Dem leaders see no upside to impeachment

March 6, 2006

The Wall Street Journal reported today that progressive activists and groups like ImpeachPAC are gearing up to make Bush’s possible impeachment a major campaign issue in 2006, but party leaders see no upside to this message.

The $60,000 that ImpeachPAC has raised so far isn’t much, but has kept the Internet-based organization afloat…. The movement can point to some small successes. Radio celebrity Garrison Keillor posted an article for the online magazine Salon calling for Mr. Bush’s impeachment. Three California cities — San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Arcata — have passed resolutions backing impeachment, and municipalities in North Carolina and Vermont are considering such steps.

But the Democratic National Committee, chaired by 2004 campaign firebrand Howard Dean has declined to chime in. A House resolution offered by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan seeking an initial impeachment inquiry has attracted support from just 26 of 201 House Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers, the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, allows, “This isn’t something we have to do right away.”

As an electoral strategy, I have to agree with party leaders who seem to believe Dems can do better than running on an impeachment platform. The issue gets activists riled up — which is, to be sure, a good thing — but in most competitive districts, a candidate who vows to make impeachment a top priority might have a hard time being taken seriously.

It’s not that I’m personally against the idea of impeachment; it’s just that, as a campaign strategy, this may not be the wisest course of action. Dems have a lot to work with this election cycle to highlight Republican corruption and incompetence. If we’re going to take the notion of impeachment seriously, it should probably wait until after the election.

Or am I off-base? Does Bush’s plummeting national support and GOP unease suggest that this is an issue that could resonate? I don’t buy it, but I’m open to suggestion.

Make the cases against Bush’s honesty, his weakness on defense (particularly port defense), his willingness to rape the environment, his inept appointments, his failure to respond to Katrina — all cases which could later be used for impeachment proceedings — NOT for impeachment. Impeachment itself should NOT be an issue in 2006 since it won’t help Democratic candidates claim victory in their district.

  • You are not off base, and this line is why:

    Dems have a lot to work with this election cycle to highlight Republican corruption and incompetence.

    We have plenty (some might say too many) of weapons to wield against the GOP this election cycle. Focus Dems, focus!

  • I agree impeachment is not an issue to run a campaign on — but I hope this doesn’t indicate a reluctance on their part to pursue it if they should gain control of the House and/or Senate. That would have a great upside — getting King Idiot the hell out of the White House.

  • Although impeachment should not be an issue, those running for office should not necessarily run from the issue. They can state that they believe a whole lot of evidence exists, enough to warrant an up front and serious investigation. And then point out how the corrupt GOP Congress has abdicated its role in such proper supervision of the Executive Branch which is making this country weaker, not stronger. Another reason to vote Democrat with this clown in office.

  • I have to stand on principle, not politics. Bush and
    Cheney have committed a multitude of impeachable
    offenses, and the process ought to begin if the
    Democrats take control. That’s a big, big if.

    That said, I don’t think impeachment should be the
    thrust of their campaign. It should be on the issues
    and principles that Democrats, hopefully, still stand
    for, and how the Bush gang has set the country on
    the wrong course at every turn. And it should highlight
    their lies, corruption and incompetence.

    I don’t think they should shy away from impeachment
    when asked, but it’s a little too much of the cart before
    the horse to run on it. You gotta establish the grounds
    for impeachment, first. That should be the thrust,
    without mentioning it specifically. And, of course,
    they should also be campaigning on what they
    plan to do to steer the nation in the right direction.

  • Bush’s callousness and malfeasance is certainly grounds for impeachment but, if he’s impeached, we’ll have President Cheney for the remainder of his term, which would be worse. A bipartisan review and articles of censure would, perhaps, be a sufficient means of checks and balances that would curb Bush’s recklessness and inherent indifference.

    The Democratic leadership should concentrate and publicize a coherent, viable, detailed, and specific list of counterproposals that would benefit average Americans. Such a detailed agenda would permit average citizens to see they have a viable alternative to the current incompetence and indifference of the Republicans who seem to think party loyalty is more important than what’s best for the country and its citizens.

  • I’m not going to argue that impeachment is a loser of a campaign issue. Frankly, I don’t understand how you even evaluate what makes a “good” campaign issue.

