DC Insider tells Dems to Campaign on Impeachment -- Will they GET IT ??!!

[pat_k]

Last night on Countdown, Craig Crawford -- more insightful than most, but definitely a DC insider -- told Dems to campaign on Impeachment/Censure to "put Bush on the ballot" and "Nationalize this election around George Bush."

He hemmed and hawed about it, but the message is clear.

He also pointed out that it's dangerous NOT to campaign on Impeachment (i.e., he's pushing and pulling.)

As we lobby our Senators and Reps to get on the Impeachment Bus, we need to add Crawford's analysis/recommendation to our arsenal.

They've managed to dismiss calls from "out there." Perhaps insiders can get through -- perhaps they'll finally grasp the fact that campaigning on Impeachment is not just the RIGHT thing to do, it's the WINNING thing to do.

Even if they never quite "get it" (i.e., see that their oath to support and defend obligates them to Censure/Impeach Bush for his exercise of dictatorial power), perhaps we can motivate them to act by emphasizing the the "winning" side of the equation.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 17

CRAWFORD: . . .And this is a problem for Democrats if they're going to decide they don't have to do that, they can just wait and win by default, which is the sense I get from many of them these days. That could be a little dangerous, because a lot of independent-minded voters out there, Keith, and a lot of Democrats too, just think Democrats don‘t stand for anything. They couldn‘t say spit if they had a mouthful. . .

OLBERMANN: How do -- Or Shinola. How do the Democrats handle Iraq? And I guess that‘s assuming there is going to be one answer to that question. Is that the problem, that there is not going to be one answer to that question?

CRAWFORD: . . .There are a whole host of things Americans are looking for here that I don‘t think either party's giving them any answers. There's a sense that this was Washington's war, Washington's losing the war, and Washington has no idea how to do—what to do about it.

OLBERMANN: Of course, we have changed the political landscape of the country since 1997, and given what we saw during the Clinton impeachment, are the Democrats going to try to tightrope this issue of censure or impeachment of the president, were they to gain control? Are they going to leave the extreme left wing with the impression that they could do that, but try not to scare off the middle, who are essentially the same people who thought that the Clinton impeachment was political nonsense?

CRAWFORD: I think the problem would be if the Democrats did pursue impeachment after winning power, if they won power in November, and didn‘t talk about it during this campaign, then I think they‘d face the same fate the Republicans did with the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans ended up the big losers in public opinion, not Clinton after that.

So I think if Democrats want to go that route, they better campaign on it this year. And maybe censure is a half-step that doesn't paralyze the country for a couple of years that some voters would be attracted to. But they do need to nationalize this election around George Bush. They need to put George Bush on the ballot, the Democrats do, not—Republicans don't want that. One way to do that might be to talk about some sort of punishment for the president after they won power, if they won.

OLBERMANN: Forty-seven percent strong disapproval is certainly a good diving board to start that campaign off of (INAUDIBLE), we'll see if they use it.

Craig Crawford, columnist at "Congressional Quarterly." As always, sir, thanks for joining us.

Note: I emphasized "punishment" because that is the aspect that grabs Republicans. They focus on people, not ideas, and many -- particularly white males -- revel in accusation/blame and punishment.


=========================================================================

BTW, Kieth is dead wrong -- and in fact has it BACKWARDS -- when he says "but try not to scare off the middle, who are essentially the same people who thought that the Clinton impeachment was political nonsense."

From

. . .More than 40% of the nation has opposed Bush from day one and the opposition is steadily growing. There is no conceivable scenario in which the support for impeaching Bush and Cheney would drop below 40%.

. . .The 30% who steadfastly supported the impeachment of Clinton will oppose to the impeachment of Bush. Opposition to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney may never drop below 30%, but revelations in the course of investigation could drive that number down. . .

In the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton, the negative reaction was rooted in the belief that the questions about President Clinton's sex life should not have been asked in the first place.

There are serious charges against Bush and Cheney, and serious questions that are unanswered. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the findings of an impeachment inquiry would lead the electorate to conclude that the charges should never have been investigated in the first place. . .

More . . .

