Why do we have to choose between the two?

Wow. Since you put our alternatives that way......

I gotta be honest: this strikes me as pretty weak brew. By my count, based on Holtzman's criteria, the following recent presidents would also have been in acute danger of impeachment: Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. I've provisionally left out Ford and Carter, but I'm open to arguments that they ought to be on this list too.

WTF kind of argument is this? Please explain your logic.

I fail to see how any of the presidents mentioned has anything to do with Holtzman's criteria as outlined by you.

Perhaps you should elaborate. I'm anxious to find out what other Presidents may have approved torture, spun us into wars, and allowed the NSA to spy on Americans without obtaining warrants.

As the Republicans so amply demonstrated in 1998, impeachment happens regardless of the facts of the case. Impeachment happens when there is sufficient political will to go through with it.

Don't worry about the "weak brew." Just let it sit and it will get stronger.

Maybe the Republican efforts to constantly harass and tar Clinton helped Republicans win elections long-term? Working on a campaign in 2002, I constantly heard that Democrats were "corrupt." When I asked for clarification, Clinton's purported misdeeds and impeachment were all mentioned.

I think Democrats need to be willing to slander and slime with the worst of the Republicans, and a small part of that is idle chatter about impeachment. Also, Democrats need to find SOME foreign policy initiative that (1) sounds tough and (2) runs counter to a Republican owning Business interest.

Republican foreign policy largely amounts to finding policies that are INTENTIONALLY bad enough that Democrats can't sign on, so then Republicans tar Democrats. Democrats need to find policies that Republicans can't sign onto and then tar Republicans with them - With Democrats, Republicans find these policies by making the policies objectively ineffective and/or counter to the Constitution. For Democrats to find such policies, they need to be counter to one of the Business groups that runs the Republican Party (Phrma, Oil, etc). And remember, the policy needs to sound tough in a one sentence description.

Get a Democrat majority in the Senate and/or House, hold real hearings and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't be sorry if they led to impeachment proceedings.

"Senate Dems pretty much followed the script favored by the blogosphere." Perhaps that is the problem: DXemocrats too much under the influence of Kos, Drum, Atrios, et al.

Maybe Kevin, we ought to be thinking about the limits of presidential power and the actual boundaries of the law first as opposed to electoral strategy. Maybe we ought to consider the idea that there should be actual limits to our President deciding the limits of his own authority in a democracy and maybe we ought to think about that as opposed to how we can get the next empty suit (*cough*Kerry*cough*) into office. But maybe thats just me.

Re: other presidents' transgressions, if I'm thinking of the same things you are, them that's also weak. Re: GWBush, he's the only one to have wrapped all the deeds mentioned, and perhaps more, into one neat little package.

Were it in a court case, perhaps it would be called Special Circumstances. I dunno...

Different sides of the Dem/Prog movement can deliver both styles of attacks, to reach different parts of the base. Some folks need red meat, some need cerebral arguments. We should try to connect with both.

Wow Kevin, you really are Marshall Whitman without the third person animal fetish.

Liberal bloggers lost the Alito fight? Right. We should've insisted on a more centrist approach. Less Dean, more Lieberman. Gentle criticism would have done the trick.

On Alito, the case was made. Period. Leahy wasted time, Biden wasted TONS of time, but it you watched the hearings, you know he's a wingnut, and a liar, and a bigot, pure and simple.

At the end of the day, the problem is this: the media simply isn't a neutral observer anymore. They're been completely coopted by the GOP.

Interestingly, though, Americans remain aware of the lives they are living, Elizabeth Bumiller, Sue Schmitt and their fellow courtesans aside.

If Roe goes, the Rethugs go.

If only he had gotten a hummer!!!

it had to be said. :)

Both. Elizabeth Holtzman is not a candidate, an elected official or a Democratic Party strategist -- she is, at most, a part of the left-wing noise machine. It is the job of the LWNM to jostle for things like the impeachment of Bush even if they're not practically feasible -- just look at how many Scaife henchmen called for the impeachment/arrest of Clinton from 1994 to 1998. At the same time, Newt and the gang actually running for office made moves that were more policy-related. These things are all parts of a whole.

I'll concede that Kennedy was undoubtedly in grave danger of impeachment. His and Bobby's close association with Marilyn Monroe must have raised the specter of fellatio.

You've got to say how the others meet all those criteria, Kevin, or this post makes absolutley no sense. I'm scratching my head.

An electoral strategy would be better than impeachment. I am not sure the Dems have one so the only way for them to prevail this fall is to hope people vote against Reps because of corruption.

Personally, I'd like to see us warm up by actually winning a midterm election before we get too excited about impeaching George Bush. In addition to a coherent position on national security, maybe some good old fashioned populist business bashing would do the trick. Highlight the thousands of payoffs to Republican donors that have been written into law during the past five years of GOP legislation;...

Exactly! Look, writing academic articles about why Bush should be impeached is one thing, but let's not be naive. This Congress isn't going to impeach their guy! It's just silly. Hold some hearing on the eavesdropping and really grill them but don't kid yourself about where it's going.

The bottom line is that elections have consequences and one of them is that the winners get to set the agenda.

We need to win elections and to do that we need a goddamn coherent message!

I gotta be honest: this strikes me as pretty weak brew.

Of course, as has been previously discussed, you're a Republican, Kevin.

Naturally it's less than persuasive to you.

