« Cheney's Role | Main | When Does Killing Pain Become Killing? »
July 09, 2007
Bush and Congress
Incidentally, I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea (though I think the media should discuss the prospect of impeachment a whole lot), but what exactly is Megan talking about here?
Impeaching either the president or the vice president will take up all the time of the Congress for the next six months. That means not getting things done that presumably most of my progressive friends would like to see. It also means not having any achievements to show the electorate next year except . . . impeaching Bush.
Exactly how does Megan think Congress is working now? The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War, passing anti-corruption legislation, and instituting a series of popular, if small, pieces of economic populism (increase in the minimum wage, Medicare bargaining, etc). Bush has stymied every one. And because Democrats don't have 60+ votes in the Senate, literally nothing has gone through. He has, in every way, used his control of the executive branch to thwart the clear will of the electorate. To say that he shouldn't be impeached because, well, that would keep Congress from actually getting things done is truly off-base.
July 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I think, more to the point, it would make it easier for Republicans to convince the public that the not-getting-things-done is all the Democrats' fault.
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Jul 9, 2007 11:31:36 AM
But it's not like you get to remove Bush and then carry out your legislative agenda. What you get is a failed attempt at removal and then the lame excuse that "we weren't getting anything passed anyway, so at least we tried to remove the roadblock." Not to mention, you hardly want to create the appearance that you impeached the President for obstructing your legislative agenda.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 9, 2007 11:33:27 AM
Presumably, the Democrats knew that Bush would still be president when they took over the Congress? Why is anyone surprised that he finally located his veto pen only after the Dems took control?
Posted by: mike | Jul 9, 2007 11:35:13 AM
THEY are 'Paper'...whatevers
Because Bush never signs the papers
[unless it's with a 'signing statement']
So f*ck yeah, impeach the bastards,
Ya got nuthin; better to do.
Posted by: has_te | Jul 9, 2007 11:43:55 AM
People who say impeachment is a bad idea have been hoodwinked by the Clinton experience into believing impeachment is a political matter.
But Bush needs to be impeached for the sake of the constitution. There is no excuse at this point: leave his executive actions and power-grabbing intact and you only ask for further trouble later when another president pushes things even further and it is even harder to muster an impeachment because Bush wasn't impeached.
Impeachment says the president has overstepped the constitution. And this president has done that. It is imperative to impeach him. It is, indeed, the duty of congress to impeach him.
Posted by: Callimaco | Jul 9, 2007 11:46:05 AM
How about the president should be impeached because, you know, he has brazenly committed about a half dozen solidly impeachable offences?
Posted by: ChowChowChow | Jul 9, 2007 11:47:05 AM
Incidentally, I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea
The problem is the definition of what 'would' is. Would impeachment proceedings have been a bad idea yesterday? Would they be it today? Would they be tomorrow? Entirely different questions. The answer to the latter is not just a matter of Fate and whether the press talks about it of their own volition (both are kind of the same thing). I don't know if initiating impeachment proceedings will ever, in the next 18 months, be an unimpeachably good idea, politically. But I'm positive that Democrats need to be seriously aggressive in the next 18 months, so as to offer an active alternative (as opposed to a default alternative) to the Republicans - not simply in terms of policy, but in terms of attitude. 'Strong and wrong' may beat 'weak and right', but Strong and Right demolishes either. The only reason we're talking seriously about impeachment right now is that there was a poll, and not one promped by anything Democrats have done. Beltway Democrats: impeach or don't, but enough with the Andante Timoroso, OK?! If you want to see how it's done, take a look at John Edwards, and learn from him, rather than hating him. You're going to get bupkis done (substantively) in this congress anyway, so...direct confrontation, please. Maybe Harry Reid is starting to get the idea.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Jul 9, 2007 11:49:49 AM
I don't think Bush should be impeached - yet.
