The most important point to be made is that it's simply not practical right now. If we had the votes, I'd be all for it. But we don't, and unless investigations turn up a real big smoking gun, we won't get them in the next 2 years.

Channeling Rumsfeld: "Do I think that Bush has committed impeachable offensives? Probably."

If you believe Bush has committed impeachable offenses, then you should believe Bush should be impeached.

It should be that simple.

I think there is grounds for impeachment if Bush stalls on the Iraq Study Group recommendations and continues his "stay the course" mentality.  Bush only has a couple of months to buy into this or less.  If he fails, he will lose the respect of most Americans to a degree not seen by any President ever.  I think then there will be grounds to seriously discussing whether or not we can wait until the next election, or if we need new Presidential leadership to get us out of Iraq.

They can be "wrong," or they can use "false" claims, or they can lead you to "bad" conclusions.

Maybe you meant the comparison is based on a false premise? Either way, "false" is not a word that can modify a comparrison.

Sorry, I shouldn't be taking it out on you. I should be taking it out on all the Democrats who like to use the word "false" to describe opinions which are, in fact, "wrong," because they think it makes them sound more factual, or more academic, or less offensive, or something, when really it just makes them sound weak, hiding behind multiple choice answers rather than judgments and convictions (like "right!" and "wrong!"). "False" is not a more clear-cut word for "wrong," it is a word used to describe the veracity of positive statements, (or truth-claims, as some epistemologists would call them).

And Matt, you're right about this stuff, except, I think John Conyers entered articles of impeachment a while ago.

Impeachment should be off the table unless we want to lose both chambers in 2008

How shocked and refreshed would the country be to see politicians focused not on the past and tearing down their enemies out of spite and ill will, but looking forward to the future and how they can pass legislation that will actually benefit the country?

    Chris, what part of impeachable offense don't you understand? The criteria for impeachment of the president are High crimes and midemeanors. Lets see now. Illegal preemptive war against country with no proof, just like Nazi Germany's attack against Poland? Check. Genocide that will cause over a million deaths. Check. Contempt of Congress by assuming dictatorial powers. Check. Obstruction of Justice (Plamgate). Check. Pergery. Check. Listen, With what Bush has done, Nixon shouldn't have been impeached; the bastard should have been given the Congressional Medal of Honor!

Chris, you're writing this because you're smart and what you've said needed to be articulated clearly.  The hatred of the Bush administration among progressives is palpable.  Impeachment doesn't even seem enough.  (My own fantasies run more along the lines of carrying them off in chains and sent to Gitmo; the only possible use I see for waterboarding is to use it on the Neocons.)  That said, I'm in total agreement with you that Democrats will gain much more from doing SOMETHING that involves delivering needed government services to the people.  

If two years are taken up with retribution, where are we on healthcare, the environment, the economy, fair and honest voting, shutting down the K Street Project?  Pelosi is smart enough to know that she needs to look like a problem-solver, not an angry mommy, to get America on her side.  I really don't want to see people ham-string her with damands for punishment.  Investigation of war profiteering -- by all means!  Impeachment -- a waste of time.  History will judge Bush, harshly.  No presidential library "think" tank in the world can white-wash what he's done.

just illusion, confusion and a total misreading of any history of Congress.  

Nothing happens like this comment by NealB.  Nothing.

The best thing I heard about impeachment is that it is not a political party process.  It is in the Constitution as a safeguard for the people, not for the parties to use politically, which is what happened with Clinton. The Founding Fathers were mostly extremely sceptical about the interests of political parties.

Impeachment, to arise from the Constitution's purpose for it, would need to follow from the facts gathered through investigation and oversight and become so obvious to the people that it would be demanded by them.  That could still happen, but it certainly shouldn't according to this come from a political campaign or independent PACS set up to achieve impeachment.  So let the Congress do its mandated oversight and we shall see if a call to impeachment arises from overwhelming evidence.

Until then, Congress should govern and get things done, including oversight.  Let impeachment be a result (if it should come to that, which I hope it does not), not a purpose, of government actually working.

Impeachment would be a total error.  

We would lose both the House and the Senate.

In fact, impeachment is what the Republicans want MOST OF ALL. They desperately want us to squander the next 2 years chasing this Children's Crusade of a stupidity.  That way, they can call the Dems the Party of Hate Bush, the Party of No Ideas, the Party of Divisiveness, the Party of Hate, etc.

And the Dems would be making explanations.   If you are making explanations, you are losing.

As Chris suggests, it's not going to affect the view of those who prefer not to be confused with the facts.

But clearly and concisely summarised.

Quick question: why does official Dem prose (eg, New Direction) have to be so eye-gougingly ghastly?

Quick answer: pay Chris megabucks to write the stuff for them!

That's always the problem.

People want to do the right thing, but they're afraid someone, somewhere, will spin what they do to  their distinct disadvantage. Given the disfunctional nature of our society, our institutions, and our government, I can't say I blame people for being squeamish.

That's the problem.

Has dubya committed impeachable offenses? You bet. In spades.

We need to do the right thing. Our Congressional institutions need to expose dubya and his administration of malfeasance. The power of subpoena is a good thing, the self-righteous cable gasbags be damned.

Most of all, I want to hear the inside-the beltway chattering classes explain to me why getting a blow job in the Oval Office is an impeachable offense, and why committing crimes against humanity are not.

It's all in the timing. The vote to impeach should come in January 2009 - in the interim between the seating of the new Congress and the swearing in of the new President.

Because we can.  

The only way you get to impeachment is to hold investigations. As long as the Democrats pursue investigations in a responsible and appropriate fashion (while also making sure that those investigations don't get in the way of either passing legislation or the perception that the Democrats are putting the business of the country front-and-center), then everything else will follow naturally.

In other words, either those investigations will create public and congressional support for impeachment or they won't.

The investigations, however, are non-negotiable (IMO): Failing to investigate the massive corruption of the past several years would be a dereliction of duty, plain and simple.

I agree with your analysis of how practical this is.  At the same time, I disagree with your analysis of how necessary it is. This administration has committed crimes against humanity and has damaged our democracy. We cannot ignore that record.  Yes, of course the media will blow its hot air all over the place, but Congress isn't there to provide entertainment.  It's supposed to do the work of the people, and the work of the people at this point has to include ensuring that our freedoms are never again threatened from within.  The gasbags be damned.

I thought it was interesting as the figures came in showing there would be a Democratic majority in Congress that the conservative pundits immediately began asking in hushed tones whether there would be impeachment proceedings.

Why would they ask that question, unless even they thought that there were good grounds?  I mean, surely that isn't the usual topic of conversation when power in Congress switches hands?

I'm not sure why you're writing this either.

You've added a net zero to the discussion.

This comment has nothing to do with the substantive position you've taken, except to say that there was no particular value to your restating exactly the same substantive position taken by dozens before you.

Naturally, it's no secret that I disagree with those positions, but that doesn't even enter into this. What I'm saying here is that all of this has been said before.

A couple users are giving comments a "1" rating solely for having the temerity for thinking that impeachment is a bad idea.

Knock it off.  Trying to censor opinions you don't like is childish and stupid.

Probably? Bush confessed to numerous felonies when he revealed he was doing an end-around on the FISA court.

Slam dunk.

I'm of the mind that these people are criminals, whose only loyalty is to money and power. They are a cancer on the body politic, and should therefore be excised. Their illegally obtined weath should be confiscated, and Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., should receive the corporate death penalty.

Bush and Cheney, and their toadies, should not only be impeached, but tried for war crimes, both here in the States and in the ICC in Den Hague.

Whatever happened to the rule of law?

I think this timidity over impeachment is a direct result of the witch-hunt that turned the Cliton presidency into a political triage unit. It's put us off our food, so to speak.

Well, I for one don't like the idea that we shouldn't impeach because it would be messy politically, and I'm really quite shocked that many on the progressive side of the blogosphere don't seem to have the stomach for this.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

We cannot let them get away with this criminal behavior.

Period.

