Reply
Fri 6 Jul, 2007 10:53 am
Can it happen? It has long been held by many that it would be a foolish thing for the Dems to try and do.
I disagree.
Quote:July 06, 2007
POLL: ARG Pardon/Impeachment
A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:
* 31% of approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.
* 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.
* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.
* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_pardonimpeachment.php
This is to the best of my knowledge the first large poll on impeachment. I'm not surprised at all that the numbers are so high.
This is an important moment, as this poll will get attention in the media. There will be further polling asking this question as time goes on and the situation in both Washington and Iraq gets worse for the WH.
I don't believe that the Dems getting into power in '08 is the most important thing. I believe that we can't wait for '08. It would seem that a fair number of Americans agree with me.
Cycloptichorn
just Dear God impeach Cheney first, not bush.
"WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional investigations of the Bush administration and said lawmakers should spend more time passing bills to solve domestic problems.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a constitutional showdown with Congress, the administration claimed executive privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
The House and Senate Judiciary committees have set a deadline of 10 a.m. next Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the claim.
The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman Scott Stanzel said Thursday the White House has received a many requests for information since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said.
Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_subpoenas_6
Every Democrat who campaigned for office and won has to answer for their lack of effectivenss in installing "their new way of doing business". They told us how they will stop the "war", solve immigration etc, and so on.
Yet, all they have done relative to these real important issues is NOTHING.
Now, it is suggested they start impeachment hearings on the lamest of duck Presidents I have ever seen?
woiyo wrote:"WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional investigations of the Bush administration and said lawmakers should spend more time passing bills to solve domestic problems.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a constitutional showdown with Congress, the administration claimed executive privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
The House and Senate Judiciary committees have set a deadline of 10 a.m. next Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the claim.
The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman Scott Stanzel said Thursday the White House has received a many requests for information since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said.
Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_subpoenas_6
Every Democrat who campaigned for office and won has to answer for their lack of effectivenss in installing "their new way of doing business". They told us how they will stop the "war", solve immigration etc, and so on.
Yet, all they have done relative to these real important issues is NOTHING.
Now, it is suggested they start impeachment hearings on the lamest of duck Presidents I have ever seen?
Awww, the White House doesn't like having to go to oversight hearings? Too bad.
Seeing as they are massively unpopular around the country, I don't think anyone gives a damn that they don't like investigations into their actions. I think that most people feel there
should be investigations into their actions.
And yes, impeachment should be undertaken as well. They are a bunch of buffoons who are wrecking our country, both in terms of domestic and foreign issues. They can't be trusted not to do something crazy in the last part of Bush's terms; so they gotta go.
BTW: The Dems pass a bill with withdrawal timelines, Bush vetoes it.
The Dems work with Bush on immigration, the right-wing Republicans in congress work to kill it.
Dems pass a stem-cell bill supported by the majority of Americans, Bush vetoes it.
Don't give me that bullshit that Dems in Congress aren't trying to get stuff done. They are trying. But the Republicans are determined to be as obstructive as possible. You think people can't figure this out?
Cycloptichorn
It ain'ta gonna happen.
(I'm am never wrong.)
Setanta wrote:It ain'ta gonna happen.
(I'm am never wrong.)
well I agree it won't happen. :wink:
It's so late in the game now that I doubt the Dems will want to exert the effort to impeach what is already a lame duck administration. I agree with the Bear, of course, that of anyone deserves not only impeachment but prison time at hard labor it's Cheney, rather than Bush. But I have this uncomfortable feeling that they'll both get off scot-free. Except for the judgement of history, of course. Next to this gang of criminals, Nixon will look like an altar boy in the history books.
Merry Andrew wrote:It's so late in the game now that I doubt the Dems will want to exert the effort to impeach what is already a lame duck administration. I agree with the Bear, of course, that of anyone deserves not only impeachment but prison time at hard labor it's Cheney, rather than Bush. But I have this uncomfortable feeling that they'll both get off scot-free. Except for the judgement of history, of course. Next to this gang of criminals, Nixon will look like an altar boy in the history books.