[wordpix]

1. I saw this, started a thread on it last night, Crawford absolutely right

[pat_k]

2. Sorry I missed your post. Perhaps add a linik to it here? nt

[CarlSheeler4U]

3. Well I'm a US Senate Dem "Outsider"

Howdaya' like this sign?!

www.carlsheeler.com

[pat_k]

4. Love it! BTW, sorry I've been out of touch -- but rest assured that I'm

. . . still 100% behind your campaign, and continue to promote it at every opportunity.

[jarnocan]

31. AWESOME- best wishes for you and US!

[lyonn]

9. GOOD SIGN - we need a jillion more. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

19. have been a big fan since you first put it up!

not from RI, but you have my full support -- I've been sending the link around, praising your courage. :patriot:

[walkon]

5. Shoulda been from

December 12, 2000 on. Nothing from them leads me to wonder just how bought off they are.

[pat_k]

17. Just posted on this very subject yesterday

" Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

[lyonn]

6. In other words, let's quit pussy footin around and call a

spade a spade. We have been lied to, manipulated with the sky is falling tactic (Osama/Saddam/Sunni/Democrats/Communist/Hammas are gonna get ya. These Generals that are standing up for our troops in combat are certainly heroes that this admin. should be ashamed to crucify.

Rummy's on now and making excuses up the yahoo. More of "it's all their fault", "hard to get good results with His new plan due to those objecting", ugh! As- hole. He keeps saying "hard thing to do" instead of smart thing to do.

Craig Crawford has a way with words, love the guy generally. bush has performed impeachable acts. If a bj and lying about it is impeachable then bush's proven lies definitely are! Go for it Dems.

[pat_k]

7. Breaking a specific law doesn't compare to his subversion of the Constitu

Members of Congress really have no choice, but I fear they will remain in denial until they see the political necessity. I'm delighted to finally see a beltway commentator make the case.

Bush's claim to unitary authoritarian power currently subsumes all else (and in fact, the torture, secret programs and lies, and who knows what other activities that have yet to be revealed, all follow directly from his belief in his right to exercise unrestrained power).

It is so frustrating that they manage to rationalize their silence, when the case is soooo simple to make, and when the action required is so self-evident. It's as easy as one, two, three:

1. By his own admission, George W. Bush ordered the illegal surveillance of Americans without a warrant (violation of 50 USC Sec. 1809--Unauthorized Surveillance).


2. George W. Bush is continuing the illegal program, claiming that, unitary authoritarian power puts him above the law.


3. Bush's claim to unrestrained power subverts the principles and institutions we established under the Constitution for the United States. While the violation of rights of the Americans that are secretly being spied upon without a warrant is intolerable, it is the claim to unitary power that is truly devastating to our system of government.


4. Given the gravity and urgency of the threat to our constitutional democracy, members of Congress have a sworn duty to take immediate action to defend the nation.

(OK, easy as one, two, three, four.)

All we can do is keep chipping away at whatever rationalizations they are hiding behind, and be thankful that more varied voices are joining the fray.

[lyonn]

12. And I too get haired up over the Unitary Authoritarian power

that bush has bestowed upon himself. Also, tortue law? Overruled McCain's law on torture passed by the Senate and signed a presidential statement to the contrary. Warrantless arrest, illegal search due to no process of law. The list is way too long of bush's trashing of the Constitution.

[pat_k]

18. Deriliction of duty isn't tolerated in the armed services, why do we . . .

. . . tolerate it in members of Congress?

Both the Congressional oath and the enlistment begin with:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. . .

We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to support and defend -- risks that don't compare the to risk of losing your seat in Congress (1 seat in 100 or 1 seat in 435) or being called sore loser or unpatriotic, or whatever.

Their fears -- even if they have reason to fear for their lives -- do not excuse members of Congress from fulfilling their oath when high officials are subverting the principles and institutions we established in our Constitution.

How can members of the Democratic Party claim to be protectors and defenders of our most cherished values if they will not stand up for the SOLE moral principle on which the nation was founded: the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed?

[Cosmocat]

8. Yeah ...

The key is to lay it ALL out and ask for accountability/oversight ...

