Election 2010 Potential Consequences include Impeachment of Obama

[stevenleser]

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Election-2010-Potential-Co-by-Steven-Leser-100830-747.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 30, 2010

By Steven Leser


If you follow Republicans as closely and for as long as I have a number of things become apparent. The one that is the most important with regards to election 2010 is that once Republicans find a tactic that works, they stick with it until they are forced to abandon it. There are many examples of this. The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 was followed by a campaign to paint him and his major initiatives, including healthcare reform, as too liberal and out of touch with America. The Republicans reprised this "He's governing in a manner that is too Liberal" campaign against Obama. They will use it again against the next Democratic President elected no matter that President's policies. You can bet your remaining life's earnings on it.


Sometimes, Republicans get ideas from things Democrats have used against Republicans and then use them against Democrats regardless of whether these things apply. The Republicans took the frequent criticisms by Democrats of George W. Bush's inept speech-making and have tried to assert that Obama cannot make speeches without a teleprompter. Republicans, angered by the portrayal of the Tea Party as racist, tried to assert that USDA Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod was racist. We all saw how that worked out.


One of the things that to me seems clear is that if Republicans take back the House of Representatives in 2010, they will reuse what worked well to weaken the Clinton Presidency and prevent the election of Al Gore and that is that they will initiate impeachment proceedings against President Obama.


Republicans are not hiding the fact that they are gearing up for this. An August 27 article in Politico talks about how:


Republicans are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority. Everything from the microscopic -- the New Black Panther party -- to the massive - think bailouts -- is on the GOP to-do list, according to a half-dozen Republican aides interviewed by POLITICO... And a handful of aggressive would-be committee chairmen -- led by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas) -- are quietly gearing up for a possible season of subpoenas not seen since the Clinton wars of the late 1990s.


..."How acrimonious things get really depend on how willing the administration is in accepting our findings responding to our questions"

----------------


That last quote is from Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee. To the Politico reporters, Bardella "referred to his boss as "questioner-in-chief.'"


Tom Tancredo, the former Republican congressman from Colorado who is now running for Governor of Colorado as an independent but with much support from Republicans, is openly calling for impeachment of Obama. In an OpEd in the Washington Times, Tancredo said:


Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama

------------------------------


While some mainstream Republicans attempted to distance themselves from Tancredo's remarks, the Republican blogosphere erupted with support for the effort. The base that Republicans need to support them are with them on impeachment.


After Clinton, The Impeachment Genie is Out of the Bottle

In one of my earliest introductions to impeachment in grade school, my teacher made the point that congress is loath to use the impeachment process because impeachment could be used (or misused, depending on your point of view) to usher in a new parliamentary system in the US. This is because the Constitutional rules regarding what constitutes grounds for impeachment are so vague that the argument could be made that it is completely up to congress what constitutes a justifiable reason to remove the President, to wit:


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

-----------------------------------


In the wake of the changes Reagan ushered into the Republican party in general, the GOP has demonstrated a wanton disregard for the long term consequences of their actions. Congressional Republicans prior to Reagan, for instance, would never have misused impeachment as the late 1990's Republicans did.


One of the unfortunate consequences of the Clinton impeachment is that there is now judicial review, in the form of rulings by Chief Justice Rehnquist, that solidifies that not just the reasons for impeachment, but many aspects of the process as being up to the whims of congress. For instance, Rehnquist said that while the Chief Justice of the United States presides over impeachment, any of his ruling regarding what evidence could be allowed in or any other procedural matters can be overruled by the senate by a mere majority vote. The Chief Justice is, according to Rehnquist's rulings, a glorified meeting facilitator in the impeachment process, nothing more.


To be fair to Rehnquist, few to none of his pronouncements were materially different from Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase's handling of the 1868 impeachment and acquittal of President Andrew Johnson. However, Rehnquist's upholding of the Chase interpretation of impeachment put a modern stamp on the impotent role of the Chief Justice in impeachment. A recklessly led congress can now initiate impeachment for any reason and has no real procedural constraints. Thanks to the late 1990's Republican Party, the impeachment genie is truly out of the bottle.


