« Mark Levin's Cultural Revolution | Main | The View From The Ground »

October 26, 2008

Comments

OK....but remember, the Democratic Party threw Henry Wallace and "the left" under the bus before they managed to simply alienate the race-baiters from the party's southern wing.

I'm sorry, but more humane, but still lame, centerism characterizes most of the folks who will pull the lever for Obama. When the Employee's Free Choice Act passes, when we hightail it out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and when we get really serious about global warming....well, then I'll believe it.

Pelosi, it should be noted, hasn't had much of a problem on that front

Well, you do have a vocal but small part of the left wing of the party upset with her for not going after Bush harder, 'impeachment is off the table', etc.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of hers -- the Pelosi Era (December 2004-present) has seen the Democratic Party mount an awesome political comeback. The hope I lost in November 2004, I got back when she destroyed Social Security privatization, and it's mostly gotten better from there.

Well, i agree about the new progressive movement. Unfortunatly it has hoovered up all the reality-contacting mitoclorians, so that the opposition party now has every manner of voodoo theories on economics and family structure and the environment and whatever else you can imagine. We've reached a place where 'ideas' or 'values' really have no place in our political discourse, because it is just reality versus the barbarians.

Nancy Pelosi didn't destroy Social Security privatization; that was a carefully organized and well-funded campaign by unions, progressive bloggers, and other liberal advocacy organizations. The leadership of the Democratic Party, including Pelosi, bought in, but did not lead or drive the campaign.

Taking impeachment off the table has allowed the current regime to set horrific precedents wrt blowing off Congressional subpoenas and the rule of law, whatever electoral benefits anyone sees in the maneuver.

As for an Obama administration, it says it all that Richard Rubin could be the next Secretary of the Treasury, and in any case will have way too much influence. The foxes are still in the henhouse. This isn't going to be a progressive administration, but a centrist one.

Nell, impeachment had no way of being on the table, not when it requires 67 Senators. If Nancy hadn't said that, Bush could blow off impeachment threats just the same. There's no way you're getting Joe Lieberman and 16 Senate Republicans to impeach without a Bush-Bin Laden sex tape.

I'm really happy with the work that labor and people like Josh Marshall were doing on privatization. But the in-DC strategy component of beating privatization was more Pelosi than anybody else. And given how badly that part of the game was played until Pelosi started running things, I feel really lucky to have her.

The Gephardt-Pelosi difference is like night and day.

I seem to remember that in the 70s after a huge Labor Party win the prime minister (Wilson?) had a hell of a time keeping members in line because MPs perceived (more or less correctly) that their vote in itself wasn't a big deal.

With so many Blue Dogs, why is it unlikely that some similar dynamic would play out? Different systems so maybe different dynamics, but there's Will Rogers "not a member of any organized party" epigram.

Also isn't it possible that a lot will depend on just how monolithic and oppositional the Senate GOP turns out to be?

After the 2006 elections, partly because the GOP "moderates" had mostly been defeated, the GOP was way more conservative and ideological than before. I haven't seen a breakdown of the likely GOP representation either by region or by ideological orientation, but it's an easy guess that the GOP congresscritters won't be, uh, more flexible.

Neil t.E.W.: But the in-DC strategy component of beating privatization was more Pelosi than anybody else.

I welcome evidence for this assertion. Until you provide some, I decline to accept it.

The in-D.C. strategy component was no more Pelosi than it was any other member of Congress.

The issue only became a campaign because the Bush administration made it one, in a classic case of overreach. It was a gigantic gift to Democrats, being one of the only issues that could have united them so completely.

Even at that, it required the work of a liberal coalition to set the terms of the debate and help enforce message discipline -- too many Democrats in early 2005 were accepting the bogus big-money line that there was a looming Social Security funding crisis.

Nell, impeachment had no way of being on the table, not when it requires 67 Senators.

Impeachment doesn't require a single Senator. The House impeaches; the Senate tries. Conviction in the Senate would require 67 Senators. Both the Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton cases suggest that impeachment without conviction can make a difference.

The better political "realist" argument against impeachment was that Pelosi didn't have the votes in the House to impeach. But saying so reveals how not-so-progressive any Democratic majority that relies on dozens of Blue Dogs is bound to be. For example, there remain very solid, bipartisan, pro-torture majorities in both Houses of Congress.

I think you're missing a point: In order to reach this level in Congress, the Democratic party has had to elect a LOT of members who have campaigned on being conservative on social issues, and who face a substantial chance of defeat in the next election if that stance proves to have been a sham. You've got those 60 votes for some procedural matters, but on a lot of issues some of the members are going to HAVE to defect if they want to keep their seats.

No argument that Pelosi's an improvement on Gephardt, but "like night and day" goes way too far.

The FISA cave-in and the decision that it was far more desirable to appear to want to end the occupation of Iraq than to end it are only two of the most serious of her failures of leadership.

As to impeachment: actions can have important political effects even if there's little chance of their complete success. Given the way in which this regime lawlessly defied Congressional subpoenas, it became clear within months of the seating of the 110th Congress that only impeachment hearings could allow real investigation to take place. Yet Pelosi's off-the-table edict made sternly worded letters the Congressional response, which has set a truly unsettling precedent.

Nell, I'd refer you to this Time article, which locates the strategy behind defeating privatization in the generally more aggressive approach to opposition that Pelosi displayed.

Ben, I'm using 'impeachment' as a shorthand for impeachment and conviction. Maybe I shouldn't, but that's how a lot of people have come to talk these days. And the Bill Clinton case shows that impeachment with failed conviction can make a difference in the wrong direction. The House GOP lost five seats in 1998. Now, of course, they impeached for ridiculous reasons. But I don't see any reason to think that bringing impeachment proceedings necessarily damages the incumbent president. If the president survives, he can claim a measure of vindication.

Neil, I don't know of any Bush-Bin-Laden sex tape but there is this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/22/movies/23postal.xlarge1.jpg>link ;-)

I don't know whether Ben's correct that there are solid pro-torture bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress. The documented majorities (mainly for the sickening Military Commissions Act) were pre-2006 election, and were the product of leadership cave-ins in advance.

I look forward, without undue optimism, to some votes that will support or disprove Ben's characterization.

I'm using 'impeachment' as a shorthand for impeachment and conviction. Maybe I shouldn't, but that's how a lot of people have come to talk these days.

Actually I think the only people who talk this way are those who are trying to make excuses for Pelosi's stance. Nobody says that Clinton was not impeached, for example.

And the Bill Clinton case shows that impeachment with failed conviction can make a difference in the wrong direction. The House GOP lost five seats in 1998. Now, of course, they impeached for ridiculous reasons. But I don't see any reason to think that bringing impeachment proceedings necessarily damages the incumbent president. If the president survives, he can claim a measure of vindication.

The reasons for impeachment do make a critical difference. And in the Clinton case they were ridiculous. So comparisons with the Clinton case are a bit apples-and-oranges. Nonetheless, they're instructive.

The 1998 Republican Congressional losses took place prior to impeachment, as the hearings were going on. Clinton was impeached about a month later, in December 1998.

And I think a good case can be made that the next three election cycles went as well as they did for the GOP in part because of impeachment.

Certainly impeachment altered Gore's campaign in 2000 in ways that were not helpful for his party. Without impeachment, Gore would never have chosen Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, for example.

