If I were Harry Reid, I'd organize a showing of Al Gore's speech to my caucus and their staffs. Many of them clearly missed it, because they seem bamboozled by the Republican-spread idea that "the American people support the program". They do nothing of the kind when it is correctly described -- the Rasmussen poll that came out shortly after the NYT revelations left out the leetle detail that the spying was warrantless.
There needs to be a real, gut-level understanding that the president broke the law, and that that part of the issue is beyond debate. What is and should be up for debate is what to do about it.
For those readers who missed it, I excerpt and link to Gore's MLK Day speech here: "Gore takes on the unilateral executive." Highlights of Gore's speech can be viewed via Crooks and Liars; the Raw Story transcript link they give is broken, but you can find another one at the Washington Post.
"I could see no concrete reasons that Meyerson offered against impeachment other than "not now," i.e., the tacit concession that it would lose in the House or failing that, in the Senate...."
A) He clearly, I thought, indicated that he thought it would hurt the effort to win the Senate and House in November; this may be an insufficient reason, or wrong, but it's quite concrete, it seems to me.
B) It's another of those issues that a) can't actually happen save in fantasy; and that b), even if by magic, the fantasy happened, would result in President Cheney. This would be an improvement how, exactly? And assuming we magic away President Cheney, we get President Hastert, then President Frist, President Rice, and so on. Again: this accomplishes what?
Why not focus on something conceivably achievable, like winning the Senate and House, and then the Presidency in 2008? Less immediately feel-good, but bother are quite connected to reality.
Now, if one wishes to make the argument that an effort towards impeachment couldn't possibly achieve anything otherwise, but would help in the cause of taking back Congress in November, and the White House in 2008, there's the possibly valid argument (if it's demonstrably so -- but that's a discussion apparently not even making the case for, it seems; if it is, I'd suggest making the case); but otherwise there's this sort of weird dreamy quality to arguments about impeachment (and, presumably, conviction) that don't acknowledge that a) it can't actually happen without winning Congress first; and that b) even if it did, how wonderful to have President Cheney.
I'm not the only person who finds it complete bizarre to read posts about impeachment that don't mention these apparently too trivial to mention facts. Why not also ask for everyone to get a pony with President Cheney? Otherwise, if talking about impeachment will help get a Democratic Congress and President, possibly you and those who believe it is so might want to make that case?
Sorry, I should have said "President Stevens," not "Frist." Spaced there for a moment.
"He clearly, I thought, indicated that he thought it would hurt the effort to win the Senate and House in November"
While he's artfully vague, the clearest thing Meyerson really said was that a litmus test about impeachment would "impede" winning back the House or Senate in 2006. That's a straw man, because no one seriously advocates there be a political litmus test about impeachment for the 2006 elections. How would that even work? As to "draining energy", who the heck knows what that means, concretely? Democratic candidates start to walk and talk more slowly? They start to think less about state focus groups and more about a national constitutional crisis? Who knows, maybe that would add this mysterious "energy" stuff Meyerson is talking about, so I guess he and I are at an impasse.
"this accomplishes what?"
What Bush's impeachment would accomplish would be, um, Bush's impeachment. Fairly worthwhile, regardless of who comes next. If it came to that, Cheney isn't physically up to the job, he's a shogun behind the scenes with negative charisma. If he didn't resign, he'd be isolated and politically badly wounded -- "Master" minus "Blaster", so to speak. People would be running away screaming from Rove and Cheney instead of to them. Finally, Cheney has a number of skeletons in his closet, too. Depending on the charges (eg, torture approval, war lies, misuse of intelligence, outing NOCs) Cheney's butt is as much on the line as Bush's.
"I'd suggest making the case"
Well, I make the argument -- maybe not the case, but the argument -- that "impeachment as a national campaign issue could change the terms of the debate and the election more to the favor of those in favor of [it] ...To wit, openly stating what is wrong and saying what you plan to do about it beats pussyfooting and hemming and hawing about it and not saying what you plan to do about it." But can I prove that? No, I guess not. Can you prove taking the impeachment bull by the horns wouldn't help win back Congress? I didn't think so. See, that's what elections can be for: test the proposition that a given issue matters, or go down swinging.
