"A lot of people are in favor of the idea, and there's no chance that it's actually going to happen."

Sometimes it takes a while for people to warm up to new ideas. First things first, and first up is that unless there is some switch of unprecedented proportions, everything the idiots running the Bush Administration are going to do will wind up smelling like soiled diapers: the continuing Fitzgerald investigation, the Pat Tillman investigation, Torture and Gitmo, burgeoning deficits, Iraqi civil war, the housing bubble, DeLay's trial, Libby's trial, the inevitable indictment of Turdblossom (oh, yeah, it's coming), Dick "If I'd Known They'd Let Me Shoot People I might Have Gone to 'Nam" Cheney, and an increasingly clueless Bush looking like a lobotomy case every time he appears in public. Does anyone seriously think much of anything is going to get better for the Bush White House?

November 2006 is going to be an important month, because if the mid-term elections result in the Democrats taking control of one or both houses of Congress, Bush will go down, and the only way for Republicans to avoid being sucked uder with him will be to turn on him. In the long run - he may have more to fear from the Republicans than the Democrats.

The Clinton impeachment hurt the Republicans' standing because it was clear to the public that Clinton hadn't committed any serious crime, and the Republicans were on a witchhunt. Can anyone saner than Ann Coulter say the same about a Bush impeachment? The big question on my mind isn't whether we should impeach Bush, but which of a dozen or so legitimate charges should we press first?

The chief obstacle is one of the major flaws in our Constitution - the framers didn't anticipate party politics, or that the party that controls Congress can impeach for no reason, or prevent an impeachment no matter how well-justified. But that all goes out the window if the Democrats can take back Congress this year. I'm sure Diebold and Karl Rove will make sure that doesn't happen, but it's nice to dream.

I think democrats are making a mistake with the effectively 'do nothing' approach to the wrongs of Bush.

As one political figure noted, he's seizing power with his challenges to the rule of law, and only Congress can defend the constitution.

Has party now surpassed the constitution for these people? Perhaps, but with this many democrats going along, it's not just party.

The democrats might be better off rephrasing the call for the investigation from 'investigating impeachment' to 'investigating illegal activities'. The former sounds to many Americans like an extreme political witch hunt, while the latter puts the republicans in the position of refusing an investigation of their guy on problems that most Americans accept Congress investigating.

We're back to the old Trumanism about the public preferring real republicans to the phony ones: democrats need to give the public a choice on this. They should be able to turn it to their advantage, much the way the republicans dishonestly turned lies about democrats to their advantage; they demanded the democrats either 'honrably admit wrongdoing' or they were sleazy liars. Democrats couldn't win.

Bush has actually done these wrong things.

I've long felt that there was some danger that Watergate itself could shift to a 'what was so wrong, anyway' status with the public, as the public forgot the specifics of what was wrong, and how their natural inclination to side with leaders could lead them to decide it was an overreaction (as Lynyrd Skynard said then, 'Watergate does not bother me'). Now, we're in effect seeing that happen with the public complacency to the president's wrongdoing. Clinton said the public prefers a president strong and wrong to weak and right; I think that's unfortunate, but are the democrats being strong in this? No, Bush is, as he takes action and dares the Congress to stop him.

There are ways the democrats can turn the need for investigation into an effective political issue, I think, and oppose Bush's abuses.

Hopefully, and it may involve a shift from the I-word - that can flow once the investigations prove wrongdoing - they'll stop drawing incorrect conclusions from the republicans' witch hunt of Clinton, which the public largely saw for what it was, and will act against Bush, which many in the public are open to seeing the truth on as well.

So few Democtrats in the Congress support a movement to impeach Bush even though it's obvious to everyone that he deserves it and that we all need it ? No surprise. It would interfere with their own political plans AND frighten them to death. Oh, my goodness ! It would be soooo scary ! I also wouldn't be surprised if many of them would wish to repeat the Clinton impeachment because they are still so miffed at Bill for spoiling their fun.

I think the title of my post says it all -- I want to see the president impeached for many reasons, but the most important reason that he SHOULD be impeached is that he broke the law and sees no reason why he should be subject to its dictates. That is an impeachable offense if I've ever seen one, and I think that it is necessary to send a message that our executive is subject to the rule of law just like everyone else is supposed to be.

Last week, I e-mailed my Representative a copy of Garrison Keillor's article entitled, "Impeach Bush" and asked him to sign on to Conyer's bill, which begins the process of impeachment.

Surprise of all surprises, he e-mailed me yesterday to say that he had signed on to this bill on March 2.

I am going to buy a bunch of "Impeach Bush" tee shirts and bumper stickers and give them to friends and acquaintances and ask them to put them to use. This is a very small step to push the idea into the collective conscience.

This is not the time for inaction. If you are as disgusted as I am by what you are seeing, and many readers here are, it is time to DO SOMETHING. If that doesn't work, TRY SOMETHING

ELSE!