They made the points the blogosphere wanted but they made them weakly because they want Alito confirmed so they can run against him.

They made the points the blogosphere wanted but they made them weakly because they want Alito confirmed so they can run against him.

Naah. Joe Biden was my poli-sci prof back in '74. He's not that smart. Really likes to hear himself talk though.

I guess I agree with Arlen Spectre that impeachment of Bush is a perfectly reasonable response to the NSA wiretaps without warrants, and disagree with Kevin Drum that it's a weak brew.

Never thought I'd see the day when Kevin was to the right of Arlen Spectre...

He spun the evidence for WMD and deceived the country into supporting the war in Iraq. ... weak brew

Kevin, I hope you don't have kids. Hmm, maybe I do.

What's your preference: ringing calls for impeachment or an actual electoral strategy?

I guess that depends on whether or not one wants to vent or govern.

Arlen Spectre

Spooky.

I'm confused about several of the more substantive parts of your post, Kevin, but this was the real headscratcher for me:

Maybe heads do need to roll, but we'd better have some better ones at hand before we haul out the guillotine and commence our knitting.

Knitting? WTF?

Yup. That's it. Just business as usual the last few years in the United States of America.

Interesting thing about shills. Many don't even know they are shills. Nope. They are thoughtful. You know, when you stop to think about it, nothing is unthinkable. Everything is like something else, isn't it?

It would be rude to think otherwise. And, oh lord, stressful.

hmm strategy. How about the desperate senior citizens without meds because of the insane medicare prescription drug benefit (stress on disabled not poor) ? Why aren't prominent Dems talking to them one on one ? Could one link problems with the medicare bill to corruption ? Easy. Could one fail to notice the connection. Hard but the press has managed.

Do Republicans think they are above the law ? Well do they say so ? Why yes.

Only genius of a sort can leave the Democrats without a message.

I agree "impeachment" is not the magic word.

Kevin,

Perhaps then you should lay out what the bar is for a Kevin endorsed impeachment is.

Clearly, illegal torture, lying to take the country to war, and illegal wiretapping don't cut it for you.

What would it take then? Could a President ever be impeached under the Kevin Doctrine?

Hang on to your rightous anger and fantasize about an impeachment of the worst president in American history. Fantasy is healthy ...

At the same time, on the other side of your brain, make pragmatic political plans to take power back from the Republicans.

When the Democrats return to power, they will then have the tools to fully expose for posterity the parade of Bush horribles.

And the burden of trying to repair the damage.

LW Phil,

That musta been some high powered poli-Sci class considering Biden was elected to the Senate in '72.

the following recent presidents would also have been in acute danger of impeachment: Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.

I think I've seen you around town

There is one huge reason why impeachment now is problematical: Dick Cheney is next in line. Would there have been as much as of an incentive to go after Nixon if Agnew had still been Veep? Now if Cheney is forced to resign, or 'health problems' force him to step down.....

Hmm. Kind of odd to think about it, but the only moderate-center Republicans to get the top 2 spots (Ford & Rockefeller) had to do it through the back door. I'm sure there's some signifigance to that.

Kevin, you're exactly right. We should just let the Republicans stay in office and reap the benefit from their glorious reign...delicious!!! Just bend over and enjoy...

I gotta be honest: this strikes me as pretty weak brew.

—Kevin Drum

Fucking idiot.

Oregonian,

You must have had a public school/NEA controlled education -- knitting is a reference to "A Tale of Two Cities." Look it up on wikipedia.

Yeah, Kevin, tell us about the knitting. I didn't follow that one at all.

FWIW, Noam Chomsky has repeatedly said that every US President since WWII should be tried as a war criminal...

Looks like you're failing to impress the "scream and leap" crowd again, Kevin.

University of Delaware, summer session, 1974. Hadn't given up his academic position yet, although his TAs did most of the work. He's still an adjunct professor at Widener University. Why would I make up something as stupid as that?

1 and 2 each seem to be sufficient.

1 is very clear cut--breaking a law specifically written to limit the powers of the President. He even admits to it.

2 will require proof, but the Downing Street Memos and the testimony of others should establish that Bush was deceiving Congress and the country. Going to war based upon a deception is one of the worse things a President could do.

Proving incompentence is difficult so I doubt it would be an easy case to make to the satisfaction of both parties. While this is a valid argument, I doubt it will work for impeachment. I also doubt four by itself would work.

This leaves us with two good reasons for impeachment which Democrats should be able to prove if in control of at least one house of Congress with full investigative abilities (or if faced with a President who refuses to cooperate with such investigations).

Kevin,

No, it's a strong enough brew. Just take point #1--

Bush illegally approved the NSA's surveillance of calls between al-Qaeda suspects overseas and persons inside the United States without getting a FISA warrant.

On the day that Bush stood in front of the microphones--instead of giving his Saturday morning address via audio only he gave it in front of the cameras--I knew he had committed an impeachable offense. And what's more--he knew he had committed an impeachable offense.

What he believed, though, was that super-lawyer and legal genius Harriet Miers had told him, 'nah, it's legal--go for it! You're number 1!!!'

Turns out, she was wrong. Oh well.

Looks like poor Rep Bob Ney won't be one of the impeachment managers.

Thanks wks for the information, but not the gratuitous insult. No, my education did not include the complete works of Charles Dickens!

Chomsky said that in a colloquium at Wichita State in 85 for an anthro class that Clay Robarchek was teaching. I dropped my fucking pencil. I was already married to Major Tom back then. I was smart enough to keep my mouth shut about it in tht crowd though.

