Nov 09 2006
Did I Mention Impeachment?
Yep, it is beginning. If we investigate Rumsfeld, do not be surprised if terrorists at GITMO end up on the witness list. The power of the subpoena is incredible – and can be brutal in the wrong hands. But I doubt the Dems will let ithis mentality take hold. But we shall see. Sadly we are going to be learning a lot about ourselves soon.
I wonder what percentage of the “conservatives” who decided that punishing RINOs was paramount are going to be pleased about this?
The “progressives” want their ounce of revenge. They think that they won the election for the Dems. Now they want to be heard. They ran the kind of Dems that Bush can work with, but can the Dems work with them. It will be very interesting to see.
Or it could all be talk. It is possible that all the talk about impeachment was smoke used to rally their base to the polls and when it comes down to it, nothing gets done. Every month that slips by makes it less likely something will be done.
How long did it take from start to finish with Clinton? The Democrats will have about 21 months. I just don’t think they have enough time or enough votes, particularly in the Senate to do it.
We need to look at the 1st trackback to your link above–13 reasons the Rs Lost–for a clue to learning a lot about ourselves. As political junkies, I daresay that most of us are aware of Plank’s set of facts. The real question is why the American public seems not to be. Blaming it on lack of diversity and compromise is not the answer, even tho they are important.
Why did JD lose in AZ5? Those voters approved the following on the same ballot (re: illegal immigrants):
No bail for felons-78%
Restricted ability to sue-74%
English only-74%
No in-state tuition-72%
Obviously in sync with “hardliner” JD. His opponent avoided the illegal immigrant issues for the most part and ran instead very effective adds emphasizing that he no longer represented AZ, he was a bully, part of the Washington establishment, payments to his wife
and similar issues. Lack of compromise was not the problem! The wall was never the answer, but neither was comprehensive plan. For Arizona (and every other state except Mass, per Strategic Vision), the message seemed to be, fix the problems BEFORE you throw open the gates, and SHOW US you can do that first, cus we DON’T TRUST YOU.
Why Weldon? Issues with his daughter, reputation as a “nut” over some mysterious thing called Able Danger, others?
Ohio? Corruption
Foley? Sex scandals, confused balloting? But people ignored far worse behavior from gay Dems.
Talent? Stem cell research?
Conversely, Kyl won, even tho his opponent ran some very effective negative ads also. The difference: Credibility with his constituents.
McCain would have also won easily if he had been running tho some people are angry over his compromises, torture issues (including me!)
Bush has done far better with Black/Hispanic appointments than any other Pres, but Steele is rejected by Black voters? Powell and Rice are also called “Uncle Toms”?
Dem leaders were very vocal in justification for war, but all the public remembers is “Bush lied”? The Dems are all OK with ‘for it before against it’? Tax cuts only for the rich?
I think the problem we need to solve is our total inability to communicate how our successes relate directly to the life of JQ sixpack! America only hears the spin doctors, while we try to play by rules of fairness. Compromise and diversity don’t explain it!
AZ Redneck, I suspect one missing part of the electorate puzzle may have to do with a memory connection discussed by “Dr. Sanity” a couple of weeks ago. http://www.drsanity.com
Dr. Pat Santy is a Michigan psychiatrist, and she extrapolated some research findings about memory to the strange but obvious willingness of large numbers of people (exposed to enough propaganda), to believe things contrary to what they should know from their own experience or awareness of events as truth.
An example that comes to mind, the current Pelosi, et al, claim that Bush and Republicans refused all Dem attempts at “bipartisan cooperation,” apparently believed by a majority of voters, when the clear record is of consistent Bush willingness to lean over backwards to accommodate all views, and of Republicans in both chambers consistently buckling under to Dem table-pounding.
On the House Republicans’ hard stance on immigration, much of that was directly responsive to their respective constituents’ calls, letters and e-mails demanding they hold firm, as several of them explained at the time. The idea they were ousted because they did exactly what their constituents demanded, simply doesn’t make sense.
Impeachment was all talk. In fact, Rahm Emanuel, friendly of course to protecting Israel , has been outed as denying money to hard line anti-war Democrats in favor of the more moderate Dems. The
Dem and GOP hiearchy rarely listens to its rank and file.
Ken,
Impeachment was not all talk. It is on many local ballots and is the Holy Grail of the anti-war crowd. Did you not understand what the dems were getting into when they hyped the Bush war crimes?
Look, AJ, I hope the “locals” prevail. I’m telling you both parties are corrupt with hierarchies which ignore their rank and file.
80% of rank and file Democrats were opposed to allowing Bush to go into Iraq. Did their leaders listen to them?
MJ: My point was that voters tend to believe the wild Dem spin, but not the more rational dialog of the Rs. Maybe we need Pat et al to design a program??? Nah–too Nazi-like.
AJ and I have taken different stances on the immigration issue. I have always felt that the ‘comprehensive plan now’ was just as ‘hardline’ as ‘deport them all’. Neither alternative ever sold very well, but COULD HAVE BEEN a premier issue if the public had better understood the progress being made by the Administration WITHOUT Congress. We couldn’t agree although we were always on the same side!
Kathie, I think you may mis-interpret this word
“progressivesâ€
It is the name that socialists and communists took up in the late ’40s when the other terms (socialists and communists) became extremely unpopular. Lately some of the Dems that don’t like the name liberal have been using it, but believe me, if they understood what it means (very far left fringe) they wouldn’t use it. Tom Hayden is an example of a progressive, so is Bernadine Dohrn. So is Noam Chomsky.
The correct term for these new Dems would be either moderate or conservative, but surely not progressive.