Tim Blair is feeling a bit blue about the US midterms and points to commentary from the wackjobs at Powerline who appear to be really depressed.
Given that these guys usually spin just about any Republican sows ear into a silk purse we really may be in for a big political shift in Washington.
But knowing the Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I’m not gonna get too excited until I see the impeachment writs being pressed into the grubby hands of Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfeld and their assorted minions.
“…until I see the impeachment writs being pressed into the grubby hands of Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfeld and their assorted minions.”
There seems to be a sort of misunderstanding in Commonwealth countries about what impeachment actually is in the US. It’s not the same as a simple vote of no confidence, and it’s basically not a policy tool. Rumsfeld, for instance, can’t be impeached. (I’m not sure even Cheney can, but I’d have to check.)
You can’t be impeached for making lousy policy decisions, or for being unpopular; you have to commit (or be accused of) an actual crime. And not a metaphorical or a ‘moral’ crime, nor a violation of ‘international’ law; nope, only an actual crime that’s on the books will do. Recall that Nixon was threatened with impeachment not for bombing Cambodia, but for aiding and abetting in petty domestic crimes.
Basically, as far as I can tell, it was intended as a hedge against egregious forms of corruption and abuse of high office. It offers no protection from, nor is it a remedy for, stupid executive decisions or popular dislike. That’s what elections and term limits are for.
If you’re waiting for Bush to be impeached, it’s gonna be a long wait.
That’s tellin’ em, Phil.
Meanwhile, back home, how does the Beazer increase our chances of getting rid of the Liberal government? By adopting their strategies and again playing on fears of furriners (as in foreign workers.) Bah.
Illegal wiretaps.
They won’t impeach Bush because it would be kiss of death to their presidential prospects in 08.
We’ll have to be content with his being discredited.
But they’ll restore the proper Congressional oversight role. And that will be very interesting.
That’s if they win (and I don’t think it’s a cert).
Don’t forget two things:
1. How gerrymandered most of the House boundaries are.
2. It’s a midterm and most people won’t vote. The GOP machinery for getting out and targetting the vote is better funded and better oiled.
I don’t think anyone thinks they’ll win the Senate. The House – probably, but don’t count your chickens, etc.
Tsk, tsk, j_p_z:
Not only can Cheney be impeached, so can Rumsfeld and a whole raft of folks, down to the Federal Dog Catcher, if there is indeed such a personage.
If Bush is to be impeached, which I agree with j_p_z is highly doubtful, Congess had better impeach and remove Cheney first. He’s the dangerous one.
It could be argued that Cheney is Bush’s safety net, and as such represents the only smart thing that Bush ever did.
Can I recommend realclear politics.
I am gobsmacked that Ford will win Tennessee despite being a very good campaigner.
The Foley issue merely showed that one had to get the Republicans out of office so they can regain their conservative ideology again.
At present they spend money than Democrats, they are more corrupt than the democrats.
Foley has shown the Republicans stand for nothing.
Here’s another site that’s well-worth watching:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/
This site is a gambling site where futures options on the outcome of a wide range of questions, including politics, are traded.
The gamblers got the last presidential election right.
At the moment a dwindling weight of money still expects a Democrat House and a GOP Senate. But more money is flowing towards a Dem sweep.
Democracy is a great thing. In the end you cannot keep fooling everybody.
In the USA the side issue of Republican failing of their Right Wing Christian lobby by being exposed as hypocrites has change the political equation.
In Oz we only have to change a person mind because of compulsory voting, in the US they have to change their mind and motivated people to turn up to the polling booth.
The Democrats need to look to a candidate that can reignite the Clinton democrats. This was a grand coalition of the African-American vote and conservatives working class.
Will this be Hillary Clinton?
She has supported an involvement in Iraq but I think is the one candidate that unites the Democrats base. Unthinkable?
Most Democrats supported war in Iraq, Guru. They only decided it was a “fiasco” when it involved actual fighting rather than bombing aspirin factories and tipping off Osama bin Laden. Draw up some kind of impeachment papers for John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, cowardly man-slaughtering criminal Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore… Oh and don’t forget Ms Albright: Mission Accomplished, Madeleine!
In Foley-related news, Democrat page/child molester Gerry Studds has died – partly from embarrassment I dare say. Those surviving party officials who facilitated the continuation in office of this scumbag should, of course, be arrested. Unfortunately, Tip O’Neil is dead but we could always dig him up, plonk him on the Speaker’s chair and hold an old-fashioned Synodus Horrenda.
