Thursday, August 02, 2007
Impeachment, Part II
My follow-up column on impeachment is now up on Politico. In it, I make the case that regardless of the relative merits of the case against Bush, it would be a colossal strategic mistake to try to evict him from office. Instead, fed-up Democrats would be wise to channel their frustration into impeaching the President's incompetent and uncredible Attorney General.
A few other points I wanted to add (which I could not fit into the piece):
First, as you may notice, I left out an obvious and compelling argument that many Democrats make against impeaching Bush -- it would lead to President Dick Cheney.
I did so mostly because my argument is premised on the assumption that the President would never be convicted and removed from office in the current climate, which makes the point about Cheney essentially moot.
Second, I anticipate some impeachment activists will questions my point about public opinion because I failed to reference a much-touted American Research Group poll from early July. That survey showed that 45 percent of the American people -- and 50 percent of independents -- supported impeachment proceedings against Bush.
I chose not to cite the ARG numbers because I have found their polling to be unreliable -- just this week they put out a poll showing Hillary Clinton winning in Iowa, when most every poll including the Des Moines Register's has consistently shown John Edwards soundly beating Hillary. And in this case, ARG's number on impeachment was nine points higher than a USA Today/Gallup Poll (which I put a lot more faith in) that was released right at the same time.
Third, it seems the case for impeaching Attorney General Gonzales is picking up more currency in the House. As the Politico reported yesterday, Pelosi suggested on Tuesday that she is open to the idea, saying of impeachment proceedings against Gonzales "of course it's merited," and that there are "certainly grounds" for the resolution that Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced calling for a Gonzales impeachment inquiry. Will be interesting to see where the House leadership goes with that in the fall.
A few other points I wanted to add (which I could not fit into the piece):
First, as you may notice, I left out an obvious and compelling argument that many Democrats make against impeaching Bush -- it would lead to President Dick Cheney.
I did so mostly because my argument is premised on the assumption that the President would never be convicted and removed from office in the current climate, which makes the point about Cheney essentially moot.
Second, I anticipate some impeachment activists will questions my point about public opinion because I failed to reference a much-touted American Research Group poll from early July. That survey showed that 45 percent of the American people -- and 50 percent of independents -- supported impeachment proceedings against Bush.
I chose not to cite the ARG numbers because I have found their polling to be unreliable -- just this week they put out a poll showing Hillary Clinton winning in Iowa, when most every poll including the Des Moines Register's has consistently shown John Edwards soundly beating Hillary. And in this case, ARG's number on impeachment was nine points higher than a USA Today/Gallup Poll (which I put a lot more faith in) that was released right at the same time.
Third, it seems the case for impeaching Attorney General Gonzales is picking up more currency in the House. As the Politico reported yesterday, Pelosi suggested on Tuesday that she is open to the idea, saying of impeachment proceedings against Gonzales "of course it's merited," and that there are "certainly grounds" for the resolution that Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced calling for a Gonzales impeachment inquiry. Will be interesting to see where the House leadership goes with that in the fall.
