45% of the public favors impeaching Bush and 54% favors impeaching Cheney.
The Vermont Senate voted in April to call for the impeachment of Bush, yet it was blocked in the House by the Democratic leader because it would be too “divisive.”
Goodness, we certainly don’t want to be “divisive” when a president invades countries based on lies, repeatedly violates the Geneva Convention, and uses the Constitution for Kleenex. Better to roll over, play dead, and pretend to be an opposition party instead.
Yet you hear that same argument way too often from liberals and Democrats. It’s the same crap the civil rights movement had to deal with the 60’s. “We agree with your goals but not your tactics,” they squeal, all the while doing whatever they can to block you while pretending to be an ally.
That Bush and Cheney have committed any number of impeachable offenses has been documented by a former Attorney General of the United States who has written an Articles of Impeachment.
Do we know what would happen after a successful impeachment? No. Nor do we know what forces of reaction would be put into play if it looked like impeachment would happen. Outcomes can never been completely predicted in advance during times of political upheaval. But the current corrupt and criminal administration of George Bush can and must be replaced.
All that’s required is that we do it.
If Bush and Cheney were both impeached, Pelosi would become President. That’s a woman president I could see giving a chance to! But she would face the argument (from the Right) that she wasn’t elected by the country, only by the “fruits, flakes and nuts” of her district.
Sounds like the seeds of division between Left and Right (read: Urban and Rural). And I’ll bet you that, like the Dem from VT, the elites circle the wagons and fight it. (What? Power to the people? You’ve got to be kidding!) Still, if (and that’s a big IF) the Leftists find a way to bridge the cultural divide with the rural folk, it could be beneficial for the country.
Since the Constitution does allow for Pelosi to assume power under such circumstances, most citizens, including those on the right, would understand this.
That the Left needs to bridge the divide with rural areas is certainly true, it’s also true that the Left should not avoid action because some right wing nut cases disapprove.
Given those poll numbers, it’s hardly just the Left who wants Bush out.
There will be wackos on both sides unhappy with reconciliation. What I’m saying is, this could move us beyond the divisive, us vs. them, black-and-white, two-solution politics we’ve been stuck with since probably Ronald Reagan– or maybe Teddy Roosevelt.
Wow, we could have a government based on dialog, that considers multiple solutions to a given problem and selects the one that works best (not the one that pays the politicians best)! One that considers the needs of all the people, not just a select few. One with a foreign policy based on making friends instead of fighting newly-made enemies. One that… Or as John Belushi might have said, “Naaaah!”
How do we get there? That is the BIG question.
That is indeed the big question. It’s easy to suggest what won’t work– divisive tactics, finger pointing, etc. To get something different than what we have, we’ll need to do something different than what they do.
My next post on peace process will examine one approach to building consensus. It may or may not work in this situation, or it may suggest some different avenues to take.
You might also wish to read (if you havent already) “Creating A World That Works For All” and/or “The Power of One” by Sharif Abdullah. Sharif, based in Portland, OR, is one of my co-workers in Sri Lanka, so this is a flagrant plug for a friend. However, he has done some very interesting work in conflict resolution here in the U.S., including the Three Valleys Project. He’s also very active in the Common Society Movement. (You’ll have to search for info on those, because if I put in a second link my comment won’t post.)