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

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