Impeachable Strategy ~ David Corn ~ WARNING, well reasoned opinion.

[mzmolly]

In 1868, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson. The president was a Democrat. The House was controlled by Republicans.

In 1974, the House judiciary committee voted to impeach President Richard Nixon. The president was a Republican. The House was controlled by Democrats.

In 1998, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton. The president was a Democrat. The House was controlled by Republicans.

See a pattern here?

...

So what's the impeachment game plan? Stir up public outrage to such an extent that Republicans—scared silly by a surge of people power—cannibalize Bush? That seems a quite bit tougher to achieve than the more down-to-earth goal of winning the 15 seats the Democrats require to gain control of the House. (And picking up those seats is already a tall order.) Impeachment certainly has a visceral appeal that some may not find in that mundane and tired ol' cause of let's-take-back-Congress. But unless you have a fanciful imagination, it's difficult to envision the former without the latter. And if your goal is impeachment, why focus on that controversial aim rather than on achieving the political power necessary for waging such a drastic step? The potential costs of an impeachment campaign are clear. It could cause Democrats to appear marginal or out-of-touch. (Sorry, that's how much of the world works.) And it could create a wedge issue—for Democrats. That is, it could lead to division among Democrats in the months before the 2006 elections. (Democrats.com, an Internet-based activist group that passionately champions impeachment, has been attacking Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean for supposedly trying to smother impeachment fever among Democrats.) As for the benefits—well, if Bush is not impeached before the next election, what are they?


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/15/impeachable_strategy.php

I've posted this in a couple threads and gotten good response so I thought I'd float it about.

[mzmolly]

1. *whistle*

and a :kick:

[NVMojo]

2. I can see the logic but I'm fed up with the party bending over

[mzmolly]

5. I agree and understand your frustration.

I share it quite often, but I don't think we can randomly shoot bullets just for the sake of shooting, KWIM?

[mattclearing]

3. This misses the point entirely, though.

Everyone knows the Republicans aren't going to impeach the President.

Their election strategy so far is to accuse Democrats of wanting to impeach the President.

And what are we going to say?

Our response to that accusation will be the difference in whether or not we win.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I can damn near guarantee that the wrong answer will make 2006 just like 2002 and 2004.

[mzmolly]

4. We have a historical lead in recent polls when it comes to taking

back the house. Why take a chance on changing that?

[mattclearing]

6. That I can agree with.

But I still question whether it's good to reinforce the public perception of Dems as being unwilling to challenge Republican dominance.

[mzmolly]

7. That's why I like Censure right now.

I think it's a balance?

Personally, I like to see certain "rulers" jailed/hooded/gagged at Abu G for war crimes but that's never going to happen.

[msongs]

8. The german nazis thought they'd never be tried for crimes...

and when yer in power it cannot. but when you lose power....watchout :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/democratsmugs.htm

[mattclearing]

9. Censure is a good start.

I'd like to see more Dems take this kind of tack.

[oneold1-4u]

10. Understand

Six months from now, it "might" show as a "possible" in early 07. The time should be used for "strategy" and watching, because it isn't closed on the crimes yet!
The worst scenario would be more closed doors for any type of honest elections across the nation, and of course those are on the drawing board!
The nation is "tardy" by six years on this and six months will be very busy to bring it all together!

Have we really learned that a "non" president can be very dangerous?