind you on the same road. Let me add a small extension to what "we" have been thinking. On Friday I posted:

>>>>> Neo-con desertion, Rumsfeld resignation, Cheney under attack...
This is a very lonely president! If Cheney goes, I believe we will have removed the real threat. I am still strongly convinced that Bush was never more than a ceremonial head. The real power tri-umvirate behind him is now dissolving.

If fresh outrages surface and America takes to the streets demanding removal....fine. But the real evil may already be defeated and soon removed.

Let investigations bring up whatever they bring up. Let us begin to govern. Let George quietly sit and finally get to finish that story about the goat. Let 2 years pass.<<<<<<<

Tuesday really did defuse things quite a bit. With the most egregious threats washing away (knock wood), I heartily endorse what you say here, today, Will!

:thumbsup:

[porphyrian]

31. Let's re-regulate the fucking media.

The American People have largely come to rely on the media for all of their information on reality outside of their personal life. Most of us here have realized that the media is now largely a tool of the republican propaganda machine, but many others still don't see this for what it is. I think most people would agree that they should be able to trust the media as a provider of factual information under the label of "news," but this is no longer the case, and every administration since reagan is to blame. If we want to present the investigations and the reasons for them to the general populace in a way they can swallow, we can't allow a handful of conservative media owners to be the ones deciding how to present this information, if at all. The media need to be regulated, because they've proven that they do a shitty job of it themselves. Let's bring honesty and integrity back to the news as well as government.

[Guaranteed]

105. That's extremely important. nt

[Zhade]

109. HELL YES! You're on fire today!

Damn important point, my friend!

[Ellipsis]

32. K&R

[matcom]

33. I believe I said the EXACT same thing yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2679727

[Peace Patriot]

34. The Democratic leadership has already decided on this strategy, whether

we like it or not. So it's kind of moot. But it does raise some issues about who and what this Congress is, whether or not we have a Constitution any more, what's going on behind the scenes, and what WE, THE PEOPLE need to do to get OUR country back.

First of all, I think our Corporate Rulers have various ways of shaping Congress to its own ends--including, lately, DIRECT control of the vote counts, with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by corporations with very close ties to the Bush Junta and far rightwing causes; massive suppression of black, poor and other Democratic votes (Greg Palast estimates 4 million, in this election); massive infusions of money into our filthy campaign contribution system, a lot of it going directly into the pockets of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies for TV ads; and those news monopolies, in turn, dictating the narrow parameters of the political debate, skewed way far over to the right, and marginalizing leftist (majorityist) voices. And all of this is at work in the primaries--where our candidates are chosen--as well as in general elections.

As a consequence, even with a big Dem win, we STILL don't have a Congress that adequately reflects the interests and views of the majority of Americans. Another factor is that only a third of the Senate was up for reelection, so change was barred in two thirds of the Senate. And the Senate will be a key element in watering down or killing most reform--including election reform--in limiting investigations to protect the interests of war profiteers (not to mention war criminals), and of course in preventing impeachment for the worst list of "high crimes and misdemeanors" this nation has ever seen (--and I'm sure we don't know the half of it).

Part of the reason for these crimes was to loot our federal treasury and bleed the poor, and enrich the rich. So of course those things should be remedied, and the Dem leadership is right in trying to do so--particularly as to immediate relief for the poorest of our people--such as raising the minimum wage, and repealing the bankruptcy bill, and financial responsibility measures, such as repeal of the multiple tax cuts for the super-rich, and taxing corporations and the rich appropriately to make up for their windfalls at our expense ($10 TRILLION deficit!), and immediate clampdown on war profiteering (the horse is out of the barn, on that one, I'm afraid--but, at $11 million PER HOUR, we can't begin too soon). Barbara Boxer is also right to create a "green" agenda for the Democratic Party, and start not only addressing the grave environmental problems we face, but also inspiring our people and the rest of the world with positive initiatives. A "green" planet does not at all mean a deprived or stifled human race. It can mean just the opposite.

And, boy, does this country need to turn around and face the future with hope, energy and brain power! Our people want so much to be doing good in the world. Look at what ordinary people tried to do during Katrina! I can't wait for our wonderful, ingenious, noble-hearted people to be called upon to HELP!

Finally, one of the first things Howard Dean said, after the election, was that ELECTION REFORM must be a first priority. The Democratic Party has a miserable record on this issue. The chief obstacle to election reform has been bipartisan corruption on all those billions of dollars in e-voting contracts. That's why we're in the mess we're in, with secret vote counting and so on. And I expect that the best House bill (HR-550)--which already contains some loopholes and weaknesses--will be stripped of its best provisions before (and if) it is passed in the Senate. I also fear "poison pills" placed in the bill by Bushites working with the "Bushite Democrats" swing vote (--such as national mandated e-voting "with a paper trail"--worthless without a good audit). But I DO think that Russ Holt and others should TRY, and, if they see something bad developing, cry the alarm. Too many states have NO "paper trail" and NO audit at all. It's just ridiculous. They need immediate relief. And there is also the matter of Republican vote suppression of black, poor and other Dem voters. This must be addressed. I think the non-transparency throughout the vote counting system will ultimately have to be solved by we, the people. We had a huge showing of Absentee Ballot voters this time, indicating vast distrust of the e-voting system--and this big AB vote may be the group that gets it done, locally (starting with demands to handcount the AB votes, and post the results BEFORE any electronics are involved). In summary, I wouldn't wait around for this Congress to restore transparent vote counting. I hope they do. But we had better get busy locally, and right away (if we want transparent elections in '08).

So you see where I am with this Congress. I don't trust them a whole lot, nor do I believe that they can or will always act in my interest, or the interests of the majority of Americans. We need to be realistic about what a Democratic House--with yet too many "Bushite Democrats" (of the kind who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus a few weeks ago)--can accomplish, with a very tight Democratic Senate majority (no wiggle room, and also many "Bushite Democrats"). I hope they shoot even higher--and I hope we at DU and the folks at Truthout and other liberal blogs and groups can push that process along back TOWARD THE CENTER. (Fair taxation is the CENTER, not the left. Transparent vote counting is the CENTER, not the left. Financial accountability is the CENTER, not the left. "Green" energy is the CENTER, not the left. The left would be dismantling Halliburton and the oil giants and seizing their assets for the common good! And then doing the same the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. But I digress.)

But there is a much more fundamental issue that MUST be addressed, and it is absolutely critical to our future as a nation and as a democracy. And it is the "unitary executive."

We have only two ways to curtail an out-of-control president. Impeachment, and voting him out of office. Bushite election theft has barred us from the second. That leaves impeachment. If Congress does not pursue impeachment, then the "unitary executive" and its absolute monarch powers stand, by default. "Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely," Lord Acton warned us. And it has more than "tended" that way, in this case. We're there. At absolute power. What should Congress be doing about this?

