Dems face a decision-- do the right, courageous thing, and have an opportunity for incredible new levels of long term power in congress, or reach for new lows of spineless cowardice and settle for holding on to or slightly increasing their power, for a short time, in the congress.
I gave a talk at a local Democratic precinct last night. I started my talk asking a question.
100% responded yes, when I asked whether they felt Cheney had committed impeachable crimes. But the support for impeachment hearings dropped to 60-70% and people talked about not enough time, about offending voters, about not being able to win in the senate. I could rebut most, but they are afraid it will go against the grain of the message Obama is sending of unity, healing and moving forward together.
I don't agree. One man, Neil, suggested that the hearings would grab and hold the media's attention and the election would be ignored. "Great," I replied. "That's exactly what happened in 2006 when news about Foley, the congressman who sent sexual messages to congressional aides came out. The scandal filled the airwaves and helped the Democrats score an even larger victory than expected. The scandal that will ooze out of the Cheney impeachment hearings will be even more effective in helping the Democrats," I replied.
There was one under 25, probably under 20 young lady present. A boomer aged guy, Dave, who identified himself as a progressive, suggested that impeachment might turn off the kids who have entered the political sphere because of their enthusiasm for Obama's positive message. He asked this young lady to speak for the millions of young people in the race. "Well, yeah," she replied, hesitantly. "I like the positive approach Obama has brought."
I replied, "well my three under 30 voting age children are all for impeachment. But I've been priming them," I admitted.
I told them that polling showed that under- 30 voters support impeachment hearings for Cheney more than any other group. The oldest people attending the group were women over 50 (actually, one over 50, one over 70.) Both of them supported impeachment hearings, perhaps the most vociferously. Matter of fact, women there were more in favor of impeachment. Most of those who expressed fear that impeachment would get in the way of a successful presidential campaign were men.
The response of this group was cordial. But it seemed like the more we talked the more the two or three naysayers, the ones who were afraid-- afraid to offend republicans, afraid to rock the boat, afraid to turn off young people--- were influencing the others, so, when a member of the group handed out a proposal that the group support impeachment, it was tabled, for not having enough committee people there, even though half an hour early another vote had been made, without any mention of not having enough present. Just like Kucinich's bill is stuck in committee. Who knows? They said they'd email it out to members for a vote at the next meeting, but those people will not have heard the arguments I made. I'm not hopeful.
At some point in the meeting, as these arguments of the danger and risks kept being raised, I began thinking that there's a reason the congressional dems are spineless invertebrates. They are elected by spineless invertebrates. Not all the people were. I've worked with lawyers in the past. Lawyers give advice to prevent litigation and risk. The problem is, lawyers are often dealkillers. They are so cautious, that if you pay attention to all the warnings, nothing gets done. The naysayers were like lawyers, and the three or four naysayers were changing the mood of the audience. I realized that part of the job I had was "Obama-esque." I had to move these people emotionally and reach them at a level that went beyond just logic and words. I had to get them feeling patriotic and passionate. The potential was there.
The plan was to use the proposition that had been written up be another county's democrats. Barbara, a member of the district rose, on cue, and handed out the copy of the proposition. It was long and detailed. I realized, after doing my talk, that this was not going to fly. Something really simple was called for. A simple one or two sentence statement might fly, but not a single spaced legalese document loaded with wherefors.
The impeachment movement has a tough road ahead. One hundred percent of this group felt that Cheney deserved impeachment. But the fear that it will hurt election chances is great. I am convinced that impeachment will dramatically HELP the democrats score even bigger victories. Impeachment hearings could even give the dems a 60 vote majority in the senate, something that non-one envisions with ordinary tactics.
