Favorable numbers for Impeachment

Setanta wrote:

It can happen pretty fast, although i agree that there is little time left. When i was laughing at Zippo in that other thread, i went out to find approval ratings for Nixon. In January, 1973, when he was inaugurated for his second term, thanks to the Paris Peace conference with the Vietnamese, his approval was over 60%. By November, after the Saturday Night Massacre, his approval ratings had dropped to less than 30%.

The crucial part of the equation is getting real dirt on Uncle Dick and his boy the Shrub. Without, no amount of fulminating about the appearance of venality is going to matter.

We agreed on this way back on Nov. 8th, 2006 Smile

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2367599#2367599

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Its hard to imagine that the Democrats would mount a serious effort to impeach either the President or Vice-President during the short time they have left in office. Such an effort would almost certainly be a wonderful "gift" to whichever GOP candidate we eventually select.

The Democratic Congress hasn't been able to do anything constructive so far since winning a majority of seats. What we've seen is obstructionism that has undermined our soldiers in the field, a budget with more Pork than usual, and Ms. Poltisi aggrandizing her privileges. Grandstanding without substance. Once in control of the Congress the Democratic lack of substantive alternatives to the policies they ran against have become embarrassingly obvious.

When our soldiers are fighting Al Queda and other Radical Islamic forces everyday in Iraq, the arguments for withdrawal at any cost become less tenuous. No one in their right mind likes war, and we Americans have little taste for long drawn out conflicts. Whatever errors might have existed in removing Saddam are in the past, and the reality is that those same people who want to destroy Western culture ARE fighting us on the ground in Iraq. Iran is revealed as the Radical Islamic Terrorist paymaster and supplier to criminal organizations throughout the region and beyond. The U.S. public is shocked even by the small number of casualties we've taken over the last four years, but I don't believe they truly want to give up the battle field to the enemy. It's still a hot campaign issue, and candidates from both Parties have paid attention to the polls saying Americans want out of Iraq. Duh.

Any attempt to impeach at this time will only complicate matters and make the government even less effective. It would, I think, be widely regarded as just what it appeared to be ... a political gambit. The Democratic candidates would be driven further apart on issues, and the impeachment effort would replace all other issues in the campaign. Narrowing the issues to impeachment, would make the GOP candidates campaigns much easier, and strengthen the ties between candidates.

An impeachment would never succeed anyway. The Democrats haven't the numbers to proceed with impeachment proceedings, and in a Presidential election year few GOP legislators would abandon the Party. To have even a chance of impeachment, there would have to be very conclusive and significant evidence of High Crimes, and that just doesn't exist at this time. The Administration has adopted and followed policies that are unpopular, but that isn't a crime. The Administration has made mistakes and blunders, and those aren't crimes. Some claim that the Administration has lied and misled the country, but that is neither a crime nor is it something that hasn't happened in virtually every administration since George Washington; it is disappointing to idealists, but it really isn't a crime so long as the President/Vice-President haven't perjured themselves under oath. The Administration has greatly extended its intelligence operations and created a number of gray areas in regards to civil rights, but this is a time of war in a technological world where information is critical to national security. The Administration hasn't yet resolved the problem of how to best handle captured enemy agents; they aren't exactly soldiers and they aren't exactly criminals, no matter what status we assign there will be serious questions as to appropriateness. Some assert that the Administration was some how complicit in 9/11, that it entered Iraq for personal and selfish reasons, but there is no proof whatsoever to these canards. Without something really substantial and clearly a political crime against the Constitution, its very doubtful that even a Bill of Impeachment could be drawn.

Andrew Johnson was impeached because he too was unpopular. Radical Republicans wanted to inflict major punishment on the Confederate States, and guarantee their own political powers. Johnson, being a Southerner, adopted the more conciliatory policies favored by Lincoln. Edwin Stanton was a Radical who tried to "run" the Presidency from the office of Secretary of War. Congress passed a law that forbade the President from dismissing anyone from his Cabinet without the assent of Congress, a really terrible piece of legislation. Johnson dismissed Stanton anyway and Congress produced a Bill of Impeachment. It failed.

