BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

You Vote To Impeach Bush!

  
 
000
13:14 / 30.07.03
Couldnae find it, so posting it here.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:18 / 30.07.03
Aww, that makes me wish I was an American.
 
 
alas
13:45 / 30.07.03
I voted. We'll see what good it does. Can't hurt!
 
 
Hieronymus
14:49 / 30.07.03
Grrrr. Maybe it's my grumpiness in the morning talking but this was a pointless concept when they used it against Clinton and it's a pointless concept now. The only way you're going to excise Bush from the job is in votes. And that will be a fight to the finish, as at least half the country is on his side. So impeachment, especially in lieu of a Republican dominated Congress, is comically futile.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:15 / 30.07.03
Do you honestly believe that this is a good idea?

Because I really don't think so.
 
 
*
22:40 / 30.07.03
The impeachment process would take more than a year, I'm sure, with the neocons clinging like rabid bulldogs to the seat of power. Proceedings would more than likely last well past November 04. It'll be quicker and easier and more effective (I sure as hell hope) to vote him out of office in the election.

By the way, Flux, do you also think it's a bad idea to vote him out of office? Or just to impeach him?
 
 
bio k9
00:45 / 31.07.03
W. is his uncle.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
01:56 / 31.07.03
Good idea = "Let's vote Bush out of office in the next election, even though there isn't much in the way of viable candidates at this moment in time!"

Painfully shortsighted and ignorant idea = "Let's impeach Bush without any sense of irony, or any care for the potential long-ranging ramifications of removing him from office!"

Let's put it this way: I'd really like to avoid any potential embarassment for anti-Bush administration people of any kind - which any realistic move for impeachement would most certainly be, especially since it would be doomed to be unsuccessful. I'd also like to avoid a world in which President Cheney is a reality. You all do realize that he'd be the President if the impeachement was successful, right? It wouldn't be an improvement.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:14 / 31.07.03
Flux, are you suggesting that because, in your opinion, "there are no other viable candidates" and so let's just leave Bush there?

I don't think this is shortsighted at all. Rather it's longsighted (not sure that's a word but hey). At the LEAST, W ended up in the Oval Office not because the majority of the U.S. population voted for him, but because the Supreme Court made a decision that essentially gave him the job. I haven't forgotten that and I don't intend to forget come election time next year.

I think I see what you're saying in terms of embarrassment and the necessity of having a long-term plan, but I still would rather have to go through the work of building that long-term plan in order to stand up and say "I DISAGREE" with this administration rather than sit back and do nothing. I'm not sure that's the alternative you're suggesting, but that's how I feel.

And on the subject of Clinton's impeachment: he could have beeen removed form office, but congress voted not to remove him. More on impeachment here. Essentially the purpose of Clinton's impeachment was to formally censure him. Thus if Bush was impeached, it might not cause this potential mess.

And don't worry about President Cheney. Worry about President Hastert. From the web page:

I want my representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote to impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft
 
 
Hieronymus
11:26 / 31.07.03
*groan* Is this a cry of desperation from people who don't think they can rally the votes to get the man out of office? Yes, the election was pre-empted by a Supreme Court decision. But lest we forget, Gore removed himself from the race when it was looking like it would turn into a lengthy and nation-tearing legal battle. Nobody wanted a civil war (extreme case) and so the neo-cons were given a turn at the wheel. People seem to conveniently forgot that little portion in their ire about having their votes 'stolen'.

I mean c'mon people. The "Impeach Bush" idea makes for a cute little slogan to put on your bumper but beyond that it shouldn't be taken seriously at all. The man is not Tony Blair. His support remains extremely strong, even in the face of growing criticism about the inpropriety of the war. 50% of the nation remaining at least (steeped in the dark and fed on bullshit though they may be) in the last polls.

What it will require is a genuine campaign come 2004 from both voters and a candidate strong enough to take this administration on. Which will require work, the same effort that fueled the protests prior to the start of the war and a digging deep from everyone's time and pockets. Which I personally don't define as 'sitting back and doing nothing'. In fact I find the other option to be stupidly knee-jerk and fruitless.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:42 / 31.07.03
Tempers are running a little high here people. This petition will do nothing and I'm sure 99% of the people signing it are aware of that but it doesn't mean it should be discarded or ignored. This is the kind of thing that lets people exist in a country run by someone like President Bush. Rather than regarding it as something that gives false hope (and thus making the assumption that everyone's an idiot) perhaps you should see it as something that lets the leftie population get to grips with what's going on.

And yes of course that kind of campaign is needed but who's in any doubt about that? You'll note that Cherry said the Supreme Court made a decision that essentially gave him the job. I haven't forgotten that and I don't intend to forget come election time next year. So I think she's kind of expecting to vote.
 
