I sincerely don't think it's plausible to impeach or censure anyone in the Bush Administration (excluding Gonzo) without alienating an awful lot of voters that will likely decide the next election.

The biggest reason for this is probably just political momentum. The idea of impeachment and censure have just been sitting out there too long - too many prominent people have already brought it up without any fire catching behind the idea or there being any actual push to do it. The hard question to answer is this: What would be the political match that could start the fire needed to get this done? I honestly don't see what it could be.

In terms of it being political suicide, I think it's more likely to backfire on Democrats ala the Bill Clinton debacle on Republicans. It's a sad but true fact that most people see the horrible parts of the Bush administration, but are just not angry enough to move on it. This isn't a Nixon moment, where everyone and their mother is clamoring to throw the bum out - it's mostly just the ardently anti-war or the highly politically involved that are leading the call. If significant time is given to the issue, I think the casual observer will be more likely to be bemused or irritated than actually rallying behind the cause.

On that same note, think of this: Nancy Pelosi effectively voted into President by the Democratic Congress? It's a Republican talking point that writes itself.

If change is wanted and needed, we need to work on securing 60 Democratic voices in the Senate and extending the House majority, in addition to getting a Democrat in office. These are VERY PLAUSIBLE steps that can be taken right now, and which would take ADVANTAGE of the current political situation (which is very much pro-Democrat at the moment) rather than trying to go very hard against the mainstream grain. Then the power would not only be in the hands of Democrats, but it would be vested in us instead of wrested away.

There were concerns before the 2006 election that if Democrats retook control of Congress that all they would do is hold hearings and investigate the administration. Thank G-d they have...the incompetence and abuses of this administration and its allies are much worse that I anticipated. But what has this Congress accomplished policy-wise? They're trying for a massive SCHIP children's health insurance expansion which will likely be vetoed. That's good (that they're trying at least). Minimum wage increase actually signed into law. That's good. And you can fill in the list from there...

While, I support impeachment of Bush/Cheney/Gonzo...I wouldn't want it to: A) stall progress on important policy, B) give cause for the Republicans mantra of a "do nothing...investigative Congress",and C) jeopordize the gaining electoral momentum for taking back the W.H. and gaining more seats in Congress.

So...since I don't see >50% of the population clammoring for impeachment (and I think that it will do A-C), I don't think we can bring weight to bear. However, if you start to see serious conversations about a draft (like the comment by Bush's "War Czar" this week)...you bet your ass people will be rioting in the streets and demanding impeachment. Then, you can effectively use that grassroots pressure (i.e. rioting citizen masses)...until then, I don't think so.

Several things come immediately to mind to really start having an impact.

First: Identify the GOP and "blue Dog" D's in the House and Senate who might be affected by their constituents' comments.

Next: Target them with a national campaign that includes a few billboards placed strategically in congressional districts that simply ask questions like, "Is this the country you want? Can't we do better? How can we and (list candidate) sit by and allow ___ to happen? Had Enough? .... etc"

Then: Find your friends, relatives, business acquaintances who live in those states and districts and suggest that they write LTE's and contact the representatives directly in places outside of the typical town hall meetings. That can mean bringing up the issues in the grocery store and elsewhere.

And: Find out who the reporters and editors are in your community and the communities of the targeted reps. Talk to as many media folks as you can. Send them notes about the issues. Call the radio and TV newsrooms with concerns. Ask, for example, why no TV station covered the town hall yesterday?

Finally: Money talks. Find out who is planning to run against these folks next year and make it clear that they can get financial support right now. Make it clear to the incumbent and to the challenger that a change will take place. Also make that clear in the organizations already formed that pay close attention to the issues.

Blog traffic is important. Real action means getting out there and talking with people and making it clear to the politicos that the "anger" is real and not just rhetoric that will be easily forgotten.

since I don't see >50% of the population clammoring for impeachment

"more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney." [source]

Join Veterans for Peace tomorrow at noon (or any Thursday between 12:00-2:00) until Blumenauer agress to hold Bush, Cheney & Co. accountable. 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland or give the congressman a call: 503-231-2300

I doubt the Republicans are smart enough to see getting Bush and Cheney out of office helps them in 2008. As it stands, Bush/Cheney are the face of the Republican party and every Republican running for every office in November 2008 is going to be standing next to them, like it or not. The Bush administration is, and will remain, the best argument to vote Democrat in 2008. I suspect that's why so many congressional Democrats are reluctant to proceed; keeping Bush in office is the best way to pick up seats.

