A strategic need to temporarily quiet the "impeachment" chorus...

What is it with us Dems that makes us blind to history?

We need to quiet the call for a Bush impeachment. Now, don't get pissed or fly off the handle - there is a strategy to this.

The wheels are flying off the Bush machine. It is now getting through how incompetent this administration is, but what we have to try and figure out is where the impeachment talk "tipping point" is and do not go beyond that. What I mean is, is that there is possibly a point where Bush impeachment talk will equal that of what happened to Clinton: where it causes his numbers to go back up and rally the party faithful.

Secondly, a full on bore rabid impeachment mode will only do one thing this November: rally the conservative base. What we want is for them to remain demoralized and think, "what the hell" when it comes to voting in November. But if we build this impeachment business into an unthinking frenzy, these people will become rabid and feel they must save their president and come out in full force, thereby re-electing a Rethug Congress.

Also, we need Bush for the November elections - this election should also be a referendum on his policies.

So we need to turn this back a bit and push for taking back Congress and if that is done, THEN start serious talk of impeachment.

but I doubt that will stop the flames

:hide:

If the American people want impeachment, they can push for it after November. But the whole regime may self disintegrate by then and we would only need to prosecute the criminals after that.

Impeachment backfired on the PUGS because the people were never behind it..never THe movement started with the RW thugs and remained there, while Clinton remained remarkably popular.

By contrast, the impeachment discussion is coming from the people--at a time when the vast majority of Americans are decidely opposed to Bush* and his policies.


Ok, a third... this is clearly what RNC wants us to believe. Impeachment might just bring along the record groundswell they most fear.

Having said that, these kind of things are not totally predictable. Thus, your bottom line point of letting ones enemy self-destruct when they are doing such a good job of it--without getting in the way--has merit.

I don't know which is the right way to go, strategically. But, everything in my core says that our "leaders" need to speak truth to power, damn the repercussions. Otherwise, they truly deserve the repug-propelled impression that Dems can't/won't lead.

nothing we do will matter since we know they will rig them again and again if not stopped. Here in Florida, we all want Cruella Daville (AKA Katherine Harris) to stay in the race because there is little chance she could win against Nelson (or almost anyone for that matter). But, if we haven't stopped the fraud by November, we could be facing her as Senator because of the probablity they will rig the machines again. We need election fraud to be front and center of the media- and of our conversations.

and over anticipating an issue. Events have a life of their own and this one is about to take off. You can't bottle up a volcano about to burst.

There is always a deep strategy for inaction in the Democratic Party. We continuously strategize ourselves into paralysis.

"What I mean is, is that there is possibly a point where Bush impeachment talk will equal that of what happened to Clinton: where it causes his numbers to go back up and rally the party faithful."

This is a republican talking point that you have internalized and are now regurgitating, probably without realizing it. The problem with it is that two key facts are completely different: 1) Clinton was popular before, during, and after the impeachment effort; 2) the case against Clinton was bullshit.

"Secondly, a full on bore rabid impeachment mode will only do one thing this November: rally the conservative base."

Misreading of polisci 101. The base is almost always motivated and is nearly impossible to move. Elections are about capturing the vast misinformed muddle-brained middle, not about motivating bases. The more we can break through the MSM barricade and get to the muddle-brained middle the meme that this is a corrupt incompetent criminal cabal that needs to be voted out of office, the better our chances are.

"Also, we need Bush for the November elections - this election should also be a referendum on his policies."

Bush aint going anywhere. Censure and Impeachment are SYMBOLIC PROPAGANDA - without a majority in both houses they have no chance of success. The point is to REFRAME THE DEBATE, the point is to make the november election a REFERENDUM ON BUSH.

Your below point was highly offensive and assumes a great deal.....

"This is a republican talking point that you have internalized and are now regurgitating, probably without realizing it. The problem with it is that two key facts are completely different: 1) Clinton was popular before, during, and after the impeachment effort; 2) the case against Clinton was bullshit."

What am I basing my thought on is over twenty years of watching, reading and studying politics.

Yes, Clinton's attempted impeachment was all bullshit, however, one thing we had back then was Clinton's OBVIOUS (finger waving denial) lies to the American people back yes, I know Bush has told lies that are obvious to me, but to many Americans for some odd reason they he is not quite there yet).

