I stumbled across this news item that ran in the New York Times in 1983 -- I didn't remember that this had happened and most likely neither do you:
There was no realistic chance in hell that Reagan would actually get impeached over the conquest of Grenada, which polls showed was hugely popular with the American people ("We win!"). But back in 1983, the Times at least thought that the concept merited a brief mention.
Last night, a senior member of Congress who was taking part in nationally televised presidential debates just a couple of months ago introduced lengthy impeachment articles against President Bush -- and it was a tree falling in the woods, a tree that apparently wasn't ground into newsprint. Not a word in the Paper of Record about the move by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and not much elsewhere. Here's the scoop:
True, this isn't happening any more than the impeachment of Ronald Reagan -- albeit for completely different reasons: Bush is leaving in eight months without impeachment, and most Democrats are petrified of anything that carries political risk. Indeed, it surely would be divisive, but you might be surprised to learn that public support for impeaching Bush is greater than you think. You probably didn't see this story, either:
That alone would suggest that impeachment articles against Bush don't deserve a total new blackout.