The Republican message machine is out of control

[EarlG]

It seems that the GOP's new strategy for '06, as reported today by the New York Times, is to whip up their base by, believe it or not, getting louder and louder about impeachment.

Rush Limbaugh is increasingly mentioning the threat of impeachment on his radio show, calling it "a gift." A conservative commentator I highlighted in last week's Top 10, Tony Phyrillas, bookended a recent nutbag rant with "...one thing Democrats will push is the impeachment of George W. Bush ... That's what's at stake if Democrats regain control of Congress in November." The New York Times article says that Paul Weyrich thinks "The threat of impeachment was one of the only factors that could inspire the Republican Party's demoralized base to go to the polls."

One of the only factors.

Forget abortion, forget gay marriage, forget the war on terror - they're out of ammo here, and they're gambling that by getting increasingly noisy about impeachment, their base is going to turn out in record numbers. Well that's fine by me, because I don't think it's going to work.

There's only one trend in Bush's poll numbers at the moment, and that's down. Most of the big polling companies currently have Bush at the lowest levels they've ever polled for him. Pew has him at 33% - Nixon was at 29% when he resigned. In addition, the recent Gallup poll shows that 55% of Americans want a Democratic Congress in 2006 compared to 39% who want to keep it Republican. That's a 16 point gap, which is practically unheard of in Congressional polls.

So if the Republicans think that a good strategy for '06 is to run around shouting, "If the Democrats win, they'll impeach Bush!" then it's just proof that their message machine is finally out of control. Because they're now gambling that the majority of the country won't simply turn around and shrug their shoulders. And if that happens, and the Dems do take back Congress in '06, presumably America is going to be wondering when they can expect that impeachment they were promised.

At this point it seems that most Democrats in Congress do not want to bring up impeachment. Given the fact that most Americans - including a sizeable number of Republicans - now think that Bush is an incompetent, lawbreaking asshat, the wisdom of this strategy is debatable.

But if Republicans want to do the Democrats' job for them by laying the groundwork and prepping the public for the prospect of impeachment... I say let 'em.

[kentuck]

1. I agree...if they want to talk about impeachment, let them...

:)...We will study it carefully to see if it is a good idea...

[Pirate Smile]

4. When we win back control, Congress will resume its Constitutional

duty of oversight and investigations will follow as required and where that leads, we will just have to see :) .

[dweller]

11. call in to Rush

and ask, so you think impeachment is a good thing?

okay, if you say so! i'm all for it.

:rofl:
dp

[mtnsnake]

21. This is where Democrats need to be careful

I guess they're talking about it because most Democratic spokespeople aren't. Maybe the Republican think tankers are having their puppet Limbaugh bring up the subject in order to provoke a response out of Democrats...to try and find out what are true intentions are. Once Republicans start talking about it, it becomes like a chess match from here on in, eh.

[bloom]

2. I imagine they focused grouped it.

They probably focused grouped today's bombing campaign, also.

And the bombing of Iran.

It would be interesting to see their data on all that.

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for this Earl G! Reading Josh Marshall's piece in Roll Call

saying why Dems shouldn't push for Impeachment was kind of depressing...unless he was just being a Devil's Advocate. So it's good to see your observation about how the Repugs "Alert" could backfire on them.

Digby has some of your same thoughts on how Russ Feingold's "Censure Motion" instead of being characterized as "Grandstanding" by "some Dems" should be embraced by us as energizing our base to get out and vote...

I just posted about it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2517094

[BOSSHOG]

5. Its important that bush continues to destroy the country

so you must get out and vote. The last thing this country needs is a president who is held accountable for his actions, so you must get out and vote. What a political party! What a message.

[mtnsnake]

6. I think Democrats should be the ones to initiate any impeachment move

whether it comes in the form of an impeachment attempt (if we don't have the votes in the House for actual impeachment) or whether it comes in the form of actual impeachment itself (after we do re-take the House in November).

I predicted a long time ago that if Democrats didn't make an attempt, that Republicans ultimately will...for political self-serving reasons. If this happens...if Republicans beat us to the punch...the perception of Democrats being a party without an identity will be more than just a perception; it will be a reality.

What a shame if impeachment comes at the hands of the enemy. IMO, Democrats should be making their impeachment intentions known. Why beat around the bush. At least people would know what we stand for.

"But if Republicans want to do the Democrats' job for them by laying the groundwork and prepping the public for the prospect of impeachment... I say let 'em."

I disagree. In future elections, wouldn't that become another strong talking point for them? You know...how they always like to say, "Well what did Democrats do about it? Nothing. They stood back and watched Republicans do the work."

I think Democrats need to get full credit for impeachment and any groundwork that gets laid for it.

