[tag]Republicans[/tag] have decided that the key to rallying the party’s base is to shout, as often as possible, that [tag]Democrats[/tag] will hold [tag]Bush[/tag] accountable if they take back [tag]Congress[/tag] in November. The media seems particularly fascinated by the argument, and have reported at length on Rep. [tag]John Conyers[/tag] (D-Mich.), ranking Dem on the House Judiciary Committee, who allegedly will lead the impeachment charge personally.
Today, Conyers decided to approach the argument head on. In a WaPo op-ed, Conyers vows not to launch immediate [tag]impeachment[/tag] proceedings in 2007, but suggests he will ask a few pertinent questions of the [tag]White House[/tag].
It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill [tag]Clinton[/tag] by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those “revolutionaries,” it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate.
So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.
The committee’s job would be to obtain answers — finally. At the end of the process, if — and only if — the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially [tag]impeachable[/tag] offenses, it would forward that information to the [tag]Judiciary Committee[/tag]. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
It hardly sounds unreasonable. [tag]Conyers[/tag] lays out a responsible, cautious approach, built around the notion of [tag]oversight[/tag] and [tag]accountability[/tag]. Before anyone starts drawing up articles, Conyers wants to build up some consensus through a bi-partisan process. What’s not to like?
To an extent, it seems Conyers is following the suggestions Zachary Roth lays out in the upcoming issue of Washington Monthly. (via Kevin)
Democrats might wish they could avoid talking about their investigative plans. But if they do, the press and the GOP will raise the issue for them, and they’ll frame it around the prospect of impeachment. So Democrats might as well meet the challenge head on, and spend the summer making their case. Of course we’ll vigorously investigate the administration if we win, they should say. And we’ll do so the same way previous Democratic Congresses have investigated GOP presidents: shoulder-to-shoulder with honest Republican lawmakers willing to put country before party.
The fact that the current GOP leadership chose to abandon the great American tradition of bipartisan Congressional oversight is no reason Democrats have to follow suit. Instead, they should embrace that tradition, with the faith that if they do, the president will get the legacy he deserves.
It’s as if Republicans want Dems to take accountability off the table before the elections held, intimidating Dems into believing that voters will revolt at the idea of congressional oversight. Maybe I’m misreading the electorate, but it’s hard to see why Democrats should be afraid of constitutional responsibilities and asking questions of a [tag]president[/tag] with a 32% approval rating.