In two parts.
The first part is straightforward and obvious to most here. Hence, since so many people here have diaried about this, I'll just summarize the argument.
When Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, she not only gave BushCo a pass on all of their previous and notorious criminality, she also gave them a blank check from there on out on any high crimes that might come to light in the future. Furthermore, she removed the threat of any sort of meaningful investigations that might uncover wrongdoings. (After all, what would be the point of investigation with impeachment off the table? And what incentives are there for cooperation?) Finally, and perhaps most frustratingly, she succeeded in effectively hamstringing her own party, and more importantly Congress, by limiting their constitutional oversight and removing the biggest "check" from the balance. Congressional leadership, in effect, voluntarily (and unconstitutionally) ceded power from the legislative to the executive branch (as they did with their war powers earlier), thus implicitly reinforcing and confirming the offensive "unitary executive" arguments being made by BushCo all along.
The second part, however, just might ignite some "mild disagreement" here.
Key for Second part:
(This is a simple, parallel, "fill-in-the-blanks" analogy.)
BushCo => Democratic Representatives
High Crimes => Appeasement of Offensive Republican Policies
Oversight Power => Accountability to the Voters
Impeachment => Removal From Power
When bloggers in the progressive blogosphere express their non-negotiable loyalty to the Democratic party, when we take primary challenges, threat of any sort of meaningful backlash in the polls, even third parties, i.e. "defection" in general, off the table, we not only give the Democratic leadership a pass on all of their previous and notorious appeasements (ongoing to this date!), we also give them a blank check to ignore the blogosphere in the future. Furthermore, we remove the incentive for any sort of openness about direction and strategy (legislative or political), any sort of dialogue with "us" (we, the people) about these things or our party platform in general, that might keep our leadership aligned with (i.e. representing) us constituents and also help prevent major political blunders (or sell-outs) that further undermine the party's image and support. Finally, and perhaps most frustratingly, we succeed in effectively hamstringing our egalitarian message, and more importantly, the principles of democracy and representation (that are built on two-way communication between the public and their representatives), by limiting the accountability of our politicians to us, their constituents. We, the people, in effect, voluntarily cede the system over from a representative, constitutional democracy to an authoritarian oligarchy, with the people increasingly at the mercy of the corporations and rich campaign funders that take it upon themselves to bias (or even anoint) our slate of primary candidates, thus implicitly reinforcing and confirming the offensive elitist arguments made by the MSM, lobbyists, and entrenched Washington DC crowd all along.
Impeachment is off the table, we confirmed an attorney general who won't renounce torture, we have yet to restore habeas corpus, we are still in Iraq, etc. because we have very little, if anything, to do with it! Impeachment is off the table because our support is taken for granted.
Just as Congress needs to uphold their duty to support and defend the Constitution, we, the people, need to uphold our duty to choose representatives who will, and hold those accountable who won't. This is our constitutional check-and-balance.
Update [2007-11-10 0:0:48 by shock]:
Hmm... no comments. OK, in the interest of sparking some discussion. Although I didn't intend it so directly, the above might be interpreted as: "Like it or not, impeachment is off the table because, for most here, the Green party is off the table (as are all other third parties)."
Every time I've seen this come up in a diary, I've seen one of the more political-science minded members of the community proceed to give a lecture in the comments about why multiple parties are not a viable model in our system (as opposed to in a parliamentary system). I don't suppose there's anything I can write here to avoid this now, but I just want to point out that, no matter what the merits of that debate, we already do have multiple parties here. And the fact is, these have put pressure on the mainstream parties in the past. So, since my original diary was probably too boring or obvious, I'm going to push it a bit.
Now, I'm not a "Nader troll" trying to stir up debate about the outcome of previous elections. Nor, am I advocating the Green party in general, and particularly not as the only alternative. Instead, I'm advocating alternatives in general. Indeed, I do fully realize that this is a blog devoted to -- and loyal to -- the Democratic party alone. But there are different kinds of devotion and loyalty. I, personally, am most devoted to certain principles and values (which, traditionally, democrats represent better than republicans), not a particular party label per se.
Update [2007-11-11 0:19:16 by shock]:
I've now refined and expanded this train of thought in a new diary.