Got a lot of serious problems to fix and impeachment impedes solving those problems.

If Congress simply restored civil rights we lost from Patriot Act that would be huge...a No.1 on the list kind of thing.

Something that could be done RIGHT NOW.

That'd be a nice netroots campaign item.

here, perhaps summarized as proceeding with a "Do Something" Congress, passing middle and lower-class progressive bills and sending them to Bush, daring the veto and letting the Republicans scramble to explain the opposition.  All the while, Conyers, Waxman, Dingell, et al proceed with their investigations (and this time with subpoena power and not in the basement).  If impeachment becomes so obvious within 1 year (not 2 years because 2008 will be an election year), then it will be because the Republicans are holding their own accountable like Nixon's forced resignation.

Impeachment is the only method to hold Bush accountable while in a Constitutional Office, if I am not mistaken.  Out of office, however, and would it not open up crimes against humanity (for one example) prosecutions for a citizen, no longer protected by a Constitutional Office?  Germany isn't waiting to go after Rumsfeld, is it not possible that the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-etc. cabal can be held to account well into the future, after the Democratic Party has shown (again) that it really does a good job at governing, despite the RWCM trying their hardest to show otherwise?

I tend to agree with Chris on this. Nothing would unite the GOP faster than impeachment, and nothing would distract from our agenda more either. Unforuntately the reality of politics is that sometimes doing what we feel is right is not in the best interests of our party, or our nation.

Also, does anyone really like the sound of "President Cheney"? Assuming we wouldn't impeach both (which the country would never tolerate IMHO), Dick would be running the show for the next two years, and all of us on this blog might have a government sponsored 'vacation' to a naval base in Cuba.

Um, NealB, you are aware that impeachment isn't the same as conviction, right?  The Republicans in '98 had the votes to impeach, but not to convict.  Much good it did them.

Plus, what you're describing--Congress resolving to take out the entire executive branch by fiat--sounds like a pretty Bushistic abuse of power to me.

Just to reiterate, being able to impeach the President is not the same as being able to remove him from office.  I mention this only because a number of peple here seem to be wondering whether getting Bush would enough, or if we could get the next in line, too.  Guys, it will never, ever come to that point.

This is exactly what I wrote on DailyKos at Thanksgiving:

I do honestly believe that both Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeach, tried on charges of High Treason, convicted, and hanged, drawn, and quartered the old-school British way. ;-)  However, from a political standpoint, I don't think that'd help either us or the country all that much.

What would help is the vigorous investigation process that would eventually lead to impeachment, but we'd be better served by using those investigations as a tool to educate the public and build a real movement to undo all of the damage the last twelve years of Republican rule have wrought.

Read more

1) Democrats don't impeach Bush, Congress impeaches Bush.  We would not impeach Bush without bipartisan cooperation.

2) Impeachment isn't a legislative priority, it is a tool to use in case Bush willfully flouts Congressional authority.

3) Taking impeachment off the table is removing a huge source of potential leverage, for no reason.

4) Impeachment could be critical to governance in various scenarios I'm playing in my head.

You're setting up a straw man, Chris.  Impeachment isn't something to push for unless it's clearly necessary as tool to push back on Executive authority overreach.  Let's see how Bush reacts to Congress, and then figure out whether the public is satisfied with his intrangience.

So, if 69% of the public supported impeachment, would you still oppose it?

I probably agree with you at a fundamental level as much as anyone else at this site, particularly among long-time commentators.  (I signed up back in the day when you could still comment as "anonymous hero.")  But this is really BAD argument, Chris.  Possibly the first I've ever heard from you that I would characterize that way.

Why is that?  Simple: It completely disregards principle on an issue where principle cannot rightly be ignored, and it sacrifices principle to expediency without considering how the two might be reconciled.

Now, I happen to agree substantially with your general conclusion--that impeachment has virtually no chance to succeed, and a potential to actually help the Republicans.  (Although your citation of polls is misleading, since the question is typically "Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?", which is certainly premature to ask even before an investigation has even begun.) But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, if it is both right and necessary to do.

