Reply #7: "When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as . . .

[pat_k]

. . .the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration." http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14567">More from John Nichols "The Genius of Impeachment"

I continue to be mystified by the almost universal blindness to the risks of failing to demand impeachment and removal when the actions of our high officials demands it.

By not running on impeachment, if they win back the House they condemned themselves to being viewed as hypocritical cowards when they finally realize impeachment is a moral imperative. Americans don't look kindly on people who only "fight for principle" when it's safe. When a person is truly fighting on principle they don't wait until there is no risk involved to do it.

There is no higher principle than defending the Constitution. It trumps party; it trumps fear of failure. Their oath has no exceptions. (e.g., "Only do your duty when a member of your own party is third in the line of succession.")

In this case, impeachment wasn't just the right thing to run on, it was the WINNING thing to run on ("Impeach now and swear in President Hastert, or look forward to swearing in President Pelosi in 2007"). The Number 1 problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. If they stood strong, accused and demanded impeachment, they would have blown the perception that they are weak out of the water.

Instead, they continue to confirm the wimpy Dem image when they say "Don't worry, we won't impeach anybody!" When they say they have no intention of impeachment, they aren't just breaking their oath, they muzzle themselves. (If you accuse bushcheney of crimes, why aren't you impeaching? Since you won't impeach, you can't accuse. If you do accuse them of destroying our constitutional democracy, but refuse to demand impeachment, you are a wimp who is unwilling to back up your words with action.)

Even though they have condemned themselves to looking like partisan cowards, if they win back the House the only moral option open to them is to do everything in their power to see Bush and Cheney impeached and removed.

When principle demands action you must either act or betray the principle you claim to be committed to.