Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Deval favors impeachment?

By 25 Comments

I actually thought he was too bi-partisan for me to support on the national stage, despite how much I support him in MA, but his public support for impeachment would certainly change my mind. Is there anything we could do to get the state impeachment bill passed?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. According to Jefferson’s Rules of the U.S. House, one complete state legislature’s petition for impeachment takes priority in the House. This would clearly blow away the Speaker’s roadblock to immediate impeachment.

    <

    p>
    Hello? Vermont? Yeah, we’re looking at you!

    <

    p>
    How does one go about getting a net roots movement for citizens to pressure their state legislatures to act on this, assuming this statement is accurate?

      • But I’l give it a quick shot.  I watched the Bill Moyers Journal discussion with Moyers, Bruce Fein, constitutional scholar, conservative, and author of one of the Clinton Articles of Impeachment, and The Nation columnist John Nichols.  Both men strongly favored impeachment.

        <

        p>
        Here are a few money quotes:

        <

        p>

        JOHN NICHOLS: Well, let’s try a metaphor. Let’s say that– when George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, he used the wood to make a little box. And in that box the president puts his powers. We’ve taken things out. We’ve put things in over the years.

        On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don’t give away the tools. They don’t give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

        <

        p>

        BRUCE FEIN: Certainly with regard to the one example of the abuse of presidential authority, seeking to obstruct a legitimate congressional investigation by a preposterous assertion of executive privilege. Remember, in a democracy, in– under the Constitution, transparency and sunshine is the rule. The exception is only for matters of grave national security secrets. That certainly doesn’t apply here.

        <

        p>

        JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don’t mistake the medicine for the disease.

        <

        p>
        My justification, outside of the clear and punishible transgressions committed by Bush & Cheney, is that this administration has expanded Executive Branch power far beyond what the framers invisioned.  For the health of our democracy, the powers such as “assertions of power that affect the individual liberties of every American citizen. Opening your mail, your e-mails, your phone calls. Breaking and entering your homes. Creating a pall of fear and intimidation if you say anything against the president you may find retaliation very quickly. We’re claiming he’s setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons anytime there’s another 9/11”, need to be reigned in.  This is done by censuring the current administration and demonstrate to future presidents that our liberties will not be trampled on.

        <

        p>
        Once power is given, it’s never voluntarily given back. Congress must take these powers back via impeachment.

        • The arguments I see in favor of pushing ahead are:

        • The Bush Administration really has committed acts that merit its removal: lying about Iraq, violations of legal and treaty violations, and overstepping their Constitutional boundaries with signing statements, etc.
        • Hearings on impeachment would be educational. Too much of the public has not been paying attention and doesn’t understand what’s going on here.
        • Given what has already been revealed, we can bet that additional horrors will come to light in investigations.
        • Inaction condones. The constraints on future presidents will fall away.

          • The institutional timidity of the Democrats has to go into the calculations. With colors reversed, the Republicans would have blanketed the nation’s airwaves about the perfidious Democrats and their out-of-control President. The country would expect impeachment proceedings and would know what they were based on.

          <

          p>
          The Democrats will do nothing like that. Maybe MoveOn will try to pull off an ad campaign. If impeachment is pursued unaggressively, the net effect could be a disaster. Blue Dogs in the House would vote against impeachment. So it won’t even pass where there’s a Democratic majority. If impeachment is pursued in this lame, apolitical, rise-above-it-all way, too many Americans will not understand what’s at stake and they will think it was just a partisan Democratic maneuver.

      • Lying us into war, torture, abolishment of Habeus Corpus, illegal wiretapping, criminal neglect in Katrina, turning the Justice Department into a GOP political branch, ignoring our laws. That’ll do for starters. Not to hold them accountable is to acquiesce in the rape of the Constitution. 

        <

        p>
        But thanks for the link. I’ll contact my state reps and see where they stand.

        • I agree impeachment is a political act.  Though there are plenty of reasons to advocate that impeachment will do much for the long-term moral and legal good of our country, I offer that we’re better served having the “right people” in power than the right ideas out of power.

          <

          p>
          So we’ll look at this through a political lens.  For me, it comes down quite simply to this:  does impeaching the president, even with the likely failure to convict, improve Democrats’ chances up and down the board in 2008 and beyond?  This is my understanding of the political arguments on either side.

          <

          p>
          YES  Impeachment will bring out the worst of Bush’s crimes in such a spectacular setting that low-information voters will come to dislike him & Cheney.  High-information voters probably know enough to make their decision.  We’re going for low-information voters, here.  The inherent drama of impeachment and consequence will amplify the message that the Republican administration is corrupt and disconnected with the American people on energy, the environment, Iraq, terrorism, US Attys, etc. This message will reach voters and influence them.

          <

          p>
          Complicit in this will be the Republican nominee.  Combined with Democratic efforts, the stain of impeachment will spread to anyone connected with the president, even if such link is being in the same party.  Links between Bush and the nominee will be strong enough to influence voters, and hopefully will cast enough of a shadow over other Republicans (Domenecei, Sununu, Collins) to shave their support.  This will be the overwhelming message of 2008, and motivate voters to opt for the non-Republican, that is, the Democrat.

          <

          p>
          NO  If Bush is impeached, the debate will focus not on “why is the president being impeached?” to “should the president be impeached?”  This will open up charges that this is revenge for Clinton’s impeachment, and that Democrats are doing a campaign stunt for strictly political ends.  In short, it adds confusion and noise to a case that can be made without impeachment.  Hearings and subpeonas from Democrats can focus more strictly on the issues (wiretapping, secret meetings, torture) without getting caught up in the inherent drama of impeachment.  The same case is made, without the distraction of a failed effort at conviction, and without firing up a very demoralized base.  Impeachment will remind alienated Republican why they fell for Dubya in the first place, and reverse Democratic fortunes in blueing states such as Virginia, Colorado, and Montana.

          <

          p>
          Under this more varied attack, more precision can be brought to bear as well.  Without Bush as sole defender, more aim can be taken as enablers such as Collins and Sununu.  The scope can be broadened to mistakes not strictly Bush’s bailiwick (one thinks of the consequences of David Vitter, Ted Stevens’ corruption or Liddy Dole’s ineffectiveness).  Local races become more local, and Democrats can more easily stress their independence when necessary.

          <

          p>
          One other consideration that may fall into either bin:  The impeachment will overhang the 2008 election.  Depending on the nominee, that will include voting on whether to charge or convict.  Without that, the Democratic nominee can step more into their own, and offer themselves as something beyond the receptacle of a vote to punish Bush.  this may be a risk in 2008, but impeachment will be exhausted as an issue by 2010.

          <

          p>
          What arguments on the political importance of impeachment am I forgetting?

          • Like you, I share a concern for the low information voter. (But I hate that.)

            <

            p>
            One structural problem for the Democrats is that our guys always look as if they are doing stuff based on political calculation. Bad consequences here:

            <

            ul type=”square”>

          • It makes it look as if we have no principles — and at least our leaders don’t.
          • It makes it look as if we are spineless: if we cannot stand up for what we believe, will we stand up for America? Why are we so afraid of the accusation that this is “just revenge for Clinton”?

            • <

            ul>

      • The downside to impeachment is well commented: the Senate would not convict, would roil the political waters jeopardizing a blue advantage on all fronts on 08 by overreaching, etc.

        <

        p>
        The downside of not going forward with impeachment deserves the same kind of hardheaded analysis. I suggest that the damages this administration has inflicted on the Constitution and the nation will be much much worse and persistent the more unchallenged, and that vigorous leadership in their defense will lead to meaningful reforms even if the Senate fails to convict.

        <

        p>
        If you are picking battles, and you only pick those you are sure to win, pretty soon there will be nothing winnable. And your politics will become divorced from your values, all in the name of pragmatism.

  2. …is a bit premature, and would probably never lead to conviction and removal–which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.  In short, it would be a meaningless exercise.

    <

    p>
    It would probably be better for the Dems in the House, and possibly Senators like Leahy, to aggressively pursue a strategy of investigation and disclosure.  So far, as far as I can tell, except for Leahy, the Dems have been fairly tepid.

    <

    p>
    The problem with impeachment and removal is that, unlike the Nixon experience, we are far too close to the end of the Bush II administration for it to mean anything.  In Nixon’s case, cries for impeachment came at the beginning of the second term, not the end.  Note that it took more than eighteen months into Nixon’s term for Nixon to exit, stage right, and he wasn’t even impeached, much less convicted.  Another difference is that, even then, the Republican party was led by adults, not quivering sycophants such as we see today, and it was the Republican congressional leadership that got Nixon to resign.

    • This isn’t about Bush exactly – you are right that by the time this all would come to a head there would be very little of his term left.  What impeaching Bush/Cheney is about is defining the future of the Presidency.  If we do nothing and let the crimes of Bush and Cheney have commited stand, it will be the signal to all future Presidents that there is no price to pay for ignoring our Constitution.

      <

      p>
      Impeachment is about the future.  Impeachment is about saying now, and forever that the USA will not devolve into a quasi-dictatorship with Congress being demoted to an advisory position and the American people being made into children who must obey the Imperial President.

      <

      p>
      Impeach Bush, or be prepared to see future Presidents, be they Democrats or Republicans violate our constitution and turn the system of checks and balances on its head.

        • Lets define “defeat” as Impeachment by the House followed by the failure of the Senate to convict, since that would be the most likely outcome.

          <

          p>
          I believe that outcome would be better for the Republic and for the Democratic party than to do nothing and hope everything turns out ok in 2008. It would air the crimes of Bush/Cheney and force every sitting Senator to go on the record as having been supportive of the creation of an Imperial President, or having been in support of Congress and the President as being co-equal branches of government.

          <

          p>
          Let everyone go on record and let the voters sort it out.

          • By forcing a vote, you make some Senate races a referendum on the imperial presidency.

            <

            p>
            That could work just as you describe. Or the media could turn the impeachment into a sporting event. Or the Republicans could try to turn it into a “narrow partisan advantage” thing.
            You and I would want people to think about it in terms of the substantive issues.

            <

            p>
            Another wrinkle here is the disconnect between conventional wisdom as expressed by the Serious People on TV and actual public opinion as measured by polling. CW is much more susceptible to sporting or partisan-advantage narratives than the public is. Low information voters, unfortunately, seem susceptible as well.

            <

            p>
            I don’t have an answer here. I’m trying to puzzle this out.

      • …if Bush & Cheney & crew committed crimes, they can be prosecuted by the next Democratic administration.  It is doubtful that the applicable statutes of limitations would have run out by the time they are ejected from office.

        <

        p>
        I prefer initially the “death by a thousand cuts” idea.  If consensus builds for impeachment, so be it.  I doubt that there is sufficient backing for convictionand removal now, for impeachment to be worth the effort.  The Republicans in the House shot themselves in the foot with their impeachment of Clinton.  It went nowhere in the Senate, and made them a laughingstock.

        • Despite the fact that impeachment of Clinton failed, the GOP kept Congress and won the executive branch for the next eight years. That said, i’m sick of the Democrats calculating and equivocating about holding the Bush administration accountable for its lies, obstructions, destructive actions, and most of all, its indifference to the life and death consequences of its policies. For some reason that bothers me more than anything: the image of Bush and Cheney perpetually golfing, hunting, and generally making merry while 18-year olds get slaughtered and slaughter others because they’re being told to do it. “Well, it turned out the WMD’s weren’t there, gee whiz, sorry…but you kids are doing a great job over there anyhow, stay strong…and by the way, watch this swing! Laura got me this driver for my birthday…” This isn’t about poltics- it’s about good and evil, right and wrong. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of this crew need to be brought to justice for the sake of the future, certainly, but also for the sake of justice itself.

          • In 2000, the Democrats made gains in both houses of Congress. They did not take the Senate because the Republicans took the Vice Presidency. The gains in the House were minor but still present:

            19982000 DemRepDemRepSenate   46 54 50 50House  211223212221

  3. So we manage to impeach the maladministration and throw them out of office.

    <

    p>
    What do we get in its place?

    <

    p>
    Maybe a little better, but the track record to date of the current Democratic congress really stinks.  Plus, we will have forced it on those who should be stepping up and doing the job, so the act will be half-assed.

    <

    p>
    The problem is them, but also the system itself.  Citizens need more empowerment and control.  Clearly, our ability to decide what’s right is far better than what is being set out as our current menu of choices.

    • I was of the understanding that the very intent of Murray and Dimassi was to deny the right of the people re the latest Con Con—re the marriage issue.

      <

      p>
      Will citizens have only increased empowerment and control on spefic issues or issues generally?

      <

      p>
      Be aware of the law of unintended consequence: The “super majority” in the US Senate. I bet Harry Reid is rueing that piece of cleverness now!

      • In a plan put forth by former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel, there is a deliberative protective mechanism built in which will prevent rights being taken away.  It’s called the “National Initiative” and would “empower people as lawmakers.

        <

        p>
        I agree and think it’s needed desperately.

        <

        p>
        The issue with the “marriage” amendment was to remove rights that already exist.  In the case of the Massachusetts legislature, they acted as the stop gap against removing rights.

        <

        p>
        Funny.  These fundamentalist Haggardists chatter on about how the “founding fathers” were religious (like them, when in fact they were hardly so), yet they cannot accept some of the basic premises that were produced by these same founders.

    • can not cost Harry Reid his power as Majority Leader.  In the first days of this session, rules were passed establishing the Dems as the majority.  After the 2008 Senate elections, those rules expire, and we’ll see if the 22 GOP senators up for re-election can hold on.  (BTW, Pete Domenici is up for re-election in New Mexico, and no big name Dems have challenged him.  There is one Democrat in NM who could knock Pete off his throne and help solidify Dem control of the Senate, however…)

      <

      p>
      The reason Jim Jeffords was able to switch things in 2001 was because back then the 50-50 Senate started up while Gore was still VP, so a powersharing compromise was adopted with special provisions was agreed to.  Some think even then, Sen. Reid had hope he could switch Jeffords or McCain to the Dem side.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives