Did Congress eliminate the Presidential veto during the 90's? That would explain the Telecommunications Act, welfare reform, and the Antiterrorism Act, all of which I guess Clinton was desperate to stop. And if only there was some way he could have stopped Newt Gingrich from bombing Iraq and Sudan.

Not to pile on, but it seems to me that Bush got some of his agenda passed -- in particular the tax cut, the prescription drug act, no child left behind, and the Iraq war resolution -- without anything approaching a supermajority.

So, major accomplishments don't require a supermajority. They require either a supermajority or the political savvy to peel off votes from the opposition party. Admittedly, the Republicans have lately shown a lot of discipline, but is it really so far fetched to think that their discipline might be cracked in the current political environment?

There is no way that impeachment can strengthen the democrats position? Are you mad? You assume that everyone in the country already knows GWB is a criminal and has made their decision.

If you take the recent information about the american electorate and its independents to heart, you will realize that there is huge amounts of people who are currently indifferent but would be appalled to find out the behavior of the president and the vice president.

Janes argument only makes sense inside the beltway. Out in the real country, its a huge winner.

I think it misses the point to say that we would not accomplish anything by impeaching but acquitting the President and VP.

We would have the issue, and proof, that the Republican Party cares more for it's own power than the good of the nation. This would be a huge stick to beat all 21 Republican senators over the head with. Even those that might vote to convict. It becomes a general and understandable indictment of the party.

The down side of not convicting is that it would validate (at least on the conservative side of the spectrum) the ideas of this administration. These are nearly (if not more so) as damaging as their actual actions.

I have long argued against an attempt to impeach, but I think that there is a ground swell starting. The commutation of Libby's sentence is a seed crystal that could make this whole thing snap into focus for the non-political public. Everyone can see that this was an unfair commutation, and unfairness is one thing that Americans hate uniformly. If those who want impeachment take that frame and run with it, we might see the level of public outrage that is needed for a successful impeachment and removal of the president.

That does not grantee that it will be successful, but the Democratic leadership only need to feel like there is a strong chance for them to act.

nobody ever seems to listen, but I'll say this one more time. You don't need a conviction to win with impeachment. It will force EVERY republican in the country to side completely and utterly with GWB. That will do more damage to the Republican party than a simple impeachment conviction ever would, because a conviction would mean some republicans voting against bush and helping to redeem their party.

Scott, Ezra, and the rest are not tactical thinkers. They are policy wonks. They only see victory in a passed piece of legislation. They are incapable of understanding that a loss can be far more helpful to the losers than the winners. It won't really damage us, 1998 proved that.

Basically, we can afford to split the country on this issue. The Republicans will look craven for their inevitably outlandish defenses of the Preisdent, and the Democrats will look strong by dragging Bush through the mud and forcing Republians to squeal.

The Republicans are Vetoing and filibustering EVERYTHING. We are better off running on impeachment than a record of jack shit. At least the former looks like they're trying to do something. At this rate, the base will badly demoralized and the Democratic party will look incompetent. At least our way, we look strong and damage the Republican brand far worse than we'll damage ourselves.

Soullite's right: we *don't* need to get 67 votes in the Senate to remove Bush (and that'd be silly; we should go after Cheney first, because *he*'s the real power, and because if the twenty-one Republicans up in 2008 want to tie their careers to Cheney in the next sixteen months, most of them will not be coming back).

The problem is, we *do* need to have the political savvy to recognize the post-impeachment landscape, whether it removes Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/etc. from office or not. Democrats must take pride in defending the country and their values and the Constitution in the aftermath of impeachment (win or lose), even though there will be some public pressure, from Bush, Republicans, the press, and Joe Lieberman, to apologize for impeachment.

If Democrats are willing to plan to repudiate those arguments and stick to their guns, they can move on with investigations and impeachment, and it'll redound to their benefit.

If they can't, won't, or don't anticipate that situation (or if some of them would rather sabotage the wing of the party that's interested in defending the Constitution), they should just quit now, and admit, to paraphrase Pedro Martinez, that the Republicans are their daddies.