It's one thing if a president vetoes a bill. There is a political process for dealing with that. It's quite another if he UNWRITES the law passed by Congress, stating that he will not obey it, or will not implement it, or will only implement it selectively, to suit himself! And that's just one example, in this Junta, of a problem that goes all the way back to the Magna Carta--how do you curtail an out-of-control executive?

If Congress just reverts to "the Clinton years" (wherein the"balance of power" was honored by the President), and permits these terrible precedents of absolute power to remain unchallenged, we remain in acute danger of another fascist coup, at any time. Say that this is all that our Corporate Rulers wanted--this snapback from in-your-face fascism to "mere" Corporate Rule. (--I mean, besides looting us blind; what they wanted structurally, to maintain Corporate Rule). Fine. We have "mere" Corporate Rule for a while. (--might as well get used to it, cuz that's what we have.) But if the Corporate Rulers crash this economy (as they have done, for instance, with World Bank/IMF policies throughout South/Central America, prior to the new, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution that has occurred there), and people are desperate, and another dictator comes along--in even more dire economic circumstances--we have a White House throne room all set up and ready to be warmed by the butt of our future absolute monarch, who can send you and me into "indefinite detention without trial" if we look at him cross-wise, who can spy on us all, and blackmail and torture us, who can designate us as "terrorists" at his whim, who can waive the Constitution, and who can peremptorily dismiss acts of Congress, and write his own laws.

We lucked out this time, however it occurred (and I don't think we really know that yet--also, it's not over yet). What about NEXT time (George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's abiding concern)? You think this was bad? Six hundred thousand people slaughtered. Our treasury looted far into the future. And all the other crimes and outrages. What happens NEXT, with these monarchical powers still in place, unchallenged?

We need a new MAGNA CARTA, re-asserting the "balance of power" in this government, rescinding/overturning all those "signing statements," telling the FBI to stay the hell away from Congressional offices, re-declaring Congressional independence, and re-stating Congressional rights, duties and privileges, including the SOLE right of Congress to declare war, and the right of Congress to OPEN RECORDS of the executive branch, and to TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY of executive officers, under oath.

These things are going to come up again and again, if Congress doesn't settle this up front. And if they don't do it by impeachment, they need to find another way. It MUST be done. These precedents cannot be allowed to stand.

And you Republicans out there, who may be lurking, and who are just waking up from this nightmare--and are seeing your own party and your ideals in ruins--think about this: a Democrat in the White House who can freely spy on you and arrest you and shut you up, and who can tell a Republican Congress to go jump in a lake, "I'm now the 'unitary executive!'" And don't think it couldn't happen. Anybody can become a tyrant. One party rule; Republicans not allowed.

We've been in a very bad way, with fascists in the White House, and a Bush "pod people" Congress. But we shouldn't get lulled by the sense of relief we all feel that our political system, however creakily and imperfectly, seems to be coming back to life--as the result of the tremendously hard work of a lot of good people. People in danger of their careers, maybe even of their lives. And just ordinary hardworking grass roots workers and leftists (majorityists). However much control the Corporate Rulers may have--whether via Diebold/ES&S or their monopoly on the "news," or their staggering wealth--the CONDITIONS for this overwhelming vote of the people AGAINST THE WAR and against Bush were created by all of us, and by Howard Dean and other hard workers and believers in "the People" within the Democratic Party. The Corporate Rulers make have permitted it, but they did not create it.

But all our work could be undone--again--as it was in 2004--if Congress does not reclaim its powers, which have suffered such great erosion. I think this needs to be done publicly, maybe with special public hearings so all of us can be heard, and be formulated as a Congressional resolution, and delivered to the White House.

The people need to know that ORDER HAS BEEN RESTORED.

Why were there all these doubts expressed, at DU--and other places--the day after the election? It's because confidence in the government has been severely shaken. And one of the key concerns has been Congress as a "rubber stamp" to Bush, and unlawful presidential action. We need to know that Congress understands who they are, vis a vis this recent history. The country needs to know it. Bush and Cheney need to know it. And FUTURE presidents need to know it. It cannot be an old boys club/old girls club understanding. Congress' stature and position, and its EQUAL POWER, have been severely violated. This is WHY there is so much dismay about "no impeachment." It's the feeling that things are so far out of balance they MUST be REPAIRED, and put back in order. We must tell this and future executives "No! Do not cross this line again!" How do we do that? How does Congress do it?

Personally, I think the statement "Impeachment is off the table" is a promise to violate your oath of office. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to put impeachment "off the table." But the very least Congress should do--if they won't curtail the executive directly, with their only tool for doing that (or are using the threat of it, in some behind-the-scenes maneuver), is to formulate and deliver a Magna Carta--clearly stating where the lines are, and re-asserting "balance of power" principles--for their own sakes, and for the sake of future Congresses, and the American people.

[mmonk]

38. Excellent.

"If Congress does not pursue impeachment, then the "unitary executive" and its absolute monarch powers stand, by default. "Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely," Lord Acton warned us."

[puebloknot]

91. J. Barrett, Dissenting

Here I am in William Rivers Pitt Land, dissenting from the eager nodding of the heads in agreement with his original post here. (I've read almost every word you've ever written, WRP, admire you, and have agreed with most of it. This one disturbs me.)

Great article, Peace Patriot. And I agree that the strategy has already been decided upon. I find it a specious argument that when Nancy Pelosi said that "impeachment is off the table," she may have been doing it a bit tongue-in-cheek, that she, for the duly initiated, was hedging her bets and could change her mind in the future. That kind of conduct certainly will not inspire a respect for the integrity of the Democratic Party if our top leader makes decisions just as George did with Rumsfeld -- she had her reasons for not being totally straightforward about the matter. And if she *was* being straightforward, then I agree that she will violate her oath to defend the Constitution (if any) by making a unitary decision about the question of impeachment.

We need to keep lobbying for truth and justice, but I fear we may not see either very soon. It is important to me, as an ardent supporter of impeachment, to have it understood that I'm not some wild-eyed fanatic who wants to come out with guns blazing on January 1, 2007. There is a prescribed process for impeachment, as described in our Constitution. Articles of Impeachment must contain substantive charges of malfeasance. Of course, before we can concern ourselves at this point with whether a thing is constitutional or not, we have to take a serious look at whether, as GW says, that document has become merely a "god dammed piece of paper."

Impeachment, if I understand it correctly, is not a process of conviction. It is a tool for bringing the accused before the bar of justice and making his crimes publicly known. It is then up to the Senate to decide whether to conduct a trial, and conviction may or may not occur. Bill Clinton was *impeached*, but he was *not* convicted and removed from office.

It may be that *some* of The People would look at impeachment as simply a process of getting even. I see that sentiment expressed in this thread. I'll wager that there are more who would have great respect for the fact that Democrats are willing and able to demonstrate a respect for our laws by dispassionately holding to account the offending members of the Bush Administration. As you have astutely said, Peace Patriot, "The people need to know that ORDER HAS BEEN RESTORED."