Haven't any of you folks read A Tale of Two Cities?

Ok, give up.

What the idiotic reason for thinking that the two choices are mutually exclusive? (For that's how you wrote the question.)

Well, tell us some stories about Joe in the classroom, Phil. For your own safety, don't be annoying when you do it.

tbrosz>Looks like you're failing to impress the "scream and leap" crowd again, Kevin.

Figured you for a niven fan.

What would it take then? Could a President ever be impeached under the Kevin Doctrine?

Posted by: jerry on January 15, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

How about violating the Tenure of Office Act?

A syllogism for your morning:
If the President did something illegal, he should be charged with a crime.
The President has done something illegal.
Therefore...

Lee,

I apologise for the insult (directed at our education system, not you) and will try to be more circumspect in my posts in the future.

None of the reasons or evidence holds any water. There's plenty of reason to go after Bush, without having to make things up.

How about criminal disregard for the economic well being of the country?

Incompetent?-not at all! He promised his supporters lots of tax cuts. He delivered 1.3 trillion and counting.

Bruce:

Well, like the Kzinti, the Democrats always attack before they're ready.

The priority has to be to gain a handy number of seats at the mid-terms and win at least one house.
Talk of impeachment can help that effort. Do I think an impeachment case against Bush ought to be considered? Here is the quandary. It seems that he has admitted publicly that he willfully broke the law in order the NSA wiretapping. The president should be prosecuted for breaking the law, just as would any other citizen, and it should be considered whether his doing so is a high crime or misdemeanor. This is serious lawbreaking, and should not be dismissed for mere political reasons -- I would call on Patrick Fitzgerald to give another speech about how important it is for public officials to follow laws designed to protect citizenry. Bush should have gotten the law changed and didn't and that is highly problematic.
Here's the problem: do we really want to make impeachment commonplace?

Aaron makes a very good point.

Calls for impeachment are NOT expected actually to come to fruition; what they do is communicate to the public the level of seriousness of the illegal and irresponsible things Bush has done.

It's a great mistake to think that everything any Democrat says must be feasible and 100% justifiable just as it stands. We are allowed, and must have, a certain number of, well, outliers.

Just not too many, and not TOO far out.

The Republicans know how this game is played. Their fringe asserts something, the "responsible" people say it's going too far, but these fringe people DO have a legitimate gripe, and the public buys the compromise position.

Really, it's political good cop, bad cop, and it's been working for the Republicans forever.

frankly0: fringe asserts something, the "responsible" people say it's going too far, but these fringe people DO have a legitimate gripe, and the public buys the compromise position

Excellent point. Bad form for any Dem politician to say this, but good for The Nation (double meaning intended).

Get an electoral strategy that will take back the House and the Senate then you can go for impeachment. But, a Rupulican controlled Senate did not find that Clinton should be removed from office.

You should probably just find an election strategy and MoveOn.

Oh My God. THe Kzin are the cat-race, right? Whose creation are they?

Kevin: I'm with those who would have to hear your reasoning behind your list of past Presidents.

And if the reason is that you've had a few beers while watching the NFL playoffs, that's ok.

Don't allow Bush's creeping crimes inoculate him from impeachment. He's pretty bad.

But I don't think he could be impeached unless the Dems were to capture Congress and do some serious investigating. I wouldn't doubt that he deserves it.

Interesting point about Holtzman's count #1: Bush has asserted both that he committed the impeachable act, and that he intends to continue committing the impeachable act. He's essentially daring us to do anything about it. (To muddy the waters he throws in a few risible claims about his actions not being illegal, of course.) At the base of this is a much more far-reaching claim, made explicitly by Yoo and various lower level GOP officials, namely that the President is not subject to the law. This is the thing which demands to be slapped down very hard if we want to tell ourselves we are still living in a secular constitutional republic and not a totalitarian theocracy.

BTW, I too am waiting for Kevin to back up his claim that his list of recent Presidents would all have been liable for impeachment.

Well since only the House of Representatives can impeach someone in the executive branch or civil officers. (Article 2, section 4,) This means that both Bush and Cheney can be impeached. We are not limited to impeaching Bush, leaving Cheney in charge.

Having said that, the reality is that this process must start in the House. That means, we must have the electoral strategy, and win many seats before the impeachment can reasonably be thought of as a political objective. Clearly there are moderates that would toss Bush out on his unstable ass, but we do not know how many at this time. Whatever moderates still exist are laying low, probably playing the chameleon more often than not just for political survival.

So...my blogging friends....I suggest that not only should we make our opinions known in the very visible blogosphere, we actually need to come up with a viable electoral strategy that the DNC can sink its teeth into. God knows, left up to their own devices, Dems will talk themselves (ourselves?)in circles. It is up to the populace to show them the way. Dean is no dummy. He'll catch on and make something of it. We just need to stay on target with one sense of focus. Pure and simple.

I say the corruption is the best angle right now. There are no Dems involved in The K Street Project...there will be indictments as added fodder. Then... there will be more from the "untouchable" Fitz this year to add more relative to the deceit, coverup, and betrayal of a CIA agent. Really, the deceit and greed of those currently in positions of power is manna from heaven. Let's not let this be one more 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' again....

