Revealed, conveniently, during an appearance before a crowd of angry liberals hooting at her for not delivering Bush’s head on a platter. A few shouts, a few yells, and before you know it Madam Speaker’s secret, moonbat-catnip plot to shock the world with articles of impeachment had manifested itself.
I’ll bet that calmed them down.
The audience responded angrily when Watson responded to a call for the impeachment of President Bush by saying, “We simply don’t have the votes.” After groans and boos and at least one cry of “At least do something!”, Watson went on to say, “Right now, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi is working very quietly and very effectively, behind the scenes. We need 285 votes to uphold an impeachment, and so far we have 260 members telling us they support impeachment.”
[Watson] went on to say, “Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,” apparently referring to winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate and [raising] the possibility that a Democratic administration might undertake a prosecution of George Bush after he’s left office.
How am I skeptical? Let me count the ways.
(1) There are only 232 Democrats in the House. Assuming every last one of them is onboard for this (which surely isn’t so), she still needs 28 Republicans to get to 260. So 28 Republicans — well over 10% of the GOP’s House representation — are ready to impeach Bush, and yet not a word of it has leaked to anyone else on our side? Remarkable.
(2) Why does Watson think she needs 285 votes to impeach? The GOP impeached Clinton with 220+ votes in 1998.
(3) What exactly does she mean about impeaching Bush after the election? Is she referring to a criminal prosecution by the Justice Department and just being sloppy with her terminology? As far as I know, you can’t retroactively impeach someone for the simple reason that you can’t remove from office someone who’s already been removed from office.
(4) If the goal is indeed to win the White House and 60 seats in the Senate and then prosecute Bush, why is Pelosi allegedly wasting her time trying to put 285 votes in the House together now?
(5) Most importantly, with the GOP dispirited and lukewarm about its candidates, why on earth would the Democrats do something to invigorate the base like trying to remove a Republican president during wartime? And if, as expected, the lefty landslide materalizes next year, why would they squander post-election expectations by trying to prosecute Bush instead of MovingOn and impressing the electorate with their new agenda? It’s inane.
Update: Commenter “sunny” responds to my first three points below. True enough — in hindsight, the “285 votes” probably means 218 House votes to impeach + 67 Senate votes to convict. Now, all Watson needs to do is explain how they’re going to get 16 Republican senators to join 51 Democrats in convicting. Sunny also notes that impeachment has been known to happen after an official leaves office — to prevent him or her from standing for office again in the future.
Anyone think that’s a big concern with Dubya?