The purpose of impeachment, as I see it, is to make a public record of impeachable offenses, and if it is not possible to get enough votes to convict, at least the offenses are on record, as are the votes of those who refused to hold the executive accountable. I would appreciate correction if I am wrong about this.

Even if hearings are held *outside* the impeachment process, we are still faced with the question of whether any action will actually be taken against any members of the administration, simply because of a lack of will on the part of the Congress, or on the part of The People, to do so. The Iran/Contra hearings went on and on, and I don't recall that much came of those. A decision was made by the Dems to simply move on. And now we are dealing with the fruit of that lack of courage all those years ago.

It has been wisely said that just the threat of public impeachment might be enough to cause a resignation, or several, as in the Watergate scenario. I agree with the sentiment of the organization called "The World Can't Wait." To say we'll tolerate ongoing criminal activity because time passes quickly, and we may be able to put a lid on things, is something I'd invite any of our leaders to say directly to our troops serving in Iraq!

How many times will we, as a people, be willing to let our executives commit crimes against our country, and against humanity, in general, and simply give them a pass? Do we want a "Vichy" party which will simply be complicit with the current administration, assuming that two years will pass quickly and then we'll be rid of the main problem? I'm hearing that frequently now, and that is the most cynical thing I've heard yet. In that time, how many more people will die in Iraq? And where is our moral compass if we are not willing to say "j'accuse" to an administration that has trampled on every principle we claim to stand for?

I don't feel that the majority of voters in this recent election are so much concerned with bipartisan "harmony" as they are with someone just finally standing up and telling the effing truth! They're tired of the political games, the assumption that they're too dumb to understand the workings of their own political process, and should just leave it to their leaders. If people can't bear to look at the chaos of the judicial process, then they are perhaps not ready for membership in the ranks of "the adults."

I have come to a point where I am offended at hearing the word "strategy." Of course, I'm being a bit melodramatic here, but instead of trying to figure out the best plan to bring the sheep along, I want someone to trust the sheep enough to tell the honest truth. What kind of lesson is it to counsel people to just trust our leaders and assume that all will be well? The good citizens of Germany did that in the 1930s, with unfortunate results.

It would be great to believe that offended America is going to rise up and demand impeachment -- once *the investigations* are done. I'm reminded of an evening right after Selection 2000 when Vincent Bugliosi told a crowd of us in San Diego that "history will show we should have been in the streets." Perhaps America, the majority that fueled this latest election, has become more enlightened in the last six years, but certainly few Americans seemed to understand that we had just been through a judicial coup d'etat in November 2000. I have little confidence in the populace "rising up" now. We the People are tired. Our congressional representatives can't legitimately use that excuse.

There are varying views on what the voters really were demanding by their votes last Tuesday. Does disgust with vile advertising and partisan sniping necessarily suggest that most Americans want our newly-elected leaders to "work with, cooperate with" people who occupy the White House with questionable legality, who have lied us into a war, who are getting our troops and thousand of Iraqis killed, who have brought fascism to us under the guise of religious superiority? That suggests a low moral tone to me.

I agree, PeacePatriot, that shelving impeachment may well be inspired by the fact that there are few in Congress who are sinless enough to cast the first stone. *Really* opening investigations in too many dark closets would most likely turn up a bipartisan brew of people who voted for the war, voted to kill off habeas corpus, are turning their collective eyes away from domestic spying.

All eyes already seem to be on Election 2008. Certainly, there is a call to the Dems to demonstrate that they can govern wisely over the next two years. If their only path to electoral victory is compromise with an opposition that still strongly supports the fascist policies that have taken root in our current government, it will be a hollow victory, indeed.

Sincerely,

Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[Laelth]

96. Hear, hear.

See also #93 below.

-Laelth

[mmonk]

36. Now for the risk.

Without impeachment, the people may not believe there have been impeachable offenses, especially if no networks give major coverage of investigations except for C-Span, or worse, it's investigations are painted as extremism by the democrats' more liberal members.

[stepnw1f]

37. I Agree With This Will

especially this part:

"Investigate, but keep impeachment “off the table,” and if those investigations create a tidal wave of anger and disgust which makes impeachment inevitable, if the revelations are so gross than 67 Senators have no choice but to vote ‘Aye,’ then so be it. Pelosi and Reid can shrug their shoulders and say, simply, that the matter is out of their hands. If they get caught smiling into their sleeves when they say this, well, that’s what they call in Wisconsin “hard cheese.”

Most people I talk to understand this..... I don't know why some feel we are going to get all crazy and Impeach the bastard immediately without doing things in an intelligent way. Goddamn crazy lefties we are, ya know....buhuhawhawhaw... :sarcasm:

[Peace Patriot]

48. Yes. As I was reading Will's piece, it occurred to be that the Republicans

might end up wanting to impeach Bush themselves. And I just got a funny picture in my head of Repub House members and Senators screaming for impeachment, and Granny Pelosi saying, "Calm down, now calm down, kids! Take a time out!"

I'll bet a lot of them for sure would like to dump Cheney real soon. And, as the charges mount against Bush Jr., and '08 approaches, boy, are they gonna wanna be free of that legacy! They can't even invent a myth a la Reagan. There's nothing there. It's ALL negative. Bush is universally despised. What a handicap to be carrying into the next election!

Get Cheney out. Put in somebody plausible as prez-in-waiting (to go with in '08). And then impeach Bush and get him out by the end of '07. The fresh face has 9 months or so to go around acting like the president.

Yup.

The trouble is the Repubs are now out of power. Will the Dems LET them impeach Bush?

You know what? If I was a Repub right now (God forbid!), and especially if I had prez ambitions, I'd join the radicals here at DU and 87% of the American people, and start calling for impeachment NOW!

That cagey Pelosi! Keep the albatrosses around their necks as long as possible!

[TahitiNut]

39. I don't personally believe a decent Iraq exit strategy can be defined ...

... unless and until the Bush/Cheney criminality and corruption in (1) energy policy, including the Energy Task Force, (2) foreign human intelligence activities, including 'Curveball' and other plants that Plame/Brewster-Jennings were sniffing, and (3) plunder and graft in contracting and coerced global corporate entitlements are brought to light LOUD AND CLEAR. These areas constitute more than enough basis for the impeachment of any FIVE presidential administrations in the history of the country. As such, there will be a scramble to pick and choose - every faction under the sun trying to cover its collective ass against the question of "what the FUCK were YOU doing when this cancer was spreading like a plague?"

In short, I firmly believe the impeachment process is a necessary prerequisite to the most valid Iraq exit and resolution. I really don't believe anything even half as decent (in both quality and elapsed time) can be accomplished without such exposures.

I profoundly object to any calculus that attempts to orchestrate efforts in this direction on the basis of perceived partisan advantage over and above what's right and just. If one guides ones' efforts on the basis of self-interest instead of principle, the seeds of corruption are sowed even further.