REALLY bang about the corruption, incompetence, lies ... Say that it definitely looks like a lot of bad stuff has occurred and that it needs to be looked at properly ... But, don't call get the horse ahead of the cart by using the impeachment thing ... Let the excusists/partisans take that that step and say it, then say, IF this crew has nothing to hide, if it did nothing wrong, then it should have nothing to worry about ... But, we just can't know right now, cause congress has been corrupted by republican partisanship that has not done even the first bit of oversight, which is what Congress exists for ...

Hold hearings and let the facts speak for themselves ...

[lyonn]

10. Some Dems in Congress have asked for hearings

into the workings of this admin. and it goes up in a puff of smoke. The general public have no idea what is going on due to repub control of all parts of the govt. Of course we need hearings but we are not getting them. They are investigating themselves. Oh boy. I'd like to be judge and jury in any lawsuit I may have.

Nope, we must get noisy about impeachment. No more Mr. Nice Guy, and using the attitude that justice will prevail - not necessarily. Look where we are 5 years after bush Absolute Rule.

[pat_k]

13. Their exercise of unitary exec power poses a clear and present danger.

. . .They can hold hearings, or prosecute, or turn over to the Hague -- whatever is required to learn the full extent and hold them accountable for other charges -- but they must Impeach/Censure Bush and Cheney right now for replacing the will of Congress (Our Voice) with the will of Geo. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Their subversion of the Constitution is intolerable and puts the nation in grave danger. Those who claim dictatorial power use it. We cannot guess the magnitude of the threat -- we have no idea what other secret programs, or what other horrifying acts he may commit in our name before he is forced out of power -- but the threat is undeniable.

Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty and demand Congressional action, George W. Bush can point to their failure to act as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If his actions were violations wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Congressional action?)

By providing cover, every member of Congress who fails to act (and every Candidate who fails to take a position that affirms the duty they will take on as a member of congress) is aiding and abetting Bush's efforts to unilaterally override the will of the people. (When he violates the resolutions and laws enacted by Congress, he is usurping OUR collective sovereignty.)

The Congressional oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath that demands each member to make a personal decision. The decision that faces each member (and those who seek to be members) right now is this: duty or complicity?

Whether or not members think they can a sufficient number of their colleagues will see the light, each individual has is sworn to call on Congress to take whatever action required to force Bush to "cease and desist."

[Peace Patriot]

11. I think most people would be glad to see this Executive Branch crippled

for a couple of years, until we can rid ourselves of this junta. What have they done for you and me and 99% of the population? $3/gal gas prices. Destruction of FEMA--leaving us wide open to disaster. An $8 trillion federal deficit. Multiple tax cuts for the super-rich. Sky-rocketing, bankrupting medical costs. 30% interest rates on credit cards. Millions of jobs outsourced to countries with cheap slave labor. Deregulation. U.S.-based global corporate predators on the loose, like sharks swimming in bloody waters. Destruction of the planet's atmosphere and weather. Mixing of the state with rightwing religious extremists. Corruption of our elections, with Bushite corporations in control of "trade secret" vote tabulation programming code. All our news organizations turned into a few corporate monopolies.

And that isn't the half of it.

Clinton was running a stable, open government, with a surplus. Bad as his signing of NAFTA was, his was a law-abiding government on the whole. Not my cup of tea (though I voted for him--given the choices). There was NO REASON to impeach him. In fact, there was no reason to investigate him. NOTHING untoward was found, not a scrap of evidence of personal corruption. And private sex acts--turned up by Ken Starr's Inquisition--should have remained just that--private. And most Americans agreed. Clinton's popularity INCREASED, as I recall--or at least remained stable at high levels--throughout that stupidity.

The Bush junta is an entirely different matter.

But I wouldn't hold your breath on the Democratic leadership truly addressing this junta's crimes. They SHOULD but they most likely will not. And the key to that may be the kind of campaign that Kerry ran: silent on torture and the dismantling of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, silent on Halliburton's no-bid contracts and the billions missing in Iraq, silent on the regime's LIES about Iraq, silent on the regime's stonewalling of a 9/11 investigation, silent on treason (the outing of a CIA agent and an entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation project), and in favor of the war in the Middle East but just wanting it to be a more efficient, better war. And no universal health care.