But when it comes time to get down and dirty, Bush's folks will have him come out and make declaration about what he has done for this country as far as protecting it. That while he might have went a little too far, he has went the extra mile to protects us. These folks will do it with such drama and theater that the American people will be against impeachment.

What so many forget is that these fuckers reduced John Kerry's combat experience to a weakness, just as they did Max Cleland. So this is a very dangerous spot to be running around in.

Here's how I see it: it's a field loaded with minds. The gold is at the other side. The activist liberals want to rush on through that minefield full bore, while instead we should carefully go through it in a methodical manner with good tactics.

reaching for the historian hat... if the tactics of the modern Democratic party were applied in 1932, FDR would not have been elected President. Study that race, and that is just one example.

The people are desperate for an alternative to the RNC, guess what, the DNC is failing... guess what? They are ready for an alternative... don't be too shocked if a third party emerges and takes over from either party... hell at this point, I would not be too shocked if BOTH parties are replaced by third parties. Unlikely, yes, but the history of this country is a harsh mistress... and right now the People want an alternative and the Dems are not stepping into the breach, why? We have to be careful, of WHAT?

And yes the Bush Junta will continue to lie, but the Bush Junta will learn soon just how much history they should have learned and refused to learn. History does repeat itself, and if they are not careful they will learn the lesson in a very poignant way... and the United States is about to learn what happens to EVERY empire... welcome to the future, it ain't a nice future.

Sometimes I wonder if a large part of politics is like that of religion - you have people that are in one group and people in another group. From time to time the people in each group get restless and look around for alternatives (churches) but never stray from the group.

And like you, right now, I don't think a third party has much of a chance in the US. The other two would destroy it. But it might be coming our way. Hopefully a more human oriented party is around the corner.

What I mean is, yes, many republicans may be dissatisfied, but they are going to look for other republicans, not Dems or third parties.

Now, what I'd really like to see is a well done study on why the fifty percent of the nation does not vote. Sadly, the reasons might be quite shocking and ones that aren't very helpful.

Lastly, comparing politics of today to 1932 leaves out a very different aspect of politics: how modern elections are ran. In some ways, the can't be compared. There are just too many relatively new aspects of politics going on today that did not exist back then (modern media, political consultants, et cetera).

where third parties will emerge, not the usual suspects, but you will see it... call it a knowledge of history.... what is unlikely is that BOTH major parties would be replaced like it happened to the Whigs, but one... is now in the cards.. and which one... depends on the people.

And as I said, if we used the same ideas on how to run the campaign in 1932 the Pubbies would have kept the WH... tactics, aka showing backbone, don't change that much

I think this man has no respect for any boundaries at all, this is clearly evident by his
record of the last 6 years. I am afraid that he will nuke Iran to get back a popular
majority in time for the 2006 elections, he is hoping that there will be major nuclear
strikes against this country and the nation will unite behind him as the war president
and will lead the republicans to victory as they did in 02 and 04.

nervous blue stater
liberal democrat

is a reality that we all have to live with. It is hard not to do this when we are barraged 24/7 by a highly effective propaganda machine designed to make us do exactly that.

The meme "impeachment increases the popularity of the president" was floated out there a few weeks ago in a coordinated media barrage. Within a week after its launch 'Democratic strategizers' were regurgitating it as their own. They do this mostly unconsciously, as I believe you have.

I'm sorry if you are offended at having been victimized by the media machine. If I have to take some heat for calling this out, oh well. No offense was intended. My intention was to let you know that this point is part of their disinformation campaign to deflect efforts like Russ Feingold's to reach the muddled middle with a message that might turn those voters in large numbers against their candidates.

No, you do not. You have no idea what I think. And for you to offer your remarks in this manner is heavily insulting.

You are not "calling me out" but are being condescending as hell.

And I'm not a victim of some bullshit "propaganda machine" or regurgitating their bullshit unconsciously.

Now, here is to show it: what I have seen is the Republican party take John Kerry, a combat veteran who saw WAR, and turn that into a weakness while facing a man who avoided combat. I have seen the Republican party eviscerate Max Cleland with a draft dodger - successfully. These people OWN a successful network (FoxNews) that will help them out even more.

What I am pointing out is that the Republican party will pull out the stops to protect their king and are quiet adept at doing so. And if we are not careful in doing this right they will be successful and just before the 2006 elections might not be the best time to do so. It looks like going the censure route might be the most effective one at this time.

I suggest in the future, if a person has a different opinion than you, you use a different method than insulting their intelligence and comprehension.