My problem with impeachment is simply this: it's too little, too late.  Our problem is that we didn't impeach Reagan and Bush over Iran-Contra.  That failure--in the name of the same sort of lame excuses being trotted out right now--paved the way both for the purely political witch-hunt impeachment of Bill Clinton, and for the wholesale lawlessness of the Bush Regime.  At this stage, impeaching Bush and Cheney would not come close to remedying the problem they embody and symbolize.

Therefore, I strongly support continued activism around impeachment, because I think these issues need to be raised.  But they are only one facet of the systemic corruption, and virtual abandonment of democracy--and its preconditions dating back to the Magna Charta--that we now face.

The substantive political issues that Chris points to, as well as the winning of the presidency in 2008, and beyond that, the continued transformation of the Congress, the strengthening of the 50-state project, all these are vitally important as well.  But even if we could successfully pursue them in a constitutional vacuum, they alone would not secure our future.

I don't have a simple pre-packaged way to resolve and combine these perspectives.  There is a tension here, and it ultimately cannot go away until we have returned to constitutional government, which we have not had for quite some time--since November 2000 at the very least, but I would argue since Iran/Contra and the October Surprise before it.

The more that "sensible, pragmatic" types dismiss this as "impractical," the more it feeds the more irrational forces that can increasingly focus on impeachment.  We have already seen what a liability it is to have an often self-marginalizing peace movement, rather than one that cannot be ignored.  This is why even the most hard-nosed realists within the Democratic activist community should want to treat the impeachment option with dignity and respect, despite disagreeing with it: because we need a healthy tension between different factions, and positions, each represented by its best possible advocates.

The principle here is exactly the same that I have always had toward people on the opposite wing of the party--the "centrists."  I do not attack Lieberman because he is a centrist, but because he is a bad centrist, a party-destroying centrist.  He is, ultimately, a very bad representative for centrists, and I'm glad that a number of centrists on this site have said so themselves.  I will certainly criticize all centrists because of policy differences, but I will just as assuredly understand Senator Nelson's position representing Nebraska, and not expect him to vote and speak out like Boxer, Feingold, or Sanders.

And I ask the same sort of consideration for high-calibre impeachment activists as well.  We are strenghtened by our diversity when it is principled and well-argued.  We are strengthened by a diversity of organizing approaches as well.  We are strengthened by our ability to keep our minds open to new ideas and new information, even as we remain committed to our chosen positions.  We can not only walk and chew gum at the same time, we can do it with dignity, grace, compassion and mutual respect.

And we can make America be America again.  As  Langston Hughes said:

"O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again."

Bowers, you're now officially on record, along with Pelosi, Dean, and Reid- you oppose impeaching President George W. Bush.

Fine, that's your belief.  But remember that we do not live in a static world.  Things change, and perceptions change in light of new information.  When Dems start to investigate and discover illegal and extremely immoral activities, perceptions will change.

You think it's soooooo smart to avoid impeachment, because you're scared s--tless of the media?  Fine, wait until Leahy, Waxman and others uncover some truly jaw-dropping behavior (like, for example, illegal surveillance of anti-war groups or Democrats).

Then come back and explain why you thought it was a brilliant move to oppose impeachment before you even knew what the hell's been going on in the Administration.  I'm going to love seeing all of you squirm around, trying to explain how you really do have principles after all, and equating support for impeachment with the GOP witch-hunt didn't really mean anything, and gosh oh golly gee I didn't know what Bush was doing!, etc.

Whatever bulls--t you throw at us in about six months, most of us won't forget.  Impeachment is an important remedy against authoritarianism, and thus is an essential part of democratic governance.  If Dems aren't willing to impeach when they're supposed to, then they don't deserve to govern, and f--k 2008.

One other thing- I guess since you believe Dems shouldn't pursue anything when they don't have the votes, I guess you also believe we should have just let Alito be confirmed, since we didn't have the votes to block him.  Oh wait...

kos, Bowers, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, all of you who are so bold when it comes to abortion but so timid when it comes to the rule of law...your stance against impeachment will come back to haunt you.  Hypocrites.

