They may get their wish.
It's been a drumbeat in the right-wing Internets for about a month now, and its beginning to become a litmus test among the faithful. As it gains political valence, Boehner is exploring suing the President in a surely futile gesture that will be both a trial balloon and provide some political cover for impeachment proceedings.
But Free Republic's steady diet of hate seems to have had an effect. What once would have excited Freepers to no end brings about only cynical rumblings and ever increasing demands.
Peter ODonnell does not care about political cover at all:
wot’s all this about Bo(eh)ner taking him to small claims court to recover the five trillion he’s blown away?clintonh8r explains that impeachment would be a smart political maneuver:
IMPEACH baby.
C’mon GOP, grow o pair.
Impeachment proceedings would be a great way to tie up a lame duck session so the outgoing reps can’t get to any mischief.. The Duke wonders if impeachment might turn America against Obama:
Impeachment ill simply be fought with one delay after another...by the time he is he’ll be out of office.SeaHawkFan seems to really care about Due Process
Regardless, if he is convicted in the "court of public opinion" it could have a profound affect on election day (maybe).
It could also be that we're already beyond redemption.
Impeachment could be done in the house in two weeks, with a Senate trial two weeks after that.Viennacon:
Too late. He’s already destroyed the countryCheerio is done with politics, except for super-right wing crazy websites:
NEVER EVER gonna happen with the bunch of wussies the GOP has in the District of Corruption. The shenanigans of Thad Cochran last night convinced me I am tuning out of all politics for the rest of my short remaining life. I am done. I will still read FR, Zerohedge, Canada Free press but I am done voting, or supporting any candidates. Finished, done, over.Osage Orange thinks lashing out at lower-level figures first would work well.
If a new conservative party emerges in the next couple of years I will take another look.
Start by impeaching the head of the IRS.....zzwhale has a list of demands to take us back to 1850, but with more pollution:
Let the Dim's defend that.
be PATIENT...... wait to see if repubs/T can take the SENATE... get rid of Mumbles Reid and then IMPEACH... MORE IMPORTANT WOULD BE TO HAVE A MAJ TO OVERRIDE ANY PREZ VETO.QT3.14 doesn't care about impeachment, he's just happy being.
START WITH OBUMBLERCARE - REPEAL
SECURE THE BORDERS
DEFEND THE CURRENCY BY REDUCING DEFICIT SPENDING AND BALANCED BUDGET
VA - ABOLISH AND TRANSFER BENEFITS TO A PRIVTE INSURANCE PLAN
Xl PIPE - APPROVE
IRS - ABOLISH CAPITAL GAINS AND SET PERSONAL INCOME TAX AT 10%
EPA - UNWRITE 25000 PAGES OF LIBTARTD PC UNICORN B.S.
ACCELERATE LNG TERMINAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
DRILL BABY DRILL
ELIMINATE WELFARE AND DISABILITY ABUSE
.... then get down to serious stuff...
America’s first(half) BlackHalfrican-American POTUS.
"Freepers have been calling for Obama's impeachment since at least January 29, 2009 - 9 days after he was inaugurated. T"
ReplyDeleteThat late? You'd think it would be since election night
Actually, some guys on Facebook brag about belong to the tea party back in 2007. Still haven't gotten them to explain what they were railing against back then, as I never heard of them until January 2009.
DeleteFunny, I was hoping for a split between the GOPe and Tea Partiers, but the split is now between the crazy and relatively sane! They talked tough and wanted to be more Libertarian, but when Paul Ryan wanted to cut entitlements oohhh no don't touch what I deserve. Politics!
DeleteI hope zzwhale can evolve quickly to be able to breathe sulfuric acid, since he seems determined to make Earth's atmosphere mirror that of Venus. Unfortunately, they don't believe in evolution, so once he's done wiping out all life off the face of the earth, he'll have no time for "serious stuff".
ReplyDeleteImpeach is a stupid idea. Incredibly poor tactics, so I would not be surprised to see it happen before the Repubs can hold the House and take the Senate in November. No one ever said they were smart.
ReplyDeleteThe absolute last thing the GOP needs is a backlash sympathy vote getting out there and running wild. Concentrate on taking the damned Senate, then do the most hurtful thing possible to Obama - nullify him.
I dunno - they get a ruling from the Supreme Court saying they can't step in and that impeachment is the only remedy, they'll have some political cover.
