Impeachment talk is ridiculous

NPI will not be working for or supporting efforts to impeach President Bush. That's always been our position, but here is why:

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?

Connecticut had a corrupt, incompetent governor in John Rowland. Under investigation for his corruption, Rowland's approval ratings were in the dumps and he eventually resigned. Things looked great for the state Democratic Party at the time, with the state GOP in disarray. Then Republican Lt. Gov. Jodi Rell took the reigns of the state and began to clean house. She now has the highest approval rating of all governors in the country. She will have no serious opposition in 2006.

Impeachment would, at best, saddle us with Cheney or Hastert in the Oval Office, at worst, give Republicans an opportunity to clean house and redeem themselves. Screw that. Now's not the time to give them a lifeline. It's time to throw them the anvil. As Bowers notes:

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 Sr.'s extended period of disapproval at this level led to the Perot and 1994 realignment, which helped us greatly in 1992 but on which we utterly failed to capitalize in 1994. Carter's extended period of disapproval led to the 1980 realignment, which saw Republicans sweep the senate and the White House, as well as the first serious defections of Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party. Johnson's extended struggles from 1966-1968 also led to a realignment in 1968.

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. This is a generational event and, considering the timing of previous realignments, 1968, 1980 and 1992-4, the timing also suggests that the opportunity is ripe.

We have bigger fish to fry than getting even against Bush for his misdeeds. Bush has three years of radioactive lame duck-ness left in his term. 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.

We strongly agree with this analysis. The Republicans spent years trying to get rid of Clinton. They weakened him but failed to remove him.

Impeachment talk now is beyond ridiculous, because we control neither house of Congress. Even if we do retake Congress in 2006, we should focus our efforts on other things, like trying to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. Then in 2008, we must elect a Democrat as president.

Bush may deserve impeachment. But is that really what we want? Is that really we need? The answer is no.