We don't have the numbers.

by Kagro X

"We can't impeach," I'm told daily. "We just don't have the numbers. We need to focus on the elections and winning back the House and Senate. Then we can have real oversight, and do the things we want to do."

Well, I've had about enough of this so-called "pragmatism." Not because it isn't rooted in truth, but rather because the roots aren't as strong as people think.

It's not that I have a magic formula that suddenly will give us the numbers -- although I do believe there's an outside chance that good, old-fashioned hard work can give them to us, in the same way we found "the numbers" to dump DeLay as Majority Leader, without a single Democratic vote.

No, the reason I can't accept the old "we don't have the numbers" routine -- especially when it's paired with the equally obnoxious "wait until after the elections" canard -- is that, well... we "don't have the numbers" for anything.

That's right, folks. The big news of the day is that EVERYTHING the Democrats are planning to campaign on in November is something we "don't have the numbers" for.

BY DEFINITION.

Be it health care, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, serious oversight of the executive branch, Iraq, or what have you, if Democrats "had the numbers" we wouldn't have to campaign on it.

So what is it, exactly, that makes everything but impeachment so damned magical that it can be freely discussed -- without "distracting from the elections," mind you -- even though we "don't have the numbers" to get it done?

Is it the unproven (and possibly unprovable) "conventional wisdom" that only impeachment will "hurt us at the polls?" How exactly have health care, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and the rest been performing for us at the polls? Why are we in the position of having to "win back the House and Senate," again?

Is it that "Karl Rove wants us to talk about impeachment, to bring out the GOP base?"

This, I assume, would be some new part of the base that he's not been able to bring out with the "War on Christmas," the liberal efforts to "ban the Bible," the threat of same-sex marriage to every household in America, and the "don't send a signal of weakness to al Qaeda" ploys.

"No, no," you say. "The Republican base is going to stay home and sit on its hands, because they're fed up with the 'Culture of Corruption' and the 'Rubber-Stamp Congress.'"

Again, you must be thinking of the base that doesn't think the "Culture of Corruption" line is really just cover for a "War on Christians," as Tom DeLay now tells them it is.

No, I'm afraid we're going to have to face it. The excuse that "we don't have the numbers" applies to everything we want to do. The very reason the things we want to do are campaign issues at all is because we "don't have the numbers."

So, "we don't have the numbers" can be either the reason voters have to give us their trust for all the things we want to do, or it's a reason not to even try them until we do have the numbers. But not both.

Which one will it be?

I don't see any Democrats withdrawing the bills they've authored but "don't have the numbers" for. Do you?

Comments

[skippy]

what? no link to skippy? hey, i'll happily add the next hurrah to my blogroll if you guys return the favor.

oh, yeah, and, we do have the numbers, but nobody in power wants to admit it, thereby handing power back to the people.

[Kagro X]

I don't control the links, but I don't see how we could not link to the only blog to get an on-air hat tip from Jon Stewart.

[skippy]

i'm a big fan of your writing on dkos, kargo x!

[freepatriot]

fuck the numbers, stand up for what you believe

or do you need poll numbers to tell you what you believe ???

the difference between a good leader and a bad leader is 5 seconds

Russ Feingold is 5 seconds ahead of the rest of the Democrats, so he gets to be the leader

bet there are a lot of Democrats who wish they found their backbone about 10 seconds faster

What do you say to that, Senator biden ???

[freepatriot]

Oh, and Kagro & skippy, get a room already

[thedeanpeople]

Ah yes, the "later is always better - ducks in a row - pragma-stratego" form of knee-jerk defeatism.

No different from the "legalistic" defeatism, the "backlash" defeatism, the "civility" defeatism, and the "never gonna happen - gosh, we're so helpless" futilism, and on and on...

It's all the same clarion call to inaction.

Since no one but Feingold seems able to find their own genitals without a roadmap, I think we should send them one:

RoadMap to Impeachment: "Violence" is the Answer

Just don't stop pushing. We are making headway.