Of course I don't know you. I know your original post. I know the words you wrote. You posted a message that contained a republican talking point. I noted that fact. If you don't want to be criticized for the content of your messages, don't post. When you do post, expect the content of your posts to be analyzed. You may be criticized. Defend the content and stop taking it personally.

It is not "insulting their intelligence and comprehension" to say that a point you made is a bit of disinformation from the other side. The fact that you appear to not know that the meme "impeachment increases the president's popularity" is both false and a republican talking point is not my problem. I have not said that you are stupid, or that you are a republican or anything similar. I have instead said that we all fall victim to this crap and we should be aware of it.

The talking point "impeachment increases the president's popularity" is false. As I stated in my original response, and as has been stated by others in this thread, Clinton was popular before during and after his impeachment and the charges against Clinton were widely perceived outside the beltway punditocracy as TOTAL BULLSHIT. Neither condition applies to the current occupant of the white house. He is widely unpopular and the charges against him are massively serious. The beltway punditocracy, par for the course, have dismissed the charges against Bush with the same ferver that they pressed for Clinton's dismissal. Your point, republican disinformation meme or not, is just wrong.

was accuse another DU'er of being brain dead, sucking up Republican talking points and then regurgitating them back up. Then you more or less did call me stupid by stating a lot of this has been done unconsciously and as one eating up Republican crap.

What ticks me off is that at no point did you ask a clarification or anything. You assumed to predict what was in my mind while hurling offending comments. You did not analyze my words or offer constructive criticism.

And believe me, I have a thicker than hell skin - all my working career I have been surrounded by republicans and have let their crap roll right off.

Now, as for Clinton and Bush, yes there are some differences and sadly, some of them are not comparable. For example, if there were a Democratically controlled Congress during Clinton's blowjobs, then he would not have been put through the impeachment process. But that is hardly a good comparison to what is going on now.

"Now, as for Clinton and Bush, yes there are some differences and sadly, some of them are not comparable. For example, if there were a Democratically controlled Congress during Clinton's blowjobs, then he would not have been put through the impeachment process. But that is hardly a good comparison to what is going on now."

You originally stated that there was a risk that Bush's popularity would improve as a result of his being impeached. That point has been made recently and repeatedly by various Republican mouthpieces, and the evidence of that risk is 'look at what happened to Clinton'. In fact that - Clinton's rise in popularity during his impeachment - would be the only supporting evidence as the previous presidential impeachments - Johnson preceded polling data, and the near impeachment of Nixon was associated with his polling plunge into the low 20's - either provide no information or disprove the point. Clinton was quite popular before being impeached, while being impeached and after being impeached, while Bush is in the low 30's and sinking. There is little evidence for the risk you asserted in your original post.

You touch upon but simply don't discuss the fact that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob while Bush has committed actual high crimes and misdemeanors. You leave untouched the obvious glaring difference that there is in fact a constitutional crisis here and that without action by congress through either censure or impeachment or both our republic is in serious danger of degenerating into an executive branch dictatorship. The case against Bush is profound, not trivial, and demands our attention regardless of the political consequences of our ethical obligation to do what is right in this situation.

I am not going to address your upset other than to say please stop putting words in my mouth. I never called you stupid or brain dead. Get over it.

next time you see one of my posts - don't read it, don't reply to it and just ignore it. It's as simple as that.

I'm so sick and tired of when DU members try and find meaning in words that aren't there or assume what the original poster full intentions are without asking.

Go back to your first reply - your meaning was clear.

We all get our posts criticized and by the by.... I took your post as don't do this because if we do... Bush will once again become popular... which by the way is pure unadulterated shit. So it was not just one person who took it that way.. you MIGHT want to re-read it

no one used the type of reply that the other poster did. Certainly, it is good to have disagreement, but it is bullshit how some of the fellow DU'ers here do it.

When someone disagrees, to imply other DU'ers regurgitate talking points from the RNC because they have unconscious brains is bullshit.

Now, if the poster had said something along the lines of "I don't agree with what you posted, and here's why", or, "how do you get to these conclusions", then that is a different story.

Back to your point. After watching the Rethuglicans, if full on bore impeachment talking starts now, here is what I see: The American people will start to ask, should this president be impeached. Then, with this rattling around in their heads, the Bush Noise Machine will walk Jr out and do a full court press with a message something like, "As your President, I have done everything in my power to protect the American people. Everything. Yes, I've might have taken a few bold steps, but I'd rather make some mistakes then allow another 9/11." Then they are going to do other thinks like another press on the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", et cetera.

