Sometimes I wonder if each side will try to impeach the other sides president

[LittleClarkie]

over and over and over in retaliation for the the impeachment that came before. I wonder if that's what stopping some Dems from going for impeachment, even if we think Bush and Cheney deserve it. Some say Clinton was in retaliation for Nixon, and I'm sure some will say that impeaching Bush will just be the Dems getting back at the Repubs for Clinton.

Is this how we're going to roll from now on? Every four to eight years trying to impeach each others presidents?

And don't impeachment proceedings get in the way of doing the real work of government, of any sort of bi-partisanship whatsoever? Maybe the Dems, and Pelosi, are just trying to get stuff done without getting bogged down in the quagmire of impeachment proceedings.

Not sure. Just pondering. Thoughts?

[quinnox]

1. It's a possibility

That might be a part of the reason Dems are wary of impeachment.

[BlooInBloo]

2. The problem is that the republicans have maintained complete control over...

... the *height of the bar* that must be hurdled in order to get an impeachment rolling. For Clinton, they massively *lowered* the bar. For bush, they've massively *raised* it. Somehow the Democrats need to get control of the height-control mechanism - I think that's more important than any specific impeachment.

[Strawman]

3. I doubt it. It doesn't work.

When the country loses confidence in a government it should be replaced and when a government is elected it should be able to enact its legislative agenda. Neither is the case in this country.

I would guess that impeachment of a Democratic president is a more effective political strategy for Republican Congressional majorities because:

1) They don't really want the government to do much of anything new. They ran out the clock on Clinton.
2) It's hard for Democrats to appeal to a group of Senate Republicans to defect from their party and defend the Constitution when so few of them really believe in the Constitution or democracy other than when it suits them as rhetorical cover for some power grab. This isn't the Republican party of the Nixon era. It's a party full of authoritarian zealots from Jesusland.

If impeachement worked, I don't think somewhat frequent use of impeachment would be such a bad thing either. I'd trade Clinton losing power in 1994-95 in exchange for Bush losing power in 2006-07.

I don't think trying it even though it won't work is a bad thing either. I think the voters have expressed non-confidence in Bush/Cheney. The case for their removal is clear and just. If it doesn't work the people should be confronted with the reality that their system doesn't work.

[GaYellowDawg]

4. Let the Republicans go for it.

Their crimes are always much worse than ours, and the public would know the difference between real criminals and trumped-up charges. It wouldn't be that long before Republicans were associated with a) criminal administrations and b) frivolous impeachments. Neither would be good for them.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Didn't Henry Hyde admit

that the Clinton impeachment was revenge for the Nixon impeachment?

And, didn't Lawrence Walsh say that Reagan should have been impeached, but he felt sorry for him because he wasn't mentally competent anymore? And, also that Tip O'Neill felt the country couldn't go through another impeachment so soon after Nixon.

[LittleClarkie]

11. I'd heard that too, and it's part of the reason I ask the question

Thanks for digging out the info, though. I didn't remember exactly who said it.

[NewJeffCT]

12. And, Hyde was the guy

Who had an affair with a married woman previously that he called a "youthful indiscretion" - when Hyde (who was also married at the time) was in his 40s.

I'm 40 now - if I had an affair tonight, I wonder how my wife would react if I said it was a youthful indiscretion?

[applegrove]

6. I don't think that is why we hear talk of impeachment today. I think it

is a real feeling that Bush is a law unto himself and got the US into a war through myth and exaggeration. A terrible war. Unitary Executive and secrecy. Deminishing all government departments. The list goes on and on. Torture. Katrina. Are these high crimes? There is much proof that the Bushies are hiding something.

I think the last thing on peoples minds when they want this government gone YESTERDAY! is the Clintons.

[depakid]

7. "...even if we think that?"

That comment right there is emblematic of the USA 's fall from rationality, objectivity and the rule of law.

This ain't some parlor game- though that sure is how a lot of people like to frame things.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Bush** Is Getting in the Way of the Real Work of Government

The real work of govenment is being vetoed by the pResident or overridden by "signing statements".

The real work of government is to end the war in Iraq, restore the rule of law, and start to rebuild our country.

None of that can happen with Bush** and Darth Cheney in office.

IMPEACH THEM NOW!

[Canuckistanian]

9. I think Clinton's impeachment ruined everything

Let me explain.

I think most people disagreed with the Clinton impeachment. And the fact that it was used for such purely partisan reasons and for such a minor infraction.

Impeachment is now viewed as political tool and NOT the "last resort" or "nuclear option" to deal with an out-of-control Chief Executive or VP, as it was intended.

I think the whole concept of impeachment has been reduced to something like censure, dependent only on who has the majority in Congress.

That said, I think that Pelosi's arguments of "he's not important enough" or "we've got better things to do" are a grave mistake.

And I don't care if it's the last day of the presidency - he and Cheney can't be allowed to get away scot-free.

[rudy23]

10. The R's will impeach every D president so the D's will be afraid to look like they're retaliating

The Democrats don't want to get into a tit-for-tat thing.

If Democrats will only impeach in a term that was not preceded by impeachment, why wouldn't the Republicans just impeach every Democratic president?