How will Republicans attempt to justify impeachment?
After the Clinton impeachment, there is only one thing congress need concern itself with regard to impeachment and that is public opinion. Even that is only something that needs to be dealt with later, during election time. If those behind an impeachment can throw up a good enough smokescreen regarding their reasoning to fool enough people, as Republicans did with Clinton, even the risk of a public backlash is something that can be mitigated.


Republicans have three hopes for justifying the impeachment of President Obama. The first is the one discussed openly in the above discussed Politico article. If Republicans take the House, they will unleash an unprecedented wave of investigations into the administration. They hope that they can come up with something, no matter how small, that they can sell as an impeachable offense.


The second hope Republicans have is more subtly evinced by Kurt Bardella's quote "How acrimonious things get really depend on how willing the administration is in accepting our findings responding to our questions,". Bardella is clearly signaling to everyone that if at some point, the administration gets sick of the investigations and stops cooperating with them things will get ugly. What does that mean? Well, congress has only one real remedy for checking the power of the President beyond a veto override. It's clear Bardella is not discussing vetoes here. If the President attempts to use executive privilege or in any other way appears to not be participating fully, the Republicans will attempt to sell this as contempt of congress and obstruction of justice and initiate impeachment proceedings.


Lets say that the administration thwarts the Republicans in both of the two top things that the GOP hopes will allow them to sell an impeachment. How will Republicans proceed then? Tom Tancredo gave us the hint in his Washington Times Op-Ed. The GOP will use a mashup of policy decisions they disagree with and claim that Obama has violated his oath of office. They will talk about the "takeover" of General motors, the "refusal to secure the borders" the "Socialism" of healthcare and say that these actions justify impeachment.


It's important to note that Republicans do not intend to remove President Obama from office, at least not with impeachment. They know they have no chance to do that and it is not their goal. Their goal is to hurt the President politically to hamper his efforts to enact his policies, hurt his efforts to be re-elected and also hurt the chances of the next Democratic candidate for President. The Democratic Party leadership and candidates need to start asking the critical question of Republicans and their congressional candidates, "Is impeachment an option if you are elected?" I predict that if Democrats start asking the question, Republicans will not give them any straight answers. There will be no Pelosi-an "Impeachment is off the table" from Republicans.


Republican Neo-Fascism and Tunnel-Vision Concerning Hurting Obama
Beyond impeachment, people should be concerned about where the Republicans are positioning themselves and their base to take the country. The GOP and their Tea Party alter-ego have been whipping their base up against a religious minority (Muslims), against immigrants, they have encouraged their base to bring weapons to Democratic events they are protesting, Glenn Beck's recent "Rally for Honor" puts the exclamation point on how nationalistic the GOP/Tea Party has become. While Republicans seem to be enjoying their foray into neo-Fascism, they are notably lacking for any ideas on how to improve the economy or address any of the other problems of the nation.


This election should be about important issues like the economy and jobs. I understand how some Americans are frustrated by what they perceive to be a lack of progress on improving the economy. I know how the GOP has attempted to stoke fears about supposed Socialism and Muslims and immigration. You can disagree with the administration about policy direction concerning the economy and job creation. The thing everyone needs to understand is that the Republicans who hope to take congress do not care at all about any of these issues.


You cannot be preparing to spend the kind of time and money Republicans are preparing to spend on investigations and then also claim that the economy is your top priority. The Republicans top priority if they win back the House will be the same it has been since January 21, 2009 and that is to hurt President Obama. If that is your top priority, by all means, vote for Republicans in November. If it isn't, if you want people in office working on the most important issues of the day, voting Democratic is a much better choice.

[demodonkey]

1. The important thing is for Democrats to come out and VOTE

I am so sick of this Republican crap... I don't want to go through more years like we had 2000-2008.

Get out and vote Democratic this November.

[jillan]

22. +1000000000000000000000

[Hamlette]

2. at least there is the possibility that democrats will support Obama if he's impeached

There was a "rally around out guy because the attacks are unfair" nature to Clinton's impeachment even though the left/progressives were pissed at him in 94.

Silver linings.

[stevenleser]

7. Yeah, but the Repugs got what they wanted. They made the 2000 election close enough to steal

without impeachment, Gore wins by over 5% and 100 Electoral votes.