Richard Nixon was riding high after getting us out of Vietnam, and "normalized" relations with China. Ending Vietnam was popular, but it also resulted in encouraged Communist efforts to extend their power throughout the world. Few of us really liked Nixon, he always seemed a jumped up used car salesman. Even so he seemed pretty secure in office, until the botched Watergate black bag operation. Nixon's pettiness, paranoia and mean spirited approach to politics were revealed. His attempt to subvert the political process, to use the power of his office for vengeance against political opponents, was shocking to a lot of folks. His meetings in the Oval Office to plot crimes motivated solely to punish his political enemies set off a firestorm. Secret recordings of White House meetings revealed without any doubt that the President was the leader of a criminal conspiracy against the political process. Every President since Eisenhower had secretly recorded conversations in the Oval Office, but Nixon's use of recording sealed his fate and even made the act of recording conversations seem tawdry. Nixon was forced out, and so we now know both the costs of impeachment and the minimum standard for conviction of a President.

William Clinton was a popular President, but was unsuccessful impeached because the Bill of Indictment was widely regarded as a partisan effort to convict the President for having an extra-marital affair in the White House. He certainly wasn't the first to do that! In the end, the question boiled down to whether commission of perjury by a President is sufficient for his removal from Office. The Congress felt that it wasn't enough to convict, and so now we know that Presidential lies and misdirection are not sufficient to impeach ... especially if lies aren't under oath.

Conviction of the President and/or the Vice-President in the short time remaining in their terms would be a very, very long shot, and nothing substantive would be gained from the effort. However, as a conservative Republican I wouldn't mind it if the Donkey Democrats want to play Russian Roulette with this silly issue.

0 Replies

I don't think it serves any purpose to impeach at this point and yes it's a political gambit to tarnish the president and his gang of scum as much as possible so history will remember them for the filth they are. The more that gets pounded into the memory banks of Americans the better I like it.

0 Replies

I believe he deserves impeachment, but it's such a long shot that it's practically an impossibility. And, not worth wasting politcal capital and public money. He'll be gone soon enough.

0 Replies

Bush and Cheney would likely have already been impeached and removed if:

1) The public distaste for impeachment over the Clinton impeachment didn't exist.

2) The Independent Counsel law had not been allowed to expire.

As it is, the most corrupt administration in our history has managed to stonewall any attempt to uncover their misdeeds. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.

0 Replies

So you don't like the man or his politics, so what? The Left substitutes name-calling and invective for argument, presumably because that's the best they can do. Only time will tell what judgments the future will hold of this President and his administration. Personally, I think that history will vindicate President Bush's administration, but maybe not. President Polk presided over an equally unpopular war, and added more territory to the nation than any other President. Imagine the U.S. without California, Arizona, New Mexico, or only half of Oregon and Texas? This administration has been forced to adopt unpopular policies, yet it has been faced with unprecedented challenge and threat. Whatever the past, the nation and world are still threatened by a determined group of Radical Islamic Terrorists supported and supplied by rogue states. We must deal with those threats effectively, and we have yet to hear ANY reasonable proposal by the Democratic opposition.

Here are a few better reasons why the President and Vice-President haven't been impeached:

* There is no evidence at all that either have committed any impeachable offense.

* There is reasonable cause to believe that the objectionable policies are necessary given the threat posed by terrorist networks working around the world.

* There aren't enough members in Congress convinced that impeachment proceedings are justified, indeed I doubt that even a majority of Democrats in Congress believe impeachment would be successful or worth the attempt.

"As it is, the most corrupt administration in our history has managed to stonewall any attempt to uncover their misdeeds. For that, they deserve a lot of credit." More unjustified rant. Both the Grant and Harding Administrations were almost certainly more corrupt. Corruption in the Clinton and Roosevelt administrations have never been fully explored, nor should they be of overriding interest in todays political arena. Partisan accusations of political corruption have been leveled against virtually every administration since John Adams, and often with some justification. Mud slinging may be satisfying, but it really adds nothing to benefit the nation.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The Left substitutes name-calling and invective for argument, presumably because that's the best they can do.

A remark such as this ought to be beneath you. Conservatives do the same thing. When the topic is impeachment, the "Oh yeah? What about Clinton?" crowd comes crawling out of the woodwork.

That was really low class.

0 Replies

I can't think of any A2K conservatives whose name-calling and invective are even in the same class as folks like Bi-Polar, Roxxxanne, etc. Of course, we make exceptions for the lunatics like Zipo and Coagula on both sides of the political divide.

