Friday, May 11, 2007
Ending Impeachment Myths IV -- "It takes a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate. That will never happen!"
This is another pernicious myth often employed to cut the debate on impeachment short. The implication: Yes, impeachment is richly deserved, but it's just not politically possible to pull off.
This argument implicitly makes the assumption that only party line votes against impeachment can be expected, no matter what charges are brought and no matter what the evidence submitted is. Such a deeply cynical view should be directly an unapologetically challenged.
The results of last November's election have given serious pause to many long-time Republican members of the House and Senate. Bush's popularity has recently reached record lows, and party officials are anxious to avoid a repeat of 2006, where not a single Republican candidate won a seat held by a Democrat. It seems reasonable to believe that moderate Republicans would be willing to break party ranks -- if not out of their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution, then simply to save their own political skins!
Indeed, assuming that the evidence is as easy to obtain as impeachment proponents believe it will be, the case for impeachment should be incontrovertible to anyone regarding the situation rationally. A failure to impeach in the face of appropriate evidence would be ample evidence of bad faith in the execution of a senator's duties.
The real question that must be asked is: Are there not at least 17 honorable Republican senators in office right now? I think it's safe to assume that there are. Remember, as discussed in part II and part III, there is a path to impeachment that is both Constitutional and precedented, and that would keep the White House under Republican control.
If there are not at least 17 honorable Republican senators, the public needs to see this with its own eyes, so that it can vote appropriately in 2008.
SUMMARY:
This argument implicitly makes the assumption that only party line votes against impeachment can be expected, no matter what charges are brought and no matter what the evidence submitted is. Such a deeply cynical view should be directly an unapologetically challenged.
The results of last November's election have given serious pause to many long-time Republican members of the House and Senate. Bush's popularity has recently reached record lows, and party officials are anxious to avoid a repeat of 2006, where not a single Republican candidate won a seat held by a Democrat. It seems reasonable to believe that moderate Republicans would be willing to break party ranks -- if not out of their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution, then simply to save their own political skins!
Indeed, assuming that the evidence is as easy to obtain as impeachment proponents believe it will be, the case for impeachment should be incontrovertible to anyone regarding the situation rationally. A failure to impeach in the face of appropriate evidence would be ample evidence of bad faith in the execution of a senator's duties.
The real question that must be asked is: Are there not at least 17 honorable Republican senators in office right now? I think it's safe to assume that there are. Remember, as discussed in part II and part III, there is a path to impeachment that is both Constitutional and precedented, and that would keep the White House under Republican control.
If there are not at least 17 honorable Republican senators, the public needs to see this with its own eyes, so that it can vote appropriately in 2008.
SUMMARY:
- This argument pre-supposes that Republican senators will act dishonorably.
- It is by no means certain that party line votes are to be expected.
- Even if the Senate fails to convict, impeachment would provide valuable information for voters in 2008.
