Saturday, December 16, 2006

Impeachment or no impeachment?

There's a question that should have been fairly easy to answer. A nation has a president who has practically wiped his filthy ass with the Constitution he swore to defend, and can find plenty of grounds to tell the dude, "you're fired." With the Dems in power in the House and Senate for the first time in ages and wielding the power to set the agenda for the next couple years one would figure that impeachment would be part of the deal. In a functional republic perhaps. We're living in a republic in its twilight that is far from functional. Hence we have both legislators (e.g. incoming Speaker Pelosi) and pundits who would just as soon ignore calls for impeachment. Apparently, using Junior Caligula as a political albatross to hang across Republican necks next election season is of more importance. Of course any legislator from the session now ending or next year's session would be "irresponsible" to so much as suggest impeachment, and even more "irresponsible" actually tender the relevant legislation for consideration. From that vantage point, Cynthia McKinney's final act in the House this year was nothing more than a Bronx cheer aimed at her own party. From a different vantage point, McKinney was arguably the only legislator who had the gumption to consistently call for holding the White House gangsters responsible for their criminal activities but who also was arguably the only one to consistently questioned the wisdom of the weak-kneed approach to politics taken by her own party. Perhaps she was not entirely alone, but losing her voice in the legislature will no doubt be a blow to those who actually believed that the Dems would really take a stand against an Executive Branch gone wild. For those who knew better, and merely hoped that the Dems would put a couple bandaids on a patient bleeding profusely out of every orifice, perhaps there will be less room for disappointment.

No comments:

Post a Comment