I don't give a damn about impeachment for impeachment's sake. There is no punishment I can think of to make up for what this Admninistration and its Rubberstamp Congress have done to America.
The Republicans have come out with a simple talking point that has gotten, in my opinion, a poor response overall from Democrats, helped by a media who refuse to report the facts on what has been happening in America.
Here and there I have heard good responses, but they are all qualified and allow the Rovian frame to hold in this discussion. So I have some thoughts on this subject.
What would I say if asked the question: "If Democrats gain a majority in the 2006 election, will they impeach George W. Bush?"
ANSWER NO. 1: The Bush Administration has created a Constitutional crisis by claiming it is above the law. It has consistently refused oversight by the Congress, obstructing Congress from doing its job. If Democrats gain a majority in 2006 you can be sure we will do our job and honor our oath to protect the Constitution. As far as impeachment, are you saying that if this oversight turns up real offenses against America we should do nothing?
ANSWER NO. 2: If Democrats regain a majority in 2006 and through its Constitutionally mandated job of oversight finds the Executive Branch has committed acts in violation of the Constitution, and if in light of this the Bush Administration refuses to change its course, the decision will have been made by George W. Bush and no one else.
ANSWER NO. 3: An overwhelming majority of Americans feel that this Administration is taking our country in the wrong direction. If Democrats win a majority in 2006, we will reflect the will of the people and do everything in our power to remedy this situation. Whether or not impeachment is called for is entirely up to this Administration and its own actions.
ANSWER NO. 4: If this Administration is not stopped from claiming unimited power, why would it matter who is a majority in Congress or not? Why have a Congress at all? And how, under our Constitution, does one stop the actions of the Executive Branch? What is the remedy under the Constitution? Investigation. What that investigation will produce will not be a secret. And only when an investigation, when real oversight, the job of Congress, is accommplished, will we know the correct remedy for this situation.
None of the above examples are talking points. But I think it is important for Democratic leaders to re-frame their answers when the media asks this question. I agree with John Edwards that if we do gain a majority in '06, there will be much work just cleaning up the mess this crew has caused. But that is not a real answer to the question. I think Democrats should be honest and say that they will do their jobs, that oversight is part of this job, and that the resulting actions will be based on a combination of what is found and the acts of this Administration -- if Bush and Cheney stonewall and claim ultimate power, then one set of actions will be appropriate; if they are willing to allow real oversight, then the outcome will be different.
In other words, it really depends on the Executive Branch, doesn't it? And that should be pointed out over and over again.