    Let me hit this from another perspective: Hey, look. Yet another angle that the Democratic candidates should not pursue. Put it on the list with national security, abortion, guns, religion, etc, etc.

    What does that leave, exactly? Can the candidates take any positions, or should they just look pretty enough to be on teevee?

  • I agree that it’s not a good campaign issue. It should be done, but voters want a representative who is going to do something positive.

    “Two words that give pause to any impeachment drive:

    President Cheney.”

    Nah. It’s simple, really:

    2. Impeach Cheney.
    3. Refuse to confirm a new VP when nominated.
    4. Impeach Bush.

    Voila. President Pelosi.

    Oh, yeah: I forgot point 1.

    1. Win control of the House and Senate.

    And you won’t do that by running on impeachment.

    QED.

  • You can’t just point people to evidence that you help makes your case. You have to draw the conclusions for them and present those conclusions. Otherwise, the other side can even take the facts you’re hoping will help you, and package them in a totally adverse manner: not only that, they’ll have a glamorous looking person on the tube present the partisan packaging, and to most people, that veneer of credibility is all they need to believe that version of the story.

    Simply put: the national security / fear storyline that the Republican strategists have put into play is a powerful obstacle on the playing field. Ignore it at your peril. If the Dems don’t take a countermeasure that can deal with something of that magnitude, then they’re aced, no matter how many little bitty (to the common voter, apparently ‘unimportant’) issues coming up that cast a little shadow on the GOP ideologically, and on the Pres’s people’s approach to administration.

    If they’re in a compromised position, keep pushing. If you at all believe there’s a plausible basis for impeachment, why not mention it a couple of times? In a letter or in a call to a radio show? Or in a conversation? These leaders are not kings. This is America, and we know that people are equals. So we have to be on the alert as to whether inidividuals who are given power are wielding it properly. Any less is unAmerican, unwise and dangerous.

  • A stronger campaign theme would be to ‘bring accountability to Washington’. This could mean impeachment, but stops shprt of using it as a central theme. Haliburton, DHS, FEMA, the budget, GOP corruption all fit neatly under accountability.

  • Impeachment doesn’t have to be a campaign theme, but, the Republicans have created and presented a coherent and compelling storyline supporting what they do, and the people are buying it. We all need to look at the long-term and we need to have the vision, the energy, and the willingness to face reality to do what it’s going to take to deal with that.

  • Take a page from the Republican playbook. Democrats can foster debate about impeachment without making it a formal campaign theme. Prepare thoughtful but noncommital responses to questions from reporters while stoking the fires behind the scenes.

  • Swan,

    Simply put: the national security / fear storyline that the Republican strategists have put into play is a powerful obstacle on the playing field. Ignore it at your peril. If the Dems don’t take a countermeasure that can deal with something of that magnitude…

    I think you accurately summarize the situation. And the ports deal is a wonderful gift that can help to illuminate the overall failures and incompentency of the GOP in national security, especially on the home front. Domestic issues play a larger role in midterm elections so this is a boon for us if the DNC focuses on it.

  • No on impeachment for 2006 cycle. Run on the need for oversight. If impeachment comes up the talking point should be, “We don’t know if there have been any impeachable offences comitted because Congressional Republicans have refused to investigate. The President may have done nothing wrong but we have no idea because Congress is not fulfillng its Constitutional obligation for oversight.”

    A direct assault on W, even in a weakened state is too easy to spin for Republicans. Calling for transparency, truth and fulfillment of Constitutional duty is tougher.

    IMHO

  • I agree with Lame Man.

    Democrats haven’t yet found an issue that resonates with voters that they can truly call theirs. It’s not that there isn’t plenty to make a stink about — warrantless wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the Katrina Response, the deal with India that encourages nuclear proliferation … the list is endless. It’s that the Democrats can’t seem to even try. The party takes a few timid steps, and then retreats when faced with the slight opposition or ambivalence from the media.

    Does this mean impeachment is a winning issue? Maybe not. But had the Democrats been doing the work of an opposition party all along, impeachment wouldn’t sound too far fetched right now.

  • Waiting seems to be better strategically, but with all the issues coming to light almost daily, can we afford to put it off? I, for one, am getting very uneasy… uneasier by the day. I think I speak for many.