[stepnw1f]

41. Very Well Said...

Can both be accomplished in your view. Investigating to chalk up more evidence for the public and to ensure accountability before impeachment. Remember what we know, the public barely knows.

[TahitiNut]

44. Thanks. I think timing and prioritization are everything.

The absolute LAST thing anyone should be concerned with is "Wahhh! They're calling me names again, mommy!" ... i.e. partisan advantage and defense against partisan opposition.

A very well-timed Democratic leadership focus on, say, Jefferson (D-LA) - should he in truth be guilty of corruption - would go a looong way to inoculating the Dems against the claims of partisan witch-hunting. In other words, PRINCIPLE ABOVE PARTISANSHIP must be made clear.

Gingrich and company weren't punished by the voters because they perused impeachment - they were punished because they placed partisan advantage above the national interests. Happily, enough voters saw that. When the average voter calls for 'bipartisanship,' he's actually calling for non-partisanship! Only the partisans call it "bipartisanship." Decent, thinking people know it's a matter of placing the people's interests above party interests - even if it means cleaning up one's own party.

[stepnw1f]

45. Oh I See Through all That

Many in fact here on DU, without naming folks, used this when Alito was being confirmed. It seems the same types in washington always wanted to "keep their powder dry" when they already had the backing of their base to fight.

Hell... the same folks would have us all believe we should not fight for gays to have the same equal rights as all other Americans because it may "hurt" us. That very wishy-washy thinking has poisoned the Democratic Party for many years now only to end up with a GOP majority.

So let them call us all names....

[mmonk]

42. One of the best lines so far.

"If one guides ones' efforts on the basis of self-interest instead of principle, the seeds of corruption are sowed even further."

[Zodiak]

50. I agree with ya TahitiNut

the reason I do is because the idea of eliminating corruption within the party serves the dual interest of doing what is right by the American people AND strengthening the party in the long run. It is a win-win situation, but it requires flux. Flux within the party is something that many fear (not me).

We can actually afford to shed a couple of House members and still have the majority, so putting our worst under the spotlight along with the repukes would be good for everyone.

[TahitiNut]

51. There's absolutely NO LIMIT to what people can accomplish ...

... if they don't worry about who gets the credit. :dunce:

Conversely, almost NOTHING gets accomplished when folks focus on getting the credit. That 'credit' then usually becomes blame.

Just look at the last 6 years. The GOP steadfastly refused to do anything unless a large majority of their own caucus was actively in favor. The GOP steadfastly refused to give audience to lobbyists that weren't majority contributors to GOP campaigns. It takes a while for Joe Voter to catch on, but they did catch on.

Every time I see a "DUer" ("concern trolls"?) raise partisan interests above Doing The Right Thing ... all I can see is failure and corruption.

[Zodiak]

52. You don't even have to predict it

There is a long history of failing every time the Democratic party fails to do what is right in favor of what is politically expedient.

The Republicans do not have as much of a problem with that. Their problem is hubris...they act in the party's interest so much that it breaks the suspension of disbelief by their own members eventually.

We earned the American peoples' votes, but we need to earn their trust. Transparent, non-corrupt government would go a long way to that end.

[Peace Patriot]

53. This is a well thought out post. I appreciate what you're saying, and I was

struggling with the same issue, above, myself, from a different perspective: my Magna Carta suggestion. It will be dangerous and crippling to go forward as if we could wipe out the past by wishing it away. Those "unitary executive" precedents that Bush has set are going to be used for ill, either now, or later. They UNDERMINE the Republic in very serious ways. And Congress must somehow put the Republic right--straighten out this grave "balance of power" matter, and re-assert its EQUALITY among the three branches in government, if not by impeachment, then some other way. I was thinking of a declaration, passed by Congress and delivered to Bush/Cheney, akin to the Magna Carta document that the British nobility delivered to King John, criticizing his abuses of power and asserting their right to curtail him. Congress needs to re-state and re-assert its power (--and do some specific things, such as declare all those "signing statements" null and void, and re-state its SOLE power under the Constitution to declare war; also the special privilege of members of Congress under the Constitution to be free of all interference by the executive and its police forces--i.e., the dustup over the FBI raiding Cong. Jefferson's office; that is forbidden by the Constitution!)

And nowhere is the "balance of power" problem more evident--and nowhere has the problem had more catastrophic consequences--than in how the Iraq War came about, and in the fetid corruption and ill motives involved in the invasion/occupation.

If that is not aired, how can planners understand what they are looking at now--in Iraq, or, for that matter, here (re:Rumsfeld's departure)? How can we understand what evil has been done, and what it means now, and how it can be repaired or mitigated, if at all?

And, secondly, how can it be PREVENTED from ever happening again? --which goes to the "balance of power" issue, including the President's obligation to tell the TRUTH to Congress about circumstances of potential war, the President's obligation to curtail rogue operations (such as Rumsfeld was no doubt running), the President's obligation to curtail war profiteering and to be truthful in accounting for funds, and all sorts of other structural and Constitutional issues by which the Bush Junta took this country to war against military advice, against the advice of intelligence professionals, against the advice of the UN weapons inspectors, against the advice of several key allies, and against the will of the American people, 56% of whom opposed the Iraq War way back before the invasion, in Feb. '03. (56% would be a landslide in a presidential election.)

And that doesn't even begin to list the things that need investigation, so that we understand HOW this happened, and how to prevent it. What happened to our Constitution? How could we have made such a mistake again, after Vietnam?

But I think the problem, TahitiNut--the same problem we have with election reform--is that too many Democrats in powerful positions are guilty of collusion. This was not just Bush's war. It was many key Democrats' war as well, in their willingness to go along with it, to vote to give their war powers away to Bush, and to vote to fund it, time and again, without oversight. And just consider the guilt of the New York Times, in assaying the guilt of virtually the entire political establishment of the country. Their own star reporter spewing WMD lies on the front page, day after day, and having "Mata Hari" meetings with the vice president's chief aide, to leak lies to the American people, and to out a CIA agent. So many liberal establishment powers were deeply embedded in this war conspiracy. I think that may be the problem with impeachment.

WE could sort it out. We, the People, if we had some objective forum. This Congress is NOT an objective forum. In fact, it looks quite carefully crafted not to be. The American people clearly wanted it to be. SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose this war today. 60% identified it as their chief issue of concern when they voted. It's not their fault, in any immediate sense, that their choice of who to vote for may have been limited to someone who was, at best, tepid in opposing the war, or who had supported it. And I'm talking about just Dems. The voters often didn't have a choice. To protest the war, they had to vote for the Dem, whether the Dem was waffling or pro-war, or not. I think there WILL be an infusion of antiwar sentiment in the new Congress, but not nearly enough to adequately reflect American opinion. There are not many clean hands in our leadership. (125 people in the Anthrax Congress voted against the war. But some of those went along with funding.) (That was a great improvement, though, over Vietnam--only 2 votes in the entire Congress against the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution.) We still have a Congress that is only about 30% to 40% anti-Iraq war, despite this huge antiwar vote by the American people. The rest think the war would have been fine if we'd won it.