[bornskeptic]

10. I don't think the impeachment had anything to do with the 2000 outcome.

Gore may have lost some votes from people who were upset about Monica Lewinsky and Clinton's behavior, but he would have lost those votes if there was no impeachment. It's just as likely that the impeachment itself was a negative for the Republicans, and thus for Bush. How much did the impeachment hurt Clinton's popularity?

AllPolitics, December 20) -- In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

Actually most Americans saw the Clinton impeachment as more of the partisan BS they were already sick of, and most would see an Obama impeachment the same way.Even as poor as their justification for impeaching Clinton, they did have something. They have nothing on Obama that would convince any independent, and they aren't likely to.

[karynnj]

12. I question the impact without impeachment

The damage was IMO that the Supreme Court ruled that the Paula Jones trial could proceed while Clinton was President. That led to the investigation of whether there was a "pattern", leading to questions on Lewinski. Clinton's famous line on not having sex with her and the later admission all happened before the impeachment hearing - and would have happened no matter who had Congress.

Now imagine a world where the Republicans would have argued that though this made Clinton a disreputable man in their opinion and a poor example to our children, but not high crimes and misdemeanors. They could have pointed to the Senate as unlikely to vote for removal.

The STILL would have had the ability to run on "restoring honor and dignity". Remember it was August 1998 that Clinton admitted to the affair. The Starr report was released on 9/11/98 (I googled to get the date). Obviously timed to affect the midterms. I suspect that impeachment by the House and then the refusal of the Senate to remove actually led to some closure on the issue. Many felt that the consequence - always being labeled as impeached (which really has not had the impact I know I feared) was too great. Had there been a Democratic majority or had enough republican Congressmen refused to impeach him - I doubt the story would have gone away.

A more interesting what it is what if the Lewinski story were known 2 years earlier. I think Clinton could have lost in 1992 to Dole's completely awful campaign. Then the likelihood would have been that 2000 would have looked a lot like 1992. On the Democratic side, in real life in early 1999, Time magazine expected the 2000 contenders to be Gore, Bradley and Kerry. I suspect that they (and maybe Graham, Gephardt and Dean) might all have run for an open seat. Any of them (Gephardt and Graham - not as much) would have had about the same dynamic as Clinton vs Bush 1. (For those wanting to claim he was more charismatic - balance out that not of them had Clinton's bimbo eruptions or that letter to the man who helped him escape the draft.) The economic cycle was a little different - but in 2000 we were already into the dot com bubble breaking.

[stevenleser]

13. Hi Karynn. To you and Bornskeptic, I think impeachment kept the issue in the news media and

made the scandal into something that seemed bigger than it really was. The cable news networks capitalized on the titillating aspect of the scandal and reported on it 24x7. Without impeachment, this is over much sooner and has much less impact IMHO.

[karynnj]

18. I understand your perspective and it may be right. I am speculating when I say that

without impeachment, it would have been about the same - without the very real circling the wagons by Democrats because it was perceived that impeachment was unfair.

I think it would likely have remained in the news for nearly as long. Stories on the Starr Report, which bizarrely became a best seller, likely would have continued. The House impeached Clinton in the lame duck session in 1998. While it is true that this was in the news daily, it is hard to believe that the Starr report would not have continued to generate stories over that interval.

The Senate voted on February 12, 1999 NOT to remove. That really ended the story other than the resolution of the Jones case in April 1999. Because that - which Clinton settled paying $850,000 to Jones. It was not until January 2001, when Clinton lost his law license for 5 years.

Given the timing, it is not that after August when he admitted it, there would be no story. The Septembef Starr report produced a huge number of sleasy details and serious issues like trying to coach Betty Currie (?) to "remember" things his way. Those stories continued through until November, when the House impeached him. In the other universe where that did not happen, even if you assume that it died down over Christmas, the damage was done and the story would have been revived with Clinton settling. (He would have as much reason to as his credibility on the issue was just as low as it was clear from the Starr report that he lied about other relationships.) Had there been no impeachment, that likely would have been a bigger story than it was. In either case, Clinton - through his own actions - damaged Democratic chances.