Brett, your basic thesis may well be right, but not if you (as you did) connect it to social issues. There just aren't that many divisive social issues for which the Democrats have any affirmative legislative priorities, at least so far as I know. There are bills they don't want debated, let alone passed, but achieving that goal requires only control of the chamber. I'm open to your naming some bill you can see being put forward, but right now I don't know of one. Now, there are a fair number of Dems in Congress who cannot be relied upon to promote health care, or union rights, or progressive taxation, etcetera. But those aren't social issues, and while some of the least reliable Dems on economic issues (Baucus, Landrieu) hail from red states, they're hardly alone. Chuck Schumer's state is as blue as they come and he's completely reliable on social issues, but his work to protect the privileged tax status of hedge fund managers was widely seen as very important.

"As for an Obama administration, it says it all that Richard Rubin could be the next Secretary of the Treasury,"

It says even more that Obama is so enthusiastic about having unrepentant Iraq War supporter Colin Powell as an advisor, and possibly even in his Administration. I'm enthusiastically voting against McCain, not in favor of Obama.

Obama and Powell

Powell and Iraq

This is probably ignorance on my part, but what's the compelling argument that taking impeachment off the table prevented hearings on FISA and torture and a gazillion other Bush Admin abuses?

Or war-profiteering. Truman made his reputation during WWII that way, IIRC.

Don Johnson- Your comment reminds me of what I've been reading over at Larison's blog lately.. Larison is sure that Obama will initiate a war with Iran.. on the basis of what seem to me to be fairly vague assertions by Obama that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. (Not a quote, just the sense.)

Couldn't you argue equally well that Obama is embracing Powell as thanks or even as, uh, preemption, since Powell caused Clinton problems?

I seem to recall hearing claims a while back that Obama got the more dovish of the (Bill) Clinton foreign policy team.

I don't pretend to know either way; hopeful but cautiously optimistic about Obama.

The case for impeaching Clinton was not ridiculous. It was, however, ridiculed, not quite the same thing.

I don't think it would actually have hurt Congressional Democrats to have impeached Bush, IF they'd been willing to put forth a strong case. The problem Congressional Republicans faced was that, after the Starr report, their base wouldn't let them get away without impeaching, but in the face of Clinton's 'http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/05news.html>Ellen Rometsch' strategy, they dared not do an effective job of it.

They tried to split the difference, nominally impeaching, but dropping most of the charges, and keeping most of the evidence quiet. Result? Clinton survived, several members of the Republican leadership were taken out by strategic leaks of their dirty laundry, and both Republicans AND Democrats were mad about the effort, for opposite reasons: Democrats because it was attempted, Republicans because they'd taken a dive.

It's an old, old principle: Trying to kill the king is no time for half measures.

yoyo (up thread):

" .....it is just reality versus the barbarians."

Not only that, I'd add that the "reality" the country is going to be facing after the Inauguration has been created by the barbarians.

They've already sacked the place and remade it into their image.

They are hiding inside the walls, which they built out of paper mache and tinder, having violated all of the building codes because of their effing ideology.

Obama will have little manuevering room: deficits put in place purposely to destroy government, storerooms empty, water poisened, and the livestock have been wantonly slaughtered, all to feed those who didn't need it.

The privation our country is going to face because of this economic debacle is going to be wicked, and could lead to an ugly, ruthless social movement that will erase the petty partisan dividing lines of the past 35 years.

Hungry people losing their jobs and homes have been armed to the teeth by the filth in the NRA and juked up into a lather by the scum who have commandeered the Republican Party over the past number of years.

Obama's up to it but the resources of the Federal government are not.

The case for impeaching Clinton was not ridiculous. It was, however, ridiculed, not quite the same thing.

No, it was ridiculous. Sorry.

"The case for impeaching Clinton was not ridiculous."

Well, yes, it most definitely was.

To return to beating my dead horse, while pragmatically impeachment is off the table, it's a Sure Thing if anything is that when a Dem Admin takes over and begins its housecleaning there will be a lot of dirt under a lot of carpets that will be exposed.

But will the Dems be any more aggressive about Congressional investigations of Bush Admin dirt than they were 2007/8?

I've seen it asserted the Congress was as timid as it was because many Dems were in one way or another complicit in the abuses.

A man occupying a position which you cannot assume without taking an oath had demonstrated his contempt for all oaths. Said oath required him to see the laws faithfully executed, and in his own case he led a conspiracy to see them defeated.

No, I think the guy was properly subject to impeachment, having demonstrated he wasn't fit for the office he occupied. You may disagree, but the case is not ridiculous.

Nor is the case for impeaching Bush. We don't impeach nearly enough people, if you ask me, we've let standards really slip.

You may disagree, but the case is not ridiculous.

I repeat: it was, in fact, ridiculous. This isn't a question of disagreement, it's a question of being ridiculous.

A man occupying a position which you cannot assume without taking an oath had demonstrated his contempt for all oaths. lied under oath when he was asked if he'd had sex with a woman not his wife.

Fixed that for you.

It is a mystery to me how many Republicans argue that if a Democratic President will lie under oath about having had an affair, that means he will lie under oath about anything - whereas if a Republican President carefully avoids being made to testify under oath about a terrorist attack on the United States, that means he's a completely honest all-around-good-guy.

This thread demonstrates why the large margins in the House and Senate will not be enough. There are going to be holy wars against Obama when he tries to pass legislation that is inclusive of multiple points of view and doesn't represent the perfect outcome dreamed of by the most liberal Democrats, and separately there will be members of both bodies that try to showboat their own importance by "maverickness". I say this as a lifelong left liberal, but I am old enough to remember quite well the last time we had large Democratic margins in the Congress.

"It is a mystery to me how many Republicans argue that...."

I have to note that since Brett clearly didn't argue the argument you outline, you're making a non-sequitur.

Disagree with Brett all you like, but he also said that Bush should be impeached. Not hardly that Bush is "a completely honest all-around-good-guy." Non-sequitur.

You broke it for me, Jes.

1. He demonstrated his contempt for his marriage oath.

2. He demonstrated his contempt for the oath he took as a witness in the civil case.

3. He demonstrated his contempt for the oath he took when testifying before the grand jury about his obstruction of justice.

4. And he demonstrated his contempt for the oath he took as President to see the laws faithfully executed, when he committed that obstruction of justice in the face of a perfectly legal investigation.

It's not just one oath he violated, but pretty much every oath he ever took.

And, no, I don't think Bush is a completely honest all-around good guy. As I recall mentioning here before, I voted for him strictly as the lesser evil, only to learn he wasn't nearly so lesser as I'd been led to believe.

Our politics in this country are seriously screwed up, the whole system is pretty efficient at making sure that honest, all around good guys don't get very far. When the system is corrupt, honest people are dangerous, who knows what they might be willing to put up a fuss about?

It's interesting, again, that Brett finds it of national importance when a Democratic President has sex with someone he's not married to - and too trivial to be worth talking about when a Republican President obstructs investigation into the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

Republicans sure do love them some Clenis...

You sure showed that strawman, Jes! Now please either substantiate your implication that Brett is misrepresenting his position on Dubya's record or stop making it. Also, of all Bush's impeachable actions, why do you choose to focus on his limited cooperation with the 9/11 commission? I mean, we've got lies leading to war, torture, Habeas, domestic surveillance, perverting the civil service, etcetera - and you choose a legal gray area (was he even technically subpoena'd?) that feeds into some famous Tinfoil Hat Brigade obsessions?

But whatever word you prefer, I think recent years have shown that it is the new progressive mentality (market-friendly coupled with confidence in government activism; patriotic but not uber-nationalist) that simply has a better grasp of both the empirical nature of our problems and what do about them -- e.g., global warming, taxes, foreign policy, financial meltdown, health care.

Again, none of this is to belittle the real problem of overreach. But the past isn't a very good guide in this respect. Obama + 60 really is a whole new game.