  • I’n not certain whether Bush’s failures should, for purposes of the 2006 Congressional elections, be framed as “Bush should be impeached.” Fortunately for Dems, it is not necessary to decide that in order to have a winning strategy that takes advantage of the fact that the large majority of Americans not only do not support the path we are on, but overwhelmingly disapprove.

    I AM VERY CERTAIN that Congress’ utter and intentional failure and refusal to hold BushCo accountable in any minimal — let alone ridiculous, as with Clinton — way, MUST be THE primary frame that is used by Dems in each and every Congressional race this fall. Hang Bush’s poor5 judgment and recklessness, mendacity, incompetence, cronyism, and secrecy around every Rethug neck as the albatross he has become…. and the average American will do the dirty work at the polls to get rid of the Congressional enablers — and thereby make the option of impeachment and, if we are really lucky, convicition both a practical possibility as well as a likely outcome: for both the Royal Buffoon AND the Bastard That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

    It’s as simple as that. Can the Dems use the KISS strategy? Let’s hope so….

  • Impeachment is not just bad politics its bad policy. We should concentrate on winning elections and not wasting our time trying to get rid of bad politicians after they have already been elected. Republicans showed during Clinton’s administration that disgruntled idealogues can convince themselves of the patently ridiculous idea that lying to the grand jury about an affair is an impeachable offense. Don’t kid yourself. Democrats can be equally as stupid. Just grit your teeth and work hard to defeat the SOBs next time around. Remember, this too shall pass.

  • I think that the Dems should field a candidate in every district, even the ones that seem hopeless. Wasted money? Maybe….
    Since these will be “sacrificial lambs,” they could run on ANY decent platform, and a few should loudly be making the case for impeachment. Hey, get them on the national news, if nothing else. These folks could be saying what the competitive Dems should be saying, loudly, proudly, and getting airtime.

  • Impeachment won’t work as a campaign strategy.

    We already have a shit-pile of BushCo failings to use as campaign strategies.

    If – a big IF – we win back the House of Representatives, we’re free to hold hearings, with subpoena powers, and draw up articles of impeachment.

    Then, if – a big IF (assuming, among other things, that the Dems have the Senate as well) – we get rid of Chimpboy and are stuck with Cheney, so what? We’re already governed by Cheney. Unless you think Chimpboy can do more than pick his nose and fall off bicycles and put his head on his pilly by nine o’clock.

  • Promise investigations. The results of the investigations could naturally bring about a concensus that impeachment should occur.

  • Investigations, yes. But anyone who thinks that the American people want impeachment hearings is nuts. The American people want competent government that lives up to the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I beg my fellow Democrats to give up this nonsensical talk about impeachment and concentrate on governing.

  • Do not make impeachment an election issue in 2006. If we do, the “true believers” will rally support around Dumbya. It will become a case of “Re-elect Tom Delay even tho he’s a criminal because if the GOP loses control of Congress the Democrats will impeach the PresNit”.

  • Who knows what honest congressional investigations might surface.??
    but until then why go with the nuclear option when so many conventional weapons are at hand from the ports deal to Katrina to Iraq to corruption….etc….

    We can learn from the repubs..Baby steps without showing your hand…. first they got the white house and congress… then they selected judges.. and only then begins the full court press on abortion.

  • The best thing to do is not bring this word up AT ALL, until after the November elections. It is counterproductive at this point. If the people who want Bush impeached can elect representatives that feel the same way, fine. But talking about it now is beyond useless. It wont help a candidate get elected, because it will be used against any candidate who wields that word, in other words its a major backfire waiting to happen.

    As it stands now, we have a president who appears to be breaking the law. If it were not so, we wouldnt have congress republicans scrambling to change the very laws we think were broken (FiSA) and rummy rewriting the prisoner manual. Obviously, the people in power think they can play the game they want by changing the rules. This is probably the most dangerous thing that is happening to this country, because it is basically a breakdown of the constitutional separation of powers, and/or a capitulation by one of the branches. The fact that the other branch (judicial) is slowly being turned away from fairness and rationality, only worsens the problem. Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone through the judicial branch now, so it is imperative that we do something with the legislature. F-ing that up by calling for impeachment would be the stupidest thing we can do, because if this isnt the best chance ever to run a successful campaign, I dont know what is. There are so many reasons this administration needs to go, and so many reasons that its mistakes have been aided and abetted by the Republicans.

    beans, I agree it will be a very painful wait, but impreachment proceedings would be even more painful for the country. The facts are mostly out there already anyway, if anyone would care to listen. This would just look like sour grapes and political reprisals. Im guessing we are stuck with this buffoon and his administration for three years, but if we can at least get some of the stooges out of congress and elect some clearheaded people, we can prevent much of the damage that is sure to come.

