[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Chance, my assessment, again trying to keep it as non-partisan-rhetoric as possible, is that the Democratic leadership, by and large, holds the stance that impeachment should not be a political weapon, but one resorted to in situations like Watergate where the integrity of the government itself is at stake. There are, of course, a number of Republicans who hold the same view. (I believe that the Republican leadership has learned from the Clinton-impeachment fiasco how poor a weapon it is for political purposes, anyway, if not that the current leadership includes people who would not have pushed for impeachment in 1998, on which I cannot speak.) If it were discovered that the Bush White House had engaged in more scurrilous “dirty tricks” than have heretofore come to light, that might change the position to “it’s a Watergate-style situation.” But with present knowledge, I believe that’s not the case.
This post is not intended as a partisan shot, but as an attempt at objective analysis of what has been something of a partisan issue. If it seems a partisan take to anyone, it’s owing to a failure on my part to be as objective as I intend it to be.
[/QUOTE]
Polycarp—That doesn’t sound at all partisan to me. That reflects what I’ve heard them saying, in fact. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) was openly musing impeachment a few months ago, but Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pretty much told him to can it, and he has. Now there are likely candidates for Democratic House committees musing openly about what they’d do, and impeachment isn’t on their list. Henry Waxman (D-CA) says he’d like to focus on waste, abuse of taxpayers’ money, and fraud. John Dingell (D-MI) is eager to investigate EPA abuses, telecom, the FCC, media ownership, the FDA, Medicaid, terrorism, Katrina—and no doubt others. There are likely oversight investigations to be pushed by Barney Frank (D-MA) in Finance, David Obey (D-WI) in Appropriations, and Ike Skelton (D-MO) in Armed Services.
But what’s interesting to hear Democrats talk about their investigation plans is the lack of actual people named. They’re more interested in investigations, from what I can gather, than in trying to tie up the White House with investigations. It seems that they’re taking a page from the Republicans for a list of lessons in what not to do. The constant subpoenas and accusations through the Gingrich years backfired on the Republicans in that they earned sympathy for the man they were designed to humiliate: Bill Clinton. And while I’m sure there are few Democrats who don’t dream of seeing Bush, Cheney, Rove and all frog-marched out of their offices in handcuffs, I’m sure they’re smart enough to avoid talking about that fantasy. No doubt a few will, but Pelosi won’t take cues from them.
Why am I so sure? Is it because I called up my representative, Ed Markey (D-MA), and he told me personally? No. It’s just common sense. It’s also common sense that the Bush administration and the Republican leadership are simply dreaming of a brash line of subpoenas and investigations à la Dan Burton, since it would give them a chance to legitimately call out the Democrats on shrill persecution designed to draw attention away from real issues and to a political circus. But they won’t. And, if in the near future the Republicans take back the House under a Democratic president, I doubt they’d be that stupid again. The lessons of the 1990s are still too fresh in everyone’s minds.
So all of you out there who are calling for impeachment: I’m sorry, but I think you’re going to be disappointed no matter what happens. But if the Democrats focus instead on oversight and good government, we’ll all be much the better for it down the line.
