Will anti-impeachment spin work?

[yurbud]

I thought it was just me who noticed this, but now FAIR has posted an analysis of mainstream pundits spinning to get impeachment off the table.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2992&printer_friendly=1

Will it work?

[drdtroit]

1. I say Yes but it shouldn't.

As one who regularly travels abroad, impeachment would be a huge step toward the rehabilitation of our reputation in world affairs.
People (foreigners) are still amazed that we were adolescent enough to impeach a President for a blow job.
Letting Bush and his fellow world criminals off the hook would serve to further erode our reputation!
And without world cooperation, it's lights out.

:patriot:

[yurbud]

8. yeah, we would look like bigger tards than Bush

[drdtroit]

12. That's for sure! n/t

:patriot:

[porphyrian]

2. It seems to have worked on a significant number of people here. - n/t

[yurbud]

6. any chance a fair number are shills?

I've posted polls before about ideas that were getting a lot of play here but didn't seem like they would be widely popular and usually my suspicion was right.

they are trying to massage the debate, there are limits to how far that will work.

[porphyrian]

16. It certainly is a possibility.

I'm not one to guess peoples' motives so much as to call them stupid, but it does seem strange how rabidly opposed to the idea some people here are.

[yurbud]

20. and with so little evidence, and so many vacuous talking points repeated ad nauseum

[meldroc]

3. Spin won't help them.

Can't polish a turd.

[Fovea]

4. Remember everyone who says

to forgo the option for impeachment, because they will need to be reminded of their statements now, later.
Later, when Waxman has dragged the whole rotten admin blinking into the light of day.
Later, when Conyers is having to decide over massive censures or impeachment.

I think they need to remember that they started out seeking an impossible bi partsanism
with the NeoCons. Impossible, because it takes two parties to be bi-partisan.
Impossible, because their mandate from the people all but demands it.

[Mythsaje]

5. I think investigations will provide enough information

that the people will DEMAND impeachment.

All the backbiting and snarking back and forth is meaningless until we drag the ugly truths into the light of day and the people speak again.

[yurbud]

7. leave caution to those actually on committees. our job is to remind people of the goal

[Mythsaje]

9. MY job is reason. n/t

[yurbud]

10. reason ignores evidence already in the public record?

[Mythsaje]

17. Oh, I accept the evidence.

Some, however, need more. And putting the cart before the horse (yelling impeachment before public investigations) actually damages the argument. It appears more a "witch hunt" than an actual legal procedure.

[yurbud]

18. more? there's more evidence to impeach than for Clinton, Nixon, & ..

Andrew Johnson combined.

I agree with need fore investigation, especially on the Cheney energy task force, but only those doing the investigation need to be circumspect. The rest of us need to loudly remind everyone else where those investigations should lead. Otherwise, PR shills could later argue that there is no public support for impeachment because no one is yelling for it. In fact, this campaign seems designed to set that up.

[Mythsaje]

23. Yes, and the ones yelling for it are easily discounted as "fringe" groups...n/t

[yurbud]

24. the fringe argument won the election--or do you think people just want a more efficient war for oil?

[Fovea]

21. Final thought

If there was a mandate of any sort in this election (and I believe that our numbers were a lot higher, this is just what we could do above their thresholds) the mandate was for honest, transparent government that can see itself in the mirror when the subject is human rights.

The pre-requisite for this must include the following-- a recognition of the bill of rights in its entireity-- a comittment to due process, which does not mean escape clauses and pardons for things like fomenting and supporting torture, and rendition to torture states.

[Individualist]

11. No

Repukes and their adoring DLC are spinning like tops, but most people are intelligent enough not to buy into the spin.

[Swamp Rat]

13. FUCK NO! ... I WON'T LET IT!!!

[Individualist]

14. Keep shouting it out, Swampy!

:thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

15. I DEMAND JUSTICE!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[yurbud]

19. votes in this poll back you up. looks like threads here to contrary

are conscious attempts to dampen the natural grassroots sentiment.

[Swamp Rat]

22. "Poll: Bush's Approval Hits All-Time Low"

(CBS/AP) For a relentlessly optimistic President Bush, this is a season of disappointment, surprise and setbacks.

At home and around the world, things aren't going his way. With Mr. Bush's legacy-building time running out, Americans sent a pretty clear message in Tuesday's election that they were angry at him and wanted change. Though Mr. Bush's name wasn't on the ballot, voters took revenge on the Republican Congress and put the Democrats in charge of both the Senate and House.

And if the vote counts weren't clear enough for the White House to hear, Newsweek announced a new poll to be published Monday which places President Bush's approval rating at the lowest it has ever been — 31 percent — while 63 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with how things are going in the country. According to the news magazine, Bill Clinton's lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Mr. Bush's father's was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan's was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter's and Richard Nixon's lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively.

Perhaps most grim for the White House, Newsweek also reports that most Americans are writing off the rest of the Bush presidency. The poll shows two-thirds (66 percent) believe Mr. Bush will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll. Only 32 percent believe he can be effective.

(snip)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/11/politics/main2174421.shtml