Many Kossacks have been calling for Gonzales' head for a long time, and many even opposed his confirmation. Just in the past few days we've seen frontpagers come right out in support of impeaching Gonzales. But there are also a significant number of DailyKos members and diarists that oppose the impeachment of Gonzales, for the same reasons they oppose the impeachment of Bush, Cheney...really anyone for any reason at any time. I'll explain why...
I believe it is time for some more visible members of the anti-impeachment crowd to at least revisit the issue and talk about it again. Specifically, Markos. And for that matter, Chris Bowers. But since this is DailyKos, let's stick with Markos.
Markos, if you recall, opposed the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney before the Dems even took power and started conducting oversight. Technically, he's made no noise one way or another about Gonzales, but if you look at his post, his argument (along with Bowers' arguments) opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush apply to Alberto Gonzales as well.
Markos, in his agreement with Bowers, adds one point: the Dems have one year of legislation to "make their case" to the American people for the 2008 elections, and impeachment robs us of the chance to make that case. Money quote:
And the second we start impeachment proceedings, the media will focus on that. Heck WE'LL focus on that, and the Democratic legislative agenda will fade into the background, ignored. A perfect opportunity to brand the Democratic Party in a positive light will be forever squandered.
This argument obviously applies to impeachment of anyone, since as Markos says, the time, energy, and attention will be devoted to impeachment and not passing supercool progressive legislation.
Bowers and others have made additional arguments opposing impeachment of George W. Bush that Markos may or may not agree with, but all of those arguments obviously apply to Alberto Gonzales as well. I'll run through them quickly here:
- We don't have the votes. If we didn't have the votes for George W. Bush, then we arguably don't have them George W. Bush's lackey. The Roll Call is still 49 Dems, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents.
- We don't have the time. An impeachment trial would take a long time, regardless of who is on trial.
- The media will smear Dems. The media will smear Dems no matter what, but I don't see how the media would decline to smear Dems if they only went after Gonzales.
- The American people will be pissed at Dems in 2008. If the American people are going to be pissed at Dems for impeaching a guy with 25% approval, then I don't see how they wouldn't be pissed at impeaching a guy that works for him (and might actually have higher approval numbers). If the people don't want impeachment, then they don't want impeachment, period.
...
Again- all of the arguments opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush apply to Alberto Gonzales as well. I make no judgment on the merits of the argument against impeachment (at this time), I merely demonstrate that the logic for opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush also applies to Alberto Gonzales. Thus, we can safely conclude that anyone who opposes the impeachment (for the reasons listed above) of George W. Bush also opposes the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.
So, in the absence of any statement by Markos refuting or clarifying his thoughts on impeachment, Markos opposes the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.See update below.
Think about that for a moment. Even as almost all of the DailyKos frontpagers scream for Gonzales' blood, even as the rest of the blogosphere slowly starts to support this, even as the 'I' word gets thrown around in the MSM and talk radio, and in the wake of all the revelations of the unethical, corrupt, and perhaps illegal behavior by this Administration...are we to understand that Markos doesn't believe he should even revisit the issue of impeachment?
At the very least, this diarist would very much like to hear more from Markos about his opposition to impeachment. Stand pat, change your mind, whatever. But Markos, don't let that December post be your last word on impeachment- for anyone at any time.
Right now, it clearly is.
UPDATE: Thanks to the commenters for pointing this post out to me and making me look like a fool. But perhaps I didn't make myself clear- without a full clarification or modification, the logic of opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush applies to Alberto Gonzales as well. Markos' short statement that "perhaps we can get 17 Republicans to vote with us" deserves elaboration, in my opinion. For instance- does the sacrificing of the legislative agenda at the altar of impeachment no longer matter to Markos? That was his number one reason for opposing impeachment in December, so shouldn't it still apply today?
And no, I'm not "demanding" Markos do anything. I'm simply asking for more of an explanation.