If an idiot elects an idiot, why can't he un-elect him?

I had been thinking of devoting today’s post to the excitement of the start of football season, but with the pathetic losses of both the Vikings and my fantasy football team (thanks in large part to Daunte Culpepper tanking) I’m going to ignore it and move onto a more fascinating topic – the current popularity of the “impeach Bush” movement.

Okay folks, I loathe President Shrub as much as the next guy. I am sick at how he was first elected, I’m irritated at how he won again in ’04 (on mine and the GF’s 4th or 5th date, sadly), I hate the way he has taken a divided country and made it so much worse that open hostility is not only acceptable but considered a proper expression of “right” vs. “wrong”, I am furious that he has exacerbated America’s image as a hypocritical nation by the world, and I am depressed by his patent refusal to ever admit or accept his own failures.

That said, I think the movement to impeach him is pointless, however admirable the intent. First off, most of these people promoting this idea across the blogosphere have no idea how impeachment works. In the United States a president can only be impeached if he is accused of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Yes, he lied about WMD’s in Iraq but he didn’t to it under oath - so he didn’t commit perjury. He’s a moron, and has been guilty of multiple acts of ignorance and idiocy while in office – but he cannot be impeached for incompetence, ignorance or idiocy*. So until he’s caught on film personally strangling Bill Frist for flip-flopping on stem cells we’re just going to have to put up with him.

But the idea won’t die just because it’s not possible. That’s what I find so fascinating about the whole thing. Rather than going out and doing grassroots campaigning to get people talking about solutions to these problems and trumpeting better ideas for how to run government, the Dems (both those in office and those who only think they’re in office) are following the same old “shriek like a little girl about how Bush sucks and we hate him soooooooooo much because he’s a big stupidhead!” mentality. So, in the end, everything is going to get repaired, the dead will be buried, “refugees” will settle into new lives in new states and the shrieking will die down and we’ll forget about it and start worrying about who’s going to win the next Amazing Race or the NFL playoffs. Just like Karl Rove wants us to – because Americans have no attention span.


Think I’m wrong? When was the last time you heard anything about Valerie Plame? Halliburton’s no-bid contracts? Heck, even the Iraq War?

*Sadly, these are not felonies in the US...yet.

Comments

grrrbear said…
All right, that's it. No more political blogging from me. Others are way better at it and it's really hard to me funny when one is talking about politics. I think I'd have an easier time being amusing while discussing something that's actually funny, rather than venting my spleen to the unwilling blogmasses.

So, starting tomorrow, only fun, silly, crazy things. I think I'll start with boobs, since it's a topic that's been on my mind a lot this morning (I'll explain why in tomorrow's post).
Nobody said…
I agree with your post grrrr... GWB is not worth the $ or energy it would take to impeach his ass. Boobs? Did I get you on the topic of boobies??? Haha You crack me up...
grrrbear said…
Yup, oddly enough, after reading that post this morning I couldn't get them out of my head - kind of like the Chili's Baby Back Ribs song only less annoying.
OleNelson said…
I may be too much the optimist, but I don't think The Shrub is going to escape this controversy as easily as he has escaped other stuff.

Oh, and like boobs aren't political. Did you forget about the governor of California (and former governor of Minnesota)?
grrrbear said…
I think those are completely different sort of boobs. I can't think of a man who wouldn't run screaming in fear from a woman with Schwartzennegger and Ventura affixed to her chest.