DLC: "Whew! That was close!"

[sophiaserpentia]

We've been stunningly, brazenly betrayed twice by the Democrats in one day. First the advancement of the Mukasey nomination, virtually guaranteeing its passage. Then this, from bizarro world: Republicans voting to allow debate on the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and Democrats, terrified it will actually happen, vote against it:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq's ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution. Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

from Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

Comments

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

The removal of Cheney has zero chance of succeding in the current congress, so why should the Democrats want that to happen?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because it would put them on the record as opposing blatant criminality rather than being seen to endorse it? It might get some grass-roots support for the party to shore up the current 11% support that congressional Dems have in the polls, mainly for *not* backing impeachment and troop withdrawals? It might help win the election for 'em? But them those are three things the Democrat leadership is determined NOT to do, as it works overtime to assure a Guiliani victory and the loss of the House next year.