I'm not so sure of this, at all. There are several factors that could affect impeachment, not the least of which being refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, Iraq intransigence, and further evidence of malfesence uncovered during oversight. DC Madam scandal could have impact. Who knows?
Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know if they could convict - there are Republicans in the Senate who wouldn't convict no matter what Bush was caught doing.
But there has to be a narrative built before it will happen, and what you are seeing is the beginning of that narrative. Impeachment works out well for the Dems; it lets them play to public sentiment that the current group are bums who are also criminals and in denial of reality when it comes to foreign affairs. It polarizes Republicans into supporters vs. non-supporters of the current admin, and which side do they want to be on? Which side is worse, the side which isn't loyal or the side which is loyal to a fault?
I think the 'backlash on Dem candidates' is bullsh*t. When enough members of the populace supports what you do, you do it, you don't get killed at the ballot box for doing it.
Cycloptichorn
Just for comparison:
Quote:
Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Impeachment)
* Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%
* Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%
More then double the amount of Americans support impeaching Cheney then
ever supported impeaching Clinton.
And it's doubtless that investigations will uncover even more reasons. I expect these numbers to climb in the months ahead.
Cycloptichorn
First of all, impeachment of Bush is only a pipe dream.
Secondly, impeach him for what? Policy decisions? That would be quite a first, but admittedly the Democrats do not reside in reality.
okie wrote:First of all, impeachment of Bush is only a pipe dream.
Secondly, impeach him for what? Policy decisions? That would be quite a first, but admittedly the Democrats do not reside in reality.
First of all, people said the same thing about both Nixon and Clinton. They were wrong and so are you.
Secondly, High Crimes - such as lying to the American public about Iraq. Breaking the FISA laws. Torture. Disregard for the Rule of Law. Corruption - Abramoff and Duke Cunningham investigations both lead right to the DoD and the WH.
If your 'policy decision' is to engage in morally, ethically, or criminally questionable behavior, you can't hide behind politics as a shield.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:More then double the amount of Americans support impeaching Cheney then ever supported impeaching Clinton.
Do you have a source for that?
Zogby did a poll last month on impeaching the Shrub,
if it were shown he had lied about the reasons for going to war. That poll only came up with 42% of respondents favoring impeachment,
under those conditions. I find your contention suspect.
Source, the poll was conducted between June 27-29, with 905 "likely voters," and claims an error margin of + or - 3.3%.
Online partisan screed generators such as Impeach PAC-dot-com and After Downing Street-dot-com have been claiming that the Zogby poll indicated that 53% of Americans favored impeachment, but i've found nothing about that at Zogby International, where i found what i've quoted above. It is noteworthy that Zogby himself describes himself as a liberal Democrat, so one can hardly allege that he is a biased source trying to hide the true feelings of the nation.
Here's the source for the Cheney numbers - which is at 54% regardless of the reason.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_pardonimpeachment.php
Here's the source for the polls on Clinton - note that though this links to Democrats.com, it eventually takes you to pollingreport.com for the data.
http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls
Plz note the careful wording on the original contention:
Quote:More then double the amount of Americans support impeaching Cheney then ever supported impeaching Clinton.
Cycloptichorn
Americans are pretty pissed off in general about Libby's "Commutation". They know obstruction of justice when they see it. We'll see how far Wexler's Censure of the President Resolution gets.
LINK
And read this:
I shed a tear.
Dallas Morning News from Wire Services
Embattled, isolated Bush looking for answers
WASHINGTON - At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
These are the questions of a president who has endured the most drastic political collapse in a generation. Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Mr. Bush is seeking out those who are, embarking on an exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration. For all the setbacks, he remains unflinching, rarely expressing doubt in his direction yet trying to understand how he got off course.
<snip>
The pathetic rest of it here.
Joe(the chickenhawks have come home to cry in their non-alcoholic beer)Nation
Here are some of the offenses listed in the articles of impeachment used against Nixon:
Quote: making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
sound familiar?
