Published 4 hours ago Doug Schoen: Democrats' impeachment quest is all wrong – Here are 3 big reasons why
"I, however, believe that it would be wrong for the Democrats to pursue impeachment for three fundamental reasons.
First, it is clear and obvious from the outset that the impeachment proceeding will fail. Not only is it no guarantee that impeachment would pass the marginally Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, but the Republicans continue to control the Senate and would assuredly defend the president of their own party by rejecting impeachment.
The second reason Democrats must not pursue impeachment is a simple example from recent history of the electoral consequences of attempting to impeach the sitting president. As an adviser to President Clinton between 1994 and 2000, I both observed and helped guide the president through many Republican-motivated partisan attacks on his executive leadership, especially impeachment proceedings of his own."
"At the height of the partisan impeachment threats against President Clinton, as well as Republicans’ public attacks against the president during the Lewinsky scandal, our party managed a historic midterm elections victory in 1998, marking the first time in American history that a president gained seats in the House in the second term of his presidency.
Put another way, voters rejected the impeachment proceedings, as well as the character assault against the president, and swung him an important electoral victory.
Third, and possibly the most important reason, Democrats must not pursue impeachment proceedings because they will distract from the essential job of leading and legislating.
If the Democrats are to be a success in 2020 and beyond, either by increasing their majority in the House, winning back Senate seats, or even winning back the presidency, they must advance an effective set of alternative policies to what the Republicans have both offered and enacted over nearly the past decade.
A critically important place to start would be outlining an inclusive plan for economic growth. Despite public opposition to the Trump Tax Cuts of 2017, as well as clear uncertainty about the economic merits of the bill, the Democrats have failed to articulate a compelling alternative that puts lower-and middle-class Americans first. This must, of course, be done by advancing a new tax policy that will not only support these Americans in practice but one that actually has an opportunity to become law.
Another important policy area where Democrats must direct their focus, instead of pursuing impeachment, is prescription drug pricing reform. The Democrats in the House majority would be better served by reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans to deliver for patients, especially seniors, rather than attempt to remove President Trump from office.
By finding effective ways to lower the cost of prescription medication, such as requiring drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals to disclose real prices, as well as increasing competition in the market to bring costs down without adding unnecessary regulation, the Democrats can continue to succeed on the issue of health care, which in many respects helped win them the House in 2018."
Doug Schoen is generally a moderate left democrat. I respect his opinions (most of the time). Fortunately for the republicans, the Democrats no long listen to him even though the candidates that do, generally do better in the elections than those that don't.
First, it is clear and obvious from the outset that the impeachment proceeding will fail. Not only is it no guarantee that impeachment would pass the marginally Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, but the Republicans continue to control the Senate and would assuredly defend the president of their own party by rejecting impeachment.
The second reason Democrats must not pursue impeachment is a simple example from recent history of the electoral consequences of attempting to impeach the sitting president. As an adviser to President Clinton between 1994 and 2000, I both observed and helped guide the president through many Republican-motivated partisan attacks on his executive leadership, especially impeachment proceedings of his own."
"At the height of the partisan impeachment threats against President Clinton, as well as Republicans’ public attacks against the president during the Lewinsky scandal, our party managed a historic midterm elections victory in 1998, marking the first time in American history that a president gained seats in the House in the second term of his presidency.
Put another way, voters rejected the impeachment proceedings, as well as the character assault against the president, and swung him an important electoral victory.
Third, and possibly the most important reason, Democrats must not pursue impeachment proceedings because they will distract from the essential job of leading and legislating.
If the Democrats are to be a success in 2020 and beyond, either by increasing their majority in the House, winning back Senate seats, or even winning back the presidency, they must advance an effective set of alternative policies to what the Republicans have both offered and enacted over nearly the past decade.
A critically important place to start would be outlining an inclusive plan for economic growth. Despite public opposition to the Trump Tax Cuts of 2017, as well as clear uncertainty about the economic merits of the bill, the Democrats have failed to articulate a compelling alternative that puts lower-and middle-class Americans first. This must, of course, be done by advancing a new tax policy that will not only support these Americans in practice but one that actually has an opportunity to become law.
Another important policy area where Democrats must direct their focus, instead of pursuing impeachment, is prescription drug pricing reform. The Democrats in the House majority would be better served by reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans to deliver for patients, especially seniors, rather than attempt to remove President Trump from office.
By finding effective ways to lower the cost of prescription medication, such as requiring drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals to disclose real prices, as well as increasing competition in the market to bring costs down without adding unnecessary regulation, the Democrats can continue to succeed on the issue of health care, which in many respects helped win them the House in 2018."
Doug Schoen is generally a moderate left democrat. I respect his opinions (most of the time). Fortunately for the republicans, the Democrats no long listen to him even though the candidates that do, generally do better in the elections than those that don't.
If there a law against attention-seeking, bigtory-flirting clowns, it would be a slam dunk.
I don't know or care what would be good for politicians' political careers, but I wish they could focus on just being moral, normaal doen as the Dutch say.
The article mentions prescription drugs. How about slowly deregulating them, so people can buy them without a doctor, as in most of US history? How about looking for ways to reduce spending and taxes, here and there, with small cuts phased in over years. How about getting back to Obama-era levels of deficit? How about fighting back against President Trump's immigration rhetoric by making it easier for people to come here for training and to be part of startups' management teams? How about creating proposals to give papers to the millions of people here illegally and then agree to more money than President Trump wants for border patrol if it's allocated to proven methods to catch people who overstay or cross outside a port of entry? We don't want weird antics to counter President Trump's antics. Besides, it's an ancient principle of warfare to take the initiative rather than to respond constantly to the enemy.
It seems to me we elected a clickbait clown president, and some Democrats are excited: If he's that insane, this may be our one chance to propose our own insane socialist policies.
1. Economy growing again
2. Lower Taxes
3. Improved military posture/strength
4. Renewed respect for the USA world wide
5. Millions off Food Stamps
6. Millions out of poverty
7. Millions less unemployed
Granted The president do it all by himself but without him in office it would have been more of the Obama "Fundamentally Changing the Country" by the Hillary and her cronies. Which do you prefer? I know who I prefer and it ain't the HillBill.
4 - I don't see that.
3 - This is true, but not something I want. I want the US to have the minimum standing army possible and to rely on citizen militia who gather from different regions and walks of life to train together for armed conflict, emergency medical work, and emergency repairs. I recognize this is not realistic for the modern world, but I want things that move in that direction: Less military spending, fewer bases, ships, and planes, more individual rights to own guns and equipment.
President Obama fundamentally changing the country: Expectations for change were so high, it should have been clear he could never live up to them.
The closest we ever came was with Andrew Johnson. The senate came within 1 vote of convicting him.