When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over in '94 and declared they were playing a new game that didn't follow the rules of the past, I called BS.

When Francis Fukayama declared the end of History, I called BS.

When they said that the internet boom didn't obey the laws of the past, I called BS.*

When they said we'd be greated as liberators in Iraq, I called BS.*

When they said that our light force footprint in Iraq was the dawn of a new era in fighting and we didn't need more troops for any stinkin' counterinsurgency, I called BS.

When Barney Frank and others declared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't need to obey they laws that govern other firms, I called BS.

When they argued that the housing boom represented a new equilibrium in the market, I called BS.

My record is not perfect and the above benefits from a healthy does of self-selection. Still.

I call BS.

von

*I still supported the war.

von: *I still supported the war.

And aren't you embarrassed about that now?

And aren't you embarrassed about that now?

No.

I call BS. On what, exactly? "Obama + 60 really is a whole new game" isn't exactly a claim to anything remotely specific, other than that the ability of Democrats to get things passed will be very different than it has been since at least 1993: what are you disagreeing with? That proposition? Something else?

I think we should ammend the US Constitution to establish a 4th Branch of Govt: The Office of Bullshit Detection (OBD). This office will have a single occupant elected to a two year term by national direct vote, known as the Officer of Bullshit Detection of the United States (OBDUS)

The OBDUS shall have no formal powers or responsiblities, except that on any occasion where a member of one of the other branches is speaking publicly in their capacity as an elected official (i.e. State of the Union Addresses, speeches in Congress, press conferences, appearances on Sunday morning talk shows, etc.) the OBDUS shall be permitted to stand in the background behind the speaker, and at his or her discretion the OBDUS shall be permitted to hold up a small sign (no more than 1 foot by 1 foot) with neatly printed letters which spell out the message: "This is Bullshit".

No waving or shouting, however.

I further move that in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, von be appointed the first OBD, since it is too late in the election cycle to organize a vote for this very important office.

Holy crap, this is the best policy proposal I have ever heard. Awesome. Somehow I get the feeling that this would be an actual us-vs-elites issue (as opposed to who can't bowl). Like Carlin said, if bullshit were somehow removed, the whole political-corporate-media edifice would collapse.

I think just posting a dummy with a sign would work about 93% of the time, and save immensely on salary costs, given the need to cover 535 legislators, two executives, and 9 Supreme Court Justices.

The other 7% we could chalk up to rounding error.

Fermion: what's the compelling argument that taking impeachment off the table prevented hearings on FISA and torture and a gazillion other Bush Admin abuses?

It's up to you to decide how compelling it is, but I made the argument above:

Given the way in which this regime lawlessly defied Congressional subpoenas, it became clear within months of the seating of the 110th Congress that only impeachment hearings could allow real investigation to take place. Yet Pelosi's off-the-table edict made sternly worded letters the Congressional response, which has set a truly unsettling precedent.

KagroX made the case in more detail repeatedly at DailyKos from before the 2006 elections, but the essence of it is that the WH wouldn't respond to Congressional requests to testify (which proved correct), and that only impeachment would compel testimony.

The Democratic leadership, Pelosi very much included, has shown a reluctance to undertake any real investigation of torture or warrantless spying. I suspect that's because they're complicit in approving both abuses of power. I think that Pelosi's declaration before the 110th Congress opened was designed to guarantee that investigations wouldn't have teeth, as well as to reassure centrist and converted-Republican voters that there wouldn't be any "partisan witchhunts".

I have complete scorn for any Democrats who use that kind of language to refer to a possible impeachment, considering the scale and nature of the crimes committed by the Bush-Cheney regime.

The paragraph in my comment above beginning with 'Given the way...' and ending with '...unsettling precedent' was meant to be in quotation marks. It's excerpted from my comment at 12:09.

von: No.

Despite the fact that you now know you were shamelessly lied into supporting a war of aggression that led directly to the deaths of over a million people? Of course you've never put pics of those people on this blog...

Or do you feel that because so many people were lied to, you don't need to be embarrassed about having been conned?

Well, people, impeachment need not remain off the table during the next Congress. Paragraph 7 of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

The expiration of the current president's term does not make impeachment moot; the House can still investigate and vote articles of impeachment, with the Senate to determine disqualification from holding federal office in the future.

This is not a mere academic question. After serving as president, John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives and William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the United States. After serving as vice-president, Richard Nixon served as president and Hubert Humphrey served as a U. S. Senator. Walter Mondale served as Ambassador to Japan and was nominated to run for the Senate from Minnesota when Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash.

Here's hoping that the next Congress will pursue articles of impeachment as to whether President Bush has taken care that the laws be faithfully executed as to electronic surveillance, as well as numerous other topics. Impeachment of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales would seem appropriate, as well.

If you read Von at Redstate, when he comments, you'll see a guy who gives a ration to both sides of the political spectrum.

However, this: "When Barney Frank and others declared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't need to obey the laws that govern other firms, I declared BS."

O.K. Fair enough.

But you shouldn't have stopped with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bullshit found a welcome home throughout the vaunted free enterprise system. Why stick to the idea that an "implicit" government guarantee is the sole cause of bullshit.

I'll bet you can name many, many other firms who didn't feel they needed to obey the legal laws, not to mention the laws of economics, too.

There was no law that forced private institutions to engage in the financial malpractice of the past number of years.

No one made them do it.

Well, except for the free market, which made them keep up with the other guy to fatten the bottom line.

Which, by the way, was the reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became full of bullshit. Because they were losing market share.

Because bullshit was selling and all of the incentives of the free market were demanding bullshit.

I declare BS.

"Well, people, impeachment need not remain off the table during the next Congress."

Maybe there's someone here who doesn't know this -- doubtless at least a few someones -- but many of us have discussed this many times. Certainly Nell and I have.

First an aside:

When Barney Frank and others declared that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't need to obey the laws that govern other firms, I declared BS.

Conservatives say the problem is that institutions lending to poor people weren't given enough oversight.

Lefties say the problem is that institutions lending, buying, and selling to each other weren't given enough oversight.

Anyone see the common thread here? Perhaps we've found a basis for common ground at last.

Back on topic:

It means you can pass a lot more. There’s no question about it.

Wrap it up. I'll take it.

Thanks -

"Well, people, impeachment need not remain off the table during the next Congress."

We've had the impeachment process for 200 plus years now; Any record at all of somebody being impeached after leaving office? And does anybody think Bush or Cheney have prospects for another office?

But, what the heck, go for it: Every second you spend on it will be a second you don't spend on something that actually matters.

"Any record at all of somebody being impeached after leaving office?"

The case of the Honorable William Blount of Tennessee was ambiguous.

[...] A signer of the U.S. Constitution, William Blount in 1796 had become one of Tennessee's first two senators. A year later President John Adams notified Congress that his administration had uncovered a conspiracy involving several American citizens who had offered to assist Great Britain in an improbable scheme to take possession of the Spanish-controlled territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. Blount was among the named conspirators. He had apparently devised the plot to prevent Spain from ceding its territories to France, a transaction that would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern land holdings.

On July 7, 1797, while the Senate pondered what to do about Blount, the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, voted a bill of impeachment. The following day, the Senate expelled Blount—its first use of that constitutional power—and adjourned until November. Prior to adjourning, the Senate ordered Blount to answer impeachment charges before a select committee that would meet during the recess. Blount failed to appear. He had departed for Tennessee with no intention of returning.

On February 5, 1798, as the Senate prepared for his trial and still uncertain as to whether or not a senator, or former senator, was even liable for impeachment, it issued the arrest order. The Sergeant at Arms ultimately failed in his first mission, as Blount refused to be taken from Tennessee. A year later, the Senate dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction—and possibly for lack of Blount.

