The editors of the Wall Street Journal remark on the now-official impeachment inquiry that has begun in the House:
The question is why Mrs. Pelosi thinks this helps the impeachment cause. She must know that a partisan impeachment will be less credible with the public. It is unlikely to change the minds of swing voters, much less of Republicans who could sway Senators.
Then again, maybe she and Democrats don’t care. Perhaps they believe, in these polarized times, that they are unlikely to change many minds. Maybe they want to charge ahead on a partisan basis simply to satisfy the Democratic voters and interest groups that have long wanted Mr. Trump gone. Brand the President with the scarlet I and use that as another tool for motivating Democratic voters in 2020.
This is defining impeachment down. Holding Presidents accountable under the Constitution is among the most serious issues in American democracy. Bill Clinton committed a crime by lying under oath to a grand jury. Democrats said that wasn’t impeachable. Richard Nixon was forced to resign when the tapes revealed he had obstructed justice by ordering a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. When the facts were fully known, Republicans and most of the country agreed.
Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump for asking a foreign government to investigate his political rival for corruption, though the probe never happened, and for withholding aid to Ukraine that in the end wasn’t withheld. Assuming the facts bear this out, the attempt was self-serving and reckless and a long way from the “perfect†behavior Mr. Trump claims.
But Democrats will need more than the facts on the public record so far to justify short-circuiting a Presidency. Their partisan rush to impeachment suggests that their real purpose is revenge for the humiliation of having lost in 2016 to a man they think is unworthy of the office. The impeachers have the burden of showing why this shouldn’t all be left to the judgment of American voters in 2020.
This is impeachment as part of the continuous campaign. Speaker Pelosi seeks to hold her caucus together, retain the Speakership, and motivate Democratic voters to come out in 2020. The risk is that she will fail in holding her caucus together, motivate Republican voters to come out in 2020, and has lowered the bar for impeachment sufficiently that every succeeding president is likely to face impeachment when his or her party does not hold the House.
I have said in the past that I consider Nancy Pelosi the worst Speaker of the House of Representatives of my lifetime. The last three months has not changed my view. We’ll see how things work out.
The R Senators will not vote against Trump, other than maybe 3 or 4, no matter what he has done or what he will do. Just like Trump’s lawyer they won’t vote against him even if he shoots that guy. So I think this is a waste of time. That said, he is obviously and clearly guilty of trying to have a foreign leader help him with his election. That deserves impeachment. Some people think it is necessary to convey that message and that may deter other presidents in the future as they won’t want to be wounded.
I am sympathetic to the idea of wanting to do the right thing even if it will fail, but Dems need to understand that Trump won’t care if others think he is wounded. Not many politicians would, they just want to remain in office. So if you can engage in blatantly illegal behavior but remain in office, that is the message we send here. I dont see any way around it. We have progressed from the legal corruption of having your kids on boards or sending them to make money in the Middle East under the guise of going as a US representative. Now you can do blatantly illegal stuff, record it and have the people you appointed confirm it, and you stay in office.
Was there really a time when leaders would resign in shame?
Steve
So do I. As I said when this whole flap began, they should censure and move on. They must think they benefit from the proceedings politically. I don’t.
What is the criteria for the “worst speaker”?
On Pelosi’s speakership, she got the following
1. ACA, the largest restructuring of health care in 40-50 years
2. Stimulus package, an unprecedented response to the financial crisis
3. Impeachment of a President
If impeachment leads to Trump being removed from office or losing the election next year, she will be credited for it.
Not every speaker can claim two signature pieces of legislation plus the (potential) sinking of a President.
“That said, he is obviously and clearly guilty of trying to have a foreign leader help him with his election.”
That said, for partisan reasons I assert that he is obviously and clearly guilty, without proof, of trying to have a foreign leader help him with his election.
There, fixed it for you.
Let’s focus on the ACA. It was the first major social program ever enacted on a purely partisan basis. There were not even attempts at bipartisanship. It failed in its goals. It has never been popular. It cost the Democrats their majority. Without it a Democrat would probably have been elected president in 2016. The only way it is likely to survive is if Joe Biden is elected president and has a Democratic Congress at his back. Rather than laying the groundwork for future improvements it has stymied necessary improvements for a decade.
Basically, Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic Newt Gingrich, her only real competition for the “worst Speaker” category. Under Gingrich the Speaker’s role changed from being both a national and party role to being purely a party leader. That hasn’t been good either for Speakers, their parties, or for the country.