Yes, good comments, all. dr is right about "either a supermajority or the political savvy, etc." I think we ought to add something like “the ability to change the political landscape”, although you might just as well add that to the “politically savvy prong” of dr’s original argument.

In my opinion, the trouble with Mr. Lemieux’s position is that it *starts out* from the compromise position rather than doing the right thing and making political compromises along the way. And I don’t mean to pick only on Mr. Lemieux; this sort of thing is endemic to the “Party of Triangulation”. It is one of the reasons why some of the Jacobins defect to Nader. After a while, some people stop taking Democratic “outrage” over President Bush’s or Vice President Cheney’s latest actions seriously, because they’re unwilling to actually risk something to defend their principles when there is “no political advantage” as Mr. Lemieux says. For some of the Democrats’ natural base, there is little reason to elect a party that looks first toward whether there is “political advantage” to impeachment rather than to whether impeachment is the right thing to do and trying to change recalcitrant minds, and if unable, *then* make the necessary compromises.

I, for one, would like a little more “bite” with all the Democratic “bark” to show me that they share my values even if the Republican Senate minority doesn’t. After their complete capitulation on the Iraq Funding Vote when elected promising a “New Course in Iraq”, I’m not taking the Democrats’ word for it.

By the way, Mr. Lemieux: thanks for the thinly-veiled comparison between left-wing Democrats and neo-conservative foreign policy makers in your title by using the same language to describe the "political will" necessary to sustain the Iraq war/stand up to the Bush administration.

No, really; comparing your natural allies to the architects of the worst foreign policy blunder in memory is so classy.

Just kidding; to use your words, I see "no political advantage" to insulting other left-wingers of good faith- some of Nader's votes have to be motivated out of being constantly condescended to by people who think they're the only one's who understand pragmatic, dirty politics.

Impeachment as such may not be a winner, but investigations to determine what the current president and vice president have been up to, investigations undertaken without a foregone conclusion, those could be very helpful indeed. Helpful in righting the balance among the institutions, helpful in exposing further misdeeds, helpful in branding the Democratic party as protectors of the Constitution.

The line is not "we're doing impeachment." The line is "we're following this trail no matter where it goes, no matter what it reveals, and let the chips fall where they may."

Did Congress eliminate the Presidential veto during the 90's? That would explain the Telecommunications Act, welfare reform, and the Antiterrorism Act, all of which I guess Clinton was desperate to stop. And if only there was some way he could have stopped Newt Gingrich from bombing Iraq and Sudan.

Of course, Clinton can be criticized for not preventing bad policies from passing, but since nothing I said contradicts that I'm not sure what the point is.

Of course, Clinton can be criticized for not preventing bad policies from passing, but since nothing I said contradicts that I'm not sure what the point is.

Um, Clinton didn't fail to prevent the bombing of Iraq and Sudan. He was Commander in Friggin Chief.

Scott, hang on. If the GOP's possession of 40 Senators and the White House from 2006 to date is enough to explain why "major accomplishments" are not plausible - why couldn't (or why didn't) the Dems use 40 Senators and the White House to block major conservative goals in the period 1994-2000?

The institutional structure of US Politics clearly has a big impact on what policies are possible - but there are also things about the general political environment that play a role. I am not sure that I completely buy a "the way the Republicans overcame the problems of filibusters and vetos was to hamstring their opponents through the impeachment process" argument - but neither am I ready to dismiss it out of hand.

In addition - when I hear (or for that matter make) critiques of the Clinton administration - they generally have more to do with that administration's active involvement in and support for those conservative accomplishments then with its failure to win progressive points - and the great "progressive failure" of the administration (health care) has always seemed to me to have been lost well before the 1994 elections handed majorities to the GOP.

Of course, Clinton can be criticized for not preventing bad policies from passing, but since nothing I said contradicts that I'm not sure what the point is.

Bill Clinton: almost demonstrably not not progressive, but demonstrably mildly Republican.

Scott, hang on. If the GOP's possession of 40 Senators and the White House from 2006 to date is enough to explain why "major accomplishments" are not plausible - why couldn't (or why didn't) the Dems use 40 Senators and the White House to block major conservative goals in the period 1994-2000?

They did. Conservatives haven't accomplished major conservative goals, policywise, in quite a long time.