[EarlG]

14. I doubt that the Republicans will ever impeach Bush

I also doubt that the Democrats will, but if they win back control of Congress and can start real investigations, then you never know what might happen. What's going on here is that the GOP message machine is trying to rile their base up by suggesting that the Democrats will DEFINITELY impeach Bush if they win back Congress. I'm just saying that given the fact that Bush is now a highly unpopular lame duck, this strategy is a bit bizarre.

The radical right-wing base has been fired up in the past on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but will they be fired up by pleas for loyalty to a guy who is increasingly seen by most of the country as a loser? After 6 years of GOP control, their base hasn't gotten Roe vs. Wade overturned or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - not only that but Republicans are getting increasingly fed up with Bush's incompetence on issues like Iraq, Katrina, and Homeland Security. Are they really going to stick with the guy who's let them down on these issues, or will they cash in their chips and move on to the next poster boy for these issues, whoever that may be?

[reichstag911]

18. Interesting piece by Garrison Keillor on point...

...entitled "Only the GOP Can Save Us" from Salon.com (subs. req.): http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/15/keillor/

[mtnsnake]

25. You're point about Roe vs Wade is interesting. It really does make

one wonder if the radical right-wing base will stick or bolt, considering Roe hasn't gotten overturned "after 6 years of GOP control". It also makes me wonder if many of the Republican higher-ups really want Roe vs Wade overturned. If it was overturned, then the majority of the country would go for their throats, despite whatever rhetoric the religious right would have to say about it. That's something they don't need to happen right now.

Besides, as long as Roe vs Wade stays as it is, Republicans can continue to use abortion as their weapon du jour against Democrats, at least for another election or two.

Anyway, you've surely given us some food for thought, and yes their latest strategy is a little bizarre to say the least.

[EarlG]

28. You've hit the nail on the head

This has been coming for some time, but there's a feature about it in Newsweek this week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786788/site/newsweek/

The GOP have painted themselves into a bit of a corner on this one. Abortion was the perfect issue for them when they were on the outside looking in, but now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

[trogdor]

45. In short...

...it's impossible to recall a bullet once it has been fired. This is why I have had my doubts that any sane GOP'er would seriously want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Once this happens, the issue disappears, and then the Republicans would have to explain their ridiculous positions on every other issue under the sun, from Social Security to foreign policy, and I don't think they want that debate because they know they'll lose...badly.

[Auntie Bush]

50. Since all we have to do is scare the Rethugs with just how much all

these millions of of unwanted babies are going to cost the welfare system...they are guaranteed to lose interest.
The closer we come to really overturning R vs W their enthusiasm will greatly diminish.

[RazzleDazzle]

61. Idealistic to the point of fantasy on your part

what the hell makes you think they think those babies should be taken care of on welfare? Or WOULD get taken care of on welfare? They don't think about them at all, except to figure out ways to kick them off welfare. What will be next is something along the lines of: if you got pregnant while unmarried, you won't be eligible for welfare.

Think instead: punitive; woman-hating; "welfare queen" (code word for black) hating; women's-sexuality-hating; welfare-hating/personal responsibility loving (except when it comes to them personally) and so forth.

[Bouncy Ball]

7. This post actually made me laugh out loud.

In a good way. Yep, out of ammo. When the only thing you've got to try to turn your base out is fear of impeaching the most unpopular president in a generation, you are damn well running VERY low on ammo.

However.

I do think they will pull out the gay marriage stuff again. Aren't several states going to have it on their ballot in November? Does anyone think they'd REALLY give up that issue to stoke up some good old-fashioned hate and homophobia in the people?

[terrya]

15. Wisconsin will have an anti same-sex marriage amendment...

on the ballot in November. I believe Idaho will as well. There's a chance that Maryland might have an amendment might be on the ballot.

But there won't be one on the ballot to help santorum in Pennsylvania. And Ohio already passed an amendment in 2004, so it won't help DeWine's Senate race.

Pulling the homophobia card won't work this time, IMO. I agree with EarlG...the American people are finally waking up and are NOT liking what they see...an unwinnable war in Iraq. Domestic spying. An administration that thinks of nothing about breaking the law.

And it's the height of folly to think that talk of impeachment will suddenly turn the poll numbers around.

[CTyankee]

73. What chance does it have in the state lege?

Spouse and I have a summer house in Door County and we spend several weeks there each August. Love Wisconsin. Hubby's relatives still in Madison, great town.

I get so down when I hear stuff like this happening in Wisconsin. My sister in law and her husband are both repubs and now we just "don't talk politics." I want to tell them that their foolish votes have brought us all of this repub mess. And b.i.l. actually has a gay daughter and a son who converted to Orthodox Judaism and lives in Europe.

Good luck. I'm pulling for you back here in CT!

[European Socialist]

8. Every time a Puke says impeach--it gets closer to reality.

[Atman]

9. Great! Get every single one of Bush's 30% support out to the polls

And he STILL GETS HIS ASS KICKED. That is, if Diebold and bird flu don't get out the vote first.

