… and is that the question we should be asking?
Jay points to this column by Michael Tomasky, contending that the Democrats would lose valuable momentum and good will by impeaching Bush and Cheney, and would do much better to instead use the popular disgust with the current administration to win in ’08 and push a more progressive agenda.
On the merits, I’m completely down with the idea that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached. From illegal domestic spying to torture to lying the country into war … goodness, there’s quite a bill of particulars against these guys.
And yet I can’t disagree that having Bush and Cheney around is valuable. Keeping them twisting in the wind does serve a valuable purpose: To remind the public of the utter implosion of this administration — or even conservativism (or “conservativism” if you prefer, or Bushism, or whatever) as a whole. Theoretically (very theoretically, it seems), the Dems could then use the resultant political and ideological vacuum to advance progressive alternatives. Indeed, I have little doubt that the Dems will properly make Bush/Cheney the running mates of any GOP Prez nominee. Sounds great, right? I should be all over this.
But there’s a cost to not impeaching that doesn’t get enough attention, to my mind — that the endless criminality of the White House, heretofore unchecked — becomes the norm. If this Congress doesn’t stand up to this, what does the next President feel entitled to do? Are there any limits, ever? Hey, what do you have to do to get impeached around here?
It’s funny, but I feel like as a Democrat, I should allow impeachment to slide; but as a patriot, I feel like I should support it.
jconway says
You hit the nail on the head right there. In my view since Watergate with the exception of Carter the Presidency has grown even more imperial and Congress has been reluctant to take action. Not only do I want Bush impeached as a patriot first and a Democrat second, if I was a Republican, a Republican well versed in constitutional law like an Arlen Spector or John Warner, I would be pushing for impeachment as well. Its the responsibility of the Congress to push for this.
<
p>
And people forget impeachment is not voting to remove the President, its voting to launch an investigation and see if the President should be removed. If anything Bush’s supporters should support impeachment since he still is innocent until proven guilty, the fact that they do not welcome an investigation lets all of us know that even they know he has done wrong.
<
p>
And I am an equal opportunity believer in the impeachment process. Roosevelt should have had an impeachment investigation over the court packing scheme, Johnson over Vietnam, Reagan over the contras, and Bush over Iraq. And in my view the investigations into Nixon and Clinton were good for the country, in the case of Nixon they showed he did wrong, in the case of Clinton it cleared his name, either way great for the country and the process worked. Bush is no different, and Republicans should rightfully realize that a Democrat can abuse these powers as well, signing statements, executive orders, domestic wiretapping, these powers could hurt Republicans when they are out of power. This is an American issue not a political one.
david says
Uh, excuse me? He filed a bill. It didn’t pass. End of story. Maybe it was a bad idea, but let’s not get carried away.
laurel says
If Congress can’t prevent a vote on a bill that gives oh-so-imeachable-but-somehow-not-impeached AG Gonzales the power to ignore American civil liberties, I don’t think your question can be more than an intellectual exercise.
charley-on-the-mta says
but I would think the impeachment process means that more votes might be gathered.
<
p>
Side note: I think the Democrats’ habit of “counting the votes” before they do anything gets the whole legislative strategy backwards. But what do I know?
laurel says
what i’m saying is that i have expectation that they’ll even begin the process. they’re so scardy cat about even starting the process with gonzales. that should be a no-brainer. what’s holding speaker pelosi back? something has filed the tiger’s fangs.
laurel says
david says
Gonzales is the low-hanging fruit. If they can’t pick him off, impeaching anyone else is a total non-starter.
centralmaguy says
Pushing impeachment, especially so close to 2008, would only further divide an already polarized nation. Impeachment proceedings lead by Democrats would look like retribution for the last six years. I believe most average Americans would view impeachment as nothing more than political theater.
<
p>
While the Bush/Cheney administration has done more to tarnish and tear down our great republic, it is too late for impeachment to be meaningful. The electorate seems to have had enough of their agenda and seems to believe that they have overreached their bounds. Unless the Democrats destroy themselves in the meantime, I can’t see any Republican in the field (since their all speaking Bush’s talking points) getting elected president in 2008.
<
p>
The Democrats need to nominate a candidate who can unite the country under a common vision which is 180 degrees from Bushism, one which promotes the common good, shared responsibility, and a better future based on ideals and not on fear. I haven’t picked a candidate yet (though I’m hoping Gore will run, if only to say “I told you so, now let’s move forward”), but I believe the best way for America to repudiate the imperial presidency is to elect a president who respects the Constitution and will force the Congress to hold that president to account.
bostonbound says
Point: ?Pushing impeachment, especially so close to 2008, would only further divide an already polarized nation.?
