Enigma, for starters, the logic of the impeachment process isn't mine, it came from some old dead guys. I just try to understand it. But, I sure appreciate the compliment.
Next, I don't agree with the rest of your assessment. The Nixon impeachment wasn't as cozy and non-partisan as some would lead us to believe. Representatives back then were just as unwilling to concede points to the opposition as they are now. The main difference was that some Republicans on the J. Committee eventually yielded to public pressure, media attacks on them, and some of the facts before them. This is as opposed to today's congress, where there is no media pressure on the Dems, and the public seems almost apathetic. They will acknowledge the facts of the matter (perjury in particular), but without the pressure are unwilling to take the next step, impeachment.
I also object to your charactorization of impeachment as a coup d'etat. That's like calling a veto override a "usurpation of power" by the congress. It is not; it is a means of check and balance, and a difficult but wholly reasonable means of keeping things in balance. In this case, by removing (or threatening to remove) a person who does not lend the required qualities to the Office of President. If it were a coup d'etat, or an "overturning of the election" as some unthinking people say, it would result in Bob Dole or some other Republican taking over the office -- and that is not even a consideration.
And, finally, there is a point of agreement -- nothing but muck survives inside the Beltway. But, at least it's American Muck, and as much as we abhor it, we try to tolerate it.
jim |