[EVDebs]

10. If this (impeachment) be treason, let's make the most of it !

One of the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, said this regarding his participation in ignoring the Stamp Act from the British crown, an act of overt civil disobedience

"The fact that conservative politicians quickly expunged the final resolution from the record went largely unnoticed and Virginia and Henry were widely extolled for their defense of American rights."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1266.html

It's about time for our current crop of 'representatives' in government to stand up and show the country that the course set by the current occupant of the WH is running the country onto the rocks ! We remember the firebrand Patrick Henry today for being RIGHT, we, as in the past, will always forget the erring 'conservative politicians' who are so equivocating and calculating they forget what they were sent to Washington DC to do in the first place.

[Doctor_J]

12. Are they believing that impeachment will help *, like it did Clinton?

I keep thinking I've seen the depths of repub stupidity, they surprise me again. Americans rallied around WJC during the impeachment because the knew it was a fraud. If * is impeached the WH will be surrounded by people with torches and pitchforks wanting to join in.

[mtnsnake]

27. Maybe just the threat of impeachment is what they want

Hard sayin' what they're up to.

[donkeyotay]

33. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense

Sometimes, it's just stupid. Impeachment helped Clinton because people saw it has unfair, unjustified and bad for the country. Right now a majority favor impeachment, not because the nation wants it, but because bush is leaving no choice for those who are more loyal to the republic than the cabal.

[calimary]

39. THIS is REALLY important! Truly.

There are many who say they dread the idea of trying to IMPEACH bush because they "saw what happened when the republi-CONS impeached Clinton and how that backfired..." and how it'll turn people against Democrats and blah-blah-blah.

BALONEY.

The dynamics in play here couldn't be MORE different.

The reason impeachment of Clinton backfired on the GOP (and why they were thus unable to see it through all the way to conviction in the Senate and removal from office) was because the vast majority of the American people saw it for what it was: BULLSHIT. Most Americans saw it as a petty vendetta over lying about sex. "...but, but, but, he was UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!!" BALONEY. It was STILL lying under oath ABOUT SEX. NOT about national security. NOT about spying. NOT about phonying up wars that weren't needed and getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily. NOT about how you didn't know about Hurricane Katrina. NOT about our fabulous red-white-and-blue TORTURE POLICY. NOT about outing a CIA NOC. NOT about lying about WMDS that were never there. NOT about ANY of these truly critical issues. It was lying ABOUT SEX. And most Americans correctly perceived this the way even the frist-types now realize most Americans perceived the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco - as a PERSONAL MATTER into which big government has NO BUSINESS intruding. Clinton's was a PERSONAL MATTER between a husband and a wife. The VAST MAJORITY of Americans recognized that. That's why impeaching Clinton backfired.

There are two additional reasons. Well, one-within-another, really.

At this stage in his presidency, in a second term, with a whole lot of water under the bridge about other stuff, Clinton's poll numbers were enviably high - in the mid-60's. Their own precious darling Reagan was around that same number in job approval, too, which is why nothing in Iran/Contra ever touched him, either, even though it should have. Clinton was widely perceived as pretty damned okay, otherwise. Maybe couldn't keep his zipper shut, but otherwise he was a pretty damned good president. Maybe he had some character flaws. Flaws that were so clearly and glaringly shared by his enemies that two of them, newt gingivitis AND robert livingstone, BOTH were carried out of VERY TOP SPOT in the House of Reps - the speakership - because they, too, had cheated on their wives. And in both their cases, their cheating was FAR more heinous and egregious than Clinton's EVER was. In fact, some of the biggest, baddest inquisitors of Clinton (are you listening, henry hyde?????) had cheated on their wives to the tune of actually LEAVING their wives for other women (and in some cases, eventually leaving that other woman, too, for somebody else), fathering children out of wedlock WHILE STILL MARRIED TO SAID WIFE (anybody home, dan burton?), and destroying other marriages BESIDES JUST THEIR OWN. Residual offenses that Clinton NEVER committed. Their congressional job approval numbers were no match for Clinton's, either, as I recall.