I'm sure that many of you think of me as a neo-con warmonger without a conscience, and a fanatical follower of anything published by the White House. It aint so, but its no skin off of my nose. You can think I'm a low-class, ignorant sycophant, and I'll sleep as soundly as if you thought I was a saint. Its nice being a relatively well-off old retiree. I'm pretty much immune to the slings and arrows of others ... whatever they might be.

0 Replies

As usual, Asherman injects reality into this thread. I was frankly very surprised that someone like Cyclops could actually be serious about it, and even if it was a burning desire to accomplish, the politics of it does not appear to be even close to being a smart move by the Democrats.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

You can think I'm a low-class, ignorant sycophant, and I'll sleep as soundly as if you thought I was a saint.

I can see the melodramatics have not abated one whit. That is a strawman, i referred to your remark as low class, not you--and i have no reason not to continue to characterize your remark as low class. I have never described you as ignorant, nor a sycophant.

How well you do or don't sleep at night is a matter of indifference to me. I do suspect, though, that a willful inability to see just how scurrilous many of those who share your political opinions can be in addressing those with whom you disagree is no disadvantage in falling asleep.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I can't think of any A2K conservatives whose name-calling and invective are even in the same class as folks like Bi-Polar, Roxxxanne, etc. Of course, we make exceptions for the lunatics like Zipo and Coagula on both sides of the political divide.

I'm sure that many of you think of me as a neo-con warmonger without a conscience, and a fanatical follower of anything published by the White House. It aint so, but its no skin off of my nose. You can think I'm a low-class, ignorant sycophant, and I'll sleep as soundly as if you thought I was a saint. Its nice being a relatively well-off old retiree. I'm pretty much immune to the slings and arrows of others ... whatever they might be.

not at all. just a blowhard with an inflated opinion of himself.

0 Replies

Actually I think
impeachment might not be a bad idea at all, because, if past history is any guide, it will totally tie the administration up in knots and force it to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to defend itself, and concentrate most of its attention on the impeachment process. That will effectively neuter it. And looking at the past six years it seems that the only safe Bush administration is an impotent Bush administration. No time to spare for plans to invade another country, or even as in Iraq invading another country without plans. No time for Cheney to stick his evil fingers in every pie. I'd say go for it.

0 Replies

Bring 'em on & lynch 'em all. (neo-cons)

Don't let a bunch of @$$ holes discourage you on here.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, the Dems have zero ability to actually pass anything at all.

Well, thats just not true. There's been bipartisan bills before, or bills that at least gather a handful or two of votes from the other side (which would be enough), and there'll be more.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For Democrats, nationally, there literally are no other major issues that anyone expects them to be able to solve. There's little stuff, like lobbyist reform or the minimum wage; great. But the big guns are Iraq and Bush

You think that the ordinary voter considers a substantial raise in the minimum wage "little stuff", sees getting Congress imbroiling itself in impeachment procedures against the President as the more important "big stuff"? Really?

That just smells like echo chamber stuff to me. I very much doubt that, if you'd go out and talk to your average voter on the street, they'd tell you, "ah, the minimum wage, thats just trifling stuff, what is far more important to our lives is the Dems starting impeaching procedures!"

I think that's what you might hear from middle class liberal activists on the Democratic Underground or on Dean's mailinglist or something. But really, your waitress from Phoenix or factory worker from Buffalo or office manager from Orlando thinking impeachment is more important than the minimum wage? No effing way!

I think this is exactly the risk that young Democratic activists run into. Its the liberal equivalent of Okie or Foxfyre saying that what lost them the election was just the administration "not being conservative enough", or that it was just the Foley affair and overspending that did it. The preoccupation of one's own activist, ideological circle is projected upon the population - or even just the Democrats - as a whole. And look where that brought Howard Dean just three years ago.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull. I guarantee that the Dem base (30-35%) of the country will react positively to this and at least half of independents will.

Well, if that were true you should be getting lots of positive reactions in this thread from Democratic voters, right, and few negative reactions?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Dem candidates will love it

The Democratic presidential candidates would love impeachment procedures? Far as I can see, every one of them except perhaps for Gravel and Kucinich is keeping their hands as far from anything like it as they possibly can. And I suppose they know what they're doing.

Seriously, what do you base your belief on that Hillary and Obama would just love impeachment?

0 Replies

In any case, the whole basis for this thread - that numbers suggest that there's sufficient public enthusiasm for impeachment - turns out to pretty much be bogus.

