Thinking about the fractured Republican party and the newfound fighting spirit among Democrats, I am becoming more and more convinced that there is one question we should get every candidate for Congress in 2006 to answer:
"If it becomes clear that President Bush purposefully misled Congress and the American people in making a case for war, would you vote to impeach him?"
Follow me on this one. If asked of every candidate, and if the responses are collected so as to put pressure on those trying to dodge the question, Democrats can constrast a hopeful platform for the future without angry tirades against Bush, which, while necessary and legitimate, can sometimes take away from a pro-active, hopeful message.
Flip for more:
"If it becomes clear that President Bush purposefully misled Congress and the American people in making a case for war, would you vote to impeach him?"
This question accomplishes several things:
- When asked of Republican candidates, it provides them only three options. They could answer yes, further distancing themselves from Bush and any organized Republican platform in the progress. Or they could answer no, and overtly admit that they put party over country. Remember that because the entire party has been so rigidly in lock-step the last 5 years, the only platform to run on is Bush's platform. So this question highlights whether they're running away from that record or still crazily embracing it. Make no mistake: without Bush's agenda a Republican running for Congress has no agenda. If the Democrats put together an agenda based on health care, helping the poor, and getting us out of Iraq in a reasonable manner, they can't help but look rosy in comparison.
- When asked of Democratic candidates, it puts them on record. It also creates a powerful tool for sorting out the bold candidates from the both-sides-of-the-fencers. Finally, it gives them a way to couch criticism of Bush in a real-life statement of how they'll vote as Congresspeople. Instead of bush-bashing, it becomes implicit that the past 5 years have been a mistake and the candidate can go on to discussing more proactive matters like health care and a plan for Iraq.
- Just asking the question highlights the somehow-slow-to-realize notion that the American people, as a whole, would answer a resounding yes. This also lets everyone know precisely what the 2006 elections are about: not just who will control the government, but whether there will be consequences for the irresponsibility, incompetence, and (though this would be for Congress to decide) lies of the past 5 years. And, of course, the more the "I" word is said, the more it is seen as a viable, then appropriate option for punishing those responsible for the current state of our country.
- After the election, the question will naturally come up whether, now that the composition of Congress has changed, the House will pursue impeachment. Even if they don't, that becomes the first important post-election issue.
In a best-case scenario, we would ask this of every candidate, pre-primary and post-primary, Republican, Democrat, third-party, and independent. We would keep the pressure up until this becomes THE question that gets asked on the campaign trail. We would keep a database of the responses, not unlike
Josh Marshall's database of answers to whether members of Congress supported gutting Social Security. I believe that this will put unbelievable pressure on candidates to state CLEAR opinions, just like it did to representatives who tried to fudge their answer on Social Security. Then, as detailed above, those statements can be used to jam home that Democrats are going to "clean up" this White House, but in a positive light that boils down to more than just Bush-bashing.
Think about it...
"If it becomes clear that President Bush purposefully misled Congress and the American people in making a case for war, would you vote to impeach him?"