Let's say impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney go before the house this fall, and actually make it to the Senate. Assume the Senate were to hold a trial in mid to late January, and vote them out of office sometime in February. Pelosi loses her speakership and becomes President as a lame duck (it will be too late for her to jump into the primary) with the need to build her administration from scratch in the middle of an election, and inherits the mess Bush created. By November, it's no longer Bush's mess, it's Pelosi's. If the economy is a mess, it becomes Pelosi's fault. If anything disasterous happens in Iraq, no matter what Pelosi does it will be her fault.

Meanwhile, the Republicans still have enough votes in the Senate to block the Democrats from putting any kind of positive agenda through. Yes, those up for re-election would be running as "the Senator who blocked universal health care for children" or whatever, but that's never seemed to bother them before.

Getting Bush and Cheney out of office probably helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats in November 2008. Letting go of the White House for a few months improves Republican chances of getting it back for the next four years. It's like sacrificing a rook to position yourself for checkmate three moves later.

But I expect most Republicans will stick blindly to their own guy no matter what. Which is good news for Democratic election prospects in 2008 and bad news for the future of this country and our constitutional system.

Here's a question I haven't seen anyone considering yet: at this late date, what will an impeachment of Bush/Cheney actually do? Impeaching Nixon had the effect of bringing unimaginable abuses (at the time, they seem rather tame now) to light, halting the secret invasion of Cambodia, and forcing Nixon to resign. Let's apply that to this administration. Well, we know about the abuses, and if the impeachment proceedings reveal more, can I get a show of hands of people who will be surprised? We know that the war in Iraq will continue, come hell or high water or impeachment. And this close to the end of Bush's term, there is no possible way that either he or Cheney will resign. It doesn't look to me like impeachment will actually get us anywhere. It isn't going to stop the abuses or remove the abusers. It'll just poison the political atmosphere of this country even more than it is now.

If it were 2005 right now, I might have a different perspective on the advantages of impeachment, but we're just too far into Bush's term. I'd rather use our resources to put pressure on Congress to continue investigating abuse, forcing oversight on the administration, and pushing through our preferred policy agenda. Rather than trying to impeach the President and VP now (the comment about the likelihood of the GOP supporting a move that will create President Nancy Pelosi is right on target) let's get to work on electing solid liberal majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008 which will repeal the PATRIOT Act and all the other disgusting intrusions into the Constitution. Bush seems to be pretty focused on how history will view him. Let's make sure the next generation learns about him as that President whose policies were so bad, Congress obliterated them all as soon as he was gone.

Kari:

Thank you for trying to shift the discussion to a more constructive tone. As I stated in my earlier post, yesterday on the initial thread, I am as irritated and angered by the actions of this Administration, but don't see the good that impeachment would do at this point beyond annihilating any shred of unity our country has left.

Instead, lets reach across to the various conservative districts that Kari mentioned, unifying behind common anger be it: Iraq, wages not keeping up with inflation, lack of healthcare, etc.

Now this isn't to say that Alberto needs to be thrown out and Congress not do everything in its power to bring our troops home, now, not yesterday, but now.

But lets move beyond calling for Bush's head and instead planning ways to use this whole situation to our advantage in securing a solid majority in all facets of government producing an environment where true reform and legislation is the norm, not the objective.

I would like to reframe the arguement here since few seem able to do so. What Wyden addressed was the practicality of Impeaching Bush. It is impractical because there are not enough votes. Period. We all know this.

However, what he didn't address was the symbolic purpose of impeachment. This process, as most of us know, begins in the House. Even if it could not pass in the Senate to remove the President from office, the process of Impeachment is still MANDATED by the Constitution. Not only is it Mandated, but it is politically the right thing to do. Justice deserves nothing less than a reminder that the President's power is checked. To not Impreach the President is to invite future Presidents to do the very same thing, or worse.

Our nation and our Constitution deserve no less.

I believe the Constitution says, "Shall Impeach", does it not? What does "shall" mean to you?

Think back to the OJ trial and monicagate. The corporate media covered these 24/7. Ordinary people were well versed in details about the glove, the missing vial of blood and in Monica's case, the kneepads and more. Regular people, Dem and Republic, were fascinated.

