‘Don’t vote for them — they might act like us’

Looking ahead to [tag]November[/tag], [tag]Republicans[/tag] seem to have settled on a [tag]talking point[/tag] that they can all agree on and which they consider a political winner.

[tag]Elizabeth Dole[/tag] sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party’s Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will “call for endless [tag]investigations[/tag], congressional [tag]censure[/tag] and maybe even [tag]impeachment[/tag] of President Bush.” It’s a sad truth of politics that if you can’t inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.

To be sure, this has come to dominate GOP talking points. Lawmakers, the RNC, and others are all emphasizing the threat a [tag]Democratic[/tag] [tag]Congress[/tag] represents to [tag]Bush[/tag]. But this scare tactic not only deserves more scrutiny; it also sounds kind of familiar.

I understand that Republicans don’t have much left in the way of policies, ethics, or competence, so the GOP is stuck running around screaming, “They’ll impeach Bush!” in order to convince voters not to vote for Dems. So far, Dems seem to believe this is a legitimate concern, so, for the most part, they’re publicly arguing that they have no intention of using their subpoena power to pursue an aggressive investigative agenda.

I assume the [tag]GOP[/tag] has some polling data to suggest this is a salient argument, and it seems likely most Americans don’t want 2007 and 2008 dominated by anything they might consider partisan witch hunts, but these “Dems = Investigations” argument strikes me as a little bizarre for two reasons.

One, as Josh Marshall recently noted, is the idea that Republicans have a great deal to fear from congressional oversight.

That is the election, at least from the vantage point of the White House and the party they control. The president can’t afford to lose either house of Congress. Because they’ve just got too many bad acts and secrets to conceal.

I agree, but I’d take this one step further.

Consider, again, what Liddy Dole warned of: congressional investigations, possible censure, and impeachment. Sound familiar?

It seems to me the biggest fear Republicans have right now is that Democrats will win a majority in November — and they’ll act like Republicans. And they can’t have that.

For the better part of 12 years, the GOP has run Congress with the assumption that they’d be there awhile. They held hearings every time [tag]Clinton[/tag] sneezed and eventually even impeached him, despite opposition from the electorate. Republicans in both chambers believed it was their solemn duty to show up for work every day and make the White House as miserable as humanly possible. Congressional investigations were simply a staple of Hill life in the late 1990s, whether the situation warranted it or not. Given a choice between investigating vs. governing, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, and Dick Armey didn’t hesitate.

Now that they’re genuinely concerned about losing control, and they’re looking at Rahm Emanuel’s payback’s-a-bitch smirk, Republicans’ last-ditch effort is to convince people that Dems might do to Bush what they did to Clinton. It’s as cynical and shallow an argument as they could come up with, but apparently it’s all they’ve got left.

Dems, to this point, have been on the defensive about this, arguing that they promise to play nice if and when they’re back in the majority. This strikes me as unnecessary. I wouldn’t put articles of impeachment in the parties’ midterm agenda, but it seems to me the simple retort to GOP fear mongering is for Pelosi, et al, to say, “Are Republicans afraid we’ll act like them?”

I don’t think Repubs are worried Dems will act like them, as much as it is, as Josh noted, that they have ssssoooooooooooo many dirty little secrets that the Dems will find out and make those secrets public.

The fact the Dems are saying, “We won’t impeach him, cross our hearts … ” shows their major flaw: an inheirent weakness to take a strong stand and truly elminate the corruption, scandals and lies so pervasive in the current leadership.

It makes me wanna move to Amsterdam … or something.

  • but it seems to me the simple retort to GOP fear mongering is for Pelosi, et al, to say, “Are Republicans afraid we’ll act like them?”

    Or, to say to voters “next time you hear a Republican say this, ask them what they’re so afraid of and what they’re trying to hide. Democrats aren’t going on witch-hunts or avoiding moving the Country forward, but we will bring an end to the Republican Culture of Corruption, and we think that is something Americans share our concerns about.”

  • Actually, I think the Republicans are afraid the Democrats will act exactly like Republicans.

    How often have we seen Republicans accuse Democrats of Republican-style sins? How often, for example, have Republicans said that Democrats are only acting out of partisanship, as opposed to the possibility that Democrats actually have sincere beliefs about what’s good for the country? How often have Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics with the troops or the economy or anything else? And how often has it been blatantly obvious that the Republicans are actually describing their own attitudes and projecting them onto everybody else?