I was surprised that numbers were as unexpectedly high as ARG showed them, so I gave Cyclo as much; but I agreed with Set that the numbers were not high enough to suggest a sufficient basis of popularity to proceed.

However, I think the analysis below of the ARG poll by Charles Franklin on Pollster.com and Politicalarithmetik - sources I know Cyclo respects as well - pretty much nails the coffin on the whole notion. (Yes, I know thats not actually an English expression, but its the best I can do right now Razz

).

What does it for me is:

- the comparison showing that previous polling by ARG on this subject yielded far higher approval numbers for impeachment than a comparable poll around the same time by Newsweek did;

- that, in the same vein, the current ARG poll shows far higher numbers for impeachment than the last poll on the topic by another agency;

- and that the current ARG poll doesnt actually show any statistically significant increase in support for impeachment compared to its own previous poll from over a year ago.

All of that leads me to believe that it would be foolish to take the ARG poll as credible evidence that yes, there is a near-majority of Americans longing for impeachment now.

Quote:

ARG and others on Impeachment

(Click to see large size; in case the image above doesnt show up, click here for the graph.)

American Research Group (ARG) asked 1100 respondents 7/3-5/07:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
The results found 45% in favor and 46% opposed, with 9% undecided.

Those are striking numbers, but deserve a bit of context.

First, as anyone would expect, there are sharp partisan divisions on this question, with 69% of Democrats, 50% of independents and 13% of Republicans support impeachment proceedings. One might wonder if 13% of Republicans supporting the impeachment of their president is really a credible estimate here. It seems large, given continued Republican support for President Bush in job approval in comparison to that of Democrats and independents.

Likewise, we might wonder if support for impeachment has risen in the immediate aftermath of the Libby sentence commutation.

ARG asked an impeachment question in a poll taken 3/13-15/06. Those results are shown in the top right panel of the plot. There the findings were 42% in favor and 49% opposed. (There was a slight difference in question wording as well.) In that March poll, 61% of Democrats, 47% of independents and 18% of Republicans favored impeachment. So this comparison suggests a small increase in support overall, and among Dems and independents, and a small DECREASE in support for impeachment among Republicans since the March survey. But these are modest changes, not large increases in impeachment sentiment.

One might also ask if the ARG survey results are typical of responses in other polls. There the answer is no, the ARG results show more support for impeachment than other polls do.

At the same time as the ARG March survey, Newsweek's poll taken 3/16-17/06, used a slightly different wording but found 26% in favor of impeachment, 69% opposed, well below the 42% ARG found at that time. Newsweek also found very low levels of support for impeachment among Republicans (5%) which seems more reasonable to me. Like ARG, the Newsweek survey found large partisan variation, though with less impeachment support in each partisan category than in the ARG survey (49% Dem, 23% Ind, 5% Rep.)

As for trend over time, the latest poll prior to the new ARG that asked about impeachment was a Time/SRBI poll taken 11/1-3/06, just before the election. That appears in the bottom right of the plot. Their results were 25% in favor, 70% opposed and 5% undecided, VERY similar to the March Newsweek results. Finally, the breakdowns by party in the Time/SRBI poll are also similar to the earlier Newsweek: 48% Dem, 22% Ind, and 4% Rep in favor of impeachment.

The conclusion is that there is little evidence for a substantial increase in support for impeachment, over the past 16 months, and the ARG results appear to be at the high end of support in comparison to other polling. It would be nice to have another new poll to compare with the current ARG results to see if this pattern has continued.

0 Replies

You're simply wrong, Nimh. There is other recent polling which supports the impeachment numbers garnered by ARG.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/39_favor_impeaching_bush

Quote:

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.

Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half. In December 2005, 32% believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) took the opposite view at that time.

A majority of Democrats (56%) now believe the President should be impeached.... Republicans, by an 80% to 16% margin, say that the President should not be impeached.... Among those not affiliated with either major party, 40% now favor impeachment while 45% are opposed.

When polled last year, before the historic electoral victory that the voters of America handed to the Democrats, what were the two most important issues?

Corruption, and Iraq. To pretend that somehow people didn't vote for all those Dems to work on those issues is laughable.

You will note that Rasmussen - who typical polls with a significant bias toward Republican issues - has seen both a rise in support and numbers which are relatively close to the ARG ones.

