Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Pervasive Evidence Republicans Fearful of Impeachment

No credible evidence Impeachment Would Backfire Against DNC

The republicans have been dealt a fatal rebuke. If, as we are to believe, the GOP wants to regain power, then they should be doing things that would "guarantee" that return.

Big problem: The GOP isn't doing what it says should be a "good" thing for the President.

Ref Oemig notes the GOP and DNC lack of interest in finding facts. [Senate Joint Memorial SJR 8016 ]

* * *

Summary: All excuses the GOP gives not to impeach are frivolous. Claims that the DNC might suffer a setback are not balanced by GOP efforts to force the DNC to confront the issue, or bring about the destruction of the DNC.

One of the GOP ruses about the state proclamations for impeachment is that this will backfire on the DNC; or be good for the President.

The (convoluted) thinking goes like this:

1. The President is doing the right thing;

2. Anyone who questions the President will be ridiculed.

Let's pretend the above is true: That any opposition to the President is good news for the President; and anyone who dares challenge the President will face a backlash.


A. ___ If a confrontation with the President is "bad" for those who start it, why isn't the GOP "provoking" this to bring about the very thing that they say is "good" for the President and "bad" for the opposition?

B. ___ If the opposition "will suffer" a backlash, why isn't the GOP forcing this confrontation to bring about these supposed "bad things?"

C. ___ If an impeachment proclamation is good for the President, why isn't the Republican leadership actively inciting all States to do this?

If there was a real risk of impeachment "backfiring," as we are led t believe, then the Republicans would not, as they are doing, obstruct impeachment. They would support, and actively bring about the very thing that they say would "backfire" on the DNC. The opposite is happening: The GOP is actively thwarting impeachment, fatally contracting their assertions about the "risks of impeachment backfiring."

Fact finding doesn't backfire; it confronts those who want to make excuses not to have the conduct examined.

* * *

The only reasonable conclusion about the state proclamations for impeachment:

A. The GOP fears them;

B. The GOP is not spending any effort to implement them because they could undermine the President, and expose everyone to war crimes;

C. They are not good news for the President or GOP;

D. They are not bad news for the DNC.

The question and answer of whether the effort is "good or bad news' can only be answered after we examine how the information is gathered: Responsibly, or recklessly. It is reckless and a violation of the oath to refuse to investiate or avoid gathering facts to make informed judgements.

* * *

The Republican Party is not making credible claims about impeachment. The GOP is absurdly arguing that efforts to the President will backfire; and impeachment will be "bad” for the DNC is absurd. However, if this "risk" were real, the GOP would be actively supporting the DNC in doing what would supposedly undermine the DNC.

Without GOP action to "exploit" something that is a "weakness" in the DNC position, the only reasonable conclusion is the opposite: The RNC knows the impeachment effort is not a negative for the DNC; and the GOP is not willing to put any effort into something that would undermine their party.

Propaganda to Calm Nervous Republicans

The GOP is using the argument to dissuade DNC action; but reassure themselves that the GOP leadership is doing the right thing. The argument appears deigned for internal Republican consumption. The GOP Membership is either not asking this question; or the leadership refuses to respond:

___ If this is such a “bad thing” for the DNC, why isn’t the reckless, buffoonery Republican leadership doing the very thing that would make the DNC ‘Suffer” consequences?

* * *

Same Argument Applies to DNC Leadership

Now that we've destroyed the GOP position, the next step is to take that to its logical conclusion, and confront the DNC leadership. Let’s accept the following as true:

1. The RNC-accusations-suggestions about impeachment are convoluted; and

2. As measured by the GOP inaction to exploit this problem, and their failure not to “force” something that is “bad” for the DNC: there is no credible basis for a “backlash”

Once the DNC comprehends the absurdity, the question then goes to the DNC leadership: You know that the GOP leadership is not serous when it talks about a backlash. Here are the questions:

___ Why isn’t the DNC publicly talking about the “big thing” that the GOP is not doing; and pointing out that the GOP failure to “exploit” something that is supposedly a “guaranteed problem for the DNC” means the public is being led a line of nonsense.

