Impeachment - good thing or bad thing?
What do you think.....im certainly for impeachment but lets look at both sides of the coin and have a intelligent (including the conservatives...if possible) discussion if possible:
There are plenty of reasons to advocate that impeachment will do much for the long-term moral and legal good of our country, I offer that we're better served having the "right people" in power than the right ideas out of power.
So we'll look at this through a political lens. For me, it comes down quite simply to this: does impeaching the president, even with the likely failure to convict, improve Democrats' chances up and down the board in 2008 and beyond? This is my understanding of the political arguments on either side.
YES
Impeachment will bring out the worst of Bush's crimes in such a spectacular setting that low-information voters will come to dislike him & Cheney. High-information voters probably know enough to make their decision. We're going for low-information voters, here. The inherent drama of impeachment and consequence will amplify the message that the Republican administration is corrupt and disconnected with the American people on energy, the environment, Iraq, terrorism, US Attys, etc. This message will reach voters and influence them.
Supporting this will be the Republican nominee. Combined with Democratic efforts, the stain of impeachment will spread to anyone connected with the president, even if such link is being in the same party. Links between Bush and the nominee will be strong enough to influence voters, and hopefully will cast enough of a shadow over other Republicans (Domenecei, Sununu, Warner, Collins) to shave their support. This will be the overwhelming message of 2008, and motivate voters to support the Dems.
NO
If Bush is impeached, the debate will focus not on "why is the president being impeached?" to "should the president be impeached?" This will open up charges that this is revenge for Clinton's impeachment, and that Democrats are doing a campaign stunt for strictly political ends. In short, it adds confusion and noise to a case that can be made without impeachment. Hearings and subpeonas from Democrats can focus more strictly on the issues (wiretapping, secret meetings, torture) without getting caught up in the inherent drama of impeachment. The same case is made, without the distraction of a failed effort at conviction, and without firing up a very demoralized base. Impeachment will remind alienated Republican why they fell for Dubya in the first place, and reverse Democratic fortunes in new blue states such as Virginia, Colorado, and Montana.
Under this more varied attack, more precision can be brought to bear as well. Without Bush as sole defender, more aim can be taken as enablers such as Collins and Sununu. The scope can be broadened to mistakes not strictly Bush's bailiwick (one thinks of the consequences of David Vitter, Ted Stevens' corruption or Liddy Dole's stupidity). Local races become more local, and Democrats can more easily stress their independence when necessary.
One other consideration that may fall into either bin: The impeachment will overhang the 2008 election. Depending on the nominee, that will include voting on whether to charge or convict. Without that, the Democratic nominee can step more into their own, and offer themselves as something beyond the receptacle of a vote to punish Bush. this may be a risk in 2008, but impeachment will be exhausted as an issue by 2010.
What arguments on the political importance of impeachment am I forgetting?
One problem for the Democrats is that our guys always look as if they are doing stuff based on political calculation. Bad consequences here:
It makes it look as if we have no principles -- and at least our leaders don't.
It makes it look as if we are spineless: if we cannot stand up for what we believe, will we stand up for America? Why are we so afraid of the accusation that this is "just revenge for Clinton"?
Final thoughts...
The downside of not going forward with impeachment deserves the same kind of hardheaded analysis. I suggest that the damages this administration has inflicted on the Constitution and the nation will be much much worse and persistent the more unchallenged, and that vigorous leadership in their defense will lead to meaningful reforms even if the Senate fails to convict.
.
It would probably be better for the Dems in the House, and possibly Senators like Leahy, to aggressively pursue a strategy of investigation and disclosure. So far, as far as I can tell, except for Leahy, the Dems have been fairly quiet.
The problem with impeachment and removal is that, unlike the Nixon experience, we are far too close to the end of the Bush II administration for it to mean anything. In Nixon's case, cries for impeachment came at the beginning of the second term, not the end. Note that it took more than eighteen months into Nixon's term for Nixon to exit, stage right, and he wasn't even impeached, much less convicted. Another difference is that, even then, the Republican party was led by adults, not quivering sycophants such as we see today, and it was the Republican congressional leadership that got Nixon to resign.
I hope others have really thought about it......
:(