<
p>
Counterpoint: Bill Clinton?s approval rating improved after the Senate failed to convict him of impeachment.
<
p>
Point: ?Impeachment proceedings lead by Democrats would look like retribution for the last six years.
<
p>
Counterpoint: What you call ?retribution,? I call oversight of, and investigation into, “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
<
p>
Point: ?I believe most average Americans would view impeachment as nothing more than political theater.?
<
p>
Counterpoint: I don?t know how you can say this when Bush?s approval rating is near 25%. It?s as low as it is for a reason; the country knows that Bush has no respect for the rule of law and continually violates the Constitution. This is exactly what impeachment is for: it?s the remedy for the constitutional crisis we?re currently facing.
<
p>
Point: ?While the Bush/Cheney administration has done more to tarnish and tear down our great republic, it is too late for impeachment to be meaningful.?
<
p>
Counterpoint: It?s never too late for impeachment. See, e.g., War Secretary William Belknap?s impeachment after his resignation. Besides, do we really want to let this administration?s breathtaking grasp of power remain unaddressed? I?m concerned about the grab-bag of new powers the next president ? whether Republican or Democrat ? will get to use starting on 01/20/09. See Lord Acton?s ?power corrupts?? aphorism.
<
p>
Point: ?Unless the Democrats destroy themselves in the meantime, I can’t see any Republican in the field (since their all speaking Bush’s talking points) getting elected president in 2008.?
<
p>
Counterpoint: Maybe so. But failure to stand up to an un-American president ? a low-hanging fruit, by the way ? is one possible way for the Democrats to ?destroy themselves.?
<
p>
Point: ?I believe the best way for America to repudiate the imperial presidency is to elect a president who respects the Constitution and will force the Congress to hold that president to account.?
<
p>
Counterpoint: It?s not up to a future president to force Congress to hold that president to account; it?s up to us to do so.
kbusch says
If you are editing your comments in Word, you have to turn off its automatic replacing of straight quotes with left and right quotes otherwise you end up with a slew of question marks where all your double quotes, single quotes, and apostrophes would otherwise be.
raj says
…I do most of my composing in an ASCII text processor Windows Notepad. It doesn’t provide for spell check, but it seems to me that nobody on the Internet uses spell check anyway.
<
p>
But I get no “question marks” in my comments.
kbusch says
Firefox 2 will spell check your posts — in English or German as you prefer.
david says
For those who want to use Word or another word processor to compose their posts, it’s not a bad idea to cut and paste the entire file into Notepad before pasting it into BMG — that will strip out the “smart quotes” and other formatting that results in the question-mark problem.
kbusch says
The trouble is that the media has reduced everything to a horse race and theater criticism. The media shows multiple signs of right-wing bias — even if you exclude Fox. So approval for Bush might be in a low bathroom basin but the media narratives will be unkind to Democrats unless Democrats work very hard to change them. Note how badly the recent Republican filibuster in the Senate was covered.
centralmaguy says
<
p>
You misunderstood this statement. I wrote that America must elect a better president and that America must force Congress to hold that president to account. So we do agree that it is up to us to do so.
<
p>
Furthermore, I must disagree with your evaluation of my comments. First, you state that impeachment would be, to you, “oversight” and “investigation” of high crimes, etc. Sure it could be seen that way, but one doesn’t need to impeach in order to conduct oversight hearings and other investigations. The Democratic Congress has already done so and should push for more. Shining light on these important issues and making the public aware will do more to help save our Republic than an impeachment vote that is almost certainly doomed to fail.
<
p>
The Democrats must also use the power of the purse to hold the ADministration accountable. This option is far more viable and would be far more effective than pushing an impeachment vote that will never lift off. Just recently, the Democrats forced Bush to get rid of Andrew Biggs from the Social Security Administration due to his staunch support of privatization of Social Security. The Democrats originally blocked his nomination as Deputy Commissioner, Bush then gave Biggs a recess appointment, and finally the Democrats threatened to defund and eliminate that position. Success.
