|
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002619.html"... There is a precedent, although like most precedents, it is far from perfect. In 1834, the Senate voted to censure Andrew Jackson. Last night, we read some history of what happened, and it does seem clear that Jackson's offenses were mainly political and not as serious as the issues raised today. In fact, when the Jacksonian Democrats retook the Senate in 1837, they undid it.
That was then, this is now. A censure endorsed by the leaders of Congress, including some crossover Republicans, would spare everyone the trauma of impeachment and show that "the grown-ups" are re-taking control -- a move that many voters would remember kindly at the ballot box in 2006. The implied threat would be that Bush would need to govern like the "compassionate conservative" he promised to be, not the autocrat (and betrayer of the conservative movement, by the way) that he became -- and that he would need to consult Congress more often.
You want justice? Cheney is "fair game," in our opinion. Not only is the case for impeachment stronger here, but such a move -- which would not threaten the continuity of government nor undo the 2004 "will of the people" -- would thus not pose the political risks of going after a president. Instead, it would be little different from a federal criminal trial. Of course, given his health and other factors, Cheney would probably resign."
Check out the whole argument online -- it's not as satisfying as impeachment, perhaps, but it makes sense, IMHO.
|