A SOMEWHAT MUDDLED POST ON IMPEACHMENT

Josh Marshall, who's been against impeaching Bush, now thinks it may be worth a try. Tom Hilton is still opposed.

Josh fears the pitfalls, but sees the excesses in the administration's executive-privilege claims and asks if it isn't "our duty to our country" to take a stand before the Bush view of the executive can "congeal into precedent."

Tom responds:

Neither Bush nor Cheney (much less both) can be removed from office without the votes of 17 Republicans. I don't think it's possible, but I'm prepared to be persuaded; so far, nobody seems to be trying. I haven't seen anyone offer a plausible scenario in which we get those 17 votes. Without a detailed roadmap for getting there, a step-by-step strategy that doesn't involve ellipses or miracles, impeachment isn't a plan; it's a wish fulfillment fantasy.

Hope is not a plan.

That's pretty much how I've been feeling about various moves by Congress -- the perjury investigation of Gonzales, the contempt-of-Congress referrals for Miers and Bolten -- but impeachment of the top guys seems different to me. The other moves almost certainly seem to the public like pointless deck-chair rearrangement on the Titanic, whereas going after Bush and Cheney would be an attempt to right the damn ship. Just trying might win the Democrats goodwill (in a country in which, months ago, 58% of respondents in one poll said they just wished the Bush presidency were over) -- and merely bringing the idea of removing these guys from office within the pale might, even in failure, reinforce the notion that the GOP is the dangerous rogue force in America's political life, an idea that needs to catch on.

However, it won't succeed, of course. And whereas Republicans were only lightly chastised by the mandarins of the press for impeaching Bill Clinton over blowjobs, Democrats will be damned (again) as dangerous wackos for an utterly appropriate response to rampant lawlessness and multiple violations of the Constitution. Plus, too many Democrats will immediately don the "Kick Me!" sign by swearing they'll never, ever sign on to this.

So, on balance, Tom's right.

However...

Tom brings up the votes Democrats could never get from the GOP for impeachment. I wonder why Democrats have given up so easily on getting GOP votes for, say, an Iraq timetable. Yeah, Republicans seem as if they may never budge. But couldn't the Democrats at least try appealing to the public?

I keep thinking that the public's disgust at the Democrats in Congress stems in large measure from the fact that most Americans simply don't understand why the Democrats can't stop the war -- they have the majority, right? I think most Americans simply don't understand filibusters and cloture votes and veto-override supermajorities. People who do understand these things -- politicians and journalists and politics mavens -- don't understand that the public doesn't understand them.

What's needed is a national civics lesson.

I want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to explain to the public why it just isn't enough to have a majority; I want them to explain the procedures by which minority parties can thwart the will of the majority (and the public) -- but I also want them to point out that that can change if the public makes its will known. Reid and Pelosi should encourage frustrated Americans to write to their Republican representatives and senators, telling them that the war has to stop, and telling them their votes on the war will be noticed at the next election.

In an ideal world, this message would go out on national TV; in reality, the video would have to be released to the press and posted on YouTube. Reid and Pelosi and other Democrats should take the civics lesson on the road; letter-writing campaigns should be organized in the districts of GOP members of Congress. The public should be informed of ways to determine whether you have a GOP representative or senator (I assume a hell a lot of Americans don't even know).

And if it fails? Well, so has everything else. What do the Democrats have to lose?