In fact, all the Democrats - in their vote to NOT impeach him - were in danger of being said to have flawed moral values. That is why every one of them took pains to speak of his actions as in their words as immoral or inexcusable. (without honor, courage or integrity ).

[Hamlette]

17. true, but if we lose this year, part of the fault falls to the dems for jumping ship

I don't want to be the party that blindly follows "our" president but I think the left is too critical of Obama, as they were of Clinton.

Yes, I'd love a president more like FDR but he had 70 democratic senators.

The art of the possible.

[dotymed]

42. How many "left" Congresspeople do we have?

Not very many at all. Of the "left" (progressive) congresspeople we had during Clinton's impeachment, how many "jumped ship? None that I can recall.
At least the few Progressive Democrats do criticize Obama when he "goes right" (often), but they do not have a record of abandoning a Democratic President. No matter how pro-corporation he is.
I do think, that if the Rethugs try impeachment again, they will be condemning themselves to many years ridicule.
Infuriatingly, we had "W", cold, with regards to impeachment. Of course, it was "taken off the table." There is no way Bush could have won an impeachment trial and the evidence would have definitely driven him from office and hopefully into a criminal court.
IMO, we have one corporate party with two heads.
The rethug "head" doesn't have enough sense to realize (or care) what the end result of another bogus impeachment charge would do their already hateful image. They are so power hungry, that the green keeps obscuring their vision.
On the other hand, it might be the impetus Obama needs to unleash his Progressive side and realize that the Rethugs are not interested in "bi-partisanship."

[golfguru]

63. Gore did much worse than expectations in debates with Bush

[Chulanowa]

24. Not most DU'ers

From what I can tell, a fair number of "us" would be leading the charge.

[The Wizard]

3. Republicans are the scum of the Earth

And who wants the scum of the Earth ruling with an iron fist like the Bush cartel ruled?
They employ the same tactics that were used to transform Germany in the 1930s.

[catgirl]

4. Volunteer!

Make sure your friends, family and colleagues know what the stakes are in the November elections.

[doc03]

5. You betcha n/t

[lunatica]

6. There's nothing to impeach him for, but

that won't stop them trying, of course. So why do we act like we can make it different? That's what we need to learn. Then we should accept it and proceed to do what's right. If we change our reaction to their bullying, that will force them to change their tactics. When they can't find the same of buttons to push they have to change.

Unfortunately that is simply too much to expect.

[cascadiance]

8. If impeachment is successful, it will tell progressives that revolution is necessary....

... if the "rule of law" only is enforced on Democrats and not on Republicans, and the "rule of law" is no longer the rule of law, but a partisan kangaroo court where law means nothing any more.

It tells us that if we and a system of justice any more, we may need to use force to force it into existence. I'm pretty damn disgusted at what passes for our "legal" and "governance" system any more.

If Obama is impeached, and Bush and Cheney continue to be ignored, our justice system IS a sham!!!

[SharksBreath]

36. Obama had a chance to enforce the law.

If they would have indicted Bush in his first 6th months the GOP wouldn't be treating him like a pussy.

I would have had Bush and Cheney locked up at the inauguration.

If he would have put the GOP in it's place from day one we wouldn't have most of the problems he is facing today dealing with these traitors.

These people lied us into a war and called anyone who wasn't with them Un-American traitors and claimed they didn't support the troops.

As history has shown they were the one's lying to send our servicemen to die for nothing while blowing two trillion in Iraq.

What could be more Un-American, traitorous, or the worst possible way to support the troops and waste our tax dollars.

Instead Obama wanted to have bipartisanship with a bunch of traitors when he should have set out to destroy them.

Like they are trying to do to him.

If he gets impeached he will have no one to blame but himself.

How ironic it would be that he would get impeached while Bush and Cheney get to live free with millions of innocent blood on their hands.

If someone comes in your house and send your kids to die while taking all your money would you look for a way to work positively with them.

Hell No.


The GOP will not turn the page on crimes. Matter of fact they are going to make up crimes to serve their purpose.

That;s the type of people he is dealing with.