Not only is this what I consider to be our best focus point, but this is also the weakest spot in the RNC armor. Look at how they are clammoring to put out talking points about 'bi-partisan' involvement in the K Street Affair. Look at how there has been absolute silence about Rove's connection to the Plame Affair in the last few months.

This party has nothing but 'alleged' felons sweating bullets about how much is going to be uncovered. How can America be proud of that?

Count1: Lying to Congress
Count2: Authorizing the use of Torture as opposed to the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions,
Count3: Authorizing the spying on American citizens without warrant and without the approval of Congress both within and without the United States.

Sounds like a good start to impeachment to me...far better than being fellated by a Jewish Princess

Good idea, frankly0.

Maybe we should get our fringies to talk about how Bush should be drawn, quartered, and hung from the highest yardarm for war crimes - and then have our "responsible" people say 'Well, that's going too far... can we compromise, and just string the SOB up by his balls?"

Then the GOP wind machine can go to work saying how awful it is that the Democrats want to string Bush up by his balls. Maybe they'll play the soundbite of the Democrat saying "String him up by his [bleep]" over and over again.

And maybe we can get a few photos of Republicans crossing their legs and wincing, then ask, "How can we trust America's defense to people who can't even say 'balls' without cringing? What are they afraid of?"

And in scenes reminiscent of those "Purple Heart Band-Aids" so popular at the GOP Convention, Democrats could start sporting little bronze testicles as tiepins, cufflinks, earrings and pendants. Make 'em real little, real shriveled, and call 'em Bushieballs.

Call it Operation Tiny Package. Heh.
....

....

....

Y'know, I was just having fun with the idea at first, but I'm starting to really like it.

Is it too soon to talk about impeaching Kevin?

Regardless of what platform he was elected on, Bush as head of the executive branch is constitutionally responsible for executing the law of the land. In what area of governmental responsibilty has he not been guilty of negligence and/or malfeasance?

He has obstructed every department from the performance of its duties. He has been guilty of exactly the sort of thing he accuses the courts of doing. His job is not to make or interpret the law. Whenever he prevents the IRS, EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, INS, ATF, FBI, .... from doing their jobs as prescribed by statute and upheld by the courts, he is at the very least guilty of dereliction of duty.

It may not be treason to advocate the virtual dismantling of the federal government, but without constitutional permission, it has to be illegal for him to do so, no matter what percentage of the population agrees with his actions.

Global Citizen>Oh My God. THe Kzin are the cat-race, right? Whose creation are they?

Larry Niven, a "hard" sci fi writer. Fun stories for geeks, but so-so character development, and he became a bit of less-fun right-leaning political crackpot as he aged. Or due to the influence of his writing partner. One of those.

You* could probably make a good case that Bush should be impeached based on his immigration policy and on his attempts to create a "North American Community" (like the EU).

* The word "you" assumes an intelligent, patriotic, non-corrupt Democratic leadership.

-- Immigration Reform

"Poor Democrats, can't win an election."

Have you been paying ANY attention?

Kevin,

I don't understand - why was the Zogby poll 'childishly contrived'? It had a straightforward statement (which happens to be true) and it was conducted by a respectable polling firm...the results were pretty easily interpretable...I don't understand the 'contrived' part of your criticism (I can see 'childish', but I think that's because you live in Irvine, where I used to live, and not in a big city where people are really hurting on a large scale so I think you are a little out of touch like I used to be myself).

Kevin,

Your always a step behind. The Alito confirmation hearings went badly precisely because of a lack of coordination between dems. What do dems have to lose by changing party members? Nothing!

Dems weild effectively no real power at the moment. Dems who are close to power are feeding off the scraps of the repubs. Now is exactly the time to change horses.

As for the impeachment of the president. The case is extremely strong. Let's start with creating a fraudulent case to go to war. Let's start with creating an alternate system of checks and balances to favor the executive with outlandish authorities. The white house is out of control, and must be stopped. A large majority of the republican power brokers in the house are enmeshed in a corruption scandal of the greatest magnitude in the history of the republic. It's time to go on the attack. Its time to dismantle the republican machine.

I'm just glad that Chomsky made it out of Wichita alive.

A weak brew?? Christ almighty, what a numbed, jaded citizenry we've become. What's Bush have to do, take a shit on the Constitution in public view?

And then you ask us to read Charles Dickens to understand what the hell you meant. Belittling your readers isn't something I'd thought I'd ever see from you, Mr. Drum.

Tom wrote:
Well, like the Kzinti, the Democrats always attack before they're ready.

Amusing, in light of the Iraq debacle.

Let's see, I'll just take one...let's go with FDR:

- sold destroyers to the British without congressional approval. Hmm, pretty imperial Preisdent of him, dont'cha think?
- lied about the attacks on the USS Kearny that precipitated our "shoot on sight" policy for German warships,
- threw thousands of loyal US citizens into internment camps via executive order, for which we had to apologize and give restitution later.

Anyone want to work up the retroactive bill of impeachment?

Presidential lying's not very unusual these days (JFK, LBJ, Clinton all did it on national TV). That in and of itself is a shameful statement on the Presidency...but it's not like this isn't a bipartisan strategy.

Haven't any of you folks read A Tale of Two Cities?

How about this: we live in a time where there simply aren't any qualified or decent people to lead us.

Welcome to the 1890s or the 1920s.