"weird dreamy quality [...] bizarre"
Hey, thanks. Who's dreaming here, Gary? You think freshly minted Senators and representatives will all be hopping to consider impeachment if they haven't even been prompted to discuss it on the campaign trail? And if anything is bizarre here, it's you simply ignoring arguments I make in a relatively short post so you can claim I'm not addressing them.
=====
BACKLINK ADDED, 3/20: return to newsrack post "A good start"
"That's a straw man, because no one seriously advocates there be a political litmus test about impeachment for the 2006 elections. How would that even work?"
By opposing or at least attacking Democrats running in November if they don't make forthright statements in favor of impeachment, I'd think. Kinda like the slew of yelling at various Democratic politicians, Senators, and columns we've been seeing in the last week or so, I'd think.
"As to 'draining energy', who the heck knows what that means, concretely?"
A column has a limited word count; I don't speak for Myerson, so you'd best ask him. But I'd speculate that time talking and working -- "working" being defined here as the usual range of political activities, which I assume one really need not list, but which includes writing, phone banking, fundraising, spending money on advertising, writing op-ed pieces, blogging, writing blog comments, talking to people about, etc., etc. -- on impeachment is time one isn't working directly on other things, like the NSA Program, or being anti-torture, or on specific House or Senate races, etc. Doesn't seem at all mysterious to me. Time, person energy, money, column space, etc., etc., are all finite. Certainly mine is.
"What Bush's impeachment would accomplish would be, um, Bush's impeachment."
Except: a) what did Clinton's impeachment accomplish for the Republicans? Can you explain, please? It didn't bring him down in the polls, did it?
b) How do you expect to accomplish impeachment?
c) How do you expect to accomplish conviction?
d) If one can't accomplish them, what's the precise benefit? Will talking about something we can't do actually help us in November and in 2008?
e) Assuming the magic happens, why would Cheney resign?
f) Assuming Cheney resigns, why do we want President Hastert?
"...impeachment as a national campaign issue could change the terms of the debate and the election more to the favor of those in favor"
Yes, it could. Can we now get more specific in explaining how? And how sure are we that this is the most effective and best use of our time insofar as it gets us further towards regaining Congress and the White House? I'm willing to be convinced. I need more than "could," though, to be convinced. I need specific arguments that I find convincing. I'm not, of course, asking you to prove it; I just, as for anything, need some convincing specific arguments. Presumably if they're available, they're makable. So, by all means, convince me, please.
Really, I do mean please. It's not as if I have any reason to otherwise oppose the notion inherently, you know. I just haven't seen step 2 in Underpants Gnomes Theory here yet. It's entirely possible I'm just being dense.
"You think freshly minted Senators and representatives will all be hopping to consider impeachment if they haven't even been prompted to discuss it on the campaign trail?"
I don't think just talking about it is going to convince anyone who already isn't convinced; I think before talking impeachment it makes more sense to talk censure, and before talking censure we first need to be able to hold investigations and hearings -- how else do we convince the unconvinced? -- and I can't see that we have much chance of useful hearings and investigations without getting a house of Congress. Q.E.D.
I don't say this to be difficult, or because I find it fun. I just don't understand the argument.
Again: none of this is because I in any way oppose censure or impeachment.
I think the first would be very good, and if the other somehow could result in a Democratic President would be great. But the latter is obviously utterly impossible. So working to achieve President Hastert (assuming Cheney is magiced away) is a fairly odd goal -- it seems to me -- and a distraction from simply electing a good Democrat in 2008. Why do I want President Hastert? What's the point?
"...it's you simply ignoring arguments I make in a relatively short post so you can claim I'm not addressing them."
Certainly I've not meant to do so; which arguments do you feel I've ignored so I can claim you're not addressing them?
which arguments do you feel I've ignored?
