I think we've fought Bush's reelection campaign to a standstill, though somebody needs to let Dubya know. Or maybe not...having him out permanently out on the campaign trail may limit his ability to do further damage.

The conundrum is that while impeachment is surely justified, the NeoRepublicans have taken out a powerful "backlash insurance" policy in the order of succession. Cheney? Well, he's named as coconspirator in most of the Articles of Impeachment being floated. But behind him is Hastert, for god's sake. Dennis "Out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire" Hastert.

The choices back in 96 facing the early Neos must've looked similarly unappetizing--they couldn't have wanted Gore as President. So I think the way it's going to go is that we'll follow the lead of those Neos and drag Bush through the entire impeachment process but stop just short of conviction in the Senate....just as they did to Clinton. The vote to impeach is our system's equivalent of a vote of no-confidence.

The big difference, this time around, though, is that we won't have to stretch "high crimes and misdemeanors" so ridiculously that it can cover penile indiscretions. This time around the crimes are actually relevant to the office, and it may turn out to be hard to avoid convicting the bastard, but conviction wouldn't be the optimum outcome to my mind.

In contemplating the thought of a disgraced Bush pinned down in the White House for his last two years, I'm reminded of the old custom of putting criminals in the stock in the public square, for all to see and curse, and as a warning to other potential criminals. There can be worse things to happen to a President than conviction after impeachment.

BTW, just now I had an impulse to refresh my memory about the President's Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Notice something signficant there? The oath is not to defend the country, but to defend the Constitution. The Founders were too smart to fall into the trap of letting a President decide how to defend the country; they knew about martial law and abuse of the military. Instead, they bound the President to defend the country within the framework provided by the Constitution. For Bush to say that his "duty" is to defend the country by any means possible, including violating the Constitution, is to blatantly disregard his oath.