Impeach Bush Chorus Growing Among Democratic Base

Congressional Democrats say that, while they themselves do not think impeachment proceedings make sense at this juncture, they are getting increasing pressure from their constituents, reports Christina Bellantoni in the Washington Times.

Congressional Democrats say their constituents are clamoring for something even the most liberal lawmakers promise they won’t pursue: President Bush’s impeachment.

“I get one call after another saying, ‘Impeach the president,’ ” said Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and one of Mr. Bush’s most relentless critics on the Iraq war. “It’s a simple process but a very divisive thing,” Mr. Murtha said. “You’ve got to measure what it’s going to do to the country, and at this point I don’t see that happening. Instead we’ll fight it out on the issues.”

ome members speculated that the Democratic takeover of Congress and passage of Iraq withdrawal timetables in both the House and Senate have emboldened liberals across the country who want to see the president embarrassed during his final 21 months in office. “The timing is all wrong,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat. “If this were the first two years of his administration I would advocate impeachment. A lot of people at home say impeachment, and I’m sure he committed a lot of impeachable offenses, but think about it practically.” Mr. Nadler said impeachment hearings would be pointless and would only distract the country from the presidential election next year.

Democrats say their constituents also want them to target such administration figures as Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser.

Rep. Diane Watson, California Democrat, said she hears calls for impeachment from every crowd. “They say, ‘Democrats: Do something. Get Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales.’ They are saying impeachment. I am hearing that more and more and more,” said Ms. Watson. She said she has been receiving “nothing but kudos” for being one of just a few Democrats to vote against the party’s Iraq spending bill on the premise that Congress should not keep funding the war.

The only Democratic Member going on record favoring impeachment proceedings is a familiar one:

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said he thinks impeachment has merit. In a video on his 2008 presidential campaign site, Mr. Kucinich tells supporters: “We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation. I’m prepared to start that process.”

While his 2004 candidacy was the butt of jokes and his nascent 2008 bid is largely being ignored, he was ahead of his party’s constituency on the war and may be there on this issue as well. As insane as the idea strikes me, it’s clearly something that a solid and vocal minority of Democratic activists would welcome.

The story’s in tomorrow’s edition but Hot Air is already all over it.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. carpeicthus says:

    Cheney, as always, is the best insurance policy.

  2. Christopher says:

    This may seem like an inappropriate question but here goes: impeach President Bush for what?

    In the Articles of Impeachment congress would have to write something material. It can’t be, “we are democrats and we really, really don’t like Bush”. That’s not gonna fly.

    Let’s see, the last president to be impeached was…hmmm who was that…oh yeah! Clinton! And the articles read something along the line of BLATANTLY LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT SEX.

    (oh yea, libs can’t use the old “Bush lied” argument since they themselves voted for the war using the same evidence that President Clinton ALSO used to attack Iraq, in fact ending that particular bombing campaign the day that he was impeached! LOL the irony the IRONY!!!!)

  3. Bithead says:

    In watching the reaction of the rank and file democrats over the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that there in reality is no difference between the democrats in Congress, and the democrats supposedly out on the fringes of the party. THe fringes ARE the Democratic party. THere IS no seperation.

  4. randall says:

    If the Democrats want to put another Republican in office in 2008 then by all means push for the impeachment of Bush. None of the Democrats that I know talk of impeachment, they want a win in 2008. The voters of this nation are not as dumb as some of our elected officials think they are, and I don’t think these voters would see the point in removing a president who is on his way out of office anyway. Get over the 2000 election, it’s been almost 8 years/two terms.

  5. legion says:

    Christopher,
    A few points. First, while he is clearly morally and intellectually bankrupt (and Cheney’s 10x worse), I don’t believe Bush ever swore anything about Iraq under oath, so perjury as an impeachment article is right out. Second, if he had lied under oath, Democrats’ believing the lie wouldn’t prevent its being used to impeach. Third, go look up the definition of the word ‘irony’.

