Connecticut Rep. John Larson Is Told: Impeach Bush

[Robbien]

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-larson0325.artmar25,0,4343972.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics

"As long as Bush is going to veto everything you try to do, it kind of cuts your options," Hartford resident Cochran, 82, said in a slow, even voice. "Maybe you'll be able to get a few more Republicans to vote on your side, but that doesn't sound too promising as far as really having enough to overcome a veto.

"From my viewpoint, I think the only option left is impeachment."

The reaction from the crowd of about 100 was loud and instantaneous. Nearly 20 seconds of applause, punctuated by a cry of "Show some guts, John!"

Larson reacted with an uncomfortable smile and a challenge: "So you want Dick Cheney, huh?"

"Get 'em both!" came a yell from the back of the room. "A twofer!"

Cochran, who later said he was pleasantly surprised by the crowd's response, did not intend the proposal as an idle political bomb, telling Larson he truly believed Bush had committed impeachable offenses.

I believe it is sad that Larson pulled out that whiney cowardly threat "well then you will get Cheney" which most DC Dems keep pushing in our faces to stop impeachment demands.

And it is great the crowd threw it back at him.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What people don't understand is

if we DID impeach and convict Bush, and Cheney did take office, his ability to do a lot of the dirty deeds he does would be curtailed. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to slink off and not be seen or heard from for days, like he can now. For another, he would realize that Congress, having flexed its muscles, won't be a cowed lapdog willing to obey his every order. So I have no problem with Cheney taking over--long enough for investigations to begin on HIM.

[pat_k]

18. It would make no sense to impeach Bush w/o Cheney.

I don't mean to single you out. You are just echoing one of the many rationalization born of the group think, self-censorship, and denial that pervades the insular world of the beltway.¹ When our only sources of information are the "pushers" in the MSM, it is not surprising to see the rationalizations internalized by the rank and file "out here."

The refrain we hear from the impeachophobics on the Hill -- "Can't impeach Bush because we'll get Cheney" -- is a self-contradictory declaration. If Cheney is an even greater threat to our Constitution than Bush, Members of Congress are bound by their oath to defend the Constitution to impeach him too.

Bush and Cheney are two heads of the same beast. They're coconspirators in their campaign to http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/21">"clear, hold, and build" their way to an Un-American, unconstitutional, unitary authoritarian executive with unbounded power.

The BIGGEST barrier to impeachment is not the opposition. It is the baseless assumptions and rationalizations that our so-called leaders invoke to shut out and purge information that contradicts their conviction that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. The most common are:

• "The public will rise against us"
• "We'll lose the White House"
• "Impeachment will tear the nation apart"
• "We don't have the votes to remove"
• "It would be a futile waste"
• "We need to focus on stopping the war"
• "Impeachment is a distraction"
• "The public is not behind it"
• "Now is not the 'right' time; maybe later"
• "We must investigate first"
• "It will take too long"
• "It's not gonna happen because it's not gonna happen"

Bush and Cheney have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. Impeachment is the only way to rescue our Constitution, redeem the nation, and restore our self-esteem as Americans. To refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney is to surrender our constitutional democracy to fascists without a fight. To make impeachment a reality must break through the wall that is blocking action by contradicting these rationalizations with simple truths, moral principles, and the stark realities of our national crisis.

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

1. For example, characteristics of "group think" include:
   
   
   • Overestimation of the Group
     Illusion of invulnerability, Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group
   
   
   • Closed-Mindedness
     Collective Rationalizations and Stereotypes of Outgroups
   
   
   • Pressures toward Uniformity
     Self-censorship, Illusion of Unanimity, Direct Pressure on Dissenters, Self-Appointed "mindguards"
   
   General factors that led group members astray:
   
   
   • Diffusion of Individual Responsibility
     When we’re alone, we realize that either we respond to an event, or no one does. If others are around, we are more likely to defer; there are costs to intervening, and we can avoid those costs if others choose to intervene.
   
   
   • Status Quo Bias
     We have an exaggerated preference for the status quo, and if there is no status quo, we opt for the default choice. (And of course, in Congress, when you aren't doing something, the default choice is to "stay the course" of inaction.
   
   
   • Informational Conformity
     We learn about an element of physical or social reality by observing other people’s reactions to it, often without even realizing it. (i.e., When all those around you take an assumption as given, it must be a given, no matter how wrong it may actually be. Which is why there is no substitute for face-to-face dialog, which allows us to question their assumptions. It can be a powerful wake up call to be confronted with someone who looks at you like your are nuts as they contradict things you've never questioned.
   
   Sources: http://web.mit.edu/16.459/www/Teams2.pdf and http://www.wws.princeton.edu/wwac/files/psych_3.doc

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. I didn't realize that Newton County Arkansas is

inside the beltway. :rofl:

All I was saying was that if somehow Cheney got to be President, I don't think he could get away with what he's getting away with now. Haven't heard any talking head on the radio say that--and I only listen to progressive talk radio. Only MSM news I get is here. You can disagree, and cite sources, etc--but know that the idea I had came from the backwoods, not the beltway. My point was that we gotta impeach Bush. I won't have any Cheney fear mongering cloud that point.

[pat_k]

41. Absolutely! The threat of "Pres. Cheney" is a red herring.

Apologies. As I go after the various rationalizations for inaction, I sometimes jump too quickly. My objection -- that Bush and Cheney are inseparable and must be impeached together -- still holds, but we can never know how events will unfold until the events are behind us. "Getting Cheney" is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, as you point out, "Getting Cheney" is a bogus threat. Cheney after a Bush impeachment might try to be "unitary authoritarian Cheney," but he probably wouldn't get far.

Also, the fact is, we HAVE Cheney now, so even we assume that "Pres. Cheney" could continue to fascist agenda after the removal/resignation of Bush, we would be still be ahead with "one down, one to go."

That said, as I lobby for the impeachment, I'll keep pointing out that when we impeach Bush for any of the high crimes he's committing to advance their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive, we've gotta impeach Cheney too because he is hell-bent on achieving the same goal.

WRT Newton AK being "inside the beltway." You may be far from the "reality-free zone" of beltway, but there is no escape the steady stream of unquestioned assumptions and self-defeating notions that emanates from it. We hear the standard impeachophobic rationalizations, not just from the pushers in the MSM, but on progressive outlets too. I run across them here on DU all the time. The difference is that the impeachophobes "out here" are far easier to reach than the impeachophobes trapped in the beltway sphincter. Which is why challenging the poisonous notions in our own ranks is so critical. When we turn impeachophobes into impeachers outside the beltway, we are turning up the heat on the "insiders."

BTW, many of the rationalizations that are immobilizing the DC Democrats now have kept them from "fighting the good fights" for decades. ("Can't win, so don't fight," "Don't overreach," "Anger is a turnoff"). Some self-defeating tendencies seem to be part of the fabric of the Democratic Party. For example, the tendency to:

• focus on specific "issues" and programs rather than the principles and goals behind the specifics;
• limit our "strategic" analyses to the risks of a action, ignoring the potential rewards of action, and the risks of failing to act;
• fall victim to pessimism disguised as realism;

If you're interested, your find more on self-defeating tendencies and winning habits in http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html">Saving Ourselves from Ourselves

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
- Pogo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo#.22We_have_met_the_enemy.....22">1971)

P.S. Speaking of Newton County -- reminds me that we have yet to see our brick at the Clinton Library. We were there (getting drenched) at the opening, but the location of our brick was cordoned off. Perhaps it's time for another road trip.

[nuxvomica]

2. Yes, a "twofer"!

I keep saying that to folks when I discuss impeachment. Nothing in the USC says you can't do a twofer.

[mmonk]

3. Refreshing.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, if go for Bush, cheney is included. Why are people still asking If

we want Cheney------or assume we will get Cheney!

[Toots]

14. We will get Rice if both go..

:shrug: No matter where you turn in this Administration it is one thug after another...The only way is to totyally clean house and we know that is not going to happen.. Democrats are in charge of Congress now so nothing will happen that will be benificial to the people of the USA..They are afraid they will not be re-elected if they go against the mighty Republicans..

[1monster]

17. No. If both Bush and Cheney are impeached at the same time or

before a new Vice President is approved, then the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, becomes President.

I say, let's go for a TWOFER!

[pat_k]

26. So? Resignations are probably more likely than removal anyway.

When the House gets serious about impeaching them both -- and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=497792&mesg_id=499594">it would make no sense to impeach one w/o the other -- Bush and Cheney are likely to find themselves 1) isolated by a deafening silence as Repubs run away from having to defend torturers; and 2) under enormous pressure to make the "deal" and http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">serially resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands.

When Bush nullified McCain's amendment with a signing statement, he told a man who was a victim of torture to go to hell. He told the 90+ Senators who voted for that amendment to go to hell. Maybe Republicans don't care if Bush and Cheney tell the American people to go to hell, but they don't take kindly to be told to go to hell themselves. And it's hard to imagine them being at all keen on the prospect of publicly defending such acts or voting to uphold unconstitutional, unitary authoritarian action that makes Senators completely irrelevant.

Bush and Cheney are political poison, and Republicans are already falling over each other to "distance" themselves. The assumption that they'll all be willing to jump to their defense simply has no basis in reality. Sure, maybe they will, but there is no reason to expect them to. In fact, there is more reason to expect them not to.

[never_get_over_it]

40. Well lets get this completely correct

No if Bush and Cheney are IMPEACHED (indicted) in the House and CONVICTED (removed) in the Senate before a new Vice President is approved the Speaker of the House will become President - good luck getting 2/3rds vote for a twofer conviction - we won't be able to get 2/3rds for a onefer

But all that being said I believe they both should at a minimum be impeached and held accountable for what they have done.

Bill Clinton was impeached he was not covicted and removed....

BTW I called John Conyers office the other day and said it is time to impeach. I said I know the likelyhood of him/them being removed is small but it is time to make them accountable. And I was told they are getting A LOT of impeach calls.

[pat_k]

43. Great to hear they're feeling the heat!

WRT long shot "two-fer conviction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x497792#499924

[pat_k]

25. The power of group-think, rationalization, and denial cannot be underestimated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=497792&mesg_id=499594

[youngdem]

5. Pfft. We can't POSSIBLY get an impeachment....Pie in the sky thinking

We have Joe LIEberman in our caucus who will not vote for impeachment (nor will several other Blue Dog Repuke lite Dems), and NO Repuke is gonna take his place on this issue.

Dead in the water.

[Robbien]

7. stop peeing on the parade

It is not people like Lieberman who are the biggest threat in the way of impeachment.

People holding great big signs such as

We can't POSSIBLY get an impeachment

Pie in the sky thinking

Dead in the water

are a much bigger danger to any action being taken than joe lieberman ever could be.

[youngdem]

11. So, to you, I am a bigger obstacle to impeachment than LIEberman??

Silly. (to be polite about it)

We can't get an impeachment because Repukes have half the seats and can filibuster action. We also can't push it because LIEberman will leave the caucus and cost every Dem his chairmanship.

Sorry to 'rain on your parade' with inconvenient facts, but I didn't create them.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't stop a thing. We must be realistic about our options, instead of wasting time pursing options that have ZERO chance of success under the current situation.

[Robbien]

12. "we can't. . . we can't. . . we can't . . ."

we must be realistic, we can't

oh yeah, lots will get done with that kind of talk

[jwirr]

13. Impeachment is an investigation that is totally a House matter

while any indictment coming because of the results of the impeachment are a senate matter. It is the indictment we may not be able to get. However, IF we can show enough proof of criminal activity in the impeachment the pugs in senate may have no choice. I also am one of the ones who wants a 2fer.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Defeatist hogwash!

[man4allcats]

16. You should run for Congress.

In the climate of today's legislative branch, you would go far.

[Zhade]

30. Yes. Political cowardice like yours is a much more immediate, tangible threat.

NT!

[pat_k]

44. "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo (1971)

[never_get_over_it]

42. Actually LIEberman

has no impact on impeachment at all - Impeachment is indictment in house and takes a simple majority LIEberman wouldn't even have that much impact in the Senate because we would need EVERY DEM, EVERY INDEPENDENT and 16 repunks to convict.

But as I said in an earlier post - these two men shoud at a minimum be impeached. I for a very long time was opposed to impeachment because I don't believe we'd ever get 67 votes for conviction and I don't believe either one of these arrogant pigs would ever resign...but now as I said at a minimum charges need to be brought - so many to choose from and I really feel if the Dems had the political will they could get a few done VERY QUICKLY.

[pat_k]

29. So? The "losers" who voted against the AUMF are reaping . . .

. . . both personal and political benefits -- Big Time. I wouldn't be surprised if the 23 Senators and 133 House members who voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force don't cite that vote a half-dozen times a day.

They all tout votes on the "losing" side all the time. Why is a vote to defend the Constitution and the People's Government suddenly a "waste"?

And, there is no basis to believe that resignation or removal is impossible. In fact, we have reason to believe the opposite. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=497792&mesg_id=499924">That it is not only possible, but likely.

Regardless. Their oath is an oath to fight -- to support and defend; not an oath to win.

Their oath is an individual oath. Each and every Member has a choice. Continue to submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict and surrender our constitutional democracy without a fight, or stand and fight for the Constitution and the People's Government.

We take oaths for a reason. So when it comes time to do the tough stuff, we just do it.

It is long past time for Members of Congress to just do it.

It is better to go down as a hero than to stand on the sidelines with those who appease villains.

[NewJeffCT]

47. Larson voted against the AUMF

and he has held regular meeetings with constituents on the war. So, I doubt he was that shocked at the impeachment question...

[Hotler]

6. I don't think Larson liked that.

The tone I took from the article was that sort of pissed him off, and that he wasn't going have any talk of impeachment. Why are so many in politics afraid of the neo-cons???

[dkofos]

8. Because of their past (and who knows about it)!!

[monarch]

9. K & R n/t

[demnan]

10. Go to this website and pledge to impeach

http://www.pledgetoimpeach.org/

And be ready to stay home from work when this gets rejected. We must have a massive action now!

[Cha]

19. They're not the only ones who think it would be the best idea..

Why Impeach Bush and Cheney?
Misled Congress and the public about Iraq
Condoned the Torture of Prisoners
Authorized Illegal Wiretaps
Other Reasons
Talking Points for activists.
And grounds for impeachment, articles of impeachment, treaty violations
How to Impeach Bush and Cheney?
Impeachment Information Center


http://www.impeachbush.tv/

[stevedeshazer]

20. The same Connecticut that re-elected Lieberman?

If the House does get to impeachment, Joe will help kill it in the Senate.

Connecticut voters didn't help in 2006 so much.

[Alexander]

21. Um...do you know about CT-01? The Hartford area?

Not exactly neocon central.

How do I know? I've lived there, in West Hartford. Even the wealthy folks there tend to be somewhat liberal.

If you look at maps or demographic data, you'll know Holy Joe was elected mostly by southern CT voters. Voters from this area tended to prefer Ned Lamont.

I guess it's easier for you to judge than do a little research.

[stevedeshazer]

27. Must have hit a nerve

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you or the well-meaning voters of Hartford and CT-01.

I guess it's easier for you to judge than to provide a little information.

[Alexander]

31. You couldn't check your own facts before spouting off insulting BS?

And then you get indignant when someone calls you on it.

Like I'm the one responsible when you post fact-free insults instead of taking 5 seconds out of your precious time to do a little research.

Here's one map, on this page.

http://strategictelemetry.com/maps.htm

And a thumbnail. I can't post the full image, but you can find it there.



Notice the lack of yellow in the Hartford area, meaning Lamont did quite well there.

Is it really this hard to do 5 seconds of fact-checking before insulting an entire district of voters?

[MedleyMisty]

32. Yes, it's too hard

And it happens all the time. Not just districts - whole states and whole regions get insulted all the time. I guess regional hatred is one of the last hatreds that it's okay for people who claim to be liberal to express.

[stevedeshazer]

34. Look, did CT re-elect Lieberman or not?

Sheesh. That's all I said. Period.

[Alexander]

37. CT-01 sure as hell didn't re-elect him.

And that is the subject at hand.

[stevedeshazer]

38. I acknowledged that, not in my OP, I'm sorry.

This makes the third time I've apologized and amended my views. Are we there yet?

[Alexander]

49. Like I said, I didn't ask for or want an apology in the first place.

I certainly didn't ask for an apology three times. Thanks for the thought, but I'm not asking any more of you.

If you'd like, you could look up West Hartford, which is where I lived. Charming little town, and it was there that Larson faced the strong anti-war town hall meetings. If you in your travels happen to stop there some time, I think you'd like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hartford

[stevedeshazer]

52. I'm glad your former town is a nice place.

I like that Noah Webster and Manute Bol have West Hartford connections. That's diversity for ya.

Peace.

[stevedeshazer]

33. Connecticut re-elected Joe. That's not an insult, it is a fact.

And unlike you, I apologized for my remark, even though it is true.

Again, sorry. Next time, I'll know about the remarkably gracious voters of West Hartford and CT-01.

And thank you for your research.

[Alexander]

36. The people that re-elected Lieberman are not all Larson's constituents.

Connecticut has a whole 4 other Congressional districts. The people Larson has to answer to are generally cut from a more liberal cloth than the rest of Connecticut. Hence, Larson came out and opposed the IWR, in the face of town-hall meetings such as this one.

I should know, because I lived in the Hartford area for the first 18 years of my life.

I don't want an apology. I just want you to do a little research before you go assuming things about an entire district of people.

That, to me, is worth infinitely more than any apology.

[NewJeffCT]

48. Back in the late 80s

At least I think it was the late 80s, the town of West Hartford arrested a bunch of violent anti-choice demonstrators outside of a family planning clinic and tried to prosecute them under RICO laws... my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'm not sure if they were Operation Rescue people arrested or not.

The town is also known for its very good school system, and also for having some of the best Chinese restaurants in New England outside of Chinatown in Boston.

[Robbien]

22. The GOP dumped a ton of money (probably dirty) at the last minute on the campaign

Don't go blaming the Nutmeg Dems, they did their job and more so.

Joe bought the election with a ton of last minute funny GOPer money.

[stevedeshazer]

28. Thanks for the information

I appreciate it very much.

[0rganism]

23. Impeach Cheney FIRST

Cochran's right, impeachment and removal from office is the only way we'll get any reasonable legislation passed before 2009. On the other hand, the chances of removing bush from office is nil. Cheney might be an easier target though -- he's wildly unpopular, doesn't even enjoy bush's pathetic levels of support, and his fingerprints are all over the Iraq war lies and the demise of the CIA's Brewster-Jennings front organization.

Getting rid of Cheney would send a clear and unmistakable signal to shrubville.

[pat_k]

24. Impeachment (like stolen elections) is a motherlode of energy and action. . .

. . .Whenever a politician even alludes to the stolen elections of 2000 or 2004, audiences go nuts. But for years they all ignored this obvious motherlode of anger, energy, and action within the electorate. Some finally got on the election revolt bandwagon, but a vast majority still refuse to utter the word "stolen."

Now, whenever they even allude to "firing Bush" of some such thing that audiences read as "impeach them" the crowd goes nuts. Whenever questioners mention the word impeachment, the crowd goes nuts. Another untapped motherlode of anger, energy, and action.

When one word gets a louder and longer reaction that anything else in your entire speach, how can you fail to "get" that you might be onto something? How can our so-called leaders be so politically oblivious that they fail to see the power they could be tapping into?

If they just opened their mouths, told the truth, accused Bush and Cheney, and demanded impeachment, they would open floodgates of outrage and energy with the power to sweep up people across the political spectrum. (Just they could have on January 6th, 2001 or on January 6th, 2005, if they had stood up and called Bush and Cheney what they are -- election theives.)

Not only is impeachment where the energy in the electorate is, by refusing to impeach they exacerbate problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.

Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.

Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

Wake up Dems!! Her the nation's outrage. Become our champions. Inspire and engage.

[merh]

39. Cheney is the easy one for Congress, given the facts developed

in the Libby trial and the Halliburton enrichment, if anything, Bush has been covering for him.

Get 'em both, a package deal.

(which, as I have said along, is why Pelosi can't publicly promote impeachment, it would come off as a power grab attempt and not seem as an effort to pursue justice)

[ClayZ]

45. Yep, get them both, and SOON!

:hi: merh!

[merh]

53. real soon, pleassssseeee

:hi:

ClayZ :hug:

[petunia.here]

46. So cool! It's unrealistic to think that Dick

would be left standing if an honest impeachment hearing for chimpy actually took place. That man's got more rot than anyone else in this corrupt administration and just about everyone knows it, regardless of party affiliation. He's about as popular as broccoli is to my 6 year old.
Total red herring. So bright and flashy - how can anyone take it seriously? imo

[Mr. Ected]

50. It's the Accountability, Stupid!

Who give's a rat's ass if an impeachment might or might not be successful? Is that the ultimate gauge as to whether one should be pursued?

Of course not.

The more time Bush spends in office, the more layers of the onion are peeled off, and the more the stench of scandal fouls the air.

There's an impeachable offense in there, one that will shed light on another impeachable offense, and another.

Allow the Congress an opportunity to utilize its investigative powers. After 6 years of obfuscation, it's about time the American public learned the extent to which the entire Republican Party has besmirched their trust.

Edited to lose the apostrophe in "it's" (a pet peeve)

[Strawman]

51. Same amount of votes to convict in the Senate as to override a veto

Bush could be impeached but conviction/removal would be at least as difficult as overriding a veto. To argue that Bush can veto whatever Democrats do as a strategic warrant to impeach seems kinda dumb. If we can't get the votes to override a particular veto, we probably can't magically get 67 Senators to convict and remove Bush from office either.