But there's been a peculiar phenomenon happening these last couple of years: the American public has started forming opinions for itself. Most of the influential pundits and media outlets still relentlessly cheerlead the Iraq War, and many still paint Bush as a principled leader. Obviously that's not working anymore. Even the stranglehold that talk radio has had on conservatives' opinions is weakening.
Now, with Pelosi and Reid refusing to consider impeachment, with no discussion of the possibility in the mainstream press, over 40% of the country favors the start of impeachment proceedings against Bush, with over 50% favoring the same against Cheney. That's already far more than ever supported the Clinton impeachment.
If Pelosi and Reid were truly smart, they would wait a little while for the public's opinion to settle decisively upon impeachment, and then go for it. It needn't take long, especially since there's no way for it to succeed. Just draw up the articles and have a vote. Let the American public see exactly who wants to act according to the rule of law and who will support Bush/Cheney in defiance of the Constitution and their own constituents.
Even if they started proceedings today I don't think the Democratic Party would lose a single vote next year, as long as the Dems in Congress stand together on it and make it very clear what they're doing and how the GOP is blocking it.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 9, 2007 11:56:46 AM
The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War, passing anti-corruption legislation, and instituting a series of popular, if small, pieces of economic populism (increase in the minimum wage, Medicare bargaining, etc). Bush has stymied every one.
Didn't they get the mimnimum wage increase through with the Iraq supplemental?
Posted by: Don | Jul 9, 2007 12:02:18 PM
But Bush needs to be impeached for the sake of the constitution.
Bush -- or more accurately, getting rid of him -- is the agenda.
We can spend so much time 'governing the country' that we don't even notice that there's no country left -- or none we recognized -- to govern.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Jul 9, 2007 12:08:09 PM
I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea (though I think the media should discuss the prospect of impeachment a whole lot)
Agreed, and agreed.
To say that he shouldn't be impeached because, well, that would keep Congress from actually getting things done is truly off-base.
I think that was a valid objection back in January (and I made it then). Now, not so much.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 9, 2007 12:16:01 PM
Bush is blocking anti-corruption legislation? On what planet is that happening? You know perfectly that the Democrats have no interest in any sort of reform legislation. You must think that, in an atmosphere of mutual congratulation like this blog, you can spout any lie you want and no one will call you.
Posted by: y81 | Jul 9, 2007 12:44:43 PM
I think the point about the politization of the impeachment process is very astute. One might be forgiven for wondering if that was a contributing motive in the GOP's imeachment of Clinton. Certainly it was obvious that there was no public ground swell in favor of it at the time. While I tend to think that the GOP House rank in file was, by and large simply posturing, it was always a mystery why the upper echelon of the party leadership allowed such a losing proposition to go forward.
It's important to remember that we are standing at the end of a long path that leads from Watergate through Iran Contra to where we are now. It may be difficult for some to recall, looking back through the haze of postumous deification, but the common beltway wisdom in the early days of Reagan was "We can't afford another failed presidency." This rationale was used to insulate Reagan from criticism during the 81-82 recession, after the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, etc. It was in play throughout the Iran-Contra scandal as well.
I think that there has always been a significant faction among the elites that felt the real problem with Watergate was not what Nixon did but what was done to him and, by extension, to what used to be described as the "Imperial Presidency".
What I think certain is that the way events have unfolded, from Iran-Contra through the Clinton Impeachment and the first six years of the Bush regime, has eroded the ability of Congress to fufill its Constitutional role as a check on the Executive. Under present circumstances it is difficult to imagine that Richard Nixon would have ever been called to account for his actions, much less forced to resign.
I'm equally convinced that this is a state of affairs quite satisfactory to a majority of our elite classes.
The question of impeachment is, at this point, not merely one of politics. It rises to the level of being a question of fundamental institutional legitimacy. This dawning realization may well account for the growth in public sentiment for impeachment, even as our elites scurry to damp down discussion of such.