    Of course the Republicans believe Democrats will act self-servingly if the Dems ever get into power. Far too many Republicans can’t imagine any other mode of behavior.

  • I say we make them a deal: We won’t impeach anybody for stupid stuff such as lying about having an affair.

    But if someone commits a serious crime, we will impeach them.

    Fair enough?

  • This talking point of Dole’s sounds like a way to INSPIRE, not discourage, voters to vote for Dems. In case she hadn’t noticed, Bush is down to 31% approval and the Congress is what, 22%? And people say they’d rather have Dems in power. She’s giving voters some good reasons to throw out the Rs. You’re treading on dangerous ground, Liddy.

  • Of course the Republicans believe Democrats will act self-servingly if the Dems ever get into power. Far too many Republicans can’t imagine any other mode of behavior.

    Exactly what I was thinking… to me, this whole thing seems to show that even the Republicans thought the Clinton impeachment fiasco and all the previous investigations were witch hunts. They think the Democrats will seek to destroy Bush, justified or not, because that’s exactly what they would do if the situations were reversed.

    Democrats should point out that the Republicans investigated for bad reasons, and so they assume Democrats will too. Then, bring up the myriad scandals and say “don’t you want to know more about x, y, and z too? I know I do, and that’s what REAL investigations are for.”

  • If I were a Democrat running for Congress, my response would be “Why should we impeach Bush? If successful, that means that Dick Cheney would become president. Does this country really want that?”

  • If Shruby’s diaper changers are so certain that the Dem’s will impeach their Little Boots, they should be pressed on what issues would provide grounds for such action. Do they consider it to be SOP that a changing of the guard just automatically generates something supposedly as serious as impeachment proceedings? If that’s not the case and Dear F**kwit has no obviously impeachable offences, then why are they sweating? RepubCo needs to be drrawwwnnnn out on this Chicken Little behavior. They are saying the sky is falling? Looks like a sunny day to me.

  • I agree with the others who are saying that the Republicans are projecting their own attitudes onto the Dems. What have the Republicans done since taking over with their “Contract With America”? They’ve impeached Clinton, cut lots of taxes, rolled over for Bush, created the K Street Project, and passed no meaningful legislation.

    Theirs is a world of power jealously guarded, paranoia and endless enemies. This is why they’re doing so little to fight against Bush’s wiretapping and abuses of power. They see the same enemies under the bed that he does. If it’s not Communists, it’s terrorists. If it’s not terrorists, it’s liberals, i.e., Democrats. For these people, there will always be someone to rail against, to rant about, to tar and feather. And they reflect the attitudes of many of the people in their “base.”

    So of course the Republicans think that the diabolical John Conyers and the dreadful Hillary Clinton will go after them. Not taking into account the fact that the Dems probably are telling the truth, that they WOULDN’T start the investigations that need to be started. Because for every Russ Feingold, there’s a Jay Rockefeller or Joe Lieberman ready to “play nice” and roll over for the GOP.

  • “This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

    No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.” (Tom Delay regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton)

  • I just read a news story that said that Rupert Murdoch was going to host a fund raising event for Hillary Clinton. (!!!)

    And if the Republicans have lost Murdoch, you know the ship of state is going down like a rusty anvil.

    Frankly, this just makes Hillary kind of dirty in my eyes. I would guess he’s cozying up to her in order to gain a powerful ally to block or water down any investigations of his media monopoly when the Dems take power, and she’s doing the same in reverse so he won’t let his empire say bad things about her when/if she runs for president in ’08.

    The whole thing just feels sleazy to me. Bleah……. 🙁

  • So Dole and other Republicans are afraid that if Democrats take Congress, they’ll do their job and act like a separate branch of the federal governement?

  • “Dems, to this point, have been on the defensive about this, arguing that they promise to play nice if and when they’re back in the majority. ”

    Wrong Wrong Wrong. THis is the wrong approach. I am not saying promise to impeach or even investigate. The correct response is to ask why Liddy Dole is so concerned. If I recall correctly one of the righty talking points when it comes to crime, law enforcement, and wiretapping issues is “do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about.” Well it seems to me that if the RNC is seriously concerned about impeachment and investigation then there must be something to investigate. If everything is going perfectly and all is above bosrd then why not let the Dems look stupid by investigating everything and finding nothing? They are twitchy because they are corrupt.

