The Impeachment Factor

A major Republican talking point for '06 seems to be what the Democrats might do if they take over the House.

The GOPers can't exactly run on Iraq, Social Security or, for the moment, immigration, so, in classic political fashion, they're trying to motivate their voters by painting the opposition party as a scary bunch.

The chief bogeyman these days is John Conyers, the Michigan congressman who has repeatedly called for investigations of the Bush White House that could lead to impeachment. Conyers, it turns out, would become the Judiciary chairman if the Democrats pick up 15 seats in November.

Of course, Congress had a long tradition of providing oversight of the executive branch until the Republicans essentially declared 1600 Pennsylvania off limits in the last five years. Democratic committee chairmen like John Dingell once made life difficult for Carter and Clinton. So there's nothing wrong with the Dems vowing to revive that function if they return to power.

But if voters see them as hellbent on launching one-sided, partisan impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush--let's see, is there a recent historical precedent for that?--the voters may think twice about giving them the keys to the car.

Now Conyers is defending himself, and Betsy's Page is, shall we say, skeptical:

"Now that Republicans have been raising the specter of a Chairman Conyers of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats should take back the House, Conyers is starting to realize that it is not a great selling point for Democrats to let people know that high on their agenda is trying to impeach President Bush. So, Conyers has a column in The Washington Post denying that he would seek impeachment hearings if he became chairman of the committee.

"As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.

"I guess that Representative Conyers has forgotten about this episode when he held a 'mock impeachment' hearing. . . . And, one of [the] witnesses was the sam guy, Ray McGovern, who got kudos for confronting Rumsfeld recently at a speech...

"So, some might take Conyers at his word that he isn't salivating at the idea of holding impeachment hearings, but I'm skeptical. Perhaps, he just wants to hold oodles of hearings and doesn't actually want to pull a trigger, but the general idea is the same and is enough to make me hope that Republicans voters dissatisfied with the GOP Congress don't stay home in such numbers as to let Conyers become chairman and tie up the last two years of Bush's presidency with hearing after hearing into the many non-stories that have bubbled up with the media's help in the past five years."

But what about the stories that aren't non-stories?

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics sees Conyers as a big fat target: