George W. Bush must be impeached and removed from office. That much is clear, or at least it
should be clear, and if it isn't clear I don't know what it will take to
make it clear. His high crimes and misdemeanors are well-documented and are thoroughly discussed here, so I have chosen to focus this (my first) diary on an impeachment strategy that could very well succeed, if the Democratic party can manage to be competent, shrewd, patient and bold all at the same time. A tall order, to be sure, but not impossible. Read on...
Not surprisingly, the Democrats' worst enemy in the impeachment debate is what I like to call The Culture of Insecurity. After ten years of slander, libel, chads, O'Reillys and swift boats, who can blame the party leaders and the party faithful for being a bit gun-shy on the hard stuff? So, every time someone brings up the subject of impeachment in a group of liberals, some other liberal in the group is ready with a list of reasons why impeachment can't be accomplished - or why it would just make things worse if it
were accomplished.
Most of those reasons are outgrowths of The Culture of Insecurity. Because these are smart people, there is merit and reason behind the objections. Having acknowledged that, there are two ways we could proceed as a party. We could choose to treat the objections as reasons not to do it - or we could choose to treat them as obstacles we should plan for, so we can overcome them. I think it's imperative that we do the latter.
REASON IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE #1: Cheney's next.
The most common argument made against the impeachment of George W. Bush is that this will leave us with Cheney as President, which is no improvement at all. This ignores the evidence that Cheney has, himself, also committed acts that should compel the Congress to impeach him and remove him from office. If impeachment and removal of the two scoundrels were completed with the current Republican majority, Dennis Hastert would then be sworn in as President. Hastert is so untelegenic and awkward that he may well be unelectable even as an incumbent President. This could work in our favor in 2008.
REASON IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE #2: The Republicans will never vote for impeachment.
That may be true, but who said it has to be a Republican-led Congress that will impeach him? Who said impeachment has to happen now? Instead, let's be patient. Let's work hard and win back both houses of Congress. Long shot? Maybe. But not impossible, and if we believe it isn't possible, then we're writing our own recipe for defeat. Haven't we done that enough? If we really fight for the 2006 elections, and if we really win the way I think we can, then we don't swear in Dennis Hastert as President - it's Nancy Pelosi, or whoever will be the Speaker of the House in the next, Democratic Congress.
REASON IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE #3: Cheney will just resign before the new Congress is sworn in and the Republicans will appoint Condoleezza Rice, who will pardon Bush and Cheney.
I'm eager for a black, woman President - as long as she's not a neoconservative like Rice. So, in this circumstance, the Congressional Democrats will have to be very good at stalling. Filibuster if need be, spin it and spin it and spin it some more - and if possible and truthful, tie Rice into the culture of corruption (especially the deeply unpopular Iraq War). In this circumstance, we have to be solid in our talking points, and we have to demand 100% discipline from the current Democratic Congressional Caucus. Hold off the appointment of a Cheney replacement until the new Congress is sworn in, and do it because justice demands it. Be quite frank with the American people - the Congress does not trust Bush to offer up an appointee who will place the well-being of the American people ahead of the well-being of George W. Bush.
REASON IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE #4: It will be portrayed as purely partisan.
Well, it kind of is. The only way to take the teeth out of this argument is to acknowledge its basic truth, and then explain why it's true: The Republicans in Congress have become so embroiled in their own web of corruption that they can't disentagle themselves enough to recognize the criminality running rampant over in the executive branch. This is a partisan issue because the Republicans don't have the guts or the moral standing to say "no" to executive abuses. This is a partisan issue because the Democrats can't just stand by and do nothing while the country goes ever farther astray. This is a partisan issue because only one party is willing to take it on - and that is the Democratic Party.
So, the (basic) strategy I would suggest progresses something like this:
- Be very honest with the American people about the intention to investigate the administration fully, and to either censure or impeach if warranted.
- Keep the issue of corruption alive throughout the campaign; help the American people understand that impeachment could very well be in the best interests of the country.
- Run a better 2006 election than the Republicans.
- Make sure the voting process runs smoothly.
- Win. (This is the key step; everything else is meaningless if they can't get their act together to actually win the elections.)
- Investigate after being sworn in; keep up the media campaign so that the public doesn't have to be convinced all over again.
- Impeach.
It sounds so simple, when of course it isn't. But, while it may not be simple, it also isn't impossible - unless we let The Culture of Insecurity convince us that it is.
Please add any additional objections you've encountered (or concerns you have), and if you can, propose a solution to that problem.