  • It’s disappointing to hear Pelosi and other Dems publicly disavow investigations, censure and impeachment. It’s far to early to rule out anything. But Democrats hardly need to call for any specifics now. They should continue to call for governmental accountablity and a resumption of congressional oversight, which is so sorely lacking.

    And just to hold out hope to the base, they can add “And we’ll see where that takes us …” and then snicker.

  • It’s all I can do to keep from choking on my tea when I hear what the wimpy Democrats are doing. It is their duty to investigate this corrupt and criminal administration and Congress. What are they so afraid of? For five years they’ve watched the treachery and atrocities pile up to historic proportions, and now they’re falling on their knees promising to do nothing about it even if they win in November, begging the public not to think ill of them.

    It’s disgusting. Utterly disgusting. These wallowing cowards make me sick.

  • John Dickerson at Slate has swallowed this talking point, hook line and sinker, so much so that he berated Pelosi as an idiot not for saying anything substantive wrong, but rather saying what he apparently agrees with instead of giving a “bland” mealymouthed non-answer to a legitimate question.

    Why does John Dickerson claim Pelosi is a double agent? If you look at his argument its nothining substantive, instead its merely the fact that she gave a straightforward honest answer about her intent to pursue the Congress’s duty under the Constution. Instead of offering a “bland” safe non-answer to a reasonable question as Dickerson claims she should, she said the house would pursue investigations of Bush administration wrong doing.

    Dickerson leaps to claim this somehow saves the Republicans from themselves and suggests it somehow supports their shrieking and whining about what it might actually mean to have a Congres that took its responsbilitities of Presidential oversight seriously.

    John Dickerson must think the American voting public is a total bunch of morons willing to buy whatever spin the GOP will try to put on Congress actually trying to do its job for a change should the rubberstamp GOP lose control.

    It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power, but it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you’re trying to launch your policy agenda. It’s unbelievably tactically stupid. Perhaps Pelosi couldn’t have stayed completely mum on the topic, but she could have given some bland answer about Congress needing to play its oversight role and then returned to her positive agenda items.

    Shorter John Dickerson: Its important not to tell the American people the truth about issues of great Constitutional importance, because they apparently cant handle the truth and those Republicans might distort it and make her look bad.

    Aparently Dickerson can find no fault with her actual answers other than how it might play politically and spun by the GOP, and assures us that its the height of stupidity to actually be honest with the American public about important Constitutional issues. If others in the pundit class are so willing to treat voters like idiots and run such hit pieces for saying things they have no actual quarrel with substantively then perhaps this wasnt the most politically expedient thing to do.

    Then again maybe people are tired of the political expedient cowardice and spinning of the GOP and contrary to what Dickerson thinks, can actually handle a little more of the truth over bland politically expedient non-answers.

  • What makes Liddy Dole think most Americans don’t want to impeach Bush?

    Wait til late October, when he’s down to 17% (The Alan Keyes Baseline of Wingnuttery in America). Most of America will be lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks by then. She better hope impeachment is the worst thing we do.

  • I think that the Dems would be hurting their cause if they promissed not to at least investigate, and they would be stupid not leave impeachment on the table. I have heard the word impeachment from a lot of my Republican friends and in-laws lately, so I don’t understand what the Dems are thinking. It is time to call for some accountability and that could mean the eventual impeachment of both the President and the Vice president. They lied us into a war that Cheney has profited from greatly. If Bush falls, I don’t see how Cheney can survive. A lot of us, both Republican and Democrat, are looking for some justice, and if the Dems can’t deliver, why should anyone of us go to the polls in November?

  • I think that the Dems would be hurting their cause if they promissed not to at least investigate

    Well, sadly, “hurting their cause” is what our elected democrats seem to be best at these days.

  • Someone has to use those NSA talking points about why would fear intrusion if they have nothing to hide.

    [SNERK]After all, if the Republicans have been doing the best governing possible, why should they be afraid from investigations?[/SNERK]

  • I want to know why one of our minority party “leaders” (Pelosi) is softpeddling the impeachment gambit. Does she really want two more years of the Bush Crime Family’s shit?