DeleteEspecially given that Obama really has been extending executive power (which he'll only do more of if the GOP takes the Senate)
But even so, you're right. It's a high-risk, low-reward proposition. This is just what the id demands.
It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problems for the GOP.
DeleteShould Obama be impeached - definitely. His administration makes Nixon's look like a model of probity.
Is it going to happen - not a chance. Not going to bother with the typical race BS that comes out in freeperville, but he's picked his cabinet wisely. Maintained links to businesses "too big to fail" so that anyone needing to fall on their sword finds it's a rubber sword with a very good pay off if they keep their mouth shut.
I could almost admire it, in purely tactical terms. It is elegant in both it's simplicity and it's using human nature. I know it's nothing new, but it's some real next level stuff in scope.
His administration makes Nixon's look like a model of probity.
DeleteSorry, but that's complete bullshit. You're suggesting that Obama, who has done nothing but try to work with Republicans, is worse than Nixon? We are talking about Richard Milhous Nixon, right? The president who was so paranoid he kept an enemies list, who even before he was Eisenhower's vice president, was known as "Tricky Dicky"? The president who bugged the offices of his political opponents, leading to his resignation? No, no, no. Obama is so far to the opposite of that, it makes your comparison laughable. What has he done? Made a few executive orders? That's nothing new. Spied on Americans? What president hasn't? So what exactly has he done that's worse than Nixon? I understand that you and I are not going to agree on everything, but please at least deal with historically accurate facts. If Obama was even half as bad as you make him out to be, I would agree that he needs to be impeached. I just haven't seen any valid evidence that he has stepped outside of the law.
gun running
DeleteYou mean Fast and Furious? It was a dumb idea, but hardly illegal.
aiding and abetting terrorists
Never happened. Prove that it did.
being AWOL during an embassy attack
Ditto.
failing to keep a single one of his promises
That's not illegal, but he has kept many of his promises. Even according to the conservatively biased PolitiFact, he has kept 45% of his promises.
shielding his attorney general by claiming executive privilege
Nothing new for a president.
using the IRS as a political weapon
Never happened. Prove that he did.
evading the classical separation of powers by using executive actions
Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president since WWII except one. Again, though, that's not illegal.
simply not being up to the job since he finds out everything from the news
That's your opinion, not fact.
lay all this crap out and if he worked for you, you'd fire his ass
If any of it were true, I sure would. Again, please deal in facts. Don't buy the Fox News bullshit.
Check it out, EC! The dead-enders on Free Republic are still buying the Saddam Hussein Islamonazi gambit. Boy, it never ends, does it? "72 virgins" for Saddam Hussein? Really? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3172870/posts
DeleteFast and furious was not illegal?
DeleteNo, it wasn't. Law enforcement agencies do things like that all the time. It's called a sting operation. The idea being to catch someone about to commit a crime by providing the means to do it. In this case, trying to salt the gun supplies with their own that they could supposedly be used to trace and catch the cartels. It was a good idea, just executed poorly.
did the Executive arm, provide money or supplies to the Muslim Brotherhood or not?
Definitely not.
The IRS as a political weapon - come on, you are smarter and more cynical than that. Your ears should have perked up at the statement "I invoke my 5th Amendment rights." While one can't prove Obama was directly involved - something about a dead hard drive - it's got to make you think.
Invoking 5th Amendment rights doesn't always mean the person is guilty. It could be that Lerner was just tired of the partisan witch hunt being done by the Republicans desperately searching for something, anything to hang around the neck of the Obama administration. I agree, to the average person invoking 5th Amendment rights doesn't look good, but as you said there's no proof Obama was directly involved to begin with. The e-mails were just a fishing expedition in a desperate hope that maybe one of the e-mails taken out of context could imply that maybe there was a tenuous link to the administration. That's my cynicism, that the Republicans do not conduct hearings because they legitimately think that a law is being broken, but only to gain political points with their base. They have been frustrated at every turn because this administration has been one of the least corrupt in a long time.
To end on a good note:
Hey, thanks! I love Dixieland! Here are our videos from last Saturday's pride parade for you:
http://youtu.be/4vVm2jpMBh0
http://youtu.be/Ob9_1EhfPUc
re: impeaching Obama as a policy matter, divorced from politics - still a bad idea, in my opinion. 2 things.