You get what you deserve. He had a chance to uphold our laws and all he wanted to do was turn the page.

No wonder the GOP smells P U S S Y.

[TBF]

44. We don't have enough to tell us revolution is necessary already -

think about it.

[Kltpzyxm]

57. Amen

With these scum the only defense is a good (snf just) offense

[yurbud]

9. Republicans will do all that and more, but Obama & Dems in Congress are to blame if they lose

Democrats have a built in disadvantage that Republicans don't: they base of voters and base of corporate backers have conflicting economic agendas and interests.

When they serve one, they anger the other.

By contrast, Republicans have convinced their base of voters that their economic interests are identical to their corporate backers, and when the evidence that that is not true is too overwhelming, they crank up the racism, patriotism, motherhood, apple pie, and terror.

When Democrats try to serve both Wall Street AND the middle class, they are like a judge trying to come up with a ruling that will please both a rape victim and her rapist.

My analogy is actually unfair to rapists. Wall Street, bankers, and insurance companies have behaved more like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson than mere rapists. And the number of their victims reaches into the billions since they have tanked the whole world economy.

If there were a true democracy in America, the only table they would have a place at is the one where they ate their last confession and they ate their last meal.

[impik]

11. Well, maybe then, finally, the left will start to support this man

[BeyondGeography]

19. Nah

They would just do their Palin impersonation; "How's that bipartisanship workin' out for ya, Barack?"

More than a few of them would love to see it, IMO.

[TBF]

45. You're wrong - not to speak for anyone but myself

but I can assure you the leftists I know want nothing to do with Palin, Beck, Paul or any other libertarian. Leftists do want to see someone represent labor in this country. Liberals may be ok with the status quo of the democratic party but Leftist are not. Right now we see labor completely unrepresented. Instead we have two parties supporting the wealthy class. One party is callous, the other bat-shit crazy. NOBODY is representing the unemployed, the homeless, the disabled, the retired, the working poor.

[olegramps]

53. The Working Class citizens are unrepresented!!!!

The Democratic Party has representatives that no longer represent the interest of the working class. This is a fact that can only be rectified by the formation of a Labor Party whose sole interest is to represent workers. It is glaringly evident that President Obama's bipartisanship tactics have been a complete disaster. If the workers want a fair share of the profits of their labor they will find minuscule support in today's Democratic Party and absolutely none in the Republican Party. Isn't it way past time to come to the realization that we have been totally abandoned?

We have two classes of workers. The Republican working class swallows the propaganda of the corporations that they are responsible for the creation of their jobs and that they will be treated fairly. They are so delusional that even when their jobs have been outsourced they continue to grovel at the feet of their masters. The working class Democrats are just as delusional in continuing to support a party that hasn't represented their interest since the party was taken over by the DLC corporate kiss-asses. You want an end to these damn wars, jobs and fair pay. You want universal health care. You want an end to unfair taxation and the repeal of usury interest rates. Then unionize and form a Labor Party.

[TBF]

54. Yes -

we can't advocate for third parties on this website, but I completely agree with you. Labor needs representation, and people need to remember which party they fit in (ever since Reagan everyone is convinced they are an "owner" even if they sit in a cubicle and make 30K a year). Hint - you might own a ranch home & car if you're really frugal, but that is not the kind of "owner" I'm talking about.

[impik]

58. A LOT of them wants to see it

They'll be happy to watch him going down the toilet.

[StreetKnowledge]

62. Me one of them.

I'm not a GOP member, but Obama is ASKING for all of this. How has one of the most popular Presidents in modern times sank into the gutter in just 18 months? COWARDICE. PERIOD. Obama needs to wake the fuck up and realize that the GOP is out to destroy him. No need for reasons, they will do anything for power and many of them hate the fact he's in the White House because of the color of his skin. Liberals and those on the Left got him elected. And yes, the word "bipartisanship" needs to go into the dustbin of history. Being weak around these lunatics is going to do nothing but cause more problems. If Obama wants to succeed, he must destroy the GOP, not compromise with them. He needs to say to his base "what needs doing?" If he worked for us, took our advice and forced his coward of a Senate majority leader to do the same, he'd almost certainly see the lot of average Americans improve rather dramatically between now and November 2012 and be able to cruise to re-election.