Cycloptichorn
At the page you linked for the impeachment of Clinton, you have a September 1998 poll from U.S. News and World Report which runs 32% for "impeached or fired" based on the question: "In your opinion, what should happen to Bill Clinton for his actions involving Monica Lewinsky? Should he be impeached or fired, OR, be censured or reprimanded, OR, should nothing happen to him?"
Later in September, 1998, a poll commissioned by the Pew Research Center ran 40% "should be" based on the question: "If it turns out that President Clinton lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, do you think that he should be impeached and removed from office, or not?"
A poll commissioned by CBS in October, 1998, ran 38% for "should" based on the question: "(Next week) the House Judiciary Committee will vote on whether or not to recommend to the entire U.S. House of Representatives that a formal impeachment inquiry of President Clinton be conducted. Do you think the House Judiciary Committee should or should not begin a formal impeachment inquiry of President Clinton?"
A Gallup poll just a few days later in October, 1998, ran 34% for "leave office" based on the question: "Finally, we would like to ask you one overall question about what you would prefer to see happen with President Clinton. Would you prefer to see him stay in office for the remaining two years of his term, OR, would you prefer to see him leave office before the end of his term, either through impeachment or resignation?"
A poll commission by CBS a day after that ran 31% for "are serious enough" based on the question: "Just from the way you feel right now, do you think President Clinton's actions are serious enough to warrant his being impeached and removed from the presidency, or not?"
Less than a week later, a CBS/NYT poll ran 45% for "approve" based on the question: "Last week, the full U.S. House of Representatives voted to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin a formal impeachment inquiry of President Clinton. Do you approve or disapprove of Congress beginning an impeachment inquiry?"
*******************************************
You have asserted that "More then [sic] double the amount of Americans support impeaching Cheney then ever supported impeaching Clinton." Your linked source states that 54% of those polled support beginning impeachment proceedings against Cheney. Therefore, the threshold for a claim of "more than double" would place those favorable to the impeachment of Clinton at 26% or less (remember, it is your claim tha you used "careful" wording), as 27% would be exactly half (making support for impeaching Cheney exactly double). But using the source you linked, i have found 32%, 40%, 38%, 34%, 31% and 45% favorable in various questions about impeaching Clinton.
It appears to me that your wording was insufficiently careful.
Also, please note that the American Research Group poll on Cheney has a sampling bias--it shows 38% of respondents self-identifying as Democrats, 33% as independent, and only 29% self-identifying as Republicans.
I find your numbers unconvincing, although i don't doubt that on balance, Cheney is particularly unpopular.
None of those numbers suffice, in my never humble opinion, to recommend impeachment to the Democratic leadership, if they've got a lick of sense.
I hate to say it, Cyclo, but you may have to wait a while yet for this thesis to become plausible.
Fair enough, though this:
Quote:
Also, please note that the American Research Group poll on Cheney has a sampling bias--it shows 38% of respondents self-identifying as Democrats, 33% as independent, and only 29% self-identifying as Republicans.
According to polling data I've seen lately on self-identification, this accurately reflects the ideological makeup of America these days. So I'm not sure if sampling bias is an issue.
One way or another, the poll numbers for impeaching Cheney are higher then people may have thought. I predict they will grow over the summer apace as events play themselves out.
Cycloptichorn
Additionally, there is utility in impeachment even if Bush doesn't get impeached.
From a DKos diary I read today:
Quote:
But here's the thing; even if Impeachment fails, it forces Republican House members, all of whom are up for re-election, to defend the least popular politician of any of our lifetimes, during their re-election campaign. What better ammo could any Democratic challenger have than a recorded vote by the Republican incumbent against impeaching The Dick after twenty days of televised evidence of his involvement in direct and gross violations of the Constitution??
I couldn't agree more. Get 'em on record defending incompetence, arrogance, disrespect for the rule of law.
Cycloptichorn
There are many reasons why I think impeachment can stick as an issue with the American public, not the least of which being the fact that the WH can't open their mouths without making statements which make them look worse and worse.
From the daily presser yesters:
Quote:Question: Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?
Scott Stanzel: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by equal justice under the law.
This is not a difficult concept to get across to Americans: the Bush administration doesn't recognize the concept of 'equal justice under the law.'
Cycloptichorn
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace