Buckley on Impeachment
Great column by William F. Buckley regarding the rumbles about impeaching George W. Bush. He briefly goes through the history and circumstances of those who have been impeached (or probably would have been, as in the case of Nixon), and hits on crackpots like Ramsey Clark who are now calling for Bush's impeachment. Here are the last few paragraphs:
What stands out this time around is that there are no serious people urging impeachment. By "serious" is here intended, men and women of sobriety who weigh conscientiously what constitutes impeachable presidential behavior.
Mr. Bush is swimming in very low political tides. Although he beat down with ease the outrageous and insulting charges of Rep. Pete Stark of California, it is striking that a member of Congress felt free to indulge in that level of public obloquy. There was enough of that for Bush in the election of 2006, which was interpreted, reasonably, as a repudiation of his leadership.
If ours were a form of government patterned after that of the Europeans, Bush would probably have been replaced as leader of his party. But the majority of the American people still think of him as a man of good will and very stout heart who is pursuing his duties as he sees them, a man, moreover, of conspicuous incorruptibility. Let the people pronounce on his stewardship in November 2008.
I agree with Buckley, I think the American people recognize that Bush is a decent, honest man and a credit to the office, unlike the last occupant. The stark difference between the two men and they way they govern is clear to all but sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, that malady has become an epidemic among the Democrat Party. Common sense and decency have flown the coop of the Democrats, replaced with dishonesty and malice. As stated in the article, it is a sad thing when a member of the House of Representatives feels free to make a floor speech such as the one Pete Stark made. The level of hatred and disrespect in that despicable display was astounding, yet he was praised and nearly sainted by the ranks of the leftist blogosphere...then cast back down into the muck where he belongs by the same twits when he apologized.
I don't know who first coined the term "the Clinton effect" when referring to the plummet in the level of decency, honesty, and decorum in politics today, but it is certainly appropriate. He lacked respect for his own office, and his fellow Democrats found it necessary to abandon their principles and honesty in order to continue to support him. That has continued and grown to the point where party is everything on the Democratic side, and no amount of corruption (Jefferson, Pelosi, Clinton....) is enough to make any of them stop in their tracks and say, "Wait a minute!" National security isn't even enough of a concern to put the brakes on the "Take Bush Out No Matter What" train.
The Democratic leadership is beneath contempt, and those who continue to follow them are the same.
What stands out this time around is that there are no serious people urging impeachment. By "serious" is here intended, men and women of sobriety who weigh conscientiously what constitutes impeachable presidential behavior.
Mr. Bush is swimming in very low political tides. Although he beat down with ease the outrageous and insulting charges of Rep. Pete Stark of California, it is striking that a member of Congress felt free to indulge in that level of public obloquy. There was enough of that for Bush in the election of 2006, which was interpreted, reasonably, as a repudiation of his leadership.
If ours were a form of government patterned after that of the Europeans, Bush would probably have been replaced as leader of his party. But the majority of the American people still think of him as a man of good will and very stout heart who is pursuing his duties as he sees them, a man, moreover, of conspicuous incorruptibility. Let the people pronounce on his stewardship in November 2008.
I agree with Buckley, I think the American people recognize that Bush is a decent, honest man and a credit to the office, unlike the last occupant. The stark difference between the two men and they way they govern is clear to all but sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, that malady has become an epidemic among the Democrat Party. Common sense and decency have flown the coop of the Democrats, replaced with dishonesty and malice. As stated in the article, it is a sad thing when a member of the House of Representatives feels free to make a floor speech such as the one Pete Stark made. The level of hatred and disrespect in that despicable display was astounding, yet he was praised and nearly sainted by the ranks of the leftist blogosphere...then cast back down into the muck where he belongs by the same twits when he apologized.
I don't know who first coined the term "the Clinton effect" when referring to the plummet in the level of decency, honesty, and decorum in politics today, but it is certainly appropriate. He lacked respect for his own office, and his fellow Democrats found it necessary to abandon their principles and honesty in order to continue to support him. That has continued and grown to the point where party is everything on the Democratic side, and no amount of corruption (Jefferson, Pelosi, Clinton....) is enough to make any of them stop in their tracks and say, "Wait a minute!" National security isn't even enough of a concern to put the brakes on the "Take Bush Out No Matter What" train.
The Democratic leadership is beneath contempt, and those who continue to follow them are the same.
posted by Jennifer at 3:47 AM
<<< Home