I know people here are saying that we should be strategic and be the nicer side of politics, but the last 18 months should have proved that it isn't working. If we want our way, we need to crush the opposition. It's not nice. But it works. The GOP has done so many stupid things, are guilty of so much that we don't even need to work hard to find the ammunition.

Memo to the White House - grow some balls and bury these clowns that call themselves "Republicans". Bash these bastards into smile and let them slink back to the cesspool they came from, no mercy, no compromise. You've tried that. It didn't work. Now its time to send in the B-52s, the Battleships and the Marines on these lunatics. Americans will thank you, and you'll have many more years to like what you have accomplished.

[impik]

59. Case in point: Comment number 55. And that's only the beginning.

[brooklynite]

14. Pretty weak piece...

There's nothing in this piece about why the author believe there is a plan to introduce Impeachment, he merely says "it seems clear" to him.

[stevenleser]

15. "The Author" cites multiple reasons why, including the Republicans own boasts about investigations..

Tancredo calling for impeachment, etc.

I thought that was enough. Of course, you could also Google "Obama Impeachment and note that you will get over 1,000,000 hits and see things like the Texas Republican party has issued a resolution calling for Obama's impeachment.

If you haven't seen Republican's calling for impeachment, you havent been paying attention.

[rug]

16. Well there's a new angle: Vote for him or he'll be impeached.

[stevenleser]

28. Actually, the correct wording of your assertion is "Vote for Democrats or Obama will be impeached"

And I prefer the way I stated it in my last 2 paragraphs:


This election should be about important issues like the economy and jobs. I understand how some Americans are frustrated by what they perceive to be a lack of progress on improving the economy. I know how the GOP has attempted to stoke fears about supposed Socialism and Muslims and immigration. You can disagree with the administration about policy direction concerning the economy and job creation. The thing everyone needs to understand is that the Republicans who hope to take congress do not care at all about any of these issues.


You cannot be preparing to spend the kind of time and money Republicans are preparing to spend on investigations and then also claim that the economy is your top priority. The Republicans top priority if they win back the House will be the same it has been since January 21, 2009 and that is to hurt President Obama. If that is your top priority, by all means, vote for Republicans in November. If it isn't, if you want people in office working on the most important issues of the day, voting Democratic is a much better choice.

[Clio the Leo]

20. Getting WAY ahead of myself but one thing is certain if he's forcibly removed from office...

... there'd be race riots all over the country.

And I KNOW this because I'd be helping to start them. :)

[stevenleser]

29. The Repugs know they cannot remove Obama just like they knew they would not remove Clinton

that is not their plan. They want to stick a big scarlet letter 'I' on him.

[Truth2Tell]

33. Can we have class riots instead?

:shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

40. Nope......

..... not too many people in his "class" are going to defend him because they think he was railroaded because of his "class."

People in his "class" dont love, respect and guard him like a precious jewel.

[rury]

34. I'll be right there with you, Clio the Leo

there would be hell to pay!!:nuke:

[and-justice-for-all]

21. Impeachment for what exactly?

[Greg K]

26. "high crimes and misdemeanors"

or in other words, whatever the hell the Republican Congress decides is a high crime or misdemeanor.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. This is actually a reason to vote GOP.

The last time the GOP did this, it didn't work out too well for them!

Check out the results of the 1998 and 2000 elections for democrats... they actually did SURPRISINGLY well. All conventional wisdom said the democrats were going to get slaughtered in 1998, during the HEIGHT of impeachment... BUT they stayed pat in the Senate and picked up seats in the house.

In 2000 they picked up 4 seats in the Senate and actually WON the presidency, despite the fact that Gore ran a horrible campaign and tried to distance himself from one of the most popular presidents in modern history.

If you could PROMISE me that all the republicans would do for the next 2 years is launch investigation after investigation in an attempt to drum up impeachment charges, I would vote GOP, because it would turn the country of SO MUCH that they would vote democratic in such overwhelming numbers in 2012 that we would have a completely fillibuster proof majority.



