For nearly 200 years, only one U.S. President - Andrew Johnson - was ever impeached.
But lately, we seem to be determined to make up for lost time.
First, back in 1998, Congress wasted far too much effort, time and money impeaching Bill Clinton for an offense that - while technically a crime - had virtually no impact on his Constitutional duties.
And now, Senator Chuck Hagel says some lawmakers might favor impeaching President Bush for what they consider his "go it alone" approach to the war in Iraq.
Has this suddenly become the norm? Should every future lame-duck President now routinely expect his political opponents to administer one parting impeachment shot just because they can?
If so, what real weapon will we have left in our quiver of checks and balances when some true villain needs to be removed in the future?
However one feels about President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, impeaching him over it would be totally inappropriate and ill-advised - just as it was eight years ago when the target was President Clinton.
This isn't about defending President Bush or President Clinton. But Presidential impeachment should be an action of last resort. Not the first reaction in a childish political game of "gotcha."
I'm Bill Lamb, and that's my Point of View.