To I or Not to I

Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left says trying to impeach is a waste of time. He rolls out the usual garbage:

...17 Republican Senators will NEVER EVER vote to remove President Bush no matter what...

1) It will NEVER happen ...

2) It is likely to have negative political ramifications for Democrats in 2008...

3) Impeachment would preclude discussion of of all other issues, most notably Iraq...

Last, and probably least, the progressive base and the Netroots would be utterly defanged and treated as completely irrelevant if it chooses to waste its time on pushing for impeachment...

But my ultimate bottom line is that the essential role the progressive base and the Netroots can and should play on ending the war in Iraq will be completely squandered. That is the part that I will find hard to forgive.


1)This depends on whether there is a "fire" underneath all the smoke from the Bushies various criminal activities. If there is, then convincing evidence cannot be unearthed as long as the President continues to defy subpoenas and pardon perjurers. If there are substantial crimes, then the Senate may find them hard to overlook.

2)This is the bottom line for most political professionals, but not for me. I go back to my comment on 1). If the crimes are there, the President's party will pay.

3)This is the argument I detest. Congress, Netroots, Progressives, etc., have so far made not a millimeter of progress on Iraq. Weakening (better, replacing) the President is the best hope.

My fundamental argument for impeachment is two-fold: the guy needs to go, and our only chance of finding out the details of the Bush criminality probably depends on the subpoenas incident to the impeachment. If he is allowed to shuffle off the stage like his father after pardoning all his co-conspirators, this plague of executive criminality will only become worse and worse.

It was a mistake not to remove Clinton - his perjury was ample cause. It will be a far worse mistake not to remove Bush.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec...
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st...
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more