Besides, there is no other moral, patriotic option.

--
www.january6th.org

[shep]

I guess Dems could campaign on impeachment. It has certainly made John Conyers the biggest name in politics. I’d love to see a President Cheney or (if impeachment plays really well) a President Hastert…wouldn’t everyone?

Seriously, and I say this as someone who is absolutely sure that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Lewis, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Perle, Hadley, and perhaps another half-dozen architects of the administration’s Iraq policy, should spend the rest of their lives rotting in prison in the Hague (if not the U.S.): impeachment is a distraction, both as a political tool and as an appropriate punishment.

Campaign against Bush. Campaign against the administration’s lies, manipulation, lawbreaking, incompetence and general disdain for the American people (or really, anyone who isn’t part of their tribe). By all means, campaign against the Republican movement, Republican ideologies, Republican partisanship, Republican congressional corruption and malfeasance. Campaign against the relentless amorality of multi-national corporatism. Campaign on three generations of superior policy direction from Democrats and our belief that government can be made to protect and improve the lives of average American citizens. Campaign on fairness, the rule of law, meritocracy, egalitarianism, liberalism, rationality.

This is a struggle for the soul and the future of America, where our one overriding purpose has to be to make the greatest number of people see and understand what the modern Republican movement represents (and where that leads) and the stark difference between their vision of the world and the Democrat one. Republicans have made that awakening, at this moment, entirely possible if we stay focused on the issues.

Impeachment is for Oval Office blowjobs (since 1998), not for tearing apart the country and bringing the world to the brink of destruction. And, most of all, impeachment makes it all about the President and if Democrats continue to make our revulsion all about George Bush, we’re being dishonest with the public and probably pissing-away the greatest political opportunity the Democratic Party has ever seen.

[thedeanpeople]

Blah, blah, blah

"Gosh, for a minute there, I thought they were going to actually DO SOMETHING." (Oldest GOP-kneeslapper in DC)

Just so we've got this straight.

We must "stay focussed" -- on 5 regime sins, 5 party threats, 3 generations worth of old news, 6 noble euphemisms, and the fabled Creature From the Black Corporation.

This will allow us to manipulate "the greatest number of people" to overcome their stupid inability to "see and understand." In other words, we can "teach" our way out.

Because if we don't we'll be "tearing apart the country and bringing the world to the brink of destruction."

Well that's even more terrorizing than "mushroom clouds...over our cities...in 45 minutes."

(Note: If we were able to get our "leaders" to use the more accurate and resonate phrase "terrorized the nation into war," we'd likely have the impeachment over and done in 45 minutes.)

However, I will agree that there's a pissing contest going on.

And while I do regret having to single out any person/post on which to relieve myself, I find yours to be a clearly expressed exemplar of a very pervasive attitude on the left. One that is increasingly anachronistic and counterproductive.

But sorry, we ARE the public. And failing to speak or act when we are "absolutely sure" of something, is just being dishonest with ourselves.

--
BTW, there is no obstacle to removing bush and cheney together, and no one is suggesting any other outcome. And we could even garner support from a significant number of (albeit paranoid, misogynist) repubs should we pose the option of "Pres. Hastert now or Pres. Pelosi later?"

These are just more rationaliztions for refusing to let the chips fall where they may.

--

[shep]

”This will allow us to manipulate "the greatest number of people" to overcome their stupid inability to "see and understand." In other words, we can "teach" our way out.”

How, exactly, do you think 53 percent of America came to believe that Saddam Hussein was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks”? The Mighty Wurlitzer inculcated that ridiculous lie in less than a year. At least we’re peddling the observable truth.

But perhaps you’ve never been taught anything.