Furthermore (and this sort of dovetails with the above paragraph), it was WIDELY perceived and acknowledged that Clinton was actually doing a pretty good job as president. We were at peace. We enjoyed prosperity. There were millions of new jobs and new businesses created. Our nation was respected in the world and stood tall in the community of nations. Our word was our bond, and it was actually worth something. We didn't run around crying wolf and picking fights. We had a president who actually showed up for work, started early, stayed late, actually read all the material (probably wrote some of it himself) and had a masterful understanding of it, and could talk in great detail about WHATEVER issue it was, extemporaneously, working without a net, without spinners, without handlers, without cue cards, without translators, without nannies, without apologists or excuse-makers. He didn't take a lot of vacations on his fancy-ass ranch. He didn't bail out for a whole frickin' MONTH, EVERY DAMNED YEAR. He could go ANYWHERE in the world and be treated like a bloomin' rock star. Clinton would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS have had to hide himself as his plane arrived at some foreign airport, and land late at night with all the AF1 landing lights TURNED OFF, and the airport dark. Clinton never had to be hidden behind heavy security everywhere he went, whether it was anywhere in this country or overseas. He was NEVER captive to airport tarmacs and military bases. He could walk out into crowds and shake hands and everybody loved him. He never met a heckler he didn't welcome, and engage. Nobody ever had to sign any loyalty oaths in order to see him speak somewhere, and there were no such things as "First Amendment Zones" where dissidents were gulaged so they wouldn't offend his delicate sensibilities. Clinton got things done, mostly for the good of most Americans, rather than always looking out for an elite few cronies and big-business types and wheeler-dealers. And like any good camper, he left the place better than he found it - after inheriting a near-disaster from - hey, guess what? Another bush.

America saw this. America saw him actually working, and getting things done, and getting along with everybody. America generally approved, and wondered what the hell the problem was. Some, in America, also saw him as a guy who really was kinda like them - a kid from a poor background with no bigshot friends and family members in high places who could pull strings for him and pull his ass out of a sling again and again. He booted himself up from nothing, got himself to Yale and Oxford and the governorship in his state for several terms on the strength of his own work, brains, personality, and accomplishments. He didn't have any fancy-ass Ivy League dad to pay for the constant cleanup after him. Hell, Clinton didn't even HAVE a father, PERIOD. I think more than a few Americans recognized that and respected him for it. Which you can NOT say about little lord bushie boy.

By contrast, the picture of bush is not flattering. He DID have such a father and such a silver spoon in his mouth and all those friends in high places who could pull strings for him and game the system for him and show him how to game the system, too. He got where he was by pulling strings, gaming the system, and cheating, whereas Clinton got where he was by sheer brains, personality, and hard work. I don't care WHO you are in the republi-CON party, you just CANNOT say that about dubya. And I think people have begun to notice this. They could overlook or ignore or maybe not even hear much about bush's horrid track record as a CEO, and the three Texas oil companies IN A ROW that he drove into a ditch. But it is now IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the colossal incompetence that's hanging out there so glaringly for all to see. Think Katrina, for one thing. Think the war. Think the WMDs. Think Harriet Miers. Think the Dubai ports deal. Think Social Security. Think Osama. It's been one botch-job after another. WE who knew about bush's background were aware of this - one of many reasons why we never supported him. But some people are just coming around to all of this now, because there are too many fuck-ups, and they're too big, and they're WAY too painful in terms of people actually hurting, and worse - being killed, and at this point there's just too much that's gone too wrong to be able to spin. As some posts here have affirmed: They are OUT. OF. AMMO. It's just too glaring. So glaring that the papers and the on-camera pundits and even formerly fawning reporters have no choice but to point this stuff out. It's reached the point where this is just unavoidable anymore.

Critical mass HAS INDEED been reached. My mother the bush-supporter, after Katrina, said something very telling: "he REALLY let everybody down." Yep. I wasn't a bit surprised, but she was. And when THAT happens, when trust has been breached, it's VERY hard to get back the people you burned. They don't forget this stuff. You leave a bad taste in their mouths that doesn't go away. That poll just yesterday (I think it was the NBC/WSJ one) that talked about some 58 percent of respondents saying bush is so far down and has fucked up so much that he's not going to recover, that we've "seen the best he has to offer" proves this out. Once betrayed, they're not gonna take your calls anymore. And they start looking at you with a jaundiced eye. And they start seeing you a whole lot differently with that jaundiced eye than they used to, when they were far more inclined to keep on giving you the benefit of the doubt. You've ruined that, too. And george, you HAVE. He keeps saying "just trust me!" Most Americans are now saying "been there, done that. Doesn't work. Thanks but no thanks." You'll have to search high and low to find people who think he's still even slightly competent. Clinton did NOT leave people with that impression. Clinton on the other hand was quite the King of Competence. And Clinton's high job-approval numbers even at this stage in his presidency, and under the persecution of impeachment for Monicagate, were because he was correctly perceived as being good at what he did, at serving the people, at giving the American taxpayer at the very least a good, long, solid day's work for the money. That CANNOT be said about bush, who's become the poster boy for incompetence. When he even shows up at the office, that is. Nobody EVER had to shake Clinton awake or make him DVDs of newscasts of historic disasters. There wasn't any Brownie on HIS payroll doing any "heckuva job." And more people are acutely aware of this contrast than ever before.

THAT is why we need not worry about whether IMPEACHMENT of bush will backfire on us Dems. I wouldn't even waste a second worrying about that. The conditions and dynamics are Just. Not. The. Same. People saw no legitimate reason to drag Clinton through something as extreme as impeachment. In bush's case (and as this is written on a Thursday), you'll still be counting the reasons for doing so, probably well into the weekend.

