« Media recognizing that Bush is unpopular? | Main | NYT on conservative impeachment hype »

March 15, 2006


" . . . turning the conversation back to the war on terror, and raising the specter of impeachment does not serve his party well."

Given that Republicans can unilaterally turn the conversation back to the war on terror, and preemptively raise the specter of impeachment, what tact do you recommend for Democrats?

My favorite line is from the Wall Street Journal:

"And lest you think this could never happen, ..."

Well actually that is only my favorite half-line, because the rest of it is boring government process and politics blather, when really we all know the way to complete it is with "just remember what happened to Clinton."


Apparently you believe that the constitution (from whence the president's powers derive) can be amended by statute. I'd be interested in seeing some backup for that belief.

It would help his party if they stood behind him on this matter. The reason it is tactically poor is because the Democratic Party is a hallowed out shell of what it once was. The Washington Post piece by Dana Priest yesterday makes that perfectly clear.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

Also... no where in the enumeration of the president's powers does it say he is above the laws passed by congress. As long as those laws do not contradict what is already in the constitution.

The comments to this entry are closed.