The current level of public sentiment on the question is sufficient that the issue of impeachment must now be considered seriously. That is, if we still hold that Governments draw their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. If this sentiment continues to grow, I do not see how it can be ignored without jettisoning this principle. Along with it will go the original structure of the Republic as a tripartite unity of co-equal branches and the "Imperial Presidency" will be institutionalized as a political fact of life.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 9, 2007 1:19:25 PM
Your arguments convince me that Galt's arguments against impeachment are without merit.
Now what are your arguments against it ("Bad Idea")?
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | Jul 9, 2007 1:51:19 PM
They politicized it first. They will never learn if you lay back and take it, refusing to give them a taste of their own medicine. You all don't look wise, you look like a pathetic little victims defending their attackers. You get what you give, and you give what you get. If you don't, the GOP will just keep ignoring precedent, ignoring the law, and ignoring the will of the American People. In the end, it's people like you all, too interested in being "good people" to actually fight for anything, that are killing Democracy. These people are evil, they are playing the exact part that is expected of them. You're the ones who are failing to uphold your part in this equation.
Posted by: soullite | Jul 9, 2007 3:15:15 PM
Bush is blocking anti-corruption legislation? On what planet is that happening? You know perfectly that the Democrats have no interest in any sort of reform legislation. You must think that, in an atmosphere of mutual congratulation like this blog, you can spout any lie you want and no one will call you.
At first I thought Ezra Klein was just being sloppy as Bush signed the minimum wage increase into law and had nothing to do with the anti-corruption legislation. But as he chose to emphasize “every one” and has yet to correct his post, I suspect he was just being dishonest.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | Jul 9, 2007 3:30:55 PM
"The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War,..."
Absolutely. Just ask Senator Lamont.
Posted by: Don | Jul 9, 2007 3:37:05 PM
soullite:
Are we too interested in being "good people" or "good political actors?" Sometimes, pushing a battle to its bitter end is worth it, and sometimes it's not. I would rather fight it out on healthcare or immigration than on impeachment. You can't win, or even fight, every battle so it's important to put thought into which ones you want to fight. Feel free to defend the position that impeachment is an important battle as there are many reasons and people that would support you. But please don't take the "you people" attitude with those who disagree with your position.
Posted by: joe | Jul 9, 2007 3:38:08 PM
People who say impeachment is a bad idea have been hoodwinked by the Clinton experience into believing impeachment is a political matter. - Callimaco
But impeachment is a political matter. Which is why all this talk about "we gotta wait for the courts to decide that Taylor can testify before we call her" is non-sense. Congress doesn't need to build a legal case in which refusal to testify as testimony would break privilege cannot be construed as evidence of wrongdoing. It needs to build a political case that this President and VP are so bad that we cannot even wait 18 months to get rid of them -- and having some poor political appointee saying "I'd love to answer that question but my former bosses will see to it that my law license is revoked if I do" over and over again and the Dems. saying over and over again "if Bush & CO have nothing to hide, they'd let you testify" makes the political case that needs to be made -- so that anything remotely associated with Bush & CO (i.e. any reactionary politician) is radio-active.
Of course, we don't want to see impeachment as a political matter if we are trying to use it. But that's just falling into the GOP trap that politics is teh evil. The GOP has, by turns abusing the political process (including the political process of impeachment) and by turns encouraging people to think of the political process as futile if not evil, done whatever it can to descredit that process ... because they ideologically hate the very notion of governance as they really want to return to pre-feudal "liberties" in which the Lord of the Manor can do whatever he wants without reciprocal obligations, while everybody else is kept in line by public religion. The New Deal idea that government can build and referee an industrial society, etc., is anethema to them as they don't want that kind of society.
Even if our Founding Fathers were a bit libertarian for the tastes of us modern liberals, they certainly did not view the political process this way. What the GOP is trying to do in discrediting the political process is, frankly, un-American. That impeachment, e.g., is political, is precisely the point. As Madison put it: "ambition must be made to check ambition". That the GOP abused the political process of impeachment should not distract us from remembering impeachment is a political process designed to serve, as are many political processes in this country, as a bullwork of liberty.