My FEAR in this scenario is not wild accusations and investigations... I welcome that.. My FEAR is that in an attempt to COMRPROMISE, the democrats will move EVEN FURTHER to the right than they already have and even the nearly nonsensical crumbs we have been thrown will be for naught.

So the reason to go out and vote Democratic is to send a message to Obama that you want him to MOVE FURTHER LEFT and you are trying to give him the tools to do it.

[totodeinhere]

25. Good analysis n/t

[stevenleser]

27. Don't forget, last time, Newscorp owned media had not become the force they are now

There was no tea party back then either. The coordinated force of Newscorps papers and TV stations would be a potent force to sell whatever warped reasoning the Repugs would come up with for impeachment.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. The corporate media wasn't as powerful in 1997?!

Really?

Fox news was the "up and comer" taking over cable. The right wing still owned the radio waves, the newspapers.... The telecomunnications act of 1996 made sure of that!

Anyway, I would be COUNTING on the corporate media to play along and hit us with 24/7 Obama impeachment watch, like we got in the late 90's with Clinton... By the time they are done, Obama's approval will be in the 80's and the democrats will have 65 seats in the Senate.

At the end of the day people really REALLY want PROGRESS.. and nothing would tick people off more if they put republicans in power and all they did was go back to the very reason they were kicked out in the first place.

[stevenleser]

35. That is not what I said. I said NEWSCORP owned media was not what it has become

All the brands that fall under Newscorp, NY Post, Fox News, etc., are really a massively powerful coordinated entity that share resources among each other.

[Tutankhamun]

30. Remember when Bush was in office and committing well-documented, impeachable offenses,

the MSM had a few different memes purporting to explain why Democrats weren't impeaching him (as they should rightfully have done)? Remember that wonderful, tried and true excuse: Democrats don't want to impeach Bush because it would be political suicide in November?

Why is it "political suicide" for Democrats to impeach a president (who deserves to be impeached), yet it's smart political strategy for Republicans to do the same to a Democratic president (who has not even committed any impeachable offense)?

[ibegurpard]

37. yup and it was "off the table" in 2006

they're either stupid or all working for the same team...what other explanation is there?

[stevenleser]

38. Many leaders in the Democratic Party fail to grasp the concept that the GOP will not be as kind or

care as much about the consequences of THEIR actions.

Every incoming President, Speaker and Senate Majority leader seems to have to learn this the hard way. They all think "They won't do this to me, I will be able to appeal to them."

No, you will not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. See post 23.

It IS political suicide - they're just too fucking dumb to realize it. The only things that saved them were Ralph Fucking Nader and the Supremes in 2000 and then September 11th. By all rights they would've been toast.

[Prophet 451]

32. Surprised this even needs to be stated

It's not like the Republibaggers have made any secret of how much they despise Obama and want to destroy him by any means necessary.

[DFW]

39. OK, say we take Tancredo at his word:

"Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

A majority of the Senate and the House considers (or should consider) Tancredo and the extreme wing of the
Republican Party, which has grown to mean about 95% of it by now, plus their propaganda arm, Fox "News," to
be "enemies, domestic."

So, act according to Tancredo's wish: investigate all of the Congressional Republicans to the point where
something, anything, is found on them, have the FCC shut down Murdoch due to violations, have the FEC rule
illegal all contributions by Murdoch and church-related entities, and confiscate the funds, using them to
pay down the National Debt.

Then watch them whine from Club Fed when they finally get their wish.

[TheKentuckian]

41. No worries the TeaPubliKlans will look forward not backwards, the nation isn't interested

in reopening old wounds.

I mean there is no way they would disrupt the nation with two wars and an economic meltdown in progress, that wouldn't be "pragmatic".

No, surely the TeaPubliKlans won't distract from the important business at hand and all that jazz.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Uhm, do you realize you're pretty much bashing yourself?

Unless you enjoy being in the same company as them, of course.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Sometimes a bash is earned

[chrisa]

43. The Neo-Cons are an alienated bunch of dimwits.

As long as we keep it that way, this would never happen. The only people calling for impeachment are backwards, Neo-Con, fundamentalist hicks.

However, I fear that the American populace is slowly losing its grip on reality, with this Glenn Beck and Tea Party garbage.

