Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,780 posts)
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:51 PM Jul 2014

David Swanson inadvertently provides insight on the sudden Republican interest in impeachment

Wednesday's meeting was handicapped, of course, because no-one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing impeachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities, bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary Clinton), or both.

Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.

When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.


Full article at: http://warisacrime.org/node/30384
27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
David Swanson inadvertently provides insight on the sudden Republican interest in impeachment (Original Post) Algernon Moncrieff Jul 2014 OP
To those knowledgeable pragmatist; is it feasible we hold the Senate... Anansi1171 Jul 2014 #1
Not accurate. HooptieWagon Jul 2014 #2
Thanks for the fact check emulatorloo Jul 2014 #3
Alfonse D'mato and Duncan Faircloth (two right wing moralizing hypocrites) Dawson Leery Jul 2014 #4
Also note, they lost the popular vote on 2000. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #5
True that. HooptieWagon Jul 2014 #8
True MFrohike Jul 2014 #6
The pundits were saying 25-50 seat gain for the GOP Dawson Leery Jul 2014 #7
Wow MFrohike Jul 2014 #9
"liberal" Jeff Greenfield was adamant that Democrats would be wiped out. Dawson Leery Jul 2014 #10
Henry B Gonzales filed impeachment articles against Reagan a number of times Gman Jul 2014 #11
Regardless of the consequences in the next election gratuitous Jul 2014 #12
It will be interesting to see what happens truebluegreen Jul 2014 #20
I went back and forth gratuitous Jul 2014 #23
And he is BLACK Submariner Jul 2014 #13
No, I disagree. I know many conservatives who'd elect Ben Carson Algernon Moncrieff Jul 2014 #14
They say they would support those you mention Submariner Jul 2014 #15
I think they KNEW (past tense) that Algernon Moncrieff Jul 2014 #26
Condoleeza Rice was very popular with many conservatives amandabeech Jul 2014 #17
Before he threw in with Bush & Co, Gen. Powell was a hero of mine KeepItReal Jul 2014 #22
In 1998, if you'd have asked if who the first black President would be, I'd have said Powell Algernon Moncrieff Jul 2014 #25
Despite the feelings of many of their constituents, truebluegreen Jul 2014 #21
K Cha Jul 2014 #16
This statistic is meaningless.. sendero Jul 2014 #18
Maybe a generalization needs PATRICK Jul 2014 #19
the republicans mercuryblues Jul 2014 #24
I say to pubs "TRY IT SUCKERS!" See if you don't inspire black and latino turnout muntrv Jul 2014 #27

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
1. To those knowledgeable pragmatist; is it feasible we hold the Senate...
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:08 PM
Jul 2014

...with 2012 level turnout - hypothetically?

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
2. Not accurate.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:08 PM
Jul 2014

In the election following Clinton's impeachment, the GOP lost seats in the House, although they retained the majority. No change in Senate, until a republican switched to Dem afterwards, giving Dem majority. Several of the House seats they lost were the "impeachment managers". And at least one impeachment manager retained his seat, but lost a Senate seat bid 2 years later (Bill McCollum). Yes, GOP won following Presidential election, but Gore ran a lousy campaign, and there was the election theft and SCOTUS partisan decision... none of which had anything to do with the Clinton impeachment.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
4. Alfonse D'mato and Duncan Faircloth (two right wing moralizing hypocrites)
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:19 PM
Jul 2014

lost their seats to Chuck Schumer and John Edwards respectively.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
5. Also note, they lost the popular vote on 2000.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:20 PM
Jul 2014

The GOP has won the popular vote in one presidential election in the past quarter century. That's not by accident. Their support of far right wing policies is driving a wedge between them and national electoral politics.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
8. True that.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:34 PM
Jul 2014

And Congressional approval numbers are in the single digits, those won't improve with a three-ring clown act impeachment proceedings.

The only thing the GOP can accomplish with an impeachment is solidifying the batshit crazy base. But they do so at great risk of losing swing/ind voters. That is reason for Boner's "lawsuit". It's a "poor man's" impeachment to placate the crazies, while hopefully doesn't turn off swing voters.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
6. True
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:23 PM
Jul 2014

The loss of seats in the House, 5 I think, was a huge shock because they were predicted to pick up a few in the House and a couple in the Senate. The failure to do so directly led to Gingrich resigning.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
9. Wow
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:37 PM
Jul 2014

I didn't remember it being that far off. That election was the first one in a steady series of gains that got derailed after 9/11. The GOP was on track to lose Congress in 02 until they used a war to partisan advantage, something that really hadn't been done since the 1860s.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
10. "liberal" Jeff Greenfield was adamant that Democrats would be wiped out.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:41 PM
Jul 2014

Democrats gained 5 senate seats in 2000 and 2 more house seats. Swanson is wrong.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
11. Henry B Gonzales filed impeachment articles against Reagan a number of times
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jul 2014

Didn't seem to work out. And when Clinton was impeached Democrats picked up seats in the House.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
12. Regardless of the consequences in the next election
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:58 PM
Jul 2014