___ What is the plan of the DNC to outline the absurdity of the GOP claim;

___ How does the DNC leadership –- despite this supposed “really bad thing that will happen to the DNC if impeachment were pursued -– explain, challenge, or comment on the GOP failure to support impeachment?

___ Would it not be reasonable –- in light of the GOP’s failure to support impeachment, yet they argue that impeachment will be “bad” for the DNC –- to question why the Republicans are not doing something that would exploit a “known” area they should be able to use for their advantage?

___ When is the DNC going to publicly challenge to the Republicans: "If you really think this is bad for the DNC, then why aren’t you supporting the every things that you say would destroy the DNC -- impeachment?”

___ Does the DNC, despite the voter rebuke of November 2006, plan to pretend that there will be “bad things” for the DNC if impeachment is pursued?

___ What is the basis for the DNC assessment that impeachment will be bad, yet the GOP refuses to exploit this “known bad thing” and fails to “force” what is supposedly “bad” and “risky” for the DNC?

___ How does the DNC, despite this supposed “bad thing” that would happen to the DNC if impeachment were pursued, explain the lack of GOP support for the very thing that the GOP would like to see (1) implemented; (2) put into effect; (3) widely used; and (4) become fully entrenched within the DNC so that the “big backlash” is that much faster, and results in a speeder return of the GOP to power?

* * *

Frivolous, Propaganda, Sophistry

There is no merit to any argument that the impeachment effort against the President would backfire. A reasonable person, if they suspected this GOP assertion were true, should reasonable expect the GOP to exploit this "known problem for the DNC: and fully implement the impeachment effort.

Where there is no effort to exploit known weaknesses, the only reasonable conclusion is that the GOP is not serious in supporting (1) their absurd conclusions with (2) real action.

Despite claims that the impeachment effort would "backfire against the DNC" the lack of Republican action to implement these impeachments -- and bring about the "big disaster for the DNC" that the GOP says will happen -- means the GOP is not willing to put effort behind their propaganda: Evidence the leadership is failing, incompetent, unable to allocate resources, and is not willing to put action behind the logical implications of their arguments.

This is more evidence for the DNC and GOP members that the [a] decision to do nothing is not supportable by reason; and [b] both the DNC and GOP leaders are using or assenting to absurdity, raising doubts about their competence to be leaders.

* * *

The only reasonable conclusion about the GOP statements on the proclamation:

A. They are not willing to take their argument to the logical conclusions.

B. The GOP weakness is the disconnect between [1] the supposed things that they say may or may not happen; but [2] the failure of them to exploit those things that would supposedly put the GOP at an advantage.

* * *

The basis to assert that the DNC or GOP will be harmed or hurt can only be measured after we look at [a] what is the evidence; [b] what action was taken; [c] was the conduct appropriate or inappropriate.


1. There is no basis for any one t assert that any investigation of the President -- for possible support of the impeachment -- is good or bad.

2. The GOP is saying there is backlash risks, but not exploiting that supposed risk by forcing the proclamation to the House, because they do not believe the backlash risk is real;

3. The GOP cannot credibly argue that it has a plan in place to handle the legal attacks on his position on issues of war crimes;

4. The GOP is not serous about taking advantage of "guaranteed ways to make the DNC lose" because the supposed "problems for the DNC" that are supposedly attached to these implement proclamations are illusory, not even the GOP believes them

5. The issue isn't what may or may not happen after impeachment; but the evidence we have before us: Despite claims that this would be a "guaranteed disaster" for the DNC: the GOP is not exploiting this and forcing the Country into impeachment.

6. The failure for the GOP to force impeachment -- on the basis of the flawed premise that impeachment is bad for the DNC, but good for the GOP -- means they are not taking advantage of things that are supposedly "great things" for the GOP to take advantage of; or they know that the argument is absurd, and are not willing to really do what they are saying: Forcing impeachment to "bring bad things" to the DNC.

7. The fact that the GOP is using flawed reasoning to justify action or inaction by others, but not balancing that result with a GOP plan to exploit that supposed benefit, risk, or advantage means the supposed benefits-rewards-risks are not what the GOP really believes.

