Newt Poisoned the Impeachment Well to Protect Republicans ...... discuss.

I've heard a theory floated in various quarters. I am neither endorsing, nor attacking the theory. Insteads, I am hoping for a non-vitriolic discussion of it (hard to get on DU these days).

The theory, at its essence, goes like this:

Newt pushed Clinton's impeachment on a bullshit charge to, indeed, make it seems trivial, absurd, and a monumental waste of time. They did this so that when they got back in the White House, they would be able to do any damned thing they wanted and no one would push hard for another impeachment ...... seeing it as either a danger to the reelection of the people pushing impeachment, or as something that the country would turn away from to the detriment of the party doing the impeaching. In other words, to stand in the way of Democrats. For their (inadvertent) part, the Democrats did away with the special prosecutor, making crime without punishment even more likely.

Anyway, that's the theory.

What do you think? Valid? Bullshit? Possible?

NGU.

What made you think I was talking to you, specifically?

A virtiol free thread ...... indeed. :shrug:

Achtung !
Schnell !
Weiner schitzel !

Except that I didn't imply it was intentional. The bottom line is that by impeaching Clinton, the Republicans trivialized and tarnished the impeachment process. No matter who we try to impeach and no matter how serious the charges are, most Americans will immediately think back to the Clinton days.

I think tit-for-tat impeachments are a danger to the sustainability of the country. And yes, the bar is so low now that we can expect calls for impeachment from now on, no matter who is in power or what they've done. The GOP should be banned because of it.

Bush is probably the best candidate for impeachment EVER, but I think it would be bad for the country (I can hear the impeachbots now: "Even worse than Bush himself? You fucking idiot freeper!!")

No matter. I prefer going after him in the criminal justice system after he leaves office and has (I presume) a diminished abililty to hide behind executive privilege, and CERTAINLY less influence over the investigatory process in Congress and the Justice Department.

That may have been a result, but I don't think he's that smart.

the reason I feel this way is that I don't think even most of the Republicans could have predicted how evil, manipulative and war-causing this Administration would be.

I remember back in the 1990's when their hatred was so focused on the Clintons. If you read Conason and Lyon's book on the subject, "The Hunting of the President", you realize that all this organization in Arkansas was begun to discredit and take down the Clintons when Clinton was still Governor. Taking down Clinton was a full time industry in Arkansas. And don't worry, Hucklebee was in there too.

I really hope that it isn't Hucklebee vs. Clinton in 2008! Because if it is, you're going to see all their nastiness come out of the woodwork like you won't believe. The Republicans have been really laid back in this decade because they've had it all. Unlike us, they know how to fight and they fight dirty, especially if there's a Clinton involved.

I have little doubt that the Republicans really wanted to impeach Clinton and remove him from office.

..... it simply starting that way and then progressing to what the theory in OP holds.

To make an example with a topic dangerous to even mention ...... I don't believe in LI or MIHOP ....... but I absolutely believe they capitalized on 9/11 in a way that makes Guiliani's use of it seem measured and fair.

They're very good at judo ...... turning adversity into increased power.

More specifically, they are capitalizing on how the public reacted to it.

The American public largely thought that Clinton's impeachment was a joke and an extreme waste of time and resources. That experience is very likely in the back of people's minds, and it influences whether or not they think that Bush should be impeached.

I don't believe that that particular "benefit" was planned, however.

would feel that impeaching num-nuts is also an extreme waste of time and resources. i gotta believe that most americans will look at the job this guy has done and approve removing him.

The public is clear on their disapproval, but not so clear on the issue of impeachment.

According to wikipedia (below), polls conducted in 2007 have been in the 39-45% range in favor of impeaching Bush. Other sources have it a bit higher than that, but it's not an overwhelming majority. That's a significant reason why some Democrats in Congress have been reluctant to pursue it.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Sad but true.

I believe, however, that INVESTIGATING would sway minds.

I also believe the only thing we as individuals can do is TALK TO PEOPLE and make them see how important it is to impeach THIS president even as impeaching the last president was a trivial farce.

Investigations could certainly provide weight to the argument. I think that's why Conyers and others have tried to start there.

There was a lot of 'starting' .... but no follow through. Most of the eharings have been little more than window dressing. One day affairs with NO depth and little substance. Just a few phot ops and sound bites.

Conyers ..... Waxman ..... Frank ...... Rangel ...... all the big gun committee chairs ..... nada. Nary a peep. What's up with that???

thinks that they might see it as a futile exercise or one with too many political ramifications. Or both.

Stupid, yes, but maybe they know something about the level of support that they can expect internally that we don't.

"...... maybe they know something about the level of support that they can expect internally that we don't"

lying. And because of that, the crookedest criminal president ever gets a free pass. One of the reasons we've heard for not impeaching this guy is because of recent history. Doesn't make any sense to me, but there it is.

You can blame it on Newt, but I can blame it on Clinton. I know we all have weaknesses, but this was an historic biggie.

I agree with assessing some blame on him.

I also, however, think Newt and company were very smart in capitalizing on events as they unfolded.

The bottom line is Democrats in office don't have the spine to do what's necessary, even when they have the backing of the people. It's their own fault.

But it has the same effect. Much of the American people now see impeachment as partisan games.

Newt pushed impeachment because he wanted to stick it in Bill Clinton's eye. He'd been beaten so many times. The only long term strategy was to neutralize Clinton in the 2000 election and make it harder for Gore to win (it worked). Gore chose Looserman because of the Clinton scandal.

A special prosecutor can be terminated by the executive branch (which is why I still prefer the independent prosecutor even with all it's warts).

Mea culpa.

They were also intent on getting revenge for the impeachment (or nearly) of Richard Nixon. It was a long simmering deal for these pubs and they got their chance, when Clinton slipped up in a lawsuit that should never have been allowed to make it into a court of law.

I have thought this was a possibility for quite a while.

Why not?

Was the reaction to 9/11 pre-planned? I believe it was. And the terror threat has been exploited ever since.

Was the run-up to the Iraq war pre-planned? Of course. For Iran, everything is already planned, just looking for the excuse.

Was the Theft of 2000 planned? You would have to be living in a cave to believe otherwise. Techniques were refined for '02, '04, '06 and '08.

Was the first Gulf War pre-planned? Ask April Glasbie. And did we REALLY, REALLY need to invade Panama?

The impeachment was more than just putting the hurt on Bill. There were much bigger goals for the GOP involved.

Why stop at making sure that there is no consequence for the present criminality? You might as well make sure that the lessons learned assist you in your next venture. I think the criminal GOP tries to use every advantage and exploit every angle in every undertaking, whether obvious to the casual observer or not, whether illegal or not.

Yeah, I think poisoning the well was most likely part of the plan. With these creeps, you always have to look under the surface, you know, where the other cockroaches are.

Suggesting that Newt planned the impeachment to set up barriers to a future presidency not only gives him (and his repub pals) more credit than they deserve, but is just illogical. Hell, Newt lost his job in part because of the decision to pursue impeachment. And it would cut both ways - they would be making it harder for them to try to impeach a Democratic president, which we would've had but for the SCOTUS.

Long term planning is not any politician's forte. They live for what they can get in the next day or week, not years ahead.

..... balls in a bight leading to his lost job.

Its really hard to know. I can see the theory in the OP being the essentail truth ...... and I can also see your notion that "Long term planning is not any politician's forte. They live for what they can get in the next day or week, not years ahead" being the essence of it.

dupe

Newt's "revolutionaries" were high on their own hot air, and wanted "payback" for Nixon, Bork, the legitimate investigations of Reagan/Bush, and their usual projection of their own loathesome proclivities onto liberals and Democrats, and pushed through bullshit charges because that's all they could get.

After Watergate and Iran Contra, the GOOP was tired of being investigated and wanted to turn this law on its head and they did. It really began to happen when Fiske was replaced as the IP in the Whitewater case with Starr and the "scope" widened turning the Special Prosecutor into the Grand Inquisitor. He took on any and every little thing he could to find something/anything on Clinton. They couldn't do it on "filegate" or "travelgate" or a dozen other "scandals" that never proved to be them...but the investigations still went on until they finally came up with a blue dress and "is is".

IMHO Gnewt thought he could embarass Clinton out of the job...encouraging Starr to leak GJ testimony and then letting the entire referal be released publicly...still a porn classic. Then he thought he could create a public "outrage" that would push Clinton out and the harder they tried the more it backfired.

IRC, Gingrich actually didn't want the actual impeachment...that was driven by DeLay...especially after the GOOP lost seats in the '98 election. DeLay also wanted to screw up the system so bad the Independent Prosecutor law would expire and never be restored. I think DeLay was calling the shots here and also used this inquisition to push Gingrich out of the way.

this shit we're in today didn't just happen. theres people who have been setting the groundwork for where they have us now for a long time. the same crew for the most part was with nixon, ford raygun bush1 and now dimson, that fact alone should send up red flags in anyones mind as to whats really going on here.

eventually get to the bottom of it, unless it gets us to the bottom first.

is to scare off further proceedings

Blame/cause/intention can be argued forever, but the underlying fact that it *has* poisoned the impeachment well is true.