Posted on 10/05/2011 7:29:19 AM PDT by blog.Eyeblast.tv
Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann was making her rounds in a coffee shop in Newton, Iowa when a supporter asked her when Obama will be impeached. While Bachmann didn't specifically answer the question, she did agree with the man that President Obama should be impeached.
The man asked, “When will we impeach him and get him out of the way?” to which Bachmann replied, “Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I agree, I agree. Some people are really upset.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mrctv.org ...
you go, girl!
I hate it when headlines lie
Ron Paul beat her to the punch but better late than never.
She should put up or shut up. If she thinks 0bama should be impeached, she is perfectly capable of arguing that on the House floor or in committee. There are plenty of things 0bama could be impeached for. Rather than giving ambiguous answers on the campaign trail, she should initiate the process in the House of Representatives where she is supposed to be working.
I agree— I AGREE many people are getting really upset that neither the Executive— nor the Congress seems to honor the OATH taken anymore. When we divorced ourselves from the religious and moral obligations our forefathers knew were necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.When we began to allow the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment be misunderstood and misapplied -and began to allow the FRAUD perpetrated be applied to harm the cause of religion in the States We opened wide the door to this evil Administration.And Congress controlled by wicked men who serve their President and not the Oath administered. For this reason I happily went to the Patriot Post and signed the petition they sponsor to restore the Oath —to have the Court hear if it is of any validity today.I urge others to go and do likewise.
At this stage of the game, impeachment doesn’t make any sense, IMHO. We have about 13 months until the 2012 election. I think we would end up with a situation a lot like the Clinton impeachment, except this time, the Democrats have control of the Senate (iirc, Republicans narrowly controlled the Senate during the Clinton impeachment hearings(?) and they still didn’t convict him). It’s likely that Obama would be impeached in the House, but with a Democrat-controlled Senate, there would not be a conviction. And the whole time, the Democrats would use the proceedings as a talking point for 2012: “Waaah! Waaaah! Those mean Republicans! All they want is for Obama to be a one-term President! And that’s just because he’s black! These impeachment hearings prove it!”
Face it, our guys aren’t that good about getting the message out and heard. The Democrats are masters of lying spin. All through the Clinton impeachment hearings, all we heard was that it was “all about sex”, when in reality, it was about Clinton lying under oath, suborning perjury, dispatching his goons to intimidate witnesses, and denying a woman whom he had wronged, her day in court. If you talk to people now, most of them STILL think it was all about sex. I’m afraid that similarly, Democrats would use any impeachment hearings against Obama to try to turn him into a sympathethic figure.
IMHO, we should concentrate our energy on winning in 2012. Thirteen months from an election, the best way to get Obama out of office is at the ballot box.
I just wish she drops out of the race and gets back to being a Congresswoman. She is just too loose lipped to play on the national stage. All she is doing is creating news that detracts from covering Obama’s failures and corruption.
Is she still running?
If I had the opportunity to attend one of her gatherings and she keep rubbing my face and patting my chin like she did to that one poor little ole lady, I’ve be compelled to b#tch slap her.....
I strongly disagree with you..... fast and furious has resulted in over 200 murders tracable to the white house...I do not care about anything more than putting this murderous bunch on trial...With the overwhelming evidence ( Thanks to Rep. Issa for blocking all the exits before proceeding) if he is not convicted, then the blatant partisanship of the commie party will be put on display for all to see....we cannot allow lawlessness to put before political expediency...
If we were another year out from the election, I would agree with you. But how long would it take for trials, etc.? How many months would it take for all of it to drag out, only to end up without a conviction in the Senate? I’m just saying that I think our energy is better spent trying to WIN the next Presidential election and going for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so that Obamacare and other destructive laws now on the books can be repealed and the country can reverse course. It’s not just “political expediency”.
criminals, regardless of position or proximity to an election, need to be tried, especially when their crimes make them complicit in over 200 murders......period
OK, let’s take a step back. The main premise of this thread was that Obama should be IMPEACHED. I was pointing out that, considering the current makeup of the Congress, it is highly unlikely that this would result in his removal from office. He would likely be impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate, and the Democrats would spin that as more evidence that Republicans were ganging up on “poor Barack” because he’s black. We have an election coming up in thirteen short months. We want and NEED him to be VOTED OUT!
This does NOT mean that anyone in the administration who has been involved in criminal activity should not be prosecuted and punished if found guilty! I never once said that. I only have an issue with impeachment as a vehicle at this point in his first (and LAST) term, because it is very unlikely to be successful and is going to burn energy that is better used to beat him at the ballot box.
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.