Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Two initial statements.  First, this is not, in any way, a defense of George Bush.  Were there to be a contest for which of us could make the longest list of Bush horrors (and were obvious absurdities like the 9/11 denialist theories to be barred) my list might be in the running for the prize.  And second, it is more than possible that our leader could do something so blatant that this would become moot -- but it would have to be something that would get a substantial number of Republicans joining with Democrats in initiating the process.  

We're not there now.  And because we aren't, impeachment proceedings might be the only way Democrats could insure the Republicans regaining both houses and retaining the White House in 2008.

Impeachment is, as a practical matter, impossible:
Technically, there is a chance that he could be impeached, which only takes a majority of the House.  Even that is unlikely, because there are a number of very conservative, preo-war, and pro-Presidential power Democrats in the House.  (I like to think there are others who see things my way and would see the disaster and oppose it, inxcluding Speaker Pelosi.)  But there are, no longer, many moderate Republicans who could make up for the loss of conservative Democrats.  But maybe a majority is there, for impeachment.
But conviction takes 67 Senators.  (And that is fixed.  It is not 2/3 of the Senators 'present and voting' but 2/3 of the Senate.)

Let's do the math.  Let's assume all Democrats voted 'aye,' even Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and other conservatives.  That gives us 51.  We still need 16 Republicans.

Let's bend over backwards and say that we have a chance with Snowe, Collins, Specter, Warner, and Lugar.  Let's throw in Sununu and Gregg because their state has gone from strong Red to strong Blue, Grassley (who has always struck me as having a quirky independence and sense of honor), and Gordon Smith because of his recent anti-War statement.  That's 9. (And I could argue as readily against each of them voting 'aye.')

Then let's assume that Graham, McCain, and Hegel would either be willing to sink their Presidential ambitions 'in a good cause' or would believe that the Republican party was so anti-Bush that they would support a Presidential candidate who voted to convict. 12.

And that is IT.  Can anyone imagine any of the others voting for Impeachment?  Cornyn?  Brownback?  Coburn and Inhofe?  Hutchinson?  DeMint?  Jeff Sessions?  Mitch McConnell?  Okay, if someone will give me four other possible votes, I'll reconsider.

Impeachment would be a political disaster.

Forget that it would get us nothing but a year -- at best -- of President Cheney -- who might be 'the evil one Incarnate' but who cannot be shown to have done something impeachable.  Or worse, if he were to resign, President Rice or President McCain.  (And remember Gerald Ford, who was never considered Presidential material, was almost reelected despite Watergate, and probably would have been without the pardons.)

The last election got us a majority in both houses because we were expected to do things, stop the war, pass sane health insurance legislation, end the legislative and executive attacks on the Constitution, raise the minimum wage, make sure that Abu Gharaib, Haditha, and Rumsfeldian/neocon foreign and military policy was ended forever, pass ethics legislation.

The Republicans have already sandbagged us by dropping the appropriations bills in our lap, potentially a bushel of 'apples of discord.'  It will be a hard fight to stay together once the question of 'home district projects' comes up.

Impeachment takes time.  Effectively, the whole Congress shuts down during impeachment hearings.  Even if they could succeed, the 110th would go down as another do-nothing Congress, and the Republicans would have a field-day with THAT.  "See, the Democrats criticized us, but look how little they've accomplished.'  And we couldn't use Bush vetoes as an excuse, because we wouldn't get a chance to pass the bills to get them vetoed.

But there's an even stronger argument.  The moment impeachment articles were drawn up, every Republican/conservative spokesman, columnist, and blogger would start the refrain.  "All the Democrats are trying to do is get payback for the Clinton impeachment."  Can you hear the RNC, the three 'Witches of Slander" (Coulter, Malkin, Schlussel), the Brooks,' LGF, and the rest?

(Would it be true?  Of course not.  But when has that ever stopped Republicans?  They've lived on lies for over fifty years.)

And we'd have to fight this.  But the amount of ink, airtime, and bandwidth we'd need would so drown out the serious points we'd be making that they'd be lost in the chaos.  Even now people who never lived through Watergate, Vietnam, even McCarthy -- as I did -- hear the absurd 'rehabilitations' of them and, unless they have studied history and read the documents and newspapers, seen the television programs, etc. they can be convinced that they 'really weren't that bad.'  How many people even fell for the ABC documentary on 9/11, and almost all of us lived through that and KNEW it was false?

The real and serious evils that George Bush has done to America would be buried in the snow and mud and cacophony.

And, while we are now gleefully looking forward to a splintered Republican party -- maybe so badly divided that they won't even be able to come up with a candidate pre-convention -- with whatever branch that does succeed in getting the nomination so angering the other branches that they will stay home; impeachment would unify them behind almost anyone.

[This has gone on so long that I will wait for tomorrow to submit the final part.  But to preview it:  We believe in the 'rule of law.'  George Bush is an evil man, true, and his administration has been disastrous for America.  But, unlike Republicans, we don't believe in punishing bad men, but men who have committed definite crimes.  And, in impeachment, they have to be his acts.  Making bad appointments is not an impeachable act.  Doing something outrageous is not an impeachable act, if the Congress passes a law ratifying it.  And fighting an unjust war, even lying to get us into it has never been impeachable.  (Fr. Drinan and other anti-War congressmen tried to impeach Nixon for the secret war on Cambodian -- maybe worse than anything Bush has done.  They failed, and that article was voted down.)  There may be two areas where impeachment is, barely justifiable, but I'll discuss them, and the unjustifiable ones in Part II -- and I'm new enough that that will have to wait.]