Failure to bring charges over impeachable offenses sends the message loud and clear that the law of the land isn't worth enforcing. When high government officials get away with war crimes and crimes against humanity, it emboldens their successors (of either party) to perpetrate even worse offenses.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
20. It will be interesting to see what happens
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:50 AM
Jul 2014

if/when the House brings charges over un-impeachable offenses....again.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
23. I went back and forth
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 10:01 AM
Jul 2014

I wasn't sure whether to cloud my first point with my second point. But since you brought it up:

When the big tool of impeachment is hauled out over policy disagreements or sore loser political tantrums, it also hurts the system. The Starr investigation started over the Whitewater property investment that the Clintons lost money on. I'll say that again: They lost their investment, and that got an independent prosecutor appointed. Then, like Topsy, the Starr mandate just grew. And grew. And grew. Clinton, to his shame, couldn't keep his pants zipped even though he knew he was being watched closely.

So we the people were treated to the Clinton impeachment and trial. The Republicans not only failed to remove the president, they didn't even get a majority on any of their spurious charges. But the proceedings were quite useful in blunting the use of impeachment, as the Republicans could squawk about the "political" nature of impeachment talk, and how the Democrats were trying to criminalize political differences. The stenographers in the popular media repeated these baseless complaints as if they were anything but projection. In the face of crimes against humanity by the Bush administration, the Obama administration choked, because they were afraid the Republicans would be uncooperative with the new president.

Which worked out oh so very well.

Submariner

(12,482 posts)
13. And he is BLACK
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:33 AM
Jul 2014

they need to talk impeachment because they want to kill the idea of EVER having another African American president, and because repubs would NEVER tolerate a non-white president. The thought of it feeds their racist madness.

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,780 posts)
14. No, I disagree. I know many conservatives who'd elect Ben Carson
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:59 AM
Jul 2014

Others who'd support Allen West. Hermain Cain also remains popular in some conservative circles.

Submariner

(12,482 posts)
15. They say they would support those you mention
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 01:22 AM
Jul 2014

ONLY as a feel good measure to (in their own mind) appease their Liberal critics. When push comes to shove, the repubs KNOW a right-wing African American would get creamed in a general election, so they will go white.

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,780 posts)
26. I think they KNEW (past tense) that
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:05 AM
Jul 2014

Just like they KNEW that once news of then-Governor Clinton's adultery came out, he'd be disqualified in the eyes of the American people.

I think nw they are of two minds. Part of the party thinks the way to beat the Dems would be to put out a ticket of Condi Rice and Susanna Martinez, or Rafael Cruz and Allen West. The other part is still in the mindset you describe.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
17. Condoleeza Rice was very popular with many conservatives
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 04:24 AM
Jul 2014

due to her hawkish foreign policy stance.

Some conservatives would have marched out to vote for Colin Powell in 2000 if he had been the nominee. It would have been hard for them to dismiss someone who actually won a war. I think that many independents would have gone for Powell over Gore, and that if he had run, he would have been the first black president.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
22. Before he threw in with Bush & Co, Gen. Powell was a hero of mine
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:48 AM
Jul 2014

Powell vs. Gore would have been a disaster for the Democratic Party - especially with VP Gore literally running away from his association with the well-liked President Clinton.

Colin Powell would have most likely split the African-American vote in 2000 and garnered those independent voters, also.



Algernon Moncrieff

(5,780 posts)
25. In 1998, if you'd have asked if who the first black President would be, I'd have said Powell
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:01 AM
Jul 2014

I think he could have won the 2000 election in a landslide - including the GOP primaries.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
21. Despite the feelings of many of their constituents,
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:53 AM
Jul 2014

I think it is more important to Republican members of Congress that he is a Democrat.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
18. This statistic is meaningless..
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 05:54 AM
Jul 2014

... without the context of justification. There was clear and convincing justification to impeach Nixon, Obama, not so much.

I hope they do try the impeachment route it will blow up in their stupid faces.

PATRICK

(12,227 posts)
19. Maybe a generalization needs
Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:26 AM
Jul 2014

to be more general. There are all kinds of issues that stir the waters, seem to divide and roil the public. It seems mostly that the biggest result is to maintain aggression, power, and will within the party. That provides rewards internally whether the public is put off or supportive. Impeachment is just the latest puff of steam from the implacable GOP engine. Instead of waiting for said engine to blow itself up the other party seems to put itself second in desire, trying(and failing) to settle for substantive compromise, demoralizing itself and the majority constituency.

The gist of the comment seems to be the same as is constantly brought up in many DU posts. Greed, fanaticism and money keeps the insane GOP drive for power energized, horrifically and irrationally alive, and Dems shouted down. Thus the No-Nothing option that might finally bury the GOP has been swept up INSIDE for vitality and co-option. Third Way Democrats, all too accurate a description for all too many top Dems, pour cold water in the boiler, suspiciously for the same Big Money ends as the more fanatic GOP general strategy. There is little doubt they have at least gutted the necessary spirit of the Party in comparison to the GOP clowns and their corporate pumped peanut gallery.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»David Swanson inadvertent...