<
p>
My point is that there are far more effective and far more realistic means to finally bring this administration to heel, ones which could gain greater Democratic unity in Congress and even bipartisan support. I’m pissed about what Bush and Cheney have done to this country, but there is no way that Congressional Democrats will be able to muster enough support within their own ranks to bring about a successful impeachment vote. More subpoenas, more hearings, and more budget votes may not be as sexy or exciting as full-blown impeachment, but they’ll get far more done.
bostonbound says
I agree that impeachment should not be the first option, but I don’t think it should be ruled off the table as nothing more than petty retribution. Yes, we should begin (and continue) with investigations, as in the Gonzales hearings and the Harriet Meirs/Josh Bolten/Karl Rove subpoenas. But if this administration’s conduct is any indication, compromise and respect for separation of powers is not to be expected. The power of the purse can only go so far, as in the Andrew Biggs example. But it won’t help in getting Miers or Rove to show up to testify. Contempt of Congress is the way to go (for now), but if these efforts are stymied by Bush’s executive privilege claim, impeachment should be the next step. See Madison’s point on impeachment, during the Constitutional Convention: ?[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty?.?
centralmaguy says
In an ideal world where loyalty to one’s country and the Constitution overruled one’s loyalty to party or to president or to one’s own political career, impeachment would have happened soon after the truth came out that no WMDs were in Iraq and it would’ve been bipartisan. Do I think Bush should have been impeached by the House and then tried by the Senate? You betcha. Do I think that impeachment stands any real chance of passing in the House? No way.
<
p>
I see your points on the limitations of subpoenas, budgetary action, etc- but they’re the most effective and viable weapons in our arsenal at the moment. Unfortunately, it’s going to come down to Contempt of Congress trials and other litigation to resolve the constitutional issues raised by Bush’s outlandish reading of the powers of the executive, simply because he won’t back down- and because he knows impeachment is nearly impossible in the current DC climate.
<
p>
Congress needs to find its nerve and assert itself as a co-equal branch of government. That process has started, but it will take time before it is fully realized. In the meantime, Democrats must continue to push themselves as the party of accountability and move forward with an agenda to undo Bush’s power grab.
raj says
…what you wrote is correct, but I’ll just point out that, even during the Nixon impeachment hearings, Congress had to issue subpoenas to the Nixon White House to get evidence that would persuade the poeple that impeachment was in order.
<
p>
If Congress did not get the information via subpoenas it would never have been able to persuade the American people that Nixon should have been impeached.
<
p>
Of course, Nixon wasn’t impeached, but that was because the adults in the Republican party persuaded him to resign instead.
ed-prisby says
<
p>
I have to respectfully disagree. The merits of a possible Bush impeachment aside, I would say that in general impeachment is an ugly and highly politicized process, that, if engaged in too often would only result in a further alienation of the electorate.
<
p>
Despite who should have been impeached in the past 200 years, we’ve only really had two presidents, in two centuries, impeached. Clinton and Andrew Johnson. My memory of the Clinton affair being that it unnecessarily stalled the final quarter of his term. And despite the prosperity and peace of the late 1990s, there were no meaningful achievements from the administration. And real people lost out because of it. Maybe he got what he deserved, maybe not, but I can’t say with any confidence that the country was better off for the process.
<
p>
So, now we want to go through the second impeachment in a row after 150 years between the first two? Okay. But what does that say about where we are as a nation? Where our democracy is at? Would it usher in the era of the permanent impeachment cycle, where no sooner is a President elected than he or she is subject to speculation about impeachment?
<
p>
Maybe Bush ought to be impeached, but is it good for the country?
hubspoke says
Agreeing wholeheartedly with points above that:
<
p>
as a patriot, I feel like I should support it
<
p>
and
<
p>
the Democrats’ habit of “counting the votes” before they do anything gets the whole legislative strategy backwards.
<
p>
If we leave BushCheney in there, without sanctioning them, there’s no predicting what they might do. How about another war? How about martial law? These guys are very dangerous. Believe it. Even if we DO impeach, they may do desperate things, but we’ve got to get on their cases anyway. It might slow them down.
<
p>
I am ashamed of the collective Democrats and I are one. Maybe they will wake up.
bostonbound says
Point: “general impeachment is an ugly and highly politicized process, that, if engaged in too often would only result in a further alienation of the electorate.”
<
p>
Counterpoint: I hear this all the time. Impeachment is ugly, sure, as is any political confrontation that results in friction. But why is that bad? Friction results when “ambition counters ambition,” as envisioned by the Founders in a political system in which there are properly functioning checks and balances.
<
p>
As for politicization — your frame of reference is undoubtedly the Clinton impeachment proceeding, which, unlike the Nixon proceeding, was not bi-partisan. The Clinton impeachment was politicized because it was partisan, and it was partisan because it was a witch-hunt. Can one honestly say the same thing about a hypothetical Bush impeachment proceeding?
<
p>
Point: “So, now we want to go through the second impeachment in a row after 150 years between the first two? Okay. But what does that say about where we are as a nation? Where our democracy is at? Would it usher in the era of the permanent impeachment cycle, where no sooner is a President elected than he or she is subject to speculation about impeachment?”
<
p>
Counterpoint: I don’t agree with the underling premise of this argument. Basically, you imply that impeachment is something toxic, that it is a “nuclear option” of sorts to be used in case of dire emergency, once in a century. I don’t agree. I see impeachment as a mechanism that should be invoked as-needed. Is it a serious and sober mechanism? Of course. But how often it is to be invoked should depend on the occurrence of an unconstitutional violaion, whether such violation occur once a century or once every four years. Impeachment isn’t toxic (unless frivolously invoked); it isn’t a “nuclear option” or the source of a constitutional crisis — it is the remedy for a constitutional crisis. The genius of the impeachment proceeding is that it’s supposed to prevent violent dissent/civil war/bloody revolution.
<
p>
With regard to your final point about a newly-elected President facing speculation of impeachment — I think you’re overstating the case. Impeachment is still serious business. It should not be entered into lightly. But that does not mean it should not be entered into at all. There are costs to frivolously pursuing impeachment (see, e.g., 1998 GOP congressional electoral results). But just the threat or congressional hearing into (serious) impeachment concerns is enough (or should be enough) to set a president stratight.
jimc says
Leave Bush and Cheney. They’re helping us.
jconway says
The War in Iraq helps us as well, but hypothetically if you could choose between a peace tomorrow that might save Bush and the GOP in 2008 or continuing the current quagmire which would you choose? I have a theory Emmanuel and the Dems are not pragmatically pushing for either a compromise with swing Republicans i.e make ISG report law and are not pushing for real power of the purse resolutions to dangle Iraq as the albatross over the GOP in 2008.
<
p>
Personally thats terrible, for one we would save the lives of so many ending it tommorrow, and secondly itd be better for the country in the long run.
<
p>
Ditto impeachment. Leaving those two around sends the message that its okay to violate the law, that the President’s oath is irrelevant, that its okay to subvert the Constitution. Doing so sets us up for the next GOP or even a Dem abuse of power.
<
p>
Sorry Id rather be a good patriot than a good partisan, America is far more important than a party, clearly this is why Washington disliked parties since party loyalty trumps national loyalty and blinds us from our duties as citizens. Much like the Republicans are more loyal to Bush than America by stifling rightful investigations, we would be more loyal to Democratic victory in 2008 than our nations by opposing such investigations on political grounds.
<
p>
Using your logic it was right for the Dems to vote for war in 2003 since it improved their chances in 2004, even if such an idea was terribly wrong. The majority of Americans supported the war in 2003, the majority of Americans oppose impeachment now, still does not make the enlightened minority of us wrong.
jimc says
I guess that’s what I get for being terse. I OPPOSED the war from the get-go, including knocking John Kerry (who I usually like) for pandering with his vote for it.
<
p>
However, that was then, and this is now. The war is a fact, and to impeach the president over a war that most Democrats voted for is, at best, a little hypocritical.
<
p>
Better for the country, I say, not just us, to focus on electing the next president, and making sure that president is a Democrat. Impeachment would be seen as partisanship, not patriotism — you don’t get a second chance on showing your patiotism, they should have stood against Bush’s phony war in the first place. The GOP would impeach the next Democratic president immediately, once they had a majority, for a wrinkled shirt (or blouse).
<
p>
Even discussing impeachment is a drain of our energy. As others noted, it won’t pass. I’m all for standing on principle, but stand on principle — you don’t get a do-over when you caved. The clock has run out. Exercise your patriotism on the next vote.
kbusch says
It is spelled “I R A N”.
<
p>
Cheney is pushing hard for a war with Iran. Getting impeachment proceedings going might slow that down just as the DOJ investigations seem to have freed up a lot of investigations into Republican corruption (for example, the entire (!) Alaskan congressional delegation is under investigation).
cos says
Regardless of the effect of leaving Bush and Cheney, I am flabbergasted that Gonzales is not being impeached. I can’t imagine how it is in anyone’s interest (Congress, Democrats, Republicans, the country, etc.) to let him stay at his job. That we’re not impeaching Gonzales is a scandal. I’ve been calling my Congressman weekly asking why we’re not impeaching Gonzales yet. Please call yours.
cos says
I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I think of it a little differently: a someone who is not in Congress, I ought to (and do) advocate for impeachment. But I understand why it may not make sense for members of Congress to do so yet. It’d be a much healthier dynamic for this country if pressure for impeachment came from the bottom, from the people, than if it were seen as something driven by the Congress (as happened in the Monica scandal). In the meantime, Congress ought to focus on undoing damage while at the same time investigating what the Bush administration has been doing, generating a steady stream of grounds of impeachment which should generate and stoke more public appetite for impeachment.