Thanks for asking.

"Every second you spend on it will be a second you don't spend on something that actually matters."

Sure, because torture, removal of habeas corpus, lying about getting the country into a war, and countless more possible crimes, shouldn't really matter, and there should be neither punishment of anyone guilty, nor any deterrent for the future.

Setting aside this specific case, Brett, can you conceive of no possible crime which you might want to deter the Executive from by impeachment after office? And no possible crime which you think might warrant further investigation with subpoena power not subject to pardon -- as only an impeachment investigation can do?

Just hypothetically?

"And does anybody think Bush or Cheney have prospects for another office?"

Since you ask, does the possibility of, say, hypothetical President John McCain, or hypothetical President Sarah Palin, succeeding to office in 2009, appointing Dick Cheney as, say, Secretary of Defense, or to an ambassadorship, or some other high office, strike me as impossibly low?

No, it does not.

Every second you spend on it will be a second you don't spend on something that actually matters.

Sure, because torture, removal of habeas corpus, lying about getting the country into a war, and countless more possible crimes, shouldn't really matter, and there should be neither punishment of anyone guilty, nor any deterrent for the future.

What Gary said.

Seriously, dude. WTF matters if not all of the above.

Thanks -

To add just one more specific, Brett: the Bush Department of Justice found:

An internal Justice Department investigation concluded Monday that political pressure drove the firings of several federal prosecutors in a 2006 purge, but said that the refusal of major players at the White House and the department to cooperate in the year-long inquiry produced significant “gaps” in its understanding of the events.

[...]

The investigation, which uncovered White House e-mail messages not previously made public, offered a blistering critique of Mr. Gonzales’s management of the department. It called Mr. Gonzales “remarkably unengaged” in overseeing an unprecedented personnel review, and said that he “abdicated” his administrative responsibilities, leaving those duties to his chief of staff. It said that the process for deciding which prosecutors were fired was “fundamentally flawed.”

More troubling, the investigation concluded that, despite the denials of the administration at the time of the controversy, political considerations played a part in the firings of at least four of the nine prosecutors.

The most serious case, the report said, was the firing of David Iglesias, the former United States Attorney for New Mexico, who had tangled with two of his state’s leading Republican lawmakers, Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather A. Wilson, over what they saw as his slow response to voter fraud and political corruption accusations against Democrats in New Mexico.

“We concluded,” the inquiry said, “that complaints from New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists to the White House and the Department about Iglesias’s handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases led to his removal.”

But in looking into the Iglesias firing and others, investigators were hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over internal documents and to make some major figures available for interviews. Investigators interviewed some 90 people, but three administration officials who played a part in crucial phases of the firing plan — Karl Rove, the former political advisor to President Bush; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and Monica M. Goodling, former Justice Department liaison to the White House — all refused to be interviewed.

Repeat: these are the conclusions of George W. Bush's own Justice Department.

Now, if you strike the names from your brain, and insert, say, President Bill or Hillary Clinton, or President Obama, or President Dennis Kucinich, or whomever is the biggest bogey-bogey in your personal set of nightmares, do you really think this is not the sort of thing that "matters" and might need pursuing, both to punish those guilty, so they don't wind up in future administrations, and to deter others in future? Or is it just all's fair in love and politics to you?

I can't believe that I'm about to agree with Brett and disagree with Gary and Russell, but here goes...

I think it would be a mistake for the Dems to pursue impeachment in the next Congress. Not because the Bush administration didn't behave criminally (they did) or because consequences aren't important (they are) -- I just think that we have some very tough problems to solve, and that focusing on impeachment will burn up a lot of time and energy that should be used on those problems.

Also, pursuing impeachment has the potential to burn up a lot of goodwill among the electorate. Many progressives would love it, but I'm not convinced that it will play well among the moderates and independents who make up a significant portion of Obama's constituency. To many people, it will look like Congress is playing its usual game of blaming people, rather than working together to solve problems.

I am hoping and expecting that on Nov 4 the electorate will deliver a ringing indictment of BushCo and their raping of the country. I truly believe that progressives need to let that be justice enough. Then we need to bring the country together and start solving problems. If we don't, we're toast.

Energy and healthcare. Those are what we need to focus our limited resources on -- not impeachment.

The problem with the logic of "impeachment is off the table because we don't have the votes to get it done" is that the POINT of having impeachment investigations would be to dig up and expose the COPIOUS amounts of lies, criminal activity, and general evil-doing on the parts of the Bush Administration. Publicly. Assuming the Bush administration didn't just stonewall the impeachment hearings as they did all others, with all of their deeds public, there'd be the chance at least that some of the Republicans wouldn't be able to keep the denial fields up and would have voted to impeach. Especially if the evidence were made public, and explained clearly what was done, why it was illegal, and why it didn't do a damn thing to make anybody safer.

Instead, we've just got a Congress with a large chunk of Democrats who are complicit in allowing and not exposing the Bush Administration's actions.

Great way to start a "progressive" era.

On Employee Free Choice didn't only 2 House Dems vote against? The Blue Dog problem is going to be on fiscal policy not regulation as the south no longer has a cheap labour comparative advantage.

The current Congress should reconvene right after the election to impeach both Cheney and Bush.

what Marshall said.

impeachment made sense in 2006. it doesn't make sense now.

seeing the GOP get smoked in this election is more than enough of a rebuke to Bushism.

The current Congress should reconvene right after the election to impeach both Cheney and Bush.

everyone who thinks this should think long and hard about the fact that Obama is going to crush McCain without once entertaining the notion.

the public isn't interested.

and focusing the attention of the government and the press on the misdeeds of the few in the Bush administration will do nothing to help advance Obama's agenda. it will only turn the Dems into the party of partisan revenge, in the eyes of the public.

like it or not, it's time to move on and deal with the other serious problems we face.

seeing the GOP get smoked in this election is more than enough of a rebuke to Bushism.

The lesson of Nixon is: if there are no convictions, it's not enough of a rebuke. Jail time is the only deterrent these sociopaths (e.g. Cheney) understand.

[It may be all the rebuke the public can stand, I agree, but that's an entirely different point.]

I think you're missing a point: In order to reach this level in Congress, the Democratic party has had to elect a LOT of members who have campaigned on being conservative on social issues, and who face a substantial chance of defeat in the next election if that stance proves to have been a sham.

Fine. Let them continue to vote their conscience on abortion, or gun rights, or equal rights for people with different sexual preferences. Heck, let them vote their conscience or that of their constituents on taxes and health care and the role of the US military in the world. But if they provide the 41st vote to support a filibuster and keep such matters from coming to a vote, well... I hope they'll be honest, change parties, and run as an incumbent with an (R) after their name.

I just think that we have some very tough problems to solve, and that focusing on impeachment will burn up a lot of time and energy that should be used on those problems.

Yes, and criminality in the executive is one of the Augean stables that need mucking out.

Also, pursuing impeachment has the potential to burn up a lot of goodwill among the electorate.

Too bad for them. They should invest their goodwill in more worthy objects.

everyone who thinks this should think long and hard about the fact that Obama is going to crush McCain without once entertaining the notion.

Whether the criminal actions of this administration are investigated and prosecuted has nothing to do, and ought have nothing to do, with Obama.

the public isn't interested.

Likewise, it has nothing to do, and ought have nothing to do, with the general public's level of interest.

Why, you may ask, is this such a big freaking deal?

Anarch has the answer:

The lesson of Nixon is: if there are no convictions, it's not enough of a rebuke. Jail time is the only deterrent these sociopaths (e.g. Cheney) understand.

