« Back on the Subpoena Trail | Main | We Agree to Boogie with Iran »

March 16, 2006


Besides, if done right, in the context of the correct Democrat strategy until Election day ‘06, it should only hurt Republicans.

The question is, if they were so willing to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton over the "rule of law" and an extramarital affair, why won't Republicans investigate George W. Bush?

The failure to consider impeachment should be framed exactly like every other isssue: a failure of Republican leadership.

Just remember what happened to Clinton's approval rating during his impeachment.

just out of curiosity, is there ANY single similarity between the clinton impeachment and a potential bush impeachment other than that they both contain the word "impeachment"?

Ed, just remember what Clinton's approval rating looked like before his impeachment. That's where your answer lies.

Why isn't this the equation?

Impeaching a popular president = more popularity.
Impeaching an unpopular president = more unpopularity.

If you're right, why aren't presidential advisors handing their candidates guns and pushing them out the door on quail hunts? Liquoring them up and sending them out for a Sunday drive?

obligatory link to poll results supporting censure -- hard to imagine many people are for censure but against impeachment (or that many people really know the difference)


Do you favor or oppose the United States House of Representatives voting to impeach President George W. Bush?
3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 42% 49% 9%
Voters 43% 50% 7%
Republicans (33%) 18% 80% 2%
Democrats (37%) 61% 30% 9%
Independents (30%) 47% 40% 13%

oh, sure, if you actually LOOK at the data... very old-fashioned of you, DemFromCT.

next question: is the difference in responses the word "censure" vs. "impeachment" in the question, or the word "wiretaps" in one question and not the other?

"Why isn't this the equation?

Impeaching a popular president = more popularity.
Impeaching an unpopular president = more unpopularity."

It's only part of the equation. One, people recognize a partisan witch hunt when they see one. Second, most people don't believe that lying about oral sex is a crime.


Partisan witch hunt + popular president + trying to hide an extramarital affair < high crime or misdemeanor.


There's also the similarity that reason for impeachment in both cases has to do with a dick getting the president in trouble.

You don't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution base on political expediency. You do it because it's right and because, if you are a Federal official, you've TAKEN AN OATH to do so. Also, if you are an American and a Patriot, defending the Constitution is just what you do.

This administration, which violates the Constitution, are traitors who commited treason when they lied by swearing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

I'm with Josh Marshall's latest--all the public handwringing and wind-testing looks the worst of all. Take a position and shut up, or, better yet, support Feingold or be quiet. But don't wonder in public whether it will hurt the Party. It is the appearing not to stand for anything that really hurts the Party more than anything, because it annoys everyone on every side.

A credible threat of a constitutional convention can trigger Congress to impeach the President well before the 2006 election. [More, Link under name]

Hey, it's Constant! How do you like what they've been doing with Jefferson's Manual up in Vermont?

I've been asked by a couple of people now whether you were the first person to highlight the state-based impeachment idea, or whether you got if from somewhere else. Care to let us in on the secret?

It is all about the word and the word "impeach" has all sorts of nasty, partisan conotations and will for a while now. When the word impeach is brought up, people flash right back to Clinton and picture a which hunt. Much as I'd love to see it, I'm more interested in winning elections.

Really? Are you interested in winning elections? How novel.

Just wait until the word "elections" has nasty connotations. Will we give that up, too?

"Dems '06: Restore dignity and honor to the impeachment clause"

"Take a position and shut up, or, better yet, support Feingold or be quiet."

Nope. Sorry. Quiet just won't cut it.

Any Democrat with a brain, a heart and a love for his country should be morally outraged. Righteously indignant. On his high f*cking horse.

Show. Some. Spine. The electorate will not punish you. They will respect you. Even those who won't vote for you will respect you. This is your one and only shot you have to make a totally free, unrestrained attack on modern Republicanism and its utter disdain for the rule of law, the framer’s check and balances and the United States Constitution.

If you blow this chance to differentiate the Democrats brand on this issue, you deserve the political wilderness.

I don't think that Impeachment will harm Democrats in the November elections because Sen. Feingold has given them the Censure to talk about instead.

We need to make the message loud and clear. If you don't stand up for the 4th Amendment now, we won't be there for you. Or, if you do support at a minimum, censure--you can count on the progressive to turn out with time, energy and $$$.

My god, I'd rather have an enemy to oppose than to be stuck with a week kneed Rove butt kisser who won't uphold the oath taken or recognize an opportunity to go on the attack instead of playing defense. At least then, you don't have to explain to your peers why you are supporting a loser (like Kerry, Joementum, etc).

Everyday I keep getting mailers from Hillary, Daschle, Obama and (phone calls) from those who share the same donor lists that contain my name. For now, my wallet stays in my pocket because I have no faith that these clowns won't follow the same failed consultants--who only know how to write concession speeches. During the phone calls, I tell them to call back when the DLC develops the backbone to stand tall against Bush and his minions.

The only way the DLC types will get the message is if the Progressive community refuses to be the ATM's for the status quo.

Again, let's be smart about this. There's no reason why Democrats have to run around talking about impeachment. They don't have the votes.

Democrats need to be talking about the rule of law and questioning why Republicans no longer believe that the president should have to follow the laws passed by Congress. Right now, this is a Republican failure to provide a check against Executive branch overreach and protect the Bill of Rights.

Are Republicans afraid to provide oversight of the administration? Are they too partisan to do so? Don't they believe that they have a duty to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution? Why did Republicans spend $ millions of taxpayer dollars investigating an extramarital affair but won't investigate possible spying on American citizens in violation of federal law?

This is a mid-term cycle. Make this is about Republican congressional failure, not about Bush. He's done already.

They are STEALING OUR ELECTIONS. Nevada's elections cannot be glossed as legal until PROVEN to be legal. Was the vote audited? Was an audit even possible? Were recounts ordered and not delivered? Were there reports of vote-fraud or intimidation?

The U.S. at large hasn't had a legal election since 1999, the year when THIRTY STATES lost their audit trails. NO AUDIT TRAIL = NO LEGAL ELECTION, under every state constitution involved. Yet Secretaries of State nationwide approved violating the rights of the people of their states. HOW MANY WERE BRIBED, HOW MANY COMPLICIT, HOW MANY WERE THREATENED?

The idea that Bush will leave office is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED, shep, by his insistence that the law does not apply to him. That's a HOUSE ON FIRE. If you think you can play politics with a house on fire, you don't care much about your cat.

The 22nd Amendment is paper-thin. It has never had a Constitutional test, and the SCOTUS can declare it ILLEGAL IN TIME OF WAR any time they want. Don't kid yourself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad