Cravenness? Or Ignorance?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:32:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ed Kilgore on impeachment:

Citing the Clinton precedent, M.J. Rosenberg writes:
"[I]mpeachment is no longer the political nuclear bomb it once was, especially if one knows in advance that conviction and removal from office is unlikely to occur. Accordingly, impeachment proceedings are essentially the best means of getting information to the public which is otherwise unavailable."

I'm glad M.J. is beginning with the premise that actual impeachment and removal of Bush ain't happening, at least based on the current dynamics. I do not share his optimism about impeachment proceedings serving as a "lever" to bring Bush to heel, given everything we know about the man. Nor do I really understand Josh's suggestion that initiating a pre-doomed impeachment effort will somehow serve as a legal precedent reducing the impact of Bush's scofflaw behavior.
So the fundamental question remains whether Democrats want to take up the "I-word" as a political exercise. And other questions quickly follow.

Matt Yglesias responds:

At the end of the day, the argument Ed's making really is an argument from craveness -- it's the argument that Democrats should fear the results of playing with fire, not the argument that there are no crimes in this neighborhood.

It amazes me that Matt, like Josh Marshall, actually do not want to think about taking meaningful and effective steps to actually check abuses by the Bush Administration. [Ed Kilgore does consider them.]They seem to assume it is impeachment or nothing. This is not craven. It is shockingly ignorant. Ever heard of the Spending Power? Inherent contempt? Apparently not.

[NOTE] In the original version of this post, I implied that Ed Kilgore did not consider the Spending Power and inherent contemmpt. That is not correct:

If the real crisis is over Bush's executive-privilege claims, other options are available, such as contempt of Congress citations designed to produce a court test. Some have also raised the possibility of defunding the offices of the president and vice president.

< Judge Tosses Hazleton Law Discriminating Against the Undocumented | The Future Is Democratic >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Cravenness? Or Ignorance? | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ability to read (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:26:44 AM EST

Having read the Josh Marshall stuff, I wonder if there is invisible ink between the lines that you are reading. What sort of glasses do I need to wear to see this ink? Or am I supposed to fill in the spaces for myself?

Not surprisingly (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:29:16 AM EST

You make my point. It is what was NOT written, i.e., ignored, that is my complaint.


But the fault may be mine (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:32:20 AM EST

I see that I omitted the phrase "do not" from the passage "do not want to think about"


: The phrase should have read (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:33:00 AM EST

"It amazes me that Matt, like Josh Marshall, actually do not want to think about taking meaningful and effective steps to actually check abuses by the Bush Administration. [Ed Kilgore does consider them.]They seem to assume it is impeachment or nothing. This is not craven. It is shockingly ignorant. Ever heard of the Spending Power? Inherent contempt? Apparently not."

You say (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:38 PM EST

They seem to assume it is impeachment or nothing

That's not true. It'a called a multi pronged approach.

You are outnumbered by the "impeachniks". It's coming, and moderate Dems like yourself and Pelosi can't stop it. Join the reality based community. We will not stop or go away, no matter how much you and the republican party would like us to.

TTFN

I am outnumbered? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:19:52 PM EST

Maybe in this small little room but in the real world I am not.


Righting our Wrongs (none / 0) (#40)
by eurodem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:53:15 PM EST

Could you please tell me your approach to inform the world that the US does not stand for the things that the Bush administration has done.

Cutting funding and inherent contempt do not communicate much. They may hinder bad practices but they say nothing to the crimes committed.

Or maybe the Foreign angle is unimportant to you, certainly for many Americans. At our own peril however.


: Watch what we do (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:26:55 PM EST

not what we say seems better.
You seem to like symbols rather than action.
Defunding ends the Debacle.
Impeachment does nothing.
It is clear what you prefer - the nothing approach.

Impeachment is not a Revolution (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:29:43 PM EST

and talking about it that way makes me less likely than ever to support it.


It could be the beginning of one. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:37:20 PM EST

I don't know how to get the rascal(s) out of there, and impeachment might not be the best means, but, by golly, a revolution, well, somebody might be on to something.

The people vs. money.

Will the people rise up. Counting on the money to do the dirty work for the people is like asking pigs to fly in either case - whether it be defunding or impeachment.