    Right now there is seemingly ample evidence to impeach. If we could get some people in power who would actually dig up the rest of the evidence, which there surely is plenty, then we wouldnt have to push for impeachment, because so many people around the world would be screaming for it. What we need is to get people in office who wont roll over and play dead and let this administration get away with whatever it wants.

  • I’m greatly relieved (though not particularly surprised, given the quality of this site) to see so many progressives talking sense here.

    “Impeachment” is a word that does not help us one bit at this moment: indeed, it gives the other side a golden opportunity to change the subject from the record of Bush and (more to the point, this year) the DeLayican Congress to “the vicious partisanship of Democratic extremists.”

    Yes, you know and I know that being called partisan by these guys is like being called evil by Sauron. But that irony will be lost on voters who don’t pay as much attention to the everyday absurdities and tragedies of Republican-occupied Washington. The point is that we are defending the country against the mismanagement and destructive choices of this administration and its congressional enablers–and defending the Constitution against their serial abuses and endless assault on its core principles.

    Besides, don’t you want to watch Bush sulk and sleep and stammer his way through two utterly lame-duck years of “partnership” with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? I sure as hell do.

  • I read the WSJ article earlier and admit that, though I’d love to see Bush outta there stat — before he does even more damage, it could too easily be a lose-lose play on the part of the left.

    What would make more sense to me at this point is a full court press by Democrats and the rest of us on the left after the midterms. Whether the left makes big gains then or not. I think we’ll know more, we’d be able to act with great wisdom and not just be carried away by frustration and anger.

  • As much as I loathe the administration (and with good reason), it does not do justice to our democracy and political traditions to go for impeachment at this stage. What we should be doing is going through the process — congressional hearings — to gather evidence and determine whether impeachable offenses have occurred.

    The very reason we have such processes is to avoid a partisan tar-and-feathering of a president. The fact that such partisanship reared its ugly head with Clinton doesn’t mean Democrats should stoop to Republican tactics. Just as in an ordinary criminal case, you should not rush to judgment without first dispassionately considering the evidence.

    I think there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to crank up the hearings, which correspond to the grand jury phase of a criminal case. If the hearings provide enough evidence, then you move to articles of impeachment (the indictment) and have the trial.

    Democrats should be advocating (demanding) hearings. Personally, I think the administration has done enough that even a lot of Republicans will vote for impeachment once the evidence is out on the table, which is why (of course) the administration is so intent on blocking hearings. They know their goose is cooked if the hearings go forward. It would be ironic (at least) if the Democrats were to try to short-circuit the process to impeach a guy whose main problem is that he has such contempt for our democracy and the “goddamn piece of paper” that brought it into existence.

  • Impeachment is the word. That’s the loaded word that everyone knows what it means. You have to say it.

    Of course we all know that investigations is the first step, and it’s the sensible step, and by asking for investigations, you’re showing that you recognize that the facts have to be established in a reliable manner. That’s what legitimacy and democracy is all about. But impeachment is the remedy if things have gone wrong. It’s appropriate to let people know what’s going on, to let people know what we’re potentially talking about. Otherwise, if people just hear ‘investigations,’ they might not have any idea of what’s going on, or who’s in trouble. It would be very easy for a lot of Fox News type to mislead them.

    I swear, though, sometimes some of the comments here sound like they are reflecting / channeling the helf-stepping attitude that we recognize and complain about in our Dems reps and Senators. People– not only is it ok to say impeachment, it won’t hurt to say it a little more! And if hearing it annoys any conservatives, well good, they can stand to be annoyed a little bit more.

  • Just think about it:

    The GOP have made their identity associated with national security in the eyes of most Americans. Then, they succeeded in convincing Americans that they are facing an immediate threat to their security. That’s the math. It’s 1 + 1 =2.

