« Bill Clinton and Iraq | Main | Song of the Day: Middle Distance Runner »
July 08, 2007
Impeachment Talk
Given the surprisingly high numbers supporting the activation of impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush (and the actual plurality in favor of impeaching Cheney), it's fair to say that impeachment isn't a marginal position anymore. After all, a large tax on gasoline polls far lower than 39 percent, but elite pundits have no problem talking through and popularizing the idea. Which is a good thing.
Part of why it's useful to have an unelected media is that they can air potentially unpopular proposals so the public has time to learn more and decide how they'd react, and politicians can make a more informed decision on whether to pursue such legislative avenues. Impeachment proceedings, particularly in light of this poll (and we know how the media looooooves talking polls), should get some chattering class attention -- and not just in the "those-crazy-liberals" sense. When it's 40 percent of the country, it ain't crazy. It's more than currently support the Iraq War, which the president insists on continuing, and given what a radical option impeachment is, such high rates of support deserve considerable examination.
This is all different, to be sure, than whether we should actually impeach Bush. Unlike Matt, I'm actually more a fan of the Impeach Cheney option. Many of the worst abuses originated in his office, both polls and intuition suggest it's a more political appealing route, and the actual impacts of erasing Cheney would be considerably more positive than impeaching Bush and thus elevating Cheney.
Update: Stephen comments:
Us rubes in the heartland don't count, unless we're a prop used in a column to tell us what we're supposed to think.
Maybe the next step in press management is to begin keeping tabs on the travels of major American political commentators and then orchestrate their entrance into cabs where the drivers will spout pre-written, pithy statements in favor of such things as universal health care, impeachment, etc.
July 8, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Impeachment proceedings, particularly in light of this poll (and we know how the media looooooves talking polls), should get some chattering class attention -- and not just in the "those-crazy-liberals" sense. When it's 40 percent of the country, it ain't crazy.
Oh, dream on. Us rubes in the heartland don't count, unless we're a prop used in a column to tell us what we're supposed to think.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 8, 2007 2:24:23 PM
When it's 40 percent of the country, it ain't crazy.
Sure, look at the pre-Iraq War polling on whether we should invade Iraq. I assume by "ain't crazy" you mean that it isn't only crazy people who support it. But impeaching Bush or Cheney is still crazy. The solid charges aren't there to make it do anything but backfire.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 2:42:18 PM
More talk and some action on impeachment might also be good for 'focusing' the attention of Bu$hCo on how they might be decorating the historical view of the Bush/Cheney imperium that GWB seems to care so much about.
Obviously it would be very bad to impeach Bush without first impeaching Cheney. Unless we go for a two-fer.
Unfortunately trying to get Cheney impeached would be met with a blizzard of 'you can't do that' arguments ranging from the proverbial ridiculous to the outrageous - Cheney has no independent authority and is only an agent of Bush, to the fourth branch argument, with a sprinkle of 'go fuck yourself'.
My choice is the two-fer: all or nothing. Neurenberg had multiple criminals on trial at once....
I read somewhere that Fred Fielding is readying an argument that neither Pelosi nor Reid can succeed to the presidency because of mumble mumble.
I like (idle) threats too. "If you provoke or attack Iran we WILL impeach you and the horse you rode in on." (Whoops, can't be: Georgie is afraid of horses).
Sunday afternoon fantasies are so much fun. And then Monday comes.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 8, 2007 2:46:57 PM
Well, I have a few thoughts on this here. The problem is, of course, the lack of sufficient senate votes for conviction. There's a way to get around this of course. See what I have to say and then tell me what you think, here or there.
Posted by: Joshua Whalen | Jul 8, 2007 3:03:50 PM
I assume by "ain't crazy" you mean that it isn't only crazy people who support it. But impeaching Bush or Cheney is still crazy.
Something is "crazy" until it isn't and then it is simply considered conventional wisdom. The consequences to impeaching Bush or Cheney are considerably fewer and less problematic than the consequences of invading Iraq or raising gasoline taxes.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 8, 2007 3:11:04 PM
All three named officials should be impeached simultaneously, thus leaving House Speaker Pelosi as acting president going into the November elections, which will prevent fraud or last minute "dirty tricks" from influencing the outcome.
