The Folly of Impeachment

Several of the mailing lists that I’m publicize the prospect of impeaching the President (and as often as not, the Vice President, too) for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. I’ve gotten into some pretty sharply-worded debates over the subject, because I happen to think that impeachment is the wrong solution, at least now, for two reasons: policy-wise and politics-wise. Rather than bore you with my take, however, I’m going to distill Josh Marshall’s take that I saw in one of his Hill columns.

It helps to remember that impeachment, no matter what kind of constitutional law construction you use, is inherently a political act. We saw this in its rawest, most primal form during the Clinton impeachment. However, in the other two ocassions in which impeachment has been seriously discussed or brought to bear (1867, Andrew Johnson; 1973-74, Richard Nixon), the situation was clearly political as well.

Let “La Reconquista” Begin!

Yeah, I know Kevin Drum beat me to it, but it’s true. Either Mickey Kaus ate a bad fish taco, or he’s seen way too many showings of El Cid on AMC. Either way, his excuse for supporting immigration “reform” isn’t one step short of Howard Hughes, it’s marching right alongside him, if not leading the parade.

Again, part of the answer is points 1 and 6. U.S. citizens of “other backgrounds” do not have any colorable claim that they are living in the land of their “roots,” land then taken by the U.S.. There’s no danger that Koreans on Vermont Avenue will think they have a special pre-1789 entitlement to Koreatown, or desire to reconnect it to its ancient, original status as part of Korea. The more historically valid the Mexican claim that “vast portions” of the Southwest constitute their “homeland,” the more dicey it is to allow such a large chunk of immigration to come from Mexico. True, the fabled “reconquista” is hardly a real threat now. But who can guarantee what future generations will think? Irredentism is the source of conflict and killing around the globe. Why should the U.S. be permanently immune? Simple prudence might tell Americans it’s best if there’s a mix of immigrants and if the vast majority of them can’t possibly think they’re coming back to their own former land. …

.

He’s referring to a list of things that writer Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez posted on her blog. You can read the rest of Kaus’ screed here, and read Valdes-Rodriguez’s 16-point letter here.

The reason Alisa posted her list, and the reason that so many folks have taken to the streets over the past couple of weeks, is precisely because of addlepated notions like the kind babbled by Kaus, and racist insinuations like the kind spewed by Rep. Tom Tancredo. Latinos aren’t going anywhere, especially when the only place they could go is–you guessed it!–the U.S..

Moreover, you don’t see Kaus advancing the same theory of “irredentism” when talking about, say, the Loyalist descendants of the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. It’s simply daft, you’d respond. And I would agree, even though Canada and the U.S. share a far longer border than the U.S. and Mexico. Of course, there doesn’t currently exist a similar migratory crisis between Canada and the U.S, so any such debate is purely hypothetical.

That’s not the case between Mexico and the U.S., however. And Kaus’ myopic little rant is not just insulting, it’s galling. You see, and it’s not for lack of a better word, the U.S. did steal the southwest quarter of its current territory under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Yeah, money was exchanged, and a sale was consummated; but it was the kind of monetary exchange and sale that a mugging victim engages in while getting rolled by an armed robber.

It’s not enough that the U.S. stole the land, though. Over a century later, folks like Kaus, Tancredo, and Jim Gilchrist (the founder of the Minutemen) want to benefit from the backbreaking work that Mexican and other Latino immigrants do–the kind of work that virtually no one else in our society will do–and then shuck these folks off to the side , without so much as the thanks of a grateful nation.

Now, on top of that, Kaus wants our claims to simply fade into oblivion and rendered illegitimate, simply because they give him a case of the vapors? Really? I mean, it must be because Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, whose family has inhabited southwest Colorado for, oh, five hundred years, must be getting ready to lead the nueva reconquista any day now.

Some things beggar belief. Kaus, you owe me and every other Latino American, many of us having bled and toiled for the very land you claim to so piously love, a simple apology.

crossposted at Soapblox Colorado

Friday Random 10

So, for lack of anything better to do, here’s my Friday Random 10:

1. “Fight Like A Brave”, Red Hot Chili Peppers
2. “Am I Getting Through”, Sheryl Crow
3. “Prospect Hummer”, Animal Collective & Vashti Bunyan
4. “Viva (Orion Mix)”, Bond
5. “White Flag”, Dido
6. “Domino”, Van Morrison
7. “Of Heavenly Things”, Sun Ra
8. “Ill Communication”, Nina Storey
9. “Cold Cold Heart”, Norah Jones
10.”Light My Fire”, Jose Feliciano

Ummm…okay.

Gore Reborn

My friend Ezra Klein, who’s well on his way to becoming as omnipresent a media titan as Matt Yglesias, has written the definitive article on former Vice President Gore’s possible comeback. Check it out. 

For what it’s worth, if he does get in the race, the race will boil down to a titanic battle between him and Hillary (assuming she does run). While I’ll be rooting for him, should Hillary vanquish him, I fear that it’ll splinter the Democrats.

 

Three Years Too Long; Our Voices Too Silent

It was this date, three years ago, that our war against Iraq entered a new and deadly phase. By launching missiles at a smattering of targets, we hoped to bring the war to an end, even as it began.

