A Good Way To Counter The GOP Impeachment Argument

From Dick Meyers at CBS (via Political Wire):

Short of another disaster on the scale of 9/11, George Bush no longer has the power, credibility or ability to effectively govern for the rest of his term in office. Contrary to what you hear on television, governing remains more important than campaigning. Government is more important than elections -- to the extent the two can be differentiated anymore. * * *

What is apparent, is that George Bush has at his disposal none -- none -- of the tools presidents have used to turn bad situations around -- public support, party support or skilled statecraft. He's a lame duck less than two years in to his second term. You are not being governed.

I think everyone senses that this is, in fact, true. Yet it appears that a major GOP talking point in the run-up to the 2006 Mid-Terms will be: "If America gives the Democrats control of a branch of Congress, then they will impeach our president."

This is, of course, laughable, particularly given that it originates from a party who actually impeached a president for lying about a blow job. But for some reason, the Democrats think the Republicans have a winning argument here. In fact, the Democrats are so worried about this particular talking point that, last week, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised that the Democrats would not try to impeach Bush.

This may be the most screwed up thing I've ever seen. We have an enormously unpopular president who couldn't make the right decision if his life depended on it and a GOP-run Congress that is unwilling to do its job with regard to oversight, and the Democrats are actually letting the GOP win on an issue that they should be taking the lead on. I knew the Democrats were weak, but this is ridiculous.

Zack Roth from the Washington Monthly tackles this issue here, and he makes some good points:

Democrats might wish they could avoid talking about their investigative plans. But if they do, the press and the GOP will raise the issue for them, and they'll frame it around the prospect of impeachment. So Democrats might as well meet the challenge head on, and spend the summer making their case. Of course we'll vigorously investigate the administration if we win, they should say. And we'll do so the same way previous Democratic Congresses have investigated GOP presidents: shoulder-to-shoulder with honest Republican lawmakers willing to put country before party. The fact that the current GOP leadership chose to abandon the great American tradition of bipartisan Congressional oversight is no reason Democrats have to follow suit. Instead, they should embrace that tradition, with the faith that if they do, the president will get the legacy he deserves.

Of course, Bush apologists such as Tim Russert will respond to such an approach by asking, "Well, that's all fine and good, but the question stands -- will the Democrats impeach Bush?" Here's how that question should be answered:

"I appreciate the question, Tim -- indeed, I like the fact that you and other members of the media are finally starting to realize that this president may have committed impeachable offenses. But to be honest, we can't answer that question at this time because, thanks to a complacent press and a Republican-run Congress that has been unwilling to engage in any meaningful oversight, we do not know the extent of the Bush Administration's wrongdoing, if any. We should, but we don't.

"The system is clearly broken, but the voters can fix it if they elect Democrats to Congress this fall. If the voters don't want the system fixed and are happy with the way things are going, they should vote Republican. It really is that simple."