Joshua, there is no such office as "acting president." Impeachment wouldn't remove anyone from office or prevent them from acting in office unless there was a conviction, which you say won't happen.
Something is "crazy" until it isn't and then it is simply considered conventional wisdom.
Thus the analogy to the conventional wisdom about invading Iraq, Tyro. That Iraq is worse doesn't make impeachment not crazy.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 3:15:01 PM
That Iraq is worse doesn't make impeachment not crazy.
Huh? Yes, it might make you sound crazy to people who worry about what the neighbors will think. However, the practical consequences of impeachment are far, far lower than other policies which are regarded as "reasonable." Thus, by any practical definition, impeachment, too, can be considered reasonable.
There may be, of course, intangible consequences to supporting impeachment (eg, the "what will my conservative neighbors think issue), but for the most part, I am going to discount those in favor of (a) no one will die, (b) less damage to the economy, (c) little government expense, and (d) possible means of stopping the damage currently being wrought by the executive branch.
If, on the other hand, the bar for "crazy" is reached by wearing white pants after labor day, then even discussing impeachment is going to be too much for your precious sensibilities to bear. But then, I never heard you railing against the Iraq war. In fact, you support its continued prosecution. But not impeachment. Makes you seem pretty crazy.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 8, 2007 3:25:23 PM
Sanpete, you keep writing in ways that suggest you think that a sound, sensible, honest, vigorous Democratic campaign for 2008 would get fair and honest press coverage. I think that's a delusion. Nothing the Democrats do or refrain from doing will make the press feel any obligation to be fair or even factual about campaign issues and candidates. Playing to the media establishment and the commentariat is an automatic loss. The audience should be the public at large, and right now, if a Democratic were to come out forthrightly for the end of war and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the public wouldn't have anything stronger than "Welcome! Where ya been?" to say.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Jul 8, 2007 3:30:57 PM
Sanpete, thanks for responding to my posting, but you are quite mistaken. Al Gore was acting president during Clinton's trial in the Senate. In the event of impeachment, and that is impeachment, and NOT conviction, the line of succession is Veep, House Speaker, President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Check the Wikipedia or the Library of Congress for details. I did.
I should mention here, that, while not an attorney myself, I have worked very closely with a number of very prestigious constitutional lawyers and am regarded by most as a peer. Among these is attorney Harry Kresky, who handled the voting rights cases of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader,and numerous others. I know a bit about this stuff.
Posted by: Joshua Whalen | Jul 8, 2007 3:40:43 PM
Tyro, you seem to be unable to consistently distinguish what seems crazy to people and what is crazy in fact. Impeachment, however many normal people may support it and take it seriously, is unlikely to accomplish anything very useful; it will risk making its objects actually more sympathetic (can't make them much less than they are); and it will definitely reveal the Democrats who push it to be abusers of power while trying to make that charge against Bush. There aren't any solid grounds for impeachment. It would be stupid and harmful to impeach without solid charges.
Bruce, I don't share the paranoia common to both the Left and Right about the media, but even if your fears were true, that would only be all the more reason to not do something reckless like impeach. You think impeachment would get more favorable coverage somehow?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 3:41:58 PM
Joshua, since you've already done the research, please post your sources for what still appears to me to be a mistaken view of impeachment.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 3:48:46 PM
Sanpete, I just did. Please post your for why you believe I am mistaken.
Posted by: Joshua Whalen | Jul 8, 2007 3:59:08 PM
Sanpete,
Better trolls please!!