Three simple questions, but I have yet to hear answers:

1.  When would you favor impeachment?  What kind of Executive abuse is too much, even for you?

2.  How can you ensure accountability without punishment?

3.  How can you deter future Presidents from abusing their power if they know that not even this guy was impeached?

I agree with Chris.  Your political capital is best spent on moving forward and being constructive, not being divisive and spiteful.  It's much more damaging to the Administration and the GOP to undo all of the things they've screwed up over the last 6 years than to go on a witchhunt.

The time to make the case for impeachment was in 2005 and 2006.  If we were going to simulpeach Bush and Cheney, we needed to do it in 2007, and that meant educating the public in 2006.  We missed that boat.

There's really no point in impeaching Bush and Cheney in 2008; they'll be all but out the door anyway.  It's absurd to hope for impeachable offenses cropping up from Congressional oversight; we already know of a few: warrantless wiretapping, the creation of an American gulag, and lying about the WMDs (or, in the alternative, not attempting to secure them upon invading Iraq).  I'd even be willing to impeach Bush over Katrina; the death of an American city is no trivial matter.

An impeachment resolution is a privileged resolution; the majority party can't bury it in committee without the assent of the minority.  This is an argument we could have made while the GOP was still riding high; it might've brought them down a notch a bit earlier than otherwise.

Just for the hell of it, I wrote up my own articles of impeachment last year.  The Dems in Congress could have as well.

Wow, considering how on the mark you've been on many other matters, I can't believe how wrong and clueless you are on this one.

First, you think that Bush has "probably" committed impeachable crimes? Are you for real? I know that your focus is on electoral politics, but GEEZ, where have you been these past 6 years? Torture? Rendition? Warrantless wiretaps? Signing statements? Security letters? Abu Ghraib? Knowingly lying about pre-war intel? Outing Plame? I could go on but I think you get the point. That ANY of these isn't impeachable is absurd. That ALL of them aren't impeachable is downright batshit crazy.

And that's the formal, constitutional argument for impeachment. But I think that a political one can be made as well.

If, after conducting thorough, exhaustive and PROPER investigations and hearings (i.e. fair and non-vindictive or agenda-based, which is the ONLY kind we should be conducting), it is indisputibly demonstrated that Bush has committed multiple impeachable offenses, then not only will the public likely support impeachment, it might openly DEMAND it--and if we don't pursue it, we will likely pay the price.

And I am 100% convinced that such investigations and hearings will demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush has committed multiple impeachable offenses--because he clearly HAS.

I think that you VASTLY underestimate not only the constitutional case for impeachment--which I think is all but airtight from a theoretical point of view and now only requires to be formally demonstrated--but also the principled and practical NEED for it--if we're not to sweep this all under the carpet and thus be forced to face it again someday, as we did with Watergate and Iran-Contra--as well as the political case for it, which I think will find wide public support ONCE these investigations and hearings prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

As for whether we'd have the votes, well, perhaps not. But that shouldn't stop us from pursuing it anyway, if the case for it is there. You don't always do things because they're achievable. Sometimes you do them because they're the right and necessary things to do. And if we won't have the votes for impeachment, what makes you think that we'll have the votes to pursue our progressive agenda? So long as Bush is in power and we have a thin 51 seat Liebermanesque majority in the senate, we won't. It won't be until '09 that we'll have any chance of implementing that agenda.

Plus, I think that if the case for impeachment is made and the public supports it (and I believe that both will happen), we could and should use this as a wedge issue in '08 against both Repubs and DINOs who vote against it--just as we should use their votes against our progressive agenda against them.

And finally, who says that we can't pursue both impeachment AND our progressive agenda? Why does it have to be either/or? I don't understand that.

Do some more reading on this before you comment further, Chris, as you're behind the curve here. Check out the various articles that have been written on this by Greenwald, Holzman and Vega, and some recent books on this that have come out by Holzman, Nichols and others. You're seriously downplaying the seriousness of Bush's crimes, and the only way that the constitution provides for dealing with them--impeachment.