  6. Christopher says:

    legion,
    1st: you calling Bush morally and intellectually bankrupt and Cheney’s 10x worse is you either towing the slack liberal line or idiocy. Which is it? (by the way, he beat libs numerous times-if he is intellectually bankrupt, what’s that make u libs? Huh?!? Huh?!?)
    2nd: Bush didn’t lie either under or not under oath. And if you or anyone think he did, why don’t you come up with proof? (besides, how could he pull a fast one over on you libs if he is intellectually bankrupt? what’s that make u libs? Huh?!? Huh?!?)
    3rd: I do know the definition of the word ‘irony’, so it is ironic that you would ask me that.

    Now go and take some One-A-Day iron supplements, girl. You libs need all you can get.

  7. Tano says:

    I say think long term.

    Let Bush finish his term, and over the next two years so thoroughly discredit the Republican brand that we wont see any of them within miles of the levers of power for a very long time.

  8. Tano says:

    “the last president to be impeached … BLATANTLY LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT SEX”

    Ah,,remeber the good ol’ days when the worst thing you could say about a president was that?

  9. JohnG says:

    That’s actually not the worst thing said about Clinton, that’s just the crime that no one can dispute he committed.

  10. Anjin-San says:

    JohnG,

    Yea, the Clinton years really sucked. Peace and prosperity. How did we ever survive?

  11. Dave Schuler says:

    Grounds for impeachment are “high crimes and misdemeanors” i.e. anything the House of Representatives thinks it is so, of course, the House can impeach President Bush. I think that it would be extremely imprudent to do so but it’s well within the rights of the House.

  12. Jim Henley says:

    Christopher, when writing teachers advise people to “Write like you speak,” they don’t mean you specifically.

  13. Michael says:

    The thing is, what Bush has done that has upset to many democrats is not against the law specifically because we they don’t make sense as laws. Really, do we need a law that makes it illegal to start a war based on disputed intelligence? How many people can actually violate that law?

    It was said in a previous post (about Pelosi’s Damascus trip), that if the Democrats are not happy with the President’s foreign policy, they should not run their own, but rather use their constitutional options to impose their views on the executive. Impeachment is one of those options. Not the best, I would agree, and probably counter-productive in this case, but it is an option. So do you want them to A) conduct their own foreign policy, B) use the powers of their office to influence the executive’s foreign policy, of C) stop trying to oppose the executive all together.

    Now for the comments.

    Bithead:

    I have come to the conclusion that there in reality is no difference between the democrats in Congress, and the democrats supposedly out on the fringes of the party. THe fringes ARE the Democratic party. THere IS no seperation.

    Wow, politicians who accurately represent the will of their constituents, what an awful awful thing. We can only pray that next time we elect people who will do what they think is good for us, even if it’s not what we want.

    Christopher:

    by the way, he beat libs numerous times-if he is intellectually bankrupt, what’s that make u libs?

    The homecoming king is very rarely the valedictorian. Nobody is surprised when smart people lose popularity contests.

    I do know the definition of the word ‘irony’, so it is ironic that you would ask me that.

    Seriously, you’re making English majors everywhere cry, please stop.

  14. I think the democrats should listen to their constituency and go full steam ahead.

  15. Arcs says:

    The volume and crassness of the calls for impeachment are and will continue to be inversely proportional to our success in Iraq.

  16. Steph says:

    The call for impeachment proves democrats side with Bin Laden.

  17. Anderson says:

    Bithead: THe fringes ARE the Democratic party. THere IS no seperation.

    Of course, Bithead is right as usual, which is why Bush and Cheney were impeached last month and removed from office. Didn’t y’all see President Pelosi’s visit to Syria?

  18. andrew says:

    “Yea, the Clinton years really sucked. Peace and prosperity. How did we ever survive?”

    Clinton didn’t have jack to do with the end of the Cold War. And his ‘do nothing against al-Qaeda which was at war with us’ policy would go on to have devastating consequences as we all found out the hard way.

  19. Bithead says:

    Wow, politicians who accurately represent the will of their constituents, what an awful awful thing. We can only pray that next time we elect people who will do what they think is good for us, even if it’s not what we want.

    \Gee… During the Clinton eyars, we were told that was ‘leadership’, when Hillary kept forcing government healthcare down out throats, when nobody wanted it.

    And you’ve yet to address the polling which suggests a very small minority… only about 20% actually support the Democrats in their attacks on the President. Denial?