Delete1. Liberals said the same thing about Bush back in the day. Both Administrations screwed up both here and abroad at times, and both enjoyed some strange bedfellows in the Middle East. Can you argue case by case that one was worse than the other? Sure, but it's an endlessly arguable point. To impeach based on policy disagreements ends up being more partisan tribalism than practicality.
2. Obama has been overusing executive prerogative. That upsets the separation of powers in a way that has much more damaging potential than any of his policies.
But Obama's actions are a symptom, not a problem. The problem is the polarization and gridlock in Congress, caused by both campaign finance and gerrymandering problems. Impeachment is only a patch on the problem, and would create a perverse incentive to cover up and stonewall even more.
Ozy, how can you say that Obama has been overusing executive prerogative, when as I said above, he has used fewer executive orders than any president since WWII except one (H. W. Bush, IIRC)?
DeleteYour mates and you made a bunch of people VERY happy for a few minutes.
DeleteGlad to hear it! You can actually see me pretty clearly in the first video. I'm the trombone on the very end, on the left side as you're facing the band.
Clairy Browne & The Bangin' Rackettes
Nice. They sure have good singing voices and the song has a good beat. Kind of reminds me of songs from the '70s.
Gin Wigmore
She's not bad, either.
Facts change, depending on the observer.
Yeah, I used to occasionally watch Dragnet on Nick at Nite when I was in college. I certainly recognize that things can change based on your point of view, but there are certain things that are just undeniable facts that cannot change based on perspective. Evolution and AGW are real. Presidents have been claiming executive privilege for decades, if not since the very beginning. Obama has used fewer executive orders than almost any president since WWII. He has kept many of his promises. He did everything he could to get those guys out of Benghazi before they were killed, and multiple hearings have proved it.
You diverted me for a second. I never, ever understood the anti evolution thing. Sure, I guess God could just snap his fingers and create everything at once, but that seems a bit boring, you know? For someone who knows all and sees all, a surprise has to be the ultimate pleasure. Though the thought of the look on His face when the first platypus came along makes me giggle. Sometimes it's OK to be 5 years old.
DeleteAGW - it's possible but I am reserving judgement. When I were a wee lad, we were expecting an ice age, so I take anything climatologists say with a healthy pinch of salt. Please note - I am not saying burn fuel wastefully and trash the place - I assume my great, great grand children will be as fond of breathing as I am and enjoy the convenience of getting from A to B without using too much muscle power. We are the keepers of the world, so being careful with the gifts we have been given is important.
Going back to Obama now - if we must, music is way more fun to talk about - it's not the number of EO's. It's the extent. You can't conflate the two. And yes, I freely admit they have been (arguably) misused by every President since Lincoln.
Most of the EO's have been pretty minor crap, to be honest, but the latest - it's a doozy. Kills the entire economy of two states (both of which tend to the R side of the spectrum) and is going to hit every single household in the USA in both the wallet and the convenience of being able to flick a switch and the lights come on.
As far as Benghazi goes - there is exactly one person on the entire planet that can order a rescue attempt by US forces to stand down, or refuse to authorize them going in to a sovereign nation's airspace
Sigonella is 2 hours flight time at flank speed, maybe 1 hour 10 if you balls out it. Try find a pilot anywhere who isn't itching for the excuse to gate his beast and go for it! Tripoli to Benghazi is under 40 minutes flight time, and there were an Osprey on station and ready to go. The President owns that. No one else. I don't care about the BS that came afterwards.
AGW - it's possible but I am reserving judgement. When I were a wee lad, we were expecting an ice age, so I take anything climatologists say with a healthy pinch of salt.
DeleteThing is, climatologists never said that we were expecting an ice age. They have known for a long time that more carbon dioxide in the air equals hotter temperatures. The planet Venus proves this.
it's not the number of EO's. It's the extent
I'll grant that as a possibility, but first you'll have to convince me that the extent is outside the law.
the latest - it's a doozy
You'll have to be more specific. The latest according to the Whitehouse website deals with a labor dispute, and as far as I can see, no economy killing measures are in there.
As far as Benghazi goes - there is exactly one person on the entire planet that can order a rescue attempt by US forces to stand down, or refuse to authorize them going in to a sovereign nation's airspace
And nobody, least of all Obama, ordered anyone to stand down. That's been proven repeatedly, despite lies told by the Fox News shriekers. Face it, you've been lied to about Benghazi. Here's a few references:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/21/issas-suspicions-that-hillary-clinton-told-panetta-to-stand-down-on-benghazi/
http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-news-finally-admits-no-stand-down-order-was-given-benghazi-lets-rep-issa-suggest-new
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp
Permit me to rephrase it?
Delete"And nobody, least of all Obama, ordered anyone to stand down. That's been proven repeatedly, despite lies told by the Fox News shriekers. Face it, you've been lied to about Benghazi."
There is only one single person who can authorize going in to a foreign airspace by US forces. That would be the CinC. Not Defense, not Sec of State. Not even the VP, if the President is available, since it is technically an act of war. Only the President can make that call.
Africom scrambled and never got the word to go in - and you need explicit permission to enter enemy airspace. If you are curious I can (privately, they tend to be more on the quiet side of things and rarely appreciate questions) give you a couple of contacts who were either actually there, or who trained people who were there.
Do I blame Obama for not making the call? Both yes and no. On one level, certainly. You don't leave people's asses swinging in the breeze. That is a fixed rule.
On the other hand - I got zero idea about some of the behind the scenes stuff that could be screwed up by a bunch of large combat boots on the ground. That stuff is way above my pay grade. You hear stuff, but you know how hearing stuff is. It grows in the telling.
One of the odd things you will hear from most actives or inactives is that they'd be totally fine with it if Obama had simply said "Yep, I fucked up." No one expects perfection, but admitting a fuck up is forgivable.
Maybe Obama didn't make the right call, but I seriously doubt it was due to not trying. Maybe there were extenuating circumstances as to why Africom could not go in, I don't know. From what I've seen of him, the last thing he'd want to do is leave anyone swinging in the breeze.
DeleteAs for whether or not he fucked up, he may have. I think there's only one person (and possibly a few advisers) who knows for sure. If he doesn't think he fucked up, then he'd have no reason to say he did. Especially in a hyper-partisan atmosphere in which this issue has already been shamelessly politicized. Maybe if Romney hadn't tried so hard to make it his October surprise that was going to deliver him into the White House (and make no mistake, that's the only reason), then maybe we'd know a bit more about it.
OK, I just reread the Snopes link:
Delete[Head of Africom] General Ham himself testified before the House Committee on Armed Services in June 2013 that the decision not to deploy close air support during the attack was made by him based on his assessment of the situation at the time, not because he was ordered to "stand down"
So no, it wasn't Obama's decision. Any outrage should be directed at General Carter Ham.
@euph - Selective enforcement of mandates in Obamacare, not appealing adverse appeals cases re: DOMA and DODT.
DeleteI want to be clear - I think such actions were necessary and I support them. In the face of unprecedented Republican opposition, to reward them would teach a bad lesson and neuter Obama politically.
That being said, the precedents allow a President to largely run the country without any input from Congress - it makes me uncomfortable, but not as much as telling the GOP "making government work badly hurts the Democrats, so do it lots!"
@EC - gridlock is bad for lots of reasons, even if you are skeptical of new policies.
1. An agile government governs better. Remember, it's not just passing laws, its also reforming them - remember the unintended consequences? Laws often need tuning as they're implemented. Congress needs to be around to do that, as well as update laws as times change.
2. The way the American government is set up, lots of laws require regular Congressional input. Federal infrastructure projects need to each be signed off on. These days they're being used as partisan bargaining chips. Hell, same with the debt ceiling.
2. Something like 70% of the American People want some governmental policy change, so gridlock is screwing up our democracy.
3. It almost demands executive expansion as the legislature steps back.
Moving on, from what I can tell listening to BBC Radio 4, the UK's political culture is really different than the US. More humble, less personal, and more universally committed to the idea that government can be a positive good.
But more importantly, in a parliamentary system the executive and legislature are automatically baked in - agility is guaranteed. On the other hand, that means that changes in policy are easier as well. In political science parlance, America is more 'resolute,' the UK is 'decisive.'
Selective enforcement of mandates in Obamacare
DeleteEh, that's kind of weaksauce in my opinion. It never even registered with me to be outraged when Bush did it with Medicare part D.
not appealing adverse appeals cases re: DOMA and DODT
Ditto for this one. I mean, the president has the prerogative to not waste taxpayers' money on cases he feels are not likely to win, and doesn't think should win. If he's not going to vigorously defend it, why appeal at all?
It's not that agility is baked in - I've seen faster glaciers - but accountability is. You quite simply can not have a cabinet level position without being voted in as an MP. It's by no means a perfect system, but it helps - slightly. There are some policy areas that simply may not be touched - the NHS springs to mind, but there are others.
