"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
But nothing says you can't move toward impeachment unless you're certain you have enough votes to convict. It's not likely there would have been enough votes in the Senate to convict Mr. Nixon or Mr. Clinton, either. And as it turned out, even Andrew Johnson's enemies came up one vote short in the Senate. But in none of those three cases did that stop the House from starting impeachment proceedings. And that was enough. Nixon resigned when he saw he was sure to be impeached, and both Johnson and Clinton were politically neutered for the remainder of their terms after being impeached. As in chess, you don't have to eliminate the king to win--you only need to put him in check.
The problem is not a lack of votes in the House, where a simple majority is enough to impeach. Republicans already have that and may well add to their majority. McCarthy's argument, which I agree with, is that it's probably not wise politically for Republicans to move to impeach Mr. Obama unless or until they also control the Senate. No one knows just how many Senate seats they would need to gain to make the risk of moving toward impeachment acceptable. But the more solid their majority, the more likely such a move would become.