To do what is right. Hm. To do what is right they should have all resigned. (--those who voted for it or were complicit.) How can someone who voted for the war, or who is hogtied to the military spending, impeach Bush? And what do we know of even deeper complicity? I would suspect there is a lot of it (as I do on the "Help America Vote Act").

All I'm saying is that, of course, both Bush and Cheney should have been impeached and removed from office a long time ago. The first no-bid contract to Halliburton should have gotten Cheney impeached. (Can you imagine what Dwight D. Eisenhower would have said to THAT?) Bush's dumb look on 9/11 should have gotten him impeached. (Jeez.) (And don't get me started on Rumsfeld and 9/11!).

But they're STARTING this Congress with the announcement that they've already put aside their oath of office to defend the Constitution. "Impeachment is off the table." We may get an investigation, but I don't think the principle culprits (or is it frontmen) are going to be there. (Cheney has already said he won't be. Rumsfeld is off to...where? Paraguay maybe?) We may get to the Constitutional issue down the line, on document subpoenas. It's bound to come up. Then we're going to need the Magna Carta.

[Patsy Stone]

40. Well stated, Will.

Other than throwing my hat into the "add election reform" ring, it's exactly what needs to happen.

[Zodiak]

46. This is the sensible strategy.

A few DUers have been advocating this over the last couple of days, so it is good that everyone is getting on the same page, now, with such a visible post.

I only have one problem with this strategy as described: the veto.

I surmise that Bush will not be afraid to use the veto as much as many here speculate. I believe he will do what he can to shut down our legislative agenda and bank on his party and his media to frame the gridlock as our fault for being too "liberal" or "partisan". I believe this because he is trying to ram through his legislation and his appointees now without regard to public opinion. I do not believe that Bush cares much about the fate of his party as he does the fate of his business interests, which are not necessarily intertwined.

Getting the first part done, the legislative agenda, may be much tougher than we think. Without the damning evidence from the invesitgations, we will have no leverage over the executive at all.

The good thing is: the circumstantial evidence is damning enough without subpeoenas; I am confident we will turn up much more and much worse. Within 6 months, these investigations will have turned up enough to coerce Bush into signing our laws.

We won't have enough time to impeach and convict, most likely, but we will have enough evidence to arrest former President Bush and have him tried without his Republican cronies getting a vote. This would be a jury and a judge, and justice will be served. Meanwhile,all of the evidence makes the 2008 election much easier for us as long as Americans are stil itching to get rid of more corrupt politicians.

edit: bad typing and diction

[mmonk]

47. Yes.

People seem to forget this administration has been operating under the "unitary executive" theory. And in the meanwhile, another legal resident may disappear off our streets. Another person gathered up in a "sweep" may be tortured, maybe as I type this, maybe on December 29th, maybe this time next year.

[neebob]

49. Sounds good to me

I especially like the part about investigating Iraq and giving an accurate picture, because it isn't going to be less of a mess in two years.

I'd apply that same idea to a lot of things besides Iraq. Accurate pictures are needed to offset the risk of reversal due to another terrorist attack or other disaster enabling use of powers quietly put in place over the past five years. Accurate pictures also facilitate passing legislation, fixing messes, and building cases against criminals.

I'd say spend about one third of our energy on popular support gaining, one third on mess fixing, and one third on investigation/accurate picture creation to feed the other two thirds. Then let the chips fall where they may after '08.

Or we could waste most of our energy, good will, and very short time impeaching the chimptard now.

[Individualist]

54. "failed impeachment push"?

The House impeaches (with a simple majority vote), the Senate convicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Take the example of the process involving Clinton. There can be no argument that he was impeached. That action was taken by the House. The two articles of impeachment were then referred to the Senate for acquittal or conviction. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate as follows:
Article I - Perjury
55 Not Guilty - 45 Guilty
Article II - Obstruction of Justice
50 Guilty - 50 Not Guilty
67 Guilty votes (a 2/3 majority) would have been required to convict and remove the President from office.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blstarr.htm

His acquittal by the Senate did not negate his impeachment.

[mmonk]

78. Nice try but they can't figure it out.

They are too enamored with the leadership.
:banghead:

[gristy]

55. This is exactly what I've been saying

Not in so many good words, but the same gist. Impeachment proceedings will flow naturally, if warranted, from committee investigations. Our constitution and the laws of our country require this process to be unimpeded by politics. This is an issue of law.

[CitizenLeft]

56. you said it perfectly...

"Investigate, but keep impeachment “off the table,” and if those investigations create a tidal wave of anger and disgust which makes impeachment inevitable, if the revelations are so gross than 67 Senators have no choice but to vote ‘Aye,’ then so be it."

YES. Yes, exactly!

"Pursuing this dual course effectively will have a dynamic effect upon the American political landscape. Passing legislation that is popular among the electorate, while displaying the kind of bi-partisanship that has been grossly absent of late, will prove to the American people that the adults are back in charge. Public investigations into Iraq and other administration disasters will finally give the American people an accurate picture of what we have been enduring since 2001. The outrage generated, combined with effective and responsible congressional leadership, will dramatically change the landscape for the 2008 presidential race. If this thing is done properly, the Democrats could increase their hold on congress while securing the White House, thus opening the door for the kinds of changes this nation so desperately needs."

Well said! :applause:

[eridani]

58. One thing that being a PCO and doing doorbelling has taught me--

--is that most people really aren't paying a lot of attention. If a drive for impeachment results from these folks getting informed and angry enough, fine. I agree that the process should not be driven by activists. The non-activist majority voted us in to fix things. Besides fixing the worst problems, we also need to investigate the beejeezus out of everything. We need to be as tough on war profiteering as the Truman Commission was.

[hfojvt]

59. I like the way you say 'tidal wave'

I had this argument with a geology professor way back in 1990 who insisted that I had to say 'tsunami' even though he knew darn well what I meant by 'tidal wave'.

You have a sensible strategy there, but some of that depends on the atmosphere and how much we can get our message out. I would say that stem cell research did not pass overwhelmingly in Missouri and that rolling back the tax cuts for the super-rich is gonna be an uphill battle. Unless it is combined with a tax cut such as a $2000 boost to the standard deduction, Bush and most other Republicans will have no qualms about opposing it and denying that it is just a tax increase for the super-rich. Plus I am afraid the economy is slowing down - again, so Bush and the Fed will call tax increases anti-growth.

[Blue State Blues]

60. Sounds good to me

And I'll even forgive them if they decide to cross off some of the other items on their to-do list before they get around to, "eradicating the draconian restrictions on debate foisted upon congress by the former GOP majority."