The most iconic Iraq War-related contest in America is between Joe Lieberman and Teddy Lamont. Peacenik Lamont is bombing.
Katz — whoops, I stand corrected!
Though in a way, my ignorance kind of proves my point. In the last few decades, threats of impeachment of the president have been used more than once as a political stick to beat the other side with, so it gets a high profile; but most wouldn’t care about the technical matter of impeaching the Dog Catcher. But a technical, legal matter is what it remains. Unlike parliamentary govs, (or some US state govs), there’s no real method for recall by popular fiat. That’s supposed to be what the elections are for.
The Dems had their fair chance to make a superior case, and they fucking blew it, embarrassingly. I wish to Horatio Alger *some*body would replace Mr. Bush and his krewe, but at this point I think I’d trust Tony the Tiger and Lucky the Leprechaun more than the Dems.
Oprah for President! Patrick Buchanan for VP! (think of the ‘odd couple’ comedy possibilities…)
I imagine that impeachment will be the least likely option. The American electorate showed marked distaste for impeachment as a politically partisan manoeuvre in Clinton’s last term and there’s no doubt that any move on Bush would be read in the same context.
The paralysis that lengthy impeachment proceedings invoke in both the legislative and executive branches is another reason to avoid it.
It will be a close-run thing. As Kim says, congressional district boundaries are heavily gerrymandered by state legislatures and seismic shifts are unlikely. Still, it seems possible that the Dems will take the House, less likely that they’ll take the Senate. I assume that Rumsfeld will be gone as soon as the results are known…………
Though I agree with GH on this, I’d argue another case for why impeachment is unlikely.
Let us assume that Bush loses after the coming mid-terms anything ressembling a working majority in either the House or the Senate. This is pretty much the case at the moment, as is evidenced by the evaporation of Bush’s imagined he had after the 2004 election. Bush’s nuttiness on Social Security and Immigration finished him as a domestic political force.
However, the US President has more freedom of action in foreign matters than he does in domestic matters.
Bush can decide to sit out the last two years of his lamentable presidency doing nothing as the lamest and longest-serving lame duck in US history. I hope and expect this to be Bush’s fate.
OR, and this is where it gets just a little scary:
Bush can decide to stamp his imprint on history’s pages with an aggressive and confrontational foreign policy. He will be free of the requirement to attempt to protect the position of the GOP in Congress. That leash will be removed.
If he does decide to go-for-broke, then the Congress can attempt to rein him in by removing funding or by directing that funding can be spent only in certain ways. But this is a very blunt way of restraining a powerful executive. And it may not work.
If things get very desperate, with Bush careering around the Oval Office in desperate quest for his position in history, then the Impeachment option may be the only way to stop him.
I am actually not to fussed if the Dems win by a short nose. The US is always well governed when there is divided government.
It will also give the GOP a better than even chance for the 08 Prez this way.
If the Dems win they will also be taking seats in the most volatile precincts or precincts which tend to have a GOP bias so the candidates will have to be careful in treading a very middle of the road line. Those hoping for impeachment: dream on.
My predicion is that the GOP holds on by a tiny margin.
JC, don’t you think the Republicans have lost their bearings and don’t know what they stand for.
They need some 94 ideology and polices if not leadership.
Yea, homer
They have lost their way a little and it’s time for new blood so they can use this defeat to get rid of the dead wood.
My guess is that the Dems will think a win is a positive signal for their policies whereas the electorate is using this opportunity to punish the GOP. The mistake people make is to think the US elecorate is not centre. Doesn’t mean they won’t accept a Dem as long as he/she is moderate. The governor of Virginia is a good example of what I mean.
JC,
I do not hold out a lot of hope for democrat leadership however two things are positive.
Candidates particularly in the Senate appear good and may change leadership over time to become more Clintonesque.
My guess is an ex-southern Governor will gain a wet sail for the Democrats presidential election which again will be mud in the eye for the present leadership.
We can but hope that the Republicans will again be faithful to their legacy in four years time.
Homer
I actually think 08 is as wide open as anything at the moment.The fact that McCain and Hillary are favs at mom means nothing.
There is room for a 3rd candidate to move in by financing their own campaign. Bloomberg could do it. He would be an attractive candidate and has the pockets to fund a $500 million shot at the prez.
