The impeachment of Clinton was not political suicide for the Republicans

[mudesi]

That is my opinion of course, but I think it has some facts to back it up. For one thing, everybody knew the impeachment of Clinton was a pure political stunt. Only hard core neo conservative ignoramuses actually believed Clinton deserved to be impeached for his "crimes". Yet the Republicans were still able to use that stunt successfully in 2000 to win the White House by marketing the "dignity back to the White House" line.

Yes, they fraudulently suppressed Democratic votes and yes, the supreme court was stacked against Gore, but you can't deny the almost 50% of the population that actually voted for Bush on his so called "values" platform. The impeachment of Clinton motivated the Republican base and also convinced swing voters to vote for the "family man" who wouldn't dare cheat on his wife.

Maybe you can blame Gore for being wooden or uncharismatic, but I would hardly call George W. Bush the most charming man in the world. Even if you contend that impeachment did not help the Republicans win in 2000, you have to admit that it didn't hurt them all that much.

So it is my opinion that an impeachment of both Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would not at all be political suicide, in fact, it may even be beneficial. Never mind that this time, they actually deserve to be impeached.

If the typical American swing voter can vote for Bush in 2000 because of a cheap political stunt, surely the same voter can support the Democratic candidate after the Democrats show some spine and do the right thing. Why must it be automatically assumed that impeachment would hurt the Democrats when time and again, this administration as convincingly broken law after law after law?


Edited to add some numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1998

...With the GOP having lost 6 House seats and failing to gain any seats in the Senate...

I would hardly call that a big loss, considering the result of 2000. And they still retained their majority.

[WI_DEM]

1. It backfired on them in '98 though when dems picked up ten house seats the first time (I think) the

party in the WH gained seats in the sixth year of a presidency. But it backfired on them because it was a lousy sex scandal involving consenting adults and most people didn't think Clinton should be impeached and removed from office over that. Bush's crimes are much different.

[EFerrari]

2. Bush let us die on 9/11, during Katrina and in Iraq.

Clinton did no such thing unless you believe life begins at ejaculation.

/oops

[WI_DEM]

3. that's why I wrote that Bush's crimes are much different--there is no comparison.

and that most Americans didn't think he should be removed from office for them. And that the GOP did pay a price in 1998 with the loss of ten seats and then with the hypocricy of Gingrich and that other guy who wanted to be Speaker being revealed.

[EFerrari]

5. Right and for anyone to equate the two situations is just silly.

I agree. :hi:

[mudesi]

7. Was that really that much of a gain?

If you look at it objectively, was it really all that detrimental to the Republicans? I don't think so. People eventually forgot about their political shenanigans and only remembered one thing: Clinton as the "immoral adulterer". From my perspective, it looked like it helped the Republicans more than it hurt them.

[Dhalgren]

10. Clinton's impeachment came in Jan. 1999, after the elections,

so it had no relation to wins or losses. The Democrats are doing what they seem to always do - play politics with their principles until they lose the majorities in congress. We just can't always depend upon the Republicans to fuck up so royally that we look good by comparison. Occasionally we need to actually do something that actually aught to be done...

[AndyA]

4. Failure to do your job, just to make it easier to get elected is no better

than what Bush/Cheney are doing.

It's mandated by the Constitution that Congress SHALL impeach. It doesn't say "can, should, could, might" it says SHALL. Shall is pretty definite.

I don't think it will hurt the Dems at all. If anything, it will embolden the GOP base some, but most of their base is sick to death of them right now anyway. And if crimes are brought out, that should take care of a lot of the rest of them.

Congress should start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney the moment they have proof of wrongdoing. And that should be any moment...

[EFerrari]

8. Omigod, we've all had their malfeasance in our faces for years.

[fasttense]

6. Thanks for saying what I've been thinking.

I made the mistake of watching Wolf on CNN last night because he mentioned the impeachment of Dick. Well Candy Crowley made innuendo laced comments implying Kucinich was crazy and Americans are not ready for Impeachment because.... it was political suicide for the repukes. What? It seemed to help them get the presidency (with a little help from the black robed junta called the supremes). It helped them stack the legislature. I saw no fall out except for the idiot Newt, and he is back doing just fine. So where were the repercussions from impeachment?

[RethugAssKicker]

9. Your right... It didn't backfire on them.... but only because

the typical American voter is simply an asshole... Most Americans are basically ill-informed and ignorant.... yet THEY feel superior to the rest of the world... unbelievable !

[Tempest]

11. It didn't backfire on them for the simple reason

They failed to convict.

If they had convicted Clinton and forced him from office, the backlash would have been felt immediately given Clinton's 72% approval rating, IMHO.