DeleteThe personal aspect is interesting. Without hitting google, I couldn't tell you the names and ages of Cameron's kids, or indeed how many they have. It's the way we like it.
I'd like to rephrase your last line, if I may. American forces are "We are here til it is done." UK forces are more "Whatever it takes."
@Euph - the results are fine, but easily extended.
DeletePrez. Cruz could selectively enforce Obamacare only in blue states under this precedent. Well, maybe not that far, but close.
Or you get some 5th circuit (or even District Court) yahoo that says the CFPB is unconstitutional. Prez. Paul doesn't appeal and poof, CFPB is unconstitutional.
@EC, this is why I think we need a ceremonial king in America. An official national distraction - no one will care how much Obama golfs or what he puts on his burger if we have someone our national pride is invested in to argue about instead! Maybe a Kardasian...
As for the idea that cabinet officials need to have a voter buy-in, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how much that would matter. America has something similar, but once removed - the Senate's advise and consent.
But more than that, any yahoo can be in Congress. It wouldn't be a problem for any President to find someone who bought into his policies.
I'm not so sure that they're as easily extended as you say, but at least I see where you're coming from.
DeleteIn retrospect, Obama has hurt the country
ReplyDelete[citation needed]
DeleteThe tea party has hurt the country. All they want to do is take it backward, in all the worst ways. Name one piece of useful legislation their candidates have successfully advanced -- that doesn't pertain to guns. If that.
DeleteHere is why you're a retard. You measure success of government by how many laws it passes and imposes on you.
DeleteOh yeah, until the lack of passing laws affects you, like the bridge you've always crossed over collapses into the river and make you late for work. Then you just blame the inaction on Obama, right?
And the federal government has to do that... why?
DeleteMaybe because...it's their job? Duh! Some of those bridges cross state lines, which falls into the domain of the federal government!
DeleteIf they're not going to legislate, then they can kindly stay out of office. We have enough useless armchair critics. They're called "AM radio hosts."
DeleteMore freeper lunacy--
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3172870/posts
What's the problem? I thought freepers were all about "parental rights." You know, old-school, old testament shit. So what if the kid was hiding? He must have had it coming.
DeleteWow, that is a strong post. Basically "I use logic, and logic tells me tat while Iraq I was awesome, Iraq 2 would suck because Obama would make us fascist.
DeleteSpeaking of logic, Obama is the worst foe America has ever faced."
Yeah, I'll need to post this.
Whoops! Hahahaha, I commented on the link about the Bothuell boy by mistake. Sorry. It was late.
Delete"swapping 5 Taliban super villains for traitor Bowe Bergdahl"
ReplyDelete"super villains". heh. freepers can be sooo cute. and the best thing about being a freep is never having to grow up ...
Well, the brain does kind of regress back to childhood as you age!
DeleteNavy seal has gender reassignment surgery freepers do what they do best
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3172846/posts?q=1&;page=1
Oh dear.
DeleteCPO Beck has every damned right in the world to do whatever she needs, and no one has any right to criticize.
Though I will say I am hugely not in favor of trans* in more front line positions. Not because I assume they are incapable - I am perfectly fine with cis women on the front lines if needed. But when you are at the end of a supply chain where chain is a polite word for a bit of thread that breaks constantly and is entirely at the whim of some guy who'd rather be sleeping than bucking boxes - do you really want someone who is dependant on a daily supply of medications? Take the sex aspect out of it for a second - would you stick a type 1 diabetic in the same place?
I am old enough to have voted against Richard Nixon (twice) and I would like to point out that contrary to current popular belief, the Watergate hearings happened because of Republican pressure. Face it, Richard Nixon was one corrupt piece of work, but he was considered at the time to be an aberration rather than the symbol of an entire political party.
ReplyDeleteSadly, over time (and helped along by right wing blathering) impeachment, or threat of impeachment has been seen as some kind of political tool. And so ever since Watergate, we have been flogged with "scandal-gates" ever time a Democrat is in the WH.
I had sincerely hoped that once the Republicans FINALLY got to do an impeachment thing with Clinton, they might consider just shutting up and trying to govern (since they were now able to say "well, we had Nixon but you had Clinton so, you know... balance") Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
What does it take to get a president impeached
ReplyDeleteEvidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. Either that, or he has to commit the crime of presidenting while Democrat.
And again, unsolicited link spam ignored.