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

61. But national elected Dems...

have been hinting that this is going to be the strategy for a while now. Remember also that the Dems are actually capable of handling multiple things at the same time, so time wise these activities are not sequential -- they will all happen in parallel.

[Emit]

62. I don't think the Dems can do this part --

"...establishing a coherent Iraq policy that gets us out of that quagmire before our armed services completely fall apart."

Listen to what everyone is deferring to -- the Baker-Hamilton Commission --

Bush & Co. and Dems are now referring to that commission as the panacea for the quagmire in Iraq. And Bush keeps throwing out there how he and the Dems will work together --

Q But to follow, we were speaking about the war, and during the campaign, two very different viewpoints of the war came out. You spoke a lot, as Bret mentioned, about what you saw as the Democratic approach to the war, which you were greatly concerned about. Are you worried that you won't be able to work with the Democrats, or do you feel like you have to prevail upon them your viewpoint?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we're going to have to work with them, but -- just like I think we're going to have to work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. It's very important that the people understand the consequences of failure. And I have vowed to the country that we're not going to fail. We're not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we've got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don't know how many members of Congress said, get out right now -- I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven't seen that chart. Some of the comments I read where they said, well, look, we just need a different approach to make sure we succeed; well, you can find common ground there.

See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that's going to be hard to work together. But I believe the Democrats want to work together to win this aspect of the war on terror.

I'm also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror, and it's -- I think back to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Harry Truman began the Cold War, and Eisenhower, obviously, from a different party, continued it. And I would hope that would be the spirit that we're able to work together. We may not agree with every tactic, but we should agree that this country needs to secure ourselves against an enemy that would like to strike us again. This enemy is not going away after my presidency.

And I look forward to working with them. And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe.

Just like I talked about the troops. I meant what I said. Look, the people that's -- are going to be looking at this election -- the enemy is going to say, well, it must mean America is going to leave. And the answer is, no, that doesn't --- not what it means. Our troops are wondering whether or not they're going to get the support they need after this election. Democrats are going to support our troops just like Republicans will. And the Iraqis have got to understand this election -- as I said, don't be fearful. In other words, don't look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete. That's not what's going to happen, Jim.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html

I expect Bush & Co. to do anything in their power to corner and strongarm the new Dem majority into supporting this Baker-Hamilton thing, whatever comes from that -- I mean, look at his comments -- there are sort of veiled threats in there in that he's saying "The Dems aren't gonna not support this plan...blah, blah, blah."



I posted on this earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2665635&mesg_id=2689424

From that link, this is excerpted:

November 9, 2006

MANY AMERICANS are breathing a massive sigh of relief now that the Democrats have apparently won both houses of Congress and President Bush has sacked his hawkish Defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld. At home and abroad, expectations are being raised that the power shift in Washington will rein in the Bush administration, restoring centrism, moderation and pragmatism to American foreign policy.

Not so fast.

~snip~

But expectations of an about-face on foreign policy are illusory. There will be more continuity than change; the ideological excesses of the Bush era are not yet behind us. At Wednesday's news conference, Bush did not budge on Iraq policy and stood by his bellicose vice president, Dick Cheney. It may well be up to the Democrats to ensure a change of course on foreign policy, but control of Congress does not give them the power to do so.

The U.S. Constitution grants the president a wide berth on matters of war and peace. Congress can chip away at the margins and seek to obstruct the White House, but it cannot dictate policy. Though it wields the power of the purse, Democratic leaders know it would be political and moral suicide to seek to force a withdrawal from Iraq by cutting off funds to U.S. troops deployed there. Such action would also enable the Republicans to shift the blame for failure in Iraq to the Democrats.

~snip~

Amid the political confrontation that will ensue when the 110th Congress opens in January, the Democrats may well be able to force changes to the Bush administration's domestic agenda — which was running out of steam well before this week's vote. But Congress is less likely to be able to shape precisely those foreign policies that helped turn the electorate toward the Democrats. On matters of statecraft, Bush is destined to remain "the decider" for another two years.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kupchan9nov09,0,129222.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[mmonk]

81. Good post

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. Dems were elected with a Mandate for Oversight...

That's how it should be framed- that these investigations are held to ensure oaths of office are upheld, the Constitution is protected, taxpayer dollars are properly/legally spent, and members of the govt. behave ethically. Everytime someone crys foul or partisanship over an investigation, they should be reminded of the millions spent investigating the Clenis; at least the Dems will investigate the workings of the govt., the war, the taxpayer's money...

You're right Will; if, in the course of these sure-to-be-numerous investigations, the American people become aware, then informed, then outraged, and then if they demand impeachment hearings, their elected representatives will have no choice...and with popular legislation on stem cells, minimum wage, etc to reflect the constructive intentions of the new majority, the stage will be set, and appetites whetted...

I'd like to see the MSM just try and ignore ALL of these investigations; the only risk will be of "scandal fatigue". The Dem's leadership will have to proceed in a fashion so that morsel after juicy morsel is divulged in a way that the American people (and the MSM newscycles) can properly digest.

I can't wait.

[mmonk]

82. To protect and defend the constitution is one's oath of office.

You don't protect it the way you described. The administration isn't going to implement itself in anything.

[Qutzupalotl]

64. I don't care if he's impeached or not. Here's why.

Impeachment is a sword. If it's hanging over his head, he's much more likely to cooperate. He should be made to understand: veto our legislation, we expose you.

I have no doubt that Waxman and Conyers will have plenty to work with. For maximum twisting in the wind effect, we should have them release details of another scandal every Monday. On Tuesday, you have a few additional details released to keep the story alive. Wednesday, let them try to respond. Thursday, hit 'em hard again. After six to nine months of that kind of treatment, their approvals will bottom out and the groundswell for impeachment, if it ever is to happen, will foment. But even if it doesn't, the longer they stay, the more they lie—and the more they remind people to never, ever trust a Republican again.

Now that Rumsfeld is going down hard, Cheney is likely to be pushed in front of the bus soon. There will be some new revelation of something they've done together, and Cheney will have to resign. Bush will name a replacement VP with an eye towards 2008. Then Bush resigns and moves to Paraguay.

That's when Conyers appeals for his extradition on war crimes.

We should keep in mind that Bush is a flight risk, and not push too hard too soon, as you have said. In fact, I don't think we have to push at all.

[AntiFascist]

65. In California we say "tough shit" n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

66. Works for me

I think it is absolutely CRITICAL that the Dems get right to work -- on the issues you've outlined. We must show the American people that we can get things done, that we have heard them, that it's time for the grownups to come clean things up after the mess the spoiled brats have made.

It's important that we do this for the country, but it's also important for the party (and therefore the long-term good of the country). I'd trade serious good work getting done for impeachment and vengeance. While watching Bush and Cheney go down would be delightful, it really wouldn't move the country forward, and would almost certainly limit our time in power to 2 years. Not enough by far to get permanent change in our direction.