How many more times do you want this same sorry set of criminal, anti-democratic SOB's to show up?

To be honest, I don't really give a crap about impeachment per se. I'd prefer criminal investigation.

Hard time, public humiliation, and utter banishment from public life. These people are life-long, anti-democratic criminals.

Put an end to it. Round them up, expose them publicly, and punish them to the full extent of the law.

Thanks -

"How many more times do you want this same sorry set of criminal, anti-democratic SOB's to show up?"

Example. Example. Example. Example.

"To be honest, I don't really give a crap about impeachment per se. I'd prefer criminal investigation."

Article II, Section 2:

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

I think we can have a band that includes russell's backbeat and cleek's weird-ass distorted production values.

I think Obama and the new Congress should shove the brand new agenda down the Republicans throats.

But I want Obama's White House focused. No office space for guys and gals looking to wreak vengeance and/or justice on the Republican Party.

I want that done independently. I want the conservative noise machine shut down and shut up by vigilante action.

I want the Democratic Party to stop appearing on FUX news, and if they appear with Republicans on any other network, I want two-word responses from Democrats to anything Republicans say: "Shut up" and "Fuck you".

I want Limbaugh, Levin, and the rest of the scum taxed by the word. I want angry crowds throwing cabbage at them when they try to get home from their dens of bullshit.

Bush does not get invited to the White House for reunions of former Presidents. No joint photo ops with the Republican minority.

I want liberal Joe the Plumbers wearing visible weaponry interviewed about how piised off they are at what the Republican Party has done to destroy America.

I want Alaska sold to either China and Russia and I want the check sent to the Treasury to pay off the theft that has gone on since 1980. Hopefully, most of the Republican Party will have settled there before the sale closes so that they can look into Putin's soul from Palin's bay window.

I want the Republican Party at the local and state levels run out of business by any means.

Cheating, lying, and stealing is fine by be.

We had good teachers. Thank you, Grover.

But Obama needs to focus his attention on good deeds and good governance.

I like Al Franken's fantasy in the epilogue to The Truth, with Jokes. I herewith invoke fair use and manually copy the passage from Senator Franken’s letter to his grandson Barack in 2015, regarding the quickie impeachment of George W. Bush:

Yes, kids, it was an actual historical event before it became a popular Saturday morning cartoon show. As you no doubt have learned from the cartoon, each new Congress is sworn in a few weeks before the presidential inauguration. The old President, in this case George W. Bush, becomes a lame duck.

The quickie impeachment was your grandfather’s idea. Everyone in our caucus said, “Why bother? He’ll be out of power on January 20 whether we impeach him or not. Why do it?

My answer, “Because we can,” led to my second Newsweek cover.

Besides, I wanted to usher in an era of personal responsibility. And what better way of kicking it off?

But it wasn’t until I proposed my Grand Bargain that the caucus and, it would turn out, the entire House and Senate fell in love with the idea. Here’s how it worked. In exchange for impeaching and voting to convict George W. Bush of the many high crimes and misdemeanors that the House investigations had uncovered, Democrats would agree to share power with their Republican colleagues, giving them a few committee chairmanships in an unprecedented Unity Congress. Unlike the GOP, we were magnanimous in victory, and gave some authority to those Republicans who weren’t crazy or big jerks.

On January 18, 2009, President Bush was impeached, convicted, and began drinking again, all in the space of a single afternoon. America’s reputation around the world was restored.

Dick Cheney, who, up until that day had suffered a mere four heart attacks in his entire lifetime, managed to double that total in his forty-eight hours as President.

At long last, the country was united. Your namesake’s famous words, Barack, turned out to be half-right. There were no red states and blue states that day. Only blue states.


I want a Senator Franken, dammit!

the quickie impeachment of George W. Bush

Ah. A man can dream.

Too bad for them. They should invest their goodwill in more worthy objects.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it ignores political reality. There are only a few big things that the next Administration and Congress can reasonably accomplish. Assigning priorities is crucial. Furthermore, it is going to take some level of bipartisan cooperation to get things done -- even with a hefty majority in both houses. We can't get everyone on board, but we do need the middle on board, and we can't do this without making a serious attempt at bipartisanship.

The public is sick of the partisan bickering in Washington. Absolutely sick of it. They do not want to see Congress spending its time looking for culprits. They want to see Congress getting the country out of the crapper. Too bad for them, you say? Aren't you just giving a big "eff you" to the huge number of people who take Obama at his word when he says he wants to usher in a new spirit of cooperation? Believe me, those people will feel betrayed if Congress takes the path you suggest. And without their support, it will be very difficult to solve our problems.

Yes, and criminality in the executive is one of the Augean stables that need mucking out.

The best way to clean out those stables is for Obama to set a positive example by showing executive restraint, reversing the abuses of BushCo, and appointing responsible, competent people to his cabinet. If you believe that punishing the offenders by impeachment or (unlikely) convictions is going to dissuade politicians from abuses in the future, I think you are sadly mistaken. But if the Democrats can get their act together and show the people what good government looks like, then that will mean something. That might convince the doubters that government can solve problems rather than creating problems. Otherwise, forget it. If Congress gets bogged down in punishing the wrongdoers, you can expect the tables to turn again very soon.

I'm not saying that your anger isn't justified. I just think that it's completely counterproductive for those in Congress to let such anger guide their agenda. I don't expect to change your mind on this, and that's fine. Fortunately, I don't think Obama will endorse the path you suggest. I'm not sure about the leaders of Congress, but I believe that Obama will exercise his leadership to ensure that attention remains focused on positive solutions.

Marshall, I don't know what Obama will do, but I suspect he will be pragmatic about solving problems. And here's the thing:

Ignoring Bush and Cheney's malfeasance is a problem.

Just for instance: Dick and Dubya, acting through Gonzo and his Palin-wannabe Monica Goodling, seeded DOJ with sleeper cells of GOP hacks in civil-service positions. That's a problem. A "what's done is done" attitude toward it is not, in any sense, "good government".

--TP

The notion that Pelosi has had no trouble holding the left and right of the Democrats together is just nonsense.

I'm one of her constituents. I've talked to people in her office. Pretty much all they ever tell us about anything is that if she did THAT, her leadership position would be endangered.

Are they just blowing smoke at the annoying DFHs? Sure -- except they very obviously believe this. If Nancy Pelosi tried to actually lead in anything except the most cautious manner, Hoyer and Emmanuel would try to kick her out and she knows it. She might weather it, but she doesn't want to risk it. So she does nothing much.

I see no evidence she wants the job of Speaker -- the job of leading her caucus to any actual achievement. She's just pleased as punch to wear the title.

Tony P,

I hear you. If I believed that it was possible to bring the rascals to justice without sacrificing other goals, I would say "go for it." Unfortunately, nothing I have seen in the last 20 years of politics gives me confidence that it is possible.

Sometimes "good government" is about making unpleasant but necessary choices. I see this as a stark either/or: either they can bring those guys to justice, or they can attempt to make progress on energy and health care. If that's the choice, there's just no question in my mind about which is more important. I could be wrong about the either/or, of course -- but the evidence of recent history gives me no reason to change my opinion.

What is the right thing to do about the Bush administration's criminal activity? This is a tough one.

It's a basic management technique to make a "to do" list and then sort it into priority order. With limited resources only some of the things on the list will get done. Resources include people time, money, and as we are talking about politics, popular support. Every action has some cost associated although it's hard to predict with precision.

Then there are the benefits and risks. On the one hand, we want to prevent a recurrence of the abuses that have occurred. On the other, pursuing prosecutions may poison the atmosphere, delaying or even preventing resolution of other vital issues.