The challenge is to get people off their comfortable butts. The question for democrats is not if impeachment is the RIGHT thing to do. They know Cheney is guilty. It is a question of courage and character. If the Democratic leadership takes the easier, lower risk path, they will probably hold on to their slim majority in the senate, even grow it by a few votes. But if they want to really take the high ground, build a lasting power base and possibly even take an un-fillibusterable 60 or more senate majority, they're going to have to take a small risk-- one that offers an incredible upside and minimal downside. They have to go for impeachment hearings.
The hearings are the right thing to do. They are the constitutional and the courageous thing to do. Will the Dems embrace the opportunity or stumble, spinelessly forward?
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.
i think august is doing a little more than watching batman movies. the quote that you belittle is attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797). He was an Irish statesman, author, political theorist and philosopher. He is remembered for his support of the American colonies in the American revolution.
that quote is as relevant today as it was 200 years ago.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 321 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM
there is not one real man (woMAN) in all of Washington. To have the greatest nation on earth you have to have people who know no fear to do the right thing.
We are 300 million cowards.
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 298 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 8:07:55 AM
So many of those who are against impeachment point to the Republican losses after their impeachment of Bill Clinton and worry that it would happen to them.
They seem to equate the Republican losses with the impeachment, but don't stop to wonder WHY?
Perhaps the Republicans lost because they used impeachment for political purposes and chose a PERSONAL matter as the heart of their indictment?
Could it be because those same Republicans were exposed as HYPOCTIES when many of their leaders were shown by Hustler Magazine's Larry Flint to have done exactly the same things for which they were attacking Clinton?
If the Democrats begin the impeachment process when it appears they can't convict in the Senate, that just shows ALL THE MORE, that they are acting on PRINCIPLE, rather than for political motivations.
An impeachment to protect the Constitution!
An impeachment to demonstrate that NOBODY is above the law!
An impeachment to show that you can't just "run out the clock" when you commit crimes!
An impeachment because WHAT IS RIGHT IS RIGHT and WHAT IS WRONG IS WRONG.
An impeachment because we are a country of LAWS, not a country of MEN.
An impeachment because the American People deserve to know the truth about the corruption of the last eight years so they can make intelligent decisions about the NEXT eight years.
An impeachment because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 1:06:53 PM
may have lost a few seats, but after impeaching clinton, they ended up with a republican president and majority in both houses (until spring when jeffords switched from R to I and voted with dems).
after impeachment hearings drove out nixon, dems took the white house too.
historically, it has worked in the favor of the courageous ones. NOT impeaching reagan got us another republican.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 321 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 9:19:52 PM
While people die for a lie and food shortages threaten world
We get to debate about self-centered concerns such as positivity et al.
Actually, the singular and most positive thing anybody can ever do is to stop a mad criminal gang from doing its thing.
Why is there even a debate?
This strikes me as deeply immoral.
What will such a *debate* do to our public image as Americans world-wide? At this point, with the UN issuing warnings about grain shortages due to rising oil and food costs, and with those rising oil prices directly due to Bush's wars based on lies....
I absolutely don't blame nations abroad for hating Americans. And having lived abroad myself for three years, I have always loved Americans. But now we begin to see the other side.
We are so unethical as a nation of people that we won't stop a mass murder ring (wars based on lies) just because we are concerned about "positivity". What kind of an oxymoron is that? How ironic that our Democratic compatriots would be the ones to block impeachment.
At risk of sounding absolutely nasty, I say they need to get their heads examined. It's true: Think about it. Anybody who refuses to stop a mass murder ring is complicit in evil. Is that the work of our so-called "positivity" ? Time to think again.
Rob, maybe this could be a good topic as an on-going conversation theme here on Opednews. Articles etc defining "positivity" and where it becomes self-destructive. Just a thought and only my two cents worth.
by
Kathryn Smith (87 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 334 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 1:44:30 PM
Did people decide that Nixon should be kicked out of office and what for ? No, of course not. We were told by the MSM and the Establishment's stooge Bob Woodward that it was because of Watergate
Did people decide that Clinton should be impeached because of sperm smear discovered on Monika's skirt? No, of course not. It was the same lying and manipulating MSM that sold us the chicken crap.
