Getting Serious About the “I” Word
Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough had me on his MSNBC show tonight to talk about impeachment.
It was smart, civil discussion that treated the prospect of impeaching the president as a serious matter.
Scarborough took the lead in suggesting that Bush’s biggest problem might be that Republicans in the House and Senate who — fearful of the threat Bush poses to their political survival — do not appear to be rallying ’round the president. The host’s sentiments were echoed by two other guests, columnist Mike Barnicle and Salon’s Joan Walsh.
The impetus for the show was Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s ongoing discussion of the impeachment prospect — Hagel’s not quite a supporter of sanctioning Bush, more a speculator about the prospect — and a new column by Robert Novak that suggests Bush has dwindling support within the congressional wing of the GOP.
Speaking about impeachment on ABC’s “This Week,” Hagel said, “Any president who says ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else’ or ‘I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed’ — if a president really believes that, then there (are) ways to deal with that.”
Novak wrote “The I-word (incompetence) is used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to described a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI’s misuse of the Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. ‘We always have claimed that we were the party of better management,’ one House leader told me. ‘How can we claim that anymore?’”
Scarborough drew the two statements together for the purpose of asking whether Bush could count on Republicans to block moves by Congressional Democrats to hold Bush to account for high crimes and misdemeanors.
When a conservative commentator who was on the frontlines of Newt Gingrich’s “Republican revolution” entertains a thoughtful conversation about the politics and processes of impeachment on a major cable news network, it should be clear that the cloistered conversation about sanctioning this president has begun to open up.
No, Scarborough is not jumping on the impeachment bandwagon.
He is simply treating the prospect seriously, as did CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier in the day.
What I told Scarborough is what I have been saying in public forums for the past several weeks: We are nearing an impeachment moment. The Alberto Gonzales scandal, the under-covered but very real controversy involving abuses of the Patriot Act and the president’s increasingly belligerent refusals to treat Congress as a co-equal branch of government are putting the discussion of presidential accountability onto the table from which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to remove it.
Does this mean Bush and Cheney will be impeached? That, of course, will be decided by the people. Impeachment at its best is always an organic process; it needs popular support or it fizzles — as with the attempt by House Republican leaders to remove former President Clinton in a process that, fairly or not, seemed to be all about blue dresses.
While the people saved Clinton – by signaling to their representatives that they opposed sanctioning a president’s personal morals – it does not appear that they are inclined to protect Bush.
With each new revelation about what Gonzales did at the behest of the Bush White House to politicize prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys, the revulsion with the way this president has disregarded the Constitution and the rule of law becomes more intense. And citizens are not cutting their president much slack.
A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll — conducted over the weekend — shows that, by close to a 3-to-1 margin, Americans want Congress to issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify in the Gonzales case. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed say the president should drop his claim of executive privilege in this matter, while only 26 percent agree with the reasoning Bush has used to try and block a meaningful inquiry.
If the president wants to get in a fight with Congress over how to read the Constitution, it appears that the people will back Congress. And that backing is what will begin to restore the backbones of House members who, despite Pelosi’s attempts to quiet talk of impeachment, are getting more and more intrigued by the prospect of holding this president to account.
As Hagel says, “This is not a monarchy. There are ways to deal with (executive excess). And I would hope the president understands that.”
If Bush doesn’t recognize this reality now, he soon will.
John Nichols’ new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
There is much popular support for impeachement and a list of crimes to more than justify it. This entire administration needs to be impeached not only to salvage what’s left of our country but as a first step to regaining an acceptable international image. We have become a pariah state and this illigitimate misleadership represents a clear and present danger to world peace and the survival of civilization. Thier crimes are many. Not removing them would be our crime.
I agree Bush needs to be impeached, if only to protect our constitutional form of government, but I do have one word of caution: Cheney. With only 18% of Americans who would like to see him President (CBS News poll) it is essential to do something about him first. Don’t forget that when Bush asked Cheney to find a running mate for him, Cheney found - himself. He is far more dangerous than Bush, who only does almost everything Cheney wants.
I totally agree with Kathyodat. Cheney is far more dangerous than Bush.
What other VP has spent so much time in a bunker somewhere, while the President is left sitting in a classroom with a dumb look on his face, or flying around the country in his plane, or riding his bike - and not even being told of the danger that had cleared out the white house? I think the VP’s take over of the house speaker’s office for himself says a whole lot about the the hidden power of this VP.
The fear of Cheney becoming president in the event of Bush’s impeachment are unfounded. All Congress has to do is follow the gameplan that the Congress followed when they knew that Nixon might be forced to step down. There was an article yesterday here on Common Dreams that adddressed exactly this issue. Unfortunately I can’t remember which one. I’ll go look it up and get back to you.
The article is David Lindorff “Why Dick and Nancy Will Never by President via Impeachment”
So, how many talking points on impeachment are needed, 5? What are the 5 main talking points? If a Congressional Rep. can, at the height of the Neocon juggernaut, recite practically word for word on the evening news what Neocon spokesperson Bush said on the noon broadcast, can Progressives and true American Democrats and Republicans come up with one shared set of emotionally charged talking points to spread out to and engage the general public with?
Puck,
There is a web site out there that already has Articles of Impeachment drawn up for Bush. I just can’t remember where it is. Could you do a Google search and get back to us on this?
