A Nation On "Pause"
Well, here we are in August, which means a lot of things... the "dog days" of summer (unless you're here in Syracuse where it was CHILLY last night), the New York State Fair, school has started for some and is fast approaching for others... and Congress is on vacation.
I suppose it is just as well because let's face it, the major issues are on hold right now anyway. The Petraeus report on Iraq comes out next month, and everyone has said they want to wait for that before a real debate on withdrawing from Iraq can start, and by "real debate", I mean no one-sided proposals for immediate withdrawal that have no chance of making it past the president's desk. No, all we have to look forward to for the next couple of weeks is a LOT of soundbytes and photo ops.
The most prominent of these may well be happening later this week here in Syracuse, where Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland is planning a "town hall" meeting. Why would a congressman from Maryland hold a "town hall" meeting 400 miles from his district? Because it's not a "town hall" meeting... it's a campaign rally for the eternally campaigning Dan Maffei. The loser of the 2006 local congressional election is holding what amounts to a giant campaign rally so he can get some attention for an election that is STILL 15 months away. I'm sure the peaceniks will be there in full force showing their support, and we'll get a whole lot of good copy for the newspaper about how Jim Walsh is no less a war hawk than he was when he voted to authorize the war in 2002, despite his pleas to the president to pursue political options rather than military ones.
Meanwhile, President Bush is doing his usual August thing, vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, so you can be sure to see a lot of letters from liberals decrying the fact that Bush is not in Washington "doing his job" even though he really can't do his job without a Congress. I've seen these letters every August that Bush has been in office, and the irony here is that when he IS in Washington, they trash him for expanding executive power and trying to act without congressional approval, but when he is on vacation, they WANT HIM to act without congressional approval. You can't have it both ways, but of course I'm used to seeing liberals being on any side of an issue that can allow them to be against the president.
And speaking of being against the president, I'm sure we'll continue to see letters calling for immediate impeachment... as in now, not when Congress is scheduled to return after Labor Day. These letters will continue to claim that it is the "Constitutional duty" of the Congress to impeach Bush, when it's clear that many of these people have never read the Constitution in their lives. Just for reference purposes, I will quote the portion of this hallowed document to which liberals are trying to refer:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Two key points here that I of course need to remind the 23% Crowd of: 1) Nowhere in here does it say you can impeach a president for political reasons, or for incompetence, and 2) In order to get a conviction, you need 67 senators to vote to convict, which means that if all 49 Democrats and both Independents vote to convict, you still need 16 Republicans to decide that their president is worthy of being removed from office. Not going to happen.
Looking back at prior presidential impeachments, you had Andrew Johnson, who was impeached because 2/3 of Congress was already against him in the first place for being too lenient on Reconstruction and basically being a racist. They rammed through a law that said he couldn't fire any of his cabinet members without their approval. He vetoed it, they overrode him. He fired his Secretary of War, they said "high Crime" and impeached him. They had wanted to impeach him before then, but had no "high Crime or Misdemeanor" to get him for (sound familiar?) They fell one vote short of conviction.
Then of course, there was Richard Nixon. There was no doubt about this one. There was a "smoking gun", there were recorded conversations with parts "accidentally" erased, and Nixon resigned because it was clear to many that he would be impeached and convicted if he had not done so. Based on the 27-11 vote of the House Judiciary Committee on the articles of impeachment before Nixon's resignation, it looked like they may well have had the votes.
Lastly, we have Bill Clinton. Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Say what you want about how this was "just about sex", perjury is perjury. However, this was a case of an opposition party wanting to "get" the president. The Republican House passed articles of impeachment, and after Clinton was dragged through the mud in a 21-day Senate trial/public spectacle, they couldn't get more than 50 votes on either count, and they needed 67. The appropriate legal remedies for a case such as this came later when Clinton accepted what amounted to a plea deal under which he was disbarred from his law license and later resigned from the Supreme Court bar. In the end, the president probably broke the law, but his crime was not impeachment-worthy, certainly not if there was no chance of conviction.