[bushmeister0]

51. This is our issue to lose.

I agree with you calimary---

I saw that bit in the NYT about the impeachment of Clinton backfiring on the Repbublians and I wondered what they hell they were talking about, too. Didn't Bush get elected shortly afterwards?

I think this whole nonsense about this censure talk being a win for the GOP is their fear talking. I won't go into it at length here, but I think whether it unites the right wingers or not, this is a big win for our side. But the Dems have to have the courage to see it through, which is what I'm afraid they don't have.

Here's my theory on what could be done, if we don't blow it, which I wrote on Sunday, though much has changed since,

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2006/03/censure-or-impeachment-decisions.html

and here's what I wrote after seeing Dana Milbank's piece yesterday on the great escape from the Dems luncheon.

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2006/03/howard-dean-for-president-again.html

[calimary]

78. Welcome to you, too, bushmeister0!

If we do not seize opportunities like these, and make the most of them, frankly, we deserve what we (don't) get. Or, more accurately, the establishment Dems do. NOT those of us who've known better, and who've tried to do better.

Glad you're here. It'll help. Both you AND the rest of us here.

[Lebowski]

57. Wow!

That is some beautiful stuff, calimary! That's the same argument (albeit mine is not so carefully crafted) I've used against Clinton detractors for years: yeah, he made a couple stupid decisions. But they were personal decisions, and had no bearing whatsoever on the running of the country!

It all goes back to our Puritan "heritage": we're more goddamned worried about sex in this country than violence. Janet Jackson flashes a breast, and we almost melt down as a country. But it's okay for the kids to watch people being stabbed/shot/slaughtered on the 8:00 ABC movie. We accept guns and violence as "normal", but God help you if you're a homosexual.

I still think it's because we're a juvenile country. We haven't really grown up yet. We're an upstart in the world, and really just entering our teen years. But we think we've got the world by the ovaries. It's not until we hit later adulthood that we realize how much we didn't (and don't) know. At least I'm hoping that this analogy holds true. And that we put that juvenile so-called "President" behind bars, where he so deservedly belongs.

[annabanana]

75. Welcome to DU Lebowski!

I, too, have thought of this country as an adolescent. All pumped up on hormones and certain of the rightness of our position... little or no impulse control... hot headed and vindictive..
(in the case of B*sh.. I think we have a genuine case of arrested development . . .and I hope he is.... arrested that is)

[calimary]

77. Thanks, Lebowski, and Welcome to DU! Ain't it great here?

I REALLY appreciate the point you just made so nicely: we ARE a juvenile country. Just consider the other countries with which we share this planet. We're only bombing the crap out of an area widely regarded as "The Cradle of Civilization." There have been societies and kingdoms and collectives in that part of the world for THOUSANDS of years. How long have the Egyptians and Greeks been around? How long have the Spanish and British? How 'bout the rest of "Old Europe?" We're all of what, a measly 200-and-some years old? We are BABIES. We have a whole whopping 200-and-some years of history and traditions. WOW, what veterans we are! Such old-timers, 'eh? And what "wisdom-of-the-ages" we have.

We're mere children in the scheme of things. Adolescents. And we seem to be behaving as young whipper-snappers and snot-noses, too. Embarrassing.

[Nightjock]

59. I wish I could nominate your reply calimary

That was right on!

[calimary]

79. Thanks, my friend!

:toast:

[Stand and Fight]

65. Kicking this thread because of your reply...

Kick ass. :yourock:

[calimary]

80. Well, that's what we have to do - kick ass.

WE have to lead by example, I think, if our reps won't.

[RazzleDazzle]

62. Exactly right. I haven't been this gleeful for ages.

If this is true, their vaunted focus groups have failed them (or they've failed in their analysis).

If this is true, they are seriously over-reaching and/or seriously deluded.

If this is true, they are HANDING BUSH TO US ON A SILVER PLATTER.

(If only we could get the Dems in Congress to wake up and notice. Sigh.)

[bullimiami]

13. i think this goes right back to the rove strategy of attacking

others where they are weakest.

seems crazy but look...

bush was a deserter, kerry a war hero, they attacked kerry.
chambliss is a coward, cleland lost 3 limbs in vietnam, they attacked him for it.
gore was smart, bush dumb as dirt. they attacked gore for being too brainy. (made fun of his 'lock box'. not so funny now is it)

in everything they jump on it first so when you say something it seems like sour grapes or a reaction to them.
my conclusion : if they are jumping all on about impeachment its because its where they are weakest and most scared. typical of bullies.

[glitch]

22. Rover the one trick pony. If he's playing it again GOOD!

His schtick only works on the sleeping (or those in ambien-stupors).