Now think about all that each of you know about the crimes of the bushies. Far, far more than ordinary people because each of you reads voraciously and stays on top of the news. But most people don't have time to read the internets. They have two+ uniquely american jobs and kids to haul during their "spare time." The corporate media has totally and utterly failed us. What ever happened to Bunny Greenhouse and her whistleblowing about Halliburton?

The bottom line is that if there were an impeachment proceeding, THE CORPORATE MEDIA COULD NO LONGER IGNORE THE TRUTH. Maybe those baseball moms on bulls**t mountain would finally learn the depth of their depravity. Ordinary people could not possibly continue to ignore the Truth. Republic congresspeople would be forced to confront this truth on a daily basis.

And presto. You will have the votes.

Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Shall, shall, shall....

You want to fight it out behind the church?

I realize that torrid NEEDS to be RIGHT all the time. Certainly that would be one of the reasons why your girl friend left you for another job.

If we really wanted Congress to reinforce the principles under which this country was founded, we'd be pushing for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, REAL ID, and the other invasions into our privacy and freedom. We'd be pushing Congress to renew their own authority through new legislation, just as the 1973 Congress did with the War Powers Resolution. We'd be working to renew our commitment to those principles by giving them more teeth and reinforcing the ability of the legislative branch to check and balance.

As I said above, if this were the beginning of Bush's second term, I would consider impeachment a useful tool for us. Right now, I think any hypothetical gain will be outweighed by the fact that these people are already leaving office and therefore don't care what the country thinks of them. If we as a nation are going to recover from the past eight years, at this point the healing process needs to be in the positive direction of policy change, not the negative direction of punitive measures.

Somebody here sounds an awful lot like Lieberman and the DLC.

The Democrats will make few to no policy gains either because the lieberman/blue dog coalition will continue to block, or because of a veto.

IMPEACH

lestatdelc, my interest is in upholding the rights and responsibilities inherent in the Constitution, as, I assume, is yours. To me, it is more important that we do this by repealing the laws that violate the Constitution. I don't think we have the political will in DC to both repeal those laws and impeach the President (if, indeed, we have the will to do either). In the end, no matter what Congress does, this President will leave office. But if Congress doesn't act, the legacy of invasive laws and Constitutional violations will continue long after he heads off to a cushy retirement and speaking circuit job. And that concerns me a lot more.

Yes, of course, but how? It's a tautology to say "we should pressure them" in answer to the question "how do we pressure them?"

Nevermind liberals like Earl Blumenauer -- how do you get rookies from conservative districts like Heath Shuler to come around on this? Is it even possible?

A little thing called the Truth. Which will only be exposed to the American-Idol-Obsessed-Mothers-Of-Bulls**tMountain if it is on their teevee. Which will only be on their teevee if it is impeachment. Iran-Contra was played on several networks. The general public knows little to nothing about all of the investigations and crimes they've committed. The corporate media would HAVE to cover impeachment and put aside their missing white women for a few minutes. (gee, do I sound bitter toward my fellow suburban sports moms and their stupid conversations about reality teevee for hours on end at games?)

Bravo lestatdelc

Kari wrote:

"Screaming at people just isn't often a very effective strategy for getting elected leaders (anybody, really) to agree with us."

Actually, screaming is quite effective when the viewpoint espoused reflects the opinion of a large part of the American people.

Kari wrote:

"Yeah, but we don't even have a majority in our party that support impeachment right now. How do we get there?"

Bring the issue to the floor of the House and hold hearing that make public the crimes of the Shrubbery.

I think the first place to start to make Bush and Cheney accountable is to try to form some unity in the Democratic party....or the rest is pointless. Somebody call Nancy and clue her in.

Kari....you told me in another post that we were not talking about FISA there....well I was, as an example. Because the FISA vote is a heartbreaking eye-opener. You can lead a candidate to Congress but you can't make him/her vote your will. What good will it do to start a groundswell here in Oregon if DEMS from other states are enabling the president in his power grab? Does anybody even know if those reps who assisted Bush with FISA are being called to task by their constituents? Were they voting public sentiments in their states? Can we in Oregon take our case to other states? Lord knows special interest groups from other states have no compunction bringing thier cases here to test the waters.

