When you absolutely, positively have to impeach the president... by Jon Worley
Two of the four articles of impeachment failed. They were voted down. They were considered not well-thought-out enough to be passed. They were judged to be politically motivated even by members of the majority party. Any and all of those reasons apply. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks it is utterly reprehensible that two of the four articles of impeachment were voted down, much less that the two which passed barely eked through.
If you're going to kick the President out of office, there ought to be a consensus behind the move. It is not in the best interests of the country to watch one party vote articles of impeachment against a president of the opposing party.
In fact, it is dead wrong. Philosophically, legally and morally. I'd go so far as to call it unjustifiable, period.
Remember Watergate? That Judiciary Committee voted 37-11 on the first article of impeachment. A much more significant margin than 21-17. Also, take into account that Nixon's approval ratings (a relevant and important factor when considering the will of the people) were dropping into the teens. The vast majority of the people and the Congress wanted Nixon out. The same can't be said of President Clinton.
Oh, Republicans will whine that it is only the partisanship of the Democrats which keeps them from seeing the venal acts of the Prez. That it is the Democrats who are jeopardizing the future of the nation by allowing such an obscene man to stay in office. I dunno. They might be right about that. The thing is, what the Democrats do is irrelevant here. They are the minority party, and they don't have any say in the matter. If all the roles were reversed, I'd be saying the same things about the Democrats.
In any case, the "noble" arguments behind impeachment ("Protecting the rule of law", "Saving the nation", etc.) are a load of crap. Truth be told, the nation will do just fine whether or not the Prez stays around. In fact, the nation would do just fine if there were no such things as Democrats and Republicans. The Constitution (and thus, the system) works. No matter who abuses it.
And so, while I think the impeachment is wrong (it certainly isn't in the best interests of the nation, in any case), I'm not one of those doomsayers who describe apocalyptic Senate trial scenarios. The people don't care. More folks watched football than the impeachment vote (by a factor of five or more), and a Senate trial would get the same attention. Yeah, the impeachment is pretty important for the Prez himself, and probably a few folks in Congress as well (can you say Bob Livingston?). But most folks out in the real world don't care. Period.
As for punishing the Republicans, that will happen as a matter of course. I predict (and I'm far from alone here) Democratic control of both houses of Congress after the 2000 election (at least one of the "safe" Republicans in the Judiciary Committee will lose). Unless the Republicans nominate George W. Bush, who has been very quiet on the subject of impeachment, Al Gore or Bill Bradley or some other Democrat will be sitting in the White House.
Look at it this way: After eight years of carnage, the G.O.P. will be back where it started. A Democrat in the Oval Office and marginalization in the Congress. All that vitriol, and nothing to show for it. Okay, a few Republican leaders chewed up and spit out by their own brothers. That's probably a good thing.
But past that, not much in the way of constructive behavior. A lot of hatred, a lot of nasty things being said about decent people. A lot of lies. Way too many lies.
I'm not pronouncing the death knell of the Republican party. That would be acting almost as dumb as the G.O.P. folks themselves. A lot can happen in two months, much less two years. But the impeachment is wrong. If a consensus can't be reached on something as grave as the impeachment of the president, it shouldn't be done. The president isn't impeached every year, or necessarily even every century. So I'm thinking that a polarized Congress doesn't even have the political authority to impeach and remove the president. Sure, they could do both things. But that wouldn't make it right A president should be removed only when a large majority of the people (and the Congress) agrees. I figure that's why the 2/3 rule is in effect for the Senate trial. And as any Senate trial is doomed to failure, there is no good reason to impeach the Prez, except to embarrass him and exact political pain.
And that would be good for the nation because...?
I can't answer all the questions, man.
Jon Worley is well aware that impeachment doesn't mean removal. He's also aware that every single person who voted for impeachment has called for the president to resign or for the removal of the president. He didn't feel like splitting hairs.