 
Hieronymus
11:54 / 31.07.03
As am I. I personally want to be a part of the barrage of bullets that thump him in his political chest. (The previous statement is a metaphor, Mr. Ashcroft. Save your kneecapping thugs for someone else).

I'm not personally attacking anyone for endorsing this idea. It's the idea itself that I question as sane. Since you stated that "This petition will do nothing and I'm sure 99% of the people signing it are aware of that but it doesn't mean it should be discarded or ignored" then the question begs to be asked....how serious are people who sign it? If they know it won't do any good, are they signing it simply for the "fuck you George Bush" fun quality of it? It seemed to me that people were genuine in believing this would result in Dubya's impeachment.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:53 / 31.07.03
Flux, are you suggesting that because, in your opinion, "there are no other viable candidates" and so let's just leave Bush there?

No. I want Bush out.

But let's be honest here - there are no decent Democrat candidates right now. Who's the best hope right now, Howard Dean? Come on.

Also, I think everyone should just fucking drop the "let's vote for a third party candidate thing" this time around because it's a lot more important to get Bush out of office than to try to build support for smaller parties which may represent us better (which is a good thing in general, but will only guarantee Bush another victory).
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:55 / 01.08.03
I don't think it's a cry of desperation at all. I signed it, and I doubt it will be effective at all, however as always, I have a glimmer of hope that it might do something, and yes, personally I would love to see Bush et. al removed from office at anytime, why not give it a shot? (On the other hand I wouldn't want a President Hastert, but let's not go there for a moment.) Naturally I intend to vote, and personally, I am still angry about the way the last election turned out, and I will be expressing that at the ballot box.

I was under the impression that gore removed himself at that time because there was no way he could possibly win. I've not said anything about having my vote "stolen," however, yes, I do feel that way. But we digress.

I applaud work, effort and "spreading the word" for a "regime change" in 2004, quite correctly, that takes time. But why NOT try all angles, why not make yourself heard even before then, a la the anti-war protests earlier this year? The California conservatives succeeded with their recall effort, why can't I give a call for impeachment a shot? I fail to see how this is a knee-jerk reaction. However, Disc-Mass, I'm happy for you to explain that to me.

Flux, I agree with you about the Democratic candidates at the moment. I definitely applaud Dean for his anti-war stance but I haven't seen much else about him that makes me necessarily support him. I really haven't decided who I like yet. But let's not give up hope on the 2004 election just yet. We've gotta keep trying kids!

I'm not sure if I agree with you on the not voting for a third party thing. I definitely hear what you're saying in terms of getting Bush out (obviously, as evidenced above!), but I guess to me it's kind of like the vote to impeach thing - if I don't voice my displeasure in some way, how will things ever change? IE, if we just vote for the Dems because we don't want "the other guy," why should the Dems ever have any incentive to change the way they're acting now (which is like "republican lite" if you ask me)? On the other hand I do know what you're trying to say.

Hmm... this is getting very interesting and switchboardy- I'm going to request to have the thread moved over there.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:24 / 01.08.03
If the Vote To Impeach campaign had achieved nothing else, if it was something with which I totally disagreed, I'd still have to give it my attention because of this:

The United States Senate Press Office reported a strange event in the Senate Cafeteria this morning. When Senators sat down to take breakfast, each one found themselves surprised to look at a puzzling image uniquely glued to the outside of each of their coffee cups. Inserted between a gold Roman Capital letter "I" and the letter "M" was a picture of a big orange peach nesting on the black branches of a dead bush.
 
 
Hieronymus
15:57 / 01.08.03
I was under the impression that gore removed himself at that time because there was no way he could possibly win. I've not said anything about having my vote "stolen," however, yes, I do feel that way. But we digress.

And it will continue to be a bitter issue between the parties.

I applaud work, effort and "spreading the word" for a "regime change" in 2004, quite correctly, that takes time. But why NOT try all angles, why not make yourself heard even before then, a la the anti-war protests earlier this year? The California conservatives succeeded with their recall effort, why can't I give a call for impeachment a shot? I fail to see how this is a knee-jerk reaction. However, Disc-Mass, I'm happy for you to explain that to me.

So, again, my confusion lies in whether adding your name to a petition to "impeach President Bush" is merely protest or done with legitimate hope of action? As a form of voicing out against the Bush administration, I can understand that completely. But I'm extremely curious for someone to show me how an already bickering and partisan Congress, dominated by a Republican majority who have shown they are fiercely loyal to this president, are going to somehow magically change their minds about the man and approve an indictment of him and ultimately impeach him? Please explains this to me. The recall effort in California is not the same ballpark as this issue. An impeachment process brought against President Bush is entirely dependent on the political attitudes and voting weight within this Congress. Which so far have proved extremely supportive and often times defensive of Bush. This petition (and an online one at that, %which are always speedily brought to Congressional attention over actual pen-and-ink signatures%) will not be taken seriously and you know it. So my question stands. Is this simply to voice your disallusion with this president? Or is this a serious task that you think will happen?

