Bob Fertik and Randi Rhodes got into it the other day over the question of impeachment. Both agreed that such a move was necessary -- but when? Rhodes insisted (as have I, in the past) that we must first achieve a Democratic congress. Fertik -- on the rare occasions when he was granted the right to contribute a syllable or two (I love Randi, but she DOES talk) -- stumped for the idea of impeachment now.
Not that anyone expects to get such a result -- not with congress in its present state. Dubya could rape a nun on the mall and GOP congressmen would still vote the way the party chairmen tell them to vote. But Fertik seems to believe that an impeachment drive could rally the progressives and function as a unifying force.
Is this such a smart move tactically?
Let's not make too much of the recent poll. The question was asked with a qualifier: If Bush lied to start a war, then should he be impeached? If the question were asked sans the "if...then" formulation, the number saying "aye" would probably be substantially lower. You know and I know that Bush did (and does) lie. But for many, rationalization springs eternal.
Do we want close races for the House to turn into referendums on impeachment? Would injecting impeachment as an issue into the various races hurt or help Democratic candidates?
Yes, the hard-core Bush-haters (a growing crowd, I can happily report) would be mobilized. Protest marches. Chants. A lovely time is guaranteed for all. But the plan might backfire: There are probably millions of voters who feel uncomfortable with the notion of impeachment yet might otherwise be persuaded to vote for a Democratic candidate.
My suggestion? Democratic candidates should make some very low-key statements giving provisional assent to the idea of impeachment under certain circumstances. But no-one should make getting rid of Bush the central theme of any campaign.
8 comments:
I like your suggestion, Joseph. Many of the sheeple are just starting to come to terms with the fact that they were conned. A referendum on impeachment could possibly make put them again on the defensive, and less likely to just quitely pull the lever for a democratic candidate in '06...Now, if we take back Congress, I hope we can make Bushco pay dearly.
This brings me to another thought -Could the possibilty of impeachment proceedings have been part of the seemingly "wacky" Miers nomination? Does Bushco want her on the Supreme Court to avoid a subpoena of her records as dubya's private attorney? Can a sitting SCOTUS be called to testify before the Senate or a grand jury?
Kim in PA
Sorry for the spelling errors in the above post - I'm doing this in a hurry. :)
Lessons from the story of the bluecoats
against the redcoats: Keep your powder dry,
don't fire 'til you see the whites of their
eyes, make every shot count.
(Metaphorically speaking, of course, Agent Mike)
Lessons from the story of the bluecoats
against the redcoats: Keep your powder dry,
don't fire 'til you see the whites of their
eyes, make every shot count.
(Note to Agent Mike: metaphorically
speaking, of course)
well, impeachment now is not only impossible; it would be perfectly stupid. we impeach bush, we have to impeach cheney, or we're stuck with him. but then, with both of them gone, who do we get in this godforsaken repug congress?? dennis hastert!!
no, my friends. we absolutely MUST be patient and do this precisely as joe suggests. sweep congress next year. however, there is the knotty problem of having a dem speaker impeach both the prez and the vp only to become prez him/herself.
oooh, though; i get all goosepimply thinking about the possibilities: replacing all these dreadfully incompetent appointees, exposing all the bush presidents' incriminating papers, recovering the fcc and cpb, imposing regulations and strict ethical rules and serious penalties for financial fraud and polluting, discovering roberts' iran-contra papers and impeaching him for all manner of crimes, and (my personal fave) exposing the election frauds of the last three elections. this last one would allow congress to declare not only the bush elections null and void, but many of the specific congressional and senatorial elections as well, justifying passage of a law that retracts all laws passed from 2001 till 2007.
hey, i can dream, can't i? hey again; we all should!
"Oh, to live on/Sugar Mountain..."
uni, i was actually thinking 'hey, mr. fantasy', but hey, they both work.
uni, i was actually thinking 'hey, mr. fantasy', but hey, they both work.
Post a Comment