Did people decide that JFK must be assassinated because he was against Vietnam war and against the Fed ? No, of course not.
How much do we know about the secrets behind these scenarios? Next to nothing apart from MSM lies and misleading informations
So, why and how do you expect the Congress and the Democrats to listen to people's whines and cries? Do you think that Dems have the power to go against their masters even if they had the willingness to do so ?
Who owns the USA? Corporates. To whom is the Congress answerable ? To corporate masters. Has Bush/Cheney cabal been an asset for the masters? Of course ( "You are the Haves and the Haves More. You are my Base")
So, the answer is blowing in the air, my friend. There can not be an impeachment because it is non of your business.
May be I am wrong. But I am just a student of OpEdNews school of logic. And this is the way of reasoning that is taught here. I simply apply what I have learnt.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 412 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:47:46 PM
Well, there you have it, people and Congressional Representatives who still do not understand the reason for IMPEACHMENT. They want unity and not division. Impeachment looks too much like a political agenda instead of what it is -- Limiting/correcting abuse in government. I suspect the public does not support it because the public is unable to see the broader and deeper implications of this problem. Not being there, I don't know how you presented the issue to help them better understand it.
Charlie L hit it right on the head, we are suppose to be a country of laws instead of a country of men. When we allow someone with the power and authority of the President and VP to exceed their legal limits of authority, when they are no longer constrained by our laws and rules of our society, we are placing this tremendous power and authority to great risk for abuse.
We have seen some of that abuse in torture, the scandals in the Department of Justice. the Iraq war, ignoring regulatory functions of government agencies, misuse of science, no-bid contracts, secret meetings, etc. The problem is people think, Bush is an anomalie and forget we had this problem just 34 years earlier with Nixon. Leaving this legacy unchallenged will be a diseaster not only for America but the world. It will give a future President confidence he can do anything he/she wants. He/she will look back and decide they can use any method they want to achieve any goal they define. Now, think about what that means when the individual has authority over the most advanced and destructive technology in Earth. No limits, not checks and balances. He/she can do virtually anything because, well they are the President. They can justify their actions based on the legacy Bush has left us. That legacy is unchallenged and thus becomes a defacto principle they can point to and say, "Bush did it, and it was not questioned".
It won't take another 34 years for this issue to happen again, and next time the consequences will be far, far more severe than this time. It isn't the goals of men that create the worst problems for our society, it is the methods they select to attain their goals. Release men from the constrainsts of social justice and the rule of law, and you open up a Pandoras Box. Only, this box contains nuclear weapons, advanced delivery systems and power unimaginable to most people. Heaven help all of us if people don't understand the importance of this and its implications.
by
Peter Wedlund (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 154 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:51:07 PM
At the end of the day, I think what members of congress want most is the same thing most of us want most...to keep our jobs. Courage and 'doing the right thing ain't in it.
by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 334 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:06:45 PM
Sure hope you are right, because anyone who is a Representative in Congress who wants to keep their job should realize that to keep it they have to do their job. If they can't do it they are out! If investigating abuse of power and breaking our laws is not one of their primary responsibilities, I don't know what they are doing in Washington. If they don't know that they have no business representing us.
by
Peter Wedlund (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 154 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:34:48 PM
No one should be above the law and I like you Rob believe that even an unsuccessful impeachment attempt would at least air their dirty laundry. That would not hurt the Fraidycrats oops I mean Democrats at all.
by
Michael Chavers (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 172 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:36:31 PM
Glad you brought up unsuccessful impeachment attempt
When I give my talks on impeachment, I always point out that historically, successful impeachments have not gone to articles of impeachment or trial in the senate. They produce hearings that lead to resignations. Forget about the senate. Cheney will get a doctor's note and resign. Bush will be forced to resign by Republican senators doing what they have to do to save their party.
by
Rob Kall (759 articles, 3845 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1639 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 7:58:52 AM
Are we talking about the present Congress? The one no doubt, where Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, feels that oversight means not holding hearings on the Sibel Edmonds affair, opting instead to reform government by hounding Roger Clemens.