To my mind, the most important thing is to expose all the behavior. I believe it's less important to punish individuals, although there have to be some consequences that bite if we wish to deter future wrongdoing. Maybe public shaming will be enough, maybe not.

The question is, what will bring about full exposure? Usually the way evidence gets into the public domain is through some legal process. I think in this case a formal proceeding will be necessary.

There has been some discussion of a "truth commission" analogous to that used in South Africa. I don't know whether it would work but maybe it's worth a try.

Marshall: There are only a few big things that the next Administration and Congress can reasonably accomplish.

And one of those big things has got to be, if the US wants to regain any international face at all, investigating and prosecuting the criminals from the previous administration. Which, unless the Democrats in Congress rule it out again, will inevitably lead to the impeachment of senior members of the Bush administration, and Bush / Cheney themselves.

Which is why Bush's sane move in December/January would be to pre-emptively pardon everyone, right up to Cheney. If he wanted to acknowledge wrong-doing, once he'd pardoned Cheney, he could resign and be pardoned by Cheney, but I suspect Bush is too arrogant to think of that, and the sad thing is - probably he would escape prosecution or impeachment.

I think among of the first things for Obama to do are:
1) Obtaining a list of Bush's pardons (=main suspects)
2) Making a dicreet call to the Hague hinting at the possibility that the US would extradite certain individuals, if asked, provided a confidential list would be sent before (allowing for a night and fog operation of arrest and rendition without interference)
3) set up a (non- or bi-partisan) commission looking into election irregularities in-depth backed by the full power of the executive (and judiciary) branch and with no time limit.

If it's not heads-off or foreign incarceration, there will be no lasting effect*. Cynic that I am and believing that Obama will not survive** his first term in any case, he should at least be remembered for doing the right thing (or trying to).***

*The next GOP president will pardon everyone unrepentant or at least commute the sentences a la Scooter
**not metaphorically, I mean bomb, poison, sniper bullet etc.
***Provided there will be a president Obama in the first place, and I have severe doubts about that. I fully agree with Jes that 2000 and 2004 were not GOP victories and 2008 will be even dirtier.

Tony P.: A "what's done is done" attitude toward it is not, in any sense, "good government".

Thanks so much, Tony, for this concise and on-point statement of the case.

Marshall: Accountability for torture, massive domestic spying, and systematic politicization of the Justice Department are not "partisan bickering". The perpetrators are not "rascals"; they are war criminals and
would-be dictators.

Hartmut: Your suggestions of a commission makes sense if impeachment is not going to go forward, but for election irregularities? After a massive Democratic victory at the polls? Please. That would be seen as partisan vengefulness, and the reforms necessary to minimize recurrence can all be accomplished legislatively.

The most serious crimes -- torture, domestic spying and politicization of the justice system -- are the ones that strike directly at our constitution and the rule of law.

If the Obama administration believes they will be given years to bring those who made torture U.S. policy to account, while giving respect and even official positions to war criminals like Powell, they are in for a rude surprise. My strong preference is not for the U.S. to be forced by international action to deal with the top of the torture pyramid; I want us to do it. Only restoration of the rule of law here will guarantee a sound foundation for international law.

On Employee Free Choice didn't only 2 House Dems vote against? The Blue Dog problem is going to be on fiscal policy not regulation as the south no longer has a cheap labour comparative advantage.

Cheap votes for bills that would never pass the Senate and would get vetoed if they did.

Put 60+ Democrats in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House, and the Blue Dogs start voting with the GOP a lot more.

As for popular support for impeachment...

There was plenty of popular support for impeachment. With absolutely no encouragement from our political elites (and nearly no polling on the issue) the few polls in the last two years to address the question suggested that over 40% of the public supported impeachment.

Have hearings, drum up support, and well over half the American public would have been on board.

The Democrats didn't impeach Bush because the Democrats didn't want to impeach Bush, not because they couldn't impeach Bush. The interesting question is why they didn't want to impeach Bush.

"But if they provide the 41st vote to support a filibuster and keep such matters from coming to a vote,"

Precisely what would be demanded of them, of course: Do you really think social conservatives are such morons as to be satisfied with getting somebody's vote only when it doesn't matter? That's NOT how such things are rated.

If you vote to bring AWB II to the floor, knowing it's going to pass without your vote there, when the next election comes you get an F rating from the NRA even if you voted against it on the floor. It works the same way for all the other social issues.

You'll get those guys' votes for leadership fights, and a lot of stuff unrelated to social issues, but if you get it when you need it, you're not going to have them after the next election, and they know it.

Nell, I think any Democrat can only win (with a tiny official margin) under the current conditions, when (s)he actually wins in a landslide. If the cancer of election "irregularities" is not burned out for good, Obama will at best be an episode because I can't see anyone being able to pull of anything similar to the Obama campaign. The GOP will cry foul whatever is done (they will even cry foul after the Son of Cain is declared the winner with 50.1-51% in crucial swing states).
A winner Obama may can "get away" with ordering a close inspection of the last elections, a (Democratic) "sore loser" will not. Election day will be very, very, very ugly, and it will just be the warm-up for what will follow.
As some others have said, it would be the supreme irony, if Obama actually were the bogeyman he is painted at and send out his goon squads to his most unhinged detractors. That way more good could be done than if Obama just were the decent guy he (imo) is. Limbaugh in boiling oil (his own)... Mwuhhahaha!

Hartmut: Your suggestions of a commission makes sense if impeachment is not going to go forward, but for election irregularities? After a massive Democratic victory at the polls? Please. That would be seen as partisan vengefulness, and the reforms necessary to minimize recurrence can all be accomplished legislatively.

Could be, but given that at the moment I think a considerable majority of Americans are still in denial about the theft of the 2000 election, and an overwhelming majority still see nothing to worry about with regard to theft of the 2004 election - I think that to get the political willpower to pass the legislation, there has to be a thorough and impartial investigation to formally establish this.

And Hartmut's right: if Obama wins, he is in a position to do it, in 2009, peacefully and lawfully. Whereas let this state of affairs continue, and the usual suspects will fix themselves right back into power - if not in 2012, then in 2016. No one is in such a position of moral authority to investigate electoral irregularities as the winner: no one is better placed to instigate changes in an electoral system than a party that very recently came to power under the old system.

There are other things that are morally more important - but this one thing will do more to prevent the US in future from falling into such a morass again, because it will require future rulers to be able to win elections - rather than the country having to tell itself, as a Bush declares himself the winner, that a majority of American voters are ignorant and morally bankrupt.

Hartmut, we have very different assessments of both the Democrats' electoral chances and the reality and scale of different kinds of electoral fraud/irregularities.

Meaning no disrespect, I believe my experience puts me in a better position to make that assessment.

Fraud and irregularities are most effective in swinging a close election. This one is not going to be close.

There has been vote suppression on the part of Republican operatives for decades -- systematic, ongoing, across the board; it's part of the party's general electoral strategy.

In the last decade, the scale and sophistication of these tactics has become decisive. The most serious include purging of voter files by means of suspect lists and in non-transparent manner (notice only to individual voters, not publication of the names purged), inadequate provision of voting equipment, barriers to early and absentee voting, and resistance to registration campaigns (including attempts to taint if not criminalize them through bogus claims of bogus "voter fraud").

Much is known about these approaches, and the pushback is already underway. The one giant unknown -- and here my direct familiarity does not give me any advantage over your analysis -- is the extent of sheer theft through rigging of electronic voting machines.

That does need to be examined, but barring something extraordinarily fishy about the results on Nov. 4, it can move well down the list of to-be-investigated-and-corrected festering evils bequeathed by the current regime.

