Let's play a game. Let's imagine that Democrats regain control of both the house and the senate this November. (This is
not as likely as you might be thinking, but let's pretend.) Should the Democrats impeach the president?
The Democrats should not. Oh I know, it would be SOOOOO satisfying... and believe me, I sure as hell don't think the guy is morally or intellectually qualified to be president either. I get a little thrill every time I see an "Impeach!" sticker or poster. Torture, secret prisons, suspending habeas corpus, illegal wiretaps, prosecuting a wasteful, deadly and illegal war... they sure seem like good reasons to impeach, don't they?
Not good enough. Let me explain why.
1. Bush's power to do bad things can be significantly limited without impeachment.
Bush is a bad president, and he has done a hell of a lot of very bad things. But these bad things were accomplished with the support or at least the acquiescence of the Republican controlled houses of Congress. However cynical we get about some pretty spineless Democrats, I think we can at least be confident that a newly Democratic House and Senate will be less likely to roll over and more likely to growl and bark. Bush will still have capacity to do evil, but nothing close to the capacity that he has right now. Do you think impeachment is necessary to prevent something like the invasion of Iran? I submit to you that what is necessary is taking control of the House and Senate. The president, however much he has expanded the powers of the presidency, still cannot go very far into a new major war with out the approval of Congress.
2. The Democrats will be able publicize the nastiest bits of the Bush administration without impeachment.
Ok, sure, as president, Bush will be able to accomplish a few more bad things than he would if he were sent back to Texas. But, with control over the House and Senate, Democrats are going to find it far easier to hold him to account. For one thing, the media will have to pay a bit more attention to the Democratic side of the debate, once the Democrats have the power to say actually say no. Dems will have the perfect platform to point out to everyone what an ass Bush is, just by passing bills and forcing him to veto them. Bush has barely touched his veto pen in the last six years... let's make him keep it with him at all times! Watch him veto new environmental protections; watch him veto energy industry re-regulation; watch him veto funding for student loans. Each one will be another demonstration of who he actually works for.
3. The Union will survive even with Bush in office for two more years.
I know it sometimes doesn't seem like it, but Bush doesn't actually have the power to destroy our nation in the next two years. There will be a mess to clean up when he is gone... but we will be able to clean it up, at least eventually. The United States is showing disturbing signs and we are going the wrong direction, but there is still plenty of time to prevent the country from becoming a corporate fascist or theocratic totalitarian state, and anarchy is likewise still a good ways off.
The history books will not be kind to George Bush. It would certainly be gratifying for us in 40 years if Bush's chapter ends in impeachment, but whether it does or not it will be materially the same. He is responsible for what he is responsible for, and whatever else we Bush critics have done, I think we have ensured that Bush's incompetence and malevolence will not be forgotten. Yoyogibear has the start of a great idea... maybe we should all kick in $100 toward an Anti-Bush Presidential Library, which could have a mission to preserve knowledge of Bush's true character forever. Of course, even if we don't do that, it is not necessary to impeach him for history's sake. His actions will speak for themselves.
Ok, those were reasons that impeachment is unnecessary, but it isn't just unnecessary, it is actually potentially disastrous. Let's keep going:
4. Use of impeachment for political posturing will be rejected by the electorate... and it will look like political posturing no matter how well justified it is.
Right now, there is zero possibility that the President, if impeached, would be convicted in the Senate. If the Democratic Party knows this and impeaches the President anyway, it will appear to the world we are doing so for nothing more than the sake of the partisan political battle.
Real people, in large numbers, don't believe that either party has a perfect lock on the truth. When the impeachment vote is a perfect or nearly perfect split along party lines, those people will see impeachment as a partisan power play no matter what crime was committed. Impeachment, as a process, lost a lot of moral authority the day Clinton was impeached, because everybody normal could pretty much tell that it was a naked political power move. If the Democrats impeach Bush, it will not matter what he has done to deserve it. To an American populace that is mostly not paying attention but is nevertheless cynical about politicians and politics, it will not look good. It will look like political gamesmanship combined with petty revenge. It is just irrelevant to point out the difference between Bush's crimes and the "crime" of lying about a blowjob, because the American people will simply not trust the congress to carry out the process in a fair and non-partisan manner, and they are fundamentally correct not to.
Of course, the public might be less cynical if the Democrats could get 15 or 20 Republicans to support impeachment, but I think Bush could eat a baby on national television and still not have that happen. The Republican leadership persuaded the Republican rank and file to impeach Clinton for wholly political purposes, how much easier will it be to persuade them to defend one of their own?
The public punished the Republican Party for impeaching President Clinton, and they will do the same to the Democrats if Bush is impeached without massive Republican support and a real possibility of conviction.
5. Impeachment will distract the congress, the press, and the nation from actual policy changes necessary to start to undo the damage of the Bush administration.