    No matter what little things the Dems can pin on the GOP, a lot of it is going to seem unimportant to most people when compared with security. Not only that, but the GOP has maintained this image + message very consistently. So, the Dems will be facing an uphill battle if the people really believe that their security, personally, is being immediately threatened.

    To overcome this, the Dems have to work to undermine the GOP’s rhetorical strength (which is, the GOP’s message about the security issue) and the Dems have to say some dirty words about the GOP– like maybe that the GOP is up to some impeachable no-goodness. Which is what you would say, because the GOP is up to some impeachable no-goodness.

    But the Dems have to say it consistently enough so that the people begin to associate it w/ the Dems. Every time a Dem is publicly telling people why it’s better to vote Dem, the Dems have to issue a reminder about why the GOP’s story is false. And we have to all be saying the same thing, or else the people won’t know what to believe. They’ll think that there’s a lot of disagreement in the Democratic party, and that we can’t get things done. So when we criticize, it’s got to coalesce around something. It wouldn;t be bad at all if we all were heard to say that we think something impeachable has been going on, and that there need to be investigations to turn up whether or not that’s the case. After all, don’t we think that impeachable things have been going on?

    If we want people to sign onto our message we have to not only talk like it, we have to act like it.

  • I think the more (most) Americans start hearing “impeachment” the more they might finally realize they’re supposed to be upset about something.

  • Besides, don’t you want to watch Bush sulk and sleep and stammer his way through two utterly lame-duck years of “partnership” with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? I sure as hell do.

    Comment by dajafi

    Shruby is already sounding more deranged than ever. That’s no small achievement. It would be much more enjoyable to watch him go from raw to cooked as the water goes from warm to boiling while he swims around trying to find a non-existent low side on the pot. Taking congress back would build a very nice pot indeed. Ensuing enquiries into his behavior would be the spoon that stirs him slowly to make sure he’s done on all sides. The uncooked bits can be troublesome.

  • What happens when we’re all standing around debating what to do and Bush and Israel bomb Netanz in Iran?

  • How much fun would it be to hear Shruby’s voice go up a couple of octaves when he answered the question, “Supreme Leader, with both the house and the senate being taken over by Democratic majorities, do you feel that you have any political capital to spend? And if so, how much?”

    Martin Luther King had a dream. So do I.

  • Or am I off-base? Does Bush’s plummeting national support and GOP unease suggest that this is an issue that could resonate? I don’t buy it, but I’m open to suggestion.

    Nah you are right on target.

    Bush hasn’t fucked up Iran yet…
    He needs time.

  • Analytical Liberal nailed it. Let the stinkin’, dead albatross (a.k.a. the Bush administration) hang around the head of the Republican Party. With any luck, it will take a generation or two for them to climb out of their self-created swamp.

  • I like MN Progressive’s analysis. I believe in my heart that Bush has failed so badly that he deserves to be removed from office, but I do not see any support for – or even serious consideration of – impeachment among the those who either consider themselves “not liberal” or who are not politically engaged. I’ve said before that the Republicans so cheapened the process with their impeachment of Clinton, that I think the public “stomach” for it must be brought well along before taking that big step. So, I think campaigning on bringing accountability and competence back to Washington (all the while pointing out that the Republicans have completely dodged their oversight responsibilities while enacting lousy policies, executing those polices ineptly, and lining their own pockets and those of their friends) is the way to go. Bring back the balance of power and then see where the investigations lead.

  • No doubt about it — impeachment is a lightning rod subject. I’ve been Google-news-ing it for the last half year. Every day there are more articles — on all sides of the political spectrum.

    While most of the pro-impeachment writing comes from the left, liberal, Democrat side, the other side — the right, conservative (especially libertarian, paleo-conservatives), Republican (moderate, non-Bush loyalist Republicans) also speak of impeachment as a remedy to that which is taking the country in the wrong direction, away from the vision that our founding fathers promulgated.

    In fact, many are realizing that it’s not a matter of the traditional sides pitted against each other, so much as the realization that there is a third, dark power, which prefers to operate in secret, unacknowledged, unseen — there’s the common enemy that the true American patriot must root out and exorcize from the body politic.

    Let the groundswell of grassroot folk daring to speak the word “impeachment” occur — it is already happening, without any undue force being applied. Thus there will be no overwhelming opposing force to try to stem the flow.

    • Comments are closed.