You can't even get your facts straight. As things stand right now, the line of succession after the Smirking Chimp goes as follows: Darth Vader, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Pro Tem Robert Byrd. Second, the charges are there. The problem is getting to 67 votes in the Senate. If you didn't have your head up your ass, you'd know that. Why would it backfire? Because Limpd-ck and Sean Insanity would howl? They are gonna howl no matter what. The Smirking Chimp is in Nixon approval ratings territory. The only thing to lose is the legitimacy of the law if they don't even attempt impeachment.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Jul 8, 2007 4:08:36 PM
How many of those polled understood what impeachment means or understood that it's the begining of the proceedings not the end or that it would take a lmost as long to impeach as the time Bush has left in office?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 8, 2007 4:40:52 PM
Sanpete, are you saying its crazy because there won't be a conviction and there will be a backlash against Democrats for trying and failing? Or are you saying its crazy because there are no legitimate grounds to impeach?
Joshua, I looked at wikipedia, and they make no mention of an "acting President" when the President is under impeachment. I saw no Library of Congress discussion of this, either. The Constitution only mentions an Acting President in the 25th Amendment and that is only when the President is incapacitated. Wikipedia lists only two VPs every serving as Acting President under the 25th: George HW Bush for Reagan and Cheney for George W. Bush when each for a day when the President underwent colon procedures.
I think your confusing "presiding over the trial" with being "President of the United States," which is why you argue for impeaching the Chief Justice simultaneously with the Pres. and VP (btw, the Chief Justice is Roberts, not Scalia.) The Chief Justice presides over the trial of the President but does not serve as President during the trial. The President stays President until convicted.
Posted by: Elm | Jul 8, 2007 4:50:05 PM
'your' should clearly be 'you're' in the above post.
I am duly shamed.
Posted by: Elm | Jul 8, 2007 4:51:17 PM
In light of all of this data why do Obama and Pelosi poo-pooh impeachment? Pelosi states that Bush is not worth our time. Does this mean that the constitution is not worth her time as well? Obama, recently made statements that essentially implied that only the nutty lefties want impeachment. Isn't this off base? Another argument is that 2008 presidental election will clear the decks in favor of Democrats. However, what happens if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? This is not inconcievable. Without impeachment of Bush or Cheney the constitution will be on hiatus for the remainer of Bush's term in Office.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 8, 2007 4:55:40 PM
Sanpete, I think that impeachment (like an honest call for real withdrawal from Iraq) would get hellaciously bad press coverage and also earn widespread public support, because a growing majority of the public is clearly no longer taking the lead of coverage when it comes to their attitudes. If the goal is to win a majority of votes, then agreeing with the majority and acting on their behalf - when (as here) the goal is clearly moral and desirable - seems far more sensible than trying to get a fair shake from a press corps and commenting society that've demonstrated active hostility to anything of the sort.
The public's heading this way. The constitution supports it. It is clearly the intent of the Founders. It's a damn good idea. We should do it...and yes, I say that even though right now there's no prospect of it succeeding in the Senate. We should start on it now and see if we can shift things toward victory, and if not, make the defeat one more thing for the public to hate the Republicans for.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Jul 8, 2007 5:17:43 PM
Mr. Conscience, I can't tell what facts you're trying to straighten out, or why you think there are solid charges to impeach on. Impeachment would backfire because the lack of solid charges and the basically political motives of impeachment would become clear.
Sanpete, are you saying its crazy because there won't be a conviction and there will be a backlash against Democrats for trying and failing? Or are you saying its crazy because there are no legitimate grounds to impeach?
Both, Elm. Bush may have done things that are illegal, but that depends on some views controversial enough not to give a good basis for impeachment. Unless we have evidence that they are intentionally doing what they believe to be illegal, or ignoring court rulings, the courts are the proper place to go after the Administration for breaking the law.
Bruce, it isn't morally desirable to settle what ought to be settled in courts by impeachment. Neither is it at all practical in this case. Democrats would look worse, not better, by bringing charges more political than legal in basis.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 5:35:14 PM
What I'm citing in both Wikipedia and the US Constitution is the line of succession when the president is incapacitated and/or removed from office. While under impeachment (which is the same as indictment, basically) the president IS removed from office for the duration of his trial in the Senate. Being the defendant in a criminal case (that's what is going on since the only legitimate cause of removal is "Treason, Bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors", all of which are criminal, as opposed to civil, causes of action) one is definitely incapacitated as one is in the Senate chamber, participating in ones defense and confronting the witnesses against one. One is NOT in the oval office, carrying out the duties of the presidency. If anyone here has times select or any other paid research tool, look up the details of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Al Gore was briefly president during the trial.
