The I-word returneth (impeachment, that is)

Liberal Oasis has a good take on all the recent impeachment talk, based on a recent Zogby poll: "[M]ore than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq." Let me say once again here that I do not support the impeachment of President Bush. If new revelations come out, fine. But, based on what we currently know (see, for example, my take on the DSM here), there is in my opinion no justification for impeachment. L.O.:

For one thing, there’s practically no chance that this Republican House will ever vote for impeachment of this Republican president. And there’s similarly little chance that the Democratic leadership will get behind impeachment.

(There is a little loose talk about pushing impeachment among a few liberal House members, but even Rep. John Conyers, who organized the Downing Street Memo hearings, is not on board.)

So if some politicians and activists step up the impeachment talk, it would not really be with any hope of an actual impeachment, but with the hope of reframing the political discussion about Iraq...

Iraq is a crisis. A crisis of Bush’s making but a crisis nonetheless. And the public demands a strategy and a resolution.

To not do so is to lack credibility in the broader Iraq debate.

You want to push for impeachment?

Then you better say at the same time what you believe should happen with Iraq after impeachment.

Otherwise, you will just look political while people continue to die.

So it's up to Democrats to come up with an alternative on Iraq, not just to talk impeachment loosely and without any real hope of success:

"Impeach Bush," by itself, is an obsession, not an agenda. If it is to be pursued, it needs to be part of a larger agenda for Iraq...

Without a singular view, there’s probably no way around having a cacophony of voices from liberals and Dems on Iraq for the foreseeable future.

The risk is without agreement on what to do going forward, it will be too easy to only debate the past, leaving the false
impression that liberals and Dems have no thoughts about how end the Iraq crisis.

But hopefully, if we all are at least offering ideas about what should be done going forward, regardless of our other strategies, we can at least expand the discussion and move towards a unifying vision to offer to the public.

And that's exactly what the American people -- the overwhelming majority of whom are dissatisfied with Bush's job performance -- are waiting for. Are Democrats up to the challenge?

Reaction to the news: 7/1/05

Here's a new feature at The Reaction. From time to time I'll forgo longer posts to offer a brief overview of major items in the news, along with a line or two of commentary and links to article(s) and, where applicable, my own previous post(s). Let us begin:

O'Connor resigns: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has retired from the Supreme Court, opening up the first vacancy in 11 years and setting what is anticipated to be a brutal, divisive confirmation battle once Bush picks a nominee. The Times reports here. I've previously posted here and here. Sullivan: "The war begins." Drum: "This is going to be bloody." Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Bush's critics, yours truly included, have come to expect the worst, but I'm not sure that Bush will try to replace a swing-voting moderate woman like O'Connor with a hard-liner. He'll feel intense pressure from the right, and his current unpopularity means that he may end up giving in to his extremist base, but let me be a (hopeful) contrarian on this muggy Canada Day and predict that Bush will go with a (non-radical) conservative who would tip the balance on the Court slightly to the right but who would also face a relatively quick and easy confirmation process in the Senate. That's the balance he needs to strike: a nominee who's just conservative enough to please the right but not quite extreme enough to arouse the wrath of Democrats. Let me know if you have any thoughts on who that might be.

Germany heads to the polls: Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has successfully managed a defeat on a confidence vote in the Bundestag, paving the way to a federal election later this year (likely in September, a year before the end of his mandate). The Times reports here. I've previously posted here. Schroeder's SPD (governing in coalition with the Greens) is currently 20 points behind Angela Merkel's CDU in the polls. Given all the uncertainty in Europe right now, this will be an interesting story to follow. Will Germany move back to the center-right, or will Schroeder's Blairite third way manage to retain power?

Britain assumes E.U. leadership: The U.K. has taken over the E.U. -- well, sort of. It's just a six-month presidency. The Globe and Mail reports here. I've previously posted here, here, and here. What does Blair face? Consider these issues: accession negotiations with Turkey, global poverty, Iraq, globalization, the E.U.'s finances, constitutional ratification (or not), and agriculture. Not to belittle the upcoming Supreme Court battle in the U.S., but this is truly going to be bloody.

Chirac's troubles: Bush's approval ratings may be at all-time lows for his presidency, but he's got nothing on French President Jacques Chirac. According to a recent poll, Chirac's approval rating stands at just 21%. The Toronto Star reports here.

That's it for now. Enjoy your weekend, but keep checking back at The Reaction for more...

Happy Canada Day!

Born in 1867, Canada is 138 years old today.

Happy Canada Day from The Reaction.