The one where the Senate's Judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, is unable to get anyone to answer his subpoenas and wrings his hands instead of sending officers of the court over to drag them in by the hair.
Some bunch of patriots.
Impeachment is the only national issue of importance at the moment.
Two Californians, Waxman (the darling of Hollywood) and Pelosi (the darling of SF), joined by Nevada's Harry Reid (the darling of LasVegas) are impeding the nation's business for political purposes.
They belong in the same dock as Bush-Cheney.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 41 quicklinks, 191 diaries, 363 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 4:04:56 PM
I think you know how I feel Rob. I would love to see them both doing the perp-walk but we also both know it aint gonna happen. You even admitted in my thread that there will be no conviction because at the end of the day, both parties protect each other.
The 800-pound gorilla in the roonm of course is the corporate media. The mistake you make is in assuming that everyone in America is a progressive who gets their news from opednews. They are not and do not. They get their news from cable primarily. And the bottom line is that this will be spun VERY negatively against the dems. It will be spun as retibution for Clinton and a sideshow, given how little time is left in the administration.
That of course will have a very negative effect on the election and ONLY helps McCain. The possiblity, and do not fool yourself, it is a very likely possibility, is that you engage in impeachment hearings, which will result in nothing, and hand the election to John McCain. Then we have 4 more years of war and Bush policies, for nothing, for an empty political gesture.
This gang should have been impeached after Downing Street. This is four years too late. I just think we need to be smarter. There are lives at stake.
by
Anthony Wade (141 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 451 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 5:57:25 PM
Mr. Kall, I had to do a google search practically to get your newsletter today--27FEB. AOL must be blocking you from my inbox AGAIN. It has happened before so PLEASE. please. hook me back in!
Did you see where Comcast hired sit-ins to take up the chairs at the net-neutrality hearing? Yup. All these CONCERNED legitimate citizens couldn't go in and had to stand outside in the freezing cold in Boston as there "weren't any chairs left". Then all these "ppl hired to take up the chairs" were just sleeping, caring less about the issue. What a devastating pile of crap is happening to our country.
Let me know when Kim Jong Il policies have left the Whitehouse! Sheeesh.
"Dems, courage", you can't use those two words in the same sentence can you? They have used every excuse in the book for not initiating Impeachment hearings.
Those emails--the millions of lost ones--guess those won't be found till after Bush leaves office. From what I read, it will take them over a yr to dig them up from the prehistoric hard drive that RNC used. Oh pity. Bush can walk away with olde Dick , and Rove, well, he's too busy working on the Diebolds.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 272 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 6:10:58 PM
I can't say about the rank & file of the Ds, but I'm sure the leadership won't impeach Bush or Cheney because they don't want to restrain the governments power. It was one thing for the Rs to impeach Clinton for lying aboput being too horny, no issues concerning presidential powers there. Going after the two apes for abuse of power, now that's a different story. The Ds just want to take over the imperial presidency not clip it's wings.
by
Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 6:33:26 PM
A boomer aged guy, Dave, who identified himself as a progressive, suggested that impeachment might turn off the kids who have entered the political sphere because of their enthusiasm for Obama's positive message. He asked this young lady to speak for the millions of young people in the race. "Well, yeah," she replied, hesitantly. "I like the positive approach Obama has brought."
I think the professional poll you championed is likely to be a more reliable indicator Rob. When will the results be known? Will they be made public even if they do not favor impeachment hearings?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:21:54 PM
There are more than 19% of voters who are Republicans. It must be the 19% who are still buffaloed. I know Republicans who are totally outraged with Bush's actions, and blame him for letting Cheney get by with worse outrages yet.