And, call me paranoid but perhaps this abuse with the goal of discrediting the political process of impeachment was not a bug but a feature of going after Clinton. E.g. Bush & CO hated Clinton so much they would refuse to do things like keep an eye on Al Qaeda, simply because Clinton did it which means it was bad. But look at how Bush & CO defended (quietly) Clinton's more imperial assertions of Presidential power.
Somehow, according to the punditocracy, etc., Congress attacking the Pres. for political gain is considered a bad thing. And yes, the GOP Congress did go overboard. But let us not loose site that dismissal of "political gamesmanship", not the gamesmanship itself, is what is un-American. Impeachment is a political process, and that's the point as Madison, et al., could tell us.
Posted by: DAS | Jul 9, 2007 4:41:52 PM
The GOP has, by turns abusing the political process (including the political process of impeachment) and by turns encouraging people to think of the political process as futile if not evil, done whatever it can to descredit that process ... because they ideologically hate the very notion of governance as they really want to return to pre-feudal "liberties" in which the Lord of the Manor can do whatever he wants without reciprocal obligations, while everybody else is kept in line by public religion.
If you really believe that you should add it to your list of what makes you paranoid.
Your argument seems to be that the we shouldn't let the fact that the Republicans abused the impeachment process keep us from using it the same way. Or do you see some important difference?
The founders didn't intend impeachment to be a substitute for politics. That approach will lead to the impeachment of every president.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 9, 2007 5:23:57 PM
Again, I am forced to agree (accept for the paranoid part) with Sanpete. The impeachment process is meant to address specific allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors, and not as I understand the provisions, concepts of general feelings that the President may have done something wrong. It makes the standard too vague otherwise and overly broad in its application. The bar for this must be incredibly high bordering almost smoking gun to meet or else it is reduced to just a political ploy by either party. As I have said in the prior diary, the other realities are also applicable. This is not the only method available for addressing either Bush- there are investigations, censure and other tools which could accomplish the same result.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 9, 2007 5:44:56 PM
I agree that we need to keep our powder dry.
btw Sanpete, how would the impeachment of GWB be a substitute for politics? If there was ever a clear cut case for impeachment, its been staring us in the face for the last few years.
Posted by: x | Jul 9, 2007 5:47:17 PM
x- let me do a thought experiment- name the high crimes and misdemeanors that you think Bush has violated?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 9, 2007 6:02:57 PM
X, you can get to the same place by answering akaison's question, but I'll skip to the conclusion as I see it. The reasons people have for wanting to impeach Bush/Cheney come down to what are for now political differences. Lying about the war is often given as a reason, but that's not illegal, is a common part of politics and, in this case, I doubt very much that Bush and Cheney were saying things they didn't believe. It boils down to a political difference. There are some legal arguments regarding FISA and such, but they all involve controversial legal doctrines that tend to break down along partisan lines. The doctrines haven't been settled in the legal system. (Maybe they will be settled someday.)
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 9, 2007 6:20:06 PM
From impeachment in the House, to Senate trial and acquittal in the Clinton case, took just under 60 days.
We have that timespan, tenfold, with Bush and Cheney.
In fact, they should open up an impeachment inquiry on Cheney, Gonzales and Bush tomorrow. Let it go on for 100 days. (Thanks to Ken Starr's witchhunt, there was no impeachment inquiry on Clinton.) At the end of 100 days, begin impeachment in the House.
If we get to a Senate verdict within two months of the House impeachment, there's still over a year left in their terms.
I'd like to see the Democrats TRY to impeach the worst war criminals ever to occupy the White House -- even in a losing effort -- than not to try at all.
Posted by: Michael Scott | Jul 9, 2007 6:26:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
