Impeachment Follies

California Democratic representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, spoke at a gathering over the weekend that spent much of its time hooting her down. The hecklers were not from the VFW or the NRA, but were local Democratic partisans who became very upset when she declined to support their demand for the impeachment of George Bush. Pelosi urged them instead to devote their energies to winning congressional victories for the Democrats in 2006. This sensible, moderate reaction did not sit well with activists inflamed further by their group mentality. Eventually Pelosi won over the majority over but certainly there were many disgruntled Dems cursing her under their breaths because she was not the firebrand that, say, Howard Dean would have been. On the other hand, she is a currently elected official.

Calls for the impeachment of Bush are unsurprising given the degree of hatred he arouses in his opponents. Basis for impeachment is a little shakier, though a case can be made that his unilateral stretching of the War Powers act, the deceptive squelching of evidence countering his WMD rational for war, and the broad violations of privacy bring up severe questions regarding his Constitutional propriety. Unfortunately the Constitution does not prescribe impeachment for incompetence or stupidity, but for "High crimes and misdemeanors." Bush's offenses have certainly come closer to that definition than Clinton's misstatements and prevarications concerning Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky, which had nothing at all to do with his job or the Constitution, nor led to the loss of thousands of lives and the desecration of America's image throughout the World.

I hold with those who believe we would be far better off without Dubya as President, but any energies applied to the Impeachment effort seem like a pointless waste, as I'm sure Nancy Pelosi realizes. Disregarding the problems that the impeachment process would entail, including the freezing of the wheels of government (as in 1998/1999, when time might have been better spent fighting incipient terrorism pockets), the end result of Impeachment would not likely create a more advantageous situation. Supposing Bush were removed from Office; that would only promote Dick Cheney to the titular role that he already is playing, since the neoCon foreign policy--along with its inclusion of the "Dark Side"--is essentially his creation. And if somehow Cheney, through medical reasons or Agnewesque criminal revelations, were to resign, that would put Dennis Hastert as the President. And if he bows out because of scandal there's Bill Frist, he of the questionable finances and long-distance diagnosis of Terri Schiavo. Then maybe Condy Rice. Oy. It'll probably have to go down to the Assistant Secretary of Labor before we can reach the Least Objectionable President. By that time I may even be available.

A good friend of mine, who's hatred of Bush is about on par with a typical Fenway Park denizen's dislike of Arod, assumes that Impeachment is a likely and practical course for the year 2006. As he tried to explain to me, first Dick Cheney would resign (for whatever reason). The jJhn McCain would be appointed Vice President (by Bush, it would have to be). Then, because there is a tolerable Vice Presidential replacement, a la Gerry Ford, the Senate would be more likely to oust Bush. I put forth a few questions at this juncture. Namely, why Cheney would quit unless it were totally necessary. Why Bush would select the one person who would make him vulnerable for conviction. And why a majority Republican Senate would turn on their party's President, even if he is getting 41% public approval. I did not receive plausible answers to these questions, only wishful thinking. Hey, I wish I'd win the Pulitzer Prize for blogging, but it ain't gonna happen, and I'm not gonna obsess over it either.

Also, let's not forget how totally foolish the Impeachment hearings can be. I wonder if John Roberts, who would officiate, would wear the same funny robes that the late William Rehnquist wore, festooned with shoulder stripes like a peer in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Iolanthe." I admit that it might make colorful TV, especially on my new hi-def. And maybe the slowing down of governmental activity wouldn't be so bad, given the bolux of legislation proposed or enacted so far by this adminstration, from privatized Social Security to the elephantine Medicare D prescription drug program. And, oh yeah, the morass of Gulf War II. But in the end, we can all do more useful things with our time, and as for captivating TV, I'd opt for the lizards and tarantulas of Discovery's Hi-Definition Theater.