If the GOP looks like they are in trouble Rudi could make a serious pitch by doing a reverse Clinton on abortion and gay rights. He could say that he will hold the party platform and not let his own views come above that. Anything is possible at the moment.
Things look far clearer on the Dem side of the fence wth Hillary holding the nomination than it does for the GOP.
And the possibility of a third candidate is high.
08 is going to be hugely exciting.
JC,
you seem to be discounting Warner who would be bolstered by so many Democrat centrists winning in November.
Warner withdrew from the race last week.
Murdoch was boosting Bloomberg recently. Front page of the NY post – “run, Mr Mayor” type stuff.
Mark’s right. He did count himself out of the race, which people think means he’s done a deal with Hillary to help the southern base as the VP candidate. Possible…..
Homer
Hillary is very likely going to get the nomination.
Gore though, could also partially finance his own campaign seeing he’s worth around $300 mill as a result of sitting on the google board and receiving a stack of options prior to the IPO. He’s a very rich man now.
Mark
Bloomberg could be the mentally adjusted Ross Perot who finances his own race…… like he did in the NYC mayor’s race. He spent 60 mill in that race and looks the type that wouldn’t shirk from spending the bucks.
Perot got 20% even when the elctorate thought he was a stark raving lunatic.
There’s been talk that bloomberg is actually wanting to sell out of his company through an IPO that has tongues wagging about this. He is term limited as mayor so the question is why would he sell out is doing the rounds. Interesting….
Watch for ex-General Clark as a stalking horse for Hilary down South too…win enough down there to take to the convention and give to the Senator from Noo York.
Well, Im not particularly well-versed in US politics, but does it seem bloody obvious to anyone who else that Hilary is bound to lose (barring running Bob Dole or equivalent against), and that any other Democrat is bound to have a superior chance?
Thats how Ive always read it. She’d be the candidate most likely to mobilise anyone who’d ever considered voting Republican to get off their arses.
As I say though, just impressions.
Joe – a Bloomberg candidacy would be interesting. In a sense, the fact that he’s thinking about an independent candidacy is a recognition that people like him and Guiliani couldn’t win the GOP nomination because they refuse to trim their social liberalism to the sails of the religious right.
Both McCain and Clinton are problematic candidates in different ways.
The Governator has of course demonstrated in CA that a socially liberal and fiscally tight Republican can be a very attractive package even to a heavily Democratic electorate.
How this would play in other states – that’s the question.
Interesting to see some Democratic strategists arguing for a libertarian turn – particularly in the mid-west.
Anything that gives Blair and the right wing wackows on his site the shits makes me a happy camper
Is Tim blogging from liberated Iraq yet? Or ‘ Ghan?
I just knew he would join the Andrew Bolt battalion as soon as the Oz army relaxed entry to include balding, shortsighted, flatfooted crazy clowns.
Oh no, Professor, as much as they’d just love to go, they’ll be needed here on the home-front; battling the enemy within.
I wish Id spent my (non-existent) private school yuppie wanker “gap” year under fire in Kandahar!
I wasn’t Warnered about that.
Democrats are stuffed in 08!
I had to pinch myself when I read Nelson’s plans for “gap year” dherring-do.
At least the Bush Clique was smart enough to know that the only people they could dragoon into their sacrifical offering in Iraq were the scourings of the ghetto. (I except the duped cohorts of the National Guard here.)
The Bush Clique is cynical enough to realise that the sons and daughters of the preppie white middle classes, your Chips and Muffies, would rather be seen wearing Target Brand than drag their well-toned arses around the ME sand-trap.
What is Nelson thinking? College and Grammar chappies in Kabul? That’s for Bogans, idiot.
What bogan knows Kipling?
Precisely, Katz. Who’s doing their market research?
And when you are a bogan (and/or bevan, westie, revhead) its not called a “gap” year, you toffee-nosed Northshore twat Nelson, its called “unemployment”.
Kim, sometimes pessimism is an indulgence:
Didn’t do the Republicans much harm in 1998-2000, though they did have to reach outside Washington.
Impeachment is a real possibility, but much more likely is a long lead-up campaign of investigations into misallocations of resources, kickbacks and other relatively minor matters, one that goes on for ages and tars every Republican on the way through. It’s this slow grind that will do for the Republicans and make it hard for McCain/other Republican to crawl from the wreckage.