  • Fear is actually a great tactic for the Republicans to use. Their base is consumed by it.

  • I wouldn’t put articles of impeachment in the parties’ midterm agenda

    I would go so far to disagree with this sentiment. There is no better single thing that Democrats could do to motivate their base to get out and vote in 2006.

    And I could be wrong on this point, but I doubt it will drive away moderates either. Remember the 65% dissatisfaction ratings from yesterday?

    IMO Democrats should get together as a party and agree that they care about our security and our liberties and will impeach and try Bush for if they have the chance. Impeach him not only for liberties-related offenses (illegally spying on Americans, illegally imprisoning people without Constitutional or Geneva rights, torture,) but the security-related ones as well, torturing prisoners, extraordinary rendition, and lying to us about (and possibly even mismanaging) Iraq.

  • Oh yeah, and if we agree to impeach Bush, we’ll also impeach Cheney too, which will put House Speaker Democrat X in the White House until 2008.

    (Erm, who’s the minority leader in the house right now?)

  • Shorter Liddy Dole:
    It’s a sad truth of politics that if you can’t inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them. And that’s just what I’m here to do.

  • “… if Democrats seize power they will “call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush.”

    Dole is obvioulsy afraid of accountability.

  • I would not campaign on the impeachment issue, but on alternatives to the failed policies and ideologies of the right. Even if Dems were to take over Congress (still doubtful I think), I wouldn’t impeach. I’d use the next two years to investigate Repub abuses and discredit their philosophies. I’d pass sensible, moderate legislation that Bush would have to sign or veto — forcing him to choose between pissing off his base or moderates. I’d make him look as impotent and out of touch as possible. I’d do to the term “right wing” what Repubs did to “liberal.”

    We all know that the radical right has forced moderate Repubs from the party. So getting rid of Bush does nothing to the legions of lunatics that will continue to forward that agenda. Discrediting that entire philosophy seems more useful.

    Finally, America can’t afford to get into a cycle where we impeach every President who takes office. Rendering this one ineffective might actually be more useful. Just my opinion.

  • I don’t think Dems should rule out investigations of the administration. For example, I’d like to finish Pat Roberts investigation of how the White House use pre-war intel. I’d like to finish the investigation of where the lost billions for Iraqi reconstruction went. I’d like find out more about Haliburton’s alleged overcharging of the miltary. I’d like to find out more about Haliburton’s alleged serving of unsafe food to the troops.

    All of these are current investigations. I’d like to see the Dems finish them with subpeona’s for everyone involved and testify under oath.

  • I’d use the next two years to investigate Repub abuses and discredit their philosophies. I’d pass sensible, moderate legislation that Bush would have to sign or veto — forcing him to choose between pissing off his base or moderates. I’d make him look as impotent and out of touch as possible. I’d do to the term “right wing” what Repubs did to “liberal.” … Discrediting that entire philosophy seems more useful.

    I think beep52 has got it right.

  • Liddy Dole is a perfect example of the GOP’s final desperation. It may well be that we’re watching real history unfold here; the death-throes of a corrupt political machine….

  • I’m biased, but it seems to me with Bush’s approval rating at 31% (and falling) that people would actually want investigations. If the Democrats aren’t going to investigate Bush, why should people vote them into office?

  • It might be a mistake to run on a platform of impeaching Bush, but the Republican voters have much less to fear from investigations of government chicanery than do Republican politicians. As a matter of fact, I think that many Republican voters are decent, honest and patriotic people who sincerely believe in the principles of good government. Just as it sickens me to see a Democrat convicted of corruption and dishonesty, a certain percentage of them no doubt feel the same when looking at a Delay or a Noyes. If we want to put together a majority we must avoid confusing the Doles and the Hasterts and the Roves with their erstwhile followers. The moderate Republicans can give us the margin of victory.

  • The Democrats would at least investigate and add accountability to a Democratic-led Congress, if they gain a major victory come this November. Democrats’ House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had said as much publicly on this past Sunday’s Meet the Press.