Marshall: If you believe that punishing the offenders by impeachment or (unlikely) convictions is going to dissuade politicians from abuses in the future, I think you are sadly mistaken.

Perhaps. If you believe that letting them go unconvicted or unimpeached is going to act as any kind of deterrant, however, you are wrong.

But if the Democrats can get their act together and show the people what good government looks like, then that will mean something. That might convince the doubters that government can solve problems rather than creating problems.

As I said above, the problem with this is that -- while uplifting as all get it out -- it's simply wrong. It ignores not only the Nixon debacle (cf Rumsfeld, Cheney) but also the Iran-Contra debacle (cf Rumsfeld, Cheney) and myriad other Republican law-breaking and criminality over the past 30+ years. Time and time again these people have broken the law; time and time again they have been allowed to walk away from their crimes, in the spirit of reconciliation; and time and time again they break the law once more.

Let me reiterate what I said above: these people are sociopaths. Not in the stereotypical "I'll kill me some coeds" sort of way, mind, in the sense that these people genuinely do not believe that the law applies to them. In the sense that they do not accept the kinds of constraints that the rest of accept as the price for participating in society. In the sense that they seek to aggrandize themselves and increase their wealth and their power at the expense of the country. In the sense that there are few things they won't countenance in this pursuit. And bluntly, in the sense that (IMO) they genuinely regard you or I as unreal, or unmeaningful, to be disregarded as such. You can't appeal to their better angels because they don't have any, and you can't innoculate the public against them because they're persuasive, charismatic and far more effective liars than you'll ever be at telling the truth.

These men are dangerous. They have done terrible things to our country, and in our country's name. They need to be punished for their crimes, not just for all those they've wronged but to make it clear that there are certain things we will not accept. And if we don't, heaven help us if the next gang of mafiosi learn the lessons of Nixon and Reagan -- and George W Bush -- because there will be no stopping them.

Well, I'm obviously in the minority opinion here! I don't disagree with you all on the merits -- I just see the politics differently. I take my cue partly from the fact that Congress is extremely unpopular right now -- Republicans and Democrats. Why? Because they aren't making any progress on the things that matter to most Americans.

Now, you're arguing that bringing the Bush thugs to justice is an important and meaningful thing to do. Again, I don't disagree on the merits. I'm as outraged as you are by the torture, the violation of civil liberties, and the politicization of the DOJ. But politics is perception. I'm not at all convinced that the majority of Americans will see this as a worthwhile focus for the next Congress. Are they wrong? Maybe. But you can't blame them for being far more interested in economic survival and affordable health care.

Personally, I'm scared about the impending environmental apocalypse. If you think that the political situation is frightening now, imagine what will happen once we slide over that brink. This is a very difficult problem to solve, and it will require enormous political will. If it's done right, I think it just might save us from environmental doom, and it will salvage the economy too. You seem to think that we can do this and punish the Bush criminals too. Maybe, but I'm very skeptical, and I think the stakes are just too high to risk it.

What Anarch said.

We keep putting off punishment in the name of getting on with the business of the country, and what does it get us? The crimes keep getting worse, and the criminals remain heroes and make sure we don't get the business of the country done either. For anybody who managed to ignore the previous 15 years of bad faith, the last 2 years of filibusters are all the proof we need: we cannot govern side by side with these people. We need to defeat them, we need to smack them down, hard.

Heck, we would have had universal health care in 1995 if not for those crazy "Harry & Louise" ads, which would have had zero credibility if Clinton had gone after Iran-Contra. And we can whine all we want about Jed Bush and Scalia stealing the election in 2000, but it never should have been close enough to steal.

Enough cringing away from confrontation, we need to rub the Party faithfuls' noses in just how crooked their crooks are -- because their "useful idiots" are already crafting the media and pulpit narratives for the next 40 years about how America was stabbed in the back and morally corrupted by homosexuals, jews, blacks, atheists, and other unAmerican forces. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at the new revisionist histories of Vietnam. Read Ann Coulter's bestseller, Treason. Listen to that Congresswoman calling for a new HUAC. Spend a day swimming in the sewer that is RedState. Come back when you realize deep in your bones that this crap works. A large and growing portion of the electorate actually believes, sincerely and with true fear, that we are babykilling fascist traitors.

30 years of accomodation and bipartisanship have landed us with HAVA, Diebold, and an all-Republican Court. If it's not too late already, then the next time the GOP gets in power will be the last true change in power EVER. It looks like we will have a solid majority, let's use it. If we can't get convictions because of 40-50 lockstep Senators, we can at least get the news out there. Put witness perp walks on the 24-7 news cycle. Create press-handout videos, just like Bush did, listing every crime in each indictee's careers, and how many years in prison they could get, and show the sick ghetto kids and bombed-out third-world houses they helped make with those crimes. Make conservatism as strong a stench in the nostrils of Main Street America as the Alger Hiss hearings made liberalism for 50 years.

Yes, it's a bad time for this distraction. You know what? It's always going to be a bad time. There is never a good time to rebuild your home, upgrade your computer systems, get surgery, or clean up your government. You do it anyway because the alternative is worse. We have had 8 years of the alternative, and we ain't seen nothing yet, it will get a lot worse if we keep letting the rot spread. Enough.

Nell: That does need to be examined, but barring something extraordinarily fishy about the results on Nov. 4, it can move well down the list of to-be-investigated-and-corrected festering evils bequeathed by the current regime.

Do you really think that Obama will be able to investigate-and-correct all the festering evils bequeathed by Bush inside 4 years, in such a way that they won't be undone immediately by the same crew coming in again in 2012? Or are you counting on Obama winning another landslide victory in 2012, overcoming Republican vote-rigging as we all hope he'll do this year?

Hartmut is exactly right: the time for winners to demand electoral investigation is right after they've won. And without that, there isn't any hope for future change: it'll just go right back to business as usual.

Marshall: I'm not at all convinced that the majority of Americans will see this as a worthwhile focus for the next Congress. Are they wrong? Maybe. But you can't blame them for being far more interested in economic survival and affordable health care.

The previous Republican-controlled Congress hardly bothered to meet: this past Congress has had to do an enormous amount of catch-up work: I think you might be surprised to find that a Congress that regards itself as a body voted in to do work, can actually do more than one thing at once.

Marshall, I agree with your goals and priorities, but I think the last 8 years are proof that the GOP will fight rational environmental and economic policies with every dirty trick they have. They will filibuster, they will propagandize, they will blackmail. We simply can't get it done with them.

But you know what? We don't need to. In fact, if we fight smart, then the harder we fight them, the more we will advance our other goals.

We are a Manichean culture. People are not galvanized by good policy -- no matter how real the effects. You want to make big changes, you need to sell it as a fight against bad guys. Fortunately, we have authentic bad guys who actually did create the problems. Don't separate these issues, combine them. We will get the economy and the environment fixed when we wrap the whole agenda into a single good-versus-bad narrative: the hard-working middle class are honest, decent people who were conned and robbed blind by multinational lobbyists -- and now we will make those bast**ds PAY.

And, yes, people are sick of infighting. Sure they are, because they see both sides as equally bad. And mostly, they have been. But right now, good policy might just be good politics. So, let's use that.

I see this as a stark either/or: either they can bring those guys to justice, or they can attempt to make progress on energy and health care.

IMO the either/or here is too stark.

I'm also not sure I agree with your assessment that progress on health care and energy are, out of hand, clearly higher priorities than taking some kind of action about the criminal activities of the current executive.

Here are the articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon.

Could equally serious charges be made against members of the Bush administration?