OTOH, as you say, if things are discovered that simply FORCE our hands wrt impeachment...

I think we ought to say that, based on what we know now, impeachment is off the table.

Of course, what we know will change now that the dome of secrecy will be lifted from our gov't.

[Seabiscuit]

67. Almost, but not entirely, plagiarized from:

the much simpler, and more effective:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2957708

While completely missing the most important part: one issue per bill.

[WilliamPitt]

70. Are you accusing me of plagiarism?

[Seabiscuit]

72. Can't you read?

[WilliamPitt]

75. I can see we are thinking the same way

but I hate to break it to you: I never saw your thread.

Answer my question. You have made a serious accusation.

[Seabiscuit]

76. Answer my question:

If the answer is yes, you will see that I never made any accusation.

[WilliamPitt]

90. "Almost, but not entirely, plagiarized from"

I can read just fine, and that's an accusation.

[Seabiscuit]

101. Allow me to relieve your misery:

You obviously *want* the phrase to mean "an accusation".

But that's not what it means.

An accusation, is by nature, a claim. And such claims by definition must be definite, certain, unambiguous and devoid of vagueness.

The problem here, is that the phrase in question is ambiguous and vague, and therefore is not definite, certain, and cannot constitute a claim or accusation.

Had I written "Almost entirely plagiarized", your take would be correct.

The "but not" muddies the waters, however, and makes the phrase susceptible to more than one meaning. "almost but not entirely" as often as not may also mean "sort of" or "almost but not exactly" "almost but not really" or "almost but not quite". In other words, it means "not", because it doesn't rise to a definite and certain claim.

Take one of many possible examples: "I'm almost but not entirely sure" may appear to suggest certitude, or some degree of certitude, but really simply means "I'm not sure".

Furthermore, to be "plagiarized", your post would have to lift entire sentences/paragraphs from mine word-for-word, which it obviously didn't do, so the notion that your post is "plagiarized" or that I'm accusing you of "plagiarization" is palpably absurd. The ideas in my post weren't mine to "steal" in the first place, as I acknowledged in that thread - they're nothing new - I just tried to piece some of them together at a time I thought was appropriate. You did something similar with your OP.

It was a silly phrase for me to use, and I should have responded differently or not responded at all. So I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

So relax.

With that out of the way, I will say that it's nice to know that there are quite a number of us out there sharing some of the same ideas about where we'd like the next Congress to take us.

[bridgit]

106. MEthinks thy doth gobbledygook too much...

but that's just me :dunce:

[philly_bob]

89. Oh, come on. That's a nasty charge. Play nice or post plagiarized quotes. /nt

[Guaranteed]

103. Yeah? And you stole my position on impeachment.

I've been against it for months.......

:eyes:


We share ideas around here. He didn't plagiarize a thing from your post. His post was much more comprehensive than yours.

[Old and In the Way]

68. As long as we don't negotiate away the option of impeachment should

investigations warrant, I'm OK with this strategy. We cannot make structural changes to this country until we address the root causes of why we are where we are today.

[mmonk]

84. That's what bothers me. They keep saying it's off the table.

Since the impeachment process INCLUDES investigations, I'm not sure what all this means. Congress holds investigations all the time.

[bridgit]

69. concurrent with that & more i want to see the republican no-bid crony...

'black water' anti-american war profiteering machinery most unceremoniously dismantled before their lying eyes & charges brought where RICCO has a card to play

[Seabiscuit]

71. You know what?

The country finally found a way to begin ridding itself of the Republican plague: vote so overwhelmingly Democratic that the Republicans can't even steal the vote anymore with their Diebold machines, robocalls, etc. etc.

[bridgit]

74. whoopsy...

you're on your own

[ancient_nomad]

73. Very well thought through.....

coherent, and written as only you can write it. :-) I agree 100%. I believe when the investigations reveal the corruption the citizenry will clamor for impeachment. Most people I talk to have little or no idea of what has been occurring within this administration. When they are awakened, LOOK OUT! They are going to be beyond pissed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. In My Opinion, This Is Stating The Obvious. Unfortunately, However, As Obvious A Logic It Is,

it appears this week that some are still oblivious to the obviousness of it.

I agree with you completely and hope that some of the overly-passionate irrational types that have refused to see the obviousness, will step back for a second, read your post and let it sink in just a little. I know they mean well and I can understand the reasons for their passion, but demanding an immediate path to impeachment would be the most certain way to ensure complete self-destruction of our party and their future chances of success.

Thanks for the well written post. It saves me time having to write something similar myself.

[buddysmellgood]

79. The investigations will reveal such crimes that impeachment will not be

necessary. The cry for resignation will be deafening. Bushco had better plan ahead, or they are looking at President Pelosi.

[bridgit]

80. that is imo a very real possibility...

without oversight, and an enabling rubber stamp republican congress for 6 years; nobody knows the festering disease & mental sickness they've covered up thus far

[pacalo]

83. You've expressed so eloquently what I've been thinking. I'm bookmarking this.

[Big Sky Boy]

85. The Key is Simplicity

While the actual strategy will obviously be far more intricate than what you've outlined above--the public details must be equally sparse.

Americans have a short attention span. If our party leaders publish a "95 Theses," they run the risk of ridicule and even worse, may quickly lose focus by reaching for too many straws at the same time. Pelosi and Reid are wise to stay focused.

So they'll push some popular legislation. They've already said as much. Get a few legislative victories under their belt. Hopefully gain some momentum. With a few items crossed off the list, it will be OK to add others. Keep the list short. Never add an item until you've accomplished something or tabled it. The same methodology that worked very well for Reagan in his first term.

Restoring the oversight function is long overdue. Again, they've already said its a done deal. If it leads to impeachment, so be it.

The 500 pound guerrilla in this little brain-storming exercise, however, is Iraq.

Democrats did not woo voters last Tuesday with fantastic promises. They basically stood back while the conservative movement imploded, leaving Democrats the only viable choice on the ballot. Voters overwhelmingly stated they want a change of direction in Iraq. If two years from now, after a myriad of hearings and investigations we are poised to impeach, but haven't done anything to significantly change the situation on the ground in Iraq, our day in the sun may be very short indeed.

[Norrin Radd]

86. Unless, of course, they are considering keeping investigations off the table, as well,

in an effort to leverage bush away from utilizing the veto left and right. I hope they prove that wrong with a great showing of spine.

[AntiFascist]

87. I think everyone should take a look at this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2679727&mesg_id=2680475

The DUer Senator makes an excellent argument that basically we don't need to investigate anything, that we could have impeachment (not including indictment) as soon as Democrats take control, if we want. The case has already been made, basically.

The real problem is that nothing is going to get done about this until we make our collective desires known to our representatives.

I'm also very grateful that the issue is "off the table" as of this moment because I don't want Bush to be able to negotiate or have any say whatsoever in this matter. Can you imagine what Rove would be doing in the next two months if impeachment was not off the table?

