For all his bluster, Bostonist likes Ralph Nader. Sure, his last presidential bid was weird and defiant in an out-of-touch-with-reality way (as opposed to the previous one, which was more defiant in a mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore way), and he rivals Dick Cheney in the no-charisma department, but he is the moral voice of our nation's political discourse, and that's a worthy role. (Also, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a great rarity among expose consumer protection books: it was (a) good, (b) interesting, and (c) had a title that sounds like a Russ Meyer movie.) But we have to take issue with his editorial in today's Globe, in which he suggests (along with Kevin "Who?" Zeese) that the impeachment of George W. Bush should be seriously discussed.

It's not that we wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached. On the contrary, that would make for great political theater (and good television, what with all the summer re-runs), and would surely be at least as momentous as the almost-battle over the filibuster or the two weeks of shocked outrage over steroid use in professional baseball. Also, we think he's a lousy president. It's just that impeachment, if we are not mistaken, requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives, and conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. The Senate and the House, in case you were wondering, are controlled by the Republican party, of which George Bush is very much a member. Not only that, but the Republicans in the Senate are pretty big on party loyalty: they were ready to throw out a 217-year-old procedural rule (from which they benefitted many times in the past) because only 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. So basically, impeachment is not an option.

Bostonist thinks Nader and Zeese do a fine job of cataloging Bush's possibly-criminal activities in their op-ed piece. But maybe now, with the left having spent what little political capital it had to preserve a quintessentially anti-majoritarian parliamentary maneuver, a big push to oust a president who actually did get a majority of the popular vote in the last election isn't such a good idea. If Nader wants to exhort Mass. residents to some sort of political action (since we do seem to be home to a possible Republican candidate in '08), may we suggest he ask us to start looking for someone on the left who can do a better job than the last Democratic candidate?