Posted by
on Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:56:08 PM
A bonus post for your weekend entertainment. Better get a cocktail or beer before you start in on this one. I suggested in my last post that the radicals of the Dem party are practically frothing at the mouth to impeach Bush. The calls for impeachment have already begun as wittnessed by a Capital Times columnist and resident pinko John Nichols. I found it so silly and substance free I couldn't resist a thorough fisking, which are my comments, in red.
Apologies to my Dane County and Madison friends who might take offense.
John Nichols: For republic's sake, Pelosi must ponder impeachment
By John Nichols
November 9, 2006
When my friend Salli Martyniak heard that Nancy Pelosi would be featured on the CBS news program "60 Minutes," she got excited. Like a lot of professional women who have been turned into political activists by six years of Bush-Cheney-ism, Martyniak busied herself during the recently completed election campaign doing everything she could to end Republican control of the House. She put the right campaign signs in her yard, she hosted fundraising events, and she knocked on doors and made calls on behalf of the campaign to change the Congress. And she lit up at the prospect of the first female speaker of the House.
But when Pelosi's segment aired on "60 Minutes" three Sundays before the election, Martyniak said, "I was shouting at the television. How could she say that? How could she so miss the point of being an opposition leader?"
What was it that so infuriated my friend and millions of other Americans who want this election to be about holding an out-of-control presidency to account?
Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who surfed a wave of voter resentment against the Bush team into the speaker's office in Tuesday's voting, bluntly declared that it would not be the purpose of a Democratic House to restore the rule of law. Didn't take long to reveal your pretrial conclusion of a guilty verdict. A lot of bright legal minds, as or more preoccupied with impeaching President Bush, have been looking into any excuse for doing so since December 1999, before he even took office. Has it not occurred to you that had there a scintilla of rationale the wheels would have been put in motion a long time ago? Of course it has, but to those of you whose career is largely built on destroying this presidency resentment alone is reason enough. She made her comment despite the fact that more than three dozen members of her own caucus - including U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison - have joined U.S. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who will chair the Judiciary Committee in the new Congress, in calling for an inquiry into possibly impeachable offenses by the administration. A veritable whos who of the American left to be sure.
"Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi declared, calling it "a waste of time."
A waste of time? Yes John, a waste of time, you know, like the time spent reading this insipid column. Time spent on fruitless and unfulfilling endeavor, time spent that would be better spent elsewhere, a waste of time.
Not in the eyes of the American people. A majority of those surveyed last fall by Ipsos Public Affairs, the firm that measures public opinion on behalf of The Associated Press, agreed with the statement: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." Memo to Comrade Nichols: Read the question again, only time slowly. The "if" in this question is the crux of your argument. Qualify the if beyond innuendo and differences of opinion and you might have a case. As it is, your -Bush lied, people died- bumper sticker crapola does not rise to the level of impeachable offense mainly because it isnt true. Even if it were true, it isnt proveable. To you and your fellow Bush haters simply repeating a charge makes is sufficient. Grounds for impeachment require more than the specious yowls of an infantile press.
Before Bush became President, the standard definition of lie meant saying one thing WHILE KNOWING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO BE TRUE. So, by that standard the onus of the Senate in an impeachment trial would be to prove that Bush KNEW there no weapons of mass destruction. In law they call this proving a negative and it is considered beyond the capability of even the best legal minds, none of which, I submit, are in congress, on either side of the aisle.
Given what has been learned over the past year about the deceits employed to guide the United States into Iraq and about the quagmire that has ensued, support for impeachment has undoubtedly risen. I covered the first part above and by the way, I am the only one to actually name an alleged deceit employed so far. You are relying on the sentiment that an impeachment should take place in lieu of any verifiable wrongdoing. Nice try. If that doesn't work try stomping your feet or maybe holding your breath. The stronger argument might be, you know, actually listing some of these alleged deceits since they are the basis of your impeachment fantasy. As for the second part; quagmire, your aim then, is to establish as precedent that war plans that dont pan out are defacto high crimes and misdemeanors?