Hillary Clinton would have it all over Bloomberg. She’s forgotten more about politics than Bloomberg’s ever learned, and Bloomberg won’t inspire much confidence outside NYC (Hillary won’t offer much more, but you’d have to rate her as more likely to be able to turn it up a notch than Bloomberg. He’ll be like Gore in 2000, impressive resume but too stiff to be elected). Bloomberg could be the 21st century Wendell Willkie, “the barefoot boy from Wall Street”.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are a team. The idea of smashing a regime without devoting the resources for nation-building is theirs, so are wiretappings and torture. They’ll hang together or hang separately. Again, I think it’s more likely that the levels below them that made this maladministration happen will be the target of the Congressional inquiries, and people at that level will be in the jug from about 2009. I’d like to see them fill the newly-vacated Guantanamo myself, but more realistic is a plethora of quick-wins and the plucking of low-hanging fruit, with the odd big shock arising from slow, patient investigation and/or a senior person rolling over with some juicy testimony.
Republican voters are dispirited, Democrat voters are motivated – we’re seeing the sort of polling that makes for a landslide in US politics.
I can only assume JC admires the Republicans for their economic rectitude.
Part of the problem with extrapolating US politics to Australia is the compulsory voting angle, where even disprited voters don’t stay at home. US political parties use attack ads to demotivate the other party’s supporters, and they sneer at their own supporters who condemn too-tough advertising. In Australia, too-tough advertising is seen for what it is – desperation – and it rebounds on the party that maks such ads (but their advisors just flown in from the States tell them to go in ever harder).
Lefty E, are you implying that the army is only now the preserve of working-class males with few other alternatives in the job market?
Just pointing out the obvious, Andrew: the recruitment problem wont be solved by created a ‘Biggles Brigade’ among those who use terms like, or even have a thing called a “gap” year.
“Oh bother, whot shall one do with one’s year orf before Kings College, Mummy? Switzerland, or Puckapunyal?”
You may be surprised Lefty. A number of my peers who were conscripted elected to join the regular army, and do officer or trade training. I think some private school types may well join for a year and decide to stay on to do a degree at ADFA, or a technical trade elsewhere. Getting paid to study could be attractive to many.
As usual the LP Punditariat has overlooked the real dark horse in this race: Denis Kucinich.
Kucinich’s charisma, agressive campaigning style and knockout policy smarts make him the ne plus ultra Presidential candidate.
Tofurkey for all!
I think that the mid-terms are still wide open and waiting to be taken by either party. The Foley scandal has hurt the Republicans where they don’t normally hurt, in the Christian base, but it isn’t clear if this will translate into votes for the Democrats. The polls are saying right now, while the scandal is still fresh, that the Dems will squeek in. In 3 weeks time it is less than clear that this lead will hold. A few weeks can be an eternity in politics.
North Korea blew away the Foley scandal and has reminded the conservative base that they prefer the Republicans over the Dems and that could be the end of the story. Fortunately, the Dems seem to be on message, but the outcome is still looking pretty random.
Oh, and as for ’08, I reckon it’ll be Gore. Rumor has it that the Clinton’s have done a deal with him. Hillary has a high profile but people don’t want her to be president. My bet is that they wait till just before the primaries to determine if she will run, and if she decides against it they will throw their weight behind Gore. This is especially the case now Warner is gone (and I heard that he left the race because he had some Clintonish issues, though, who can really believe what you read on the interwebs.).
I agree that impeachment is a dumb option, better to let the Repubs twist in the wind with Bush at the helm for another two years (delicious), by the time the election comes it’ll be a rout.
Altough with that lot’s obvious appitite for destruction impeachment may end up being the better option.
Hey it’s now Election Idol in the US. What makes you think you’ll get anyone less compromised by special interests than Dubya in the next round?
But Bloomberg? The prick who banned smoking in NYC bars? An elite East Coaster Wall St maven? Like that’s gonna play in Duluth.
Let’s face it, the only person that can unite the US of A now is Oprah. Or possibly Elvis. The Sun Years Elvis that is.
Andrew Elader says:
I never mentioned anything about this, did I?
It’s not hard to understand why you were attracted to the young liberals, Andrew. Operating with only a brain stem is the most they require.
Phil. They aint about to lose any mid-term election.
This is just the dumb-left-journalist trying to CREATE rather then simply report reality.
JC, I was trying to explain comments (yes, real quotes) like this:
Or even this (not one of yours, but still mystefying):
What legacy is that?