For a few years now, it has been clear to everyone on the left that George W. Bush and most of his administration are criminals well-deserving of impeachment, yet we have been deeply divided on whether the Democrats in Congress should push for his impeachment. Some say since impeachment has no chance of succeeding, we shouldn't bother. Others have said that calling for impeachment will turn off swing voters and cost us the election. I have counted myself among this crowd. But no longer. George W. Bush must be removed from office.

This President, through his word and deed, has all but admitted that he can not be checked by the law or the courts. If he wants to do something, and Congress says he can't or the courts say he can't, he'll go ahead and do it anyway. The normal checks won't work. It doesn't matter if we pass a law against torture, or habeas corpus-stripping or jaywalking, for that matter. If this president wants to violate our rights, he will. It's as simple as that. The only way to stop him from doing so, the only way to protect our Constitution, is to remove him from office.

I know this is probably a basic question, but it's one I've had trouble with for some time. How do lobbyists work? From what I understand of it, they just call up the congressmen and tell them to vote a particular way. Why should the congressperson listen to them over the opposite call from a constituent? Is it just through campaign money? That seems a little simplistic, and isn't it illegal for them to donate to campaigns or something? I understand how bigger groups like an influential union or the Chamber of Commerce or the Christian Coalition might be able to get their will enacted, because they have a more or less direct line to voters. But how does the banana lobby exert its influence? Or the movie studios? Or the insurance industry?

I feel dumb for having to ask, but I have a saying: " You can't cure your ignorance if you're unwilling to expose it."

The first thing we need to understand as Democrats and progressives about this fight is that we'll probably lose. That is, regardless of what we do O'Connor is going to be replaced by a Scalia or Thomas. The theocons and the wingnut base will absolutely not stand for anyone with the slightest hint of support for Roe. Any chance of another Kennedy or, God forbid,   a Souter are virtually nil. Furthermore, if Bush puts up someone completely objectionable, and we do succeed in blocking him or her, the replacement will be just as bad. The reality of the situation is that Bush is not politically or temperamentally capable of nominating a moderate. So what should we do about this?