I think that if this story is true, and the introduction of the articles of impeachment actually proceeds, it could possibly spell disaster for the Democrats. Bush is still very popular with the American people right now, even though his numbers have been slipping. Right now, it’s difficult to publicize the mildest of criticisms of the Bush administration without being accused of being un-patriotic. It seems a foolhardy move, considering the outrage that will be stirred up. It might even stengthen the Bush administration, because, as it says in the article:
I don’t think those who support Bush, or even those who are middle-of-the-road will take kindly to impeachment being used to make a statement.
What do you guys think? If the articles are introduced, what could be the outcome?
Well, what happened when the republicans impeached Clinton? Even people who didn’t vote for him went to his defense because they felt it was a vendetta.
A simularity that I notice with certain leftists, for whom Dubya can do NO right.
Assuming that the articles of impeachment are introduced (which I kinda doubt), I’d be fairly certain that they won’t survive a committee debate. If they’re drafted and presented to the committee for debate, it’ll likely come down to a party-line vote on the matter. In that case, Bush is saved from a vote and presentation of evidence on the House floor.
Assuming in the off-chance that it does make it to the House, the liberal Democrats leading this are going to face an uphill battle. For one thing, the Republicans show an amazing amount of party unity. Very few, if any, would likely approve any charges (especially with the master of party enforcement Tom “The Hammer” DeLay in the majority leader’s chair). Another thing is that the liberal Democrats cannot count on the support of the moderate and conservative Democrats. They (along with the Republicans) would probably see this as political suicide if they come from districts where the Democratic voting base isn’t much stronger than the Republican voting base. Anyone voting in favor of impeachment would likely face a lot of negative publicity in the coming election cycle for it.
I agree with you, ** Siegfried, ** that it probably won’t get very far, but the negative publicity brought on by even bringing the idea up could be very damaging. It seems like this would be something that the media would pounce on. I can’t see how anyone could think this is a good idea, esepecially since they admit that it has no possibililty of success.
Consider the source of your article. The National Review is a right wing rag that hates all Democrats and thinks that GWB walks on water. They just might be spinning the story in a way to make the Democrats look less than noble. :mad:
I agree, Lissa, this would be a stupid move by the Democrats. Dead in the water from the start with Republican congressional majorities, and likely to start a cycle of “Let’s impeach the winning president”.
Oops. I should say “continue the cycle” since the Republicans started it with Clinton.
I think, in the big picture, that Clinton lying about Ms. Lewinsky is nowhere near as big a deal as a war that puts us in the unfavorable position of being disliked by much of the world. Add on the fear and limitations that Ashcroft & Co. have imposed on the citizens, I doubt anyone can say this impeachment would be based heavily on a vendetta. Much less so than Clinton’s at the very least.
Lissa, definitely it goes without saying that the Democrats will be on the business end of a lot of negative publicity. If I remember correctly, there was some of the same directed to the House Republicans when they impeached President Clinton. If this goes through, I can imagine that the attention focused on the Democrats will be much worse should they go after Bush. After all, we’re about to start another upswing of patriotism and presidential support due to the coming war with Iraq.
Isn’t the opposite happening? I beleive that approval rating are usually highest at the beginning of war (I think we can all agree that’s where we are) and taper off as the war goes on.
To be completely honest, I am under the impression that there is a decent amount of among US citizens for taking military action against Iraq. If I am incorrect, I apologize for that assertion. I haven’t been keeping up with the news lately, and the last I heard on the matter was a telephone survey done by the local news.
Guess again. Read NR and you’ll easily find criticism of Bush. It’ll be for departing from Republican policies, of course.
No spin needed to do that.
You seem to have forgotten about 9/11 and the first bombing of the WTC. There’s been dislike and worse for a while. But I think you overestimate its true extent.
Again, I think you overestimate the extent of both the fear and the limitations, and thus of any reaction to the attempt.
As others have said, for Democrats in general, trying to introduce impeachment articles would be political suicide. If they came from representatives of, say, San Francisco or Berkeley, the reaction of the rest of the country would be “So what else is new?” Saddam, of course, would be very pleased.
I don’t know anything about the National Review, but the lead sentence of that story is the perfect example of how not to write an even-handed article.
Ever since President Bush’s controversial victory in the 2000 election, die-hard Democrats have dreamed of revenge for the Clinton impeachment.
Says who? First rule of good news reporting: don’t use authorial voice. The first sentence is nothing more than the journalist’s opinion and it shows him to be working from an anti-democrat perspective.
You seem to have forgotten the incredible amount of goodwill that the rest of the world felt toward the US immediately after 9/11. To have squandered that in little over a year shows George Bush’s failings as a president.
This rule only applies to a newspaper or news magazine that’s putting itself forward as an objective source of information.
It does not apply to political opinion magazines such as NR. This was not an “objective” news article, but an analysis article from a right-leaning publication. I mean, Mother Jones, the Progressive, and the Nation never hide their left-of-center opinions. Everyone reading these mags and everyone reading NR knows the biases of the source … they don’t pretend to be objective a la the NY Times. Now, if the lead sentence in the NR article appeard in the NY Times or in Newsweek, then there would be eyebrows raised.
Now, being a truly objective news outlet is a fiction. Or to put it better, it’s piossible in theory, but it sure is damn hard to put it into practice.