Unfortunately the FISA vote was like a light bulb going off...."hey the DEMS are NOT united". Out here in the wilderness where I live and interact, a lot of voters were appalled...a growing angst since January when our hopes were so high. Damn right we feel helpless.

And history shows that most of the time "shrieking", or the demonstrative equivalent of, was the only way to get the attention of those in the ivory tower. Changes are cultured in noisy discontent. Back in the day we could take it to the streets, but now we might legally be called terrorists for that sort of activity.

So maybe another move to make Bush accountable would be to restore our constitional right to assemble and complain loudly, in places where someone might actually notice. Because it's going to come down to film footage at five, with a sound bite. That's where you'll find most Americans...in front of the tube.

Kari, Practical strategies? Well, after leaving that meeting I called every tv station in town to ask why they weren't covering the event. You know darn well they like the local angle and visuals. From now on, somebody on our side should be making damned sure the media is at these things. And I shouldn't have to plot to burn my bra or create a sideshow for the media to actually cover Our Own Senator when he is addressing our most pressing problem: Iraq. Shame on the local tv stations (except koin).

Wow. I'm impressed. I checked out for four hours, and came back to find 47 comments -- most of them thoughtful responses focused not on on whether they should be impeached, but rather on building a strategy toward making it actually happen.

Frankly Kari, I'm not that impressed, except for a few comments in this vein:

In short, the Dems have no political juice because they do not have a spine to earn it by kicking ass. LBJ didn't get shit done on the hill by playing nice, he kicked people in the balls politically

There are several concrete things we should be doing:

1) Get in the face, screaming as loud as you can when necessary, of any whiner who calls themselves a Democrat - voter or elected official - and tell them no more excuse making for utter incompetence and cowardice. Democrats are still making the argument we will win if we let the Republicans continue to destroy things because too many of them have nothing on their own to commend themselves to the electorate (that is true in spades for most of the Oregon delegation and their suckup supporters like Kari and Jeff), including having the backbone to stand up for true Democratic Party values. This is for real: Our country and the lives of many people all over the world are at stake. Those who are part of the problem need to be shamed and intimidated until they are disempowered. We need to clean house right here in Oregon and elect some real Democrats.

2) Demand the Congress use their subpeona power mercilessly to investigate every aspect of what this administration has been doing -- impeachment will come in due time once the truth is drug out into the light of day. The excuse the Atty General won't enforce the subpeonas is pure deceit: Congress gave that obligation to the Atty General long after the Republic was founded, circumstances now demand they exercise their inherent authority by having the appropriate official from the House or Senate apprehend and detain for as long as it takes those who refuses a subpeona. Even under a claim of Executive privilege since a strong executive is what the Founders feared most. Throw their miserable, lying butts in the D.C. jails and let them rot there until the next Congress is seated since the D.C. jails are under the control of Congress.

3) Force Merkley to go on record strongly and uneqivocally denouncing the DSCC, DCCC, and DLC Democrats who have failed to act against the adminstration's crimes against the people, and to end both wars, before voting for him. There is plenty of troubling evidence is that he sold his soul a long time ago for his own career. With the nod from the Party power elite in this race, there is little obvious reason to believe he will be anything but another pathetic weasel from the Oregon like most of the Democratic delegation. Take a close look at what is going on right now with Arizona Dem. Rep. Harry Mitchell whose story as a former state legislature and anointed D.C. pick has a lot more similarity to Merkley's than Tester's does. Right now the Democrats who elected him are exploring a revolt from the Democratic Party because he has turned out to be the full blown sellout Merkley has demonstrated clear potential for being in his state Congressional career. Far too early to tell about Novick, but better safe than sorry: Make him go on record with aggressive anti-war, anti-DSCC, anti-DLC, anti-corporate Democratic stances that he would be shown up as a hypocrite and run out of office if he abandons them. And demand he make clear he won't play Democratic constituency groups against each other as many Democrats are cynically doing right now.

There is plenty we can do. It's just that some of the biggest talkers, and whining suckups like Kari and Jeff, don't really want action because that just might show up who the real Democrats with the best interests of working people and the country at heart are, and who they aren't.

I am reminded of the recent discussion on the Bill Moyer TV show on OPB about impeachment.

We have a two-party system that ends up with loyalty to party at too high of a level. Loyal party members are left between a rock and a hard place when a party member violates a higher standard, like say, the Constitution.