* * *

What You Can Do

For the sake of fun and amusement [/snark] throw the GOP argument back at them:

A. IF this is such a "bad thing" for the DNC: and "good" thing for the President, why isn't the GOP supporting this effort that will "discredit" the DNC?

B> If this is such a "reckless" thing to do, why not let the DNC do it, and publicly embarrass themselves?

C. Since when is the GOP "so concerned" about the DNC that they would stop the DNC from doing things that would "supposedly" [1] undermine the DNC; [2] benefit the President; and [c] restore the GOP to power.

The Way Forward

___ Compel the GOP to explain why it is not exploiting this issue and "forcing" the impeachment so that it will "backfire" in the DNC

Answer: The GOP does not believe their argument.

___ If impeachment is truly reckless, why isn't the GOP letting the DNC do it, stay out of the way, and let the DNC do the "worst thing for the DNC"

Answer: Impeachment is prudent. The premise of the GOP assertion is flawed..

___ How can the GOP explain, despite their November 2006 rebuke, why the American leaders are not moving to take advantage of a "stupid" thing the DNC is doing with impeachment, and actively supporting DNC actions that would "guarantee" the RNC return to power?

Answer: Impeachment would prevent the President from pardoning people associated with illegal activity. The premise of the question is flawed: Impeachment is prudent; and the RNC cannot be assured of anything, given the facts have not been examined.

___ What is the GOP plan, other than using non-sense, to recover from the November 2006 rebuke?

Answer: The GOP plan is to pretend that impeachment is bad; and there are “other things” that people need to focus on. These are ruses. The President plans to block review of these “other issues” as well; and continue with the abuse regardless whether the DNC agrees to do nothing, or stand up to the GOP abuse.

___ Is there a plan; or is there a plan to 'get a plan' to take advantage of the "really stupid things" the DNC is doing on impeachment?

Answer: There is no GOP plan to support impeachment. The only option the GOP has is to pretend that the needed action will be bad; or that the DNC legal requirements can be satisfied if they refuse to do what they should. This is an impermissible attack on the Constitution. The premise of the question is invalid: Impeachment is prudent, and unrelated to any “stupid things”. The failure of the GOP to “exploit” these “bad things” – and accelerate an impeachment to bring about the destruction of the DNC – means the GOP is not putting action behind their words. The most reliable measure of the GOP position and policy is their decision not to force something that they believe could be fatal to the GOP, and might embolden the DNC chances fro controlling the White House.

The GOP has floated the non-sense argument that the “chances for the DNC to gain or lose the White House in 2008” depend on whether the DNC avoid stupid tings. However, if this argument were true – that victory means in avoiding “bad” things – The GOP cannot explain, as a “means” to get control of the White House – why the Republican are not actively accelerating the time line, and “forcing” the DNC to do things that will “guarantee” the win for the White House.

If there was any chance that there was a “guarantee” that the “DNC action on impeachment will result in the DNC losing power, losing the White House, or getting undermined” the GOP would not hesitate to force the DNC to do this. The lack of GOP action on impeachment, the failure of the GOP to “exploit” these “known, guaranteed” problem for the DNC means the GOP does not believe their statements about the “backlash” that is possible against the DNC.

The reverse is true:

[1] The GOP may suffer a harsh setback in their political foundation if they are forced to confront impeachment;

[2 ]The DNC is underestimating the backlash that it may suffer if it refuses to hold the leadership to account;

[3] Neither party has any good, defendanable explanation why they are not taking action on impeachment –- (a) the DNC to get answers and force accountability; and (b) the GOP to bring about the “obvious problem” connected with the flawed” impeachment;

* * *

Claims by the DNC or GOP that there are "other things to do" are not supported by what Congress is or is not doing: Nothing, stonewalling, and making excuses to do nothing.

Even if we were to accept the argument that the DNC wants to "focus on ending the war and can't afford impeachment," they cannot explain why they need to do anything, if, as it has been reported, the US government "plans" to end the war October 2008.

The DNC does not need to spend any time "ending" what has already been decided to end, but can work on the parallel impeachment track.