-->> Bringing up charges of impeachment is a political winner

[Poiuyt]

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

Pelosi's problem appears to be that she doesn't want to be accused of repeating the partisan misuse of impeachment that Republicans perpetrated in 1998 and 1999. But the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney are precisely the sort of wrongdoing that impeachment was designed to check and balance.

==

The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.

When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.

When a political party speaks well and wisely of impeachment, frustrated voters come to see it in a new way. It is no longer merely the tribune of its own ambition. It becomes a champion of the American experiment. To be sure, such a leap entails risk. But it is the risk-averse political party that is most likely to remain the permanent opposition.

more -

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[papau]

1. I agree - but getting those on the Hill to agree is not easy n/t

n/t

[Poiuyt]

2. That's because they don't study history

They only remember the reaction to the Republicans impeaching Clinton. Two very different cases.

[exdem08]

3. Democratic leadership are enablers

They don't study history and they don't listen to those who voted them in. I for one am sick of this Democratic leadership, they are pretenders.

[kas125]

4. I have pleaded with my congressman in person and given him all that info.

He still doesn't listen. A group of us went to his office here to meet with him about impeachment months ago. Some of us went to DC in September and met with him and our senators and we discussed it with them. I left them articles from afterdowningstreet, which they said they would read. They sit there and listen to our arguments and they still aren't hearing us.

[Senator]

5. K&R&ImpeachNow