In the meantime, I am fully supportive of any and all grassroots efforts to call for impeachment so that our representatives understand where we stand. In fact, polls show that a clear majority favors impeachment! The issues at stake are WAY too important to brush aside. Certainly, deep investigations will likely also help to correct a very corrupt system, but the point is that the argument that "investigations will tie up Congress too long for us to get any other work done" is simply wrong.

[w4rma]

88. I couldn't agree more. I think you've nailed the proper course of action. (nt)

[Zorra]

92. How can Democrats work with republicans in a bi-partisan way,

except for on the most superficial levels?

What can republicans bring to the table that will benefit the country?

Republicans have done nothing but set our country back. To continue republican policies would literally be planetary suicide. To allow republicans to hinder us from repairing the damage they have done would be an exercise in futility.

It appears to me that republicans have willfully stifled Democrats from improving the condition of our nation on the whole, on all levels, simply for partisan political gain, to the extreme detriment of the country and the world. How can we interact and govern alongside republicans on a civil level if they continue to exhibit this type of mentality and behavior?

I'm all for bi-partisanship if the republicans are willing to help us fix the damage and then progress from there, but republicans have proven that they cannot be trusted, and we must not fall into the trap of senseless counterproductive appeasement just for the sake of appearing to be bi-partisan.

That said, I agree with you that we have important business to take care of, and an aggressive full frontal assault on Bu*h is counterproductive to repairing the damage done to the country during the past 6 years. This is a formidable task and it's going to take a lot of focus and hard work, and we can't afford to waste time or energy.

[Laelth]

93. Um, just no.

I do not favor rolling back the "draconian restrictions on debate foisted upon congress by the former GOP majority." If our party has promised to do this, I think it was a mistake. The GOP needs to really feel what that was like. I do not favor taking the high road with the GOP. They are vile, and they need to feel what it's like to be in the minority under their own system so that they won't do it to us again.

And, as I have argued before, impeachment is necessary. We should not repeat Bill Clinton's "sweep it all under the rug" strategy of 1993. If you let these folks get away with shredding the Constitution this time, there's noting to stop them from doing it again the next time they're in power. Besides which, we have been telling the American people that the GOP has been shredding the Constitution since 2001. If that's true, we have to impeach those responsible. I could care less whether we can convict in the Senate. That's not the point. We must bring articles of impeachment to prove to the American people that we can be strong. If we can't defend the Constitution from Republicans, why would the American people elect us to protect them from terrorists?

While I have great respect for you and your work, WilliamPitt, I do not support your conciliatory tone in this essay, nor the implicit desire to make everyone happy. I think that's a losing strategy for Democrats.

-Laelth

[puebloknot]

98. Adults know...

...that it is sometimes necessary to take a strong stance against an unruly child (that would be Dubya), and that you can *understand* that child into extreme brathood.

Many people see themselves as "peacemakers," and want to just give the administration a pass (they probably all had terrible silver-spoon-in-the-mouth childhoods which warped them so that they had no choice but to act out their respective frustrations on a weary world), and start a whole new world. My father, a WWII soldier, was very fond of the analogy of a goose sticking its head in the sand, and waking up to a whole new day. I'm aware that the "move on" concept is more sophisticated than that, and it isn't my wish to ridicule people who sincerely feel that a clean sweep is the best choice.

I just can't rid myself of another analogy or two: The young child molested by a pedophile (possibly a pedophile priest or pastor); the daughter molested by her own father; the wife who is beaten by a vicious husband. We look askance at those who turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, enabling the perpetrator, leaving the victim to a lifetime of suffering and undeserved shame.

Our *country* has been molested, friends, and we need to impeach the perpetrators. We've tried turning a blind eye, and we see where we are now. Many studies show that trying to rehabilitate pedophiles is a near impossible task. The best we can do is use *oversight* to see that these people are not turned loose to offend again. Bill Clinton tried "rehabilitation" with the Republicans after Iran/Contra. He simply helped enable the perpetrators in that scenario to offend again.

Sensitive people sometimes find it hard to find a place to stand on a moral high ground without feeling that they are simply being judgmental. Adulthood requires us to make *reasoned* judgments about our lives, and that's a different issue than standing in a "get-even" retaliatory stance.

I think a majority of Americans are able to sort those two issues out for themselves.

My thoughts....

Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[Laelth]

100. Hear, hear.

Nicely said.

-Laelth

[Time for change]

94. I partially agree

I recognize the need not to give the appearance of being out for vengeance and jeopardizing the political future of the Democratic Party by doing so.

However, I believe that the impeachment issue involves other equally important considerations as well.

If investigation into the many Bush administration crimes "identifies" impeachable offenses against our country and our Constitution I believe that it will then be the duty of Congress to proceed with impeachment even if it is not evident that a majority of the people support impeachment at that time.

We have a representative system of government, which I believe in, and as such our elected representatives must on occasion LEAD the people rather than merely be responsive to public opinion. I believe that this is one such instance, especially since the only thing preventing widespread enthusiasm for impeachment in our country is lack of public understanding as to why impeachment is required, to make the statement that our Constitution and the laws of our country cannot be violated by anyone, ESPECIALLY if they are the president.

As Mark Green has said about our current Congress: "Congress... have been more comfortable as enablers rather than exposers of the assault on Democracy". I believe that the Democrats must now turn that around and not be overly concerned with public opinion prior to the onset of impeachment. I believe that most Americans have enough common sense to understand the need for impeachment once they become more educated on the issue.

[Senator]

95. Get Out of That City As Fast As You Can ... And Stay Away for At Least a Week

Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment

Red meat? I don't even see any pink tofu.

Just imagine Kerry trying to explain the "tricky part" to Imus.

---

[focusfan]

97. I sure hope the democrate Congress can do all the things

described and hopefully they can stay in power.:dem: 

[proud patriot]

99. I'm on board

:thumbsup:

[Guaranteed]

102. What a great post. Nice job, man. nt

[nolabels]

104. So do you really think * will take up the role of straw-man?

Yawl doin too much thinkin. I would give it two weeks or three weeks tops. In 1/07 after the new congress has launched a few over the bow and lord pissypants go ballistic, it will be all over. The role of POTUS can be a real job if there is a real congress.
It's all just a matter of time :shrug:

[Zhade]

107. Much better.

However, two caveats:

1. The legislation passed must actually be of benefit to the most people possible, with no restrictions of rights or working against equality for all. For example, no "privatized health care is good enough" bullshit - polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support UHC/single-payer. Likewise, the minimum wage increase MUST be indexed to inflation, or it is a mere band-aid, a good-seeming sop that will ultimately (and quickly) fail to help those it purports to aid.

2. Absolutely under NO circumstances should the idea that criminals, once investigated, will not be held accountable ever take root. When crimes are proven, we either follow the rule of law, or the whole deal is off.