The most important thing to keep in mind is whatever the people come up with it is going to appear as unreasonable or unworkable to the money. The louder the voice of the people gets the more likely the money starts looking for a means to get out of the mess without losing their grip on power. Whether it be impeachment or defunding, nothing short of the fear of a revolution will lead to the money choosing either one.


Defunding (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:38:56 PM EST

only requires Demoratic pigs to fly.

Impeachment requires 17 flying Republicans in the Senate.

They are not comparable, even if both are delusions.


So, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:42:22 PM EST

In the end the money chooses the best of the worst solutions to keep its grip on power, but even in this case - it is the voice of those calling for impeachment and those calling for defunding combined that causes the congress to act.


Don't understand your comment (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM EST

Probably, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:01:28 PM EST

because I see the Democratic party and Republican Party as similar entities representing the same interests. They are both beholden to the money interests.

We [the people] see the Democrats as our best course for achieving certain objectives like ending the Iraq war. However, the Perty is still run by those with connections to big money and corporations. They will not choose actions that are a threat to their interests and the Iraq war is a boondoggle for profits going into the hands of the Wealthy. They will end it when the costs increase enough to remove extravagant profits, unless the people become so incensed at the corruption that their grip on power in our republic is threatened. Only then, will they look for a way out and if sacrificing Bush to impeachment seems the better choice than defunding they will choose that. If defunding the War is the better option they will choose that. The ones who are in control of the Party will tell the key members of either party which way to vote on either issue neither Defunding or Impeachment will happen until those in power feel threatened by the people. The voices for impeachment or defunding are not nearly loud enough, yet. And, it is silly to be arguing between the two choices, because the collective voice for change is the only thing that will get congress to act.


Peaches Nader (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:15:35 PM EST

Peaches Sheehan (none / 0) (#33)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:44:50 PM EST

we need a true people's movement in this country, people who will govern us for the people and by the people, not for the corporations and by the corporations. And I think that's what is stymieing Congress right now. It's who they're beholden to. So I think people need to run against Republicans and Democrats alike, if they're not representing the people. So it has to be a true people's movement.

Not much difference between them (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:01:41 PM EST

And not enough difference (1.00 / 1) (#43)
by jondee on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:43:23 PM EST

between you and Joe Lieberman. No thanks, pal. Been there, done that.


: Hillary started out "serious" (none / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:49:35 PM EST

about Health Care Reform and now she takes more money from reform's No. 1 opponents than just about anybody.
Well, she talked a good game for awhile, guess it's up to others to carry the ball now.

: Are you insane? (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:24:58 PM EST

Reaslly that is the stupidest comment ever to be directed at me of all people.
I have been on Joe's hide forever. I called for him tobe primaried before anyone else.
You are truly an idiot for writing that.

I agree (none / 0) (#38)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:10:43 PM EST

And, I share many of their views.

btw, Nadar had much more kinder words to say about Obama than Clinton.

RALPH NADER: Hillary Rodham Clinton is a corporatist. She's on the Senate Armed Services Committee, didn't lift a finger against major corrupt, unnecessary weapons system contracting or even weapons system. Hey, there are people all over the Defense Department who think we should scrap the F-22, the Raptor, which is now over $250 billion program. The plane has gone from about $40 million to almost $200 million. You could put two or three of them in this room. And she's never taken on any of the corruption, the fraud, even though she complains that there's not enough money for children's programs. Well, she's on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She's signaling that she is going to play ball with the military-industrial complex.
She has never taken a stand on corporate subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts. You know, stadiums in New York subsidized by taxpayers, while so much in New York City is crumbling for lack of repair.
And finally, she doesn't even do what Spitzer did. Her fellow Democrat gave her cover by prosecuting Wall Street crooks, rode all the way to the governorship in a landslide election based on his prosecuting corporate crooks. People like prosecuting corporate crooks. And she won't even sponsor tough corporate crime legislation and tougher penalties, law and order for corporate crooks, in the US Congress.
So, to be kind to her, one can summarize as saying, she is severely lacking in political fortitude. She knows she's the frontrunner, and therefore she's going around the country pandering to powerful interest groups and flattering the people. Now, maybe they'll get tired of it after a while. Maybe they'll say enough is enough. Do we want eight more years of the Clintons? And, you know, you get a "twofer."

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama.
RALPH NADER: Great capacity. He knows the score. He knows who has power in the country. He was a community organizer in Chicago after a sterling record at the Harvard Law School. He could have gone and cashed in. But, as he said in his book, how can you keep raising that kind of money from those kind of interests and not have it affect you? And he's now in a race with Hillary to raise 300 million bucks. He's trying to do a lot of it on the internet in small amounts, but he's going to one economic sector interest after another raising money. And so, the question is whether he's going to mobilize the people or he's going to parade in front of the people. And if he does that, he's not going to be a distinguished winner if he wins.

yup (none / 0) (#42)
by Sumner on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:15:16 PM EST

except that those opposing the war run up against the "you are with me or against me" president's executive order threatening plenary forfeiture (financial death).


"craveness" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by taylormattd on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST

sadly, "craven" is one of the less offensive epithets tossed around when objections to impeachment are raised.

: It seems to me (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:30:58 PM EST

that many of the "impeachment or else"ers are a touch Stalinist in their rhetoric.

: It's pretty offensive (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:35:41 PM EST

Defunding and Inherent Contempt (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:06:19 PM EST

Real solutions and remedies that can happen in the real world.

I'm not sure (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:37:54 AM EST

whether I like impeachment discussion or the Clinton/Obama spat less.

It's as if people have made a conscious effort to not talk about Iraq.

About inherent contempt (none / 0) (#2)
by DavidDvorkin on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:46:44 AM EST

Does this apply to the President and Vice President? And if so, to what degree?

I have to confess that I'd never even heard of inherent contempt until the current round of hearings, and I know virtually nothing about it.

as a corollary to your complaint (none / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:49:49 AM EST

After exahusting all other remedies, impeachment may become viable because of public (voter) clamor. I am not saying you are required to exahust all other remedies prior to impeachment, but it seems to me, that if you do, you will either achieve the objective (e.g. defund the war and force Bush to begin bringing home the troops) making impeachment unnecessary or you will place Bush in a position were impeachment is actually possible (because you can get the votes for removal).

Congress must assert its powers and either impeachment will be unncessary or it will be inevitable.

MSB (none / 0) (#8)
by koshembos on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:14:12 AM EST

Like the MSM, we now have MSB (i.e. mainstream blogs). Both show surprisingly common thinking and standards. I would almost say that they are mirror image of each other (i.e. right is left and left is right).

Impeachment is a symbol that stood for something until the right wing Bolsheviks applied it to Clinton. Now impeachment stands for acrimony, hate, and putsch-like politics. It also is a useless and massive waste of effort.

Think about this (none / 0) (#9)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:08:45 PM EST

Is Bush going to have more latitude or less (especially re Iraq and Iran) if 75% of the population is howling for his impeachment? It's irrelevant whether Congress actually proceeds with impeachment, probably better if they don't. Everyone can count - removal isn't going to happen. But the state of the public mind can be a tool here that's more encompassing and influential than you seem to want to give credit to. It may help defunding happen by giving courage to Dems to do it.

If pigs could fly (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:04 PM EST

they'd have wings.

What's the point of a fantastical hypothesis?


You don't get it (none / 0) (#17)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:35:44 PM EST

Bush is already at a 70% disapproval rate generally and it's hemming him in as to what he can push forward on. Numbers like that calling for impeachment would have even more effect because of the specificity of having a goal (removing him from office) vs just vague discontent, particularly if investigations keep turning up more illegalities and outrages every day.

See Gonzales for example - I think he's cracking from the pressure.


Numbers like that (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:37:52 PM EST

supporting Bush's impeachment are fantasy.

The latest Gallup puts it at 36%.

It might go to 45% by next year's election when it will be moot.


I've seen numbers as high as 46% (none / 0) (#21)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:41:37 PM EST

Don't ask for a link though.

That's the point of the agitation - to raise the numbers and change the climate in which he's forced to operate.


ARG (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:53:20 PM EST

had a number like that.

It seems incredible to me but I leave that to others to decide.


It doesn't even matter (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:54:27 PM EST

I can't imagine a poll result that would convince Republican Senators to vote for a conviction.


Of course (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:00:54 PM EST

assumed this was an argument on the politics of impeaching, not on the possibility of removal.


: Discussing one without the other (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:02:56 PM EST

seems limiting to me.

Speaking of ARG (none / 0) (#29)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:02:55 PM EST

Arghhh!

Please refer to comment #9.


My favorite news source (none / 0) (#24)
by Peaches on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:52:55 PM EST

Democracy Now has this discussion on impeachment today with Cindy Sheehan and others.

The latest input on Bush's psychiatric condition (none / 0) (#31)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:12:29 PM EST

Consortium News has the latest input by Dr. Justin Frank, the most outspoken psychiatric professional to evaluate Bush and determine that Bush is severely and dangerously ill.

Some people may not be making the assumption that de-funding would be sufficient to end the occupation or prevent an attack on Iran, in part because Bush is so sick. I personally think it reckless to assume de-funding solves the problem, although I want de-funding to happen, anyway, and would not be surprised if it did turn out to be sufficient to end the occupation and prevent a foolish attack on Iran. I just think it reckless to disregard the possibility of failure.

I see the anti-impeachniks are armed with the (none / 0) (#34)
by yourstruly on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:55:27 PM EST

usual talking points.

Of course they are outnumbered, and still perpetuating their completely unfounded speculation that noway nohow can those precious "17" votes ever be acquired. I am just so convinced that NO repub senators will abandon Bush and support impeachment, when he's clearly shown to be the worst and most criminal pres this country has ever seen. The idea that they will, is so highly improbable as to make the whole "17" votes thing a sick joke.

It's tantamount to saying these same repubs are willing to admit to the American people, they are abetting the criminal after the fact.

Most polls, dating back to the one taken shortly after the last election, show approximately half of Americans favor impeachment--then as I recall 28% as a high priority, 23% as a low one for the new, now appearing spineless Dems.

Using that 50%, and factoring in the enamored 25%ers, most of whom would never support it even if Bush gutted a pregnant woman on the WH lawn, it looks to me like simple arithmatic would indicate, that a full 2/3 of the sane people in this country support impeachment.

Furthermore, ALL the reasons provided against the idea, involve political calculus that completely ignores the legal and moral rightness and necessity of doing so, succeed or fail. It's ridiculous that we can almost unanimously agree as to the guilt of this criminal admin, yet still seek ways of justifying not prosecuting it. It's an open and shut case, and quite frankly, resembles in principle, the Nifong case in reverse---who fabricated a case why?

I hope you guys get your way, because it will settle the question once and for all in the minds of many Americans, who recently expressed to the tune of 57%, an interest in a third party, which reflects imo, a growing realization that the idea of a true duoploly existing in DC, is a joke.

Inaction on impeachment, and especially should it not occur, will lead to the exploration if not commitment to a third party vote, or no vote at all, from a great many of us who see this as a mandate and duty for the dems.

How many of the factors in that political calculus used to deny impeachment will this make erroneous, that will show their inaction to be a major miscalculation?

How many vetoes does Bush need to supply, or how much repub obstructionism need be seen, before pursuing a legislative agenda becomes a joke?

Anything short of impeachment, is merely the relieving of symptons, not a cure for their underlying cause.

The voters know this, and will be ready to hold the dems to account next year, for letting the patient die in the waiting room.

: Ah "facts" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:00:57 PM EST

Sure 50%.
whatever.

: Hear Hear (none / 0) (#41)
by eurodem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:02:58 PM EST

"ALL the reasons provided against the idea, involve political calculus that completely ignores the legal and moral rightness and necessity of doing so, succeed or fail."

BTD (none / 0) (#39)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:31:47 PM EST

Look at the poll TRENDS. But I guess if you hold out long enough...

Why do I feel like I'm talking to a repug? Why is it one side or the other for you? Is it "you're either with us, or you're with the..."?

Remarkably familiar. Advocate whatever you wish, but impeachment will NEVER be off the table as long as Bush/Cheney is in office.

I expect your next entry to read:

LALALALALALALA!
Please disappoint me. Please.