If I’m not mistaken nixion was forced to resign because of illegal wire tapping and other evil deeds so what the difference now. is it lack of cahones.
The difference is Bush’s party controls the government. Nothing Bush does will get him impeached.
after 2006 hopefully that won’t be a factor.
Bush might back off enough to avoid impeachment by a House Majority of Dems.
Look who’s in line for succession. Makes you tremble a little, doen’t it?
It’s almost impossible for the Pubbies to lose control of the Senate in the 2006 election, and only a extremely rosy scenario for the Dems gives then control of the House. I am afraid that, like it or not, we have a Dictator Until 2008 in Dubya. All the Dems can reasonably hope to do is to pick up seats in both branches. I am encouraged that even some Republicans have been able to get their noses out of Bush’s butt long enough to be frightened by some of the things Dubya has done, but I don’t expect them to be frightened enough to do anything substantive, like an impeachment.
Step 1: Speaker Pelosi.
Step 2: Bush/Cheney simulpeachment!
Yeah, I know just how large a quantity of finite improbability we’d need here. But a guy can dream. 
Consider that DeLay, the man by far the most responsible for whipping his Pubbies into line (and for forcing the Clinton impeachment instead of censure), will be out of there - either on trial, or in jail, or simply defeated, which nearly happened in his last election. Add in the possibility of SCOTUS reversing his Texas gerrymandering now that they’ve taken the case. You’ll certainly see a reduction in their majority if not an outright reversal, and it would only take a few Pubs with the conscience to put country ahead of party (or at least the ability to read polls) to make it happen. The flat insistence by the Bricker faction that it ain’t gonna happen has an air of desperation about it, doesn’t it?
Yes, both Bush and Cheney would have to be subjected to it to accomplish any good, and why not, they’ve done the same things for the same reasons.
You are mistaken, in large part. Watergate was mainly about the obstruction of justice impeding the investigaton of the burglary of the Watergate and the role of the White House in that, as outlined in the first article of impeachment.
The second article of impeachment did mention secret wiretapping, but that was a peripheral issue for most.
There are apparently no newspapers with balls these days.
Not just lose control of the Senate: the Dems would need to pick up enoguh seats to get to two-thirds, which is required for a successful conviction by the Senate. (Vide - Johnson, Andrew, impeachment thereof.)
So succesful impeachment only becomes likely if Bush substantially loses Republican support in both houses.
Which is exactly what happened to Nixon, since the OP asks.
I think you’re confusing impeachment with being convicted in the Senate. Remember, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted in the Senate-- that effort failed in the Senate.
The president would be impeached once the House voted on articles of impeachement, and it passes by a simple majority.
No, NP said “*successful * impeachment” - that would be one that led to the removal of the targeted official. Clinton’s and Johnson’s were *failed * impeachments.
That’s a meaningless addendum to a defined phrase. If you’ve been impeached, you’ve been impeached. There is nothing extra needed in order to be “successful”.
Sure there is. The actual removal of the targeted official. You know, the *purpose * of the process?
If you’re among those who insist on analogies to the (unrelated) system, try this: Is the case over when the indictment is obtained? Isn’t a prosecution that fails to produce a conviction a failed prosecution? You know the answers. What is the value, then, of an impeachment that fails to remove the targeted official? The value isn’t even political - the partisan impeachments of Johnson and Clinton damaged the impeaching party, and the presidents’ stature was actually enhanced.
You are making a stand on a trivial point, even after having its irrelevance pointed out.
I’ve fixed the thread title, as even Nixon deserves to have his name spelled correctly.
But not capitalized?
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia (I did a Google search on the term and this was the first definition site to come up):
I take your point that what counts is really whether the impeachment results in the removal of the official, but it’s not the end result of a “successful impeachment”. A successful impeachment opens the door for a conviction via legislative vote.
I know this is sort of nitpicky, but it seems sloppy not to make the distinction between impeachment and conviction via legislative vote since the distinction has real-life consequences. (i.e. whether an official is removed from office or not).
Oh, and I’m not saying you don’t know the distinction.
Good ananlogy. But you don’t say the indictment was unsucessful because a conviction was not obtained. A successful indictment process is one in which an indictment is handed down. A successful impeachment process is one in which impeachment is achieved.
No. I corrected a factual error. You’re the one making a bid deal about it.
The term “impeachment” is similar to “indictment.”
If someone referred to a “successful indictment,” we’d assume he meant that the grand jury was successfully persuaded to return an indictment. If someone referred to a failed indictment, presumably that would mean a grand jury that did not return a true bill.
But in no event are you talking about the eventual trial and/or conviction when you say “indictment.”