[BR_Parkway]

16. They need to convince the sheep that impeachment is a good thing

and strictly a partisan thing to keep their level of hatred up once it happens. If not, all those sheep might wake up during the impeachment process to realize that we were right all along, not the traitors drug addicts like OxyRush kept trying to make it out to be.

[mopinko]

17. i cheered when i saw the headline

thanks guys. our candidates are in a spot with this issue. they know their base wants it, and a lot of our challengers believe in it. but it is difficult to campaign on this. so, get the word out for us. we love it.

[mzmolly]

19. I agree, let THEM drum the impeachment drum.

We'll benefit two fold. We won't even have to raise the issue to motivate voters to the polls in 06.

:evilgrin:

[gasperc]

48. it is a huge mis-calculation on their part

that will be born out by stagnant mid-30 poll numbers

55% of the country is practically out of his grasp, 5% is on a knife edge furious as hell but feels a certain obligation to support the commander in chief, 5% are just fucking lemming that latch onto which ever party they feel is "winning" presumably us for now.

So Bush and Rush can howl at the top of their lungs and the 35% that was there for him yesterday will be the same 35% that will be for him in two weeks. and maybe a few points from the lemmings and the loyalists may, may inch him towards 37 or 38%

[mzmolly]

56. I agree, and it's PERFECT for us because WE don't have to

distract from Bush sucksism. :hi:

[ClassWarrior]

20. Beautiful analysis, Earl.

Russ told the American people to not think of an elephant, and suddenly folks are dreaming of dancing pachyderms from coast to coast.

Visualize it.

NGU.

[Tsiyu]

23. Everybody's in denial

Repukes appear to be in denial about their president. Many seem to believe it's still September 12th. They imagine a nation so brainwashed it will fall into lockstep behind their "oh, please, please don't let them impeach" bullshit.

No one seems to have the heart to tell them that even though ** pays no attention to polls, polls matter. At 34% approval and falling, the Preznint has lost his hold over the American people.

And Dem senators seem to be in denial over what their cowardice means to the Democratic party and to their country. They seem to think we'll be more outraged at the secrets they are desperate to hide. Because you know the ONLY reason they would not step forward and support censure and later, impeachment, is that they are being blackmailed via the NSA program.

Can anyone think of a better explanation for the Dem's irrational fear of attacking the most unpopular president of this century?

The Repukes will hang themselves if they push "fear of impeachment" as their platform, though. They are assuming American voters are too stupid to see the forest for the Bush. I agree with you, EarlG: Many voters will be laughing all the way to the polls.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. all true.

The more that the rightwingnuts twist their knickers on this issue, the more comfortable America will be with Impeachment. They are too reactionary to realize that they are winning this battle for us.

When you compare a blow job with an employee compared to the $400 Billion invasion of a nation based on many deliberate lies, even the most obtuse persons begin to see the light.

I was in the bank yesterday (the average age of people in the line was 70). The background music actually was a radio station, which mentioned the latest poll numbers. An older, pink-haired lady turned and asked me, "Young man, what do you think about the president and Iraq?"
I responded, "I think that impeachment is too good for him."
4 other people turned around and joined in. One very elderly man said that "We are fighting them over here to keep them from attacking Iran over there." Everyone looked at each other and ignored him.

The majority, less one, thought that this was the worst administration ever. And these people are ones who have seen many administrations. I suspect that impeachment would be supported by a groundswell, if handled properly. This latest aerial assault will not help in Iraq nor in Main Street, USA.

[Chemical Bill]

26. This way, when diebold steals the election...

the repugs can say there is a mandate to not impeach. Call me cynical.

Bill

[Rebelry]

29. I read this article yesterday...

and it totally pissed me off. It's the most slanted ridculous piece of journalism - something I'd expect from FOX not NY times!! It's like the Indictment byline last week and the byline that says Democrats are running from Feingold's censure motion because they blocked an immediate vote.

And when I think how many people read the NY times thinking they're getting the real Story

BAH!

And yeah, the idea that the republican base is going to run forward and save the most unpopular president in decades... pfft.

laughable.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. There were rumors the WH was worried and preparing for hte big I

I seem to recall Dana Bash (CNN) reporting that from "a source". :shrug: It was just a brief mention, oh so brief, never to be uttered from her lips again.

[buddysmellgood]

31. That is really desperate. Most rapublicans want Bush put out of their

misery.
I say, bring it on.

[frogmarch]

32. Most of my republican

aquaintances want bush to be impeached and removed from office so that a "GOOD" republican can take his place - and win the next presidential election.

[Beetwasher]

34. Or It Could Be the Groundwork For a BACKSTORY To Cover ELECTION THEFT

There will be reports of all these invisible voters (like the invisible evangelicals in '04) that no polls are able to find or identify, that were against impeachment and voted Repub and this will explain why Repubs picked up seats in '06 against all odds and against every poll. There will be a mysterious "anti-impeachment" voting block that will have miraculously appeared on election day.