So, what we have now are some disgruntled Republicans getting ready for the fight for their career with an unpopular president. We have much better things to run on for a Democratically controlled congress rather than impeachment. Because after watching the Bushies for five years now, I don't think with a Republican Congress or the way the American people are now, that talk of impeachment will do much good until AFTER the fall elections. Because when the American people are asked if Bush should be impeached, at this time, the American people will probably say no.

What we really need are both houses of congress back in our control so the true investigations can start so we can beat down the GOP for not just 08, but for years down the road. That is how important it is for us to get back Congress.

Now, I do agree that possible impeachment should allowed to rattle around in the cage, but a full on attack mode with it is not what I would like.

impeach bush I have sea front property to sell yuo in Nevada... they won't, end of discusion. Why? They have no backbone and they don't do what we the people need them to do... the reasons are complex, but they will simply not do it.

if Dems take over Congress, they will have control over all the committees. They will most likely have access to all documents and ways to find these documents. Sadly, this is all bloodsport and once a love for blood is obtained, it can't be lost.

Can you imagine what people like Feingold, Conyers and Waxman would do with real power? (Remember, Conyers is probably doubly pissed off over the rightwing machine for trying to embarrass him over that aide-watching-kids smear.)

I think if the Dems can take over in Nov, we will see an unprecedented number of investigations into the Bush Administration that could very well damage the Republican Party for some time. But only if we win in Nov.

I am talking from a perspective that is far less tangible, and informed by history. The Roman Senate also has all the forms intact, but after the Empire came to be, they were a shadow of themselves. We have a similar situation here, and until this Empire fails, the Congress will play its role... and it is not the role mandated by the Constitution. Though the good news is... we are declining as am empire so it might take a generation, instead of generations for the Republic to come back, maybe. Benn readying about Empires you see, and what we are... and how political institutions behave in the middle of them... and our distinguished members of congress, regardless of party are playing a role that our founding fathers must be doing somersaults over.

I have posted before that we don't want to impeach Bush and Cheney before Nov so we can take back the House. If we impeach before, that means we get Hastert as President - hardly an improvement.

However, I don't think that you can compare Bush's situation to Clinton's. Clinton's poll numbers went up because Clinton was doing a good job and many people saw through the Repuke's impeachment ploy.

The call to impeach Bush is because of the horrible job that he has done as President. A polar opposite to Clinton's situation.

what makes you think the REPUBLICAN House, led by REPUBLICANS, will all of a sudden develop morals and ethics and introduce the bill, hell what makes you think they will allow the bill to even reach committee? As long as the republicans are in charge the chances of impeachment are zero, nada, zilch... a snowball has a better chance in hell in fact. If, and I don't believe the Dems will do it anyway, you will have the bill introduced will be ONLY AFTER the DEMS take the house... and I am willing to say it right now... even then, you will not see the bill introduced either. The reasons are complex and they have to do with how Empires work.

the public outcry is so huge they can't ignore it. And they will still try.

Let me explain my stance a little more clearly.

I partially agree with the OP because we don't want actual impeachment to occur before we take back the House. However, I don't think that has much chance of actually occuring.

I think that continuing to call for impeachment helps us in Nov. If more people continue to believe that Bush should be impeached and realize that the current Republican Congress won't do it, that improves our chances of winning.

If public opinion turns against impeachment, it could hurt us. But as I said, Bush's situation can't be compared to Clinton's, and I don't think calls for impeachment will create a backlash like it did in Clinton's case.

It is a possibility, but personally I don't think it will happen.

other problems as a country... lets put it this way... this country is not one that believes in law and order and all that claptrap any more.

It is time to pack and leave if the public should decide this is just a show.

Even though congress has a very low approval rating, the overwhelming majority of incumbents get voted back in. We need to show our local electorate that the popular local representative or senator is part of the problem no matter how much pork they have won for the state or congressional district. Don't count on the people in other states to clean up the mess in Washington.

It is a battle for the Constitution, the heart and soul of America. We cannot hold back the truth.

My feelings are mixed. Since this is not a presidential elections I am thinking that the Repukes who are fed up and who can not vote a Dem will just stay home. These are the ones I think that the repuke will try and rally to go vote so that the Republican control will stay in their hands and those are the ones that the talk of impeacment will motivate. I think the talk of impeachment has more merit when it can actually be accomplished and that can only be with a Dem majority.