I'm sure Kerry had some poor advice from the other Democratic leaders at the time, on all of these issues--in addition to perhaps the most important one of all, Bushite corporations having gained control of the tabulation of all of our votes with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls, in the new, Tom Delay/Christopher Dodd-designed electronic voting system--and I don't hold Kerry entirely responsible for failing to run a campaign that could have beaten the machines. I'm just saying that these are the typical positions of our corrupt, collusive Democratic leaders, and they hold sway over policy, to the exclusion of the good Democrats and the opinions of most of the people in this country.

What is needed is a major house-cleaning of the country's leadership--from the White House down to the county election officials--but that would include about half of the Democratic leadership in the country, and they are not about to purge themselves. What they--the corporate ass-kissing, war profiteering Democrats--want is a country purged of any hope of real justice and real peace. They LIKE Bush setting precedents of illegal detention and torture, and spying, and big tax cuts for the rich, and purging the CIA of anybody who thinks that it is their job to foster peace and not to manufacture war--because it makes these Democratic rightwingers look like leftists.

I'm afraid that's the reality of the situation. Don't expect the bulk of the Democratic Party leadership to become populists and truth-tellers any time soon. They will "run" on their half-assed program of collusion, articulated by THEIR presidential candidate in 2004, and they will not at all be happy to see insurgent leftists (of the real kind) start bumping collusive Democrats out in the primaries, with overwhelming voter turnouts that beat the machines, in '06, even if it means a Democratic majority in Congress. They don't want that kind of majority in Congress--the kind that might investigate the Bush junta, impeach it and throw it out on its ears; the kind that might start looking seriously at military budgets that foster wars of choice; the kind that might re-regulate out-of-control corporate predators.

I believe in the grass roots of this Party. I think we represent the vast majority of Americans, who are progressive in their views, and desire peace and justice in the world. And we are pushing them hard--these collusive, corrupt Democratic Party leaders. But I would not underestimate their entrenchment--nor their power--even in a time of massive and growing rebellion against our war profiteering corporate rulers.

[lyonn]

14. And that's a fact - really liked your post - n/t

[pat_k]

15. The Repubs may beat the Dems to it. They have some tough choices. . .

Hastert in the White House may start looking very attractive as they realize the alternative is Unitary Executive Pelosi in 2007 (with Hillary as VP).

[ieoeja]

16. What is Crawford talking about here?

"I think the problem would be if the Democrats did pursue impeachment after winning power, if they won power in November, and didn‘t talk about it during this campaign, then I think they‘d face the same fate the Republicans did with the Clinton impeachment."

They didn't lose popularity because the impeached Clinton after not campaigning on impeachment. The '98 election was ALL about the threat of impeachment (which is why the Republicans lost BIG in that election).

Crawford must have been living under a rock in '98 to have missed that one.

[pat_k]

20. He's trying to say it will be problematic if they are silent on . . .

. . .Impeachment during the campaign, but pursue it when they win contol of Congress.

Unfortunately, he's got the NATURE of the negative consequences wrong.

He's better than most, but like others who have their heads stuck in the beltway sphincter, he is conditioned to parrot the baseless assumption that the public (or the center, or whatever) will object to impeachment, regardless of the charges. The injection of that propaganda muddled his thinking.

But, his assertion that there is a danger is correct. Any Senator or Rep who decides to stay silent or soft-peddle Impeachment/Censure during their campaign, even though they intend to carry out their duty if they win, risks being seen (accurately) as a coward.

If a significant number of Democratic candidates do this, and thus deny their constituents the opportunity to factor in their position on impeachment, they undermine support for Dems by, once again, confirming the perception that Democrats are weak.

Keeping mum on impeachment until after the election doesn't just undermine their chances of winning, it will undermine the party's image if they DO gain control and seek to force Bush and Cheney from office.

[madfloridian]

21. I heard that, and I disagree with his premise.

Many of our leaders have said they will investigate, and then take action if necessary.

I think we should just assume they will do what they can once back in power.

I just don't see the need to go around yelling impeach impeach. I don't see that it gains us anything in the ugly atmosphere that already exists here in this country and will get worse before the election.

