Conditional Ethics

OK, folks, there's being sad your guy lost and then there's going crazy. Let's all calm down until at least after January 20th, OK?

There are two things which make me write this. First, there are already at least three different "Impeach Obama" groups on Facebook, the first has more than 700 members, the other two have over 150 members each.

Now, Impeachment is for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors while in office, so... what say we wait until there's even a chance to commit some before calling for such a drastic step. Certainly it calls into question the sincerity of your charges if you began making them before it was even possible for the crime to have been committed.

"But Liam," I hear some of you cry, "there are over 95 'Impeach Bush' groups on Facebook. What about them?"

First, I'd bet most of them began SINCE some of the more controversial of Bush's actions in office. (Actually, that's not a fair bet, since Facebook didn't really exist before Bush took office, but still...) and any such groups on other sites which might have begun a campaign to have him impeached before he took office were similarly tainted.

Second, there are some real questions about some of Bush's conduct. I know some of the Bush supporters in my reading audience will disagree, but an objective look at some of his behaviors gives at least legitimate reason to question whether unconstitutional and other un-American activities have gone on, and certainly with the extent to which constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight has been thwarted, Impeachment might have been one way to end the stalling and allow Congress to do it's job. There's a huge difference between calling for the investigation and possible removal from office of someone whose actions seem questionable and calling for the investigation and possible removal from office of someone who has yet to even take the oath of that office or even, technically, be elected (remember, the Electoral College does not actually cast it's official ballots for another few weeks, Obama is not technically our "President Elect" yet).



But the other thing that prompted this message is Senator John Kyl. You may remember this interview and ones like it back in April of 2006, during the debate over the so-called "nuclear options", when the Republicans in charge of Congress were considering shutting down the filibuster power of the minority party over some nominations to certain judicial positions. Kyl was one of the more outspoken Republicans expressing outrage that these nominees weren't getting their "up or down" votes and essentially implying that the Democrats were sneaky, underhanded and downright immoral for exercising what little power our system of government leaves the minority party to check the power of the majority. (By the way, I'll bet the Republicans are pretty glad now they didn't do away with filibuster, eh?)

So of course, this man who felt so strongly about up or down votes, he'll certainly support holding votes on every Obama nominee, right?

Well, not so much. And he's not even waiting for a hypothetical "bad" nominee to come along, he's ALREADY issued a statement saying that if Obama nominates justices whom he (Kyl) disagrees with, he intends to filibuster them.

Now, maybe I'm old fashioned, but wasn't there a time when people at least pretended to hold true to their principles? A time when a Senator such as Kyl, having made such pious pronouncements on the sanctity of up-or-down votes on judicial nominees would wait until such a nominee was actually announced and then, with much faux hand-wringing, announced that while he still held his prior beliefs, this particular nominee was so egregious that he had no choice but to violate his principles?

What a two-faced buffoon, announcing at this stage of the game his intention to play by exactly the same set of rules that he so decried Democrats for playing by.

Nice conditional ethics there, Kyl.

Liam.