Impeachment? Don't count on it.

Some blogs are buzzing this morning about Arlen Specter mentioning "impeachment" on ABC's Sunday Morning political show ("This Week"). But he really just mentioned the word - almost as if he'd been caught off guard. He made clear that he was not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis for such a thing. Why not? What would the consequences be of moving for impeachment or even suggesting that impeachment was on the table? After all, a new Zogby poll shows that a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeachment if Bush spied on Americans without a court's approval - exactly what he admitted doing.

Unfortunately majority opinions do little to move the minority party these days. Remember a majority of Americans said in November that they wanted all the troops out of Iraq within 12 months (so we're down to about 10 months now, right?). Yet Nancy Pelosi, who is elected in a part of California that probably overwhelmingly support this troops out proposition, refuses to vote against billions more for war. She was heckled by some of her constituents this weekend at a town hall meeting in San Francisco. She claims that voting against those funds would deny equipment and other stuff (bullets, missiles, propoganda campaigns) for our troops. But of course if the funds were denied it would simply mean a pullout of troops would be a more urgent matter. Not that the Pentagon wouldn't stoop to such lows, but I doubt that we would send our troops into a war zone armed with sharpened sticks and wearing trash bags.

Then there's Senator Dianne Feinstein who this morning said there should be no filibuster of Samuel Alito and added: "I was impressed with his ability to maintain a very even demeanor ... I think there is an additional weight you must give to his background, his qualifications and his ability." A majority of Americans identify as pro-choice and believe abortion should be kept legal in all or most cases, yet Samuel Alito has written that he strongly believes that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. But I suppose the thousands of women who will be adversely affected (who will frankly suffer) by an enormous shift to the right on the Supreme Court will just have to deal with the consequences of Bush's nominee because he does have a "very even demeanor."

There is no democratic (little "d") reason why the Democrats (big "D") have anything to lose by filibustering Alito, voting against money for war, and impeaching Bush for domestic spying. They won't take a stand because they (the politicians in Washington) are a disconnected elite in a corporate party that isn't that different from the other corporate party. Feinstein herself isn't worried about the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Pelosi is more concerned with her big money contributors than the rabble holding signs at her town hall meeting. And most of the Democrats in Congress care more about maintaining faith in our government and it's noble, patriotic intentions than shaking that faith through a divisive impeachment battle that will expose Washington as the rotten empire command-center that it is.

The Democrats are really proving their uselessness to Americans as a political party. I'm not saying that filibuster, impeachment, or an immediate pullout of troops is impossible. Just don't count on the Democrats to be motivated on their own, or even by a majority of American opinion.

Will there be an alternative at the ballot box?