Should Democrats embrace impeachment?

Republican talking heads are trying to tar Democrats with a Scarlet "I". The talking point coming out of Repub Central is to scare voters away from the angry, radical Democrats by accusing them of planning to impeach the president. Russert and Matthews are both doing their jobs as Republican shills, this week uploading that message into water cooler political discourse. It's just about all they have right now, and the strategy reeks of desperation:

First, it's a tacit admission of Bush's failure, that they would impeach him if the tables were turned. That's what passes for Republican honesty these days, as we already know this. Case in point: they impeached Clinton for a lot less.

Second, it's weak, but it could work. Republicans only need to keep a quarter or so of their most hotly contested seats in Congress to maintain their majority. That's not all that hard if they can detach themselves from Bush's coattails.

So I watched Russert grill Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, goading her into admitting that the Democrats are angry, spiteful, vengeful Bush-haters, who would no sooner get into office than proceed with impeachment hearings. He just wouldn't accept Pelosi's answer that impeachment is not at the top of the Democrats' agenda.

Now li'l sis Buchanan is out there representin' those fine, upstanding conservatives who have been let down by Bush's liberalism, but are on guard for Demo-liberal chicanery against their president:

(Buchanan) said if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to appear on TV and talk about impeachment hearings and investigating the Republican leadership, she would turn people off because she was out of touch.

It's the old act-like-you-got-the-answer-you-wanted trick. When snide, thinly disguised partisanship on the part of so-called journalists doesn't work, just continue on as if.

Expect that tactic to continue through the rest of this year. Given that Republicans are good at manipulation, better than the Democrats are at countering it, perhaps the Dems should pivot and do an end-around the Republican line: embrace impeachment and let Republicans call them angry and radical. With Bush's polls chugging backwash, Repubs are effectively calling the vast majority of Americans angry radicals.

I understand that it doesn't work that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error">Attribution Error ensures that my anger is justified, while yours is just unseemly, even if we're angry over the same thing. But if addressed early enough, it could be rendered an ineffective criticism as people become acclimated to the idea that, yes, impeachment is a-comin'. For some reason, it's a hard pill to swallow, as evidenced by Bill Clinton's poll-climbing routine during his dance with the 106th House Injudiciary Committee.

A good lawyer or political adviser will always advise his client to never get on the defensive. Democrats should not get caught in the trap of denying their intentions to impeach Bush. That's what George Lakoff is talking about when he says Republicans are great at "framing".

So how not to deny the plan to impeach?

Admit it.

Admit it with one hand, then instantly draw attention to the fact that Cheney will then be president with the other hand. Draw attention to the fact that it would not be a Democratic coup d'etat, and that they have nothing to gain from it politically, but that it should be done as a matter of law. Of course there will be hearings, yadda yadda, but if it's found that Bush broke the law, he's gone.

Embrace accountability. Embrace the letter of the law the way Republicans pretended to do in the '90's. Embrace a little righteous indignation. Do that, and you will embrace the electorate.

Put impeachment at the top of the agenda, Nancy, and you may just end up what George Stephanopoulos inexplicably got "stuck" in his head this weekend: Speaker Pelosi.

Tell everyone that once democrats have power we will use our power to investigate: Bush's energy and Enron connections, the Dubai ports deal, and how much domestic spying has gone on especially on the vigilantes. If we frame it like that true conservatives will agree with us and not feel so squeamish about handing over power.
It is all about framing!

:dem: When George W. Bush says that he wants to spread freedom to every corner of the earth, he means it.

But of course the president that turned Soviet-era gulags into secret CIA prisons in order to do God-knows-what to God-knows-whom isn't talking about individual freedom. He means corporate freedom -- freedom for the great multinationals to extract everything they can from the world's resources and labor without the hindrance of public interest laws, environmental regulations or worker protections.

Bush's vision of a free world actually looks just like the corporate globalization agenda pushed by a succession of American presidents in institutions like the World Trade Organization.

But this administration yearns for freedom too much to leave it up to trade negotiators. Unlike his predecessors, Bush isn't content to use carrots and sticks and a liberal dose of arm twisting to advance that agenda. His administration has made the neoliberal policies euphemistically referred to as "free-trade" a centerpiece of its national security policy.

