Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/24/then-there-were-77.html
Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/24/then-there-were-77.html
Paging Ms. Pelosi … please come to the white courtesy phone … your party is looking for its lost leadership.
[figured I’d use a reference that the old-timers would understand]
What I find crazy is that if impeaching Trump would really guarantee his victory in 2020 like Trump and so many right wing news people and supporters of Trump say … then why are they not absolutely buying into the impeachment process ?
One Republican House member. Fucking fucks. That is not what “integrity” means, you stupid morons.
No impeachment effort trump blathers: “Even the Democrats couldn’t find any reason to impeach! No Collusion! Lock her up! Trump 2020!”
If Impeached trump blathers: “The treasonous Democrats impeached without any cause! Senate blocked 'em! No Collusion! Lock her up! Trump 2020!”
That is, no difference in terms of propaganda to trump sycophants, yet as you suggest the RNC wouldn’t like it; and there are vast differences in: historical significance, cautioning future executives, properly vilifying Senate republicans for neglecting their oaths of office, strengthening the Democratic base, uncovering yet more evidence of Russian intervention, … Impeachment even without Senate removal is honorable and “worthwhile”.
And my congressman (Al Green) has actually moved to start impeachment hearings twice so far. Maybe next time he tries it will brought up for a vote.
The Dems can’t even get Hope Hicks to testify - which they should have demanded she do publicly.
“Vote for me and I’ll do nothing” isn’t a particularly inspiring campaign slogan.
77 isn’t even a majority of their caucus none the less the entire house.
Frankly I’m surprised its that low. If I were in charge and looking at that number I wouldn’t be rushing to bring it to a vote either.
Just think how much higher the Dem number would be if she made a leadership decision that the House will impeach (no details needed).
But would a successful impeachment effort yield better results than it did with Clinton?
I don’t care about Trump getting his just deserts. I want him out of power, which means getting people who voted Trump last time to vote Democrat this time.
Will impeachment do that? Perhaps. Or does it allow people who aren’t on the anti-Trump bandwagon, but aren’t pro-Trump either to vent their discomfort early, rather than in the polling booth?
When appealing to disinterested voters (who are crucial for electoral success), I am leery of impeachment allowing Trump to have “paid for his errors”. (The mindset of those only peripherally involved acts in strange ways…)
Also, I worry about the demoralizing effect on electoral efforts when a successful impeachment doesn’t budge the poll numbers significantly. The impeachment of Clinton didn’t seem to galvanize the Republicans electoral efforts.
Anyway, lots of unknowns. I suspect the House Democrats are making that same sort of electoral calculus in their decision whether to call for a vote or not. But if a vote is called, the die is cast. If they don’t vote to impeach at that point, they’ve got the worst of all possible worlds.
She could whip the votes. But it would not be as simple as unilaterally making a leadership decision that they will impeach. If only because such decisions are not unilateral (and shouldn’t be).“Willing to vote in favor” is likely a higher number than the 77 on record. But with less than a 3rd of the Democratic Caucus willing to go on public record as such, and only around 18% of the House total. That’s a lot of whipping. I can’t look at those numbers and think that it’s Pelosi holding the House back. Particularly with ever more prominent members of party leadership stating publicly its on the table. If she can simply will them all to support it. Wouldn’t she will all those people not to, were she genuinely opposed?
These numbers have been on a pretty obvious up trend. And more importantly in any of the polls I’ve seen the number of people who support some action (increased investigations or the start of impeachment as specifics, and vaguer “action” when taken in combination) now outnumber the number of people who support excusing it all. Even if Impeachment as a specific lags a more general “do something” catch all. But you’re still talking about a situation where 2/3 of the bare minimum votes you need aren’t a lock, and (in the best cast scenario) only the small end of a plurality of the public are on board.
Again, that’s her job. She’s doesn’t rule the House majority by edict, but a leader’s statement can set the tone and make her more skittish or cowardly followers more comfortable about getting on board. A real leader doesn’t do everything according to the polls (which will not change if all people see from their representatives is wishy-washy statements and inaction).
There’s absolutely no reason for her not to simply say, in her capacity as House majority leader: “we will impeach”, period-endstop. Mueller all but said the House should do it, and even his redacted report shows plenty of impeachable offenses to investigate. But instead we see dithering typical of the Dem establishment, even though some may present it as 4-dimensional chess.
ETA: the Dem establishment always listens to celebrities. Maybe this will help convince Pelosi there’s a good case for impeachment:
Impeach now, and there’s a chance Trump wins in 2020. Don’t impeach now, and if Trump wins in 2020, then impeach. It makes sense, however maddening the logic is.
Except political calulation, which she is probably better at than most BB posters.
Even the two congresspeople from my state have not come out in favor, and Clinton led Trump here by a wider margin of popular votes than in any other state.
Donald Trump became POTUS.
With all the things he’s done and said proving him NOT to be better at political calculation than most BB posters, would you give him equal benefit of the doubt?
The fact that
Putin Trump won an election in 2016 does not mean his political ability is comparable to that of Nancy Pelosi.
Exactly. Yet so many political figures have proven that being a shrewd politician and doing the necessary things are not mutually inclusive. So many political figures have proven that being a shrewd politician and “shit happens” are not mutually exclusive.
I understand the impetus of Dem voters of a certain mindset and age and economic comfort level to automatically defer to authority qua authority in regard to Pelosi and the party establishment. For a time I was myself willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to a certain degree and give them credit based mainly on tenure and age, but that time is years past.
Increasingly, what I see from the Dem establishment in general isn’t so much political calculation as it is fear. Pelosi’s reluctance to issue even a broadly definitive leadership statement on impeachment is, in this way, of a piece with the Dem establishment’s refusal to permit a debate dedicated to climate change, with its antipathy or studied indifference to any progressive politician in the caucus who dares to offer a remedy for inequality, and with its refusal to condemn Biden’s recent comments regarding being able to work and compromise with virulent racists in Congress.
What the party establishment fears, and understandably so, is that in discussing these issues in the open its own complicity in creating the problems – sometimes deliberately, sometimes through incompetence or complacency – will be called out by the progressive wing of the party.
It doesn’t take a political grandmaster to see the consequences of this in the context of the generational shift in the electorate, nor does it take an expertise in political calculation to understand that trying to sweep these issues under the rug or pretend that new ideas were yours all along (as Clinton did in 2016 and as Biden undoubtely will if he gets the nomination) doesn’t fool people facing economic ruin and existential threats for very long.
If one thinks that climate change, economic inequality, and compromise with bigots and fascists are serious real-world problems, it’s just increasingly hard to support Dem leaders who continue to deny or downplay them, even (or especially) if they’ve been in office a long time.
I don’t understand. Surely there’s a chance Trump wins in 2020 whether or not he’s impeached? Or are you saying impeachment increases his chances of a 2020 win?