Do any of you think Speaker Pelosi has the 218 votes within her own caucus today to vote for a formal impeachment inquiry? Because I don’t.
I have a theory about this. To explain it briefly, look at the political landscape beginning when Obama took office for the first time. He didn’t win in a landslide, but he won comfortably. In his re-election against Romney, pretty much the same thing. Now, Obama’s signature achievement was the ACA. It didn’t crash and burn as hoped for by the right, and is generally well-liked by those who have it. States having to recognize gay marriage became the law of the land much sooner than expected. I could go on about cultural and political changes happening that generally favor/and or come from the left. The Virginia statehouse going Democratic for the first time in 26 years, anyone? 
Skip on down to the last election. Despite Hillary’s flaws, she was still a fairly solid favorite, some may argue even more solid than fairly (or less). No matter. She lost because of a small number of votes that turned the electoral college Trump’s way. The fact that Trump did win was no small solace to the Republicans, but it couldn’t have given them much hope that it was smooth sailing now just because a Republican was back in the White House. You know, given their barely eked out victory.
Without going into the disaster that the Trump presidency has been, if one accepts the general idea that culturally and politically the country is shifting leftward, it’s easy to see why the Republicans are still in lockstep, as you say. He is all they’ve got at this point. To acknowledge Trump’s wrongdoing would be tantamount to saying that he should be impeached and then removed from office. Any Republican with any sense in Congress (and I do think it’s MOST of them) realize even now that that would be a hammer-blow to their party that would take years, if not a decade or more, to recover from. And given that the MAGA hat wearers are so important to Trump, who in the name of God would they replace him with? In short, doing nothing is the lesser of two evils for the future of their party.
I also have a further theory (backed up by nothing ;)) that some Republicans are secretly hoping for Trump to lose next year. They are just trying to ride out the storm, see their party suffer as little as possible, and then get back the White House not too far down the line. It’s changed party hands before, and it still could again. I think that’s why you don’t see top Republicans out there vehemently defending Trump. No, they’re lying low and hoping for the best as soon as Trump is out of the picture.
I agree with your post, and particularly this part. I predict that (God willing) Trump is out of the Whitehouse soon, Rank and File Republicans will pop Trump down the memory hole so fast, it will be like Stalin airbrushing folks out of photos.
“Trump? I’m not that familiar. But let’s not keep dredging up the past. We must look onward to the bright future under the fantastic Republican Party, which has always been about looking after our fellow citizens… .etc.”
I do want to add that I know that in general this is not a groundbreaking idea. That not supporting the Republican president will do harm to the party. The important part is that unlike after Watergate, which they were able to bounce back from within a few short years, things are different now, and the combination of the cultural and political changes I brought up along with the removal from office would be too much.
(much snipped and bolding mine)
Not that this is a new point, and I know you’re not excusing Republicans, but … when did the strength of their party become more important than the well-being of the country?
#disgust
It’s not as binary a choice for them as you are painting it. You are envisioning a venn diagram where the circles of party strength and national health don’t overlap at all. For Republicans and R-leaning voters they do overlap. Some of the things in the Democratic platform, and you’d likely define as good for the country, they would put in the unhealthy circle.
The strength of the party has a role in the well-being of the country for them. They can’t achieve their ideal of well being for the country with the party torn apart. It’s a more complicated decision for them. It’s trying to maximize the well being in the face of the threats to national well being they see from both Trump AND the Democratic platform.
The analogy doesn’t apply. And anyway, after watching about 5,000 hours of Law & Order (not to mention Blue Bloods), I can tell you that prosecutors generally DON’T want the cops to arrest someone unless they think they can get a conviction.
Although I definitely agree that impeachment is the right thing to do **WHEN **it is more likely to be successful. Because this:
I get that. But I’m not talking about policy – I’m talking about the disgraceful behaviors from virtually day one of which any number of examples would have had previous presidents fighting impeachment and removal.
Republicans can get their policies enacted (and their judges appointed, etc.) by a President Pence. The fact that they continue to defend Trump demonstrates they care more about the “party success” part that lies on the outside of the venn diagram.
Good opinion piece by Cass Sunstein:
What about timing the impeachment so that the impeachment process isn’t concluded before the next administration begins?
If the Senate won’t impeach, at least: 1) the Democrats started the process 2) the election ends up between Trump undergoing impeachment (bad image and distracting to Trump) versus a Democrat that isn’t.
If the Senate will impeach, this also avoids Pence becoming President and becoming a more electable candidate for 2020. It also prevents Trump from being pardoned by Pence.
Ask them.
The process is likely to be successful when it happens.
Because it’s the laying out of the evidence that will convince first the Dems on the Judiciary Committee, and then once the rest of the House Dems see that their representatives on the Judiciary Committee are all in on impeachment, all but a few of them will go along too.
I think the dominoes are about to fall fast anyway. Yesterday I think there were 137 House Dems who had come out in favor of an impeachment investigation. I’ve already seen more Dems on both sides of the aisle say it’s time for that, just today. And Pelosi’s called a meeting of the House Dem Caucus for 4pm tomorrow to discuss impeachment. To quote Tip O’Neill, “impeachment is going to hit this Congress.”
Maybe. Apparently Pence leaned on Ukraine President Zelensky too.
Simulpeachment? One can only hope.
Confused about “both sides if the aisle” WRT just Dems. I always thought that expression meant Democrats (on one side of the aisle) and Republicans on the other.
Pence probably has enough self control to not scream in the middle of the meeting “When I say stop corruption I fucking mean Biden, ya goddamn bohunk!”
Oops! What I meant was “both sides of the Capitol” (IOW, House and Senate both) but that sure wasn’t what I said.
Pretty serious op-ed from seven freshman Dems who have served this country, only one of whom (Jason Crow) has previously come out for impeachment
[
](https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1176275764012027905)
I’m not familiar with Ms Bade, but this is on her Twitter bio:
There’s also this Washington Post story by her and Mike DeBonis.
The first couple of paragraphs:
Sorry for the double post - too late to edit it into the previous post.
No prob. Just keepin’ you on the straight & narrow. 