The oddities of the ‘I-word’ discussion

Putting aside the question over whether the president will or should be impeached, the media coverage of the “I word” discussion has been a little odd. It’s as if news outlets want to talk about it, but are afraid to, so they mention it with a certain detachment, essentially discussing the discussion.

Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as “Hutch” to the president), observed that “some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.” Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a “chorus” of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are “calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The ‘I-word’ is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.”

Indeed, it’s everywhere. Just today, Salon had a big piece on the issue and GW law prof Jonathan Turley had a USA Today op-ed mentioning it, which comes the same week as two fairly high-profile Dem members of Congress raised the specter of the “I word” publicly. CNN’s Jack Cafferty has mentioned it, as has Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter. Conservative scholars are even discussing the merit of impeachment on NPR.

Media pollsters, however, won’t touch it. Why? Because, they say, it’s not an issue of serious discussion.

A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if minority, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. […]

When Washington Post pollster Richard Morin finally answered the “I” question in his online chat, he said, “We do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion — witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in ’08 are calling for Bush’s impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls.”

I disagree with this approach, but I have to admit, I find it fascinating.

The comments from the Gallup pollster, in particular, are striking. In order for them to poll on the issue, it would have to “gain mainstream political traction,” which it might if Gallup fielded a poll on the issue. It’s circular reasoning at its most irritating.

Lawmakers are talking about impeachment, as are reporters, scholars, and activists. And if media professionals used Clinton-era standards, pollsters would not only be discussing it, but we’d know the extent to which the public is too.

Like it or not, as Digby noted, impeachment “is on the table.” There doesn’t seem to be much point in pretending otherwise.

The point still remains to be made that impeachment will likely never occur unless the Democrats manage to take back majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006 (or at least the House of Representatives.) And if they don’t do it then, that’s it. The GOP will never vote to impeach Bush.

  • Ohhh Andy, that was mean. Now I’ll have nightmares

    the 21st century has not been pretty, I’m sorry to say.

  • The guy gets away with wrecking Iraq, and a
    little technical breach of FISA warrants the
    I-word?

    I think it was Analytical Liberal who said
    at one point “I effing give up!”

    Some day, I’m going to ask all you guys
    to teach me a little about politics, because
    I sure don’t understand it.

    Forget governance – we don’t have that
    anymore, Dems or Repubs. I understand
    that much. I’m not that naive.

    By the way, CB, is there school tomorrow?
    What’s the holiday schedule?

  • I share the view that it seems impossible to impeach Bush with the current Congress. But still, that same Congress has delivered some pretty significant signs of revolt lately, even handing the Emperor some stinging defeats if only by the slimmest of margins.

    Considering the complete destruction of the ID myth in Pennsylvania, the refusal of the 4th Circuit to play Bush’s monkey in the Padilla case, the defeat of the Alaska drilling amendment, the success of the Anti-Torture initiative, the universal outrage over the spying thing, the yet-to-be-consummated indictment of Karl Rove and others over Plamegate, Abramoff’s forthcoming revelations that could take down nearly the entire Republican leadership, Frist’s stock deal, the Patriot Act derailment, DeLay’s failure to speed up this trial…….

    Well, even all that might not be enough to get a bill of impeachment through this Congress, but since more and more Republicans are starting to flinch in the face of overwhelming corruption I can’t find it in me to discount the possibility all together.

    Happy Holy Days, everybody!! 🙂

  • By the way, CB, is there school tomorrow? What’s the holiday schedule?

    Oh, right, there are some kind of holidays coming up or something. I’m planning to keep a pretty normal schedule — I’m not a big holiday person and Mrs. Carpetbagger and I aren’t going out of town — but I’ll post a schedule tomorrow. Thanks for reminding me.

  • The guy gets away with wrecking Iraq, and a
    little technical breach of FISA warrants the
    I-word?

    hark, the problem as I see it is that Congress is complicit in the Iraq debacle, but the extra-FISA spying is the administration’s problem alone.

    You said in another post today, that for snoopgate to have legs with the public, it there must be a compelling story of a grandmother wronged. I agree that a grassroots rebellion would be more likely under that circumstance. However, what we are seeing now is not a grassroot rebellion swelling up against the the president’s actions. It is the patricians leading this revolt because Bush has usurped their power.

    The pushback against Iraq, on the other hand, is driven by public opinion. Congress, because their hands are not clean on Iraq, is not in a very good position to lead this assault.

    As I’ve said before, I think impeaching Bush would play into the Republican’s culture of victimhood. Let me qualify this by saying that if prominent Republicans such as Hagel were on board that concern would be diminished. Placing the Bush administration in receivership may be a less traumatic solution to the problem. That is force a bipartisan cabinet on him.