Just another theory.

[abbiehoff]

55. That would not surprise me in the least.

They're going to need a good story to overcome the obvious Democratic leanings of the public. If you can't get the polls close, make up a story about how many people voted that have never voted before and therefore weren't polled. They just couldn't sit by and watch their pResident be impeached, so they went to the polls for the first time to vote republican.

Wait for it.

[Mr_Spock]

35. Good,

let them.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Knowing if the Dems take a house of Congress

impeachment is a definite possibility, that in itself might bring opposition voters out en mass.

However, never discount the appeal of hatred and control of our bodies. Gay marriage and abortion are always big winners to motivate the GOP base.

[maxrandb]

37. Dems Ought to Sell Impeachment like it was "Sweeps Week"

If there is one thing Americans like, it's a good drama. Impeachment is perfect in our "made for TV world".

Look at all the tired cable shows that are still around after being created by Clinton's impeachment.

[radio4progressives]

38. Well Put EarlG!

[Rainscents]

40. Let them do it... it will back fire!

[underpants]

41. First of all Feingold himself actually called this

Second-I think they were flying to close to the sun on the abortion issue and their supporters were actually expecting some results some resolution and as we know they certainly don't want that issue to go away.

Here is what Feingold actually said a few days ago

"They can try to turn this into their fantasy, but that is not how this comes off," Mr. Feingold said, noting that his proposal addressed only the narrow subject of the wiretapping program. "I didn't throw in Iraq or a lot of other things that frankly are pretty bad."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=674970&mesg_id=675029

You do realize that this is the ULTIMATE example of putting one man above themselves, their party, their country, the Constitution and of course the law.

[opihimoimoi]

42. They have NOTHING ELSE to go on.....

Loyalty and Brainwashed wannabes is their Base...which is now dwindling/edging dangerously close to the 20's Level...the Point of NO RETURN....

The Pubs must stop the SLIDE... and there is nothing to go on but play the Loyalty Card...when surrounded by the opposing forces:

Loyalty don't hardly worth a Hill of Buckshot....

Desperate peeps do desperate things...like grabbing for the straws

[neuvocat]

43. Their message machine is under investigation.

Ever since Karl Rove started to get investigated for outing Valerie Plame, he hasn't been able to do the job he was put up for in the first place. However I doubt he could do much better these days with the lack of leadership his boss has. There's only so much manure you can pick up when the elephants have diarrhea.

[BootinUp]

44. Have you seen the article

by David Corn?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/15/impeachable_strategy.php

I pretty much agree with his take on this.

[bushmeister0]

52. well, Duh'

I agree that the Republicans would never impeach Bush, but censure they might. The point I make at my blog is that they may be forced to vote for censure to prevent something worse happening if the Democrats get control of the House. A lot of "ifs" here, but this isn't a winner for the GOP by any means.

My theory:

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2006/03/censure-or-impeachment-decisions.html

[BootinUp]

54. I don't think you caught the important part

snip
------------------------------------
So what's the impeachment game plan? Stir up public outrage to such an extent that Republicans—scared silly by a surge of people power—cannibalize Bush? That seems a quite bit tougher to achieve than the more down-to-earth goal of winning the 15 seats the Democrats require to gain control of the House. (And picking up those seats is already a tall order.) Impeachment certainly has a visceral appeal that some may not find in that mundane and tired ol' cause of let's-take-back-Congress. But unless you have a fanciful imagination, it's difficult to envision the former without the latter. And if your goal is impeachment, why focus on that controversial aim rather than on achieving the political power necessary for waging such a drastic step? The potential costs of an impeachment campaign are clear. It could cause Democrats to appear marginal or out-of-touch. (Sorry, that's how much of the world works.) And it could create a wedge issue—for Democrats. That is, it could lead to division among Democrats in the months before the 2006 elections. (Democrats.com, an Internet-based activist group that passionately champions impeachment, has been attacking Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean for supposedly trying to smother impeachment fever among Democrats.) As for the benefits—well, if Bush is not impeached before the next election, what are they?
---------------------------------------
snip

We need to use a little more common sense and a little less emotion folks.

[madrchsod]

46. bush will never be impeached

the best thing the democrats can do is at least win back the house and block anything he does...if the democrats can be as effective as the republicans in holding the party line. i certainly won`t hold my breath on that...

[gasperc]

47. So is Rush tempting, daring or challenging us to impeach Bush

do they not realize how this can snow ball out of control!!!!

[file83]

49. Nixon said....

"...I welcome this kind of examination. Because people have gotta know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I am not a crook."

- Nixon

And the rest, as they say, is history.

