Have you heard of Eric Oemig? No doubt many of you have, since Oemig was elected to the state Senate last November, defeating incumbent Toby Nixon in the 45th District by nearly 3,000 votes.
Or perhaps you know of him from the innocuous sounding bill he proposed in Olympia on Feb. 14, SJM 8016. In that bill, Oemig called upon Congress to investigate whether or not to impeach President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
An auspicious debut, yes?
Yes.
And while he was aware that a maelstrom of some sort would likely result, Oemig said it was something he had to do.
Not surprisingly, Oemig has received a varied reaction, most of it taking place in the weeks immediately following his filing of 8016. If you browse the Internet and check out various postings and blogs, you'll read a wide range of comments on Oemig and his bill. "A stand like this doesn't surprise me; Oemig is a liberal who had it out for the President from day one," reads one. "Going after Bush is like taking shots at Britney Spears," reads another. "One reason I'm proud to live in Kirkland," reads another still. (A letter in opposition written to the Courier appears on this page.)
Oemig said that the vast majority of letters, calls and e-mails he received were in favor of his actions.
"There were three angry e-mails, but hundreds in support," Oemig said. One constituent told him he was an embarrassment after he was a guest on a radio call-in show.
Notably, Oemig did not receive anything like unanimous support from fellow Democrats. Some legislative colleagues appreciated that he was willing to stick his neck out. As evidence of official support, Oemig's bill has eight co-sponsors.
Other electeds had what could be called a pragmatic response, claiming that while they may disagree strongly with the President, spending time on a largely rhetorical bill takes time away from the important local work the state Legislature means to take up.
Tellingly, members from Washington state's congressional delegation did not take up the cause. Rep. Jay Inslee, whose First District takes in a swath of Kirkland and is no fan of the President or the war in Iraq, spoke against Oemig's bill and lobbied against it. Sen. Patty Murray and Gov. Chris Gregoire have similarly declined to rally behind the cause.
"All the reasons not to do this were thrown at me," Oemig said. "But they didn't carry the same weight as the central question I'm asking, which is, did impeachable offenses occur? If you think they have, all arguments against aren't very persuasive. I am not persuaded that I shouldn't be doing this because of political expediency."
Similar bills are being debated in other states. Oemig finds the discussion healthy, regardless of the outcome.
On the practical side, it is by no means certain the bill will get a hearing on the Senate floor before the session ends. A resolution with similar wording could get a hearing. Oemig thinks this would be a positive step because Senators' votes would then become part of the official - and public - record.
"All politically difficult decisions start out as long shots. And this isn't calling for impeachment. It calls for investigating whether impeachable offenses have been committed."
One thing Oemig refutes is that SJM 8016 is taking either himself or the Senate away from working on important practical issues affecting Washington state. He adds that he isn't spending much time on the bill, doesn't consider it a distraction from the other issues he cares about, such as education.
Nor, he said, is he gaining any real political capital in the process. As a freshman Senator, he agrees he was well positioned to present the bill because he is new to the job and doesn't have to answer to an established legislative past. He acknowledges that it's possible the bill could hinder his future effectiveness or even cost him re-election.
"People are questioning my motives, which is fair. But I'm questioning the President's motives about starting a war. I don't gain anything politically here. This was something I had to do," he said.
In hindsight, Oemig said it was something of a freshman mistake not to have lined up more support prior to presenting the bill. He wishes he'd talked about it more with fellow legislators first and achieved more buy-in. He wishes he'd spent more time talking with Jay Inslee on the subject, though he concedes that he probably would not have brought Inslee around to supporting the bill.
So is this a principled stand? Attention-seeking grandstanding? Oemig claims the former and discounts the latter. He offered no regrets and said the bill may be reintroduced next year if it, or some version, doesn't get a hearing this year.
"The bill is not saying the President should be impeached," he said. "But the issues surrounding the President's reasons for getting into the war in Iraq, among others, should be discussed. The bill does say that Congress needs to have that debate."
Doug Schwartz is the editor of the Kirkland Courier. He can be reached at doug@kirklandcourier.com.[[In-content Ad]]