I asserted/argued that directly addressing impeachment will improve the odds of regaining the House or Senate: "impeachment as natl campaign issue [could benefit those advocating it]... To wit, openly stating what is wrong..."
...before talking impeachment it makes more sense to talk censure, and before talking censure we first need to be able to hold investigations and hearings...
And before doing that we need to win Congress, and before doing that we need to convince people Democrats are worth voting for. Again, who's the dreamer here? Without hitting the nail on the head that we're going after Bush we're training future representatives and senators to be afraid of the question, not to pose it. You build support for something like this by discussing it on the merits, not by making it an afterthought once the election is won. *If* it's won; big-foot Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Bayh don't win national respect by ducking (or worse, opposing) Feingold's censure resolution. You say you're not against censure or impeachment "in any way," yet you deride "the slew of yelling" against people like Lieberman and Bayh. Let's be honest with eachother, Gary. You are against it in quite a number of ways. Just say so.
will talking about something we can't do help us?
In a word, yes; by contrast, not talking about something we want to do will not.
You raise Clinton's impeachment as a counterpoint, but you should know better. The reason Clinton's impeachment all but helped him was because he was doing well otherwise, and because the charges were ultimately based on such a petty transgression. Bush, by contrast, is widely and correctly held to be an incompetent idiot, and the charges would or should be about serious breaches of his constitutional duties: ignoring solemn Geneva Convention obligations, lying to start a war, presiding over official violations of the 4th Amendment. His oath was to the Constitution; he is an oath breaker. I realize there are counterarguments; I assert they are wrong and should be openly defeated in elections. We would be deciding how seriously to take our own Constitution; I can think of no more worthy or important election campaign issue than that.
All of this would naturally be part and parcel of an impeachment (or censure) discussion, so far from draining energy from NSA or torture discussions, for instance, it would sharpen them. Democrats don't just look weak, they are weak compared to Republicans; the GOP went after Clinton for lying about a blowjob -- but we won't go after Bush for lying about warrantless domestic surveillance? Raising the issue (and the remedies) will lead to a virtuous cycle of educating the public, gaining its respect, and regaining control of Congress. Not raising it will do the opposite.
"I asserted/argued that directly addressing impeachment will improve the odds of regaining the House or Senate: "impeachment as natl campaign issue [could benefit those advocating it]... To wit, openly stating what is wrong...""
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing "impeachment as natl campaign issue" in your post. Oh, wait, you're referring to "impeachment as a national campaign issue." (It's not a good idea to paraphrase when people may use "find" to look for what you're quoting; fortunately, it occurred to me to double-check with my eyes.) Okay, but that's not an argument, it's just an assertion. It "could change the terms." I didn't ignore that -- I specifically addressed it: "Now, if one wishes to make the argument that an effort towards impeachment couldn't possibly achieve anything otherwise, but would help in the cause of taking back Congress in November, and the White House in 2008, there's the possibly valid argument."
I then asked what the supporting arguments are. I obviously didn't ignore it.
"...yet you deride 'the slew of yelling' against people like Lieberman and Bayh...."
I didn't deride it; I attempted to answer your question as to what was meant by a "litmus test." Maybe you meant "How would that even work?" only rhetorically, but I figured you were asking for an answer.
"You are against it in quite a number of ways. Just say so."
I'm sorry, but I'd be lying if I said so. I'm not against it. I'm not for it until I understand what we're trying to do, why, and how it will work. That's entirely different. I'm perfectly open to being for it., and I'm not at all against it. Being neutral on a topic is neither being for or against something, and is an entirely honest and honorable stance. So is being open to an argument but as yet unconvinced it's correct. It's not at all the same as being convinced it's incorrect.
"I realize there are counterarguments; I assert they are wrong and should be openly defeated in elections."
So you're saying we can't have an impeachment until after November, after all? Fair enough, if so, but it's not something you've said before. Maybe it's something you've assumed and left unstated; I dunno.
"All of this would naturally be part and parcel of an impeachment (or censure) discussion...."
Okay, now you're talking about discussion: well, who would be opposed to discussion? Certainly not me.