Of course, that gambit failed. Saddam mocked us from a hidden bunker, deep within the bowels of some vainglorious palace. But we swept his regime away, with pitiless ease, mostly because this was the martial equivalent of a grown man pounding a grade-school bully into the playground dirt.

That May Day, the President took a glory ride and with the golden sun framing him, with a stark banner strung behind him stating those fateful missionary words, the President declared the Battle of Iraq at an end. The only thing was, even as we celebrated its end, the whole enterprise was taking a malevolent, twisted turn.

Can You Feel the Surge?

Rasmussen Reports, a GOP-leaning polling outfit, and one with a rather strong record of accuracy in these things, has released its February numbers for the Governor’s race here.
The surprise isn’t so much that Bill Ritter, who’s essentially a mortal lock to win the nomination for the Democrats, is leading both “Both Ways” Bob Beauprez and Marc Holtzman in the race.

No, it gets better. According to Rasmussen, Gary Lindstrom–yes, that Gary Lindstrom–is within the margin of error in both heats against either Republican!

Ye g-ds!

It’s one thing to trail Ritter. But when you’re either tied or losing to a man who’s essentially running a non-campaign campaign, you know the bell’s ringing for you.

Numbers, more comments after the jump. The key thing to take away from this poll, and what makes it significant, is that Rasmussen is interviewing likely voters, not registered voters. Most polling firms, at this juncture, interview registered voters, saving the likely voters for later. This means Rasmussen’s polls are a bit more accurate at this point in time.

Four More Dead in Iraq

Not that anybody seems to care anymore, but in the midst of all the carnage and destruction that signals an expanding civil war in Iraq, we lost four more soldiers yesterday. That brings the total of dead soldiers in this war to 2,284. Think about it–we’ve lost more soldiers in this war than we lost in the War of 1812 (where we had 2,260 dead soldiers), and we’re fast closing in on the total number lost in the Spanish-American War (2,456 dead).

 As Kos said, hopefully we’ll be gone from Iraq before the toll exceeds that of the Revolutionary War (4,435 dead). But those numbers do serve to boggle the mind. One tidy statistic that supporters of the war like to toss out is that we’ve “only” lost 2,284 (and about 16,000 more physical casualties–it’s hard to count those casualties of war that have fallen victim to illnesses like cancer or severe PTSD, which are every bit as devastating as losing a foot, say).

Another thought on Hackett withdrawing…

Actually, two thoughts, both of which will be vastly overshadowed by the news of the man leaving the race.

First, not that his staff’s well-being should be topmost in his mind, but his apparently sudden decision to cast it all aside really doesn’t reflect well upon him. For example, Karl Frisch (whom many of you knew from blogging fame as Carl-with-a-K) was the man’s press secretary. Up until the bitter end, he was stoutly claiming that Hackett was sticking it out. Did he know that Hackett was withdrawing? I doubt it.

Fair or not, lots of folks like this gave up their lives and placed them on hold to help this guy win an election. They deserved better than a snap decision to quit. The more I look at this, the more this looks like a sudden, snap, spur-of-the-moment decision, complete with the histrionic, dramatic withdrawal from the political arena.

This guy’s a lot of things, but dull isn’t one of them; he’s pretty sharp. My guess is that he’ll regret this decision and he’ll wind up running for Congress. You heard it here first. I could be wrong; if so, that’s fine. But Hackett’s one of those guys who enjoys the limelight too much, and he’s much too polished to just sit around complaining about politics at dinner.

Second, overshadowed in all of this drama was state Sen. Eric Fingerhut’s decision to drop out of the race for Governor of Ohio. Fingerhut ran for the U.S. Senate two years ago against George Voinovich, and got waxed pretty badly, which is how you probably heard of him. He was also a Congressman back in the early ’90s, but lost his seat in the 1994 GOP tsunami.

Hack’s Out

Yes, that’s right: Paul Hackett, the man who got the whole veteran/Democratic candidate movement going, has decided to drop out of the Ohio U.S. Senate race. Not only that, but he’s decided to withdraw from politics altogether.

Frankly, I’m genuinely conflicted about this. Hackett was one of those guys that I was really excited about. I was looking forward to supporting him, and I thought that his presence could truly shake things up. In a general election against Mike DeWine, Hackett would have been the favorite.

Now? Let’s just say I have a hard time getting jazzed up by Sherrod Brown. While Brown may be a progressive, and has been steadfast in his opposition to the Bush Administration’s initiatives, he hasn’t impressed me with his performance in the stump.

Unlike the vast legions of commenters at, say, DailyKos, I’m open to persuasion that Brown could win. I don’t see it, but I’m not ruling it out.

A Real Response

Why isn’t anyone on our side saying this:

These guys are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We’re for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We’re for energy independence, universal healthcare and balancing the budget again.

Why does it fall to Andy Sullivan to tell us this?

And while we’re on the subject of responding, why aren’t more folks ripping Republicans a new one for trying to politicize Coretta Scott King’s funeral? This may come as a surprise to many, but at the end of his life, Reverend King was stoutly opposed to the Vietnam War. His widow, in fact, spoke at a massive anti-war rally only three weeks after her husband was brutally murdered.

Therefore, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Reverend and Mrs. King would be opposed to our current, star-crossed adventure in Iraq. Both of them were bold, daring, uncompromising leaders; and that’s the image that should, and will, live on–not the spavined, sanitized January-shopping-holiday version.