Regardless, politically impeachment makes the Dems look partisan and, when they ultimately fail, impotent (just what we need). If one problem with this administration is that it’s such sh*tstorm of lies, corruption and failure (leading to more lies) that know one can keep up with it all, impeachment sucks almost all of oxygen out of the room (Remember that during the Clinton impeachment, even attacking Al Qaeda was framed within Monicagate?).

Feingold’s censure measure made sense because it kept the focus on a constitutional crime by the executive and the breathtaking abdication by congressional Republicans of their sworn duty. A focus that appeared very difficult for the traditional press.

The bottom line is: 1) this is much bigger than Bush and 2) we’ll have to defeat the Republican Party before we can do anything about him anyway.

[thedeanpeople]

Hmmm...never been taught anything. Guess that could be it.

I've never been taught that to "look partisan" is a capital crime for a political party.

I've never been taught that failing in an attempt is "impotent," but failing to attempt is not.

I've never been taught why the memory of a failed impeachment jihad over nookie, opposed by 70% of the public, should restrain a censure/impeachment effort, alreadly supported by 53% of the public*, over admitted constitutional crimes.

Yep, maybe I just need more schoolin' on keepin the powder dry, sucking less oxygen, focusing the traditional press, and mimicking the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Or not.

The bottom line is: 1) The public will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." 2) You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. No matter how Really-Real your Security Plan is.

---

* democrats.com Zogby polls

[shep]

”The bottom line is: 1) The public will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." 2) You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. No matter how Really-Real your Security Plan is.”

Oh, I see. You think that without trying to impeach Bush right now, Democrats can’t look strong or fight Bush.

Obviously, I disagree: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033100277.html

Not only can they do both of those things, they can hold the executive to the rule of law and make congressional Republicans look like sh*t, all while appearing principled, rather than partisan.

It’s not at all about keeping your powder dry. It’s about knowing what you’re hunting, what to aim at and when to pull the trigger. Shooting out of anger or frustration usually winds up making you look like a Dick.

[thedeanpeople]

Not sure what point you're trying to make by posting the Censure hearings article.

Are you saying Feingold is strong or looking like a Dick?

Does this make the rest of the Dems look good, bad, or neither?

--

[shep]

To answer both your questions, I’ll juxtapose these two articles from one of Post’s most prolific Democrat bashers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401519.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101721.html

From my standpoint, getting Milbank to do a number on congressional Republicans, working against the Democrats trying to protect the Constitution and the rule of law, is worth more in advancing the Democrat cause than all the impeachment talk we could muster. Getting him to implicitly compare them Nixon apologists – priceless!

[Constant]

My view on "the numbers" is they can change. We can lawfully threaten Congress: Impeach this man, or we're going to lawfully ram a New Constitution down your throat. We don't have to wait until the election to do this. If you want to know how this can lawfully be done without a Constitutional Convention and outside Article V, you're going to have to ask.

If the country is faced with a challenge -- impeach the man, or face a new Constitution that will force you to do so -- then things can change. We don't have to wait for the election. Rather we can force action now, and then present evidence to show that the action is not prudent. We always have the right to create a new Constitution outside Article V.

If no action is taken two things will happen: Still won't have the numbers; and they'll use the "lack of action" as the excuse to say, "Hay, you didn't stop us. . ." It’s time to force the President to openly call it what it is: He's in rebellion against the rule of law; and he's effectively revoked the Constitution. We can make a new one that imposes penalties on Congress for failing to assert their oath. Time to stop playing his game -- call him on his bluff -- and throw the mess at him: Make a new Constitution that has far stricter consequences than simply removal from office. [If you want to know more about how this can be lawfully done you're going to have to ask, or hit the link under my name.]

Personal note to Kagro X: Please ask Mr. Jeffry Taylor of Vermont to stop saying "he came up with the Jefferson's Manual" idea: He knows you were talking about it long ago. Thanks, and best wishes!

[thedeanpeople]

To answer both your questions, I’ll juxtapose these two articles

Still not following. Milbank, bashingly or not, writes about what happens and what people say.