<
p>
Even if it doesn’t actually happen, if we get to a point where the public clearly wants it, that’d partially serve the purpose. On the other hand, if we short-circuit that by having Congress jump ahead of the public, we might actually hurt the purpose, and it would also get in the way of other very important things Congress ought to be doing.
raj says
That we’re not impeaching Gonzales is a scandal.
<
p>
…”death by a thousand cuts”?
<
p>
I’m actually surprised that the Congressional Democrats don’t have him up there every day testifying. That they don’t, suggests to me that they are ineffectual. They don’t have enough votes in the Senate for removal, so impeachment is largely symbolic–symbolic of nothing.
<
p>
But, if the Dems had Speedy up on the hill testifying day after day after day, they could largely accomplish the same thing–death by a thousand cuts.
<
p>
On the other hand, we’ve recently seen that Congressional Democrats are worthless.
kbusch says
They are these:
The problem is that the Democratic Party is acting as if this were just a legislative vote. It has to be part of a broader campaign. Otherwise it’s dead: either because it doesn’t gain a majority in the House or because unexplained it looks like resentment not patriotism.
bostonbound says
In other words, if the Democrats will not pursue impeachment against the President, who will? Let’s assume that impeachment is necessary and proper (not a huge leap, by the way), that it is not an energy-drain, and in fact it would actually give the Democrats political momentum into 2008… doesn’t that make the case for impeachment? Are my assumptions out of whack or on point? Especially the latter one — it might be worth determining what kind of an electoral effect impeachment might hold for the Democrats. If you’ll recall, the GOP suffered during the 1998 elections, despite it being Clinton’s sixth year (during which one would expect the Dems to hurt at the ballot box.) Take Nixon’s impeachment proceedings — didn’t the Democrats kick serious ass in 1974 and 1976?
<
p>
And even if impeachment doesn’t help the Democratic Party… shouldn’t it still be pursued? I guess that’s the point of the post above, to articulate the tension inherent in a political system that’s designed without the political party in mind.
kbusch says
You can choose virtue ethics or utilitarian ethics here. By virtue ethics, being a virtuous person, you stand up for what’s right and impeach. By a utilitarian approach you might calculate probabilities of various consequences and weigh them. One thing to weigh is a loss in the 2008 presidential election. The consequences of that are not neutral.
<
p>
Consequences of a Democratic victory:
I’m sure you could add to the above and expand it. In any case, another four years of Republican Administration is s really bad moral outcome. A principled person — at least a principled utilitarian — could not ignore the 2008 election.
heartlanddem says
True statement and it should be the arbiter, however it’s not, because the alter ego of Republican greed is Democratic cowardice.
raj says
…that water go under the bridge. If the Democrats, particularly in the House, want to investigate, let them do so. “Impeachment” (without the possibility of removal from office) is silly.
<
p>
Investigations? Not silly. I really do hope that Rep. Conyers has the backbone to do his investigations. The other national Democrats apparently do not.
<
p>
BTW, I’m not particularly encouraged by the Dems recent cave on the amendments to the FISA act, as I’ve described elsewhere here. The Dems have showed themselves to be nothing more than vassals who are subservient to the Bush White House. So, what did you elect them to do? Cave into every proposal from the Bush White House? If so, why vote for nothing more than what are Republicans Lite?.
<
p>
Going up a bit
<
p>
Roosevelt should have had an impeachment investigation over the court packing scheme
<
p>
You really should read your copy of the US Constitution. It doesn’t prescribe the number of justices who are supposed to sit on the US Supreme Court. Your comment is nonsense.
<
p>
What would not have been nonsense is whether FDR should have been impeached–and removed from office–because of his approval of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. The sad fact, that many Americans wish to ignore, is that the US Supreme Court approved the internment (the Korematsu opinion) and it will be a stain on the US government for a long, long time.
jconway says
It does not specify that the President has the power to set the number of the Court, same with Congress, and had that passed Bush would be packing the court with Scalias. No, even though I would have liked a pro-New Deal court it would have politicized what ought to be an objective institution and set a dangerous precedent that would have seriously undermined the checks and balances of the government.