Was threatening Nixon with impeachment, and pursuing criminal charges against the folks in his circle, disruptive to the everyday business of the nation?

Was it divisive? Politically polarizing?

Weren't there other matters, of crucial import to the nation, hanging in the balance as well?

The answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

So, you tell me if it was appropriate or useful for the Congress of the time to draw up articles of impeachment against Nixon, and to pursue criminal charges against his crew.

By my lights, the only mistake we made then was stopping before the stake was all the way through the zombie's heart.

We'd all be a lot better off if more of them had spent a lot more time in jail, and had been prevented from ever having any involvement in public life again.

Habeas.
Torture.
Suppression of intelligence and spreading of misinformation, leading to an unnecessary war.
Illegal monitoring of American citizen's private conversations.
Illegal politicizing of the DOJ and other branches of government.
The 'unitary executive' and the 'fourth branch of government'.

And on, and on, and on. Seriously, Marshall, why does this list have to be any longer than 'habeas' and 'torture'?

This isn't about politics, and if we make it about politics we're screwed. It's about the corruption of the *fundamental institutions of governance* of this country.

It's really f'ing important.

Thanks -

Gary -

I call bullshit on there being a "new progressive mentality (market-friendly coupled with confidence in government activism; patriotic but not uber-nationalist) that simply has a better grasp of both the empirical nature of our problems and what do about them -- e.g., global warming, taxes, foreign policy, financial meltdown, health care." it's no

Re: Thullen, Russel, and Farber on Fannie/Freddie - I'm on record that Fannie/Freddie's problems had to do with the fact that they were neither fish nor fowl. I would have preferred full privatization (with sell-offs), but, I would have accepted making them part of government as a second best solution. Instead, we got the worst of both worlds.

And, yes, I agree that derivatives and more exotic market devices needed more oversight. But Fannie/Freddie are the root of the run-up in home prices and the consequent effects on the private sector.

This isn't about politics, and if we make it about politics we're screwed.

i don't think we'd have a choice. no matter how professionally the prosecution proceeded, the GOP would pull out all the stops to make damn sure the whole thing was publicly perceived as a partisan witch hunt. and 45% of the country would believe them.

cleek has it exactly right. If there was a way to do this without it becoming political, I would support it. I just don't think that's remotely possible.

This 60 minutes clip, embedded in this post, argues that the problem was not the housing market, but CDS.

Also, I'm not sure that the Nixon years are comparable to today. I think that the impending environmental catastrophe is much scarier than any crisis back then. We're running out of time to do something about it.

the GOP would pull out all the stops to make damn sure the whole thing was publicly perceived as a partisan witch hunt. and 45% of the country would believe them.

My knee jerk reaction is to say "F them". Followed quickly by a proposal to indict the whole damned Republican party as a criminal conspiracy under RICO laws.

More realistically, I'd say you are exactly right.

So, we, as a nation, either do it anyway, or not. If we do, it's a sh*tstorm. If we don't, we'll be living with this crap for another generation, at least.

It's gonna suck either way. You tell me which is the better choice.

But one thing for damned sure, *not* pursuing this stuff is not going to make it any easier to move a Democratic agenda forward. The flying monkeys are just getting tuned up.

Thanks -

Gary -

I call bullshit on there being a "new progressive mentality

That could be, but what's it got to do with me?

"Re: Thullen, Russel, and Farber on Fannie/Freddie"

I haven't written a word on Fannie/Freddie: are you on drugs, von?

Also, I'm not sure that the Nixon years are comparable to today. I think that the impending environmental catastrophe is much scarier than any crisis back then.

Well, we had a hostile arsenal of nukes aimed at our heads. That was kind of unnerving, if you stopped to think about it.

And, really, if you think that not pursuing this stuff is going to make it any easier to push a sane energy or environmental policy through Congress, IMO you just have not been paying attention.

Thanks -

It's gonna suck either way.

agreed.

You tell me which is the better choice.

can't. they both suck, in their own way.

IMO, the time to get into it was winter 2006/7. the fact that Pelosi and Reid didn't is the biggest reason i chuckle when chuckleheads call then "dangerous". those two let the opportunity pass, and now i get the sense that the country would rather just forget all about the Bush years...

I think we can have a band that includes russell's backbeat and cleek's weird-ass distorted production values.

i'll do it, but i need payment up-front. there's a hole in daddy's bong, where all the money goes.

Well, we had a hostile arsenal of nukes aimed at our heads. That was kind of unnerving, if you stopped to think about it.

True. But there was a reasonable chance that the triggers on those nukes were not going to be pulled. If we do nothing about our energy and environmental problems, the worst will happen.

And, really, if you think that not pursuing this stuff is going to make it any easier to push a sane energy or environmental policy through Congress, IMO you just have not been paying attention.

I have been paying attention. I'm not overly optimistic about our chances for success. I hope (or pray) that the winds are shifting, and that a majority of Americans see the necessity for action on this front. If (and it's a big if) we can start to make real progress on energy and health care, it would do more to build a sustainable Democratic majority than just about anything else I can imagine. As long as the Democrats themselves don't fall into the same kinds of corruption, I believe that this will do more to restore sane government than prosecuting BushCo. Granted, there is a real possibility that the Dems will be corrupted by power, and this is a strong argument for your position. In the end, I'm just much less sanguine than you are about the possibility of accomplishing anything at all in the middle of that sh*tstorm. I'm not thrilled about our chances in the absence of a prosecution, either, but I think they are better.

I'm not thrilled about our chances in the absence of a prosecution, either, but I think they are better.

That's cool. My guess is that events, for good or ill, will go your way rather than mine.

i'll do it, but i need payment up-front.

Yeah, same here. Only in my case, there's a hole in daddy's mortgage payment and 401k where all the money goes.

No checks, either. And no "the crowd was kind of small tonight, how about if we comp you a dinner". I ate at home.

I want green money, with a president on it. Or uncle Ben, even better.

cleek, no gated reverb on the snare, please! That's so Phil Collins.

Thanks -

True. But there was a reasonable chance that the triggers on those nukes were not going to be pulled. If we do nothing about our energy and environmental problems, the worst will happen.

And as it will take more than 4 years (or even 8 years) to fix the energy and environmental problems, I think that's a straightforward case for saying that the crooks need to be prosecuted and impeached - otherwise, they're back in power and we really are doomed.

But Fannie/Freddie are the root of the run-up in home prices and the consequent effects on the private sector.

von, is there any evidence supporting this theory? Or, forget evidence, are there any credible experts you can cite who share your opinion in this regard?

I'm not trying to pick on you, but you've made a fairly strong claim here about a fairly complex set of issues, and it is a claim I haven't seen reflected in any of the writings I've encountered...

Jes,

Since it will definitely take more than 8 years to solve those problems, we need to start making real progress on them now.

By the way, I completely respect the points that you, russell, and others have been making. I think this is something on which reasonable people can disagree.

An investigation of election flaws* should start immediately but not be limited in time (although first reports should be out before 2010 because of the next election). It should be non- or bipartisan**. The GOPistas will cry foul in any case. The longer it takes and the more thorough it is the more the public will imo accept the results.

*of all kinds, including registration fraud, faulty databases...
**and not be called the Hang-Blackwell-from-a-lamppost commission although it would fit.

Hartmut,

I agree with you on this point. It's absurd that we can't hold fair and transparent elections today. There's just no excuse for it. This is something that can and should be approached in a bipartisan manner. The GOP won't want to cooperate, but they'll look really bad if they don't. It seems likely that what you suggest would garner wide popular support if it's set up correctly.

The comments to this entry are closed.