I got roped into attending a potluck dinner/roundtable tonight. Subject was "Why Impeachment?" Discussion was led by three guys from Democracy for America (Chris Fox, Doug Kulp, Brad Beachy). I figured it would be a good excuse to make red bean stew (less the hot peppers and garlic bread). Food was good. Discussion was stymied by the fact that DFA is a minor faction with little or no clout even within the Democratic Party. Impeachment of Bush and Cheney faces numerous obstacles, the ultimate being the need to convince at least one-third of Senate Republicans to convict their own party leaders. Nothing that Bush or Cheney are known to have done seems likely to shake the resolve of the Senate Republicans to rally around their president.

So until some such issue arrives impeachment is no practical threat to Bush and Cheney. But that's not really the point. Judging from DFA's website, what really bugs them is what they call "Bush Democrats" -- Democrats who give Bush bipartisan cover, enough of a fig leaf that it materially helps the enemy. For now this means that the real targets of impeachment talk are the Democrats who refuse to talk about it -- a group that goes far beyond the ones who really fit the Bush Democrat tag to include the House and Senate leadership. Indeed, the DFA people spit more venom at Democrats tonight than they reserved for Bush and Cheney. Part of the rationale here is the idea that Democrats should avail themselves of the same tactics Republicans have so successfully used against Democrats. One problem with this is that it overlooks one fundamental principle of Republican tactics -- Ronald Reagan used to call it the 11th Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans.

I think it's pretty obvious that even if the Democrats win a landslide in 2008 they'll have a lot of learning to do to solve the problems that are waiting for them, let alone the ones that will inevitably arise. On the other hand, the Republicans have become so vile, and the bipartisan break so pronounced, that any Democrat who gets nominated will get automatic votes from anyone with any real desire to stanch the bleeding. So that suggests two independent projects: one short term to reverse Republican power, and one long term to promote real solutions. Being mostly interested in the latter, I don't feel especially competent at telling politicos how to get elected in a world where so many people understanding what's happening so poorly. On the other hand, once power changes hands, so does responsibility for the problems, and that's when real answers become important.

But I will throw one practical idea out. If I were in the House, I'd like to get a committee together to investigate what Cheney is doing on Iran: who's he talking to, what's he saying. The emphasis is current, on preventing him from starting another war, but we also need to look into the relevant history, like his role in the Iraq war decisions, and his role working with energy companies and defense contractors. Put all that under a microscope and you're liable to find a few "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- felonies, even. Then you might have some clearer grounds for impeachment, or you might force a resignation. Bush might even give him an advance pardon, which would itself qualify as a high crime -- i.e., a criminal abuse of presidential power. All of this would be teachable, even if punishment is avoided. That itself would be a teachable point. Just an idea.