General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Swanson inadvertently provides insight on the sudden Republican interest in impeachment
Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.
When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
Full article at: http://warisacrime.org/node/30384
Anansi1171
(793 posts)...with 2012 level turnout - hypothetically?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)In the election following Clinton's impeachment, the GOP lost seats in the House, although they retained the majority. No change in Senate, until a republican switched to Dem afterwards, giving Dem majority. Several of the House seats they lost were the "impeachment managers". And at least one impeachment manager retained his seat, but lost a Senate seat bid 2 years later (Bill McCollum). Yes, GOP won following Presidential election, but Gore ran a lousy campaign, and there was the election theft and SCOTUS partisan decision... none of which had anything to do with the Clinton impeachment.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Always glad to see more facts on DU.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)lost their seats to Chuck Schumer and John Edwards respectively.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The GOP has won the popular vote in one presidential election in the past quarter century. That's not by accident. Their support of far right wing policies is driving a wedge between them and national electoral politics.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And Congressional approval numbers are in the single digits, those won't improve with a three-ring clown act impeachment proceedings.
The only thing the GOP can accomplish with an impeachment is solidifying the batshit crazy base. But they do so at great risk of losing swing/ind voters. That is reason for Boner's "lawsuit". It's a "poor man's" impeachment to placate the crazies, while hopefully doesn't turn off swing voters.
The loss of seats in the House, 5 I think, was a huge shock because they were predicted to pick up a few in the House and a couple in the Senate. The failure to do so directly led to Gingrich resigning.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)and a filibuster proof senate.
I didn't remember it being that far off. That election was the first one in a steady series of gains that got derailed after 9/11. The GOP was on track to lose Congress in 02 until they used a war to partisan advantage, something that really hadn't been done since the 1860s.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Democrats gained 5 senate seats in 2000 and 2 more house seats. Swanson is wrong.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Didn't seem to work out. And when Clinton was impeached Democrats picked up seats in the House.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Failure to bring charges over impeachable offenses sends the message loud and clear that the law of the land isn't worth enforcing. When high government officials get away with war crimes and crimes against humanity, it emboldens their successors (of either party) to perpetrate even worse offenses.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)if/when the House brings charges over un-impeachable offenses....again.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I wasn't sure whether to cloud my first point with my second point. But since you brought it up:
When the big tool of impeachment is hauled out over policy disagreements or sore loser political tantrums, it also hurts the system. The Starr investigation started over the Whitewater property investment that the Clintons lost money on. I'll say that again: They lost their investment, and that got an independent prosecutor appointed. Then, like Topsy, the Starr mandate just grew. And grew. And grew. Clinton, to his shame, couldn't keep his pants zipped even though he knew he was being watched closely.
So we the people were treated to the Clinton impeachment and trial. The Republicans not only failed to remove the president, they didn't even get a majority on any of their spurious charges. But the proceedings were quite useful in blunting the use of impeachment, as the Republicans could squawk about the "political" nature of impeachment talk, and how the Democrats were trying to criminalize political differences. The stenographers in the popular media repeated these baseless complaints as if they were anything but projection. In the face of crimes against humanity by the Bush administration, the Obama administration choked, because they were afraid the Republicans would be uncooperative with the new president.
Which worked out oh so very well.
Submariner
(12,482 posts)they need to talk impeachment because they want to kill the idea of EVER having another African American president, and because repubs would NEVER tolerate a non-white president. The thought of it feeds their racist madness.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,780 posts)Others who'd support Allen West. Hermain Cain also remains popular in some conservative circles.
Submariner
(12,482 posts)ONLY as a feel good measure to (in their own mind) appease their Liberal critics. When push comes to shove, the repubs KNOW a right-wing African American would get creamed in a general election, so they will go white.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,780 posts)Just like they KNEW that once news of then-Governor Clinton's adultery came out, he'd be disqualified in the eyes of the American people.
I think nw they are of two minds. Part of the party thinks the way to beat the Dems would be to put out a ticket of Condi Rice and Susanna Martinez, or Rafael Cruz and Allen West. The other part is still in the mindset you describe.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)due to her hawkish foreign policy stance.
Some conservatives would have marched out to vote for Colin Powell in 2000 if he had been the nominee. It would have been hard for them to dismiss someone who actually won a war. I think that many independents would have gone for Powell over Gore, and that if he had run, he would have been the first black president.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Powell vs. Gore would have been a disaster for the Democratic Party - especially with VP Gore literally running away from his association with the well-liked President Clinton.
Colin Powell would have most likely split the African-American vote in 2000 and garnered those independent voters, also.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,780 posts)I think he could have won the 2000 election in a landslide - including the GOP primaries.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I think it is more important to Republican members of Congress that he is a Democrat.
Cha
(295,899 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... without the context of justification. There was clear and convincing justification to impeach Nixon, Obama, not so much.
I hope they do try the impeachment route it will blow up in their stupid faces.
PATRICK
(12,227 posts)to be more general. There are all kinds of issues that stir the waters, seem to divide and roil the public. It seems mostly that the biggest result is to maintain aggression, power, and will within the party. That provides rewards internally whether the public is put off or supportive. Impeachment is just the latest puff of steam from the implacable GOP engine. Instead of waiting for said engine to blow itself up the other party seems to put itself second in desire, trying(and failing) to settle for substantive compromise, demoralizing itself and the majority constituency.
The gist of the comment seems to be the same as is constantly brought up in many DU posts. Greed, fanaticism and money keeps the insane GOP drive for power energized, horrifically and irrationally alive, and Dems shouted down. Thus the No-Nothing option that might finally bury the GOP has been swept up INSIDE for vitality and co-option. Third Way Democrats, all too accurate a description for all too many top Dems, pour cold water in the boiler, suspiciously for the same Big Money ends as the more fanatic GOP general strategy. There is little doubt they have at least gutted the necessary spirit of the Party in comparison to the GOP clowns and their corporate pumped peanut gallery.
mercuryblues
(14,489 posts)have nothing to offer. They need to get their voters out to the polls, this is their red meat.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)in November!