Bush is willing to use the awesome force of the United States military to guarantee the freedom of the world's largest multinationals.:grr:

In her new book, The Bush Agenda, Antonia Juhasz peels the veils away from Bush's agenda -- imperialism, militarism and corporate globalization -- and exposes who drives it: a group of hawkish ideologues with an unprecedented relationship to major defense and energy companies.

Juhasz shows that the invasion of Iraq -- an invasion that was as much economic as military -- was the centerpiece of a larger project: the creation a New American Century in which the end-goal of American foreign policy is to enrich the corporate elites, and dissent at home will not be tolerated. http://www.alternet.org/story/35846/ :kick:

The Republicans used the word "accountability" in 1994 and beyond. It's a word the public responds to when they feel corruption is out of control.

Let's start there.

I'm glad Hillary & Joe Liberman sees that. *twitches* *drools* *durrrrrrrrrr!!!*

and any 'conservative' who hesitates to admit it is plain full of shit. As is any Democrat.

Embarrassed by admitting truth? Not me.

We shouldn't keep it to ourselves, either. Encourage Republicans to embrace impeachment too!
** is destroying our country.
He is insane. He thinks he is fighting World War III, and may very well start the real thing.

occasion. It should be the rallying cry, spread from door to door by every single Democratic candidate, that kicking the executive out is Job One. The people want impeachment, no matter what Russert and Matthews think. Those "scared away" will be more than offset by gains from the half of the US electorate who normally couldn't bother voting because a) they think things are hopeless anyway and their vote won't change anything, and b) they don't usually have anything interesting and exciting to vote for. Well, now they have something to vote for -- rolling heads.

And what's to stop the new Democratic Congress from impeaching both bastards simultaneously? Is there a law against it or something?

call it what it is - A Constitutional Crisis issue.

Making it a partisan issue just helps the Repubs, giving them an "us vs. them" issue to motivate their base.

...you have to state outright, bluntly, loudly, forcefully, right off the top, all your guns blazing, that the only way to save America and the world is to remove Bush and Cheney as soon as possible, before they get us all killed. Take ownership of the issue. If they say, "You just want to get rid of Bush!", you say, "Damn right! And if you have a brain, a heart, and a soul, you will join us." Be proud of what you've set out to do. Be proud to be "liberal" -- reclaim and embrace that word which neocons despise so much. Frame the debate before the RR does. Moderate milquetoasts don't win elections. Plain speaking street-fighters do.

of impeachment. Who's threatened by it?

We'll start with investigations and then pile on the incriminating evidence. He'll quit or beg us to impeach to stop the fact-finding.

is not whether or not to impeach -- the real issue is accountability

by pooh-poohing impeachment option - the republicans are really saying they have no intention of holding bush/cheney responsible for anything.

yes, we have had "investigation" - but these have mostly been "show pieces" to give the impression of "looking into thngs"


GOPers only have 2 tools - Fear and Smear.
they use FEAR to scare people, and those that won't drink the kool-aid are smeared.

A government only works well when competent ACCOUNTABLE, CAPABLE, and RESPONSIBLE people are elected.
It would be responsible to hold the incapable accountable.

The money pot would be a good place to start.

A **NINE TRILLION DOLLAR** DEFICIT--for this fuckup and his oil pals!

Don't impeach them! SUE them!

Or...yeah, impeach them and design some real creative penalties. A one billion dollar fine, and community service.

Like that.

The Democrats need to start being FUNNY like Stephen Colbert.

has the serious reality problem. It is the responsibility of every citizen to hold its elected leaders accountable for their actions. Power is granted to elected officials. When they violate that trust, and abuse the power granted, they need to be held accountable. There is nothing wrong with investigating the activities of elected officials, when wrongdoing is suspected. The power of governing rests with the people, and this includes checking the constitutionality of the behavior of its elected officials. To do any less, is to neglect the responsibilities that go along with being a citizen.

....later when they've won back the House and Senate Dem's can bring up impeachment again in an overall effort to "clean out corruption".:woohoo: If they allow impeachment to rule their talking points now, Dem's are shooting themselves in the collective foot.:banghead:

mother who has lost a loved one to this illicit
war should embrace "MURDER"..."CONSPIRACY" & "TREASON" in words spoken loud and clear
with Cheney as Bush's number one accomplice.

As long as the DLC'ers keep supporting the idea of doing nothing, ignoring the crimes against our constitution, and are defacto supporters of the international crime of "pre-emptive war", and keep bashing the democrats that want to fight back, this country won't be able to get at the truth of this disaster or change back to being an international leader.