Obama: Forget Impeachment, Concentrate On Elections
Barack Obama may have made some of the more radical elements of his party angry yesterday by eschewing impeachment in the next eighteen months, but only because he injected a sense of rationality to the partisan struggle. Obama argued that impeachment should be reserved for "grave" crimes, and that elections provide the most cleansing agent to poor government:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
Obama has this correct, not just legally but also strategically. First, although many people like to claim that impeachment is a political tool, the Constitution makes it clear that the remedy should only apply to actual criminal conduct. "High crimes and misdemeanors" makes it plain that the founders didn't want a Parliament that removed an executive for a simple loss of confidence, but an independent executive whose election should only be nullified for actual and provable criminal conduct.
Strategically, it's difficult to understand why anyone still argues for impeachment -- but the fact that Obama has to address this shows they do. George Bush and Dick Cheney have 18 months left in office, and sixteen until the next election. Even if the Democrats started impeachment now, it would probably take that long to gather enough evidence for a win in the House, let alone the two-thirds in the Senate needed for removal, which would be the entire point.
They would risk a huge backlash from moderates and centrists who would see this as a stunt, much the same way the Republicans did in 1998 -- only this time, it would come in a presidential election cycle instead of the midterms. It might be the one event that could restore George Bush's flagging approval ratings, and it would be political suicide for a Democratic Congress that has done nothing in its first six months.
Finally, Obama understands that such a move only guarantees to poison political debate over the next decade. He told the constituent breakfast that he'd rather attend to policy than foolish attack strategies. In the sense that Obama represents the future of American politics, it offers some hope that the acid partisanship of the last generation may give way to something more practical and ennobling, and I say that as someone who disagrees with Obama on almost every policy position.
Will he get credit for this among his allies? Try taking a read through the comments on the USA Today story, and decide for yourself.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2007 6:14 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (26)
Posted by Cybrludite![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 29, 2007 6:37 AM
What, you mean being a Republican in the White House isn't even a misdemeanor? Nor is having the name "George W. Bush" a felony? You'd think the Dems in Congress would have fixed that by now... ;-p
Posted by hermie | June 29, 2007 6:44 AM
I'm sure that in the next couple of months if his numbers are the same, or going downward, Obama will reverse himself in order to shore up his support with the MoveOn crowd.
(I have the feeling that Gore will use his TV extravaganza to announce his candidacy, and thus get massive free media coverage up until the Dem convention.)
Posted by stackja1945![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 29, 2007 6:46 AM
Dems keep on giving. How can people take the Dems serious?
Posted by pdq332 | June 29, 2007 6:47 AM
I read the comments (first page) at USA Today as suggested. Maybe we need to resurrect the fairness doctrine.
Posted by Continuum | June 29, 2007 7:11 AM
From a purely political standpoint the best things going for the Democrats are George Bush, Alberto and Dick Cheney.
Why should the Dems do the Republicans a favor by removing any of these guys from the public eye?
The steady drip, drip, drip of scandal, innuendo and double speak ("VP not part of the executive branch"), coupled now and then with the FBI or DOJ investigating another corrupt Republican congressman, provides the Dems with more than enough election material.
By letting Bush etal stay in office, the Dems are ensuring themselves of congressional majorities for generations to come.
Posted by Scott Malensek | June 29, 2007 7:15 AM
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out,"
(pssssst....President Bush and VP Cheney can't be voted out)
Posted by KauaiBoy | June 29, 2007 7:30 AM
Captain---you also didn't mention what crimes the President has allegedly committed---if losing the popularity contest of flakey voters is a crime then perhaps a recall election for the entire Congress is in order. As to Obama's comment of voting the bums out, that is premised on the hope that the same voters who voted the bums in get smart enough to see the error of their ways---or get acceptable alternatives to choose from!!!
Posted by bulbasaur | June 29, 2007 7:35 AM
Bill Clinton (D) remains the only elected President in the history of the United States to bear the stain of Impeachment.
Posted by Continuum | June 29, 2007 7:41 AM
Republican Election Nightmare.
Spring 2008.
Bush resurrects "Immigration Reform", "Social Security Reform", and says yet another surge is needed in Iraq because victory is only 6 months away.
Posted by Scott Malensek | June 29, 2007 7:58 AM
"Captain---you also didn't mention what crimes the President has allegedly committed---if losing the popularity contest of flakey voters is a crime then perhaps a recall election for the entire Congress is in order. As to Obama's comment of voting the bums out, that is premised on the hope that the same voters who voted the bums in get smart enough to see the error of their ways---or get acceptable alternatives to choose from!!!"
Posted by: KauaiBoy at June 29, 2007 7:30 AM
NONSENSE! Those hard-working ethical patriots in Congress work hard and do a great deal for this country. In fact, I say they deserve a pay raise for all their accomplishments! What? They gave themselves one yesterday despite the fact that only 14% of the nation thinks they're doing a good job....
