I must agree with xs, FRiends...
Impeachment didn’t tarnish Clinton, and it won’t tarnish this ass****, either-the senate won’t buy off on it-like last time-and too many people are stupid and have short memories. I’d rather see the members of congress who are lawyers go after red meat like the IRS, and such-that always brings a feeding frenzy if they persist, and it can be invigorating.
I don’t see wasting political and literal capital on gestures, no matter how fine they may be-we don’t have the money and time for that, and I’m hardly the only one who is tired of polite games and wants to see some legal blood sport to rev up for November and beyond...
It would be a feel-good exercise in futility. Accomplishing nothing while depleting capital.
It may not have tarnished Clinton, but aside from the (D).....the similarity ends. The Republicans lost less than 5 house seats, and retained a majority in the 2000 congress and Elected W.
There was Zero electoral consequence.
And as for the preezy in question, Clinton is/was intelligent, engaging, and had the aura of dogged pursuit of luridness to obscure the central facts of his impeachment. Obama ain’t Billy Jeff...l.
And, it was...closer to a singular scandal.
The whiff of Racism, surely would be a media byline, but a major difference here is that Clinton had not lost the media at the time of his impeachment...This Administration is so awash in scandals that are either Nixonian on steroids,(IRS...and much more importantly the Harassment of journalists) or that reek of mind bungling incompetence, (Benghazi, Gun Walking, the VA) that there is a veritable Chinese buffet for every member of the mushy middle to find something to hang on, and all of it ties to Obama’s smug runaway arrogance, which is the defining characteristic leading to his rule by fiat, and hence suitability for impeachment.
At the end of the day, the Boner lawsuit, is abuse of power. All the lawyering in the world does not make that a question for the Courts, in this context.
A fair argument can be made publicly by the (R)’s, that as he has no electoral consequence (and I am fairly certain, they will try use that argument in the Courts only for Boner to be told that his suit is a political, rather than a legal question) that they need to use the constitutionally provided mechanism, to preserve the balance for Congresses/Presidents of either party going forward (see Dingy Harry making that argument both ways vis-a-vis the nuclear option) also, it is entirely possible the lawsuit...is just a “we used every other avenue available” though IMHO it’s the eunuchs kicking the can down the road, and trying to look good for whining about it.
And when Even Ruth Marcus sees it Palin’s way...well...there isn’t much more to say on the subject.