[pat_k]

23. That would be fine if the abuse of power wasn't undeniably self-evident.

Saying "I'll fight for hearings/investigation" is all well and good for charges related to criminal activities of unknown scope, but Bush and Cheney's assertion of unitary authoritarian power is a clear and present danger to our constitutional democracy.

They are sworn to defend our Constitution against subversion. If they gain control and acknowledge the truth -- that by his own admission, Bush is subverting our constitutional by usurping the power of Congress -- they look like:

• idiots, who couldn't see the obvious, even though thier nose was repeatedly rubbed in it; or


• cowards, who didn't have the courage to tell the truth and make a commitment to defend the Constitution during their campaign.

[yodermon]

22. The Dems are waiting for Fitz to indict some more.

Then they'll let loose with both barrels, I tell yah. That powder be BONE dry by now.
Yee ha!
I'm sure of it.

Actually, all snark aside, Conyers has been very much pressing the impeachment issue, and he'll be chair of the Judiciary when we get the House back. He'll be able to point to a detailed record of calling for impeachment hearings well before the 06 elections.

[endarkenment]

24. Ouch I've been snarked! nt.

[pat_k]

27. Conyers, Fiengold and the members who support them . . .

. . .are on solid moral ground. They are speaking the truth. They are fulfilling their oath.

But their numbers are dwarfed by the number of members and candidates who are keeping mum.

For the party image to be bolstered by the principled actions of Conyers and Fiengold, many more members need to join them.

I hope you are right and many intend to come on strong sometime between now and the election (no later than August). If they do have such intentions, they are amazing actors. The powerful system of rationalizations they invoke to sustain their apparent denial sure doesn't look like a ruse from out here.

[worldgonekrazy]

25. Thats not how I saw it

I watched Crawford's appearance as well, and the gist of what he said, in my mind, was:

Democrats should NOT try to impeach Bush (if they take Congress) unless they campaign on that. If they don't campaign on it and then try it after the election, the public will feel like they've been duped.

But that doesn't mean that Crawford is saying they should campaign on it. In fact, what I got out of it was that he thinks that Democrats should forget about impeachment.

[pat_k]

28. Whatever was in his mind, he is getting at the truth of their situation.

The gist of the discussion was: "they had better do something."

When you couple that context with "putting Bush on the Ballot" and "Nationalizing this election" (describing actions that could benefit them) I see him recommending a course of action.

But, whatever is in his mind, he expressed a couple core truths that I have not heard coming out of the beltway. He is injecting potential rewards of Campaigning on Impeachment (to date we have ONLY heard predictions of doom) and potential risks associated with silence.

His analysis expands the conventional boundaries of the debate in a way that is VERY productive.

[Dr Fate]

26. But wont our powder get wet if we do that? n/t

n/t

[pat_k]

29. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

[Senator]

30. Kicked and rec'd!

[Pacifist Patriot]

32. FL-15 has a Dem candidate for House actively campaigning...

on the impeachment issue. At the peace march marking the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq he flat out stated his first order of business in Washington would be to draw up articles of impeachment. Go Dr. Bob!!!

http://bowman2006.com/

[pat_k]

33. Dr. Bob should get in touch with the folks at ImpeachPAC

I don't see him on their Impeachment candidates list -- He may want to correct that.

http://impeachpac.org/candidates

Demand for Impeachment candidates is high; the supply tragically low. The equation is not good for us, but (High Demand + Low Supply) = National Donor Base.

BTW, looks like Ned Lamont, Lieberman's oppoent, endorses Censure. Yahoo!

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/04/post_166.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. Thank you! I just turned the information over to his...

campaign manager.

[European Socialist]

34. I'd go even further--discuss stolen elections and WTC#7--keep punching.

[pat_k]

37. Hear, Hear!

[Senator]

35. Remember what to say whenever a Repub is in Earshot

"It's up to you. You can have Pres. Hastert now, or Pres. Pelosi later."

...and...

"If you let the bushkid get away with these claims of urinary authoritarian executive power, you give the same power to Pres. Hillary."

--
www.january6th.org