Republicans in the senate are taking itty bitty baby steps down the road towards impeachment.
They're not talking about or thinking about impeachment yet, but the recent steps leading GOP senators are taking, speaking out agains the Iraq war are the beginning steps necessary to break the Bush loyalty mindset.
For the past seven years, Republican senators have been marching in lockstep with the idiots in the Whitehouse. Finally, facing an angry, dissatisfied electorate, these GOP senators are also facing reality. Supporting Bush and his policies is bad for their job futures.
This is creating a new mentality-- an "I can disagree with Dubya mentality"-- an "I better disagree if I'm going to keep my job" mentality.
It's a bit like getting into the pool the first time in a new season. You have to get wet, have to brace yourself for the chill. But once you're in, you get used to it and it's easy to get out and get back in a second and third time.
It's a bit like losing your virginity. Once you've done the nasty, you don't have the old barrier, the worry about doing what you've never done before, as a concern anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Republicans are ready to impeach. But the process of accepting the reality that they can publicly disagree with Bush, reject his policy and stand against him is a good thing for the impeachment movement, and really a good thing for America, which sorely needs the patriotic assistance of the GOP in re-asserting the rule of law, the constitution and ethical political engagement.
It is inevitable that more GOP senators will join the get out of Iraq fast already bandwagon. Even seeing their colleagues doing it is having a mental effect upon them-- particularly the incumbents up for election next year. The wall is being eroded.
Note that impeachment is not something that is necessary in the senate. Dave Lindorff has eloquently argued that the whole idea of impeachment was conceived as something the house of representatives does. He writes in his article Forget a Senate Trial, Impeachment is its own Punishment.
"Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.
When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.
Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.
If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.
At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.
For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.
Their nefarious actions—the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts—would all stand publicly condemned by the People’s Body."
That said, it is nice to know that there are many hearings going on that are cooking the impeachment soup hotter and hotter and that the Iraq war is forcing the members of congress in both houses to re-adjust their Bush loyalty mentality. Things are moving in the right direction.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Any Republican. And if we have a strong Independent and a weak or much hated Democrat (a.k.a. Hillary Clinton), that's where we might end up. How would four more years of Hold The Course McCain suit you? I sense that he would love to take on Iran and have many more wars if he were Prez.
by
SteveO (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 9:09:13 AM
Yes, Hillary may be better -- make that less worse -- than Romney or Giuliani. But by such a small margin, it's splitting hairs.
I say, let's not be caught unawares this time. We need a "turn-key" system for impeachment in place before the next election, whether the winner is any of the above-mentioned (McCain seems to be history). Because we'll no doubt need it.
A smart entrepreneur could develop such a thing. Anybody know any smart entrepreneurs?
Of course, our very own Rob Kall. There's your next fortune, Rob!
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 11:37:10 AM
n other news today: President Bush is now completely ready to gain absolute power through manipulating the law. All he requires now is a catastrophic event, like 9/11 and he can call for martial law and he is absolute dictator of the most powerfull country in the world.
by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 196 comments)
on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 9:10:08 AM
"Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.
When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.
The U.S. House of Representatives was granted authority, by the Constitution, to establish whether or not impeachment [allegation of wrongdoing serious enough for the person to be removed from office] is appropriate.The House makes that decision based on receiving a majority of votes on the articles of impeachment.Since there are 435 members in the House, a majority would be 218votes in favor.The goal of impeachment is to remove the person from office, which is accomplished by having a Senate trial and receiving a 2/3 majority of guilty votes.
I’ll use Clinton’s impeachment as an example – The articles of impeachment against Clinton consisted of four separate allegations:
Article I – Perjury
Article II – Perjury
Article III – Obstruction of Justice
Article IV – Abuse of Power
Article II and IV did not receive enough votes in the Republican controlled House to proceed to the Senate for trial.
Clinton was tried on Articles I and III and found not guilty by the Senate due to not receiving a 2/3 majority vote on either article.
So, Clinton was impeached ‘accused’ of wrongdoing by the House, but found not guilty by the Senate, which basically means the Republicans made complete fools of themselves by wasting four years of taxpayer time and money on independent investigations.
The current resolution submitted by Kucinich has 11 co-sponsors as of yesterday, which is a far cry from the 218 votes necessary to proceed to trial which is what is requested in his resolution.
“Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 11:47:22 AM
There are at least 2 enormous shortcomings in your post.
You start by announcing that you "disagree with Lindorff." You quote a passage of his, then proceed to offer some remarks of your own. Nothing you say actually contradicts Lindorff (who authored an entire book on impeachment) until you get down to this: "The goal of impeachment is to remove the person from office."
However, that sentence is just your own personal opinion about "the goal." You tossed it into a paragraph where factual background about impeachment is being offered -- but that sentence is nothing but your own personal & completely subjective opinion. You did not discuss the subject with the Founding Fathers, and it is nowhere stated in the Constitution what the precise "goal" of impeachment is. // Lindorff contends that impeachment (ie, a vote by 218 House members) was intended as its own punishment -- you have said nothing which refutes that interpretation.
Then you say you'll use Clinton as an "example." (It may surprise you to hear this, but nothing you said earlier was so complex that it required any "example.") You summarize the Clinton impeachment outcome, then assert that it "... basically means the Republicans made complete fools of themselves by wasting four years of taxpayer time and money." However, once again, that is just your subjective opinion. It fails to note, among other things, that Clinton's impeachment, & the prurient spectacle it generated about Lewinsky, may very well have caused a significant number of voters, particulary Religious Right types, to come out in droves for Bush in 2000. The spectacle may have caused potential Gore voters to stay home. These factors may have gotten the election close enough, to allow the Republicans to steal it.
So your view of the "meaning" of the Clinton impeachment is a very narrow one, & fails to appreciate much of its real significance. The impeachment helped cripple the Clinton presidency, & doubtless played a role in preparing for the theft of the 2000 election.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 6:53:42 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