There are many repukes who can not stand * but they do not want to be the minority party, they do not want to give up the chairs of all the committees, there goes the power and the pork.

during the campaign, an opportunity to instill impeachment as a mandate once the dems regain the house and senate will be lost. What you think the newly elected and re-elected dems will suddenly vote for impeachment when it wasn't discussed during the campaign?

I agree, talking about impeachment now may scare away some weak kneed voters and may rally the conservative base, but to not talk about it is not an option either. A balance must be struck.

re:puke:s in control of both houses, just forget that fantasy.

Two, if we do get control of the House and Senate, and we do start Impeachment proceedings, that will be all that will be seen, done, and talked about for the next 12 - 18 months while the collapse of the county continues, unabated. And for what? To get him out maybe 6 months early?

I say, lets concentrate on getting a super-majority (veto proof) in the legislature, and get on with the business of running the country. Once he's out of office, we turn loose the criminal prosecutors loose on him and his cabal. Impeachment only gets him out of office, we need him in jail! We need his assets seized under RICO statues. We need his entire term thoroughly discredited as the disgrace it is, to ensure Democratic rule for the next 20 - 30 years. The SCOTUS is the biggest challenge we will face in the coming generation.

The strategy of "keeping the powder dry" hasn't worked. We need to take a page from the Republicans book and keep up a steady drumbeat about impeachment or censure, starting now and continuing through the election. Its too hard to educate the voters in a last minute, scattershot strategy.

Bush knows how to mobilize his own base and never fails to do so. We shouldn't be afraid to call him out and remind the public of his illegal actions on a daily basis for fear of turning them out. They'll turn out anyway.

Steady drumbeat now and through the election will increase our chances of taking the majority back in Congress.

Impeachment talk should be delayed until we regain control of the House this year. Don't give the Repubs a reason to rally their base.

It's too late.. It needed to have started in 2003, and through the 2004 election campaign and wrapped up by 2005 at the latest - in order to convict.

but we didn't strategize around that - our party instead strategized around the notion that we know how to find and kill the terra-ist better than our opponents, that we know how to better manage invasions and occupations much better than our opponents. So we played 'we're better at waging war card' instead of invasions and occupations and torture are evil illegal and anathema in spreading democracy.

now it's too late. we're in mid terms, and when the Dems take office in late January, early February - 2007 - we'll have started the 2008 campaign in earnest - and coping with putting out a million fires - there will be inncentive or time left to begin the process of impeachment hearings.

That's why Feingold introduced a resolution to Censure the president, because he's painfully aware and the only one honest enough, courageous enough, principled enough to try and do something to hold this despot accountable now, and to try and get this administration to cease and desist domestic spying activities.

That's the long and short of it. We need to tell Rep Conyers, that we know that the jig is up - there will be no impeachment because the party leadership never intended for it to occur in the first place, and have successfully prevented any possibility of moving forward.

once we get a grip on that fact, we rank and file party members, we can at least then move forward with a modicum of "reality based" desision making in terms of our political, economic and other life choices/decisions.

The party is over.

there was only a whisper about impeachment.. I said then and stick with my thoughts, if the dems continue this campaign of impeachment, the repugs will turn it around on them and say the dems have no solutions to our problems and all they want to do is remove bush from office...Yes, the folks will be turned off and the only ones that will suffer will be dems at the polls come November....\

I submit this. Work hard as hell these next few months leading up to the November elections. Do all we can to secure the dems take back the House and the Senate. Have a damn program that the American people can get behind in any district or state wide and know what the Dems will do once they are in control of the Congress.... Then once the dems take control of both houses or even one, then begin the over sight committee meetings and bring all this out to the American people. Once the folks begin to see what all they have been not told, then what you have done is taken bush from just walking out of office in 2009 with a smile on his face to him walking out as the most disgraced president since Nixon...

Impeachment WILL happen when we're in control. Fuck the naysayers!

yes, but we must be in control first.

The corporate media controls the message the masses hear. The only way to change that is to make noise.

The way for the democrats to win elections is to prove they are competent leaders by standing up for 'we the people' and our constitution and standing up to this evil corrupt administration, not backing down.

posted in DU by flpoljunkie:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2524184

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2517089&mesg_id=2517089

NGU.