So why has Pelosi been so determined to disassociate herself from talk of impeachment?
Given reasons already stated along with her correct assessment that it would be a waste of time. Hey, even a San Francisco liberal can get it right once in awhile.
Is she fearful that challenging a president who is still popular with conservative voters will cause trouble at home? Spare me. Pelosi represents what may well be the most impeachment-friendly district in the country. On Tuesday, San Francisco voters approved a referendum, Proposition J, urging impeachment.
So let me see if I follow your logic here; appeasing the wild-eyed, most left wing fringe constituency in the country justifies a virtual shut down of the government for a partisan witch hunt, - - during a war. Only from the bowels of Dane County could such asinine reasoning emerge.
Since it is impossible to imagine that the House Democratic leader honestly disagrees with the merits of calling the president and vice president to account - especially when, if seen through to its conclusion, the successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney could make her president - she must believe that impeachment is bad politics on the national scale.
Yes, I have noticed your imagination impairment before and think you probably find a lot that is impossible to imagine. Try imagining this John; she has had access to a hell of a lot more potentially incriminating documentation than you ever have, and yet is still not convinced impeachment is warranted. Unlike you, she lets prudence trump her disdain for Bush. Second, The implication that she might as well try because she could be President takes political cynicism to a new low, even for you. Third, since when is concluding a certain course of action is bad politics on the national scale a bad thing?
But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election. Well yeah, but that last one was a humdinger no? Sheesh. Political rationale is always par for the liberal course. No sense in urging to ponder consequences but you seem to forget that if Bill Clinton had half the respect for the office that Nixon had, and the similar grace to resign, we would probably be in the second term of the Al Gore Presidency.
Pelosi's problem appears to be that she doesn't want to be accused of repeating the partisan misuse of impeachment that Republicans perpetrated in 1998 and 1999. But the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney are precisely the sort of wrongdoing that impeachment was designed to check and balance.
Precisely and wrongdoing are strong words yet any listing of specific misdeeds remains absent. An intellectually honest writer would back them up somewhere, anywhere, in the column. I suppose Cap Times readers are so indoctrinated they dont need to be bothered with pesky details. And its curious how Republicans were guilty of partisan misuse in 1998 but somehow Democrats pursuing impeachment today wouldnt be? How does that work exactly or does that only make sense in Madison and Berkeley?
As a political reporter who has spent a good many years trying to unlock the mysteries of the Democratic Party, I contend that an openness to impeachment is not just good but essential politics for Pelosi and her caucus. Yet nothing youv'e presented so far offers neither good nor essential reasons for doing so. Still waiting. The Democratic victory on Tuesday was not secured because the party proposed a bold agenda and won on it. Finally, something we can agree on! Pelosi shied away from making presidential accountability a central theme of the campaign; arguably, she shied away from central themes in general - except, of course, the promise that Democrats will behave more admirably than Republicans. Woohoo, two in row! Were on a roll now!
To do something that will matter in the long term, something that will give Democrats the moral authority and the political pull that will allow them to correct the country's course, Pelosi and her fellow partisans must abandon the hyperstrategic politics of a contemporary status quo, which prevents surprises for entrenched officials, wealthy campaign contributors and powerful lobbyists. Whoa Johnboy, thats some pretty highfalutin language you got goin there. And I think you might've dangled a participle or two. Better check your zipper. Burt seriously, well, as seriously as I can take you anyway, I tend to agree with your description of the contemporary status quo but the idea that impeachment will somehow impart moral authority and political pull is more than a bit of a stretch. And the first step in that process involves embracing the oath members of the House take - to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Ah there it is. I knew if I waited long enough the famous liberal condescension would finally rear its ugly head. House members who refuse to impeach are breaking their oath of office. Got it.
