"All the "impeachment" talk seems to be silly for a couple of reasons. One, do we really want Cheney as president? Two, if not Cheney because of scandal, do we really want Dennis Hastert as president? Three, do we want to follow the example of Connecticut?
The key isn't to replace him with another Republican. The key is to use his every day in office to drive him to the American public the cost we pay as a nation for electing Republicans to office.
And as far as legacies go, what would be worst -- destroying his own presidency or destroying his entire party? Let's make sure it's the latter."
* Chris Bowers:
"Or is Bush's resignation / impeachment our goal?
In a word, no. Now that we have passed 60% disapproval, there are no more numeric goals when it comes to Bush's disapproval. Sub-35 would be nice, but it is not necessary. The goal now is realignment. Bush's disapproval is so high, and his position as the face of the Republican Party is so assured, that it is now possible to envision a vast national realignment away from the Republican Party based primarily on backlash against Bush-ism (aka, contemporary conservatism)...
Bush's approval is now low enough for a realignment to take place in 2006 and 2008. A realignment is far more important to Democrats and progressives than Bush's impeachment or resignation could ever be. "
I kinda agree with the sentiment behind both these arguments. I dont care about impeachment, per se, but I do care about 2 things:
1. stopping the machine from doing more horrible things
2. damaging the repugs for a generation.
The impeachpac crew counter Kos' argument about President Cheney and PresiDenny - we can impeach bush&cheney simultaneuously, and we can do it when Pelosi becomes Speaker in 12 months time.
The important thing is that simply discussing impeachment will damage the repugs and will warm up the debate for the post-2006-elections so that we can move on the first day if we want.
No comments:
Post a Comment