Andrew Sullivan argues for impeachment.
"Most Americans are not yet fully aware that this vice-president believes that the executive branch is not subject to domestic or international law, has inherent powers to arrest, detain indefinitely without charges and torture anyone on earth if it so wishes, and can wire-tap Americans without any court oversight for good measure. These are not emergency powers in wartime, but permanent new powers since we are in permanent new state of war. Alongside our constitution, Cheney has constructed a rival governing force, a protectorate, answerable to no one and no law, dedicated to our security. We do get to select that protector every four years (our "accountability moment"), but that's the extent of our ultimate constitutional and legal protection. This is not self-government; it's delegation of power to a single leader-guardian-decider. The president is not really the president in this constitutional model. Presidents preside over a constitutional order. Protectors act as constant and energetic guardians of the security of others. They are outside the law, because they believe the law impedes the necessity for risk-free security."
He quotes one of his readers who suggests that impeachments were intended to be more frequent, the proof being it's "asymmetrical" structure. A simple majority for impeachment and a 2/3rds majority for removal from office. I don't know if I buy the argument, but its worth chewing over.
According to a recent poll, 54% of respondents support impeachment (76% of Democrats, 51% of Independents, and 17% of Republicans)
Here's the rub though. Do Democrats really want him out of office? He may be a great foil for them to run against. Notice that no one seems to care about Donald Rumsfeld anymore. It might be best to keep him in the limelight--maybe Republicans should want to kick him put. Plus if Democrats impeach him it opens the door to retaliation when a Republican Congress has the chance--not that they would actually do anything like that.
