Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Friday, March 09, 2007

Boo Hoo

by digby

I think I followed the impeachment saga about as closely as an average citizen could. I was so shocked and appalled I made some personal enemies with my vehement opposition to what was obviously an undemocratic usurpation of the constitution against the will of the people. You didn't have to be clairvoyant to know that it was a partisan feeding frenzy that portended the illegal abuse of power that we are seeing today.

And I knew all about Newtie, or at least I thought I did. His immature peevishness was obvious, as that famous Daily News cover shows. But even though I am pretty well informed about this period, I was unaware of this piece that I came across this morning, written in 1998 by a very well-connected journalist for whom I have the utmost respect, Elizabeth Drew:

BARRING a miraculous turn of events -- such as a Democratic sweep of the November elections, which nobody expects, or even a draw, which also isn't expected -- President Clinton will be impeached by the House. It will happen because House Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., are determined that he be impeached, and also because the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have already passed the point of no return. It will happen because the ever-stronger Republican base, the Christian Right, demands that it happen, and few Republicans will risk crossing them. This is more important to most Republicans than the president's job approval ratings.

Some Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee jumped out early for making perjury -- whatever the subject -- an impeachable offense, without appearing to give the matter much thought. In 1974, what constituted impeachment was considered a solemn subject, and the then-Judiciary Committee members spent nearly a year before deciding. The bar is being lowered dramatically -- and dangerously.

As of now the House leadership's plan is that before Congress adjourns for the elections, the House committee will vote on -- inevitably in favor of -- a resolution to begin a formal impeachment inquiry; the inquiry would perhaps begin before the elections. After the elections, the committee would vote articles of impeachment, and the House would approve the articles (or article) before the end of the year, maybe even before Thanksgiving.

Gone, apparently, is the insistence of Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the committee's chairman, that impeachment must be bipartisan. And Gingrich's statement a month ago that "only a pattern of felonies" and not "a single human mistake" should constitute grounds for an impeachment inquiry. (When Gingrich made this statement, he assumed -- as did a lot of people -- that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr would come up with a report charging a broad pattern of obstruction of justice on the part of the Clintons.)

Gingrich, the moving spirit behind the current strategy -- shared by the other House leaders -- is driven, according to colleagues, in some substantial part by vengeance. Not against Clinton. Not against what he might see as serious offenses. A major motivation for Gingrich, these people say, is his lasting resentment of his treatment by the House ethics committee. (After a long investigation, the committee in January 1997 voted to reprimand Gingrich for use of tax-exempt foundations for political purposes and recommended a financial penalty for providing "inaccurate information" to the committee, causing a lengthened investigation. The House voted its agreement on Jan. 21.)

Gingrich feels that the process against him was unfair, that even the Republicans on the ethics committee didn't protect him from the Democrats, who were on a tear, so why should he protect the president?
This is an unusual rationale for proceeding to impeach a president.

The various establishmentarians' efforts to put together a deal notwithstanding, Gingrich and the other Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., have no interest in letting Democrats off the hook before the elections, or even in talking about a deal before the House has voted to impeach.

"They are discussing it as casually," says one prominent Republican, "as if they were talking about passing a highway bill and saying `let the Senate fix it.' "

This fits with Gingrich's m.o. He was known for his petulance and childishness. You'll recall that after the election that fall, Gingrich was finally tossed out by his own people. But I honestly did not know that the drive to impeach Bill Clinton was motivated in part by Gingrich's hurt feelings over the ethics committee probe. It's so like him.

Run, Newt, Run.