This HAS to happen.

Original burglary - June, 1972

Senate hearings begin - May, 1973

Nixon Resigns - August, 1974

This whole idea of impeachment is idiotic.  

15 MONTHS FOR NIXON.

We had the tapes there.  We don't have tapes here.

Bush deliberately lied to start a botched war, while at the same time letting war profiteers boost their profits at the expense of our soldiers lives.

If you do not do your moral and Constitutional duty to remove such a president from office, you set the precedent that it is simply OK to ruin America's National Security with a Botched-War-Based-On-Lies, as long as you can fool enough people for a couple years.

Fuck that.

I am an American first. If persuing justice, having accountability, and setting the long-term standards for how we get into war are inconvenient for the Democratic party, then FUCK the Democratic party. I am an American FIRST.

I was very upset when Conyers and pelosi said "Impeachment was off the table."  However, upon reflection, I think I understand their motivations.  I just wish Pelosi/Conyers had just said NOTHING.  Deflect the question.

The fact is, jumping for impeachment is putting the horse before the cart. Impeachment is the end result of investigations.  By stating out front, "hell yeah we're gonna impeach that sumbitch" investigations would have immediately been undermined as partisan.

Impeachment has to come from a groundswell, conditional on investigation: it really can't be a partisan circus like Clinton.  And so far, that swell isn't there.  There's still time, let's see what happens.

Here is a little test to see about impeachment.

1) Find 10 people who are Democrats.

2) Pitch impeachment to them.

3) Report back on their response.  Remember, honesty is the best policy.

If you find more than 3 in 10 favoring impeachment, I will be shocked.  

And be fair: Ask in a neutral manner.

Well, obviously political expediency is the most important thing to most Democrats. What a country. Exactly why did we have an election last month?

Those in favor of impeachment really need to take a step back from righteous anger and think about this. Bush has already screwed up the world as much as he possibly can, and creating a big expensive trial to get revenge over that won't change everything being shot to hell. In the months it would take to conduct an impeachment proceeding, thousands of people will die in Iraq. And who knows how many people here will suffer from no health care, job insecurity, you name it, while our legislative branch was focused solely on the past.

I'm into politics because I think it can be an amazing tool with which to do good. That's why I really abhor the Bush admin, but that's also why I don't want us to just focus on them.

I too was opposed to impeachment, until I read northwoods1's dairy on kos.  She or he makes some very thought-provoking points.  The bottom line is that it would be completely irresponsible for the Dems not to impeach.

I have just read through all the comments on this post and I find it appalling how insulting some of the comments are. Please, please make substantive arguments; please don't hurl insults -- it just degrades the whole discussion.

I find it useful to consider the arguments of both sides -- both principle and strategy are important and it is useful to consider them both to figure out what we should do.

One thing that really frustrates me in reading through all these posts, however, is that many of the people opposed to impeachment say that those who favor impeachment are doing so to get "revenge". This whole "revenge" meme sounds to me like a Republican talking-point. I don't want revenge, I want to ensure the government runs according to the Constitution and to ensure that future Presidents can't run amok. I can't imagine any thoughtful, progressive person would want impeachment out of revenge -- that's what unprincipled Republicans do.

So please cut out all the talk about "revenge" and "retribution."

Good to know that justice for 700K deaths and an illegal war based on lies are less important than almost anything else Congress could get up to.

Lord save us from the "reasonable" people and their willingness to forgive anything if it'd be too much trouble to enforce accountability.

Phoenix Woman said:
As Chris, Kos, and pretty much anyone else who knows anything about Congressional workings knows, a full-bore impeachment drive by the Democratic Congress would wind up stalling out the rest of the Democratic agenda

Without granting your premise, I think you mean it would wind up stalling the rest of the Democratic agenda for 2007.  The Democratic agenda will take longer than a year to implement, so the idea that we must dump everything to relentlessly pursue "the Democratic agenda" is in my opinion quite shortsighted.