This is a fallow time in American history as far as leaders and statesmen/stateswomen are concerned. The person who arrives on the scene to provide the necessary 'correction' to what ails America won't be named Roosevelt (although, how cool would that be?) as was the case when TR and FDR arrived on the scene and, literally, took the country in a direction away from decline. Whoever that person is, their political affiliation and political party will be irrelevant. They will have their detractors and their critics, but the country will be realigned, hopefully in a more liberal way.

History won't regard GWB as anything more than an accident, an unqualified President who was incapable of leading a unified America in the right direction. This is the era of the Karl Rove presidency anyway--when the veneer is lifted, people will realize that they've been suckered by a charlatan who used a failed Texas oil man with name recognition to severely damage the United States of America.

frankly0: Really, it's political good cop, bad cop, and it's been working for the Republicans forever.

This is exactly right.

And the best way to tell it's working is that every time a Dem bulldog (oh, how few we have) does this, our trolletariat sorrowfully informs us that this kind of talk isn't going to do the Democratic party any good with the swing voter. Thanks for looking out for us, guys.

Don't impeach.

Impale.

I will take up knitting again and sit in the front row, cackling with glee, when the House votes not only to impeach Bush, but to guillotine him publicly.

It would be political suicide to impeach the president if the surveillance is found to be limited to national security targets.

I'd like to see the possibility of impeachment discussed, but then in gesture of gravely responsible statesmenship, have the House pass a motion of formal censure.

All of this, of course, depends on retaking the House.

Defarge, if you please.

eponymous coward "FDR:

- sold destroyers to the British without congressional approval. Hmm, pretty imperial Preisdent of him, dont'cha think?
- lied about the attacks on the USS Kearny that precipitated our "shoot on sight" policy for German warships,
- threw thousands of loyal US citizens into internment camps via executive order, for which we had to apologize and give restitution later."

FDR was also a wartime president fighting a real war. WW2 wasn't a cynical political gambit to consolidate Presidential power. Big diff.

It is painfully evident that Bush is not fit for office.

However, I think it would be the wrong move for the Democrats to pursue impeachment, unless Bush's poll numbers sink into Cheney territory.

I think even though the guy doesn't have a lot of support right now, the public may rally around their President if they see the Democrats trying to push him out. "Yeah, he's a shitty President, but he's OUR shitty President!"

Look, Bush's policies are just wrong and he is starting to reap the blowback. Just let him slow burn. Bush's own policies will ultimately do more damage to this new brand of Republicans than any amount of Democratic PR campaigns.

Not your finest moment, Kevin. I have no idea how you arrived at your list, but it's pretty clear that FDR, JFK and LBJ are on that list for their roles in leading our nation to war. Kevin, I think you know the difference between Iraq and the wars this country fought under those presidents, so I won't belabor it. Sufficeth it to say that FDR did what he had to do, and JFK and LBJ did what they believed they had to do in response to communist aggression. bush did what he didn't have to do, and he did it for reasons that have brought shame upon every single one of his countrymen. And even if one grants that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a total fraud upon which LBJ capitalized to drag us into a Vietnamese civil war, it doesn't begin to compare to the protracted and orchestrated campaign of lies engaged in by bushcheney to create war where none existed.

Kevin, why don't you rethink this, or at least pare down that list. To compare any one of those presidents to bush is slander of the worst kind.

Ah, mais oui! It's delightful, it's delicious, it's delovely, it's Defarge.

I understand how one can (maybe should) view impeachment in political terms, as a partisan act.

But it strikes me that willfully violating the Fourth Amendment (NSA spying) and willfully violating the balance of powers (Bush's signing statements) creates a non-partisan constitutional crisis. If you're a Senator or House member, and Bush gets away with trashing the constitutional role of Congress, you have two choices: go home because you no longer have a job or fight by impeachment.

Maybe that's naive but I don't see how you can view impeachment in any other light than a bi-partisan threat to Congress that has to be dealt with. Either the President backs down or he gets impeached.

Pale Rider: meanwhile we wait and watch as.....

truly unscrupulous politicians run up the public debt to ridiculous number, guaranteed to harm our children and grandchildren.

a partnership of head-in-the-sand, greedy, dishonest corporations and their political accomplices trash the environment, ignoring and denying all warning signs.

our once proud military is so abused, trashed and transformed into an institution that I am reluctant to encourage my three children to join and serve their time as I did.

I’m not having a particularly good time waiting for the worm to turn. I live in a Republican neighborhood whose families would not think of encouraging their kids to serve in the military and go to Iraq. That’s for the poor folks. It so reminds me of the Vietnam days.

Add me to the list of people annoyed with the word choice here, among other things. It seems like someone hopped in, took control of Kevin's logic and then twisted it to just piss me off. Just because you say it's childish doesn't make it so, just because you say its a pretty weak brew doesn't make it true. Seriously, that makes no sense, especially when impeachment is over crimes and you said it yourself thatour president "ILLEGALLY" approved NSA wiretapping. Come on, Kevin, you're better than this.

I also like the logical fallacy of your final question, great work.

As I shift assets offshore and cautiously watch the gates that can close and force people to stay here I consider no what a shame that Bush and his cohorts could destroy America but that he would have so much support in his efforts. If, as Hermann Hesse described it of fascist developement in Germany in the 30's, all the elements necessary are replicating here again then it again is a shame that so few can recognize it-republican or democrat. It's the perfect storm of fascist political impowerment and should be accompanied by mobs attacking the whitehouse, hauling offending parties out and stringing them up but instead they lie fearful of terrorists that the politicians in power lack any realistic or hopeful ideas to stop and allow them to begin gradually to control everything. It's all so very interesting that, as Hesse found out, that a literate citizenry would not, could not be able to see the extremely dangerous conditions develop as they passed them by on their way to totalitarian government. How fitting that while someone worries about Brad Pitts next moron girlfriend, George Bush gradually works to remove their freedom and rights. When do we form the Nazi youth corp? Should be anyday now.