[depakid]

46. The tragic irony runs deeper and deeper...

The Obama administration utterly shirked its duty and responsibility to prosecute, time after time- no matter how egregious the facts or copious the evidence- and partially as a consequence of that, they may now face investigations and prosecution themselves.

[NJmaverick]

56. I am pretty sure the President's duty was to save the nation from the worse

economic crisis in nearly a 100 years rather than serve your desire for vengeance.

[Jakes Progress]

47. This it the logical and predictable outcome

of using the first two years of his presidency to play patty-cake with republicans. Clinton tried it and got slimed. As if republicans had changed into logical, honest people during the bush years, Obama ran the same let's-all-get-along routine that lead to Clinton's savaging. It was a politically dumb effort, at best naive, at worst calamitous. After the mid-terms (an election where the WH team seems to be fruitlessly banking on lots of moderate republican and independent support) we will have lost forever the chance to hold the republicans responsible for their actions under bushco.

So now the only appeal they have to the base of the party is "Hey, we know we are inept and that we screwed up, but at least we're not like the scary, scary republicans." While it is a true statement, it makes for damned poor motivation. We seemed to have taken a page from the republican strategy book and now rely on fear rather than hope as the message of our party.

[Imagevision]

48. Impeach Obama? ha! Bush should get his cookies off hearing this...

[Sheepshank]

50. Bush and Cheney know they have culpability

they also know they have been given a gift. You'd think they'd have a hand in curbing the impeachment sentiment from the right, lest it comes back and bites them in the buttocks.

[Ganja Ninja]

55. But but Republican's are reasonable people that you can sit down

and negotiate with. You can take their ideas and add them to ours and make a better healthcare bill, or so we're told.

[KakistocracyHater]

60. well then I guess Obama better initiate a War Crimes Tribunal, quickly

or else, yes, like what they did to Clinton.

[boppers]

64. Like Dubya did to Clinton?

Be careful what you wish for.

[Hawkowl]

61. Good. Maybe Obama would finally "get it"

Maybe Obama would finally understand the depths of the hatred the rightwing has for him. Maybe he'd stop trying to fuck everything up with bipartisanship.

[vaberella]

66. Just so you have a clue.

The mere fact you suggest impeachment of this president because you want to be petty doesn't help our cause but hurts it. In suggesting and wanting that to happen doesn't affect Obama---it affects us. We are the ones who pay the price and when election time again comes around we get screwed with tea-bagger nut cases ending abortion outright, putting new rules on citizenships, and fully privatizing SS. So your pettiness disgusts me because it shows that you're willing to aid in hurting the whole mass because you think it would make Obama rethink when in fact it hurts all of us, the American people far more.

Many things depend on bipartisanship for this country to run just so you know. I wasn't even aware of it until a friend of mine who was sent to China in order to garner investment in the US told our class on teaching English that having the paper that states you worked with Republicans and Democrats alike is what will get you ahead. Amazingly most business around the world lean Republican.

Further more, if you ever listen to Obama, the only time the man spoke or really cared about bipartisanship and wanting it was during the health care reformation---which he didn't get. Since then he never demanded it. If it happened he spoke on it. However, it wasn't something he was seeking b/c of the the health care reform nightmare that he almost lost on.

So if you're really looking at the whole thing---this thing of Obama seeking bipartisanship is a bit false. He'd like it, because, yes that stuff plays a fundamental role--more so than people on DU wish to give it---but he's not been pushing it for it. However, Reid and Baucus do seek it out in the Senate because of filibustering that goes on which leads to a lot of good bills being lost.

Something else you seem to ignore and oversimplify to ridiculousness. The Senate kills a great deal of bills and there's a lot of pandering to the right---but that is not coming from Obama, that's clearly coming from Reid who wants to pass a bill and definitely Baucus if any bill needs to go through his department---which most seem to need to go through.

[Exilednight]

65. It's not going to happen. Repugs remember how much of a beating they took ..............

in the polls when they tried this against Clinton. There might be some on the far right who will push for impeachment, but their leadership will keep them on a short leash. They'll let them bark a little, but they won't let them run wild.