I'll see if I can find an exact cite on Wiki, but I'm absolutely sure of my facts on this.
Posted by: Joshua Whalen | Jul 8, 2007 5:52:10 PM
>Bush may have done things that are illegal, but that >depends on some views controversial enough not to give >a good basis for impeachment. Unless we have evidence >that they are intentionally doing what they believe to >be illegal, or ignoring court rulings, the courts are >the proper place to go after the Administration for >breaking the law.
snipped
>>Democrats would look worse, not better, by bringing >charges more political than legal in basis.
>Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 5:35:14 PM
BTW, Sanpete, the process of impeachment and trial is part of the process by which the finer points of legality are determined. It's called "Case Law". Look it up. It's what courts, trials, appeals, and lawyers are all about. Determining case law.
Posted by: Joshua Whalen | Jul 8, 2007 6:05:36 PM
As Omar said, if you come at the king, you best not miss.
I oppose impeachment because impeachment would fail. This is not about the merits, this is about getting 17 republicans to vote for the impeachment of their party leaders. This is about the Fraud Caucus growing a spine and standing up for what they believe in - if they can't even do it on Iraq, where the polling is insane and the merits are indisputable, why should we think that the Domenicis and Voinoviches of the world would ever vote for impeachment?
Politics is a game that is played to win. You have to understand the underlying rules and structures. Impeachment is set up to fail, and it's a bad idea to pursue it.
The Democrats should continue to aggressively investigate Bush and Cheney, and tie their failures and crimes around the necks of Republican candidates in 2008. Maybe, maybe some freakish smoking gun evidence comes out and the situation changes and impeachment becomes possible. I certainly don't think it should be off the table in any situation.
But until there's reason to think that the Fraud Caucus will stand with the Democrats (and the American people) on a binding vote of any sort, why should we think they'll do so on impeachment?
Posted by: DivGuy | Jul 8, 2007 6:15:00 PM
Joshua,
The 25th Amendment does not say that impeachment is a form of incapacitation. The only ways that the 25th becomes operative is if the President himself declares that he is incapacitated or if the VP and a majority of the Cabinet declare him to be incapacitated. Which of these occurred when Clinton was impeached? I do not believe either.
Being busy is not being incapacitated. Being "NOT in the oval office, carrying out the duties of presidency" is not being incapacitated. The President remains President when traveling out of the country, when negotiating with foreign leaders, when delivering the State of the Union, when sleeping, when clearing brush on his "ranch."
Googling 'Gore "Acting President"' shows no mention of Gore serving as acting President during the impeachment (at least on the first few pages of hits), though lots of discussion about how he or Bush could become acting President during the 2000 recount controversy.
And if we're using wikipedia as the definitive source, then I repeat that they claim that the 25th has only been invoked twice, both for one-day medical procedures, neither for Gore becoming acting President.
Posted by: Elm | Jul 8, 2007 6:23:42 PM
Sanpete, impeachment may not be successful. It might not even be the best option. However, that does not make it "crazy." The sooner you accept that impeachment is part of the mainstream for those outside of the Beltway, the sooner your opinions are going to be listened to around here.
"Ooooo.... there might be a backlash" does not make something "scary." It's merely speculation on your part and the consequences of a hypothetical backlash aren't really that bad. Good politics? Maybe. Bad politics? possibly. Crazy? No.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 8, 2007 7:34:22 PM
The sooner you accept that impeachment is part of the mainstream for those outside of the Beltway, the sooner your opinions are going to be listened to around here.
Tyro, you continue to fail to distinguish what people think is sane and what is sane. I haven't disputed that impeachment is a mainstream idea, just as invading Iraq was. Fortunately it's not nearly as popular as that idea was.
I'm not very interested in whether you listen to my opinions. I'm interested in giving and responding to good arguments.
I don't know why you bring up "scary." Backlash isn't the only reason I've given that impeachment is crazy.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 8, 2007 8:33:07 PM
