"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.
The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.
So, of course, his effort has about as much of a chance as Harry Reid admitting he voted for the war in Iraq because it was the popular thing to do at the time.
Dana Milbank has a little fun with the effort:
A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.
"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.
"Yes, I did," she replied.
Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.
It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.
To say the least. And his congressional colleagues?
Washingtonpost.com's Paul Kane showed the news release to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who declined to endorse the Kucinich crusade. "He was busily engaged in handing that out," Hoyer observed. "Beyond that, I don't have any thought about it."
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive — "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" — but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."
Stick with spinning things politically, Rahm.
Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."
It was a valid point. If Kucinich is having this much trouble impeaching one vice president, imagine the difficulty impeaching two presidents.
Yeesh ... valid point my foot. I guess Milbank was feeling a little guilty about trashing Kucinich. Look, tinfoil hats come in all sizes. And a "practical reason" about an impractical efforts doesn't mean you have to give any part of the effort credibility. But I don't have to worry about access as Milbank does I suppose, so I can see why he might throw Kucinich a bone, rhetorically speaking.
It was a valid point. If Kucinich is having this much trouble impeaching one vice president, imagine the difficulty impeaching two presidents.
Yeesh ... valid point my foot. I guess Milbank was feeling a little guilty about trashing Kucinich.
See, I didn’t read it the way you did. The whole piece was essentially mocking Kucinich’s efforts and the last line read as an extra bit of snark. I don’t see Milbank feeling guilty for popping fun at something that is a doomed and pointless effort. The last line is the little zinger highlighting the difficulty Kucinich is facing.
Millions of Americans evidently believe The Bush administration brought down the WTC, too. The gunman on the grassy knoll shot kennedy. Some people will believe anything with no proof at all. Or because some politician says so, but I repeat myself.
If you’ve ever read the Constitution, you’d know the Vermont State Legislature has the same authority I do on impeachment. None.
