Ouch! The right-wing's "Save the Surge" campaign took a hit today when ARG revealed that President Bush's approval rating had sunk to 25% in their polling. Of course, somebody could just say "that's George Bush, not the war."
But they would be mistaken. A just-published NYTimes/CBS finds that only 19% of the population thinks the surge is making things better.
As Bush Goes, So Goes the War. President Bush's popularity is a good barometer of the popularity of his war policies. Even if polls other than ARG don't find that Bush's popularity is in the mid 20's, the failure of Bush's approval ratings to rise means that the campaign to bolster the surge has not taken hold with the public.
Bush is the Problem. President Bush is not only commander-in-chief, he's also the no. 1 salesman for the war. In fall 2006, a Bush blitzkrieg was helping the Republicans until the Mark Foley scandal broke. This time, it's different though. The fact that Bush has been out more speaking on behalf of the war seems to be actually hurting his public standing. The other problem from the conservative point of view is that the popularity of Bush's war policy is being dragged down because of its association with Bush's many scandals. The fired prosecutor scandal, Jack Abramoff scandal, Scooter Libby commutation, and Hatch Act violations scandal are all dragging down the popularity of the war as well as the popularity of the President.
Impeachment is the Answer. If President Bush is one of the right-wing's main problems in promoting the war, the right-wing is in a bind. Believing that god is on his side in the war, Bush isn't going to resign. At the same time, Bush's unpopularity means that the war could be brought to a grinding halt any time Congress decides to stop funding it.
In this context, the right should support impeachment for Bush and Cheney. I'm serious. Bush and Cheney aren't doing the conservative movement any more good than they're doing the country as a whole. It is true that Nancy Pelosi opposes the war now, but the right could hope that Pelosi might change her mind if she gets to see the same intelligence data as Bush and Cheney and gets regular reports from the generals. Right now, a change of heart on the part of President Pelosi (sounds good doesn't it?) is pretty much the only hope the right has. If Clinton or Obama run on withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, they're going to have to carry through with it or face an extremely angry electorate. It would be better for the right to support impeachment now and deal with President Pelosi than get scorched in the 2008 elections and have to deal with a triumphant anti-war movement.
Of course, there's lots of grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney. Deceiving the country into going into war, the malfeasance with which Bush and Cheney have managed the war, the constantly evolving torture policy, the politicization of the Justice Department, the violations of the Hatch Act, and obstructing justice in the case of Scooter Libby are all impeachable offenses. Spokespeople for the right-wing should just announce that they've had the same kind of change of heart that Mitt Romney had on abortion, declare themselves to be "shocked, shocked" at the rampant criminality in the Bush administration, and start pushing for impeachment.
It's the only hope for their war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
As a fellow leftist, I agree with the impeachment position, any other course would require the lame duck democratic party to follow through - talk is pretty cheap, afterall.
Philosophically, and fundamentally speaking, my largest concern is really a question: Exactly how far must Dumb and Dumber go in their collection of impeachable offenses before the Republican party and the Senate take a stand? I remember the fears the Patriot Act incited- the idea of the glacial errosion of rights, that would cause America to be so subdued by numbness that we would no longer be able to identify present rights with past/lost rights. I think there is a correllary here- there are so many right wingers that have supported the current administration- through many a blunder both devastating and tragic in many cases- that to turn away now would mean it is just possible that previous acts of support were misguided. (No one loves to be wrong).
Likewise, I also believe there is a bit of romance remaining for the tragic hero. The right holds on because it is what the right does- they are old school.
I should study.
Impeachment is a tough road. For 16 Republicans to support impeachment, they would have to believe that Bush and Cheney committed a series of crimes, that impeachment would be in the long-term interests of the Republican Party, and that impeachment would be in their own short-term interest. As you mention, that would all be very difficult because Republicans would have to admit publicly that they were badly mistaken in Bush. I imagine a lot of them have already admitted the mistake in private.
Those 16 Republicans would be heroes, but there aren't enough GOP heroes in Washington to support removing Bush and Cheney from office. For years, as you and "Anonymous" point out Ric, Bush and Cheney have been intent on crushing all dissent, and it always happens the same way; relentless attacks until people ask themselves, do I want to subject myself to that kind of hell if I speak out? For years, they have driven us into situations in Iraq which were dire, then desperate, and now completley out of control. They have trampled on the Constitution like it was a doormat. Fear is what kept this administration in office in 2004, and fear is the only public discourse this administration understands and practices. Why debate, when you can dictate? Why follow the law, when you can act like you are above the law? The Founders intended impeachment to be used when those running the government forgot that they worked for the people, and the Founders intended impeachment to be used when those running the government acted as though they were above the law. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, there is more than enough here to draft articles of impeachment that would stand up in a Senate trial. The Vice President holds himself accountable to no one. The President permits the flagrant disregard of the Constitution. Congress is all we have and right now they aren't moving on this. I think they should, indeed, it may well be a smart long-term strategy for Republicans to abandon this travesty of an Administration and take their chances with President Pelosi and later President Clinton (II) or Obama, whoever it will be. There is a movement among a few Progressive members of the House of Representatives to impeach the Vice President, spearheaded by Congressman, and 2008 Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich and a few others. Here is a press release on the subject:
Kucinich: Impeachment Resolution Gains Momentum in House of Representatives
Washington, Jun 13 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Below is Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) statement from a press conference that he held with Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) today.
“Over a month ago, I stood up on behalf of the America people who were expressing concern about whether or not Congress was going to respond to the trampling of our Constitution that was going on.
“And the Articles of Impeachment that I introduced against the Vice President represented a response to the concerns of millions of Americans who have felt that the Vice President must be accountable for his false statements which accelerate the United States toward war by false claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, of false claims of Iraq’s connection to al Qaeda and 9/11 and false claims of Iraq’s intention to attack the United States.
“The Vice President’s statements with respect to beating the drums of war against Iran were also in the Articles of Impeachment.
“Since the introduction of the resolution the Vice President has continued along the path of conduct that led me to file the articles of Impeachment.
“The Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive us about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. And he openly lied to the America people and has publicly threatened aggression against Iran.
“Since the introduction, seven Members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution. They are Albert Wynn (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Maxine Waters (D-CA). Congresswomen Lee and Woolsey are co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the Democratic Party.
“And with me now is the most recent cosponsor of H.Res. 333 – a woman who’s the driving force in organizing Democrats to try to come up with a strategy to try and take this country out of Iraq – Maxine Waters.
“Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ support on this issue is of national significance. She has demonstrated a capacity for courage and determination that everyone knows and everyone respects. And I’m proud to have her join this effort.
“I believe this is another milestone. With the support of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus and the leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus we will see more and more Members of Congress signing on in this effort to save our Constitution and protect the very values that bind us as a nation.”
To see supporting documents for H.Res.333, Click Here.
Alas, I do not think this effort will go far though I applaud all involved for trying. My guess is we will simply have to endure until Hillary or Barak (or possibly John) assumes the Presidency on Jan 20, 2009. Till then...well that's what anti-depressants are for.
I welcome Rep. Pelosi introducing Articles of Impeachment. Put up or shut up. Why don't they get some stones and vote to defund the war? Your folks are running the House and the Senate, and so far, nada, zip, zero in the way of getting those troops you so desperately care about home.Let's see how well that lead balloon floats.
Governance by poll is not the answer, otherwise Congress would get run out of town long before the President.
After watching that debate tonight, I certainly hope you have something better up your sleeves for the 2008 election. Our political system operates best when there are at least 2 viable choices.
JD
I don't have a problem with the Democratic leadership. The House especially is passing legislation without going too far from the views of either their members or voters. The U.S. supposedly has a representive government and right now it's the Democrats doing the representing.
If I were you, I'd worry more about the Republican candidate being viable. According to Novak, Congressional Republicans expect Hillary to be elected president with bigger majorities in Congress. I think it's going to be Hillary 57-43 over either Giuliani or Fred Thompson. If it's Romney, I believe she'll win even bigger than that.
Ric,
Although I agree with your proposition re: impeachment, there are two factors working against it. The first problem is that impeaching the President will draw support to him. Moderates and independents who don't care for the President will rally to him (much as they did to Clinton and even Andrew Johnson). This isn't Watergate, where the case against the Pres was open and shut and obvious to everyone. This would be a complicated process and much of the information for the charges has been readily available for years (the NSA wiretapping, for instance, was clearly illegal). Since it has been out there for years, many moderates and listeners to talk radio can be readily convinced this is a political stunt and will be drawn to the "heroic" President.
Secondly, there the time issue. By the time Patreaus reports his "findings" in September, it will be too late for Bush. As it is, all he can do is fight rearguard actions in the Senate. He would fight impeachment in the House and Senate and delay it throughout the election year, allowing one of the intellectual flyweights (Guiliani or Thompson) to champion the office of the Presidency without championing the President, thus drawing support to the nominee.
Bush does not currently control policy and by next year Republicans will abandon him in droves. There is a grave political risk here and not enough time to make it worthwhile. A good lawyer knows the answer to a question before he/she asks it and this is one of those times where there are too mnay variables.
Two other things: Their resignations would be good for their party, especially if they appointed someone to office who wasn't running in 2008. It won't happen, though, because they cannot admit defeat.
The last thing I'd like to mention is an actual strategy that would and could work. In olden days when the King of England was a tyrant, it was inconceivable for the King's enemies to attack him. He was the anointed, after all, and the reason he was tyrannical or insane or just plain evil was that he had bad advice. His opponents would attack the King's ministers and, if successful, pass a bill of attainder and execute them. Thankfully, we live in more civilized time today. But, the principle is the same. Attacking Bush will make him more appealing to moderates (it might push that approval rating above 35%!). We all know (except for JD) that Cheney has been President since 2002 anyway. He is even more hated than Bush is and guilty of who knows what (obstruction of justice in the Plame case is a good starting point). Impeaching him would be politically popular, demonstrate the Dem Congress can take action, and make Republicans choose to be on the side of a guy who is loathed basically everywhere and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Cheney would still escape, because there aren't 16 Republicans who would vote against him, but placing his autocratic ass on the hot seat would be just and entertaining.
It's a better political strategy and wouldn't have the feeling of a coup. At least that's my opinion
Forgive JD. He has trouble understanding a lot of things. In this instance, it's the number of votes required for cloture. He needs Jeff Goldstein to tell him what to think.
60, fuckstick. How that is relevant to the Dems running the House and the Senate is not clear, but I have not even seen these lofty ideas introduced as legislation. Let them vote on impeachment. Let them vote to defund the war. Let them vote for an immediate withdrawal to Okinawa. Let them try Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Pelosi does not need 60 votes to do that, and if Harry cannot get it done, that is more indicative of an idea that lacks the requisite appeal to 60% of the Senate and a failure of leadership.
JD, the House has passed two bills to provide time lines for withdraw. The first was vetoed by your President. the second will be ignored now that cloture was not achieved in the Senate.
You want to see "leadership." Just wait until '09 when the Dems have those 60 votes. Do you have ANY idea how many Republicans are up for re-election this cycle. You republicans lost 5 of the 6 closely contested ones last year. I'll take that .833 average into November of 2008, along with riding a successful nominee's election. You'll see leadership and you'll wish you hadn't.
Timb, don't confuse JD with facts. He just likes to say fuckstick. You can see where people have tried to engage with him on substance and he just curses and cavorts about like a drunken ape.
Then do what it takes to get it passed. That is a failure of Reid and Pelosi's. The first was vetoed by OUR President, not mine. Ignored, or failed to receive the requisite number of votes to continue on the legislative path. Tomayto, tomahto. Now, push impeachment, push de-funding the war. I can assure you this, our troops will still be on the ground in '08, much to your chagrin, and if a Dem wins, let's see how quickly your dreams and desires come to light.
joshua - Timb and I are quite familiar with each other, and I speak to him with much greater respect than I would to you or the other sycophants of Prof. Ric.
JD
Are they going to impeach Bush in '09, timmah? That will be interesting.
Did I type that? If so, it was a typo. Then again, I suppose if he tries to stay President after January 21 of 2009, someone will say something.....
If impeachment of Bush and Cheney does happen, it will be because the Republicans push it. Obviously, the chances of that are very small. But looming political disaster does tend to focus people's minds.
Post a Comment