Since recent history is the most readily available, we now have members of the 23% Crowd, still burning mad over Clinton's impeachment, wanting President Bush impeached. I've seen more than one letter claiming that Clinton was impeached for "far less" than what Bush has supposedly done while in office. That alone betrays the true motive of political revenge that seems apparent here. Also, the things Bush is being accused of are just plain without merit. There is no "smoking gun", there's not even a blue dress. You can scream until the cows come home that Bush "lied", but as he has never had to testify under oath (as Clinton did), there is no impeachment-worthy perjury. As for the warrantless wiretapping program, I've said in the past that if Bush continued to do that after Congress said it was not allowable, that would be impeachment-worthy. However, the Democrats recently passed a law allowing Bush to do it, thus removing the ability to consider it a "high Crime". Without proof or legal basis, all you have as motivation is a political one, the desire to drag Bush through a similar public flogging (even though this bunch has already been doing that for 7 years) with no hope for conviction. While it's true that the fight over "executive privilege" may prompt many to cry "obstruction of justice", this is something for the Supreme Court to decide, and the House issuing a preemptive strike would be no more rational and no less political than the move to impeach President Johnson 140 years ago.
Therefore, I'll say it again: there is no reason to push for impeachment. Let the president serve out his term and wipe the slate clean on 1-20-09.
Apparently, there are many who already agree with me, although it's more out of their opposition to the president than my just trying to uphold the Constitution. The bumper sticker and T-shirt industries have found a huge moneymaker in this "1-20-09" campaign. People have calendars counting down the days until Bush leaves office. I'll bet you these guys would be the most upset if Bush actually were to be removed from office, because their stuff would be as valuable as a playoff ticket for the 2006 Red Sox. As it is, once 1-20-09 actually passes, those bumper stickers will probably become laughable and pointless, much like the "Kerry-Edwards 2004" stickers that are STILL on people's cars, even more so if a Republican wins the presidency next year.
Of course, the end result of this is that with the exception of the war in Iraq and the endless presidential campaign, there really isn't much more that CAN be done right now. I'm sure many on either side don't want to try to roll out a new plan to fix the nation's problems until Bush is out of office so that it can be spared from the partisan fighting and the appeals to Bush-haters everywhere. In effect, after the next round of debate over the war is done, the nation may as well ask Bush to go back to Crawford and the Congress to leave Washington and not come back until 1-20-09. We'd probably get just as much done...
I suppose it is just as well because let's face it, the major issues are on hold right now anyway. The Petraeus report on Iraq comes out next month, and everyone has said they want to wait for that before a real debate on withdrawing from Iraq can start, and by "real debate", I mean no one-sided proposals for immediate withdrawal that have no chance of making it past the president's desk. No, all we have to look forward to for the next couple of weeks is a LOT of soundbytes and photo ops.
The most prominent of these may well be happening later this week here in Syracuse, where Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland is planning a "town hall" meeting. Why would a congressman from Maryland hold a "town hall" meeting 400 miles from his district? Because it's not a "town hall" meeting... it's a campaign rally for the eternally campaigning Dan Maffei. The loser of the 2006 local congressional election is holding what amounts to a giant campaign rally so he can get some attention for an election that is STILL 15 months away. I'm sure the peaceniks will be there in full force showing their support, and we'll get a whole lot of good copy for the newspaper about how Jim Walsh is no less a war hawk than he was when he voted to authorize the war in 2002, despite his pleas to the president to pursue political options rather than military ones.
Meanwhile, President Bush is doing his usual August thing, vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, so you can be sure to see a lot of letters from liberals decrying the fact that Bush is not in Washington "doing his job" even though he really can't do his job without a Congress. I've seen these letters every August that Bush has been in office, and the irony here is that when he IS in Washington, they trash him for expanding executive power and trying to act without congressional approval, but when he is on vacation, they WANT HIM to act without congressional approval. You can't have it both ways, but of course I'm used to seeing liberals being on any side of an issue that can allow them to be against the president.
And speaking of being against the president, I'm sure we'll continue to see letters calling for immediate impeachment... as in now, not when Congress is scheduled to return after Labor Day. These letters will continue to claim that it is the "Constitutional duty" of the Congress to impeach Bush, when it's clear that many of these people have never read the Constitution in their lives. Just for reference purposes, I will quote the portion of this hallowed document to which liberals are trying to refer:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Two key points here that I of course need to remind the 23% Crowd of: 1) Nowhere in here does it say you can impeach a president for political reasons, or for incompetence, and 2) In order to get a conviction, you need 67 senators to vote to convict, which means that if all 49 Democrats and both Independents vote to convict, you still need 16 Republicans to decide that their president is worthy of being removed from office. Not going to happen.
