Anyone who has read this blog before knows I despise BushCo, the political monster pieced together by the greedy and the fundamentalists. I can hardly wait for their passing.
However, I think talking about impeachment over the next 6 months is a big mistake. We need for the Democrats to gain as much ground as they can in both House and Senate, if only to restrain the currently unrestrained Radical Right. While talk of Impeachment may galvanize the Left, it will also do so to the Right. Candidates who can’t really defend some of the things Bush has done will nevertheless defend him from impeachment.
On the other hand, censure is called for. It will be dismissed by many as a slap on the wrist, but someone needs to stand up to these domestic bullies and say, “basta!” Then, let’s move on and see what happens as the Right continues in their excesses. mjh
PS: I recommend you follow the link below. This piece appeared in the Albuquerque Journal under the curious title “Censure Smells Like Sour Grapes”. Originally, it was “No one benefits from censuring Bush”. Not quite the same sentiment, is it?
No one benefits from censuring Bush by Carl P. Leubsdorf
A new Newsweek poll shows 42 percent support censure of Mr. Bush, but only 27 percent say Congress should impeach him.
So any impeachment move aimed at Mr. Bush, like the 1998 one against Bill Clinton, might play poorly with the public. …
Indeed, a censure or impeachment effort would look like delayed revenge for the way Republicans took advantage of President Clinton’s false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to spend months in a futile attempt to force him from office.
Even many Republicans didn’t think in retrospect that was wise. [mjh: I have never heard any Republican express regret or apologize for their stupidity regarding Clinton.] …
Even today, some Republicans believe his impeachment was a Democratic vendetta, though the public disagrees. But the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was mainly political, as was Mr. Clinton’s.
Yet another impeachment effort aimed at yet another president would make this beacon of democracy seem no better than the Philippines, which has seen repeated efforts – some successful – to oust elected presidents in recent years.
However much they disapprove of Mr. Bush, Democrats should resist the siren call of the Feingolds, the Conyerses and the netroots and concentrate on devising alternatives to his policies.
Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington Bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News.
Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder By Michael Powell, Washington Post Staff Writer
“Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain’t therapy,” said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution. “Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq.” …
“The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. “There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith.”