[oc2002]

53. There ARE allot of Republicans that would love to see Bush IMPEACHED too!

Bush has become an outcast of his own party, as he has become the cheif archetect of his own madness in Iraq, Iraq2(Iran), 9-11, Katrina, Deficits, ....

Dems. this guy needs to go down on impeachment vote.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Bring it on!

We are no longer talking about perjury about a sexual liaison, we are talking about law-breaking and lying to plunge this country into a war of choice in Iraq.

Nixon was a petty criminal compared to Bush!

[VP505]

60. HEHEHE

ya, like that's really going to work. Can anyone say DESPERATE???

[CANDO]

63. Poor little demoralized base!

They are in charge of everything, so why would they be demoralized? They just don't get it that they don't know how to govern effectively when they do get power. So this is what excites the base...The threat of impeachment? Wow!

[Old and In the Way]

64. "Vote Republican! Because Democrats want to hold us Accountable!"

Somehow, I just don't see this as a rallying cry for the base. Maybe-

"Vote Republican...because we've added $3TT to our debt!" Nope....maybe-

"Vote Republican....we'll only wiretap Democrats!" Nah....let's try-

"Vote Republican....we're for securty, but we just don't believe in paying for it!" Don't think so...

"Vote Republican....we're still looking for Osama!" Negatory...

"Vote Republican....we do corruption well!" Better stay away from that one.....

"Vote Republican....we only out CIA NOC's who try to expose our lies about a Causus Belli!"

"Vote Republican....we'll help you plan your families!"

Damn, sloganeering is hard work.

[Neil Lisst]

66. Impeachment isn't really my priority, anyway

And why? To get Cheney?

I simply want the ability to investigate all this nonsense Bush has done, and to stop him from getting things like the Patriot Act in its present form.

I think impeaching Bush is a waste of political opportunity.

[free_belmont]

72. I never heard from a Repugnant

'impeaching Clinton isn't a priority. Why? To get Gore?'

Bush broke the fucking law, repeatedly. Who cares who takes over? Cheney wouldn't have too much time to screw up anyway.

The only way to stop Bush is to impeach the mother fucker.

[Higans]

67. So I guess they think republicans don't want Bush Impeached.

I think that they ma regret telling America how to get Bush Impeached.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[Swamp Rat]

68. THANK YOU RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!

:woohoo: Hooray for 'negative' publicity! :woohoo:

It has been a very long and difficult road for progressives to get the word "impeachment" even said on TV, let alone said on Clear Channel Radio.

THANK YOU RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!

:woohoo:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! SUPPORT CENSURE!!!

:patriot:

[ikri]

69. This reminds me of a similar strategy

That the Tory party used in the UK at the last general election here. Their slogan was:

Vote Blair, get Brown

Playing on the assumption that Blair would stand down at some point in the next five years and Gordon Brown would take over as Labour leader and Prime Minister.

The strategy backfired dramatically, the Tories hadn't thought it through correctly. Gordon Brown is far more popular here than Blair is. After running the ad for a few weeks they quickly moved to remove them when they realized that support for Labour was actually rising in the areas the ad was being displayed, the ad worked so well that the Labour party itself could have probably used the same ad to drum up support.

If the Republicans haven't tested this strategy with diverse opinion groups they should start worrying. With *'s support hitting new lows with every poll a Republican slogan of "If you vote Democrat they'll impeach *" may produce a ton of support for the Democrats.

[Ganja Ninja]

70. Impeachment should be the one and only promise ...

Democrats make in 2006. The American people are ready for it. The American people will embrace it. The GOP faithful will turn out on election day but they'll be voting for it too by then.

[free_belmont]

71. Limbaugh is a rattle snake

his strategy is to call for impeachment so Repugnants don't lose power in congress.

After the election, he'll keep defending the mass-murderer-in-chief.

He is the most vile, disgusting propagandist around. Unimaginable pig.

[appnzllr]

74. Why would they stop?

This message implies that the Republican Party is abandoning the gay marriage and abortion issues. ("They're out of ammo there" ????) Why would they when they still resonate with many religious people? This isn't a replacement. It's an addition. Now they have at least three issues they can hammer. They now can say that the Democrats are out for revenge for Clinton. Never mind that the administration has been a disaster at every level.

[Skittles]

76. it's a fair assessment

I just may have to take some pepto and listen to some hate radio, to get the gist of this strategy

[Strawman]

81. What else can they run on? Impeachment fatigue is all they've got

Again the irony is stupefying. They try and benefit by associating the Dems with their own outrageous behavior from the recent past. They're getting out in front of the impeachment issue and even making prospective impeachment THE issue because impeachment fatigue is all they've got. What else can they do? Run on George Bush's record? Nope. They're banking on the idea that your average American gets a headache thinking about the prospect of turning on the tube after a long day of work and seeing all this impeachment crap again. They're hoping that people will say enough is enough already, using their own gross misconduct against Clinton that basically annoyed the public to their advantage.