Looking back at prior presidential impeachments, you had Andrew Johnson, who was impeached because 2/3 of Congress was already against him in the first place for being too lenient on Reconstruction and basically being a racist. They rammed through a law that said he couldn't fire any of his cabinet members without their approval. He vetoed it, they overrode him. He fired his Secretary of War, they said "high Crime" and impeached him. They had wanted to impeach him before then, but had no "high Crime or Misdemeanor" to get him for (sound familiar?) They fell one vote short of conviction.
Then of course, there was Richard Nixon. There was no doubt about this one. There was a "smoking gun", there were recorded conversations with parts "accidentally" erased, and Nixon resigned because it was clear to many that he would be impeached and convicted if he had not done so. Based on the 27-11 vote of the House Judiciary Committee on the articles of impeachment before Nixon's resignation, it looked like they may well have had the votes.
Lastly, we have Bill Clinton. Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Say what you want about how this was "just about sex", perjury is perjury. However, this was a case of an opposition party wanting to "get" the president. The Republican House passed articles of impeachment, and after Clinton was dragged through the mud in a 21-day Senate trial/public spectacle, they couldn't get more than 50 votes on either count, and they needed 67. The appropriate legal remedies for a case such as this came later when Clinton accepted what amounted to a plea deal under which he was disbarred from his law license and later resigned from the Supreme Court bar. In the end, the president probably broke the law, but his crime was not impeachment-worthy, certainly not if there was no chance of conviction.
Since recent history is the most readily available, we now have members of the 23% Crowd, still burning mad over Clinton's impeachment, wanting President Bush impeached. I've seen more than one letter claiming that Clinton was impeached for "far less" than what Bush has supposedly done while in office. That alone betrays the true motive of political revenge that seems apparent here. Also, the things Bush is being accused of are just plain without merit. There is no "smoking gun", there's not even a blue dress. You can scream until the cows come home that Bush "lied", but as he has never had to testify under oath (as Clinton did), there is no impeachment-worthy perjury. As for the warrantless wiretapping program, I've said in the past that if Bush continued to do that after Congress said it was not allowable, that would be impeachment-worthy. However, the Democrats recently passed a law allowing Bush to do it, thus removing the ability to consider it a "high Crime". Without proof or legal basis, all you have as motivation is a political one, the desire to drag Bush through a similar public flogging (even though this bunch has already been doing that for 7 years) with no hope for conviction. While it's true that the fight over "executive privilege" may prompt many to cry "obstruction of justice", this is something for the Supreme Court to decide, and the House issuing a preemptive strike would be no more rational and no less political than the move to impeach President Johnson 140 years ago.
Therefore, I'll say it again: there is no reason to push for impeachment. Let the president serve out his term and wipe the slate clean on 1-20-09.
Apparently, there are many who already agree with me, although it's more out of their opposition to the president than my just trying to uphold the Constitution. The bumper sticker and T-shirt industries have found a huge moneymaker in this "1-20-09" campaign. People have calendars counting down the days until Bush leaves office. I'll bet you these guys would be the most upset if Bush actually were to be removed from office, because their stuff would be as valuable as a playoff ticket for the 2006 Red Sox. As it is, once 1-20-09 actually passes, those bumper stickers will probably become laughable and pointless, much like the "Kerry-Edwards 2004" stickers that are STILL on people's cars, even more so if a Republican wins the presidency next year.
Of course, the end result of this is that with the exception of the war in Iraq and the endless presidential campaign, there really isn't much more that CAN be done right now. I'm sure many on either side don't want to try to roll out a new plan to fix the nation's problems until Bush is out of office so that it can be spared from the partisan fighting and the appeals to Bush-haters everywhere. In effect, after the next round of debate over the war is done, the nation may as well ask Bush to go back to Crawford and the Congress to leave Washington and not come back until 1-20-09. We'd probably get just as much done...
Labels: Bush, impeachment, politics
posted by Dave | 4:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home