Public was less in favor of impeaching Nixon at time of impeachment than they are of impeaching bush

[John Q. Citizen]

now.

From Time Magazine 5/13/1974
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908574,00.html

President Nixon may well have sensed that his public support was continuing to fall dramatically when he decided to appear on television and release edited transcripts of the Watergate tapes last week. Shortly before the President's announcement, Daniel Yankelovich, Inc., completed a poll for TIME showing that the percentage of Americans who wanted Nixon to resign or be impeached had jumped to 55%, from 39% last November and 30% last August (see accompanying chart). The results indicate that those who wanted to see Nixon out of office clearly would prefer that he resign rather than be impeached. If the President fails to resign, however, the people in the latest poll would be almost evenly split between impeachment (43%) and the President's staying in office (44%); 13% were not sure.

The lastest ARG poll has the public 44% to 43% in favor of impeachin bush.

In the time article, where both resignation and impeachment are lumped together 55% to 39% favor either resignation or impeachment.

Right now 54% to 40% of the country favor impeachment of chaney, and that without the option of resignation added into the queston.

So what is the matter with the Democrats? What is the matter with Pelosi?

[BlackHawk706867]

1. Things are moving quickly, and I don't think it will be long before the...

Dem's see no choice but to follow the wishes of the people!

ww

[gratuitous]

2. What's wrong? The present political system

It rewards the safe and penalizes the bold, much like it always has, though it now appears that the penalties for boldness are so much worse (they really aren't, but that's for another post entirely).

Beside that point, however, is a very pertinent question: If you're in a position of leadership, aren't you expected to lead? Taking risks comes with the Big Chair, and it's a betrayal of the country -- and I'm not overstating this, at least in my own mind -- to wait for a coalescence of public opinion. Says so right in the Declaration of Independence, if you're curious.

The House should institute impeachment hearings, call witnesses and gather evidence of administration wrong-doing (those high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution so cryptically refers to). As the evidence piles up, the conclusion becomes inescapable that Bush and Cheney are impeachable. File the articles, then vote on them. Get the action over to the Senate.

It's the Senate that's supposed to conduct the trial, something we've lost track of after the Ken Starr fiasco. The House presents the evidence, the Senate reviews it, considers any defenses or exculpatory stuff the administration wants to present, then votes. Get those fucking Republican Senate traitors on the record: Why don't they consider this evidence sufficient to remove these crooks and liars from office? I want it down for history and for all time: Who doesn't think such crimes are worthy of removal from office?

Impeachment proceedings would necessarily take some time. The 44% who favor it right now have reached their conclusion with damn little help from the popular media and the establishment Democrats. How many more would favor impeachment on a fair presentation of the facts, reported day after day in the papers and on the air?

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Yep, and don't forget to vote this to the greatest page. Please. It took me 15 minutes to

wade through google pages to come up with the info.:)

Call your US House Rep and demand they sign on to HR333, Dem or Repo.

[damntexdem]

4. Hey, do you want Nancy to suffer a whiplash injury?

It takes a while for our Democratic 'leaders' to catch up with the populace. ;-)

[onenote]

5. The difference: bi-partisan congressional support for the Nixon impeachment process

First, citing polling information is a risky business. You cite the ARG poll which shows 44/43 pro-impeachment. But others cite the recent USA Today/Gallup poll which found that only 36 percent of those polled thought that there was justification for Congress to start impeachment proceedings at this time while 62 percent thought there was not justification at this time.

But its not the polls that matter, anyway. The more relevant factor to consider in comparing the Nixon impeachment process and the current situation is that the Nixon impeachment process had bi-partisan support in Congress at every stage, notwithstanding what the polls said. The vote to create the Senate Select Committee on Watergate in Feb 1973 was 77-0. The Feb 74 vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings was 410-4.

THere is nothing the "matter" with Democrats or Pelosi. They just realize that, polls or no polls, starting the impeachment process only makes sense, strategically, politically, and from the standpoint of having any chance of success, if it has at least a modicum of bi-partisan support. Even the vote to commence the Judiciary COmmittee hearings regarding the impeachment of Clinton drew the support of 31 Democrats.

The problem isn't with Democrats, its with repubs who have shown no indication that they are prepared to support any move in the direction of impeachment. How can they do this in the face of the polls? Well, one reason is that the redistricting that has taken place means that the national polls are meaningless to repub members. They worry first and foremost about sentiment in their districts and in many of those districts, the voters aren't supportive of impeachment. The same goes for Blue Dog Democrats -- the national numbers probably aren't generally indicative of sentiment in their districts and they aren't going to leap on an impeachment effort until some repubs sign on.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Yes, the USA Today Poll is very interesting in it's wording.

It asks:
"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"

The question wasn't "Do you think bush should be impeached", which as you know, would probably result in different numbers.
Also, it doesn't give a breakdown as to party affiliation of the respondants. So did they ask 80% Repubicans? We don't know. Also, only 3% of respondants are unsure. That seems rather low. Look at the break down of the other poll question below the "justification for Congress" question and at the unsure

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm


You other theory makes no sense either. Pelosi's district voted 60% to 40% in NOV. for impeachment. Conyers district is probably very simular. By your theory, Pelosi should have signed on as a cosponsor by now or authored her own resolution. And the same with many other Dems.

[onenote]

7. what part doesn't make sense

The leadership isn't going to push a bill (even one that has overwhelming support in their own disticts) if the overall caucus doesn't want it pushed and the overall Democratic caucus doesn't want to push it because they recognize that until repubs start jumping ship, there isn't enough support to pass it. It would make folks like Pelosi and Conyers look weak indeed if they introduced an impeachment measure and then just let it sit.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Conyers has pushed his reparations for slavery bill for years now. He introduced

a resoultion for inquirey into impeachment last year.

I don't buy it. bush's approval ratings are where Nixon's were when he was impeahed. There isn't a constituency in this country to save the president. There is an overall feeling that everybody wishes he'd choke on another pretzel and chaney would have another hunting accident.

Or better yet, that they'd both resign.

I live in Montana. Believe me, almost all the W bumper stickers are long gone.

[ProudDad]

9. There were different republicans then

There was a large number of them who actually cared about the good of the country and the well being of the Constitution than their own petty political interests.

They still padded their own personal careers with pork but when push came to shove and the crimes of nixon came to surface, crimes that pale before those of the bush crime family, they were able to rise above their petty concerns and do what needed to be done.

So, we don't have the republicans in the House. We don't freakin' need them.

[onenote]

10. sadly, we do need the repubs

The political reality is that there are a sizable number of Democratic members from districts that lean red and these members are not going to support impeachment until they have the cover of repubs supporting the effort as well. Just saying it isn't so doesn't change things. More progressive Democrats in these districts can choose to rise up against these members, but the political reality is that the replaacement for the conservative Democrat in most instances isn't going to be a clone of Dennis Kucinich, its going to be an actual repub.

[ProudDad]

11. Those "old republicans" are not coming back

our only hope is that this current mean-spirited, theocratic group of "republicans" are completely marginalized and die off.

They are only about 24% of the population -- the group that still supports shrub. If the Dems would talk the talk and walk the walk of Liberal positions that most people adhere to, they could be elected to a supermajority in both Houses and the WH.

There would still be a huge difference between a Dem elected from Nebraska and one elected from Berkeley, CA but the desire would be to restore a government that doesn't hate itself and that has at least some desire to fill human needs.

That's the best we can hope for...