Is impeachment dead or alive? With the referral of Congressman Kucinich's impeachment resolution to committee, Speaker Pelosi says the issue is "disposed of." Majority Leader Hoyer says, "Congress is not going to proceed with impeachment." And Judiciary Chairman Conyers says:
"The committee has a very busy agenda...The Chairman will discuss today's vote with the committee members but it would seem evident that the committee staff should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President."
The Conyers statement illustrates very well what Democrats intend on impeachment: They want to patronize and encourage the base, while telling the mainstream that impeachment is dead. It's not by accident that Conyers says that "committee staff" will consider the issue; it sounds like impeachment is alive, without requiring debate, hearings, or a vote.
The Washington Post considers the question as well:
But Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicts that the panel will hold hearings. "I get that impression," he said. "The issue is still alive."
Cohen is a co-sponsor of the Kucinich resolution, which has three impeachment articles against Cheney. All told, 14 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), initially voted with Kucinich, signaling some level of impeachment interest on the panel...
Kucinich declined to say whether Conyers had given him an outright commitment, but he said:
"I think Chairman Conyers has strong interest in holding hearings, and I'm hopeful that we will."
The fuzziness, and the varying responses from different members, allows Democrats to say one thing to the grassroots out of sight of the cameras, and another thing for the record. For example, is freshman Democrat Tim Walz (D-MN) really committed to voting to impeach Vice President Cheney, as he told one pro-impeachment lobbyist?
Walz won a close race in 2006, and his district is rated as having a slight Republican tilt. Does he really want the Senate to hold an impeachment trial, or is he just speaking from both sides of his mouth?
Congressman Bob Wexler (D-FL) is actually receiving plaudits from impeachment supporters even though he was among the 81 House Democrats who hypocritically voted to take up impeachment, only to later block such a debate when it became clear that a debate might actually begin. Note the duplicity in his statement:
That is why I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee.
No mention that he was among those voting to send it to committee!
You have to wonder too, whether Members in marginal districts--like New Hampshire's Carol Shea Porter and Paul Hodes--will be asked why they flipped their impeachment votes. It's in the interest of both impeachment supporters and opponents to get a clear answer.
