If Dems began Impeachment proceedings against Bush would they lose control of the congress?

That is the reason why many democrats in house and senate are not moving on impeachment proceedings is because they feel that the country would be upset by the congress spending months and months on impeachment and ignorning other problems. Do they have a valid point? They point to the GOP losing 10 house seats in '98 for the Clinton impeachment (but they didn't lose control of either the house or senate).

and impeaching Clinotn wasn't right. Not impeaching everyone in the Bush regime isn't right, either!

not pursuing impeachment is what congress will be punished for.

And it's already happening.

Administration in US history.

Dem pols are just not very bold. And we're going to pay for that lack of boldness at the polls, because the 'Licans will successfully paint dems as weenies. Hell, Bush got elected (or more precisely, picked up a lot of votes) just because he was seen as decisive and resolute in the face of negative opinions. Pure bullshit, of course, but he did manage to sell it.

However, the concern about a negative public reaction to a Congress that spends its time punishing Bush rather than trying to repair the damage he's done -- especially with less than 2 years to go -- is legitimate.

I think they needed to start proceedings right after the "100 hours" PR press was over. It's too late now.

Right now, the only person I would vote for would be Dennis Kucinich. I've seen people say here a million times that they won't vote for someone who voted for the IWR..... I won't vote for anyone who does not support and advocate impeachment of these criminals. I feel, in my opinion, that failure to impeach is 100 times worse than voting for the war..

But that's just me...

President Pelosi would win her first full term in a landslide too.

The DCdems deny that galvanizing loss is sometimes more important than a victory.

And that victory, like Mai Lai and Sherman's March sometimes bring everlasting criticism and shame.

An impeachment without a conviction would be disastrous.

I fail to see how the Republicans did very well.

Just look at the ratings of congress just after the election, and now, after six months of NOT impeaching.

They are cutting their own throats.

NGU.

It's usually a political winner to do so.

Maybe not both houses, but the risks would be great for it to occur.

We don't need to lose seats, we need to gain more seats. Regardless of what the well meaning but misguided poll respondents who voted 'gain seats' think, starting impeachment proceedings would do far more to hurt our political chances in 08 then it would to help them.

That said, if they were humiliated and failed to actually succeed in impeachment, it could have a negative effect.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.