[/sarcasm off]
Posted by Ken Oglesby | June 29, 2007 9:22 AM
I gave up reading the house organ of the american communist party,:ie:USA Today,well over a year ago because of its one-sided and all too often unreliable,non-factual reporting.
Plus throw in the fact I could never get any information on my hometown hockey team(GO STARS!!!!) and it was just too much.
So any information that comes the house organ I will have too get second or even third hand and even then it won't be believeable because of the house organ's tendency and history of slanting it's stories left.
But,from the tone of your post and some of the above comments,I take it that Lord Obama's comments were not well received.
Posted by Ken Oglesby | June 29, 2007 9:47 AM
I gave up reading the house organ of the american communist party,:ie:USA Today,well over a year ago because of its one-sided and all too often unreliable,non-factual reporting.
Plus throw in the fact I could never get any information on my hometown hockey team(GO STARS!!!!) and it was just too much.
So any information that comes the house organ I will have too get second or even third hand and even then it won't be believeable because of the house organ's tendency and history of slanting it's stories left.
But,from the tone of your post and some of the above comments,I take it that Lord Obama's comments were not well received.
Posted by MarkW | June 29, 2007 9:57 AM
Andrew Jackson was also impeached.
Posted by biwah![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 29, 2007 10:13 AM
As far as I know, Obama hasn't reversed himself on any major issue yet. This is by far more than any of the other frontrunners for either party can say.
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Obama reversed himself on liquid coal. He was for it when he was just Senator of coal-rich Illinois. Now that he's running for President, he's against it unless it meets Al Gore's standards.
Posted by Ben R. | June 29, 2007 11:06 AM
Obama's liquid coal switch wasn't necessarily to meet Al Gore's standards. Obama now supports ethanol more than coal due to Iwoa's focus on ethanol, but when he left liquid coal out of the Low Carbon Fuel Initiative he left liquid coal open as an option.
He said that his approach "wouldn't dictate what feedstocks could satisfy the low carbon fuel standard or how many gallons of a particular fuel would have to be produced. Instead, fuels could be mixed and matched to achieve the carbon reduction targets." Therefore leaving coal open as an option in the future.
Posted by Jim C | June 29, 2007 11:50 AM
I think impeachment with removal is certainly the nutroot's goal, but I think they would settle for impeachment as a chance to stain a Republican president in return for Bill Clinton's impeachment. IMO it's all about getting even with the Republicans.
Jim C
Posted by CheckSum | June 29, 2007 12:18 PM
Bill Clinton (D) remains the only elected President in the history of the United States to bear the stain of Impeachment.
Posted by: bulbasaur at June 29, 2007 7:35 AM
Andrew Jackson was also impeached.
Posted by: MarkW at June 29, 2007 9:57 AM
Andrew Jackson wasn't elected president. He was elected vice-president and became president upon the death of Abraham Lincoln so bulbasaur is correct.
And impeachment is forever.
Posted by Captain Ed | June 29, 2007 12:21 PM
Andrew Johnson got impeached, not Andrew Jackson. Johnson succeeded Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Jackson was elected in 1828 and re-elected in 1832, and served his entire two terms without being impeached.
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 29, 2007 12:52 PM
Though Jackson was censured by congress, which I think is the source of confusion here.
Posted by CheckSum | June 29, 2007 1:34 PM
Andrew Johnson got impeached, not Andrew Jackson.
Hey, I knew that. uh... I was just testing ya.
Posted by Captain Ed | June 29, 2007 1:37 PM
I knew you were checking to see if I'm paying attention to the comments, Checksum. I had to make sure I passed the test!
Also, Jackson's censure was vacated in the next Congress.
Posted by Lew | June 29, 2007 3:13 PM
Johnson? Jackson? Thompson? Who can keep all these renegade backwoods Tennessee mountain wild men separated?
By the way, are there any more where that guy Jackson came from?
Posted by gaffo | June 29, 2007 6:53 PM
Andrew Jackson was also impeached.
Johnson
Posted by gaffo | June 29, 2007 6:58 PM
Jackson was censored by the Supreme Court!!
never heard about Congress and Jackson - one way or the other
Posted by patrick neid | June 30, 2007 1:43 PM
the dems have had their sights set on impeachment from the day bush got elected. if they could they would bust him on spitting on the sidewalk. historically it is important for bush to be brought up on charges--any charges. why? because it helps bill clinton. years from now it would then appear that the US congress was operating on tilt from 1992-2008. rather than look at clinton for the low life he was, grabbing bj's from interns, the highbrow types would simply say it was all partisan.....
for all the hype about the bush admin very few folks have done anything wrong legally. the list of clinton folks/supporters who went to jail etc would fill a small book. hillary knows no shame when she shrieks about this administration knowing full well the depravity of her husband's.