"Of course, as has been previously discussed, you're a Republican, Kevin."

"—Kevin Drum Fucking idiot."

Wow, I guess the most vicious scorn are reserved for apostates.

cause for impeachment is whatever the house says it is, and arguing about justification is a waste of breath. does it make any political sense to try for it? beats me, but I would bet a very large sum of cash today that it would not succeed if the vote was tomorrow morning.

It would be political suicide to impeach the president if the surveillance is found to be limited to national security targets.

It won't. Remember, all roads lead to the public official who entered the national stage by barging in on a Florida election recount session by saying, "I'm John Bolton and I'm here to stop the count."

This act, in 2000, was proof that the current gang is an anomaly, and will be completely irrelevant in about four years. No one currently serving the Bush Administration will ever see real power in American politics again. They have 'criminalized' themselves by serving here in the second administration. It was also the antithesis of American political discourse--democracy goes forward, it doesn't regress because someone with a bad moustache uses lawyerly tricks on behalf of his benefactors to stop it.

When Bolton reveals the how and why--in some confessional book, in some series of interviews--in order to flip on the aforementioned benefactors, it will likely be revealed that his knowledge of the NSA wiretapping program involved people of the Democratic Party persuasion or peaceniks or some other 'harmless' segment of the loyal population.

The NSA wiretaps were declined by the FISA court--and ultimately by John Ashcroft on his hospital bed--because they didn't want to go to jail.

The strongest force in American politics is the desire to avoid jail time. Look for that desire to become more 'revealing' in the next few months and years.

As for Kevin's assertion that the Democrats need to find some candidates or whatever to reverse this, it won't happen any time soon. Not enough Democrats are being threatened with jail right now to get them to do something good for their country.

If you're a Senator or House member, and Bush gets away with trashing the constitutional role of Congress, you have two choices: go home because you no longer have a job or fight by impeachment.Posted by: Fred on January 15, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

...choice #3: Stay, collect a paycheck for little to no work (how hard is it to vote as you are told?) and maybe if you are a good enough soldier, you can promote to Lobbyist on K Street where you can not only rake in your congressional pension, but can rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually?

I bet #3 was / is the choice of most of the R's in congress....

I think this should turn on the R seats. Let Dean and the Kossacks wage war there. Let them ignore the sitting dems, and let them run on the most radical program that suits the district or the state.

I'm from Maine, and in Maine we've always respected politicians who stood up for what is right. In the past, Olympia Snowe fit that bill. But today she is not a Senator from Maine. She's a Senator from the Republican party. I think that meme--a representative from [my district], instead of from the Washington establishment--is one that will resonate. And it does not depend on the DLC or Joe Biden's presidential prospects.

'When do we form the Nazi youth corp? Should be anyday now.
--MRB

It's called the College Republicans, MRB. By the way, good post. We are well down the road to fascism.

Copy this address into your browser and hit Go:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html

I’m not having a particularly good time waiting for the worm to turn. I live in a Republican neighborhood whose families would not think of encouraging their kids to serve in the military and go to Iraq. That’s for the poor folks. It so reminds me of the Vietnam days.

We're not headed for doomsday. We're headed for a course correction. It will be a transformational change, one that will make the standards for being elected President much harder. In ten years, it will be unthinkable to elect a small state governor or a bumbling idiot with no foreign policy experience to the highest office in the land.

I suppose it's too optimistic to think that way, but oh well. People will pity this administration when a few years go by and Americans get involved in solving problems in a meaningful way again.

And, to the FDR crowd:

FDR really didn't have much to do with fighting WWII. George Marshall did. Oh, and about thirty really mediocre generals and admirals who did their level best to hold back the ones who could fight.

FDR fixed the American system of capitalism and gave poor, elderly people a safety net. That's why Republicans have hated him since day one.

Well, the Season Premier of 24 is coming up, so I don't have time to give a really thoughtful reply to this garbage... other than to wonder once again how Kevin keeps his penis so soft, limp and pliable.

Hey, if you're going to have a crap post, why not just link to Sullivan or Yglesias? Or have Glastris do it.

OK, time to see Jack Bauer lose another good night's sleep for the good of The Republic. Thank God for Modafinil.

Let's bash us some business! 'Cause, you know, neither Kerry nor Gore went into the bag o' tricks on that score. Maybe that's why they're not called "Mr. President", in addition to other reasons.

And let's start the corporate corruption scandal mongering with Rep. William Jefferson(D) from LA. And then onto the rest of 'em. All. Of. Them.

The risks have always been there: two party system dependent upon massive cash flow. Eventually those represented take the form of the extremely wealthy or their cash and not the average citizen. A choice of one party in power or the other-all held together by a hoped-for distribution of power in a three branch government pretty much insured that at sometime totalitarians would try to exert control through the executive branch. It is the weak link. Now that it is happening, the very odd part is that individualistic conservatives (but, of course the development of fascism proved this) are apparently so afraid of losing their money and terrorists that they will allow their own freedoms to be diluted and removed. In fact, as is shown, their fear of equal freedom of gays, minorities, women, and the poor is so great that they will vote their own rights away. How very interesting. Their very fear is used develop a form of government that will destroy them. And they don't even realize it. It's almost funny.

