By Ezra
I would say, in response to Shakes and for those attracted to the impeachment idea, that even if we did get there, we'd be left with President Cheney, which is potentially less palatable than Bush. (As an aside, I always thought the Cheney selection was very good as a survival strategy. Anyone who'd possibly be interested in assassinating George would be horrified at the thought of installing Dick. Cheney, then, is life insurance for Bush. But I digress.) But ignoring that for a moment, I still think it a bad idea, and we need only look at the Clinton template to see why.
One thing to remember about the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton is that, annoying as it was, it failed utterly. The impeachment overreach destroyed Newt Gingrich's career and handed the Republicans the worst elections results for an opposition party since Johnson crushed Goldwater in 1964. Think about that -- getting so close to destroying the President ended with Republicans getting the worst whupping any opposition party had received in 34 years.
Democrats, for our part, have always been impressed that they got so far on so little, and I fear it sometimes obscures the fact that doing so almost destroyed them, and certainly killed the Republican revolution. Indeed, Bush can fairly be judged a child of that overreach, as compassionate conservatism was an attempt to say "not Newt Gingrich", and he only needed to say that because impeachment left Newt looking like the sort of creature kids feared lived in their closets.
