Reply #54: Not really easy actually

[CreekDog]

To impeach in the House (short of removing him),

218 of 233 Democrats need to vote in favor of the impeachment (okay, possible, but it will take a while to build that case into the public record and into the congressional record for up or down votes)

then...

67 Senators will need to vote in favor of removing from office...
You would need 49 Democratic Senators to vote for it
Joe Lieberman would need to vote for it
Tim Johnson would need to vote for it
then 16 Republicans would need to vote for it

Then he could be removed.

Moral victory may be possible, but to actually get as close as you can to removal is an uphill slog, the process could run until the next inauguration. That might be worthwhile, but if you think he is going to be removed --that is very, very doubtful even with the wind at the Democrats back.

The reality check I'm asking for here is:

1) Do you understand how much the odds are against impeachment of Cheney or Bush? I'm not asking if it's possible, I'm asking if you know the odds against it happening, which are substantial.
2) If you cannot impeach either of them, do you want to trade any progress on anything else in favor of the proceedings that are far from a slam-dunk?

It is not wrong and it is not being an accomplice to figure these things into the decision of whether to pursue or not.

My problem is that many in favor are not realistic about the chances...they seem to say it's a foregone conclusion that once the charges are out there the votes will come. Not necessarily. In order for proceedings to even occur the following needs to happen on the Democratic side:

1) Those in favor of proceedings must recognize and publicly acknowledge the odds against success and pledge not to villanize their own party if the proceedings don't succeed because they can't get enough Republican votes to impeach/remove
(in other words, if you are going to go after Reid and Pelosi like some did on the supplemental, which failed because of a Republican president, yes they could have tried harder, but the greater portion of the blame must not fall on them. If not, they are not going to make themselves the whipping boys for impeachment failing --certainly not if it comes from other Democrats, especially while the media will be making them whipping boys undoubtedly).

2) Those opposed to the proceedings must accept that their agenda is unlikely to progress in any area, including withdrawal from Iraq (which is stalled either way, actually) and decide this is a worthwhile tradeoff. Impeachment proceedings will consume everyone else's time. Plus, in 2008, it is likely that Dems will not have agenda accomplishments to run on, including this because it is unlikely to be successful.

So, I would be torn between proceeding on this (because I have thought out the substantial risks) versus deciding that despite them, it would be worthwhile.

My issue to those take-no-prisoners is:
1) will you support the leaders even if they can't get the Republicans to get removal done?
2) will you villanize them if they try but can't get it done and in the process can't get any of their other agenda through because this is an all-consuming effort?
3) will you accept that in 2008, we will still be in Iraq at the same level of effort?

Otherwise, why should Pelosi and Reid bother? If history is any guide, they will try to get what they can and impeachment supporters will at first be very supportive of the efforts, then will turn on them when it fails and when the rest of the agenda fails to get enacted, not because of a veto, but because this is all consuming if you really, really want to win.

The point is to be successful requires risk and I don't see those in favor explaining that they understand the risk and that they will support the effort and the leadership if the risk is taken and not successful.

Only when that meeting of the minds occurs will any movement in that direction happen. Otherwise, don't count on it. Pelosi already got thanked by Code Pink for trying to get the troops home once and Reid got thanked in vicious terms for pushing the envelope farther on Iraq funding than any of us even thought possible 1 year ago. In fact, Reid got more votes for a withdrawal than anyone thought were there --although it was just a bare majority still --and nowhere near impeachment numbers mind you. Why go to the mat for folks that scold you for your best efforts?

They are after all politicians. They can do what is right, but many will go after them because they "are not listening to the voters", but if they do that and decide that "listening" leads them in a different direction than many activists, they will be told they are craven politicians for not doing what is right. Some people here are putting the leadership in an impossible circumstance.

I don't expect everyone here to agree, but at least look at the political and moral equation simultaneously and recognize there are tradeoffs.