Read this interesting column by Charles Krauthammer on Jewish World Review. He points out what everybody has heard ad nauseam for the last 1 1/2 years: presidents traditionally lose seats in Congress during the sixth-year elections.
I've heard several pundits (including Rush Limbaugh) try to say Republicans aren't going to lose seats, but that just seems like whistling through the graveyard to me. I'm still predicting that Republicans will keep razor-thin majorities in both houses, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part. It's very hard to tell what the races look like when you're in the middle of a very red state.
I suppose the reason I've not been convinced of the Democrat tidal wave that's been predicted is observation that most people think Congressmen are crooked, but their Congressman is ok even if he is crooked. Having lived almost my whole life in the city from which the notorious Jim Wright hails, I've always been skeptical of the "they're going to throw all the bums out" line of reasoning.
Still, it's highly possible that Democrats will retake the House and possibly the Senate. But then what? My prediction is that you won't see impeachment hearings like some frothy-mouthed libs desire, largely because, at this point, the I'm-gonna-impeach-your-president-cuz-you-impeached-mine rhetoric looks pretty childish. Plus there would be all those uncomfortable votes by Democrats for things like the Iraq war that they would have to find a better explanation for. And why do all the explanations by Dems for their votes sound so much like Vanessa Williams and Laura Schlesinger about their nude photos? "I didn't know what I was doing!"
In any event, what a Democrat takeover will mean is more vetoes and no legislation going through. Except amnesty for illegal immigrants. Now THERE'S a crowd-pleaser!
Oh, and forget about more conservative justices. You know, the ones we've been promised for years now. Senate Democrats would insist on a Roe-proof litmus test while saying they don't want a litmus test. But, hey, the crowd that doesn't know the definition of "is" and buys the "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it" wouldn't see any cognitive dissonance there.
The interesting part of Krauthammer's column is where he points out that all politics is still local, regardless of the Democrats attempts to nationalize the elections. The most vulnerable Republican seats aren't up for grabs because of the Iraq war but because of various malfeasance at the state and local level. I suppose that supports my thesis that people will continue to vote for their own Congressional crooks because they don't think they're as bad. But we'll have to wait and see.
Impeachment has to do with accountability for crimes.
ReplyDeleteEvidence:
http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/
Yes, impeachment applies to "high crimes and misdemeanors" as laid out in the Constitution. But during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings, there were many Democrats claiming that it was "payback" for forcing Richard Nixon to resign the presidency. Any impeachment of George Bush would be looked at the same way.
ReplyDeleteBut during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings, there were many Democrats claiming that it was "payback" for forcing Richard Nixon to resign the presidency.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Clinton hadn't committed any "high crimes or misdemeanors" - after six years of expensive investigation (Congress spent more hours investigating Clinton's Christmas card list than it spent investigating the atrocities of Abu Ghraib) Starr went ahead and impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Payback for Nixon, plain and simple.
Bush, on the other hand... brings to mind the old question "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Did Bush know that he was being given lies about Iraq's WMD to repeat to the US people in speeches? If not at the time, when did he know? Did Bush know that no-bid cost-plus contracts were being awarded to Halliburton for military support? If not at the time, when did he know it? Did Bush know that 20 billion dollars that belonged to the Iraqi people were flown to Iraq, literally piles of cash, and handed out without any oversight or auditing? If not at the time, when did he know it? Did Bush know that there were no plans for the occupation of Iraq post-invasion? If not at the time, when did he know it? Did Bush know that the Pentagon had approved hostage-taking, kidnapping, and torture by US soldiers, and was covering up murder? If not at the time, when did he know it? Did Bush know that the CIA was kidnapping and torturing innocent people? If not at the time, when did he know it?
All of these questions need to be investigated: and of course, the same for Cheney. This is not the kind of petty revenge the Republicans engaged in to payback the Democratic party because Nixon had to resign and be pardoned for his crimes: these are the kind of crimes that impeachment was meant to cover.
Are you afraid of what the new Democratic congress will find out?