I think George W. Bush has been a disaster as a president but I also don't think much of moves to impeach or even censure him. Why? Well, censure seems like an excuse for not doing one's duty. If you think the guy really broke the law, you impeach. If he didn't break the law, you don't. Make up your mind, people. Which is it? If I'm accused of robbing a bank, I either go to prison or I don't. The judge is not going to split the difference and censure me.
But impeachment isn't much of an option, either…and it's interesting that most of the online articles that advocate this do not mention one unavoidable fact. It's that this guy Cheney is next in line. No one who wants to impeach Bush thinks Cheney would be an improvement so they just sidestep that little problem with their dream.
The problem the Democrats have, as I keep saying here, is that you can't beat something with nothing. Bush is at somewhere between 33% and 41% approval. I bet that number would drop at least ten points if his current supporters could see a viable alternative on the horizon. The trouble is that even most folks who think Bush is a terrible Chief Exec have trouble completing the sentence, "I would feel so much more confident with ______ in the White House" with a proper name. "Anyone else" is not a proper name. And even if we had a likely candidate, we have to wait until January of 2009 to inaugurate anyone who isn't currently in the presidential line of succession.
Face facts: We're stuck with Bush. Democrats should be running on the platform of "You need an opposition Congress to stop this guy." And they shouldn't be pretending that censure resolutions and talk of impeachments that aren't going to happen are the kind of opposition they're ready to supply.