I started my day like I do every day: wake up, turn on my laptop, and get caught up with the news. This morning, I was surprised to see investigations into impeachment was back in the headlines. David Edwards and Mike Sheehan of the popular Web site The Raw Story reported that Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush and Vice-president Dick Cheney. Kucinich, a 2004 and 2008 Democratic candidate for president, introduced a similar resolution in November calling for investigations into impeachment for Vice-president Cheney but the House tabled the resolution and the bill has remained dormant ever since. Now investigations into impeachment are back in the limelight and Kucinich hopes to bring all articles of impeachment to a vote with the hope of launching an investigation many Americans support.
A common response I often hear against impeachment efforts is "the Democrats need to win the 2008 election." I agree. However, I also believe that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Meaning, they are capable of conducting investigations into impeachment, elect a Democratically controlled Congress, and the Democratic nominee for president. Many believe impeachment will only hurt the Democrats' chances in November. By my estimations, nothing can be further from the truth.
First of all, grassroots Democratic party organizations around the country have passed non-binding resolutions calling for investigations into impeachment. And Downing Street.org provided a complete run down of all local and state parties, legislatures, and members of Congress supporting current efforts. From the looks of it, many within the party want to see it happen. If the heart and soul of the Democratic Party supports it, why not go for it?
Another common argument against investigations into impeachment is "Bush and Cheney will be out of office January 2009. Why waste our time?" David Swanson of After Downing Street writes a compelling argument that Bush and Cheney can still do damage before the end of their terms. If they they are not held to account, it may open the door for future leaders to repeat similar abuses of power.
"The authors of our Constitution established the schedule for elections, but devoted a lot more attention to the mechanism of impeachment as a check on elected despotism in between elections. They had recently thrown off a king and had no interest in electing temporary kings every four years. Neither should we.
Bush and Cheney can still do a great deal of damage before the end of their term. People are dying every day as a result of their policies. There is an urgent need to remove them from office in order to end the brutal occupation of Iraq and prevent an attack on Iran."
Swanson continues:
"But we would need to impeach them were this January 2009 or had they already left office. The purpose of impeachment, again, is to set standards for future administrations. We cannot give the powers assumed by this administration (to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements) to future presidents and vice presidents without expecting similar or worse abuses."
Most importantly, investigations into impeachment is in the Democrats best interests because history shows that parties that conduct investigations are the ones who do well in elections. In John Nichols eye-opening book, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founder's Cure for Royalism, parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election.
Swanson also argues when Republicans tried to impeach Truman, "they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election." Democrats who held back from impeaching Ronald Reagan during Iran Contra, lost seats in the 1988 elections.
Even though Republicans pursued impeachment for selfish reasons in 1999, Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.
So the next time you hear Democrats shouldn't impeach because it will jeopardize the 2008 election, think again.
Follow Christian Avard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChristianAvard
First, an impeachment trial would do serious and permanent damage to the country. Yes, Bush and Co have committed serious crimes. Yes, Congress has been derelict in its oversight. But full blown impeachment hearings would do nothing more than inflame divisions in this country, take the 80% that are currently united in the belief that we are headed in the wrong direction and put them back in full "screaming at the other side" mode.
Second, it won't be successful. Even many those who completely acknowledge the criminal incompetence displayed by this administration will see impeachment (especially when he'll be gone soon enough) as a nuclear option and won't pull the trigger.
Lastly, the single most important thing to do now is to put an adult back in charge and start fixing this mess right away. Impeachment would revitalize the hardcore right, alienate the middle, and lose ground everywhere dems are gaining right now. It would also put the presidency at risk. Regardless of the merits of the case, it would be seen as foolish, bitter politics and would shrivel political support. All of that delays the job of righting these wrongs.
So, would you rather be right on principle, and ensure 4 more years of this idiocracy, or do you want to take your government back? You can't have both...
Also, right now about 80% of the country feels we have been lied into war. This 80% will support the move to impeach. How is this bad for the election?
In addition, to NOT pursue impeachment, is to hand away our democracy. NO election is worth letting this happen.
Impeach them NOW. Make them pay for breaking the law.
Once, I was in county jail. One of the inmates was finishing a 5 year sentence in San Quentin. His crime? He had stolen 50 cenrts (two quarters) from a laundromat washing machine. Surely lies to the country by the president that causes us to loose 4,0000 soldier's lives, and costs us billions a week is worth at least 10 years!!
Some will say that we can fix any breakage later. I say that water, once having passed under the bridge, is gone and can no longer be cleansed. This foul water that the Bush administration has been excreting, will taint the entire ocean. What we let go at this point will remain to haunt us in the future. If this "president" can get away with outright, premeditated deceit, if this "president" can get away with law-breaking and treaty-breaking, if this "president" can get away with walking all over the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, then the very foundation of our country is no longer viable or valid.
I am not willing to let G.W.Bush and his cohorts destroy this country unchallenged. Why are so many of our elected representatives willing to turn a blind eye?
To contact Nancy Pelosi: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
Everyone?