    Are the Republicans really worried because there is real reason to investigate the corruption, scandals, and outright crimes actually committed by Bush and his cronies in the current Republican-led Congress? Are they afraid that, if the Democrats regain control of Congress, the Democrats would do their Constitutional duty–which the Republicans refuse to do–and act as presidential oversight and demand accountability of all three parts of the federal government?

    Let’s hope we and our fellow Americans will restore true democracy to our shores come this November!!!

  • I agree with Laurence in post #33 above that most Americans–including Republican voters–are interested in good government. That’s why we should demand that our elected and to-be-elected politicians in the fedeal government, at least, restore true accountability and honest presidential oversight to the American political landscape.

    The current Republican-led Congress has shirked their Constitutional duty in that regard and should be replaced by those who will truly govern according to their Constitutional mandate.

  • I watched Nancy Pelosi dancing around (IMHO) this issue on MTP this past Sunday. The whole exchange between her and Russert really irked me. Russert irked me because he basically was shilling Liddy Dole’s fundraising talking points. Based upon Russert’s invocation of that horrible bogey man, John Conyers, one would think that the Dem’s must either (A) declare that investigation / impeachment of Bush is the CENTERPIECE of their midterm campaigns or (B) promise that – should they win a majority in the House and / or Senate – they will not use their subpoena power to conduct investigations. It’s an all or nothing scenario and laughable. (“Hey, either tell me you do not intend to do any of that stuff that Dizzy Liddy so fears, or I must conclude that Democrats are running strictly on the “Pay Back Time” platform.”)

    Pelosi, for her part, would help herself immensely if she could learn the gentle art of diversion. She seems incapable of staying on message without undercutting her colleagues when she is confronted with a point of view that is not perfectly aligned with that message. I was disgusted that she did not get right up in Timmy’s face when he went off on John Conyers. I would have liked her to declare that John Conyers has the respect of the caucus and is a man of integrity who would not abuse the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee should Democrats secure the majority. She could have expressed confidence in this point of view even if Conyers Web site expresses a more pointed position. She might have affirmed that Democrats intend to concentrate on good government, and if they find that investigations are necessary to achieve that end, they will exercise that perogative. But, instead, she appeared to retreat and refuse to take a position in the face of Russert’s assertions.

    She could have complimented Russert on his competence in reciting the Republcan talking points and noted that Republicans fear investigation because they are aware that – had a Democratic President governed as incompetently as Bush has – they would have launched investigations both major and minor long ago. She might have noted that, although Republicans hold the majority, many of their policies are so unpopular, they could pass them only by gaming the House rules to shut out opposing voices. Now, when their policies may cost them at the ballot box, they accuse Democrats of wishing to behave the way Republicans do behave.

    Each time I hear the “Play Nice” line, I think of Grover Norquist’s characterisation of bi-partisanship as date rape. I am convinced that this philosophy has been the over-arching rule of engagement of the Bush administration. It started with No Child Left Behind and jumped to light speed after September 11. For Democrats not to keep this in mind when responding to Republican talking points regurgitated by the likes of Tim Russert is foolhardy. No apologies. We aim to take back one or both Chambers, and we will be responsible – and demand accountablity of others – as we work to get the country back on the right track.

    Sorry for ranting and going on. I’ve been stewing since Sunday AM.

  • If I were the Republicans I would be afraid, very afraid. They have
    much to be concerned about if the Democrats win even one house
    of Congress in November. This will shut down the GOP juggernaut
    and turn the spotlight on their unsavory actions over the past half
    decade.
    If we have another Katrina-like debacle in the next few months things
    will look grim indeed for the Rebublicans. It may be time for them
    to shed their uniforms and blend in with the general population
    before the end comes for them.
    As for myself, I look forward to the downfall of the Republicans with
    great delight and anticipation. It couldn’t be happening to a nicer
    bunch of thugs.

  • It seems that the GOP position is that the situation is too critical during the GWOT to investigate and expose their incompetence, corruption and deceit in managing the GWOT (as well as all the other business of government that they have bungled and perverted).

    As has been pointed out, this is a strong argument to do just what the Rethuglicans are afraid of…clean house. The Dems should take a thorough and fair approach, and not gloss over their own lapses where applicable. It’s a crazy system that requires the Congress to police and reform themselves.

    Vote fraud needs to be high on the agenda as well.

  • Comments are closed.