  • The Impeach Bush sign will be firmly planted in my lawn by Jan. 1.
    No mean feat since I live in WI. It is going to take a groundswell from us, We the People, to get Bush & Cheney gone. Make it your New Year’s resolution, I have.

  • That’s the spirit, CJM!!

    How does that old song go? Oh, yes:

    “POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    POWER TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT ON!!”

    Sing it loud.
    If not us, who?
    If not now, when?

  • well, the fact is, we have a constitutional crisis here, and eventually that matters.

    specifically, we have a president pugnaciously proud of violating a law that exists specifically to defend 4th ammendment rights. what can be done about it?

    he can’t be arrested for it.

    my guess is someone can sue only if he or she can prove that they were the subjects of lawless wiretapping, and thus far we have no ability to find anyone who fits that criteria. even if we could, it’s a long way for filing suit to an apperance in front of the supreme court. meanwhile, bush continues the policy.

    the dems can (and should) file foia suits to get the phony legal documents revealed, but even if they are, it will take time. meanwhile, bush continues the policy – and even if the documents demonstrate a striking lack of consitutional authority for the program, that doesn’t mean that bush will stop.

    hearings might embarass the administration, but then again, they seem so damn proud of themselves for breaking the law that it’s hard to see them getting embarassed by hearings.

    so what actually stops an unconstitutional policy followed through by an executive who is not up for re-election and shows no inclination of acknowledging error and apologizing?

    the only possibility is the threat of impeachment. Now, of course, impeachment isn’t going to go anywhere for the reasons already outlined here, but failure to discuss impeachment because it isn’t “mainstream” enough simply fails to grasp the enormity of what’s going on here: unchecked presidential law-breaking to contravene the 4th ammendment.

  • I have observed the mainstream media under-reports everything of importance as their corporate masters dictate. If anything is done (I hope for the sake of our personal freedom), it will be thanks to bloggers like Carpetbagger, TruthOut, and the Internet news in general. Already the spin “protecting” America is being put out there by CBS (Now tied in with Fox), MSNBC, and Fox propaganda never stops.
    Impeach? Hopefully, there will be enough evidence to hang Bush AND Cheney. I bet there will be hearings (such as for the Enron people) with little result. In the end, the Bush Administration may be slowed down, but I doubt the Republican rulers will impeach.
    The S.S. and S.A. are alive and well in America. We have lost our republic. I have spent my life studying history, and the rise of a new Nazi regime is very painful to see.

  • “The S.S. and S.A. are alive and well in America. We have lost our republic. I have spent my life studying history, and the rise of a new Nazi regime is very painful to see.” — Marilyn

    Having been studying the Nazi regime in depth for the last two years, I hesitate to compare the Bushies with the Nazis for a number of reasons. However, your point is on-target.

    People visualize a potential “nazification” of America as a carbon copy of the German original — uniformed and jackbooted. Stereotypical. But authoritarian regimes develop in different forms and for “the best of reasons.” Invariably, the message is: our people have a powerful and relentless enemy, and the government can protect the people only if they give up certain civil rights. The changeover comes with a security crisis, real or imagined.

    Recently I learned that, even among the nazis (and some of the worst), there was a good deal of alarm and protest regarding Germany’s growing police state. The erosion of the traditional German legal system was of particular concern, as it morphed from one based on protection of individual rights to one that exclusively protected the government, or more specifically, the Nazi party.

    In my opinion, the Bush administration distantly resembles the regime of Stalin. Stalin relentlessly pushed the notion of the free and classless society of workers, but regularly invented plots “within” the system. These imagined plots had more to do with “dangerous” contradictory political ideas than armed actions, allowing him to maintain an atmosphere of constant fear.

    So far, America is a long way from the regimes of Hitler and Stalin, but Bush has seriously threatened our Constitution and system of government, making fundamental changes. Mute acceptence has made this possible.

    The phrase that most disturbs me is “everything changed after 9/11.” NO! It didn’t. We still have a Constitution, we still have civil rights, we still have the security of a superpower. But the “everything changed” claim, if accepted by the American people, is potentially very, very dangerous. It opens the door just wide enough for real trouble.

    The “I” word exists for such a condition.

  • With his ratings still above the waterline, it’d be tough for an Impeach-Bush movement to get any real traction.

    But he’s not the real power in this administration.

    So why not go after the eminence grise, the guy with ratings in the 20s, the evil genius whom no one likes?

    I am, of course, speaking of The Dick.

    Impeach Cheney.

    Think it’s doable?

  • I like Zak’s idea..impeach Cheney. The problem there is that it was the President who signed the order for the illegal wiretaps…All Cheney has done is cheerlead.

    Zak what could we find to impeach Cheney for?

  • Oops. Forgot that it was Mini-Me who actually signed off on all the skullduggery of the past five years. Still, Dr. Evil’s fingerprints must be on something.

    Any legal/constitutional scholars out there who can help us on this?

  • Comments are closed.