Thanks
Jaded Prole is right. Impeachment is essential if the international community is ever to take us seriously again.
If Nancy Pelosi keeps saying impeachment is off the table she should be removed after all she is elected to the Speaker position not appointed.Bush/Cheney must be impeached to save this Republic and to let future president’s know that they can’t take the law into their own hand’s and get away with it.
per request:
(www.impeachbush.tv) Phil Burk charts a comparison of suggested Articles. Here are Articles with multiple citings: war without consent, no declaration, violated war powers act (6); false statement and propaganda about WMD (5); lied about rationale for Iraq war (5); Bush lied about ties between Iraq al-Qaida (4); War actions that would knowingly kill civilians (5); Iraq war violated UN, Nuremberg, other treaties (3); misleading public to create support for Iraq war (3); torturing prisoners of war against Geneva Convention (3); authorization of wiretapping without FISA approval (2); Lied about imminent threat to US from Iraq (2); Lied about purchase of Uranium from Niger (2); War that resulted in US and allied casualties (2).
There are 22 other Articles with a single citing on Mr. Burk’s chart.
Attorny Frank Mandancini (www.Democrats.com) and former Federal prosecutor Elizabeth de La Vega (www.scoop.co.nz) both use a phrase I like: conspiracy to defraud.
Impeachment of this admin. is a start. Throw their asses in jail after! Unite!
thought some might enjoy this article. brings to light more bush underhanded dealings.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=498_0_1_0_C
If you read Coulter’s “How to talk to a liberal” or kept your finger on the pulse of the right, you would know that until they are impeached, the right will believe:
“There is no merit to any charge or criticism.”
“Criticism of the Bush admin is the work of a few slanderous conspiracy theorizing liberals.”
“That he wasn’t impeached is proof that the reporting of alledged crimes is proof of a biased liberal media.”
“The republicans are the law and order party.”
In fact, that he is not being impeached is largely the result of the snow job being put over on congress by the media about “how america would react to such a thing”, and that it might “make the democrats seem partisan”
Well, congresspeople, the truth is that the media are going to “make the democrats seem partisan” no matter what you do.
There’s some forward thinking needed here: What to do about the Democrats after we rid ourselves of Cheney/Bush? If I read the folks commenting here correctly, they like myself abhor Pelosi and the DLC as much as Cheney/Bush. As Chomsky has stated, even a corporate Democrat would be better than Cheney/Bush; but given the staggering challenges our country and the world face, we need to do much better than that. Gore is in the front of many folks’ minds as a “draftable” alternative; but he’s tainted by his complicity in the crimes of Clinton’s and his administration despite his “born again” makeover. My personal choice would be Kucinich and Barbara Lee for pres/vp. I think we can learn from two prior campaigns: FDR’s in 1932 and Henry Wallace’s in 1948: one a success in defeating the DLC of its day, the other a losing cause against forces more similar to those of today than 1932.
As I said in another post, we citizens must regain control over the federal government; and it’s clear that the DLC does NOT work in the interest of us citizens.
Kucinich and Lee sounds good, but how about Kucinich and Hagel? At least Hagel seems to have a conscience and the courage to speak out. Yes, it’s ridiculous. All the front runners suck as they all have mastered the art of standing amidship without rocking the boat.
You folks have gotten to the crux of the matter! We as citizens/voters can’t reform either one of the two major parties. Until there is election and campaign finance reform, the votes of the people will not matter and we will NEVER have truely representative government. There is a huge amount of legislation already being presented, debated or passed to reach these ends in both the States and the in Congress.
Senators Durbin (D) and Spector (R) have filed the “Fair Elections Act Now” This legislation would let candidates run on their ideas, not how much money they can raise. Candidates would qualify for public financing by raising small donations from enough voters to show they have real grassroots support. If their opponent opts for private fundraising, publicly financed candidates would receive extra funds to match dollar for dollar. The money for the Fair Elections system would be raised by charging a new fee to big media companies. Media companies use the public airwaves to make huge profits from political ads every election season. Go to commoncause.org and moveon.org and sign their petitions. The write your representatives in Congress. Tell ALL your friends to sign. We might even be able to get this bill enacted before the next election cycle.
And when your done with that, go on over to fairvote.org and nationalpopularvote.com and get active with all of your current representatives in Congress and your State legislatures and make true election reform happen. Currently 47 States have signed on to the “Interstate Compact for Agreement Among States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” which would eliminate the Electoral College and another debacle like Florida or Ohio. Many States have already passed the legislation needed. In Oregon we are having our first public hearing today.
Okay. So now you have helped on campaign finance reform and getting rid of the Electoral College. NOW, march yourself out there and get Instant Run off Voting (IRV) off the ground. IRV makes the whole “spoiler” concept go away and also gives third parties and independents a shot at being elected. Lots of activity here as well on the State level.
Now, when your done with that, move on to promoting “Open Primaries” in your State. This would mean that we could have any combination of parties and candidates on any ticket. This would enable us to actually vote for the individual canditate instead of just a party platform. What a concept.
So, you want change? You want to help systemically fix our broken system? Don’t ever want to see the likes of Bush et. al. in public office ever again? GO!!! Get to it!
Raise hell! Make your voice heard! LOUDER!! And don’t forget to have a good laugh every day.
I can just imagine George Bush right now thinking.. “I can’t be Impeached”