Sorry to be so negative, but Bush is not going to be impeached. As the Speaker of the House has straightforwardly noted, Congress has no inclination to pursue this route. Many of our representatives might reconsider if they began to sense that the majority of the populace passionately desired impeachment, but weak polls spun to look midly favorable and a passionate majority are far from the same thing. The fact of the matter is that no such majority will emerge when most Americans hear little to nothing on the subject in their weekly media intake.
Many here have noted the circular nature of the problem - a pro-impeachment majority would require some impeachment process in the first place. But the Democrats' fear of a late-90s-style backlash, coupled with the increasingly tenuous proposition that they can once again run against Bush failures in 2008, makes this a non-starter. Kossacks may angrily vow to cease all campaign donations, but most politicians are making a cost-benefit analysis in which places like Daily Kos come up seriously short.
We find ourselves in a position analagous to that of the social conservatives after Nixon. Having fought hard to elect a president they had been assured would halt the madness of 60's liberalism, crypto-racists across the land watched in horror as their president signed more civil rights legislation than any previous executive (and, yes, I refuse to draw a distinction between the Christian Right and classic American racism). They had made the mistake of shopping around among the political establishment for a good-looking candidate, and had - surprise! - selected an establishment candidate, an old-style Republican with few if any deep-seated sympathies for the fire-and-brimstone crowd. By the time Carter took office, who could have blamed them for simply throwing in the towel?
Unfortunately, the social conservatives were much wilier and more resilient than that. Their first recognition was that, notwithstanding the supposed "silent majority", they were not the tip of a massive social iceberg, just waiting for leaders to come along to enact their preferred policies. Quite to the contrary, there is no stable American majority. The majority of Americans is a fairly apolitical bunch with few strong opinions on all but the easiest issues to debate. The agenda is organized in subtle and non-coordinated means to reflect the concerns and positions of those with power. Of course, one can point to any number of prominent "dissident" voices to make the contrary argument, but this misses the mark - it is what is talked about and not talked about in the first place that is the greatest arbiter of public opinion, and this is determined by cautious news producers and social commentators who bow to the altar of conventional wisdom - the discourse of the powerful.
The second great recognition of the social conservatives was that this power structure was not "entrenched" and immutable. But to successfully alter it was not a matter of replacement at the top - the basic national-stage electoral strategy. Instead, it would be necessary to build from the bottom. With a base of churches, local politicians, and sympathetic businessmen, they built a true grassroots. From this, they built their funding networks. And, from this, bloomed the business-bible coalition that has so impacted our recent history. Of course, some will point out that they still find themselves blocked - from being secretly mocked by Rove and company to having to go through hell and high water just to make sure both of Bush' SCOTUS appointees had Y chromosomes and no wishy-washy statements on the record regarding Roe, to watching crestfallen as their corporate partners betrayed them on the immigration crackdown. But such is the nature of politics - our celebrations are brief and our grievances eternal; no one can deny that, overall, their movement has been a rousing success.
Now I am not saying that contemporary liberals can or should go about things in the same exact manner as the social conservatives. Tying the knot with big business would obviously only get us back to where we are today. But I do think the basic model is valid. Start at the bottom with issue-oriented grassroots organizations. Accomplish tangible results in local affairs to cultivate a movement. Build networks among these organizations. Eventually, infiltrate local politics. Ultimately, change the message. Then you will get much more than a staffer's one-shot diary on the Rec'd list.
Ultimately, we need to recognize that treating national electoral politics as the focal point of attention and efforts places us in the position of the Yanks trying to fight the Brits conventionally in the early stages of the Revolutionary War. We are not the majority - there is no majority.
The last thing I mean to imply is that liberals should abandon electoral politics. However angry we may get at some of our representatives, it is always easier with a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. But it is not a matter of electing Dems and waiting for the heavens to rain forth manna, nor is it even a matter of trying to immediately install through primaries the most sympathetic candidates. And I would suggest that the foundation for the future lies in issues rather than party.
As a final note, this is not a call-out diary. There are many Kossacks deeply involved in grassroots organizations - some who have been for decades. But, as the FAQ states, this is a site for electing Democrats, and the diary list always reflects this. Great in the short-run, and these have indeed been urgent times. But let us not mimic the publicly traded corporation that ignores the future and tears apart its own foundations in a short-sighted quest for the glowing quarterly statement.