I never knew the left was this loony!

I absolutely love Rob Kall’s OpEd News. If an example of the looniness of the far left is ever needed, all I have to do is head there!

Now we have David Swanson, formerly press secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign, and a a co-founder of one of Blu’s favorite organizations, After Downing Street, deciding that, because Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi isn’t pressing for immediate impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

    Bush Has Photos of Pelosi
    by David Swanson

    Bush has photos of Pelosi doing… WHAT?

    Here’s the situation Nancy Pelosi finds herself in. A full 54% of Americans and 76% of Democrats want Dick Cheney impeached. Cheney’s 13% favorability makes him the least popular president or vice president ever. The Washington Post reports that Republicans are turning against Cheney. By failing to act, the Democratic Congress has made itself less popular than Bush. Were the Congress to impeach Cheney and the Senate to acquit him, the Democrats would win a significant majority in the Senate because the public would toss some Republicans who voted for Cheney out on their asses. So, the Democrats would not just do the right thing for the future of our nation but achieve electoral victories by moving on impeachment, whether they manage to succeed with it or not. There’s no known downside to trying.

    Could there be an unknown downside? Could there be a reason we don’t know about to explain Pelosi’s unconstitutional position that Congress will not impeach no matter what? Couldn’t Pelosi point out at least that she was only talking about Bush? Couldn’t she allow justice to run its course for Cheney?

    Could it be that Bush and Cheney have photos of Nancy Pelosi doing something she wouldn’t want us to see?

    I tend to doubt it. I think Pelosi actually believes that the way to win elections is to spit in the faces of three-quarters of your voters, and that elections matter more than upholding the rule of law. But it’s important to investigate all possibilities.

More at the link.

You know, this is hysterically funny. Because Mrs Pelosi has decided that an impeachment is not exactly a good idea, with only 18 months left in President Bush’s final term and with the fact that if they did remove President Bush, Vice President Cheney would become President, Karl Rove must “have something” on Mrs Pelosi: Mr Swanson suggested shady financial deals or a lesbian affair or a successfully concealed hit-and-run. If they impeach Vice President Cheney, then President Bush gets to name a replacement Vice President, perhaps setting the stage for a much stronger 2008 Republican presidential campaign. And by the time they got it all done, we’d be in early to mid 2008, with the impeachment sucking the air out of the ongoing presidential campaigns.

What’s really humorous is that so many of our friends on the left are seeking victories that are both Pyrrhic and meaningless. The saw the convictions against Lewis Libby as a great political victory, even though neither Mr Libby nor anybody else was either convicted of or even charged with leaking Valerie Wilson’s CIA connection for political gain, and waxed wroth when President Bush undercut them and commuted Mr Libby’s sentence. It had absolutely nothing to do with law and order or justice; it was the snatching away of their victory!

Impeachment, of course, would be another meaningless “victory” for them, like the Republicans’ unsuccessful impeachment of President Clinton was. If there are some Republicans somewhat dissatisfied with the Bush Administration, just try a politicized impeachment, and see just how fast we reunify — just as the Democrats did during the Clinton impeachment.

Some Republicans still like to think that the impeachment of President Clinton, even though it failed to remove him from office, places some indelible stain on his legacy. Hardly; it was politically motivated, and any historical downside is going to stick to Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.

Do we teach that President Andrew Johnson was somehow terribly stained by the unsuccessful impeachment of him, an impeachment that fell but one vote short of removal? No, certainly not.

And, of course, the last thing that these fantasy impeachments would do is actually change policy! There’s no provision in the Constitution for a joint impeachment of both the President and Vice President, which means they must be done separately. Regardless of in what order they were done, the President (whether George Bush or Dick Cheney) would get to appoint a new Vice President. Even if we assumed, as Mr Swanson does, that they could get 16 Senate Republicans to go along with removal, there is no way they’d get them to go along with such a removal if the Democrats refused to confirm a new vice presidential appointment.

Regardless of how they did it, there would be a Republican president in the White House until January 20, 2009. And if the Democrats do something so stupid, they might just reunify the GOP enough that there would be a Republican president in the White House until January 20, 2013!

Some of our friends in the “reality-based community” sure lack much connection with reality. They’d rather have a meaningless political victory than actually change our country’s policies.

9 Comments

  1. Great one…they don’t deal with “reality”.

    I have to agree the piece was a little strange but he wanted to know what others thought was the reasoning.

    Snatching their victory…bs…It’s unconstitutional to out a CIA agent and Scooter prevented the truth from coming out. And now George has seen to it that he can still claim 5th amendment rights to not disclose his information… Which is reality means the Commander-in-Chief has committed a felony by protecting someone who could out him.

    Impeachment is where it’s at…and must be done as soon as possible.

  2. Wow, Dana, you shook the trees and some nuts fell out, I see.

    Well, first, outing a CIA agent isn’t unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the CIA at all, in fact. Now, if you want to argue that it’s illegal to knowingly out a CIA agent, then you might have an argument. Unfortunately, you didn’t even get Fitzgerald to find somebody who did that. The person who did “out” Plame thought “everybody knew” because her husband had told other people.

    What you did end up with was a conviction of a guy who didn’t remember conversations the way some other people did. But supposedly it was only his version that was wrong, even though some of theirs contradicted each other, as well.

    Bottom line: there’s nothing impeachable about a President using his pardon power or commuting the excessive jail time of a sentence. Hell, you want impeachable, Clinton pardoned FALN murderers. Seems like that would be closer.

    That fact is, it would be such a waste of time for Congress to go down the impeachment path. As Dana pointed out, there’s only 18 months left in the Bush presidency. Any investigation would take longer than that because the president is obviously not going to cooperate (witness Clinton’s behavior during the various investigations against him). It seems Grandma Pelosi thinks a better tactic is to try to kill Republicans through a series of 1,000 investigations. This plan is fraught with its own perils; Americans could grow weary of them and decide they dislike Democrats for doing it more than they dislike Republicans for what they are accused of. Or vice versa. In any event, impeachment is a truly stupid idea…unless, of course, Democrats want their next president impeached if there’s a Republican Congress. Gosh, payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?

  3. Some Republicans still like to think that the impeachment of President Clinton, even though it failed to remove him from office, places some indelible stain on his legacy. Hardly; it was politically motivated, and any historical downside is going to stick to Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.

    Do we teach that President Andrew Johnson was somehow terribly stained by the unsuccessful impeachment of him, an impeachment that fell but one vote short of removal? No, certainly not.

    Are you kidding? That’s about the ONLY thing most history classes teach about the unfortunate 1st President Johnson. Thanks to his impeachment, he has gone down in the history books as a loser. The GOP was 100% right to impeach Clintoon. In another hundred years, that’s all schoolchildren will be taught about him as well.

  4. Eric wrote:

    Are you kidding? That’s about the ONLY thing most history classes teach about the unfortunate 1st President Johnson. Thanks to his impeachment, he has gone down in the history books as a loser. The GOP was 100% right to impeach Clintoon. In another hundred years, that’s all schoolchildren will be taught about him as well.

    It is about the only thing we teach about him, but it’s generally taught as something that was unjustified.

Comments are closed.