Yes, but we were always considered the only party that could multitask. We still are … but I don’t know.
Democrats govern, Republicans rule has been conventional wisdom for decades. .
Unfortunately Josh has followed that one up with a Prime Editor’s post that basically says since the Senate will not remove him the entire exercise (impeachment) is meaningless and his argument operates from the seriously dubious assumption that it would cost the House to hold impeachment hearings.
Which underscores the very point I was trying to articulate (in agreement with, and in reply to nemo’s comment) that If Dems don’t stand up, many people will say what’s the point of them, much less what’s the point of supporting them again in 2020?
4 Likes
The Republicans were gleeful when they impeached Clinton. That cost them. I am not sure the result would be the same if Democrats impeach Trump reluctantly.
I think Democrats ought to be about separating Trump from his base. To do that they need to understand what is so attractive about Trump to his base. Simply saying his base is filled with “deplorable” people isn’t going to get it done.
Winning the House, then the Senate, then the White House after the impeachment and failed removal of Clinton “cost them”…?
Um… ok
I hope it “costs us” like that.
3 Likes
The Democrats are multi-tasking. The House has already passed a bunch of legislation, and has more on tap.
And nobody knows about it, because when Pelosi holds a press conference to announce Democratic initiatives, the first question – literally – is always about impeachment and/or Trump
And the headlines are always about impeachment and/or Trump.
Now, even if we do what I suggest, and restrict impeachment hearings to Thurs-Fri, most of the time the Dem message won’t get out the rest of the week anyway. But some of it will – and it provides a framework for further messaging strategies. For instance, Dems should be told that if they go on TV, the answer to every first question should be
"I’ll be happy to talk about that. But first I want to mention the [bill that the House just passed] and say that I hope you’ll find some time to report on [a Democratic priority] as well. Now, to answer your question…
4 Likes
7 Likes
not to impeach would put in question the viability of the Democratic party as a party of opposition.
That’s one really ugly truth. And the result would be low voter turnout, the Edvard Munch nightmare that we would have to live with for at least 4 more years. I say “at least” b/c of the nature of and slow creep of authoritarian rule.
5 Likes
And that’s a good vehicle that can actually help with non-impeachment initiatives. Because you will get a massive media coverage with every Q&A when “impeachment” is front-loading every presser.
4 Likes
It always is
1 Like
I’m 100% with you on this. Somethings gotta give. I don’t know if we let the process play out in the courts or if we should just barrel ahead into impeachment. I do know that this is a decision that could destroy the lives of many if it backfires and I’m not mad that our leaders are taking the time to weigh it all out before they pull the trigger. This is the highest stakes game of domestic poker this country has seen since the Civil War. We can’t fuck it up.
8 Likes
Yes, I do have a bigger concern than the Constitution…The women and people of color of this country who will suffer horribly if that man is reelected. I’m worried about my own life here.
7 Likes
yeah, I just read the new Josh post.
I don’t think he understands that the impeachment process is less an end in itself, than a means to an end.
First,as you note its crucial to keeping the base engaged and involved. The people who did the grassroots work that resulted in the Dems taking the House did so because they wanted Dems in a position to take Trump down. And the party needs those same people working just as hard in 2020. But rather than energize the base, Pelosi seems intent on enervating it.
Secondly, its the most effective way to get the message out about Trump’s unfitness for office. The process itself provides a focus that the panoply of “oversight investigations” cannot – and indeed, the current strategy comes off looking like “much ado about nothing”.
I mean, we just won a big court case. Big Fucking Whoop. Because nothing will come of it anytime soon, its a court victory about nothing. Democrats issue subpoenas and …nothing. Democrats threaten contempt and …nothing.
Democrats need to hold hearings on the Mueller probe – and do so under an “impeachment” sign. If the democrats can’t find someone/anyone from the Mueller Team to testify about what they know, then they are utterly and completely incompetent and hopeless. This is getting ridiculous…
5 Likes
It shouldn’t be “just about Mueller”, but Mueller should provide the framework. “Its the treason, stupid” should be the motto of impeachment — Trump’s cover up of the Russia attack.
And we need to say "who cares if Trump thought the investigation was unfair? We were attacked, and Trump puts his personal concerns above our national security?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
once that framework is established, we can go after the “why he did it” angle – all the financial stuff, etc.
personally I think we really have to focus. We can’t spend time on “pardons for war criminals” – and unless we can put ten year olds before a house committee to talk about what it was like to be torn from their parents and put in cages, that is extraneous as well.
5 Likes
Judge’s instruction to the prosecutor:
You can either present the evidence or you can demand a verdict. You can only pick 1.
Why does this seem like a reasonable framing to you?
4 Likes
Not sure the “old guard” cares about the base. They want to attract “moderate Republicans”, even though no one really knows what that means. This seems to be a redux of what Schumer said in 2016:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
That’s what they are doing all over again and they don’t seem to mind turning some Democrats off to court people who most likely will not vote for them.
3 Likes
How Trumpian.
1 Like
Not a woman of color, but am lesbian. Your life, my life, a lot of our lives are on the line. I can hide, somewhat, but I’ve lived an out life for 40+ years, and my marriage is public record, but I can’t say that helps me feel a lot safer. I’ve dealt with as much homophobia in the last three years, as I have in total for the 40 previous years.
6 Likes
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I agree with your overall point (apparently I’m feeling a bit contrarian today), I’d just like to point out what you do see from the right. You do see them passing resolutions in congress to dissolve Obamacare fifty something times when that vote didn’t matter, yet zero times when it did. They’ve got their own issues with fighting the “good fight,” especially when it matters.
1 Like
I don’t think I agree with paul_lukasiak above. Judges/courts can jail people for contempt and hold them indefinitely. A higher court can overturn, of course, but there’s nothing the executive or judicial branches can do about it. I suspect the same would hold true of inherent contempt of Congress. The mechanisms aren’t entirely clear but I don’t think Congress has to abide by a court order. Courts strike down laws as unconstitutional, and that’s only because SCOTUS in the late 18th century said that it was their role to do so.
So, for example, Congress collecting a large daily fine could be difficult as Congress does not issue orders. And Congress doesn’t operate detainment facilities, but I suppose they could arrest someone and put them in some form of detention by force. That would probably be more effective than a fine.
For the party subject to inherent contempt, they can continue to challenge the subpoena in court, but I’m still not sure that the courts have absolute jurisdiction over Congressional subpoenas. Congress may opt to allow the courts to decide and abide by those rulings, but there’s nothing IN THE CONSTITUTION on it, and since custom and practice are out the window with the rest of the government, apparently, Congress can just ignore the courts in favor of its inherent contempt powers.
But this is why we are in the constitutional crisis. The new rule seems to be that separation of powers means that might makes right under the law. Congress can deny funds and the president raids the treasury for what he wants. Unelected judges with lifetime appointments can serve the political and financial interests of their patrons rather than tradition and logic and facts. Congress has more allegiance to party than rule of law or the Constitution.
So I say: LOCK THEM UP until they testify and tell the truth. Or make them take the 5th Amendment which, while that can’t be decisive in a court of law, can certainly be conclusive of guilt in the court of public opinion.
3 Likes