On Daily Kos the other day, interested parties could learn, if they were so inclined, about a primary challenge to Congressman Jerry Nadler in the Eighth District. Had you been interested, you could have learned the same from this post on Democrats.com, Bob Fertik's hub of activism on impeachment and other issues of interest. The challenger in question is one Adam Sullivan, and his issue is impeachment of the criminal cabal that currently stains the White House. Judging by Sullivan's own commentary, he's a backer of Dennis Kucinich, the so-called Progressive who just so happens to have one of the worst anti-choice records in the House and, incidentally, claimed to Shirley MacLaine that he'd seen a UFO; or smelled it, as it wafted near his window carrying an odor of roses. So far so good. But here's why I would consider this challenge a complete waste of time for Progressives. Now, I personally think impeachment is a necessity for our constitutional heritage, and to safeguard unborn generations. That said, it is not, contrary to what Sullivan claims,

Mr. Nadler, a powerful, popular and by all accounts progressive Democrat from New York’s Eighth is by no means a bad man. But when I met with him personally, I was disappointed because it seemed that he had become lost in a maze of his own arguments, excuses and rationalizations. I was also disappointed that the meeting was mostly him talking; I’d thought he was going to listen to a group of the people he serves.

...free of contention within the Progressive Movement that impeachment is a desirable goal. The quality of petulance that seems to underlie this misguided effort is captured well by this quote from the contender's web site:

I was therefore shocked and appalled when I and others met with Jerrold Nadler to discuss the prospects for impeachment of Dick Cheney, and my liberal champion insisted that impeachment had no support in Congress, that those in Congress who did support it were on the fringes, and that he had a better idea than impeachment.

It's an unfortunate reality, but it is simply the case that there is no majority in Congress for impeachment - neither in the House to vote out articles, nor for that matter in the Senate to convict. That's not something that Nadler just made up. Stamping one's feet isn't going to change anything about this. There is no silent majority in Congress to impeach, let alone impeach, convict and remove. In short, Nadler is being challenged by a single-issue candidate over an issue that he really could not affect even if he wanted to. The votes aren't there, even if Nadler, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee's sub-committee on the Constitution, decided to vote articles out of committee (not that, frankly, that would be the right committee to begin with, impeachment needing to come out of the full Judiciary). So we have a situation where there is a challenge to Jerrold Nadler from the left on a subject that is contentious even on the left, which will draw him away from vital legislation, from his fundraising efforts on behalf of other candidates, and even if successful, wouldn't have any results, as Sullivan would be seated in the House twenty days before George Bush leaves office. In short, quite frankly, this looks like yet another spleen originating from the Progressive wing of the party, one as usual doomed to abject failure, and in this case, directed against one of the most Progressive Members of the House over an issue which he couldn't bring to a successful conclusion if he wanted to. Full of fail. It's this kind of stuff that makes machine Democrats snicker if anyone mentions the Progressive Movement.