Do you go after your elected official? Well, if you believe that your party will ultimately have the answers and reverse the damage of the other side, then you really have to think about it. And it is in this pause, and think, that we have our problems.

For me, I stopped 90% of my involvement in the State Democratic Party one day in January of 2006. On that day, Sen. Wyden's aid came to the State Democratic Party Platform and Resolution Committee meeting, where we were reconsidering a resolution condemning the Senate's actions to vote against the bedrock Constitutional provision for habeas corpus. He said that since this resolution targeted that vote by Sen. Wyden we were acting as the "star chamber" (reference to the Catholic Inquisition). On the spot, I did a pause and think. I authored an amendment to the resolution to condemn the action, but not to single out Wyden - and I believe this resolution eventually passed in Astoria a few months later (I was not there). During this period of this issue (this went on for over a month for the Platform and Resolutions Committee members), my health went rapidly downhill, and only now over a year later am I getting back up to speed - and the stress from this issue was clearly part of my health issue.

And I have only been to two State meetings since then, and have no plans to go to any others in the future. This is an unresolvable issue for me in the paradigm of Party Loyalty versus Constitutional Principal.

So, Kari - your question. I am looking for a way out. I don't yet know what that way is. I don't have the energy/health/time to take on the Democratic Party and make it more loyal to the Constitution than the elected official. I would consider a third party if it was viable, had values similar to mine, and put Constitution above politics.

He said that since this resolution targeted that vote by Sen. Wyden we were acting as the "star chamber" (reference to the Catholic Inquisition).

It may help you out to go and read some history what the Star Chamber really was (it has nothing to do with the Catholic Inquisition), and why what the Committee was quite legitimately trying to do was not even close to what that term means based on that actual history. It is the role and duty of the Party, just like it is the role and duty of every voter, to do exactly what that scumbag aide was whining about - cast judgement and ultimately do whatever is possible to cause faithless representatives to lose re-election.

Nothing could be further from a "Star Chamber" because you were not acting arbitrarily, and you were not exacting punishment. Punishment is loss of liberty, property, injury, etc. Suffering the condemnation of voters or having the privilege of representing the people withdrawn is not punishment in any honest sense of the word.

Frankly Steve, you should have kicked that miserable dirtbag aide out and told him/her that he/she or Wyden had better NEVER come to a Democratic Party function EVER AGAIN or you'd have them arrested for trespassing. Then you should have found a candidate to run against Wyden and endorsed him/her in the primary so we could work our butts off kicking Wyden out of office. Beyond that, the fact that the people who profess to represent rank-and-file Democrats like me were apparently either too stupid or too cowardly to do that strongly hints at some serious moral decay in the soul of our Party. Your story, strongly suggests we need to really scrutinize Merkley before even considering voting for him.

Steve, join the most positive and progressive social movement in Oregon. We aim to please our volunteers, by getting results (we're 9/10 statewide, not bad eh?), having a good time (socials, beach party themed canvasses, state of the union drink game), and avoiding shrieking, telling people they are shrieking, or anything in the shrieking family (we have been known to chant, however, Get on the Bus!)

Bus stations are in Portland and Eugene, but we'd love to help more frustrated activists get engaged in positive and productive social and political change all over Oregon. Plus, we'd like to have a beer with you.

www.busproject.org

and... because I can never resist... hey "Voter" -- interesting choice of words: "1) Get in the face... 2) Demand... 3) Force".

In the domestic violence movement I learned that these are "power over" terms that have nothing to do with assertive action but only aggressive imposition. Not okay with me.

My fellow Dems, most of you appear to be overlooking the 5 fundamental truths of modern American politics which are, of course, M, O, N, E, and Y. Politicians need incredible amounts of money to survive, just as you and I need air, food and water. They get virtually all of what they need from corporate interests, wealthy individuals, and lobbying organizations. Do you hear the CEOs of Pfizer, Citibank, Chevron, IBM or ADM shouting for impeachment? Neither do I. And until you do, you are wasting your time talking about this subject.

When big corporations open their wallets and shout "here boy/girl", every politician within earshot - regardless of party - will sit on his/her hind legs and beg for a treat. It would be funny to watch if it did not mean the end of Democracy as we knew it.

