Which makes the pro-impeachment position as popular and as reasonable in the public’s mind as continuing to approve of the job that Bush is doing. Why is this view regarded as “unserious” again?
Because it’s a far different thing to think someone is doing a lousy job versus that they should therefore be charged with a crime?
These numbers aren’t “serious” because they reflect a polarized, partisan atmosphere and frustration with a sustained, unpopular war rather than actual belief that a crime or crimes were committed.
Indeed, even Sully’s closing litany reflects this:
When you examine the vandalism Cheney has done to the Constitution, the rule of law, and America’s moral standing in the world?
While, practically speaking, an impeachable offense is anything the House of Representatives says it is, surely damaging “America’s moral standing in the world” nonetheless falls short of any legitimate threshold for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
And what “vandalism,” exactly, has Dick Cheney done to the Constitution and the rule of law? The vice president has zero authority, absent the ability to vote in the case of a tie in the Senate.
To the extent that Dick Cheney is powerful, it comes entirely from his ability to persuade the twice-elected president. So, to the extent the enactment of Dick Cheney’s policy preferences constitutes impeachable crimes, the rightful target of proceedings should be George W. Bush, not Cheney.