However, this issue, coming out as it did, gave the Democrats a key attack to use against Congressional Republicans. Until now, the Democrats were essentially running against Bush. You may get some voters with that, but odds are, mostly the ones who’d vote for you anyway. When’s the last time an anti-war activist voted Republican? However, this scandal gave voters a reason to vote against House Republicans specifically. As much as conservatives (or anyone for that matter) complain about pork barrel spending, no one really believes that Congressional Democrats will be any better (see Illinois’ current financial problems). There haven’t been a lot of polls out to assess the damage yet, but common sense dictates it won’t be good. Nevertheless, this is the Republicans’ race to lose and they seem to be doing their best to do exactly that.

But what about the Party?

To hell with the Party. Every time I hear this objection the more I think the Republican Party should be razed to the ground. I expect this from elitists in the Democratic Party that insist the “common man” should shut up and let the enfranchised deal with the important issues. There is a reason we call office-holders in this country “public servants” and not “public masters.”

If the party wants to rally around corruption, rally around ebophiles (older adults attracted to teens), and rally around wasteful spending, then quite frankly, they aren’t the party I thought I was giving votes to. I once wrote an open letter to the Illinois Republicans, basically asking them for a platform. They told me to shut up and walk a precinct. I’ve never supported a state Republican since and won’t unless they’re going to help raze the ILGOP to the ground.

The stakes

The Republicans may pull it off, if they manage to find their roots and do the right thing. They may still lose but the argument that we demote our corrupt leadership and the Democrats promote or defend it can sell on Election Day. If they don’t boot Hastert, Shimkus, and Boehner (and to be strictly technical, all must lose their leadership rolls) then they will lose in November.

Let’s analyze what this loss will mean. First, it means that the 44th President of the United States may take office, not because of direct election, but because of impeachment. That person will be Nancy Pelosi. The last time I made this claim, the knee-jerk class of right-wingers jumped on my case. Does anyone seriously believe that Nancy Pelosi won’t try to impeach Bush?

Bush was declared a lame duck the day after the 2004 elections; an impeachment will effectively neuter him even if he’s not thrown out of office by the Senate. I simply don’t believe the Senate Republicans will all the sudden manage to vote as a bloc when impeachment is on the line. Three words “Gang of Fourteen”. Odds are, if the House switches hands, the Senate may very well follow suit. They’d need to still garner at least 10, probably more like 15, Republican votes to impeach. Democrats bought Jim Jeffords; it’s not inconceivable that they’d make a bunch of purchases in the light of giving their party the Presidency. Even if they don’t get 67 votes, if they get a majority the damage to Bush will be severe.

If Bush is impeached, any policy presented to Congress will be dead on arrival. The Democrats will likely affect a premature withdrawal from Iraq. They will likely return to the criminal model of fighting terrorist that was proven ineffective on September 11, 2001. They will likely raise taxes, enact the Terrorist Bill of Rights, and criminalize conservatism.

For instance, Francis Boyle (a key author of a draft articles of impeachment) criminalizes such thought crimes as not providing Equal Protection to Katrina victims because a predominant amount of the victims were black. One factual problem, Whites were more likely to die in Katrina than Blacks.

Boyle constitutes the ineffectual response to Katrina as “homicides” despite the fact that the ineffectual response also falls on the shoulders of the Mayor and Governor, whom Bush has no effective control over. The implicit demand is that the federal government should be solely vested with disaster response, an even stronger central government than we have now.

He claims that the soldiers are predominantly poor who are coerced into service by being “denied viable opportunities.” Read as: it is the government’s constitutional obligation to provide for decent, high-paying, and high-benefit jobs for all its citizens under the penalty of criminal law.

The Democrats have used the courts to change the law around the will of the people and constitution for decades. Now they’ll use the impeachment process as well.

Denny Hastert, Defender of Corruption

When Democrat Congressmen Jefferson’s office was searched by the FBI in the performance of a criminal investigation were copious amounts of evidence exist, Denny Hastert cried foul. He said it was a dire breach of separation of powers that the executive branch conducted a search of a legislative office after being authorized to do just that by the judiciary. Two branches authorized a check against the third. Jefferson was using his congressional office to facilitate crime and Hastert tried to blanket Congress with immunity. For that reason alone, he should resign. By the way, Jefferson is still in office. No credible evidence has been presented against Tom DeLay and DeLay resigned.

He oversaw rampant spending in the House, pulled the immunity stunt to defend Jefferson, and was at best negligent over Foley. I’m a cynical person so I’m not the best judge. I described the story to my wife and her first question was “Well, who else did Foley talk to?” Hastert looked at the issue like a politician and not a leader. He (along with the media who looked into the emails) looked at the emails, found there was nothing illegal, and looked no further. A leader would have looked for a pattern of behavior. In the end, he failed his Party, his colleagues, the pages, and the American people. Arguments that “political correctness” prevented an investigation because Foley was gay are just an excuse. A leader does his job not looks for excuses to cover his ass. Likewise, the fact that Foley was “closeted” caused his ebophilia are likewise nonsense. The idea that a failure to express same-sex attraction disorder leads to pathological sexual malformities is a myth that needs to be smashed center-stage.

Sexual predilections and Congress

What is it with Congress anyway? Gary Condit had an affair with someone who ended up dead. Foley wasn’t the first to be involved in a page scandal. Kennedy got drunk, smashed his car, and gets a ride home instead of a DUI. McKinney hits a cop and gets off. Not only do these political leaders come from an entire different class than common people. The days of the “citizen-legislator” are gone and this is what we get. The rules apply to us and not to them. It’s not until normal people start running for office when this crap will stop.

Conservatives want a change

Conservative apathy is considered a big problem for Republicans coming into November. Nothing would appease them better than saying they are going to go back to their roots and make the painful changes to prove it. This is probably their last opportunity to prove to their base that they plan to enact policies that we put them in office to enact. Will Denny do the right thing?

John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...