Cheers and Jeers Greet NM Dems' Impeachment Resolution

(Click on image for larger version or click to view source.)

Passage of a floor amendment to the NM Democratic 2006 Platform that supports the impeachment of Bush is getting nationwide attention. Not only was the story linked on right-wing website The Drudge Report this week, so-called Freepers are up at arms. Robb Chavez's successful floor amendment on impeachment was also were featured on The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and a number of other progressive blogs, where it received many cheers.

I'm sorry to say that the responses of some Dems have been less than stellar, in my opinion. According to a story in the Albuquerque Tribune, here's what Patricia Madrid had to say:

Madrid, trying to oust Republican U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, said in a statement today she wasn't present when the vote was taken Saturday. She called the action "premature."

"I hope I get the chance to go to Congress to participate in a full investigation of the underlying issues," she said.

The same article reports this on Senator Jeff Bingaman's response:

Bingaman also says it's too early to support sanctions against Bush for the wiretapping issue, said his spokeswoman, Jude McCartin. Bingaman was in Afghanistan Saturday and is in Baghdad today.

I thought Governor Bill Richardson had the best public response. Even though I personally think he could have gotten out front on this issue nationally by supporting the impeachment resolution, he at least said he understood it and gave delegates props for being engaged on the issues. I think he gets it. According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal, which I couldn't find online:

...the Democratic Governor understands the anger of party members who supported the Bush resolution, given the direction the president's policies are taking the country, spokesman Pahl Shipley said.

"The Governor is opposed to this call for impeachment and feels that is premature," Shipley said. "Nonetheless, he recognizes the mounting frustration with the policies of the Bush administration," Shipley said. "However, he is pleased the party delegates have become very issue-oriented and commends them for their activism."

To those Dems saying they can't support the impeachment or censure resolutions because they're waiting for an investigation, I say read this. When and how, exactly, do they think the dishonest, secretive, cover-up Republicans are going to launch a genuine investigation into Bush's abuse of power regarding NSA domestic surveillance?

Glenn Greewald lays out the compelling arguments against waiting in his piece on Huffington Post entitled Myth-Making and Excuse-Making on the Feingold Resolution.

Senator Pat Roberts STILL hasn't allowed Phase II of the pre-war intelligence "investigation." Remember when our Senate Leader, Harry Reid, shut down the Senate in protest because Roberts was in eternal delay mode on this? Still nothing, months later. How long will we have to wait for Roberts to "investigate" the NSA matter? You can be sure it won't be before the 2006 midterm elections, if ever.

There are many stuck in the conventional wisdom box who say this impeachment and censure talk is premature, a distraction or just plain silly. An Albuquerque Tribune editorial takes this tack, saying impeachment talk is just sour grapes. It directs Dems to concentrate on winning by ignoring the illegal acts of a sitting president for now. They actually claim that Bush won NM in 2004 by "focusing on bread-and-butter issues close to home." Hmm. I didn't notice that. I thought they won by placing hysterical flyers about abortion on cars in Catholic Church parking lots, using McCarthy-like tactics to trump up indignation and fear about gay rights and bellowing dishonest propaganda about Dems being soft on terrorism.

Oddly, the editorial sets up an artificial either-or situation: If Dems are boldly challenging lawlessness in the presidential suite, they cannot possibly focus on winning races. Sadly, the editorial staff of the Tribune apparently believes that tepid is better than bold when serious wrongdoing is uncovered in Washington. They seem to have bought into the right-wing bluff that dares Dems to speak out and face the blare of neo-con fearmongering. What they don't seem to realize is that the right-wing noise machine will continue regardless of what Dems say or do. Truth and facts have nothing to do with their propaganda.

I guess whoever wrote the editorial hasn't been watching politics for the last decade. Did they miss Repubs spending billions of taxpayer money on an "investigation" into Whitewater real estate deals and impeaching a president over consensual sexual acts? Given the much more serious wrongdoing by Bush, why should Dems be disuaded from challenging President Bush for clearly circumventing the FISA law, lying us into war and ignoring the Geneva Conventions?

As usual these days, candidates and editorial boards, insulated from the rigors and realities of Bush's America, lack the sense of urgency and outrage that is rippling through our neighborhoods all over America. Repeatedly they caution us to act like nothing out of the ordinary is happening in our nation, that nothing strange and dangerous is threatening our constitution and our democracy. If Dems must speak about issues, they'd best do so while saying nothing of substance. Just play the political game as it's always been played, or risk derision. This is a winning stratetgy?

How out of tune with Americans can these forces get? Your guess is as good as mine. I point you again to the recent polling on Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Even without widespread persuasion and outreach on this issue, All Adults support censure 46-44% and voters support it 48-43%. Moreover, Democrats support it by a margin of 70-26%. The real issue is whether Dem candidates will represent the strong views of people whose votes they seek, and whether Dem voters will give their votes to candidates who refuse to represent them on issues like this. We'll see.