<
p>
The internment similarly was unconstitutional especially because they were citizens so I agree and forgive me for neglecting that.
raj says
…on the US Supreme Court, but his efforts to change the makeup by packing the court legislatively could not have been considered an impeachable offense. That was the point.
<
p>
BTW, I forget the caption of the US Supreme Court case that was subtitled “the switch in time that saved nine.” Jones & Laughlin? The justices knew which way the wind was blowing, and it was not blowing in their previous direction. Schechter was dead, and they knew it.
david says
Constitution:
<
p>
<
p>
Nothing about how many judges sit on the court. Congress has accordingly acted as follows:
<
p>
<
p>
It would have been perfectly simple, and perfectly legal, for Congress to pass the bill FDR filed, which would have amended that statute to open up a seat every time a Justice reached age 70 and decided not to retire (up to a maximum of 15 Justices). But they didn’t.
<
p>
As I said upthread, let’s not get carried away. FDR’s bill may have been a bad idea, but the notion that filing it could somehow be an impeachable offense is, respectfully, a bit daft.
jconway says
The Constitution also declares the President Commander-in-Chief which every modern President has used to assert that they control the army, which is wrong. The Congress specifically does, in fact I would even argue that a professional army goes against the intent of the fathers not that I would argue to disband it. There is just one line which allows Bush to create a unitary executive fantasy for himself, ; similarly FDR while barely legally able to push forward with the court packing scheme would have set a reckless constitutional precedent that would have permanetly unsettled the checks and balances inherit in the constitution.
<
p>
Also most of his New Deal proposals were struck down as unconstitutional hence the need to pack the court in the first place. We are a government of laws not men and I was merely pointing out that nearly every modern President has usurped more and more power for themseles (with the exception of Ford and Carter due to the proximity of Watergate to their administrations), in my view power that was usurped at the expense of Congress and ultimately the American people. Impeachment in all the cases I mentioned would have served the function to check the President and prevent him from engaging in reckless abandonment of the Constitution.
ac5p says
The enforcement of the Constitution should happen always regardless of the short-term politics. The party that embraces this mantra will benefit politically because respect for our institutions is actually popular.
<
p>
We’re not doing this because we’re trying to win elections, we’re doing it because its our job to enforce the law.
raj says
…The Korematsu decision is arguably the third worst decision in US Supreme Court history, after Dred Scott and Plessy (but Korematsu is nip and tuck with the 1905 Schechter case. (I’m sorry if I’m misspelling it, but I don’t have a ConLaw book over here in Germany.) What I was amazed at, in the Korematzu opinions, one of the justices actually put it succinctly.
<
p>
He (they were all men then) essentially wrote that, you are going to do what you want to do regardless of what we say. But he wrote that he resented the fact that you are trying to get our imprimature to what they are doing, because he would not give it to them.
<
p>
And he was exactly correct.
<
p>
Shades of the GWBush malAdministration. And the congress caves in to unconstitutional wiretaps only last week.
tom-from-troy-ny says
I’ve become accustomed to it, but can’t get used to it, the degree of authority the Administration has over Democrats in Congress. They (Democrats) felt they HAD to grant all these really awful unprecedented powers to the executive, because it demanded them. It seems not to have occurred that Bush & Co. are abnormal opponents, yea, deadly enemies not only of their party but of the Republic.
<
p>
Whatever their reverses The Bush regime rules unchallenged as long as Congress can’t even MENTION you-know-what. There seems among, what do you call them, “moderates”? complacency. A Times article remarks about those bloggers who are going crazy about the eavesdropping legislation as if, “aren’t they silly?” And the latest Atlantic is analyzing Rove’s role in a “failed Presidency” citing the war, the failure to destroy Social Security, lost the election etc. But Rove and his band of very smart finaglers are still sitting. Rove is a very determined, very resourceful general, and has the advantage along with Cheney and Bush, of being totally without scruples.
This is hard for decent people, even Dem. politicians to grasp.
<
p>
So: their social policy thrust has been blunted as the Atlantic accounts in numbing detal, but two other prongs are proceeding nicely: the war policy succeeds after a fashion by their just sitting tight until hell freezes. The third prong, call it The Gonzales Agenda, is succeeding quite well as discussed above.
<
p>
In the well of the hearing room sits The Gonzales, facing the good Senator Leahey’s brickbats, which turn into rubber duckies in flight.
<
p>
Tom from Troy