The Impeachment Campaign, Part 3: Practical Impeachment Politics (Step One: The Cangue):
In China, in days long ago, for relatively minor offenses, the punishment could be an awful torture device called the cangue. The cangue was a simple enough instrument, as the best implements of pain and degradation are: it was a type of stocks, a piece of wood with a hole for the head. Except, and here's the extra-cool-cruel part, unlike many Western versions, there were no holes for the hands. Instead, the piece of wood itself was wide enough that one could not reach one's mouth, so you couldn't eat or drink without the kindness of others. Oh, and here's an extra dandy part: depending on your crime, you could have weights hung from your cangue. Christ, what chafing, what neck strain, what symbolism. For, indeed, as long as that cangue was destroying your spine, you would remember, yes, how you would remember, your crimes.

What Democrats need to get their minds around is the cangue that George Bush has become for the Republicans. And it is up to Democrats running for Congress to keep adding more and more weight to those cumbersome boards until they actually crush the wearers. It is a kind of impeachment by proxy: the implication of impeachment without the act, a prelude, if you will, for the possibility of impeachment. And, as in so many ways, the Republicans have created the perfect rhetorical path for Democrats.

When some spittle-spewing conservative buttboy (or girl) appears on TV to decry any flea turd's difference between what Democrats believe and the administration line that said buttboy (or girl) takes as greedily as a fat feather queen takes any random cock, said buttboy (or girl) refers to the "Kennedy wing" or the "Clinton wing"(Hillary, not Bill) or the "Kennedy/Clinton wing" of the Democratic Party to tarnish anyone who would believe such heresy. Bill O'Reilly (who really needs to be sodomized with a microphone) does so constantly, as in this from January 13, 2005, over Democrats who would dare believe that Social Security was not in trouble: "Can politicians from the Kennedy wing of the 'progressive' left win over majority of American voters?"

For Democratic Congressional candidates, it's simple enough. (And if they're not doing the following already, they are missing out on a golden opportunity.) Choose any random Democrat running against a Republican. Let's say Lois Murphy, running against incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania's Sixth Districh. Gerlach has got his Bush-cangue already, so in every ad that Murphy runs, every appearance that Murphy makes, she should make sure to mention how much Gerlach is beholden to Bush and Cheney. Hell, she should makes sure that she always says, "Jim Gerlach and George Bush believe..." And fill in the blank. That's the weight, man. Hell, with Gerlach and other House members, there's the added weight of Tom DeLay: "What Jim Gerlach, George Bush, and Tom DeLay did..." And who the fuck's gonna vote for him? Someone who actually still supports Bush and DeLay? That's gettin' to be precious, precious few people, and we'd call them "bugfuck insane."

The guilt-by-association rhetorical device is specious and overused, except when it's true. And with a President and party so hated by nearly the entire nation, when the only "victory" that Bush is said to be "celebrating" is more tax cuts for the very wealthy, well, it's time to move in for the rhetorical kill, and that's to use Bush against his party. Again, as the Rude Pundit said yesterday, the idea is to force Republican candidates to choose between supporting Bush or denying him, and either way there's a bear trap waiting to chomp down.

Democrats need to bathe in the streams of blood pouring from the wounded administration and the hemhorraging Republican Party. They need to celebrate like ancient rites would have them, eating the hearts of their enemies to make them stronger. So when, for instance, Hillary Clinton is asked to say something nice about Bush, she shouldn't respond that he's one charming motherfucking pig or some such shit. No, she should say, "His heart was tasty. His blood was warmer than I thought it would be."

Tomorrow: But isn't this about impeachment? Yep, it sure is.