"Who would be the president if the president were impeached? Why would I want Cheney president?"

Not if you impeach, and remove Cheney from office first. And I am sure there are plenty of grounds for this. Then after removing Bush, you get the Speaker of the House

I like Harry Reid. I think he's done a great job holding together the 40 odd cats that make up the Democratic caucus, I think he's done a great job maintaining unity and using parliamentary manoeuvres to try to stop as much of the odious Republican agenda as he could. And I will be forever grateful for his support of the attempted Alito filibuster.

For these reasons, I am willing to forgive his support of the backstabbing opportunistic war-monger and half-wit Sean Hannity-lovin' Republicrat Joe

"Short Bus Ride" Lieberman. However, if Senator Reid has information that I don't regarding Lieberaman's commitment to support Ned Lamont should the electoral gods be kind enough to grang Lamont a primary victory...

**"Did it bother you that Lieberman has indicated he'd run as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary -- or at least that he's leaving the door open to that?

He's never told me that. In fact, the letter I wrote for him said exactly the opposite."**

...if Senator Reid has such information, I, as a loyal Democratic voter and contributor, would like to know about it. Until such time as Lieberman pledges publicly to care more about the party than his own future, my checkbook remains closed to the DSCC.

Senators Reid, Boxer, Clinton, Schumer et al should not be confused about this point: We in the netroots are not their ATM machine, and we don't like Joe Lieberman.

there was a commment from Johnalive:

I'd like to see a little fighting prowess also mixed in with the good old-fashioned politics of conviction.

That definitely describes Harry Reid. Granted, he's more conservative on some issues than I would prefer, but I do trust him to fight back on those issues where he sees a way to do it.

I only wish we had a few more Democratic politicians with his background, both the hardscrabble part and the boxing experience. And, best yet, we haven't seen any dirty tricks. Just high-minded pragmatism.

Very good interview. Good questions. Interesting responses.

Unfortunately, however, the most interesting for me was: "You know why? Who would be the president if the president were impeached? Why would I want Cheney president?"

Unless Reid was joking, this statement destroyed the credibility of everything else he said which seemed so reasonable. I understand the political expediency of his statement, but that doesn't mean I have to swallow it. And if he can toss off this dismissal so lightly, are all of his other fine sounding words also so insubstantial? If he was joking, I don't think it's a joking matter.

The President should be impeached because he has committed impeachable offences. Not only that but he's committed them flagrantly, unrepentantly, and weakened America measurably by them. He has waged war in America's name on false pretences, he has blatantly mislead (i.e. lied) to his own people on matters of utmost gravity.

As to President Cheney, I for one, would like to see this beast (so to speak) come out of the shadow and into the full light. I doubt he'd survive long in such an environment.

Reid's only possible justification may be found in his own description of the disappearance of a relatively independent legislative branch. So maybe he is right after all, and the closest thing America can have to justice and accountability is a semi-pointed joke.

The sadest thing is that the Democrats, using this language, are so beaten, that even if they do find themselves somehow (all thanks to mad-as-hell bloggers?) back in a position to be able to do something about this... apparently they don't plan to do much about it.

Come back down to reality.

Impeachment can't only be about whether the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it also has to take into account the future of our nation, and the simple fact is exchanging Bush for Cheney does nothing but swap one out of control executive for one that's even worse.

No President in US history has been removed from office via impeachment conviction and with Bush having two years left now is not the time to break that history.

To those who don't want to support Democratic senators because of Liberman, grow up. Seriously, grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Democrats lose elections because so many Democrats are immature spoiled little voters who if they can't get everything they want, they actively work against their own side. It's pathetic and it's why we are in the minority at this point.

Senator Reid has been a rare passionate voice of reason, and one of the few Democratic leaders who truly leads regarding many issues. And though, as has been mentioned on this thread, Bush deserves an impeachment hearing, Reid's hesitancy seems quite reasonable for a number of reasons.

Indeed, this Administration is unprecedented in two ways: 1. It is ruled above all by a neoconservative ideology as opposed to the traditional party platform and personal leadership of the President, and 2. Cheney has been the point man who has steered the neoconservative agenda along, exerting pressure on Bush, key politicians, think tanks, and key NGO leaders to fulfill its grandiose objectives, including reorienting the Middle East towards Western values. If you're unaware of its stated goals, it's highly recommended that you check them out at Wikipedia under Neoconservatives where Cheney's pivotal role is clearly highlighted in addition to many other sources accounting for this phenomenon.

The main point here is that ideological ideals now rule rather than the traditional political pattern of politicians trying to make sense of each and every issue according to their political affiliation and then, ideally, according to wise judgment and political compromise.

One of the early neocon supporters, Francis Fukuyama, who elaborated the end-of-history thesis that would, accordingly, lead to virtual democratic supremacy around the world after the decline of the U.S.S.R., has since reversed his position. He now calls the neocons, Leninists, since they are following an ideology of democracy as fervently as Communists once followed Lenin's ideology. Granted, there are enormous differences between the two sets of beliefs, and he isn't implying necessarily that ideological democracy is totalitarian. But pursued as an ideology, it reigns over individual discretion and legislative initiatives so that any moderation that compromises its ambitious aims is defeated almost exclusively on ideological rather than political grounds.

The following cannot be said too often: The neocon agenda rules a priori and sustains its authority based on the presumption that's it's unimpeachable. Who exactly defends and perpetuates it is secondary since it's established to endure beyond the limited terms of the President and V.P. whether they're impeached or not.

When Reid talks about the old tradition of moderates, he is saying, in other words, that politicians were allowed to be moderate because they weren't blindly committed to an overarching set of values, existing separate from the common interests of life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. With the ascendancy of Reagan, the split between the parties was further polarized, but not quite hardened. But with the imposition of the neocon agenda, the differences between the two parties hardened into distinct polarization, which has, effectively, isolated the minority party from governing on many issues. This stalemate is upheld by the front man, Bush, who takes the licks, while, in the shadows, Cheney pulls the strings. There are, however, plenty of other true believers waiting in the background in case anything were to happen to Bush and Cheney.

What needs to be defeated is the logic of the neocon agenda, which has been for the past 10 years exquisitely articulated and broadly disseminated to vast numbers of leaders who have either actively supported it or fail to reject it through omission. In a way, this agenda is tantamount to Machiavelli's "The Prince," a backroom strategy designed to respond to all of life's dark forces, which is then simplified and sanitized for public consumption. For instance, America's stated goal to invade Iraq was to capture the WMDs and topple Hussein, when, in fact, the principal goal was to effect democratic rule in the region and impose modernization and Westernization on that comparatively sluggish part of the world.

The saddest part of Reid's thoughts here are that they are in blatant contradiction: If Bush is impeached, Cheney will rule and continue the neocon agenda; but if Lieberman ruled he wouldn't vary substantially from that agenda because he basically supports it. And so does Hillary Clinton and numerous other Democrats who have openly and consistently shown affinity with the neocon ideals of America actively reshaping the world in order to make it safer for freedom and democracy.

The basic presumption is that democratic nations don't exploit one another beyond the market. Somehow, it's conveniently forgotten that Hitler was the recipient of Germany's democratic votes, paving the way for his takeover. In similar fashion, militants are now achieving power through democratic rule in various parts of the Middle East. In retrospect, it's obvious, sleeping dogs should've been left alone for not all of them were ready for democracy. Just as America wasn't ready for it in 1676. Unfortunately, no Democratic leader has clearly articulated this huge obstacle that prevents America from again returning to the rule of governance through the workings of moderates and wise accommodation - the kind of government that inspires Reid to be nostalgic.