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.
I think that Bush’s use of “signing statements” will be challenged (and, in my opinion defeated) in the courts rather quickly, particularly if there is a Democratic Congress or House of Congress.
Up to now, there really haven’t been too many times where someone has been effectively in a position to object when the President signs a law with a signing statement saying he will construe away part of the law, particularly with a Republican Congress. That time will come soon.
To the extent it is a “precedent”, it has only been the Bush adminstration that has been doing signing statements with any sort of regularity (and using them to avoid parts of legislation), so when they are challenged the courts will be looking at them fresh. I think their death knell is that executive interpretation of the laws is not within the Consitutional scheme (except where Congress expressly permits the executive to enact regulations interpreting the laws).
I think the biggest change a Dem win in the House will make is on bipartisanship. For the last 6 years, the Republicans have been ignoring the Democrats and basically ruling without consensus. They had to votes, so they ran with it. This is going to change rapidly, and I think the Democrats are smart enough to not just flip the situation, especially if they don’t control the Senate. There will be a lot of horse-trading going on, if either side wants to gets anything accomplished. There won’t be any witch-hunts, but the light will start being shined in some corners that have been hidden until now.