But seriously, much as I would like to see Bush impeached, I think our primary goal has to be to stanch and reverse the damage caused by these ideologues. We need to regain the trust of moderates.

Twenty-five years ago, Reagan was elected by talking about "morning in America." I would like to see the Dems start talking about what America used to be, before Bush, and what it can be again--the USA that was a beacon of hope, admired around the world for our freedom, our generosity, our work ethic, our humility, our innovativeness, our admirable government of, by and for the people.

Under Bush, we have pursued policies that have brought shame to this great nation. Other nations mock us. They have contempt for what we are now. Under Bush, the people have been divided, our wealth squandered. Washington reeks of corruption.

Bushco has done things he ought not to have done (the Iraq war, the revenge games, the propaganda, the torture, the spying, the corporate cronyism) and he has left undone things that he ought to have done (investing in clean energy, addressing global warming, competent government.)

I think if we attack the man, his fundamentalist base and the 35% of no-nothing Americans will feel protective. They will dismiss any criticism as petty partisanship. So we need to go after his policies, what his administration has done and not done. Americans need to understand that the pain they are feeling now is a consequence of Bush's policies. And we need to swear to defend the American Constitution. We need to remember that we are not just taxpayers or consumers, we are responsible citizens of a great nation.

Looks like you're failing to impress the "scream and leap" crowd again, Kevin.Posted by: tbrosz

I surprised to learn that Bill Clinton was impeached for warrantless wire taps. He claimed never to have done that. Perhaps he was guilty of incompetence, or spinning WMD but I don't recall those events occurring during his presidency.

THe Kzin are the cat-race, right? Whose creation are they?
Posted by: Global Citizen

That's the extent of Republican political thought in this country:

Freedom Fries, "ooo, liberals are criticizing Kevin Drum!"

Brian's Dog: "I want a soft penis in my mouth."

Birkel: "Bill Clinton once got a blowjob!"

MRB: "...Godwin's law..."

Add it up, see what you got: they're bankrupt of ideas and the soft penis of a Hitler worshipping fascist idiot is all they have to wave at real problems. No wonder v1agra is the most spammed, most abused drug in red state america, along with oxycontin and hydroxycut.

vituperation. What's your preference: ringing calls for impeachment or an actual electoral strategy?

—Kevin Drum

Stick with impeachment. Winning is less important than feeling good about yourself for 'sticking it to the man'.

On the rest of you, make sure you are in the Democrat party and in a position to vote for who gets the nomination. Don't let the DLC betray your principles.

Have I ever given you bad advice?
-McAristotle

The last impeachment we had in this country was such a shabby, spiteful, mean-spirited affair there really is no stomach in the country for another one. Advocates of impeachment are just dreaming. Besides by impeaching Bush you get President Cheney and even more crazy imperial presidency ideas. No thanks.

I really like this site, come here often, but everyonce awhile you throw out comments that make absolutely zero sense.

I'm not sure if pursuing impeachment is wise politically or not, but I fully agree with many other comments - its not an choice between that and electoral strategy. Not even close, any more than you must either be for protecting America from terrorists or for protecting civil rights.

As several others have noted, your assertion that the case for impeachment against George W. Bush is no stronger than for most of the last 8 or so Presidents is also empty rhetoric. Perhaps by your standard Nixon didnt deserve to be impeached either if he had refused to resign?

Of course, its yet to be fully proven but the charges are substantial: Hundreds and perhaps thousands of knowing and premeditated criminal violations of FISA. Repeated violations of required to keep Congress informed and using secrecy laws to keep entirety of program including concept, secret unnecessarily. Dozens and perhaps hundreds of illegally rendered persons to be tortured in violation of ratified treaties. Dozens and perhaps hundreds of individuals tortured and/or inhumanely treated by US personal in violation of law. Lying to congress on the war, cost of the medicare bill, ordering persons not to report costs to congress.

Does you "electoral strategy" include anything about holding elected officials accountable for their actions or does accountability only apply when electorally convenient?

MRB probably shouldn't have been on that list, but when you can call Godwin's law, you have to take the shot.

I have a feeling that our little freeper friends are going to be busy tonight.

Kev, you gotta be kidding.

Ordering an illegal act isn't grounds for impeachment?

Sheesh.

"Add it up, see what you got: they're bankrupt of ideas and the soft penis of a Hitler worshipping fascist idiot is all they have to wave at real problems. No wonder v1agra is the most spammed, most abused drug in red state america, along with oxycontin and hydroxycut.

Posted by: Pale Rider "

I definitely think witless vituperation is in order here. Otter said it best in Animal House. It's time for a futile gesture. Impeachment seems to fill the bill. I think this is a much more promising program than actually campaigning for House and Senate seats next November.

Is there anything I can do to help ? Write letters ?

You don't need money as the Moveon people have taken care of that.

Our witless old fool, Mike K shows up.

Tell the truth, Mike K--swallowed enough v1agra to pitch a tent in a hurricane, haven't you?

Why limit your ranting to moveon.org? Don't you know there's a whole new world out there full of people who have dedicated themselves to destroying the lies and bullshit spread by this administration?