You seem to be making some distinction between calls for Censure and calls for Impeachment.

Unless and until either type of call is actually acted upon, there really is no difference in kind, but merely in degree.

--

[shep]

”You seem to be making some distinction between calls for Censure and calls for Impeachment.”

You’re right. Other than try to illustrate the usefulness of Feingold’s censure measure and explain why I think lobbing the “I-bomb” is unhelpful, I haven’t said why they are different. Basically it is this: censure is really a rhetorical device. It has no practical effect, rather than making a strong political statement. In this case, that statement is not only about the President’s clear violation of the law (and likely Constitutional guarantees as well) but it also implicates congressional Republicans in a gross failure of oversight.

So, a clear statement of principle that condemns an abuse of power that taints practically the entire Republican Party. This is especially important because it keeps a spotlight on an issue that is of unparalleled usefulness in describing Republican lawlessness and partisanship, which was slipping from the media’s (and consequently the public’s) attention. Otherwise, it has no practical effect and that makes it difficult to paint as a partisan power grab or a direct attack on the President, only on the illegal policy and the Republican’s countenance of same.

Impeachment is a direct attack on the opposition-party president. If impeachments efforts fail, it makes Democrats look like partisan losers – the exact frame that Republicans have used to make Democrats untouchable by a solid third of the electorate. If they gain traction, it becomes a very serious and very real attack on President Bush and the discussion shifts from the failure of Republican government – the most important frame we could build for the long-term interests of the Democrat Party – to the partisan war between Democrats and the President. The plain fact is that impeachment, as a device to be wielded by one party against another (without strong public demand) has been hopelessly tainted by Republican abuse in the Clinton impeachment.

The timing simply isn’t there to make it a better narrative than what we already have. The reporting “about what happens and what people say,” is finally just about where we want it to be – preferably for a long time (at least until November). If you want reporting about the Democrats trying to impeach the President (if you can even get that – Conyers has had impeachment articles on the table for a long time, practically invisibly), rather than the President’s domestic spying in violation of federal law, the Abramoff lobbying scandals and Republican corruption, the rubber-stamp Republican Congress, the dearth of Republican governing ideas, the failure of the traditional press to report the truth, Republican fealty to the agenda of the religious right, Republican hostility to Latino immigration, Republican corruption of elections, Republican policy bankruptcy on energy and the environment, Republican fiscal malfeasance saddling future generations with the bill for their failed wars and tax cuts for the rich, well, I think you’re missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Democrat Party and the future of our country for the sake of some short-term gratification.

On the other hand, if we let the story of the failure of Republican government play itself out, you may see a delayed gratification that is better than anything you can imagine today. Censure helps the story play out, impeachment changes the subject.

[thedeanpeople]

OK, that's clearer. So I must repeat:

These are just more rationaliztions for refusing to let the chips fall where they may.

You fear the smear and want to look to the euphemedia for salvation. This hasn't worked for our side in decades. There are hopeful signs of change. But these have come as a response to a reality -- the reality of (perceived) "anger" from the left.

And "a clear statement of principle," while preferable to silent complicity, "taints" no one. That's because it's just more hot air to the public. They're only interested in what you're prepared to DO.

What's still not clear though is how you imagine proposing to put Speaker Hastert into the WH would be spun as a "power grab."

I'm also unable to unravel the logic of the next bit. The Dems should be afraid to call for impeachment because it might fail (never been a fan of futilism). Because if it fails, they'll "look like partisan losers." But they're already successfully framed as "partison losers" to the point of untouchability. So they have what to lose by showing enough backbone to engage in a "war?"

Strikes me as circular. But that's true of many of the DC Dems' Fear-Based Intiatives.

But this bit is just beltway baloney:

The plain fact is that impeachment, as a device to be wielded by one party against another (without strong public demand) has been hopelessly tainted by Republican abuse in the Clinton impeachment.

