| Christine Stuart has the story on Rep. Larsen's town hall meeting in Wethersfield:
Some of U.S. Congressman John Larson’s constituents are asking why Congress hasn’t aggressively pursed impeachment proceedings against the White House.
At a Sunday forum on the Iraq War, Lois Bromson of East Hartford said the biggest mistake Democrats made when they took control of the House was continuing to fund the war. She said she watched Bill Moyers Journal Friday and is now convinced “impeachment is the way to go.” [...]
Larson was quick to caution, but not entirely dismiss, the idea of impeachment. [...]
One man brought up the fact that impeachment is not solely about ousting Bush and Cheney from the White House, it’s about the constitutional crisis. The audience again applauded.
This kind of public support for impeachment seems to represent a significant change in public opinion. Last week's ARG poll showed that even 50% of independents support beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
Christine Stuart's reporting reminded me of a really powerful post by Jane Hamsher that I read yesterday at Firedoglake, in which she quoted this alarming piece by Joel Balkin about "Constitutional Hardball":
At this point in Bush’s Presidency three things matter above all others. They motivate this final round of constitutional hardball: The first is keeping secret what the President and his advisers have done. The second is running out the clock to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends. The third is doing whatever he can proactively to ensure that later governments do not hold him or his associates accountable for any acts of constitutional hardball or other illegalities practiced during his term in office.
If the NSA program and the Torture Memos were examples of the second round of constitutional hardball, the Libby commutation and Harriet Meiers’ refusal to testify before Congress are examples of the third round. Although his Presidency now seems to be a failure, Bush’s third round of constitutional hardball may be every bit as important as the first two. That is because if Bush is never held accountable for what he did in office, future presidents will be greatly tempted to adopt features of his practices. If they temper his innovations and his excesses only slightly, they will still seem quite admirable and restrained in comparison to Bush. As a result, if Congress and the public do not decisively reject Bush’s policies and practices, some particularly unsavory features of his Presidency will survive in future Administrations. If that happens, Bush’s previous acts of constitutional hardball will have paid off after all. He may not have created a new and lasting constitutional regime, but he will have introduced long-lasting weaknesses and elements of decay into our constitutional system.
Joel Balkin hits it out of the park. We need to consider not just what further damage Bush/Cheney can do in the 17 months they have remaining, but what precedent this "constitutional hardball" sets for future administrations.
I've begun to believe that the lower Bush's approval numbers go -- and they're heading into the teens at this point -- the more free he feels to act without consideration of the Constitution or the good of the country. The Scooter Libby commutation is just one symptom of the larger problem of Bush being free to act without consideration of the American people. And I share Jane's alarm at the long-term implications of the "Constitutional hardball" that Bush is playing. If the American people don't play hardball as well, what will we have empowered our future presidents to do? Are we still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
I finally saw Sicko this weekend. It was incredibly moving and powerful, and what shook me the most was the clip of American expats in Europe contrasting our system of government with what they found overseas. "Here the governmnent is afraid of the people. In America, people are afraid of the government." How can we have allowed this to happen in a democracy? What must we do to better organize at the grassroots level to return more power to the people?
UDPATE: Let's make them stand and filibuster. If they're going to obstruct, then make them have to work for it. Don't make it easier for them to stand in the way of the progress of the Democratic Congress! |
MLN is powered by