By November, it's no longer Bush's mess, it's Pelosi's. If the economy is a mess, it becomes Pelosi's fault. If anything disasterous happens in Iraq, no matter what Pelosi does it will be her fault. And how does that differ from the situation for a potential Democratic president in January 2009? Why do you assume that Bush won't create more mess by the end of his term?

The difference is about the status quo in November 2008: if it's a mess (and there will be a mess regardless of who is in power), how many voters will blame the incumbent and vote for the party that represents a change. Putting a Democrat into power at the beginning of 2008 lets the Republicans point fingers at Democrats, at least in the eyes of particularly stupid or inattentive swing voters.

If the GOP have to try and pull Bush/Cheney's asses out of the impeachment fire, defending them in public as the election cycle is in full swing will cement them more than anything else with the already staggeringly unpopular administration. It will clearly differentiate which party is are as Democrats change, GOP defending the indefensible and hugely unpopular administration and its actions.

This is the great benefit of the House drafting articles of impeachment and sending them over to the Senate. Even if the Senate doesn't remove Bush from office, the Republicans will have to stand up and defend him. The key is to make sure there is an ironclad (or as close to ironclad as possible) case that this administration has committed transgressions of constitutional magnitude, as opposed to playing partisan games of "gotcha" over marital infidelity. If the House Democrats can't make that case, there's no point going ahead with it.

As I mentioned earlier, it's in the interest of the Republicans to get this particular albatross off their necks. But if they don't (and I'm sure they won't) they'll have to go on record as saying that orchestrating an administration-wide conspiracy to mislead Congress on national security issues is not an impeachable offense. It's pretty easy to spin that at election time as "Bush lied to start a war and Senator Smith says that's okay."

Let me reiterate: polls show 30% to 40% support for impeachment right now, and there's been almost no discussion in the mainstream media. As long as the Democrats present a strong case for it, that number can hit 50% pretty easily.

[correction: i see on John Bradach's post that the protest at Blumenauer's office goes from 10-2 TODAY and every Thursday, 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland . Anyone seeing Wyden in Eugene, noon, Lillis Business Complex, Rm 182 should tell him to call his congressman!]

ok, i have my morning coffee substitute now. Soory for the previous glitch.

I have another idea how we might make progress on the impeachment issue. Has there ever been a BlueOregon beer bash or kaffee klatsch? I think we would have a more productive time talking to each other if we actually knew each other. There are a couple of recent posts i wish i could take back. [Speaking of which, why can't we edit or delete our own comments?] It's easier to shoot of a snarky rejoinder to strangers and there seem to be a lot of strange folks around here [head of the line].

p.s. pdxskip, when are you taking me out? for a pint, that is?

Kismet! TJ at Loaded Orygun just dropped a plug on KPOJ for "drinking liberally."

(next meeting - tonight - August 16), 7:00 - 10:00 pm

Posted by: john F. bradach, Sr. | Aug 16, 2007 7:20:42 AM

12-2 pm today is the correct time in front of Earl's office at 729 NE Oregon.

I am sure having people there beginning at 10 a.m. wouldn't hurt anything. I know that LoneVet Joe has taken to visiting the site on Wednesdays at noon at well.

We'll just start calling you "Big John" then.

I met ol' Joe last week with the Veterans for Peace and was so encouraged to hear him address Wyden: "Do you have any idea how angry so many of us are at the Democrats?!" I mean to tell him how proud it makes me feel. Not of Joe necessarily (like he needs my props). Joe makes me proud to be an Oregonian. Noon on Oregon street (just 3 blocks south of Multnomah) between NE 7th and 9th Ave.

A realistic outcome of an "impeach them both" strategy in the House:

Senate Republicans split the difference by removing Cheney and keeping Bush. They get to express public displeasure with the administration, while keeping control of the White House and having a new Republican Vice President finish Bush's term.

I can also see Senate Republicans who may want to distance themselves from Bush agree to censure him rather than remove him from office, under the cover story that "we disagreed with the some of the questionable things he did, but gosh darn it, they just weren't impeachable offenses."

A team of folks calling the local TV stations would help before and during these events and then calling them if they fail to cover the story.

Also, I thought you'd enjoy these: possible ads<?a>

If impeachment is the goal, the first step is congressional investigation (house) into impeachable offenses. Lying to the public isn't one. Starting horrible, stupid, unwise wars isn't. Bankrupting the treasury isn't. But unwarranted domestic spying is. Investigate, get the evidence, make the case.

That said, I think it's not a useful effort. To stop this war, stop the funding. Bush only needs 41 senators to stop democratic initiatives, but he needs majorities of both houses to pass legislation, so write the funding authorizations this fall to defund the Iraqi occupation in a certain but orderly manner.

Politically, there's a year plus to expose all the misdeeds, lies, abuses, incompetence, theft, etc. of the shrub regime, and plenty to run on. Keep in mind we won't be running against Bush, though.

I believe the Democratic Party would do well to unite beyhind a positive message, though: the economic well-being of the avrerage citizen. This means universal health care, more progressive taxation (don't ignore the regressive Social Security tax), environmental regulation, renewable energy, and NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT policies. I propose ths definition: If you are paid by the hour (or were before you retired) the democratic party is working for you. If we can unite most of the 80% of the population making less than $100k (or whatever the number is) behind policies that will make everyone's life better (except maybe the very wealthy), winning elections should be a wee bit easier.

Assuming a Dem President, Congress, and Atty General in 2009, I would love to see Bush and Cheney investigated further and prosecuted for treason for their failures to defend and uphold the Constitution (trampling on civil rights generally, and again warrantless spying seems a very strong case). Prosecuting these crimes, even after their term is up, will help restore America's international image and begin to rebalance the branches of government.

If impeachment is the goal, the first step is congressional investigation (house) into impeachable offenses.

Minor correction. The first step is to get our Representatives interested in impeachment investigations. Our entire Oregon delegation is currently in lock step with the Democratic "leadership" off-the-table plan to give Bush, Cheney & Co. a pass.

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings."

Thom, good point on the anonymity of this all, considering this isn't World of Warcraft and we all live in the same damn state (and for many, metropolitan area). Unfortunately I'm legally 5 months too young to attend a progressive beer hour (which is too bad because I would be interested to see how this impeachment conversation infused with liquor turned out). But it seems most definitely appropriate to take on some of these big roadblocks we're now running into with face to face talking to hash it all out. (And I really think it'd be cool to get screamed at in person.)

Prune Bush - Impeach Cheney The practical necessities - find a Congressman with Cajones of sufficient girth to present Articles of Impeachment to the floor of our deliberative body based upon these crimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEzPVP6EVRk Even if it does not succeed, at least we can count the votes, take names, and kick @ss.

Excellent citation darrelplant. From "intent of Framers" "Grounds for Impeachment" "I, section 9. 62 In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63 Remember Scooter Libby????

More on the snow job against impeachment:

Clinton and Johnson were impeached, but not removed. The presidents elected after them were from the other party. Nixon was about to be impeached. The next president elected was from the other party. So Democrats are afraid to impeach Shrub and Cheney because...?

Tom, about this: "Actually, screaming is quite effective when the viewpoint espoused reflects the opinion of a large part of the American people."

Who ever convinced you to vote their way by screaming at you? And who did you ever convince to vote your way by screaming at them?

A little remedial reading of the Aesop fable "The Wind and the Sun" is in order (the message is that persuasion is more effective than coercion).

On what do you base "the opinion of a large part of the American people"? Poll results?

My favorite history professor said to always distrust the use of phrases like "the American people". He said replacing that phrase with "people like us" would usually give a clearer meaning of the sentence.

If you really believe everyone is hot for impeachment, try this experiment in a store parking lot. Walk up to people and ask them if they think impeachment is a good idea.

My guess is that most haven't given it any thought, and those who have given it thought might just be of the "nice thought, not practical at this time" persuasion. Or else of the "let's not be like the Rove crowd, let's put forth a positive agenda to show how different we are" persuasion.

On one of these topics, paulie has expressed a similar sentiment.

And Tom, I've been screamed at politically. All it did was strengthened my opposition. And in one case, 2 people were angry at me for my state central comm. vote on a resolution concerning a ballot measure. 2 people who weren't at the meeting yelled at me that I wasn't a real Democrat for the way I voted. I had friends on both sides of the ballot measure, so I had been publicly neutral.

After being yelled at, I went home and wrote 2 letters. The first was to the folks on the side of the ballot measure who my state central comm. vote had sided with involving the resolution (I didn't think the party should have endorsed the other side) enclosing a contribution check. Second was to my friend who was an officer of the side which had won the scc vote, saying I had tried to be neutral but after being yelled at I had sent a contribution check to the other side. I told my friends to spread the word what I had done. Next time I saw one of the people who had yelled at me, it was obvious from her sheepish tone of voice that she'd heard her yelling had caused a contribution to the other side.