TPM on this:

Quote:

This is the third poll I've seen on this in the last two months, and the results are similar enough to bolster their collective reliability. An American Research Group poll released this week showed that among all U.S. adults, 45% support the House initiating impeachment proceedings against Bush (the percentage was 54% in relation to Cheney impeachment). And an InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll taken in early May showed 39% of American favor impeachment.

First, for a "fringe" idea that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand, 40% of the electorate sounds like a fairly substantial number of people.

Second, more Americans support impeaching Bush now than supported impeaching Clinton when he was actually being impeached.

And third, I think Matt Yglesias is right about the larger political dialog: nsofar as Bush appears determined to use his constitutionally granted authority to shield his subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law, I would say that removing him from the office which grants that authority is something that should be discussed."

Are there 67 votes in the Senate for removing Bush from office? Almost certainly not, a fact that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. For that matter, the prospect of a President Cheney is, shall we say, disconcerting.

But given the circumstances, there's no reason to dismiss the notion as some radical flight of fancy. Reasonable people, debating in good faith, can disagree about the utility, implications, and grounds for impeachment, but as Yglesias put it, the concept should probably "enter the mainstream conversation."
-- Steve Benen

I spend far, far more time discussing politcal issues with Republicans then I do Democrats. Other then A2K I don't hang around Dem sites. I hang around Republican sites. And the meme is growing.

Though it is from a different angle; where we see criminality, they see incompetence.

Quote:

You think that the ordinary voter considers a substantial raise in the minimum wage "little stuff", sees getting Congress imbroiling itself in impeachment procedures against the President as the more important "big stuff"? Really?

Well, please report what I said accurately. Iraq is the issue of prime importance with impeachment being second. I guarantee you that any Dem you ask across the country will put Iraq first.

PollingReport agrees - note that Corruption isn't on any of these polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

The president's intransigence on the Iraq issue this fall will be the decider of whether or not things proceed, as I said a few posts back. That and the media angle.

Quote:

Seriously, what do you base your belief on that Hillary and Obama would just love impeachment?

You're right, I'm sure they don't want to see their opponents torn between defending Bush and attacking him. That sure would be a terrible position for any Dem candidate to be in. And why do you think they would blow it by opening their mouths about it? C'mon, man! Why stick your hands in the fire when the other side is burning merrily all alone?

You may note that the only 'negative' reactions this thread is getting from Dems revolve around 'I don't think it'll happen,' not 'I don't support the idea.' Maybe I missed a few, but to me the majority of Dem posters here seem to be on board.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Its hard to imagine that the Democrats would mount a serious effort to impeach either the President or Vice-President during the short time they have left in office. Such an effort would almost certainly be a wonderful "gift" to whichever GOP candidate we eventually select.

Generally, when I see Asherman take a position, I can count on the opposite being true. You'd be hard pressed to find a stronger bastion of foolish partisanship on the Republican side here.

I must say that his injection of false Gravitas into the discussion has heartened me that I am in fact on the right track.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Asherman wrote:
Its hard to imagine that the Democrats would mount a serious effort to impeach either the President or Vice-President during the short time they have left in office. Such an effort would almost certainly be a wonderful "gift" to whichever GOP candidate we eventually select.

Generally, when I see Asherman take a position, I can count on the opposite being true. You'd be hard pressed to find a stronger bastion of foolish partisanship on the Republican side here.

I must say that his injection of false Gravitas into the discussion has heartened me that I am in fact on the right track.

Cycloptichorn

More like empty bloviation.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I can't think of any A2K conservatives whose name-calling and invective are even in the same class as folks like Bi-Polar, Roxxxanne, etc. Of course, we make exceptions for the lunatics like Zipo and Coagula on both sides of the political divide.

I'm sure that many of you think of me as a neo-con warmonger without a conscience, and a fanatical follower of anything published by the White House. It aint so, but its no skin off of my nose. You can think I'm a low-class, ignorant sycophant, and I'll sleep as soundly as if you thought I was a saint. Its nice being a relatively well-off old retiree. I'm pretty much immune to the slings and arrows of others ... whatever they might be.

LOL Asherman decries name-calling even citing me who rarely even post here, much less calls people names, then in the very next sentence, he calls two memebers "lunatics."

How does being retired and "well-off" insulate someone from crticism that he is wrong almost 100% of the time.

0 Replies

You want to hobble a lame duck? That's cruel. Very Happy

0 Replies

Favorable numbers for Impeachment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know