How much do you like the Clear Skies Act? How about the unfunded No Child Left Behind? Are you a fan of the Patriot Act? Pick your favorite legislative issue that you would want a new democratic majority to act on, and throw it out the window during the impeachment. Remember the Clinton impeachment? As far as any kind of regular business went, congress was pretty much shut down. I, for one, have a bunch of things I would want a new Democratic congress to do, and I know that impeachment would stop any progress on these things, probably for months. I am not saying that impeachment would mean that nothing else could get done during the session at all, but if we gain control of Congress, we have it for two years. We would have a hell of a lot of work to do in those two years... more than two years worth of work. If we do gain control of the legislature, do we really want to throw away a few months of opportunity to actually legislate? I don't.
6. Putting Cheney in charge would be really bad. Putting anybody else in charge would be worse!
Let's imagine for a moment that the Democrats could actually get a conviction. If Bush is impeached and convicted, who becomes president? The most straightforward scenario has the President convicted and Cheney stepping in to be president. I assume I don't need to enumerate to a dailykos reader the ways in which Cheney could potentially be worse than Bush... it would be hell. Remember, Cheney is old, un-electable, and has a reputation so bad he may as well not worry about a legacy... Cheney would be in charge, and would have nothing to lose. Don't go to sleep thinking about that, you will get nightmares.
Anyway, that is the simplest scenario, but it is not the most likely. A much more likely scenario is that Cheney steps down if impeachment (either Bush's impeachment or his own) looks immanent. The Republican Party will nominate a candidate to replace him, and unless the candidate is really obviously not qualified, Democrats will find it difficult to block a moderate republican. The R's will pick one like John McCain or Rudy Guliani, someone who has presidential ambitions and a reputation of independence. Bush gets impeached and convicted, and the Republicans suddenly have shiny, new, re-electable incumbent candidate who can disassociate himself from Bush's record and condemn the partisan and power-motivated politics that lead to Bush's impeachment. As Democrats, why on earth would we put ourselves in this situation?
Tactically, we want to run the 2008 election against Bush's cronies and his record, not against an "anti-bush" Republican, especially not one who has suddenly gained the power of incumbency!
7. There is a housing bubble that either is bursting or is about to burst... let Bush take the blame for it while it happens.
If you believe bonddad, (and I think he is very credible,) the housing market is going to crash, soon. I am not economist enough to be able to say exactly what the fallout will be or who it will hurt most, but I know this: Bad economic times get blamed on the incumbent candidate and the incumbent party. Bush and the Republican attitude toward regulation will be among those who must share the blame for this mess. But if the Democrats are in charge of congress for the next two years and a new Republican president is in office who can disclaim responsibility for the policies of the Bush Administration, I don't see this effect hurting anyone but the Democrats. If we spend a significant chunk of the next two years fighting a nasty political battle that the public sees as partisan and petty, ending with no conviction, it will be no better. If instead, the Democrats take control of congress and spend the next two years fighting the Bush administration to prevent the worst effects of the crash where possible and alleviate the pain a little where necessary, then the blame will be cast on the Republicans and their party, and the electorate will vote for their pocketbooks.
8. Impeaching Bush will weaken the process of impeachment.
The last president was impeached purely for political gain. Even though Bush has committed crimes that qualify him for impeachment, any attempt to impeach will be portrayed effectively as a purely partisan political maneuver. If Bush is impeached, how likely do you think it is that the next Democratic president to face a Republican Congress will be impeached? I put the likelihood above 90%. Before Clinton, impeachment was a rare option... used for only one other president in the history of the republic. Do we want to be the ones to make it mundane and normal? I don't think we should.
9. Unnecessary and unproductive massive internal dissent will only hurt the Democratic Party.
Look, I know, we are Democrats. We are supposed to be able to tolerate internal disagreement in the party. But think about the ways that the impeachment debate will divide us. Those who support impeachment will believe passionately that Bush is a criminal and must be punished for the sake of justice, and many of those who oppose it will have watched Clinton's impeachment, and will abhor the idea of using impeachment for political gain. These two basic worldviews will smash into each other in the offices, halls, and caucus rooms in DC, and if things get ugly, all of the political capital spent, all of the career damage done, all of the pressure and backstabbing and unholy promises will hurt the Democrats and only the Democrats. All of this for a cause that will not repeal one idiotic law, will not pass one improved budget, and will not materially improve the lives of the average American in the slightest way. How could it be worth the cost?
10. Impeaching Bush will make Bush stronger.
Even in the most wildly optimistic predictions about what will happen in November nobody thinks the Democrats will gain a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. Bush could not be convicted without 2/3rds of the senate voting to convict, which would require the votes of at least 14 Republican Senators, even if we win less likely races in Arizona, Tennessee and Virgina. Do you think those Republican senators will be persuaded on the evidence presented in the trial? I don't. Everyone will vote the way that they gauge to be in their own political interest, and it will not be in the interests of 14 Republican senators to convict. Bush cannot be convicted.
The American public will be mostly cynical about impeaching a president who cannot be convicted, but a few people will take it seriously and at face value. What will those people think when the president isn't convicted? What will Joe Public think? I believe they might see Bush as vindicated, overcoming his attackers. Let's not cast the Democratic Party in the role of villain.