Let's look at the first point:
Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution.
Whether or not an impeachment resolution is appropriate and the votes are present can only be determined after an investigation takes place. Of course I would not like a resolution to pass until the investigation. What Nancy Pelosi is doing is blocking an investigation. There is plenty of reason to investigate and possibly after an investigation there may not be enough votes and possibly there may. However, not to get to the facts just stinks.
I kind of think of situation this way. There is strong evidence to suggest that person X committed a serious crime. However, person X. just happens to be a political bedfellow of the Chief of Police, who therefor refuses to investigate, because he says the DA does not have sufficient evidence to convict. The DA says yes, there has not been an investigation to collect the evidence. Sure looks to me like a corrupt police chief. Refusing to investigate makes Nancy Pelosi look like just another corrupt politician. What does GWB have on her, well her whole political program or those pieces GWB chooses not to veto. Liberals will punish the Democratic Party for not investigating.
Now lets consider the second part of the the rationale.
And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.
I seem to recall a different result to the election of 2000. A republican won the White House, in large part because of the sexual improprieties of Bill Clinton that were high lighted over and over again by the impeaching republicans of the House.
I also remember the republicans did lose some seats (2) in the House, but then Al Gore did win the popular vote and should have won the election. The loss for the republicans was less than the loss for democrats in 1992 when Bill Clinton won. The Democrats lost 9 seats. This hardly sounds like a backlash against republicans in 2000, and if anything sounds like Republicans benefited from impeaching Bill Clinton.
So this sounds a whole lot like either a weak spineless Speaker or a corrupt Speaker; take your pick.
Comments are closed on this story.