Posted on 01/14/2014 12:45:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
She’s asking rhetorically, not egging Senator Mitch McConnell on. The obvious logistical problem, as many a Republican officeholder has noted when asked about this by an angry constituent, is that impeachment is DOA in the Senate as long as it’s controlled by Democrats. The House can force a Senate trial but what’s the use of that when we all know what the verdict will be? (For that reason, this question is better aimed at Boehner than at McConnell.) And no, retaking the Senate next year doesn’t solve the problem. You need two-thirds of the chamber to convict an impeached president; Republicans won’t be remotely close to 67 seats, no matter how big this year’s November wave is.
The political problem is that Republicans fear impeaching O would do more to hurt them than it would the president. Not only did Clinton weather the storm, so did his approval rating. If you’ve got a weak president in office like Obama who’s facing a debacle from his signature legislation between now and the next presidential election, why make any sudden moves to mess with that dynamic if you’re a Republican? They’re probably going to get a good result from SCOTUS on Obama’s NLRB power grab; if they want to push back against executive overreach, court battles might be fruitful high-publicity ways of doing it with minimal political risk — certain difficulties notwithstanding.
To solve their political problem, the GOP would have to convince a majority of the public (probably a big majority) that impeachment is warranted. But that’s the thing — even when the president’s guilty of encroaching on another branch’s powers or suspending parts of the law that are politically inconvenient to him, you’ll never find a majority of Americans willing to entertain a punishment as severe as removal from office for that. To make impeachment stick, you need to show that the president’s motives for acting were rotten and selfish, like Nixon’s; O, by contrast, always takes care to present his motives for ignoring Congress as civic-minded, something he does for the good of the people, not for himself. Tim Scott once suggested that Obama could be impeached if he tried to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, but the public would never support that, I suspect. He’d simply say that he was driven to desperate measures to protect the country’s creditworthiness; at best you’d get a 50/50 split in public opinion on whether he should be punished, and I doubt the ratio would be even that good. Ron Paul once suggested that impeachment should be on the table for O’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, who was, after all, a U.S. citizen. O defended that by insisting he was acting to protect America from a particularly dangerous terrorist. I’d be surprised if you could get even 20 percent of the public angry enough to support impeachment over that one. A constitutionalist would wave his hand at all of the above and say that motives are irrelevant — if you violate due process or separation of powers, impeachment is an obvious remedy, however allegedly virtuous the motives. That’s what it means to follow the rule of law. How many constitutionalists are out there in the voting booth on election day, though? Fifteen percent of the electorate, maybe? Less?
Exit question: Will any big-name Republican pound the table for impeachment next year? Ted Cruz’s language about Obama’s lawlessness has been especially strong lately. He knows, of course, that the votes aren’t there in the Senate, but he knew they weren’t there for the “defund” effort either and he pushed that anyway. The key, then and now, was getting the House to act. O would survive but some conservatives would love Cruz for making the effort, which would be helpful to him when the primary campaign starts in 2015.
Well said.
I’m not really understanding this idea, I guess. You concede that we can’t even get most of our reps to do much of anything, yet you think that pushing them into a losing impeachment battle is going to accomplish something?
Can’t we think of ways to rally the troops against Obama that we might actually be able to achieve? Why pick this hill to die on?
Fact is if one party gets real serious about this, then no telling what might happen. Evidence that the Republican establishment was never serious about Clinton is the way that the Bushes almost adopted Clinton. If they weren’t totally cynical they wouldn’t have touched him with a ten-foot pole.
Sure, it was upstart conservatives that pushed for the Clinton impeachment, the party elites never really wanted it. It would be the same way nowadays, maybe even worse, because the establishment is really on the defense against conservatives now. So how can the party get serious about this when we’re the ones who would be pushing for it and we don’t control the party?
Obviously, you have a very cynical outlook on politics and life. You don't seem to get or respect other people's outlook on this. We don't do something only when you are guaranteed to "win" or "accomplish something of significance." We do something because it is the right thing to do. And we give it our all, expecting nothing in return but the satisfaction that we did the right and correct thing. We are just expecting our representatives to act in a like manner.
If you don't understand this, perhaps you need to do some reflection on your political philosophy and outlook on life in general. People with attitudes like yours will never "win" or accomplish anything of significance.
“McConnell isn’t going to lift a finger to stop Obama or Reid, he is too busy fighting the TEA Party”
Exactly! McConnell is a creep.
>> Why pick this hill to die on?
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
Which hill should we make the Democrats die on? F&F, AP, IRS, NSA, Seals... take your pick.
I do have a very cynical view on politicians, I’ll grant you that!
As for respecting other people’s outlook, I am fine with that, as long as they are being realistic. If you think you are going to remove Obama from office through this route, you’re just dreaming, and I am going to point that out.
If you concede that is not a realistic goal, and just want to go forward anyway, for some other reason, then fine. Just remember that the rest of us are free to disagree that it’s a fruitful course of action.
“Which hill should we make the Democrats die on? F&F, AP, IRS, NSA, Seals... take your pick.”
Well, to continue the war analogy, if someone has a battle plan with a chance to win, then I’m all for it. If we’re just going to charge in with no clue how to defeat the enemy.... then you can go first.
>>That’s a good point.
With a strong enough defeat of Democrats in 2014:
1. The Dems will freak and dread 2016 as all their major candidates were supported of Obamacare.
2. The Dems will get the media to get behind their impeachment.
3. The media will break some scandals and Obama will be demonized.
4. Obama will be impeached and Biden will cruise into the Presidency.
5. Dems will instantly plead innocence and blame everything on Obama.
6. Dems will attempt to say everything has been put behind them and shoot to win back some loses in 2016.
The finger of fault points at us because WE allow this to go on.
McConnell should be fearing for his life, not his damn senate seat.
Stay home.
No one dares to.
For the exact same reasons no one dared to remove Hitler.
Sad....
As for being realistic, I think it is relative. What is realistic to you might not be realistic to me, and vis versa. Like you, I do not think that Obambi will be removed through this route. I hope that he is, but I don't think it will happen. But that doesn't mean that I think we should take no action against him. We cannot know what might happen when we act, but we must act for something to occur.
Think of this line written by J.R.R. Tolkien, in the Lord of the Rings. This is spoken by Gandalf in the Council of Elrond discussing what to do with the One Ring: "We should seek a final end of this menace, even if we do not hope to make one." That encompasses my point of view on impeachment and other actions against this administration.
“The Party” is not “THE” Party. It is divided into factions, because the leadership has gone ape because they failed to co-opt enough of the class of 2010. So they are trying to show the base that they are still in control, that the Tea Party cannot gain control. The are content just to scavenge what the Democratic lions leave behind, because hyenas can get fat on the leavings if the leavings are big enough.
They will never drop Obama for Biden, for the same reason why they didn’t drop Clinton for Dole. A solid 20% of the base is attached to Obama at the hip.
What makes you think they will return to civilian life?
That is the same reason Obama uses for all the lawless decisions he makes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.