Pelosi et all don’t want Trump gone because of partisan politics. They want Trump gone because he is threatening their bank accounts, how they acquired those funds, and possibly their freedom. They don’t care what it looks like, they don’t care if it hurts their reelection chances or precipitates a civil war, they want Trump gone to keep out of jail. It’s now an existential struggle over who will run America, the voters or the entrenched politimediocracy.
If Trump is removed, it will mean that no one and nobody will be safe from a similar fate for defying the powers that run the USA, in the least little way. No thanks. I’d rather see the Democratic Party burnt down, the Republican Party destroyed, than see that happen. The end of any sort of rule of law. That’s what these narrow-minded short-sighted bozos are doing. Destroying the rule of law. In the mistaken belief that once in power they’ll be able to glue the pendulum to the casement, keep the arc of history always bending in their direction. They need to read some history. James Monroe of the Democratic-Republican Party won his second term in an unanimous vote. Four years later it was a four-way food fight between nearly irreconcilable wings of Jefferson’s old party that was probably the most vicious Presidential campaign ever (with occasional hiatuses for Lafayette’s farewell tour). It ended being decided in the House in one of the more famous-horse-trading episodes in American politics.
“There were not even attempts at bipartisanship.”
Not true. A goodly number of the items in the first version of the bill came from Republicans, including the famous death panels that F$$ing bit%h Palin demagogued. (I got to see a lot more old people tortured to death because of her so it is a sensitive topic.) GOP leadership had those removed so they could avoid the appearance of bipartisanship.
Link goes to latest polls on ACA. It is running 11-13% positive. Of note the only age group that does not give it positives is the over 65 group, which does not use it.
https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable–Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear
Steve
That’s just BS, steve. Even the most moderate Republicans said they were shut out of meetings and disallowed from offering amendments. You believe a narrative.
And your link says that 51% of Americans have a favorable view of the ACA. That compares with about 75% who have a favorable view of Social Security or Medicare. Those programs are popular. The ACA not so much.
Claiming victory on the basis of one half plus one while impugning the motives of the rest gets tedious.
” You believe a narrative.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-health-record-straight-republicans-helped-craft-obamacare-ross-baker-column/523952001/
The death panel.
“A bill to provide for reimbursement every five years for office visit discussions with Medicare patients on advance directives, living wills, and other end of life care issues was proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in April 2009—with Republican cosponsors Charles Boustany (R-LA), a cardiovascular surgeon, Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), and Geoff Davis (R-KY).[37][38][39] The counseling was to be voluntary and could be reimbursed more often if a grave illness occurred. The legislation had been encouraged by Gundersen Lutheran and a loose coalition of other hospitals in La Crosse, Wisconsin that had had positive experiences with the widespread use of advance directives.[37][38][40][41] Blumenauer’s standalone bill was tabled and inserted into the large health care reform bill, HR 3200 as Section 1233 shortly afterward.[37][42][43] Supporters of the Section 1233 counseling provision included the American Medical Association (AMA), AARP, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and Consumers Union; the National Right to Life Committee opposed “the provision as written.”[44] It was removed from the Senate version of the bill due to the death panel controversy[1] and was not included in the reconciled and final bill which became law in March 2010 and which is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[19]”
Steve
I’m fascinated. I’ve never seen a provision that wasn’t in the final law presented as evidence of bipartisan participation in what ended up in the final law.
What would you expect when the Republican leadership dictated that its members NOT participate in the ACA? Note that it was the Republican Sarah Palin who demagogued this provision to make sure it got pulled. 3 Republican sponsors, but leadership made sure it got pulled. Also note that you said this.
“Even the most moderate Republicans said they were shut out of meetings and disallowed from offering amendments.”
As noted in my article, and as was noted at the time (I honestly cant believe you dont remember this, but then I live health policy and I think you just occasionally follow it) there were extensive talks between a group of about Dem and GOP Senators that went on for several months. If the Dems had not bothered with those talks they wouldn’t have had to resort to reconciliation.
Finally, on the amendments, the GOP got a lot of amendments in, though a lot were procedural. Remember that the provision that no money would be used for abortions was put in to make the GOP happy.
Finally, just to emphasize how extremely Republicans opposed working with Democrats back then remember that Bob Bennett got beat in a primary. Remember Wyden Bennett? Bob Bennett worked with Democrats and that was enough to lose the primary. Remember GOP representative Cao? The one who voted for the House version of the ACA? One term Congressman who has never held GOP office again.
Steve
I don’t recall the Republican leadership directing the membership not to participate (citation, please?) but I do remember Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe both saying that they stopped going to the meetings when they realized none of their suggestions were being taken seriously.