I’ve spent a fair amount of bandwidth on the prospect of impeachment in general and the ongoing project to have the Vermont Legislature use obscure US House rules to call the subject to a vote in Washington. I’ve been gently encouraging while raising lots of caution flags along the way. So now that there’s lively debate amongst GMD’s own front pagers, let me say that I do come down in favor of the state-based impeachment drive, while I still have tremendous respect for those who think its a bad idea — particularly those who feel that the time spent on impeachment would be better spent on crafting and supporting good public policy that has some chance of passage (such as Health Care reform). There are two points I feel strongly need to be made, however.

One: I do strongly disagree with the notion that the Democratic Party’s involvement will make us look like wingnuts and drive away voters. As an emailer pointed out, two State Democratic Parties did that very thing last election cycle with no ill effects.

Two: The highly-covered censure motion proposed by Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) — which many felt would “compete” with the impeachment momentum — is doing just the opposite. The discussions are merging, and their fates are becoming intertwined. So much so that the success or failure of the censure motion could be critical to the chances of impeachment efforts, both now and under the future prospect of a Democratic Congressional majority.

Please click on “Theres More” for an explanation, and to see how you can help promote censure and/or impeachment.

First on the history of Democratic State Committees calling for impeachment (and thanks to Kagro X for birddogging this info out). If the VDP goes forward, they would be following in the footsteps of others, before anyone had ever heard of the Jefferson Manual, state-initiated impeachment, or even the NSA wiretapping scandal.

The Wisconsin Democrats called for impeachment in June of last year, and Nevada’s Democrats did so in May of 2004. The Nevada Dems went so far as to write impeachment into their Party Platform:

ELECTIONS, ETHICS and GOVERNMENT
An informed electorate which demands that elected and appointed officials serve the public in an ethical, competent and honest manner forms the basis of good government which serves all of its citizens equally. Therefore, the Democratic Party:…

…19. Calls for the Impeachment of President Bush for lying to congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq

Sure, they got hammered for it a bit. But did it matter come election time? As kagro reported to me:

* NV Dems picked up a net two seat gain in the legislature (+3 in the 42-seat House, -1 in the 21-seat Senate).

* 2004 Democratic Congressional candidates outperformed (by percentage
of votes cast) 2002 Dem candidates in every district.

NV-01:
2002 – Shelley Berkley (D) 54%
2002 – Lynette Boggs McDonald (R) 43%

2004 – Shelley Berkley (D) 66%
2004 – Russ Mickelson (R) 31%

NV-02:
2002 – Jim Gibbons (R) 74%
2002 – Travis Souza (D) 20%

2004 – Jim Gibbons (R) 67%
2004 – Angie Cochran (D) 28%

NV-03:
2002 – Jon Porter (R) 56%
2002 – Dario Herrera (D) 37%

2004 – Jon Porter (R) 54%
2004 – Tom Gallagher (D) 40%

I just dont think this is a problem. Platforms and State Committees have a role and an effect, but the fact is that nobody looks at the Platform or the list of approved Committee motions to decide whether or not they’re voting for a specific candidate — especially not in Vermont where everything is so person-to-person. The only thing such an action would show is that there are enough people who feel strongly enough about the matter that they got organized and made a public statement.

Now again, I think the “waste of time” argument is compelling. There is always a lot of work to be done on policy and electioneering, and an impeachment push in Vermont could be a distraction. It’s a valid point, and it may be correct. But I’m at the point where I want to err on the side of making clear, unambiguous statements of right and wrong to the world — and I have to believe that people will respond to that. We are, to large extent, in uncharted territory, and I choose to be guided by my conscience.

And my conscience tells me, as loudly as I can, to call King George to account.

So where does Censure fit in?

Rather than materializing as a competing notion, censure is taking shape as impeachment lite — especially since even I have been caught by surprise at just how timidly the Democratic Caucus is reacting to the motion. As of this blog entry, only Senators Harkin and Boxer have signed on, while Senator Kerry is reminding us why he was such a poor candidate for the Presidency by bobbing and weaving on the issue. They are so terrified, that the media is now smelling blood, which means the scrutiny on, and polarity of the narrative are increasing before our very eyes.

So make no mistake. If you prefer Censure as an option — that option is in serious peril, and Senators Leahy and Jeffords MUST hear from you.

If you prefer Impeachment as an option, without at least a decent showing on Feingold’s Censure motion, Impeachment may be DOA in the media, the Congress, and ultimately by extension, the public. The dominos tend to fall like that, unfortunately. Therefore, Senators Leahy and Jeffords still must hear from you.

Complicating all of this is the word that right-wing talk radio is encouraging folks in some markets to call Democratic Senators in support of censure, as they believe the same media reports telling them that this is a wingnut issue. That Democrats will look bad. And that Bush’s 33% approval ratings are all a big left-wing conspiracy, and that America is really behind their President.

Yeah, right.

So in the short term, regardless of your feelings on Impeachment, we need a strong showing on censure. Do we need to win? No, but we can’t get creamed again.

Contact information:

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-4242 (DC Office Phone)
800-642-3193 (Home Office Phone)
email

The Honorable James M. Jeffords (I-VT)
United States Senate
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-5141 (DC Office Phone)
800-835-5500 (Home Office Phone)
email

I think it’s clear that George Bush has knowingly and intentionally violated the law in numerous ways, including his invasion of Iraq, which violated internation law; his violations of American citizens’ constitutional rights; and his policy of torturing prisoners, which violated both domestic and international law. You can undoubtedly add to this list.

The question, though, is whether pursuing impeachment is a good idea from any number of perspectives. Josh Marshall, who is one of the most astute political analysts I read every day, has a new column out in which he sets forth why he doesn’t think we should be rushing to impeach Bush.

Here’s how he starts out, and you can read more by following the link.

Since talk of impeachment is in the air, it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to go on the record with their points of view on this momentous question. So let me devote this column to explaining why I think it’s a bad idea on both policy and political grounds.