Letters to the Editor
-
ADS: Ipsos-Reid Refuses to Poll on Impeachment
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=1946
May 30, 2007
Ipsos-Reid refuses to poll on impeachment
Filed under: Impeachment Progress News, IfP Progress — Jodin Morey @ 6:17 pm
After Downing Street — Ipsos-Reid refuses to poll on impeachment even for cold hard cash. These are the questions they refuse to touch:
"Four Congress Members are sponsoring a bill to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, charging him with allegedly misleading Congress about the reasons for invading Iraq and with threatening an attack on Iran. Do you support beginning such impeachment proceedings?"
Would you support beginning impeachment proceedings against President George Bush?
Contact Ipsos at 1-888-210-7425 or email: info@ipsos-na.com
-
Impeachment do's and don't's
I posted this last month, but near the end of a thread and apparently not many people have seen it. Those who can think only in terms of "impeach now" need to consider a few facts about the way the world works. They seem to think that a strong case of illegal or unconstitutional activities is all it takes. And to a certain extent, that is correct. But impeachment by the House is only part of the process of the removal of an official. Without a conviction by the Senate, the perp walks.
The real problem is that impeachment is not a legal process (despite the trappings) but is a political one. And politics is not the art of the obvious, but rather the art of the possible.
As then Representative Gerald Ford observed in 1970,
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.
So it doesn't really matter what the crimes are, it is a question of whether a majority of the House of Representatives will vote to impeach. And impeachment is just the first step. It is like an indictment handed up by a grand jury. After the House impeaches, the Senate has to convict before removal can take place. And while it takes a simple majority for the House to impeach, it takes a two-thirds majority for the Senate to convict.
So if there is sufficient discipline in the Democratic-controlled House, impeachment could be voted at any time. But without 67 votes (actually, it is two thirds of the members present, so the number needed for conviction could be lower) in the Senate to convict, it is a pointless gesture (unless the purpose is to bring the government to a standstill as the Republicans did in 1998-99).
In addition, voting impeachment simply because they can is not a good move on the part of House Democrats because the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC § 19) makes the Speaker of the House second in line for the presidency. Since impeachment proceedings have to begin in the House, any move by the Speaker to call for impeachment, especially, as is necessary in this case, of both the President and the Vice-President, would immediately be slimed as an attempted coup d'état. This is why Pelosi cannot be seen to call for impeachment. It is a conflict of interest that seems to be built into the succession act. The drive for impeachment has to come from elsewhere than the Speaker of the House, preferably from public outcry or from a state legislature.
For the time being, the best course is to continue oversight hearings, with the appointment of special prosecutors as fresh abuses come to light (as they surely will), until the public insistence on impeachment becomes irresistible. Like any political initiative, support has to be built for it. 39% is not sufficient support.
-
Frankly, my dear, ...
You shouldn't avoid doing something because you can be slimed. Anyone can be slimed for anything, even for the opposite to what you are. John Kerry was a war hero and got slimed as a war coward.
If you are doing the right thing, and getting slimed for it, you should take it as a point of honor.
For example "I'm honored that Rush Limbaugh bothers to slime me on this." Obviously you should only do that when you have a point.
-
I think I mentioned I have Firefox
But thanks for the heads up on the clickable link thingy, I'll give it a try.
Firefox has so many add ons it's very difficult to know of them all.
-
mike allen
I remember hearing Allen years ago when he was still at Time impatiently explaining it was not up to reporters to question the administration, but the Democrats to prove whether they were telling the truth or not. My mouth fell open and ever since I couldn't be bothered with what this guy has to say. I have not gotten into Politico too much. Any one care for it?
-
horses and barn doors
It may be possible to pass an impeachment in the house against Bush. And, in a year, he might be removed from office. Almost certainly not, however, and, even if he were, it would leave Cheney President.
It would be better to impeach Cheney first, but Bush is using the entire capacity of the administration to hide as much of Cheney's activities as possible. Impeaching him while Bush is President isn't on the table.
This is a classic example of a deadlock, and there's no solution to this as long as the two of them hang tough. Anybody think there's anything that would shame either of these people into resigning and removing the deadlock?
It seems to me that the important task at hand, viz, to educate the electorate as to the consequences of electing people who have no interest in the rule of law, or in making government work, is far more important and will have a much longer-term beneficial effect than impeachment. Tough on those of us suffering under the weight of collective guilt for what this administration is doing and has done, but I don't see an alternative.
The real danger is that, if we are insufficiently alert, these people and their media enablers may find a means to perpetuate their authoritarian enterprise. Stay tuned, keep the pressure on the media, insist that Congress expose and document all the myriad ways these people have acted improperly, and educate those who can be educated, is my suggestion.
If you don't have faith in the electorate to restrain the authoritarians among us, given all the facts, then the game is over, isn't it?