    Of course, Bithead is right as usual, which is why Bush and Cheney were impeached last month and removed from office. Didn’t y’all see President Pelosi’s visit to Syria?

    Heh. Spinning like I top, I see.

    The issue there is that while there’s no seperation ebtween the Democrat rank and file, and the Democrat leadership, there’s still enough non-Democrats around to keep them from acting as they wish… as Obey pointed up so well a few weeks ago.

  20. G.A.Phillips says:

    I got a better Idea, how about we arrest the Democrat leadership for there blatant acts of treason and put them on trial and then lock them away, even that I believe the penalty is death. How much more aid and comfort will we allow them to give to our enemy, how many more of our troops must die for their quest for power, how many more more times must we allow them to make the same false charges against our troops and side against our commander and chief with their beloved dictators, how many times will we allow them to ignore the mistakes of history when comes to appeasing evil, how long will we let them sit in power as they proudly destroy our country with their lies and direct violation of our Constitution, how long, how long how long? SUPPORT THE WAR EFFORT!!!

  21. Anderson says:

    how many more of our troops must die for their quest for power

    G.A., what on earth are you talking about?

    You’re not a Democrat troll, are you?

  22. M1EK says:

    My first comment got lost because I provided the link, so I’ll just ask you to go check out what Cheney’s saying about alQaeda and Saddam, AGAIN, despite being contradicted by every credible report in the universe.

    Tell me again how this isn’t much worse than lying about a blowjob?

  23. Bithead says:

    M1EK;

    Credible, say you?
    Based on…. they agree with your worldview?

  24. James Joyner says:

    My first comment got lost because I provided the link

    If you’ve got three or more hyperlinks it goes into moderation. I suspect it instead got eaten because of the word “blowjob.”

  25. I suspect it instead got eaten because of the word “bl*wj*b.”

    I always knew the democrats in congress s*cked, I didn’t know they bl*w too.

    Blasted filter always deleting the good stuff.

  26. Michael says:

    If you’ve got three or more hyperlinks it goes into moderation. I suspect it instead got eaten because of the word “blowjob.”

    And yet calling for totalitarian rule and outlawing opposition parties (even implying execution) is ok? Do Republicans really hate sex that much?

  27. Bithead says:

    No.
    Just liars.

  28. G.A.Phillips says:

    Anderson, I am a christian, then an American, and I am talking about the treason that your hero Liberals are getting our troops killed with, and that their treason is the the way that they see to regain their power, and that they do not,or that you do not see it as treason is because that they are on a mad quest for power and you blindly support them. Does this answer your question?

  29. DL says:

    Why do Republicans think the Dems need a reason to impeach Bush. They get away with anything they damned well please -including undermining a president in a time of war -obstructing congress, and taking over foreign policy and they do manage to get elected by the masses again. They don’t need a serious reason -they have leared how to control the country whether in or out of office.

  30. G.A.Phillips says:

    Michael, dude why, I think your talking about me and I was about to tell you to read the Constitution, But forget it you wont understand it so I was going to hip you to Isiah 5:20 but I’m sure you would apply that to me too so forget that also, I’ll just have to say that I’m sorry for ruining the fairy tale that you live in and leave it at that.

  31. Michael says:

    Bithead:

    No.
    Just liars.

    Your voting record says otherwise.

    G.A.Phillips: Was that post in response to anything in particular, or were you just throwing out nonsensical attempts at personal attacks?

  32. floyd says:

    “Yea, the Clinton years really sucked. Peace and prosperity. How did we ever survive?…”
    Anjin-San
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Anjin-San;
    Your ignorance of history must be willful, since you’ve demonstrated your willingness to write only party line vitriol.

  33. G.A.Phillips says:

    Michael,thought you was talking about me post, if not forgive me, but then again you should be the last one to talk about nonsensical attempts at personal attacks, picking on someones spelling? You make me regret not being around for awhile and taking you monkey worshipers to task, I thought that I had become board with wasting my time trying to clean the Donkeypoo from your minds, but now I see it was your relentless idiocy that had worn me down not my lack of not being able to reach your large but empty caved in egg of a heads with the iron shaving ringed hoof print in side of them.