As for voting to voice your displeasure vs. 'not voting for the other guy', I can only say if we end up with another Nader to leech already thin amounts of left votes against 'the other guy', then count on another 4 more years of the Bush administration. Guaranteed. While we're sniping amongst each other or digging our toes in to march to the beat of our different drums, the Republicans are already up at the arsecrack of dawn getting what they want done, done. And doing it with a strong united effort.

2000 made that perfectly clear.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:11 / 01.08.03
I hate to say it, because I have reservations about the Democrats, but DM is absolutely right. This is tactical voting time - get Bush out.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:08 / 01.08.03
Right on.

I think it far more important to get Republicans out of power and to do everything possible to damage their existing power base, and then get the Democratic Party back on the right track as a second point of business. But it really doesn't matter if the Democrats represent the left perfectly if they have no power. I think it is important to support that party and then hijack it the way the Christian right and other special interests did with the Republican party.
 
 
Slim
22:20 / 01.08.03
I find Bush to be a courageous and inspiring leader. But I think it's because I've been drinking.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:31 / 04.08.03
DM - I thought I'd made it clear earlier in the thread, but personally the reason I signed the petition thread was both: 1, to voice my displeasure with the Bush administration, and 2, in the optimisically vein hope that perhaps it (the impeachment) could actually happen.

I spent some time this weekend thinking about those in this thread have said RE tactical voting. As I said earlier, I absolutely hear what you're saying on the "Get Bush Out" tip, and truly it's a fairly sound strategy. If I have you correctly, the idea is focus on the most important issue (getting Bush out) and then we can work on other issues. Not a bad idea.

I guess my only two concerns are firstly on a personal level, I don't want to give up my idealism that real change is possible and that I don't have to settle for second best or the lesser of two evils in order to get what I don't hate. I want to believe that we can make a difference, a positive difference in this world and I just refuse to give up this idea.

Secondly while it is true that some who would have gone with Gore in 2000 chose to go with Nader, and certainly that's in part responsible for the closeness of that race, do we blame Nader and his supporters for that, or do we blame the Gore team and the Democratic National Party for running a ridiculously bad campaign? Like Perot taking votes away from mainly the Republicans in '92, the third party candidate votes were cast by people who were dissatisfied with what their party was doing for them at that time.

I think DM you make a good point about the Republicans waking at dawn and getting shit done. The dems need to get organized to be effective. Otherwise we will certainly have two terms with Bush.

But let's not give up hope just yet.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:07 / 04.08.03
Recent advances in the courts for gay rights and a move to legalise gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts has prompted the intervention of the president.

US President George W Bush has said that marriage should be between a man and woman and the administration is considering a proposal to amend the constitution to preclude gay marriage.


From BBC News.

Wouldn't it be strange if Bush managed to oust himself by starting a fight with the Church? He's not titular head of the Church in the US, of course, so he can't tell the Bishops what to do, and they may decide to remind him. And passing a law (ammending the Constitution) to restrict religious practice? Um... I can't even begin.

Bush functions in part in a realm we don't usually think about as political. I think the things which hurt him politically are going to come from places we don't generally consider threats. This could get very odd indeed.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:39 / 04.08.03
or do we blame the Gore team and the Democratic National Party for running a ridiculously bad campaign?

I recall wondering, at the time, if they were attempting to hold off for Hilary Clinton? What's the feeling towards her in the US?

. I think the things which hurt him politically are going to come from places we don't generally consider threats.

I fear this may be wishful thinking. Very little outside of the political actually hurts politicians within the political realm- well except for money, that's always screwing their careers. Certainly religion and ideology tends to have small effect on them.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:38 / 04.08.03
That may well be true in the UK - although I think you underestimate the likely fallout if Tony Blair were to go head to head with the Catholic or Anglican Church - but US domestic politics are partly defined by a number of issues which touch on religion, such as abortion.

The issue of separation of Church and State is rather pointy in the US, too, and while George is pretty clearly in violation of the spirit, that's a long way from attempting a piece of legistlation which could get dragged down as unconstiutional; never mind what that issue is - violating the big C is something of a faux pas, and getting beaten over it is even worse. It's... unpresidential.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
11:08 / 04.08.03
Very little outside of the political actually hurts politicians within the political realm- well except for money, that's always screwing their careers. Certainly religion and ideology tends to have small effect on them.

Monica Lewinsky?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:10 / 04.08.03
Clinton came out of the Monica Lewinsky scandal okay. He didn't lose his office and he regained his credibility. If a politician can bounce back in the way that he did after that scandal than I think we can discount the event as a temporary setback.

I think you underestimate the likely fallout if Tony Blair were to go head to head with the Catholic or Anglican Church

I don't see an issue that would hurt him that badly... not one that he could legally have any control over and the church is (no offence churchgoers, I mean the institution and not the individuals) pretty damn gutless anyway. What precisely do you mean when you say to go head to head?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:52 / 04.08.03
Well, if Bush bans gay marriage in a Constitutional Ammendment, it could be argued the government is interfering with religious freedom. That's a huge political issue. If he then gets spanked by the courts on legal grounds, he looks weak and possibly wicked for trying to bend the Constitution to enforce his personal religious views.

Those are not good things for a President.

There really isn't a good parallel in our case, because we do have an Established Church, so religion and government are bound up... But:

Suppose Mr. Blair had come out and told the Church of England that he would not allow the elevation of Canon John to the purple? That he was going to make it illegal for gay men or women to be raised to episcopal rank?

The resulting constitutional stink would be pretty remarkable. That's what I mean by going head to head: a full-on collision of authorities and legitimacies.

That's what Bush seems to risk here.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:16 / 04.08.03
Yes but I think that example is flawed because the fight would not be a pure head to head with the church. The whole gay world would be mad, mad, mad. In fact it's pretty obvious that a significant proportion of the church might support such action, the interference could easily become secondary for a lot of Christians.

As for the Stateside example. It could happen... but Bush has been getting away with murder for years, (IMO the man is in fact a serial killer. You think I'm joking? I'm not.) I don't see why this would be any different. No one's going to bring him down, the chance that anyone would accuse him of being unconstitutional is pretty fucking low. Though I'd like to see it happen I doubt it will.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:36 / 04.08.03
If he gets this ammendment included, I should think it's almost certain to be challenged as quickly as possible by gay individuals or groups. He most certainly will be accused of acting unconstitutionally. Whether that accusation can be made to stand up is questionable, given the Supreme Court's rather amazing history with legislation predicated on questions of homsexuality - the recent ruling that because gay sex is illegal for straight people as well as gay people, laws against it are not discriminatory being an example. I think you're unduly pessimistic in saying there's no chance.

As to the example being flawed, well, yes. Inevitably - we have different societies and very different legal codes and governmental structures. But there is never such a thing as a 'pure head to head' - there are always political angles to relgious debates, both inside and outside Churches and Governments.

But the US Church has just voted 'yes' to a gay bishop. So I guess we'll see what happens - because if Bush says 'no' and the Church says 'yes', it could get very interesting.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:37 / 04.08.03
I'm sorry, I should have said officially accuse. I have no doubt that rights activists will stand up and make their voice heard.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:32 / 04.08.03
Well, that's happened already:

The proposed amendment, the ACLU said, would undermine state domestic partnerships, adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. Significantly, the amendment also would not hurt just gays and lesbians. It would deprive all unmarried couples of all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws.

I think you can expect to see any such law challenged pretty quickly in the courts - anyone can do it. It seems likely they would get a lot of support from various groups.

Note also: The proposed amendment would also take the extremely rare – and inevitably disastrous – step of changing the Constitution to restrict rights, a purpose that the founders never intended. The last time the Constitution was changed to constrain Americans’ liberties – with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition – the move was an unqualified failure that had to be repealed.

Finally, another political issue surfaces from the debate:

“The President’s stance belies any prior lip-service to limited government or the traditional Republican values of individual rights and personal dignity,” Anders said. “This is the government in our bedrooms and interfering with our families all over again.”


If he does this, it will go to court, and it will get good and lively. He may, perversely, lose the support of people who would normally back moves to restrict gay rights, simply because this means of doing so is not appropriate in terms of US law and precedent.

Let's see what happens.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:00 / 04.08.03
Looks like they found another way with the gay bishop!
 
 
grant
21:03 / 05.08.03
I recall wondering, at the time, if they were attempting to hold off for Hilary Clinton? What's the feeling towards her in the US?


She's pretty roundly despised by Republicans and centrist senior-citizen-former-housewives. She's a strong woman, outspoken, was very involved with the business dealings in Whitewater. I remember an evangelical radio show during the Clinton presidency that (with a straight face) blew the lid off the lesbian Wiccan cabal she organized to run the country from behind the scenes. Now, that might not be *literally* believed by any but a very strange few, but thematically, that's the general impression of almost anyone who leans to the right. The fact that she moved to New York from Arkansas and then got elected to the Senate hasn't helped her image in the heartland, either.
 
 
Salamander
23:26 / 05.08.03
Who cares if its a good idea, the best ones often arn't!!
 
 
grant
00:33 / 06.08.03
By the way, y'all oughtta check out Talking Points Memo's recent posts (this one and the one following it -- scroll UP to read it) about the parallels between Clinton-bashing and Bush-hating. And the differences.

You should check out TPM regardless, but these bits are pertinent here.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
20:29 / 09.09.03
Thought you might be interested in this as an update.
 
  
Add Your Reply