To impeach, or not to impeach

Posted by: ST on December 5, 2006 at 3:21 pm

Brainster’s got the details about how the Nutroots are fired up over the fact that they aren’t hearing any calls for impeachment, after their party won control of Congress.

Don’t despair, Nutrootians! Though prior to the election prominent Dems like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chair John Conyers denied impeachment was on their minds, we righties know differently. La Pelosi has already shown a propensity to not want to abide by campaign promises she and other Democrats made before the election, so perhaps there’s hope for ya’ll yet that she’ll try to go back on her word on this one as well.

Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Blog-o-Fascists trackbacked with Open Thread
  • 6 Responses to “To impeach, or not to impeach”

    Comments

    1. Dana says:

      As much as some conservatives think he deserved it and that it was justified, the impeachment of President Clinton was clearly a political over-reach by the Republicans; it didn’t remove the President (and thank God it didn’t, or Governor Bush would have been running against the incumbent President, Al Gore), and it cost us seats in the 1998 elections, elections we had expected to win.

      The foul-mouthed denizens of the nutroots might be foaming at the mouth for revenge against the Clinton impeachment, but no rational person (which would, of course, exclude many of our friends on the far left) can think that a partisan impeachment of President Bush is going to remove him from office, not with 49 Republicans in the Senate. The only thing that the Kos kids could accomplish is to help us reverse the outcome of the 2006 elections. The congressional Democrats are, unfortunately, smart enough to realize this (with, of course, a few notable exceptions), and their nutroot supporters are going to be disappointe in the short term.

      Republicans might be disappointed in the long term, because giving the whackos what they want would help us in the long run!

    2. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      I think that Dana is partially wrong about this. True, there are 49 “Republicans” in the Senate, but the GOP is suffering a severe infestation of RINOs, even with the welcome defeats of Chafee and DeWine.

      I predict that any impeachment effort would easily get 5 Senate RINO votes (Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Specter, and Voinovich), and possibly 3 others (Graham, Warner, and Lugar). McCain would ordinarily be a reliable vote for the Democrats, but not in this case. McCain is smart enough to know that any vote to impeach would be political suicide among the GOP base. The others are not running for president like McCain is.

      That would leave Democrats needing 8 more votes. A very tall order, to be sure, but certainly not impossible. Never overestimate the Stupid Party’s courage in the face of criticism. And if appeals to the “independence” of GOP senators fails to work, there is always MSM blackmail from fake scandals.

      In short, it could work. As long as the GOP is lost in the MSM-induced fog of “bipartisanship”, Democrats will never be forced to pay a political price for trying to bring down democracy. I would not underestimate Democrats in this case – impeachment is the closest thing Democrats have to a burning issue, and they would be foolish to let it cool down. Where would all their lovely hate cash come from if the Koskids got mad?

      One more thing. Dana and I have been assuming that Democrats will follow the Constitution’s impeachment process. But what if Democrats decided to end-run the Constitution and remove Bush and Cheney by some unconstitutional means? It’s not as if Democrats are martyrs to the rule of law! They might try indicting Bush and Cheney (in defiance of the Constitution). Or they might decide that a simple majority of both houses of Congress is enough. The next time the Democrats let the Constitution and the rule of law prevent them from doing as the damn well please will also be the first.

    3. Dana says:

      Mwalimu wrote:

      One more thing. Dana and I have been assuming that Democrats will follow the Constitution’s impeachment process. But what if Democrats decided to end-run the Constitution and remove Bush and Cheney by some unconstitutional means?

      It’ll never happen, and they’ll never try it. They’ve spent so much time whining about President Bush trying to make an “end run around the Constitution” that they could never get away with anything like that.

      In two years and 46 days, George W Bush is out of office, period; I just plain don’t think that the Democrats, as a group, are stupid enough to try to short-circuit that.

    4. Drewsmom says:

      I wouldn’t put anything past conyers … what a boob.[-(

    5. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      Democrats are not rational, Dana. Most of the Democratic members of Congress and the Nutroots are insane with hate – period. In their souls they believe that Bush did not win in 2000 and 2004, so in their view any means of removing him is allowed. And with the MSM to do their bidding, there is no practical limit to what they will try.

      It was Democrats (and their RINO friends) who came up with the wacko notion of “censure” in an attempt to avoid Clinton’s impeachment. “Censure” of one brach of government by another is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. To my knowledge no proponent of “censure” ever paid a political price for trying to end-run the Constitution.

      During the Nixon administration, several Democratic members floated the idea of refusing to confirm Gerald Ford as the new VP after Agnew resigned. The idea was that after Nixon was impeached and convicted, the Democratic Speaker of the House would assume the presidency. That effort failed, but only because things were different back then.

      If it turns out that Democrats are serious about impeachment, then I predict that they will go after Cheney first. They will tar him with something (probably unrelated to Iraq), with the hope that enough Republicans will panic and urge Bush to dump him. Then, with no Republican VP, Bush will be found “guilty by association”.

      Would such a plan work? Almost certainly not – the Democrats have major ethics scandals brewing, and Bush & Cheney (almost alone among the Republicans) still possess a spine. And, as you pointed out, time is a factor.

      More likely, you will see some unconstitutional nonsense like a “censure” attachment to an appropriations bill that would force Bush to veto it (and be attacked in the MSM). And there will be impeachment hearings in the House, although the Democrats and the MSM will not call it that.

      Dana, the Democrats must at least attempt to impeach Bush. The Nutroots demands it, and they have the cash to make Democrats squirm if they don’t. And with MSM spin and GOP cowardice, Democrats will never pay a political price.