It seems the civilized governments have more than two parties so that the power of any one party by itself is marginalized. America is not like that. Here we have but two choices if we want to make a difference. Republicans or Democrats. Nothing else. So with choices like that our only true alternative is to amass extremely high levels of money and buy the government we want. Thus the children, the women, the minorities, the students, the poor, and the handicapped are effectively without representation. Their representation comes only from the compassion of those with the money. Ha, now that is funny. As Hesse weeped for his beloved Germany, I weep for America. So much potential, sold to the highest bidder.

If he survives the impeachment process (which he would, I venture to say), then what? Those who are associated with him in the administration would be sullied (but they already are), and the GOP will come up with a "fresh slate" for the 2008 elections (which they will anyway, of course).

If there were actually a chance to remove both Bush and Cheney, then it is a desirable strategy to begin impeachment processes agains them.

There is not actually a chance. What WILL happen, though, is those pressing for impeachment will be on TV (as in the Alito hearings) getting beaten at every turn, and most of those watching from the grandstand will be either amused or outraged by the "political theater".

Is THAT what we want? I think Kevin is saying there are things the democrats COULD be doing that increase their chances of taking over in Congress and Statehouses. To the extent that a "failed impeachment process" gets all the energy and coverage (media) and party leadership focus, it detracts from the other important stategies that the party SHOULD be attending to.

So to those of you who say, "the two are not mutually exclusive", I say: That's right. Theoretically they are not, if you assume unlimited resources and also that lack of success in one venue does not "leak over" into the other one. If anyone here on this page has actually run a business (something I do have experience with), you know, you just KNOW, that you have to prioritize; unless you are willing to be half-assed about everything you are trying to do (which will probably put you out of business).

There IS no strategy until you make choices and say "not now" to some of the things you might feel like doing.

We have an awful lot of ivory-tower-dwellers here, it would seem.

hah! karl's kevin bot has taken control. it's just a matter of time before his posts sow begin the ultimate destruction of the vast left wing blog-spiracy from within.

you will be assimilated...and given some of rush's oxy for the initial painful period of adjustment.

hee hee ho ho ha ha

Will everyone check their shoes please? I think someone brought some dogshit in the house.

George "Otter" Bush:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our laws -- we did. [winks at Samuel Alito] But you can't hold a whole administration responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Republican party? And if the whole Republican party is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our political system in general? I put it to you, Tim -- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?"

"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"

[Leads his cabinet out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner.]

Impeachment wouldn't be a distraction from winning elections, as many have said, it would be part of an election winning strategy.

The charges against the Bushies are so many and varied right now that they have produced an incredulous fog that obscures the evil heart of the Bush government's actions. A trial, or even the threat of one, would have the effect of focusing national attention on each charge from a platform we would otherwise not have. Millions of the media’s words, thousands of headlines, would go into the grinder. What comes out the other side would be the important charges to stand starkly and to stick. Liar. Promoter of greed and cronyism. Murderer of tens of thousands. Massive waster of the nation's money.

He really has done these things, Kevin, and you think they are not sufficient grounds?

A weak brew? Kevin, goddamn it - what's weak about a clear cut case? The statute is clear, not the slightest bit ambiguous and it has requirements that Bush did not meet. That makes the goddamned wiretaps unreasonable per se because they are illegal warrantless searches. That's in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. Which means he violated his oath of office.

Jesus man - what is wrong with you? It doesn't fucking matter what anyone else has or hasn't done - take if from an ex criminal defense appellate specialist - you are totally full of shit and know nothing about what you purport to talk about. Opinion is meaningless, how many people agree with what he did is meaningless. This is a criminal matter. There are rules.

My god I'm ashamed of you. It's a clear cut violation of the law. He has to be held accountable or the rule of law is irretrievably broken in this country. Jesus Christ - I should think that would be self-evident to anyone with a brain.

I don't hang out here a lot, just look in from time to time. So, maybe I lack the standing to commend another's post. If so, excuse me for applauding this one: PTate in MN on January 15, 2006 at 11:01 PM |

As my conservative republican father sifts through the insanity of the drug medicare health mess and watches as the government fucks his business, I smile as he blames it all on democrats that have not been effectively in power for 5 years. It's then that I realize how truly wonderful the cash based two party system of compassionate representation really works. Vast cash-based propaganda convinces him that those fucking him are helping him. It just doesn't get any better than this. Meanwhile, they convince him that fascism is OK and actually representing citizens is leftist and socialist. It's rather hilarious in a way.

Terry Ott: You don't have to hang out here often to have "standing" to commend or criticize someone's post. Actually doing a little reading around the blog before commenting might, however, have prevented you from making idiotically condescending statements like, "If anyone here on this page has actually run a business..."

I doubt that anyone finished your post after that.

rex, I think you lassoed the main reason why the media treads so lightly on Bush's desecrations. No one wants to believe our beloved country and the political system which we have been taught from our earliest years is a perfect work of the gods—the system that produced Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt, the greatest politicians in the history of the world—could mess up so badly.

They don't want to face it, but eventually they must. Impeachment would be a great help.

Tena: Your passion is commendable. But I think you have to acknowledge that the law is not quite as "clear cut" as you contend. I'm not saying this charge COULDN'T stick, but I believe a good attorney could make a solid argument on either side. I've read some on both sides from people who definitely appear to know whereof they speak. Of course, more facts about the actual processes could swing the thing one way or the other.

Even IF the "law" is