Maybe yelling works in some circles, but it sure doesn't work with me.

Just to clarify a common misconception: Congress doesn't need to prove any kind of "criminal" action to impeach. A president can be impeached for "misdemeanors." A "misdemeanor" in a constitutional context doesn't need to be a specific crime. It could be exceeding the constitutional bounds of power, behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with public office, or using the power of the office for improper gain.

So lying to the American people, or abusing the public's trust, or misrepresenting national security issues to Congress are all impeachable offenses. It's sufficient for Congress to stand up and say "this behavior is utterly incompatable with the high standards of conduct the American people have a right to expect from their President."

TJ, maybe you could skew the poll by conducting it the parking lot of a Wall·Mart?

Hey, thanks for the tip on "Drinking Liberally." I did!

TJ, your point is valid if every candidate ahead in the polls always wins.

LT,

On political screaming:

I was referring to affecting elected officials, who are moved by certain forces

• real concern for making things better

• what the money people think about them

• what large numbers of voters think about them

Public opinion is measured in two ways. First is percentage, which is easily quantified. Second is intensity, which is less easy to quantify, but important in which issues determine votes. If polls show that a large portion of voters want impeachment, and many voters are willing to express their opinions energetically [screaming is one way to do that], elected officials will take notice. It's not about reasonable persuasion, it's about inspiring fear of the voters. In a democracy, that's a good thing.

Hey, David. That was me, across from you to the left of Carla at the end of the table. I know where i'm gonna be every first and third Friday for the next while...

One way to get Republican support for impeachment: make the impeachment about abuse of power and reigning in the executive. After all, if Bush gets away with all this stuff, we're essentially handing vastly increased presidential powers to all of his successors. Pose the question to Republicans: do you want President Hillary Clinton to wield all of this power? Because if you declare that the President has not exceeded his authority by doing all this stuff (by opposing impeachment or removal from office), you're giving the next President a blank check to continue.

Forget "crimes" and focus on "misdemeanors" and abuse of power. And publicly, keep up pressure on Republicans by making the discussion as much about the next Democratic president as the current Republican one.

djk said: "...it's in the interest of the Republicans to get this particular albatross off their necks. But if they don't (and I'm sure they won't) they'll have to go on record as saying that orchestrating an administration-wide conspiracy to mislead Congress on national security issues is not an impeachable offense. It's pretty easy to spin that at election time as 'Bush lied to start a war and Senator Smith says that's okay.'"

This can also be the spin of non-corporate parties if Democrats refuse to impeach, such as, "Blumenauer and Wyden say it's okay that Bush lied to start a war" or "Hooley and Wu say it's okay that Cheney committed crimes against humanity."

Which would be equally true.

Someone sent me the link to this Frank Rich column. The title and a quote from it are below. Seems like a good contribution to this discussion. Rove has left and perhaps it is time to work hard on taking advantage of 21st century ways of changing people's way of thinking and of campaigning rather than just yelling in frustration at elected officials willing to appear in person in these days when that has become increasingly rare.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19rich.html?ex=1187668800&en=7ca560e05d77c85e&ei=5121&emc=eta1

Op-Ed Columnist He Got Out While the Getting Was Good By FRANK RICH Published: August 19, 2007 .................

The rise of YouTube certifies the passing of Mr. Rove's era, a cultural changing of the guard in the digital age. Mr. Rove made his name in direct-mail fund-raising and with fierce top-down message management. As the Internet erodes snail mail, so it upends direct mail. As YouTube threatens a politician's ability to rigidly control a message, so it threatens the Rove ethos that led Mr. Bush to campaign at "town hall" meetings attended only by hand-picked supporters.

It's no coincidence that this new culture is also threatening the Beltway journalistic establishment that celebrated Mr. Rove's invincibility well past its expiration date (much as it did James Carville's before him), extolling what Joshua Green, in his superb new Rove article in The Atlantic, calls the Cult of the Consultant. The YouTube video of Mr. Rove impersonating a rapper at one of those black-tie correspondents' dinners makes the Washington press corps look even more antediluvian than he is.