Perhaps others disagree, but I believe the Progressive Agenda is strengthened when Democrats show principles, not just talk about being principled.  I vaguely remember someone in the Netroots (Bowers? Stoller?) heckling Barack Obama because the Senator spoke about how being principled can help win elections.  I wish I could find that post, because it eloquently pointed out that being principled is more important to voters (and consequently, to the Democratic agenda) than talking about being principled.  Ultimately, actions convey to voters what the Party's values are, not words or supersmart strategies.

Anti-impeachers seem to obsess on the impracticality and unlikelihood of success of an impeachment battle, and fret about how the (short-term) agenda will be damaged with an impeachment fight.  First, nobody knows how an impeachment battle would turn out.  Nobody.  We can't see the future with certainty.

Nobody knows for sure how it would turn out, and to use a sports metaphor, that's why they play the games.  Anti-impeachers want to forfeit the game before we've even taken the field, and fret about dirtying their uniforms or injuring their players.  Sure, you may protect your team from harm and embarrassment by not playing a game you're convinced you'll lose, but really, what fan wants to root for a team that forfeits all its tough games?

I've seen a lot of scorn thrown at those of us who aren't willing to give up on impeachment.  I've seen a lot of commenters here counter our "Rule of Law is important" arguments with "it's never going to happen."  That's essentially countering principles and concepts with practicality.

It's a seductive argument, but think for a moment what you're doing to the Democratic Party long term- you're telling American voters that if an impeachment fight looks to be difficult (and honestly, what impeachment fight would be easy?), then Democrats are not interested in fighting it.  You're telling voters that in the face of long odds and a tough fight, Dems will fold, no matter what's at stake.  You're telling voters that there are no lines in the sand for Democrats- they'll give it all away to get an edge in the next election.

I don't understand how showing the American people you're unwilling to fight for a principle is politically wise for any agenda in the long term.  I don't understand how giving up on a fight before it's even begun is going to woo voters- not only in 2008, but 2012, 2016, etc.  Voters will not get behind a party that is willing to chuck anything overboard if things get too hard.

Look, we're all in agreement about investigations (aren't we?), so why not just put this debate off until we know what we're dealing with?  Honestly, if investigations don't turn up anything worse than what we already know, I'll be the first to say 'the American people have already shown they don't care, so let's move on.'  As pissed off as I am about Presidential lawbreaking in principle, I understand the American people won't understand that problem unless they genuinely see egregious, real-word harm.  I accept that the American people have got more important things to worry about than what some politician did, and I'm ok with that.  But let's not draw conclusions before we have the data.

I'm not all that enthusiastic about an impeachment fight either, but I'm not willing to take it off the table, now, before we know anything.  Ultimately, I think investigations and the American people will demand impeachment, but I could be wrong.  By the same token, anti-impeachers who (perhaps) believe we won't find anything worse must also allow for the possibility that they could be wrong.

But it doesn't feel that way to me.  It feels like Kos, Bowers, and all the anti-impeachers want to end the discussion now, before the Democratic Congress has even begun- otherwise, why bring the subject up?  Making a decision (about impeachment) before you know all the facts seems unwise to me, but I'm willing to listen.

So, anti-impeachers, why not wait until after the investigations?  Can we all agree to put this off until then?  What say you all?

dataguy, I don't think holding off on an impeachment decision until after investigations means I'm "blinded by revenge fantasies."  Wingnuts over at Malkin and LGF can do that, but you should be better than that.

But you are right about one thing:  we fundamentally disagree on priorities and principles.  We both made that clear upthread- you believe protecting the Constitution is sound and fury, and I believe giving our government the power to violate the Constitution is dangerous and harmful.  I believe that if our Government is allowed to break the law, it doesn't matter if we pass supercool new great legislation, because it doesn't have to be adhered to.  Thus, in my book, the Rule of Law is more important than any specific Progressive laws.  And that's where we disagree.

But it's good that you agree with me and disagree with Bowers and Kos, because you're still open to impeachment if investigations turn up truly rotten stuff.  Kos and Bowers have made clear they want impeachment off the table, before investigations have begun.  I think that's wrong, and I'm glad you're with me.