|
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 03:35 PM by jpgray
However deserving Bush and Cheney are, unless we have a revelation from current investigations that obviates the natural skittishness of ambitious pols, the votes will simply not be there. They won't be there for impeachment -or- conviction. As much as some have claimed that as soon as the resolution was introduced all Congress would fall into place behind it, and thereafter all evidence would magically be rooted out by our submissive, tiny majority, that's clearly not the case. Why people pretended it was? I have no idea. Yeah, if we had a tough-minded sizable majority impeachment could be brought about with the extant evidence (conviction would still be dicey). But in our current condition that simply won't be happening. Hate it all you want, but that's the reality.
As for calls to replace all skittish ambitious Dems with brave, solid progressives I'm all for it. First figure out:
1. What is the purity test that determines an acceptable Democrat? 2. Do we have a viable candidate from each district that passes the purity test? 3. If the bad Dem wins the primary or it is too late for that Dem to be challenged, what happens then? 4. If an independent candidacy is the vehicle to oust the bad Dem, how does one avoid a Republican winning on a plurality after the progressive vote is split? Is risking a Republican majority the only way to clean house?
We need to fix the party, but I would advise people to be suspicious of those who claim destroying it is the best option. To my mind that's people's emotions and idealism clamoring for a quick fix to the problem. There isn't one. Attempting to oust all unacceptables at this time first of all wouldn't be workable, and even if it were the end result would likely be a sizable Republican majority in Congress, due to the split vote. Which sucks, but that's our system at the moment.
|