When You Disagree Over Strategy, Does Your Opponent Lack Balls?
There are people – I am one of them – who think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have committed impeachable offenses. Some of us have written our Congress Members to ask that they sign on to an impeachment effort; essentially to prepare an indictment of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Many Congress Members have not done so. (For a Politico report on a pro Impeachment speech by Rep. Wexler -- with video of the speech (D-Pa)click here.)
On this page recently one writer says, in effect, that Congress Member Jerrold Nadler lacks balls , courage in less sexualized terms, while others have been sitting in at his office. They want Mr. Nadler to sign on the impeachment idea and he has not. Because he lacks balls? Well that’s what they say. I have great respect for Mr. Nadler as a progressive Congress Member, worked with him and “the kids†for decades.
What does Mr. Nadler say? Well, I called up, asked, got this statement below. Two caveats: I did not speak with Mr. Nadler directly and the people I spoke to have not responded when I asked for a review the quote they gave me. After the jump.
Congress Member Nadler on Impeachment
I see no scenario in which 67 Senators, including 16 Republicans will vote for impeachment. Therefore any efforts to impeach President Bush and Vice-President Cheney would be symbolic
It is vital to end the war in Iraq and to elect a Democrat president of the US. Unless we do those two things we cannot turn our country around. I do not want to undermine these two goals for the symbolic action that impeachment would be.
The House Judiciary Committee has used its oversight authority to investigate, document and hold accountable many of the wrongful acts and omissions of the Bush administration. We are not giving him a pass.
I am concerned that this impeachment talk detracts us from the efforts to elect a progressive congress and a progressive president. Further it divides progressive people at a time when unity is both difficult and needed. We need to win as one step to ending the Bush war in Iraq, restoring our Constitutional liberties, and giving poor and middle-class people an even break.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Impeachment | Jerrold Nadler
What you've said, as I read it, is that Mr. Nadler's fear
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 17 January 2008 - 11:58am.
is the only reason he has not signed on to the impeachment campaign.
Your write: "But then we come to his view on impeachment, which is, in essence, one of utter fear. Yes, Nadler, who is no wimp, is afraid of impeachment. Nadler, who should know better, is intimidated by the Republicans into abandoning the Constitution. That is the only explanation that makes logical sense, even though I don't like it!"
Now, I do not believe that "utter fear" is the only logical explanation. Another might be that Congress Member Nadler has a different read on the strategy, here. As it happens, I too disagree with Congress Member Nadler and think an impeachment effort might be useful, but not if (as it seems to be doing) it ends up dividing us. Nadler's is a judgment call. I don't think, as you appear to state, that his call is based on "utter fear."
As he says...
Submitted by mole333 on 17 January 2008 - 2:25pm.
Fear of it backfiring in the Presidential race. Strikes me as little different than the long-standing fear many Democrats (Nadler less than most) used to have about criticizing Bush. They were always afraid that it could be turned against them.
I presented Nadler's reasons: inability to get a conviction in the Senate (remember, Nixon's down fall came long before that step!) and fear (yes...fear) that standing up for the Constitution would damage a strategy for winning the White House. I said it in the diary and I stand by it. And I think it is a miscalculation and we as a Party and a nation would be far better served by hearings.
I do think Mr. Nadler judgment is wrong on this.
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 17 January 2008 - 2:57pm.
An impeachment resolution, carefully crafted and debated could highlight Bush-Cheney misdeeds and need not be either a circus sideshow or an exercise in symbolism. But I do understand Nadler's reluctance, I think. (Further, I am afraid Congressional Democrats sometimes excel at symbolism: I am told a third S-CHIP vote will be held toward the end of January.)
16 votes could be gotten
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 21 January 2008 - 12:46pm.
In October of 1998 the question was how many Democrats in the Senate would vote to convict Bill Clinton on an impeachment vote. By the time the vote came around, the answer was "zero." Even Joe Lieberman was a Democrat on this one.
Congressman Nadler is wearing blinders when he states that he "see[s] no scenario in which ... 16 Republicans [in the Senate] will vote for impeachment." We need the impeachment proceeding to move forward quickly, so that the people of our country (and the nations of the world) can see that nobody, not even the President, is above the law.
Impeachment fans like Dan & Mole333 may
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 22 January 2008 - 5:05pm.
want to read the pro impeachment article by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It's a good outline of the argument.
Don't misrepresent me
I hope you read what I wrote, not just the headline. I specifically said he HAS balls and that people should neither underestimate him nor ignore his work to end the Iraq war. I also represented his arguement fairly, I believe, including pretty much what you quote. My suggestion is that he needs to get in touch with his more aggressive side because, quite simply, impeachment is ABOUT Constitutional liberties and the survival of our Democracy. To be scared away from investigating a criminal offense because it might be politically unpopular (probably a wrong assumption to start with!) stikes me as uncharacteristically timid of Mr. Nadler. And uncharacteristically out of touch with how voters are thinking even in red districts.
Defending the Constitution is NOT something to be timid about. If defending it is merely symbollic, then the Constitution becomes unenforceable and hence is itself merely symblollic, no longer existing as law. The precedent set by letting Bush and Cheney off the hook is a terrible precedent whichever party takes the White House next. I would not want a DEMOCRAT following the same precedent. As things stand, traditional checks and balances have been pushed aside and this is considered acceptable. Impeachment calls attention to the fact that it is NOT acceptable and prevents the precedent from being set and becoming the new norm. To fear defending the Constitutional system of our government is not a good thing.