Why are state and local leaders willing to impeach--but not Congresscritters

[European Socialist]

Out of 535 is there even one? Are Reid and Pelosi that powerful?

[Syrinx]

1. congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America

[Perky]

2. We campaign in poetry and govern in prose

The problem is that impeachment by its nature is poisonous to getting anything else accomplished. Local pols are insulated from having to build winning coalition in the the halls of Congress. It a harsh reality but it is the truth.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Spot On

Those who want a feeeeel good impeachment, don't want the truth. They want a pound of flesh...an impeachment without a conviction...despite how counter productive it will be.

As well as freezing any and all business on such frivolous things as health care, education and investigating all the crimes of this regime, the ordeal would provide a marvelous smoke screen for this regime to continue their abuses and would encurage them to do even more...what do they have to lose? It wouldn't bring the troops home one day soon...as it would put off debates on defunding or taking other military options away from this regime. And that's not even counting the corporate media who would paint this as a Democratic vendetta to over turn an election.

History has already begun to write the boooooosh legacy...one we will live with for the rest of our lives, impeachment or not...worst. president. ever.

[pat_k]

19. Poppycock.

While it will certainly feel good to see the Democratic leadership become our champions by standing up and defending the Constitution and the People's Government, as they are sworn to do, impeaching to enforce our common contract has absolutely nothing with to do with wanting "a pound of flesh."

Impeachment is first and foremost a defensive act. Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution in plain sight (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3144476&mesg_id=3144996">link) Congress is sworn to "support and defend."

It's analogous to highway patrolmen driving behind a car weaving all over the road. Their first duty is to protect the public by turning on the siren and pulling over the driver. Maybe the driver will manage to get away. So what? They must act. Their oath to protect the public demands it. Prosecution is the least of their worries at that point. (What part of "drunk with power" do our so-called leaders fail to understand?)

Taking a "pound of flesh" (justice, retribution, whatever you want to call it) is for the Courts, not Congress.

The Democratic majority can accomplish nothing under "rule by signing statement." They are even more impotent than the Democratic majority proved to be in 1987 when they refused to impeach Reagan and Poppy Bush, got steamrolled, and lost the White House (and thus made the horror of the Bushkid possible.)

Some are getting it -- that anything short of impeachment is impotent gesture -- but they comfort themselves with the notion that they'll accomplish something by getting the Republicans "on the record" for things that the Republicans are already "on the record" for.

And, WRT being "destracting" -- distracting Bush and Cheney from lawless and reckless agenda is a GOOD thing.

There is no downside to impeaching Bush and Cheney. On the other hand, there are many upside benefits (e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=334602&mesg_id=336370">link).

How come it is only when the Democrats are in the drivers seat that it is suddenly "meaningless" or a "waste" to act or vote when victory is unlikely? Dems happily cite votes they cast on the losing side as very meaningful things. The Members who voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force cite that vote at least once a day. If their vote against the Authorization to Use Military is meaningful, how can they rationally claim that, whatever the outcome, a vote for impeachment would be meaningless?

Mystifying. Irreconcilable. Irrational.

[Edweird]

27. Exactly.

Our guys have to draw a line in the sand and fight for it. Even if they lose. It will matter in '08 when then country has to decide who they want to lead.

[shadowknows69]

10. What else is getting done anyway?

Except for more war. Impeach NOW!

[pat_k]

13. Confirming the "weak Dem" image. An "accomplishment". . .

. . .they appear to be addicted to.

[pat_k]

16. They can accomplish nothing under "rule by signing statement". . .

The "backlash" they fear has nothing to do with any segment of the electorate. It is the fear of dirty looks at the next cocktail party that has them quaking in their boots.

Our job is to make them more frightened of us than they are of dirty looks from their "friends" on the other side.

[A Simple Game]

29. Give that Lady a golden hammer.

I believe she has hit the nail directly on the head.

No matter what they do in public and say in their speeches, these people are in a small and tightly knit club, especially the Senators. They do in fact party together and socialize with each other often regardless of party affiliation. Many consider the person they trashed in a speech on the floor their friend and few take it personally.

Most of them didn't even mind what Delay was doing except that he went too far and it became so obvious.

[Vidar]

3. The locals aren't on the take yet.

[rodeodance]

4. they are late blommers?

[European Socialist]

5. Still, it would seem like Bernie, Dennis, and Maxine would be pushing for it

Why is there nobody?

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Maybe they are behind closed doors?

[BobRossi]

6. They pander to the voter.

But are owned by the corporations.

[kestrel91316]

7. Why? That's easy: ANTHRAX. Or worse.

[Kurovski]

9. I was just going to present that very possibility...

and you beat me to it.

Only a possibility, however. And one day we may know for certain.

[pat_k]

14. Like Members of the Armed Services, Members of Congress are sworn to

. . ."support and defend."

We expect our servicemen and women to risk life and limb to fulfill that oath. (We do more than expect it. Refusing an order to go into battle is subject to the penalty of death.)

We don't enforce the Congressional oath with the ultimate penalty, but the oath is the same. Fear of death cannot excuse a Member's dereliction of duty.

[kestrel91316]

21. IMHO they lack a certain patriotic fervor of the sort that our

Founding Fathers had in scads.

A pity.

[havocmom]

11. NSA phone taps- they're not just for terrorists...

Blackmail is such an ugly word, but a damned fine way to keep your tools in the shed.

[pat_k]

15. Same reply as above (#14)

[havocmom]

17. Ah, no, mine was #11 and not about oaths

:shrug:

[pat_k]

20. Sorry. Misread. . .

Thought you meant that the Dems were refusing to impeach because they were being blackmailed. So I pointed to #14 to make the point that even if they were being blackmailed, it wouldn't be a legitimate excuse for refusing to impeach.

[pat_k]

12. Collective denial and shared delusion are that powerful.

The irrational rationalizations and assumptions that pervade the insular world of the beltway are rarely, if ever, questioned. And they are constantly being reinforced.

So far, our demands for action have been sliding off their immobilizing beliefs like water off a ducks back. Some of the rationalizations and patterns of thought we are seeing in the Democratic caucus are so intractable because they go back decades ¹

Every single one of their immobilizing beliefs is either the opposite of reality or is or simply can't be rationally defended. When challenged, their poisonous notions will fall -- but only if challenged directly and persistently, both "out here" and "in there." (Yep. Some of us need to request meetings and actually talk to our leaders and their staffers. There's a reason corporations spend so much for lobbyists. Nothing can substitute for person-to-person contact.)

The biggest barrier to impeachment isn't the reactionaries on the right. It is the impeachophobics in our own ranks. It is immobilizing notions like:

"We'll get Cheney"
(Asinine. They are partners in their war on the Constitution.
Can't impeach one without the other.)

"Impeachment will take "too long."
(Republicans will be highly motivated to dump Bush and Cheney.
They could be forced out stunningly fast. There is no reason for
it to drag on, but of course it could. How long is "too long" to
rescue the Constitution and restore our self-esteem as Americans?)

"Impeachment is a distraction; we need to focus on ending the war"
(It is irrational to be both Anti-War and Anti-Impeachment.
The Constitution, international law, U.S. Code, the overwhelming will of
the people aren't even a bump in the road to the bushcheney steamroller.
Impeachment is the only "lethal" weapon in the Congressional arsenal.
The distraction is proving impotence by trying to pass resolutions and
laws for Bush to violate, veto, or nullify with a signing statements.)

"Investigations will lead to impeachment."
("We're investigating" says "We don't have a case." Already have all
we need for many cases. "Investigations" can't turn up anything more
powerful than what's already public record.² )

"Can't win, so won't fight.."
(Perhaps the most insidious of all the rationalizations for inaction.³)

"We don't have the votes in the Senate."
(An unsupportable and irrelevant variation of "Can't win, so won't fight." ²)

"BAD Things will happen if we impeach."
(What bad things? What evidence? With 58% wanting the Bush Presidency
over now, where do you imagine a backlash would come from? ⁴
What about the risks of failing to impeach or the benefits of impeaching? ⁵

"Anger is bad. Don't get worked up."
(Getting worked up engages. Giving voice to anger inspires.)

"People are turned off by polarization."
(People are turned on by polarization. They look for heroes and
champions to fight for them, and to defeat villains.)

"We'll be accused of attempting a partisan coup."
(Not if you make it clear that you'd far prefer resignation to removal
-- i.e., leave the WH is Republican hands and speed the transition to
legitimate leadership. ⁶ )

"We must take care not to overreach."
(People are inspired by http://www.wordspy.com/words/BHAG.asp">BHAGs (big hairy audacious goals).
Go for it all, and achieve what you achieve.
If you only go for what you think you can get, you usually end up with far
less than that.)

There are more of them. ⁷

It's a like "Whack-a-Mole." As you knock down one, another pops up. Sometimes ones you thought you'd already whacked. But there is every reason for hope. We are making inroads. More people are picking up a clue stick and whacking away every day.

Every action, large and small, makes a difference. (We don't need a movement, we just need to move!)

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

1. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=142357&mesg_id=142901">It's like Deja vu all over again


2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3144476&mesg_id=3144996">Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution in plain sight.


3. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3143213&mesg_id=3144577"> If you want Bush and Cheney impeached. . .


4. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3143213&mesg_id=3143904">58% of the public want bushcheney gone now


5. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=334602&mesg_id=336370">Dems as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution. . .


6. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .


7. http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">Saving Ourselves from Ourselves

[Cabcere]

22. Brilliant rebuttal!

:applause: Well done, my friend...well done. :thumbsup: :)

[earth mom]

28. Yes-Very Well Done!

:applause:

[tritsofme]

23. Because there is a difference between empty rhetoric

and real action?

[Senator]

24. Beltway Blather Bedlam Bubble

The same "groupthink" that terrorized the nation into war with the "bomb threat" of "Mushroom Clouds!!!"

The DC LieberDems continue to believe the Fractured Fascist Fairy Tales that literally allow them to sleep through the night.

Read Post #12 above for a partial list of their means of willful self delusion.

==

[ToeBot]

25. mispost

[ToeBot]

26. The same reason Congressmen are willing to spend time on non-binding resolutions...

and other time wasters - it doesn't really amount to anything, but it makes for a good show. If Congress were to take up impeachment, the body actually responsible for such an act, it would be all to real and have real consequences. So the answer is simple they're a bunch of posers.

[Moderate Dem]

30. Maybe because Impeachment would be a bad strategy for 2008?

[pat_k]

31. How?

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=336489&mesg_id=337814">Post #12 above

. . .

"BAD Things will happen if we impeach."
(What bad things? What evidence? With 58% wanting the Bush Presidency
over now, where do you imagine a backlash would come from? ⁴
What about the risks of failing to impeach or the benefits of impeaching? ⁵
. . .