It is impossible to support and defend the Constitution in this era of executive excess while taking impeachment off the table. Again, reaching a verdict before an investigation really exposes your agenda here buddy. But you get points for finally hinting at an actual charge with that executive excess thingy. As long as impeachment is wrongly portrayed as the political third rail by Pelosi, standards of accountability remain low, and prospects for fundamental improvement in the national condition are diminished. So let me see if I got this part right, the national condition will be improved by putting the Commander in Chief on trial at the behest of his most ardent political enemies - - during a war. I had no idea our national condition was so bad. And here I was thinking preventing more 9/11s should be getting our attention. Silly me.
The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy. Right. Heres a little newsflash you must have missed: There are fundamentalist whackjobs sharpening their scimitars just aching and praying for the opportunity to cut your head off, ala Daniel Perle. Yet you would want to take a timeout to concentrate on elevating the national discourse. Noble enough but I think your timing is a little off. Does this sense of priority come from being in journalism for so long or living in Madison for long?
When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. I hope you have better fact checkers for your book than you did for this column. You got it exactly backwards. Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment in 1974 and Clinton was impeached in 1998 but found not guilty by the Senate. The impeachment stands as does the verdict. Senators decided that witness tampering , perjury, and obsrtuction of justice by a President did not rise to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic. Really? All it takes for people to ponder the founders intent and renew the republic is an impeachment? Well then, by all means lets get on with it. Lets have one every year! Lord knows that founders intent stuff isnt being covered in our history classes. And keep your hands off my marginalia!
When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition. Seems to me the risk the GOP took in 1998 turned out exactly the other way around. They got and kept the majority up until Tuesday, hardly a permanent opposition. Your expectations of Ms. Pelosi, or any Democrat for that matter, to speak well and wisely of impeachment is beyond their capacity. They can speak well all day long, and they usually do, but the second impeachment comes up it will be accurately seen afor what it really is, the next in a continuing series of a sustained partisan efforts to destroy this administration.
If Pelosi hopes to build a new and more vital relationship with the American people, she must overcome the irrational fear of presidential accountability in general and impeachment in particular that have so paralyzed Democrats. There is nothing irrational or fearful about choosing not to initiate a constitutional crisis during a war, to rational people that is. Tuesday's Democratic win resulted from the recognition by voters across the country that America needs an opposition party, not to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic, but to turn the ship of state in a new direction. Pelosi owes it to Salli Martyniak and all the other activists who poured their hearts and souls into making her the next speaker of the House to put impeachment back on the table. She owes it to her San Francisco constituents, who so clearly favor impeachment. Most importantly, Pelosi owes it to the republic that as speaker she will have it in her power to restore and redeem. Really. Isnt that Titanic deck chair cliche getting a bit tiresome? I know you have to rely on rhetorical gimmickry in absence of real argument, but if you want to be taken seriously (I really crack myself up sometimes) try not to make it so obvious. Anyway, what you insist on ignoring is that Tuesdays result is precisely the type of accountability intended by the framers. Your preferred method, impeachment, was designed as the last resort to facilitate the removal of a President for serious crimes. It is not simply another tool in the accountability toolbox to be abused by a peeved and politically frustrated opposition to bludgeon a President for making unpopular decisions.
As for her power to single-handedly restore and redeem the republic, thats a pretty tall order. When she is elevated to speaker her constituency allegiance becomes necessarily diluted and less parochial. She will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, all 50 of them. To adhere disproportionately to the narrow interests of her home district, though Im sure it would be perfectly OK with you, would be to shirk her larger responsibility. I know your heart is in San Francisco John, and lord knows your head is, but it is still only a teeny tiny sliver of the farthest left fringe.
Get a grip. Better yet, get a copy of the constitution. And read it.
So there you have it. The left liberal take on the rationale for impeachment; such as it is, all unsubstantiated and such. It has all the hallmarks of modern American liberalism, emotion in lieu of logic, disdain for disagreement, arrogance, condescension, basically the whole playbook. Its great example of the philosophy doesn't require linkage between words and reality. Other than an extended example of incoherency it is virtually substance free, unserious, and a horrible waste of ink. Why, its almost grounds for impeachment!