The American public is smarter than that. Again I must repeat:

[There's no evidence for, nor reason to think that] the memory of a failed impeachment jihad over nookie, opposed by 70% of the public, should restrain a censure/impeachment effort, alreadly supported by 53% of the public, over admitted constitutional crimes.

A little math on "public demand." I think it's safe to assume (but do correct me if...) that an 80% support for impeachment would be both a "strong public demand" and probably the high mark that could be expected under almost any circumstances. What the Zogby poll shows is that the public is already two thirds of the way there. And that is in the face of a total euphemedia and "Dem leadership" vacuum -- they got there on their own.

And with luck they'll continue on their own, as many of us will. And that will require leaving behind the Cargo Cult of "delayed gratification" waiting for everything to "play itself out."

--
www.january6th.org

[shep]

*sigh*

You “deanpeople” are nothing if not dogged. Good.

First off, you are projecting in your characterization of where the public is on impeachment. Zogby shows that 53% of the public supports impeachment “if” the President wiretapped American citizens without a warrant.

This poll: http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm shows that only 26% of the public is ready for impeachment now, only 42% (against 50%) support censure and 53% (against 33%) think that censure is “more for partisan political advantage” than because Democrats “believe it is the right thing to do.”

So, first, prove to a majority of the public that Bush ordered illegal domestic spying (Feingold’s censure motion helps do that) or lied the country into an illegal war and then we’ll talk about impeachment (my previous point about timing).

Second, you are completely ignoring the fundamental point that making this a fight about Bush rather than (all of) Republican government, shortchanges the opportunity presented by this particular moment in the political life of the country. You’re worried about getting Bush, I’m talking about changing the party brands for a generation or more. If you make a big partisan fight that succeeds in impeaching Bush, just what makes you think that will be the end of our current national nightmare, the inevitable product of Republican movement policies with or without George Bush.

Again, our problem is the Republican Party, the establishment press and public opinion, not just George Bush. How does impeaching Bush take care of the other three legs of that stool?

[thedeanpeople]

...53% of the public supports impeachment “if” the President wiretapped American citizens without a warrant.

Which he freely admits (no proving required). He just defends it with claims of "inherent" power or authority granted by "use of force" permission for Afghanistan and Iraq. (Do you need to see polls about his credibility gap for defending anything?)

..prove to a majority of the public that Bush ... lied the country into an illegal war

Again, already there. Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Feel Bush Deliberately Misled Country on Iraq WMD

But I don't want to "talk about impeachment" - they did plenty of that at the Harper's Forum. I just talk about how to make it so. For that you can see my post/link above (Violence is the answer).

And I'm not really ignoring the other point you think is so fundamental. I'm just bored with it. I've heard about it for over 20 years. I was told that's why we didn't expose Nixon for sabotaging the Paris peace talks in '68, shouldn't impeach Reagan or Bush over Iran/contra, shouldn't prosecute Poppy for pardoning the co-conspirators, or even speak up about Stolen Election I, or Stolen Election II, or war crimes committed in our names, etc...

We keep telling ourselves that we're involved in some "movement." But what we really need to do is simply move.

Just look at where your fundamental argument leads.

To the claim that a stool with only 2 legs still stands!

--

[shep]

Allrightythen...

You “deanpeople” go for the Bush piñata (whacking oblivious, in your blinders, to everyone around you) while the party’s DLC leaders regurgitate poll-tested rhetoric until they (further) pollute the Democrat brand with (further) redundancy and apparent cowardice. That’s been working out well so far.

[thedeanpeople]

Only one of those has been tried so far. We're barely started.

So it remains to be seen who's wearing the blinders.

--

[shep]

"Only one of those has been tried so far."

You're joking, right?

http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc16/petition.html

"We're barely started."

My point all along.

[thedeanpeople]

Only the DLC has been regurgitating for any period of time.

(Not sure what point your making with the petition link. Or the last bit for that matter.)

---