Dan, what that means is that no incumbent can yet make a determination as to whether the evidence in the Starr report constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment. That's why the House has committees which engage in hearings and decide what is to be brought to the floor for a debate and vote.
Our representatives will also have to consider input from their constituents, and at this point, I don't think the American public has the stomach left to impeach the rascal, and they may even feel the probe is overwrought. And, some representatives, (including some honest Republicans), will have to consider that.
I rule out non-incumbent candidates because they, like us, do not have access to all of the evidence. (Remember the redactments?)
The other problem with attempting to make the impeachment call this early on is that the defense has had no opportunity, except through the media, to make their case to the House. Some may want to impeach today out of moral outrage, but the charges are rather specific and each one has to be argued. There is a lot of shoe leather being worn off and a lot of lights on late at night as political capital moves like options on the trading floor over this kind of issue.
A candidate who has their vote set this early is too eager to skip the constitutionally-mandated process and would do a poor job of the politically-mandated process of "let's make a deal." It would be the rough equivalent of "read my lips, no new taxes," and we know what that cost George Bush.
Mr. K. |