"...so far from draining energy from NSA or torture discussions, for instance, it would sharpen them."
I think that's fairly backwards, as one first has to convince, I think, unconvinced people that Bush's desire to spy freely, and to torture freely, are clearly wrong, and impeachable (and then convictable as high crimes and misdemeanors), if not outright criminal (or should be; again, a "high crime and misdemeanor" is not a violation of the criminal code), to get to convincing them that his having authorized these acts is worthy of impeachment, and conviction, but insofar as you would be inclined to say that the arguments could be made simultaneously and synergistically, I think you have a case. But mostly it seems to me that we need to prove the torture and spying issues first, to people who aren't us. I hope you'll notice that I've not been precisely slack, I think, in making arguments and blogging about either area, although I've not been up to serious posting in the last couple-plus weeks.
But to me, "raising the issue" and "discussing" something is entirely different than doing it. Hey, now that you're just talking about "raising the issue" and "discussing" impeachment, I'm right with you. I'm all for that. Absolutely. Straight on. Completely.
Those are entirely different things than accomplishing impeachment before November, which is what you seemed to be talking about up to this point. Maybe I just misunderstood you on that. (I'm still unconvinced that, say, making impeachment the #1 priority of a Democratic House in 2007, should we have one, would be the best strategy to winning the White House, and if we don't have it, the Senate, in 2008, but I'm open to being convinced; discussion of the abstract goodness of the idea, I'm just fine with. Of course.)
I wrote "impeachment as a national campaign issue" (emph. added) because that's how Meyerson* wrote about it for the first half of his column. Meyerson's position pretty much is that he's against discussing it. Like the Clift piece about Feingold's censure motion, Meyerson argues that "dwelling on" impeachment -- not even doing it, just "dwelling on" it -- is a grave tactical error that will "drain energy" and so forth.
There's stuff that I didn't think needed saying. I mean, John Conyers has already submitted articles of impeachment, but of course they're just languishing in the current Congress of jackals. Obviously an electoral sea change is necessary before anything can happen about them. But Meyerson seemed to me to be arguing "Shhh! Don't bring it up! It'll drain energy!" I'm glad to see we agree it's an issue worth raising in the 2006 elections.... right?
Maybe, maybe not: I think [impeachment discussion sharpens NSA/torture/etc discussion] is fairly backwards, as one first has to convince, I think, unconvinced people that Bush's desire to spy freely, and to torture freely, are clearly wrong, and impeachable.
But that all begs for an answer to "OK, what do you want to do about it?" At which point it seems like you're in some kind of political Zeno's paradox: continuously approaching a political commitment without actually making one. We agree (I think) that something is going on, we agree that it's deeply wrong and criminal and harmful, we agree the President is responsible -- but then we must rehash the whole thing not just to decide that criminal evil and presidential lawlessness is impeachable, but even whether discussing it will help or hurt this thing we're not sure we want to consider... Well, down the rabbit hole we go. There are enough people convinced of those things to be the core of a group to go out and convince more people of them.
You look for "arguments" as opposed to "assertions" -- but with these things, it's all assertions: I assert that torture is wrong, that it's impeachable, I assert that the President ignoring explicit laws is wrong, that it's impeachable, I assert that lying us into a war is wrong, that it's impeachable. I assert that saying we think these things and therefore want to form a Congress to impeach the president is a good way to get that Congress. None of these things are either somehow true a priori, or proveable from other first principles, or (sadly) a matter of consensus. Instead, they reflect values which we want to submit as contestants to the democratic process, so that they can hopefully beat the living crap out of opposing values. Figuratively speaking.
fortunately, it occurred to me to double check with my eyes
A good habit for all of us to get into.
=====
* Harold Meyerson is generally a stalwart guy, and I still don't know what to make of this particular column other than that it's a temporary affliction with a "columnist's disease" -- in this case, the belief that if people have got somewhere radical ahead of radical you, they must be wrong and you must set them straight.
Commenting by HaloScan.com.
"newsrack" comment policies here;
RSS-subscription to comments here.