I've wondered how we can coordinate a writing campaign on this subject. Maybe, "Why I think impeachment is a good idea." And make an effort to send it to columnists across the country.
On a personal level, first I came out after Moyers' program last July. Then I read Nichols book because David Swanson told me. Then every time someone wanted a campaign contribution I told them I wasn't giving money until impeachment was on the table. Hint: The book's half as expensive as when I started. Since I have limited resources I only give Genius of Impeachment to those who have contacts beyond themselves. Two of my best plants are medical doctors. If there is ever a disgruntled bunch of human beings, you find them in the doctor's office. I think one retired legal secretary from Florida is spreading the word. And then there's the usual assortment of half-hip relatives.
Then I've got a feeler out to John Edwards. Suffice it to say, you all have his address. Hint: advise against quick action until after the Dem Prez is pretty for certain. Conyers is out there working for Obama, not to mention Tom Daschle, and probably Richardson and for sure Dodd. We don't want this to be a boy-against-girl issue.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1346 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 805 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 8:17:47 PM
Get Hillary to Support Impeachment/Obama change his mind
Let's be clear on who the spineless are; not the Democratic party but Obama who has had this blockade going on since Nancy Pelosi said she was not tabling Impeachment.
All black members of Congress do not support Impeachment showing their support to Obama. Now Congressman John Lewis of Georgia has dumped Hillary for Obama, and he a black American. They want a black in the Whitehouse, and they are hoping that by not seeking Impeachment it will bring Republicans to the Democratic side who are dissatisfied with Bush as a choice, without ruining their party standing. Bush and Cheney especially like Obama's no Impeachment rhetoric because it is like a wax seal of approval preventing their eventual prosecution.
Their thinking is well who is going to raise a ruckus with a Black candidate for not tabling Impeachment, after all he's black and everyone does not want to rail on him for supporting war criminals because of the fear they will comeback with accusations of being racists against his views.
Talk about putting feathers in a pillow plan to cushion the Bush and Cheney crimes. The way he talks about Reagan and sending troops to Pakistan makes me wonder if Obama is not on the Bush payroll getting advice from Condolessa Rice, on how to be republican running on the Democratic ticket.
But I don't think Obama has really thought this out clearly enough, because the attacks will not subside. People are going to start accusing him of blocking Impeachment and supporting criminals and really his support means he accepts corruption prime time during his administration if elected.
In fact the idea that he will become the first black President in American history will eventually also become the first Black President to be Impeached as well. If Clarence Thomas got away with it, it should be a shoe in for Obama right? Talk about high Tech Lynchings.
Obama is perceived positive now, but these things come and go. We who have lived our lives through numerous administrations can attest to high approvals of a President one day and the next thing you know only 19% of the people think he is doing a good job. They crash harder than a mental patient on prozac.
In order to get Impeachment going we need to get Hillaries support. Who is going to go through the crowd up to her and get her to support Impeachment? That's what it takes.
Or to get Obama to change his mind. In fact maybe getting him to change his mind is good; especially in seeing his good honesty emerge, and the recognition that he is human and humans make mistakes, but it takes a good person to admit they are wrong and then change to do the right thing. I don't think McCain can call him a flip-flopper when it is about this Impeachment issue. There is just too much evidence.
Mark my words if Obama said Impeachment is on; all eyes will be on him, and I assure you the election will be in the bag for him. He needs to consider if he is in office and for whatever reason he commits a war crime as they did, he is on the list. But then the tables are turned and the Republicans will come out to Impeach him, saying it was Democrat policies that made republicans have to lie about going to war.
Impeachment needs to come during this election. We need to show that Republicans are very incompetent for Impeaching Bill on a sex issue that had nothing to do with National Security, and wasted millions of tax payer dollars for nothing....and then we have the Bush administration; that lied to go to war and killed thousands of innocent Iraqi people and we are going to ignore that?
If America does not Impeach now, and it is so obvious and sure, then America
